Wednesday, 7 March 1984 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: We have become the innocent victims of your Government's Medicare scheme. We are forced to pay 1 per cent of our wages only to receive less per capita benefits than the people of other States. Without canvassing the rights or wrongs of the dispute between the Federal Government and the State of Queensland the fact is that because of it over one million Queenslanders, who contribute to health funds, are being blatantly discriminated against compared with people in the rest of Australia. Because of the dispute over the introduction of Medicare, Queensland public hospital bed charges are $120 per day compared with $80 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 879 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 74 citizens). Petitions received. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, noting that this week marks the first anniversary of the Hawke Labor Government: (a) condemns the Government for its failure to keep its promises made during the 1983 election campaign in the social welfare field, including: (i) its promises of immediate reductions in income tax for almost six million Australians; (ii) its promise to lift the tax threshold for pensioners; (iii) its promise of immediate pension adjustments following movements in the Consumer Price Index; (iv) its promise to lift the level of unemployment benefits towards the goal of equality with single pensioners; (v) its promise of relaxing the income test applying to the family income supplement; and (vi) its promise of $20m extra for child care to finance 400 new centres. (b) notes that the Government has reneged on these commitments despite its Leader's statement during his policy speech that: 'I believe that the Australian people have had enough of election promises made only to be broken. I offer no fistfull of dollars only to be snatched back after the election.' Senator BOSWELL(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the hypocritical attitude of Australian Labor Party senators, who criticise the level of foreign investment in rural properties; and (b) notes that the recent report of the Foreign Investment Review Board indicates that the New South Wales Government led by the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party Mr Wran, has allowed a level of foreign investment in rural land in 1982-83 at a rate more than double that of Queensland and higher than any other State. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate condemns the Government for its abandonment of the maintenance of an adequate defence force for Australia in relation to- (a) the totally inadequate share of the Federal Budget devoted to the primary responsibility of government, namely the defence of the nation; (b) the consequential placing of the Australian Defence Forces in a position from where recovery is now impossible when faced with an armed threat to the security of the country; (c) the abandonment of the plans to provide a platform at sea for the operation of a rotary winged aircraft for anti-submarine warfare and fixed wing aircraft for surveillance, strike and air superiority; (d) the criminal negligence in disbanding the Fleet Air Arm whose continued existence was a national defence asset even if no seaborne platforms were available in the short term; (e) the failure to provide helicopters for the FFGs for the Navy; (f) the decision to buy two more FFGs and not recognise the totally incorrect decision by a previous Labor Government to buy this class of ship for the Australian Navy, a design which is completely inadequate for Australia's needs; (g) the failure to move purposefully to provide adequate airborne refuelling aircraft for the RAAF; (h) the failure to provide any airborne early warning aircraft; (i) the failure to provide adequate transport, air support, ammunition, boots and clothing to units of the Australian Army, particularly the Operational Deployment Force; (j) the very depressed state of morale in the Australian Defence Forces arising from the aforementioned factors and from poor housing, tax on Defence Force Retirement Benefits payments and general neglect from the Government of their needs; and (k) the breaking of morale in the Reserve Forces by taxing payments for Members . Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate notes with grave concern the strong link between the increase in State Government charges in New South Wales, the decrease in competitiveness in the coal industry in that State, and the increase in unemployment in coal areas such as the New South Wales south coast. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) deplores the failure of the Government to ensure that the ALP Government of New South Wales and South Australia contribute to the Steel Industry Plan 'principally in the area of containment of State charges' as envisaged and announced by the Commonwealth Minister as an integral part of the steel industry package; and (b) expresses its concern at the prospective loss of jobs particularly in the Newcastle and Wollongong areas, through the failure of the New South Wales Government to play its part in preserving jobs in the steel industry. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that Senator Robert Ray has published a paper calling for the restoration of estate and death duties; (b) notes with concern comments from senior Government Ministers about the need for a capital gains tax; and (c) calls on the Government to clarify its intentions in these areas. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate expresses the gravest concern that the Prime Minister has indicated that he will break another election promise, namely his promise that ' Under my government, Parliament will run its full term' by stating on 4 March 1984 that there will be an early election, possibly between November 1984 and March 1985-12 months before the Government's full term expires. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate deplores the fact that the Government has not only broken its promise to cut income tax for all taxpayers with incomes below $60,000 but has done the opposite in increasing taxes for all taxpayers. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) calls upon the Prime Minister to reverse his decision not to release figures depicting the forward estimates for the 1984-85 Budget; and (b) condemns the Prime Minister for his duplicity in referring to these forward estimate figures as meaningless and 'illusory' after earlier using similar figures as justification for repeated abuse of the previous Government. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting , I shall move: That the Senate deplores the flagrant way the Hawke Government has not honoured the promises made prior to its election 12 months ago and, in particular, has not honoured a series of promises made in the following areas of Senator Ryan's portfolio of Education and Youth Affairs- (a) the Hawke Labor Government has not kept its promise to provide a special triennial program in TAFE to cost $30m to upgrade equipment and facilities for the latest technology; (b) the Hawke Labor Government has not kept its promise to provide an immediate boost of $15m in capital and recurrent funds to States; (c) the Hawke Labor Government has not kept its promise to provide $45m per capita grants for ethnic schools; (d) the Hawke Labor Government has not kept its promise to provide $3.68m per annum for transferring all eligible casual migrant teachers to permanent positions; (e) the Hawke Labor Government has not kept its promise to provide funding for non-government schools at existing levels until a standard could be determined by the Schools Commission; (f) the Hawke Labor Government has not kept its promise to institute a program for primary schools at a level of $9m per annum; (g) the Hawke Labor Government has not kept its promise to provide an additional $37m in the first year in Government for recurrent resources in government schools; (h) the Hawke Labor Government has not kept its promise to provide an additional $16m in the first year of program for needy non-government schools; (i) the Hawke Labor Government has not kept its promise to provide $24m over 3 years for a computer education program (partly honoured); (j) the Hawke Labor Government has not kept its promise to establish a revolving loan fund with an initial contribution of $5m to bring forward construction of planned new non-government schools; (k) the Hawke Labor Government has not kept its promise to provide 300 post- doctoral fellowships; (l) the Hawke Labor Government has not kept its promise to increase TEAS until it equals the single unemployment benefit and then maintain the nexus; (m) the Hawke Labor Government has not kept its promise to raise the TEAS means test until it equalled average weekly earnings; and (n) the Hawke Labor Government has not kept its promise to establish a campus- based emergency student loan scheme. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate notes the fact that the Hawke Labor Government inherited the worst economic situation since the Great Depression as a result of the mismanagement of the Fraser Government and as a result of which it has been unable to carry out immediately the commitments which it made in the course of the 1983 election campaign. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate condemns the Government for the fact that last year it released the forward estimates and used those estimates as a tool to attack the previous Government, and this year has refused to make the same information available to the Australian people. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate is of the opinion that the Federal Government should honour its commitment to self-government in the Northern Territory and not intervene in the affairs of the Northern Territory, with particular reference to the Northern Territory Criminal Code. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate is of the opinion that the Federal Government should honour its election policy to construct the Alice Springs to Darwin railway. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate is of the opinion that the Federal Government should honour its promise to accelerate the upgrading of the Stuart Highway in the Northern Territory if it is not to construct the Alice Springs to Darwin Railway. 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. Guidelines for the Operation of National Research Facilities-Report by ASTEC -Pursuant to section 6 of the Australian Science and Technology Council Act 1978 . 2. Aboriginal Hostels Limited-Annual Report 1982-83 3. Interim Government response to Senate Standing Committee report on the preservation of the Abbott's Booby on Christmas Island-Statement by Senator the Honourable A. T. Gietzelt, Minister representing the Minister for Territories and Local Government. 4. Education Research and Development Committee-Annual report 1982-83-Pursuant to Section 8 of the Education Research Act 1970 Senator GRIMES —I also seek leave to incorporate in Hansard item No. 3, that is, the text of statement entitled 'Interim Government Response to Senate Standing Committee's report on the preservation of the Abbott's Booby on Christmas Island '. Leave granted. The document read as follows- The Senate Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment completed its examination of the plans for preservation of the Abbott's Booby Bird on Christmas Island late last year. The Committe's Report was tabled on 2 November last. The Government is conscious of the importance of dealing with the Report expeditiously. It is being studied in detail now and a formal Government response is expected in the next two months. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Judiciary Act 1903. Bill presented by Senator Gareth Evans, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.14) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. On 30 November 1983 the Australian Secret Intelligence Service-ASIS-conducted an exercise at the Sheraton Hotel in Melbourne which was the subject of Mr Justice Hope's report tabled in the Senate on 29 February 1984. As a result of the incident at the Sheraton Hotel, the Victorian Police, together with the Victorian Director of Public Prosecutions, are considering prosecuting certain persons for breaches of the criminal law in Victoria. On the advice of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), confirmed by Mr Justice Hope, the Government considers that there are very strong grounds for believing that the disclosure of the names of some, if not all, of these persons in the ordinary course of criminal proceedings, would be prejudicial to the national or international security of Australia. In these circumstances, there has been detailed consultation between Commonwealth and Victorian Ministers and officials with a view to meeting the concerns of both governments by means of State legislation specifically empowering Victorian courts, in appropriate circumstances, to make orders for confidentiality upon grounds of prejudice to the national or international security of Australia, or, in addition to that, to the safety of persons involved in the litigation or other persons. Complementary Commonwealth legislation is necessary to give effect to such orders outside Victoria. On 29 February 1984, the Victorian Government introduced into State Parliament the Criminal Proceedings Bill 1984 to specifically empower the courts of that State to make certain orders for confidentiality in relation to criminal proceedings arising out of the Sheraton Hotel incident. The Bill now before the Senate represents the Commonwealth's part of the arrangement and complements that Victorian Bill. This Bill amends the Judiciary Act 1903 by inserting into that Act a new Part under which any such orders for confidentiality made by the criminal courts of Victoria in relation to those criminal proceedings are applied, by force of Commonwealth law, throughout Australia. Under the Bill, the Federal Court of Australia is, in effect, given power to punish contravention of these confidentiality orders in the same way as contempt of court is punished. The new Part is inserted by clause 3 of the Bill. Proposed section 46 provides that the Part is to apply only to orders made by Victorian courts in criminal proceedings arising out of the Sheraton Hotel incident. Proposed sub-section 49 (1) makes it clear, furthermore, that it applies only to orders made on grounds of necessity or desirability 'in the interests of the national or international security of Australia or in the interests of the physical safety of the accused, of a witness or of any other person'. The particular types of confidentiality orders to be applied by the Part are spelt out in proposed sub-section 49 (3) as follows: Orders for the whole or part of the proceedings to take place in a closed hearing; orders excluding a person or class of persons from the whole or part of the proceedings; orders prohibiting or restricting disclosure of information respecting the whole or part of the proceedings; orders prohibiting or restricting publication of a report relating to the whole or part of the proceedings; orders ensuring that, without the approval of the court, no person has access-before, during or after the hearing-to any document used in, or court records of, the proceedings; and orders combining any two or more of the foregoing. The scheme of these amendments can be summarised as follows: If a Victorian court should make, under the specific power to be conferred by the Victorian Criminal Proceedings Act 1984, an order to which the present Bill applies, that order would by force of proposed sub-section 49 (2), take effect throughout Australia and beyond, applying to all natural persons, whether Australian citizens or Australian residents or not, and all bodies corporate as provided in proposed section 47. Any contravention of the order-for example, by someone in New South Wales-would be punishable by the Federal Court of Australia under proposed sub-section 49 (4) as if it were a contempt of that court. These amendments have been introduced to meet the particular issues of concern to the Commonwealth and Victorian governments arising out of the Sheraton Hotel incident and it is not proposed to give them general or permanent force. Thus the Bill contains, in proposed section 51, a sunset clause limiting the application of the Bill to orders made within two years after the commencement of the Victorian legislation. This limitation expressely recognises the exceptional nature of the amendments and the particular circumstances which they are designed to meet. In addition, the Bill contains, in proposed section 50, a specific provision to ensure public accountability in regard to the operation of the Part. It requires the Attorney-General to make an annual report to Parliament on the number of proceedings known to him in which relevant confidentiality orders were made, and the outcome of those proceedings. Such annual reports are to be made in terms that would not breach the confidentiality orders involved. I draw the Senate's attention to the fact that provisions of the type proposed in the present Bill and the Victorian legislation it complements are not entirely novel. There are precedent provisions for confidentiality orders in the United Kingdom Official Secrets Act 1920 and also in existing Australian legislation. For example, section 85B of the Crimes Act 1914 gives judges and magistrates in Federal jurisdiction a power to make orders similar to those referred to in proposed section 49 if satisfied that such an order is expedient in the interest of the defence of the Commonwealth. Again section 50 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 gives that Court power, at any time during or after the hearing of a proceeding, to make such orders forbidding or restricting the publication of evidence or the name of a party or witness, as appear to the Court necessary in order to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice or the security of the Commonwealth. The amendments contained in this Bill will enable the criminal law of Victoria to take its due course, but at the same time will provide a procedure designed to ensure that the national or international security of Australia, or the physical safety of persons, is not prejudiced in the process. No significant financial impact is expected. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Durack) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.20) —I object to the resumption of the debate being made an order of the day for a later hour this day. A form of this legislation was advised to me by the Attorney-General's office last Friday on the basis that there was some urgency about putting it through the Parliament this week, and I acted on that material. But the Bill that has now been introduced contains some substantial differences from the contents of the Bill about which I was advised. The matter will have to be given further consideration by the Opposition. I suggest to the Attorney-General that the ordinary adjournment for the next day of sitting would be appropriate. The PRESIDENT —Are you leaving that as a suggestion, Senator Durack? You are not moving any amendment? Senator Gareth Evans —For clarification, do you mean tomorrow? Senator DURACK —I doubt whether it will be tomorrow. I processed the Bill at the Attorney-General's request on an urgent basis through the Opposition system. I do not know that we can have special meetings because he has changed it today. The PRESIDENT —The question before the Chair is that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. Senator DURACK —In that case, I move: Leave out all words after 'for' and insert 'the next day of sitting'. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.22) —Speaking to the amendment, might I say that the Bill was, as Senator Durack indicated, made available to him in its original form last Friday. There have been successive refinements of it, the latest of which, as I understand it, were notified to Senator Durack yesterday afternoon. Those refinements have all been in the direction of confining and narrowing the scope of the Bill still further-which I understood to be, quite naturally and understandably, the concern of the Opposition parties. The Bill might have been too wide-- Senator Durack —We have completely different concerns. Senator GARETH EVANS —Might I ask Senator Durack to respond perhaps by way of interjection whether those completely different concerns are of a kind that go to the substance of the amendments that have been moved or whether they are different matters. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.23) —I do not think that this motion is an appropriate vehicle by which to be debating the Opposition's view on this matter . I have simply put down the fact that the Opposition is not prepared to proceed with this matter today; and I do not know whether we will be able to proceed with it tomorrow, but that is another question. I am simply dealing with the motion before the Chair. I am opposing an adjournment of the debate until a later hour this day. I have moved that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. The Attorney-General and I can have this slanging match outside the chamber later. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.24) —Mr President, on Senator Durack's amendment, I simply say that I believe that the attitude taken by the Opposition is a little unreasonable in all the circumstances, but I do not pursue that at the moment. On the basis that I believe it is unreasonable, I propose to persist with the original motion for the debate to be made an order of the day for a later hour this day, but in the hope that I might have an opportunity outside the confines of this chamber to discuss the matter further with the Opposition, in a less hothouse atmosphere, to try to find out the nature of the Opposition's concerns and to see whether it might not be possible to have the debate on this matter concluded if not today, then tomorrow. But for the moment I would wish to persist with the original motion, on the understanding that I would hope that I could have some reasonable discussions with the other side, outside the chamber, about the proper debate of this matter which, I appreciate, is a sensitive one and one which needs careful consideration. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Durack's amendment) be left out . The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— 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. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Rae, PeterDurack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Button, J. N. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Coleman, R. N. Mason, C. V. J. Colston, M. A. Primmer, C. G. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertElstob, R. C. Reynolds, M. Evans, Gareth Richardson, G. F. Evans, Jack Robertson, E. A. Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O. Hearn, J. M. Collard, S. J. Gietzelt, A. T. Reid, M. E. Crowley, R. A. Question so resolved in the negative. The PRESIDENT —The question now is: That the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.31) —I rise to oppose the motion that the resumption of the debate on the Judiciary Amendment Bill be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. Whether or not arrangements have been made between the Government and the Opposition, whether or not arrangements have been made between the Government and the Australian Democrats, whether or not arrangements have been made between the Whips for this matter to come on today, I certainly had no opportunity of seeing this until it was dumped on my desk a few minutes ago. Senator Georges —Nor have I. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Georges and Senator MacGibbon say that they had not seen the Bill either. Quite frankly, Senator Georges voted against the amendment that the resumption be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting, as is usual under these circumstances. As I understand it, no government adopts the attitude that it will have a Bill pass through Parliament in one day unless there is some sort of agreement between all concerned. No agreement has been made with me about this matter. Senator Georges —You are one solitary senator in this place. Senator HARRADINE —I may be the only solitary senator but after the next election I may not be. The PRESIDENT —Senator Harradine, confine your remarks to the motion that the debate be adjourned. Senator HARRADINE —I have been elected to this chamber and it is my responsibility to those who elected me to inisist on the proper procedures being followed. In the event of a vote taking place on this Bill or any amendment being made to it, opportunity is given to honourable senators, including me, to study the Bill and to examine the consequences of it. This I have not been able to do. As a matter of fact, at the present moment I am engaged in preparing an amendment to the income tax Bill that I thought we were going to debate this morning. Frankly, I am concerned and surprised that the Government is pursuing this matter in the way in which it is. I hope that the motion that the debate be adjourned to a later hour of this day will be either defeated or adjourned until such time as some agreement can be reached of the matter. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.36) —I apologise to Senator Harradine if he has not been kept abreast of the developments in this matter. I was rather under the impression that he had been, simultaneously with other honourable senators. If that understanding is wrong, as it appears to be, I apologise. It is not desired ever to try to make these arrangements in Senator Harradine's absence. I suggest to him that the Judiciary Amendment Bill 1983 is very short; it contains a very short principle. It may well be possible for him to satisfy himself about it during the course of the day. I would be happy to discuss the matter with him if he feels that it is not possible for him to formulate a proper response to this legislation during the course of the day. Equally, I would be happy, as I indicated to Senator Durack, to postpone the debate on this Bill until tomorrow. But I believe it may be possible to reach an agreement, with a degree of goodwill around the place, to have the matter brought on today which would be helpful in terms of the Government's program and the desire to expedite this matter in order that the question of prosecutions in Victoria can be resolved and people who are on the possible receiving end of such prosecutions can be put out of their present uncertainty. There is a desire to expedite the resolution of this. I hope that, with a degree of goodwill and reasonableness all round, we can reach an agreement. I wish to pursue the motion in its present terms but on the understanding that further consultations will take place. If there seems to be any reasoned basis for opposition to this proceeding today, as distinct from tomorrow, I would be perfectly happy to act accordingly. Senator Durack —Mr President-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The Attorney-General, by speaking, has closed the debate. Senator Durack will need leave if he wishes to speak on this matter. Senator DURACK(Western Australia) —by leave-Largely for the information of Senator Harradine who has just come into the chamber and also for those other honourable senators who may not have been in the chamber at an earlier stage, I point out that it would not have been helpful to Senator Harradine if he had been given the Bill the other day to process, as I was, because the Bill has been very substantially changed since it was first made available to the Opposition. The Opposition had agreed to co-operate in getting this matter through, although I do not know why there should be this sudden amazing urgency to have this legislation passed. Even assuming that that is the case the Opposition has co-operated. The Bill, as provided to me last Friday, was processed through the Opposition committees yesterday. Only after that had happened-I understand some time yesterday afternoon-were these changes advised to my office. I did not become aware of them until this morning. That is why we are opposing the matter being brought on today. I also cannot say on behalf of the Opposition whether we will be in a position to debate it tomorrow as I am not prepared to undertake to organise again all the Opposition's party meetings especially for the convenience of Senator Gareth Evans. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 6 March, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(10.40) —The Senate is continuing the second reading debate on the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 5). Last evening, because of the adjournment of the Senate, my remarks were interrupted. I therefore take this opportunity briefly to summarise my earlier remarks in order that my present remarks are placed in the context of what was said last evening. In the early days of the Hawke Government, a senior Minister stated that retrospective legislation would be used only in limited circumstances, and only for schemes of a blatant, artificial and contrived nature. What we have now is a tremendous change in government attitude. Senator Chipp —You are a humbug. Senator WATSON —The Bill before us today- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator will withdraw that remark. Senator Chipp —I withdraw. Senator WATSON —No evidence has been produced to this chamber that would indicate that the schemes relating to superannuation are of a blatant, artificial and contrived nature. We have asked for evidence. We have asked the Government to produce papers from the Australian Taxation Office advising the Government that the schemes were of an artificial, blatant and contrived kind. Unlike the previous Government, which delivered all the papers on bottom of the harbour tax avoidance to the Senate, the Labor Government has been rather reticent in providing factual background information on the need for this sort of legislation. It did produce details of one particular case, Kelly v. Raymor ( Ilawarra) Pty Ltd, which was called a cherry-picker scheme. Last night I pointed out that if the Taxation Office had undertaken its responsibilities, it would have picked up this matter and prevented the avoidance situation ever eventuating. There were adequate provisions in the income tax law that would have prevented the company getting deductions under such schemes. The Commissioner of Taxation should have looked thoroughly at the trust deed. He should have been satisfied that there was adequate communication of the rights, benefits and privileges to employees. He did not do so. He had an opportunity, I submit, under section 23F to tax the scheme in the early stages for non compliance. Initially, or at the time those superannuation schemes were executed, he did not satisfy himself as to the bona fides of the schemes. During the progress of these superannuation schemes he did not have a continuing interest in them to see that the trustees followed the provisions of the Act. I say: Where is the proof? We submit that there are adequate provisions already in sections 23F, 82AAA to 82AAR inclusive, 170 and 6A of the Income Tax Assessment Act that make this Bill completely unnecessary. Also, the provisions of the Crimes Act may have been able to be implemented. In the early 1980s John Howard passed anti-avoidance legislation dealing with a revision of section 260, now known as Part IVA. No proof has been given to this chamber that those provisions would not apply in these circumstances. They should have been included in the second reading speech of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh). They do not appear. I challenge the Minister to bring forward the evidence that the present provisions are not working, that the Taxation Office has discharged its duties fully rather than in a negligent manner, as I put forward. I believe that the Senate needs further proof that all of these schemes are of a blatant, artificial and contrived kind. Those schemes that have slipped through are, I submit, the responsibility of the Commissioner of Taxation for not doing his job. What will happen under this proposed legislation? By retrospective means the Government will also pick up innocent shareholders, innocent parties. I think it is regrettable when that retrospective legislation is used so blatantly in these cases that it not only catches one or two guilty offenders but also picks up a host of innocent people. Because of the recession many businesses have had a downturn in their activity; some have had to be wound up prematurely, and some of their superannuation schemes will now be caught under this Bill. I think the Bill is a wide-ranging one and covers a whole range of issues. I admit that some of these issues have been picked up from initiatives taken by the former Treasurer, John Howard. I refer to measures on leverage leasing. It is significant that while New South Wales Premier Neville Wran attacked John Howard because he felt some of the provisions in that legislation could affect the financing arrangements of one of his New South Wales power stations, now that the Federal Labor Government has picked up this leverage leasing issue and is bringing it forward as a Bill there is no such criticism coming from Neville Wran. Have we any evidence that this is an identical Bill to the leverage leasing legislation proposed by John Howard? Some private contractors in Victoria who are working for instrumentalities whose income is exempt from tax could be unfairly treated as a result of this legislation. I think there are several other abhorrent features in relation to this Bill. I mention bonuses and other amounts received in respect of certain term life assurance policies and so -called tax avoidance policies, in relation to employees' superannuation funds. Never before in this country have we seen a government so paranoid about tax avoidance that it is prepared to steal-I have to use that word because retrospective legislation of this kind has that implication-from those people who have been prepared to operate within the law. Never before has this country seen a government more obsessed with superannuation schemes-an obsession that has led the Government to attack all such schemes except one; that is, the scheme operating for its own members. Senator Button —What are you talking about? Senator WATSON —Senator Button knows what I am talking about. I am talking about the Government superannuation scheme. Why have I prefaced my comments in this way? I have done so because this Government now wishes to take away from people who have been prepared to operate within the law. In other words, the Government is stealing from genuine taxpayers. No one in this chamber wants to condone blatant tax evasion schemes. I am referring to the devious methods used by this Government through iniquitous means of retrospectivity in legislation such as that which is before this chamber at present. The current legislation seeks to insert a new provision into the Income Tax Act; a new section that permits stealing by retrospectivity. As I said, no honourable senator condones tax avoidance. But essentially evaders steal from the community. They steal, as I said, from those who are prepared to operate within the law. If there is a loophole in the law-there have been many examples over the years-I submit that it is only proper that the matter be corrected promptly in the interests of all those who are trying to ensure justice and equity for all. However, to make the correction of taxation loopholes retrospective is to operate at the same level as those who openly defy the law and bring themselves down to the same level. Retrospectivity cannot be justified by any amount of dollars and cents as this Government has attempted to do in the past. For reasons of justice and fairness no legislation should have retrospective aspects in it. This Bill seeks to insert new section 26AFA after section 26AF of the Income Tax Assessment Act. One can really see the rationale for seeking such an insertion and sympathise with the victims of such schemes that section 26AFA seeks to prevent from proliferating but not retrospectively. Section 26AFA, as proposed, seeks to prevent the operation of what is undoubtedly a case of using a loophole within the tax laws by a few operators. I think this is the distinction that the Government has failed to make. Of all the schemes, those section 23F funds-if the Commissioner has done his job continuously throughout the life of those funds-should be the least of all superannuation-type funds allowed in the Income Tax Act to be subject to any tax avoiding scheme. The implication of this is that the Commissioner is throwing back the matter onto the Parliament and saying: 'You haven't done your job in the past by adequate legislation'. I am submitting that the Commissioner has not done his job by administering the Act, examining the details of the trust deed, looking at the communications to the members, examining the loan backs-the relationship between superannuation accounts and company accounts-and examining the situation where maximum benefits have been paid to diminishing numbers of employees along the line. Had all this been done this legislation would never have had to be contemplated. As I said, I agree that the operation of such funds and such practices of a blatant kind should be halted and, if need be, declared illegal. But they must be declared illegal from the date of the announcement of the Government's proposed legislative change. Proposed new section 26AFA provides that in a year of income and on or after 1 July 1977, this legislation seeks to recoup-not recoup but really steal because it is retrospective-funds in the form of tax on moneys which have hitherto not been subject to law providing all the conditions have been complied with. In regard to section 23F funds-the employee funds to which I have referred-if the benefit is excessive or one to which the taxpayer has no entitlement and the Commissioner is satisfied that the taxpayer has received the benefit because he or she was or had been a member of the fund, a dependant of the fund or an associated person of the fund, the amount or value of the benefit is included in the assessable income of the taxpayer. I can see a situation where an amount is to be included in taxable income under this proposed new section 26AFA but section 26 (d) of the original Act, which includes only 5 per cent as assessable income, will apply and the whole of the benefit will then be subject to tax. We are retrospectively changing the law which previously permitted 5 per cent to include the whole amount. What an iniquitous piece of legislation we are asked to pass today. If this Bill were not such a blatant and artificial piece of retrospectivity and because it is a Budget Bill the Government might have expected the Opposition to go along with it. However, because of the intense nature of this retrospectivity and because it will be so damaging to some innocent people who abided by the law, some of us on this side of the chamber reject this part of the Bill. I submit that it is in essence iniquitous since it seeks to make taxable moneys which are clearly included under section 26 (d) of the original Act subject now to a far higher rate of taxation than would apply under this legislation. It would also appear that notwithstanding the provisions of proposed new section 26AFA, a certain degree of discretion in the application of that section can be exercised by the Commissioner. I say that if the Government wants to make this distinction between artificial and genuine kinds of winding up, let it place a framework within the legislation to give the Commissioner guidelines and to give the trustees and the directors of the companies which set up these funds some understanding of how the Commissioner will exercise his discretion. In the past the Commissioner has been given a wide range of guidelines in exercising discretion in other areas. Because of the uncertainty the appropriate time to introduce those guidelines into the Parliament is now, in this Bill, and not in two or three years' time. Proposed new section 26AFA will produce an anomaly in the rate of taxation. It should be subject to much closer scrutiny and be seen for what it is-an unjustifiable taxation impost of an order not applicable until the present time. Proposed new section 26AFA contains aspects of retrospectivity in the creation of tax liabilities where none existed before or where they existed in a limited kind under section 26 (d). This must be seen as a matter of urgency. People must be able to act in accordance with the law, even those few who may be exploiting the law. It is the job of the Commissioner of Taxation to plug the loopholes but not to plug them retrospectively. Retrospectivity pervades clause 6 of this legislation. I want to comment on section 26AH which will make bonuses from life assurance policies assessable income for income tax purposes. It will operate in respect of life assurance policies which are issued after 27 August 1982 and will apply to amounts received under the policy during either the first four or 10 years of the policy, depending on its commencement date. While a number of exclusions to the operation of this clause are proposed, we will now find a 10-year taxing period on new policies taken out after December last year when the Bill was introduced into Parliament. This is a new tax being imposed on people in this country by this high spending, high deficit Labor Government. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Sibraa) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia)(10.57) —I will comment briefly on the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1983. Last night Senator Cook went through the whole of the Bill and explained how working class people have been deprived of their just rights. I will reiterate what he said because I am sick of the Opposition's crocodile tears over this Bill. In this case we are applying retrospectivity to people who have been defrauding those who should have got pensions out of these schemes. Firms that showed a profit put the money into funds and in the normal course of events taxation was not paid on it. I will tell honourable senators what has happened. Some firms in this country told their employees that they would set up a non-contributory pension scheme. I and many people in the trade union movement have ample evidence of this. If anyone wants to investigate the documents thoroughly the management of the company says to its employees: 'This person is a trouble maker; he is a communist and we have to get him out of the industry'. This actually happens. Senator Watson may laugh but I can assure him that this is quite true. The relevant documents are displayed in the head office. Only top management sees them. They are on display but to only selected people. Employees of the industry are told that management will do the right thing by them, that it will look after their interests and that it will provide a non-contributory pension scheme . But part of the scheme is set out in small print and the employees do not know about it. These schemes, although they vary, usually operate for 10 or 15 years or to the retirement age of 65 years for men and 60 for women. Employees who retire one day early do not receive a penny. People have been led to believe that if they provide good service to their industry they will receive help when they retire. I have heard that some people had expected to receive anything from $30,000 to $90,000 or $100,000. But what has happened? A week or so before their nominated date for retirement they have been sacked, encouraged to retire early, or some redundancy provision has been brought into force. They have been talked into getting out of the scheme early and consequently have received nothing. These schemes have been designed for top management, the managing directors and accountants. They ensure that they are in the scheme until they are due to retire. Usually only two or three people get the full benefit which, when the scheme is wound up, sometimes amounts to $2m or $3m. Honourable senators should not forget that this money is profit and tax has not been paid on it. Tax should have been paid. Money also has been lent to the company or to subsidiary companies. Evidence reveals that this money has been lent at an interest rate of 3 1/2 per cent. It is almost a giveaway. Management draws on the fund and also get all sorts of perks such as cars. However, the working people get nothing out of it. Senator Messner —You don't know what you are talking about. Senator ELSTOB —I do know what I am talking about. This is what is going on. There are other schemes into which workers contribute. As a result of various adjustments contributors to such a scheme finish up getting what they put into it plus about 3 1/2 per cent. There is evidence to show that. Private retirement schemes in this country have been badly organised. There is no legislation to cover money invested in these schemes. As I have said, money paid into these private schemes is lent out at a ridiculously low rate of interest. No proper provision is made by governments. Over the many years that the Liberal Party of Australia has been in office it has never seen fit to introduce legislation to cover the proper investment of money in these schemes. There are many loopholes and it will certainly be necessary to look at them. Why should not people involved in these schemes who have defrauded the whole community be liable to pay tax retrospectively? Such people should be made to pay back to the community what they have stolen from the community. These schemes are not totally illegal. There is no way that working people can get the money that they should have got. The schemes are legally drawn up so that people who retire early cannot get the money to which they are entitled. As I have said, the schemes have been designed for top management and there is no way that an ordinary worker can get any benefit from those funds. Honourable senators opposite are saying how unfair retrospective legislation is . Yet people who have contrived these schemes, whether they be bottom of the harbour schemes or the scheme about retirement allowances, have robbed the general community. They have also robbed the people in the work force who thought they were to get some benefit on their retirement. Businesses such as these have an unfair advantage over the great majority of businesses and people in this country who are honest. That is the difference-the very big difference. How can an honest business hope to operate and compete against a business which is so dishonest that it pays virtually no taxation or very little? Retrospective legislation is necessary. The Hawke Labor Government is being successful in its attempts to bring about conciliation between management and labour. Yet how can we do this while schemes exist in which working people have no faith? As a result some doubt surrounds all schemes, as to whether they are legal or illegal. Legislation has to be put into place to stop all that. People who have deliberately gone out of their way to rob other people in this country who have taken their coats off and contributed to the work force should be punished. Why should not businesses which have operated honestly and decently be protected? An important aspect of the legislation is retrospectivity. There has to be retrospectivity. I do not like retrospective laws any more than anybody else, but I believe that they are necessary as far as taxation is concerned because this problem has got out of hand. I think that retrospective legislation has to be applied to people who have deliberately tried to increase the benefits to themselves by the use of such schemes. I believe that they have to be taught a lesson. I have no sympathy for such people. Taxation in this country is far too high. There are several reasons for that. In the past there has been bad management by Liberal governments. There is no doubt about that. But while people and businesses are allowed to be dishonest, are knowingly dishonest, how can we reduce taxation for the decent companies and the working people of this country? That is what we have to consider. For far too long all of us have had to pay for these thieves and rogues. I am sick of it . I am certain that the Australian population is sick of it. It is about time that we stood up and were counted. The only way to stop these practices is to bring in retrospective legislation for people who do not pay their correct taxation. It is despicable to think that such people are defrauding people who have worked in industries sometimes for 20 or 30 years. This legislation goes back only to 1977. I have it on good authority that the schemes go back far longer than that. It was only in 1977 when these schemes started to mature that they came to the fore. I have no hesitation in saying that these people should be punished. These dishonest people have deprived and upset working class people whom I know have planned over many years to do certain things because they thought they would get a certain amount of money when they retired, yet finished up not getting one cent. I think that is despicable. That is no way to go about trying to create a system whereby we can have some conciliation between management and labour. There has to be complete trust. A law has to be seen to be just, otherwise nobody trusts it. I think it is the same with all of these schemes. We can have a great country. There can be conciliation. We can have a better way of life. But not while some people in our community deliberately defraud, rob and plunder and treat other people like dirt. That is what they have been doing. I have no hesitation in supporting this Bill, which is designed to bring down retrospective legislation to recover the taxes that these people should have paid in the first place. (Quorum formed) Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(11.13) —The Senate is debating the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1983, which has been brought down by the Government. It is to be welcomed by the Parliament as a first attempt by the Government to address itself to the problems of tax avoidance which, of course, it has failed to do in its first 12 months in office. In fact, this is the first piece of legislation which touches the area of tax avoidance. It is also significant to note that this piece of legislation is based most substantially on decisions that were already taken by the former Fraser Government and announced by the former Treasurer, Mr Howard. The Bill falls into two parts. Firstly, there are those areas which cover natural disasters and the exemption of tax for the first two weeks of receipt of unemployment benefit and there is the question of leverage leasing. I will return to that matter a little later. The other areas are unexceptionable and the Opposition accepts them. Secondly, there are the areas in respect of short term life assurance policies and the question which has been so vigorously debated from this side of the House, by Senator Watson most lately, in respect of the superannuation funds and the retrospectivity which applies to them. I will also turn to those matters a little later. To return for the moment to the question of leverage leasing, I note that the terminology of the Bill includes leased items which are described as being wholly and exclusively used for a particular purpose. In respect of that I take it that a small contractor, for instance, who is working with the Government, perhaps by contract with various government agencies which are tax exempt, might find that in fact he is caught by this general provision within the proposed legislation. We on this side of the House fully understand the reasoning behind the leverage leasing proposals, but we seek the assurance of the Government as to whether or not contractors who are operating exclusively on government contracts of one kind or another, who have leased equipment and who, in the course of their ordinary duties, come into contact day by day with tax exempt government bodies will be caught by this legislation. It would be a terrible shame if that were so. My colleague Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle will be addressing herself to that part when we come to debate the Bill at the Committee stage. I turn now to the superannuation funds and the retrospectivity which has been raised very substantially from this side. First, I outline a little of the history of the taxation law in respect of superannuation funds over the years. I can well remember the Menzies Government's actions in 1964 to restrict tax avoidance through superannuation funds by introducing the guidelines which are now part and parcel of the way in which superannuation funds are established and put into practice by the Australian Taxation Office. In fact, it was that step which set the tone for the great thrust against tax avoidance which has followed since then on the part of various Liberal governments. The main features of the 1964 arrangements, as promulgated by guidelines sent out to practitioners and the general public by the Commissioner of Taxation at the time, set out clearly certain conditions under which superannuation funds should organise their affairs. Indeed, many of the features of section 23F of the legislation were brought into being as a result of amending legislation at that time, and these guidelines which I am about to mention flowed from that. I well recall that in those guidelines there were requirements for superannuation fund trustees to advise employees of their benefits, advise them of the security of their benefits, certainly bring to their attention the rules of the fund and to indicate generally that the benefits would be available in the event of their contributing or, if it were a non-contributory fund, by the firm doing so. Along with a number of other matters designed to secure the benefits of employees, that was designed to establish a thoroughly commercial superannuation fund. Up to that time there had been some very great abuses of the system and consequently this was a step in the direction of putting on a proper footing the operations of private superannuation funds which may not have been operating so well in the past. One major feature of that was the establishment of the system by which the Commissioner of Taxation determined a reasonable level of benefits. There has been much comment about that in the course of this debate. That is an extremely technical matter which we will not go into at this stage, but I would like to comment on it in the course of later remarks. Bearing in mind the actions that were taken at that time to bring the superannuation funds of the 1960s to account and to put them on a proper basis, from that time on it behoved the Taxation Office to ensure that the rules and guidelines that it had established for the operation of the funds in a proper commercial sense were complied with by the taxpayers. The law had been amended and the framework laid down whereby the conditions for the operation of superannuation funds were established. It then became a matter of supervision by the Government and by the Commissioner of Taxation as to whether those rules were actually applied. Now we come to the point of this legislation which the Government has put before us. It talks of the problems of the so-called cherry picker schemes whereby people have been employed on a short term basis or, as Senator Elstob so graphically expressed it, have been fired within one day of their normal retirement date so that they were unable to obtain the full benefits which otherwise would have accrued to them under the superannuation scheme. In those circumstances all of us would deplore the motives and morals of those who run businesses and operate superannuation funds which would take advantage of the law in those ways. Under the present law there are arrangements by which those circumstances can be pursued and in fact denied. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh), who is at the table, has produced for our benefit a copy of the judgment in a case known as Kelly v. Raymor (Illawarra) Pty Ltd handed down by Mr Justice Wootten in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. It sets down the circumstances of a blatant misuse of the law and of superannuation funds. All of us would condemn the way in which that fund was operated. I have a complaint with the Government on this score because it has chosen to bring down this case which describes an extreme set of circumstances. One would have to admit that it is nowhere near typical of the great number of superannuation cases which would be reviewed by the Commissioner of Taxation in the course of his annual duties. Right throughout this case, as has been brought out by the judge, there were blatant breaches of trust by the trustees of the superannuation fund. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —A family feud. Senator MESSNER —Yes, a family feud, as Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle points out. There were obvious breaches of the spirit of the law, if not the word. Senator Walsh —Do you think they should have to pay the tax they avoided? Senator MESSNER —I will come to the point in a moment. Obviously that judgment sets out the most extreme and, as certainly Senator Chipp would say, obscene mismanagement of a superannuation fund. That case has been put before us by the Government with the intention of influencing us towards a particular point of view. I refer to Senator Walsh's letter to us enclosing that document. He says in the second paragraph of his letter: It has been suggested that these schemes are not of the blatant or contrived kind. Those words are particularly relevant because, as I have tried to demonstrate, the 1964 amendments to the legislation and the subsequent way in which the Taxation Office has operated in respect of superannuation funds were designed to establish a proper commercial footing for the operation of superannuation schemes. Since that time it has been up to the Taxation Office to ensure that those guidelines have been complied with. I agree that these schemes, as they have been operating, are blatant and certainly contrived, to use the words that Senator Walsh set out in his letter. For that reason we have to condemn them with all the spirit and vigour we can muster. The point that needs to be made in these circumstances is that the Government has chosen to try to apply this law retrospectively from 1 July 1977. The circumstances in which the Government has previously claimed that it is going to apply these laws retrospectively are mentioned in a statement issued by the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) in April last year. It is identified as a 'Press release No. Tax 83/4'. I quote from page 2 of that statement: Taxpayers involved in legitimate planning of their business and family affairs have nothing to fear from the policy I am formally announcing. I interpose to say that that policy was one of retrospective legislation against taxation avoidance. Mr Dawkins continues: The schemes against which we would legislate retrospectively are only those highly contrived and artificial schemes generally accepted as being unambiguously inspired by avoidance motives and having little if any legitimate commercial function. The point I want to make is that, on the one hand the Government's policy of retrospectivity in respect of taxation avoidance is specifically aimed against, yes, blatant and, yes, contrived schemes-but it is also aimed against artificial schemes. It seems that there is some doubt as to whether the kind of scheme encapsulated in this legislation is in fact in any way artificial. As I have described, the law has generally been complied with; there has been the provision of security of rights for employees, and there has been provision of benefits over a period of time. But where a scheme has been manipulated, that has occurred because the Commissioner of Taxation has not fulfilled his obligation to the full by investigating the carrying on of the scheme over the years in which it has been operating. In other words the supervision responsibilities of the Government have been omitted in many cases. Without pinning too much responsibility on individuals for those omissions-I understand the difficulties of doing that, having practised in accounting for some time-this matter is borne out only too clearly by the very judgment the Minister has put before us as an example of the extreme kind of case against which he is seeking to legislate. That is really a most extreme set of circumstances, in which, had the Government, through the Taxation Commissioner, been aware of, and acted upon, information coming to it, as was so graphically pointed out by Senator Watson, I think that action would have been taken such that the scheme might not have proliferated in the way it is claimed to have done That is the real point I want to bring to the Senate in order to make the observation that there is no justification for the retrospective aspect of this legislation. Firstly, it breaches the Government's own definition of what is to be legislated against retrospectively by it not, by definition, being an artificial scheme, because it does not fall into the kind of artificial contrivance represented by the bottom of the harbour scheme or other schemes against which we have legislated over the years. I mention those schemes for which John Howard, as Treasurer, was given a great deal of credit for acting against. For that reason and, secondly, bearing in mind that there is considerable doubt as to whether the Commissioner of Taxation has acted promptly enough to shut off this kind of scheme in the past, there is a substantial argument against the retrospective aspects of this legislation. In the Committee stage my colleague Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle will be moving amendments to make this legislation apply only from the date in December on which the announcement of it was made. Bearing in mind all those things, there are one or two other matters to which reference needs to be made. Back in November 1982, just before the election which brought the Hawke Government to power, there was considerable change in the way in which the Australian Taxation Office sought to administer the affairs of superannuation funds. There was established a set of guidelines further to those I mentioned earlier. They have imposed very great restrictions upon the freedom of superannuation funds to operate their affairs. There has been much complaint about that in certain quarters, but suffice it to say that I think that may of those changes have been thoroughly justified, in that the Department is seeking now to establish reasonable security for the rights of members and to impose conditions upon their operations to guard against the very things which Senator Elstob mentioned on behalf of the Government. Perhaps it would improve Senator Elstob's understanding of the matter if he were to read the guidelines that have been issued by the Commissioner of Taxation in recent times. One other aspect of that matter which concerns me is that there is this duty upon the Commissioner of Taxation to determine what is known as a reasonable benefit for each employee. That has been set down through rules established over the last 20 years. I want to observe that the level of reasonable benefits available to employees through superannuation funds generally has not kept pace at all with the rate of inflation. In 1964 the level of reasonable benefits could be provided to people whose salaries were roughly four times average weekly earnings, but it is now only provided for salaries 1.3 times average weekly earnings. Very significant changes have occurred which have saved substantial revenue over that period as far as the Government is concerned because of the failure of 'reasonable benefits' to keep up with inflation. The longer term effects of that are that fewer private superannuation funds will be able to provide benefits for members and consequently there will be more and more dependency by individuals as they grow older upon the social security system. Leaving that aside, the most important aspect of the matter is that the controls that have been implemented by the Taxation Office in recent years are sufficient to ensure that superannuation funds are properly managed and will be maintained at the kind of level of operating performance and efficiency, and, one might say, honesty, that was expected when the original guidelines were introduced in 1964. I turn quickly to one other aspect of the legislation, that of short term life insurance policies. The purpose of the legislation is to extend from four years to 10 years the minimum period for which a life insurance policy can be held without the proceeds being held as taxable in the hands of the recipient. Over the years there have been some attempts to develop alternative forms of investment through short term life assurance policies. One of those has been the kind of policy which is mentioned in this legislation. Of course, it is something that has been known about for some time. Indeed, the former Treasurer, John Howard, took action by announcing that he would legislate on this matter, and the legislation before us represents the outcome of that decision. The point I mention here is that the attack by this legislation on short term policies has been justified on the basis that there is some kind of tax avoidance incentive for people to involve themselves in these kinds of activities and policies, as against taking other kinds of investments. I think we have to examine that a little further. The justification by the Government is that somehow a tax saving is available to people who make this kind of investment. The fact is, of course, that life assurance policies in any form are subject to the taxation laws that apply to life assurance companies. Generally speaking, the rules are that life assurance companies pay tax on their capital gains as they do on their other gains, which are then accumulated for the purpose of paying out benefits at the end of the term of the policy. The fact that capital gains are included means that one very significant group of taxpayers-life assurance companies-is paying tax on capital which the general community, by virtue of the present law, does not do. It means that if one were to invest in such a thing as a unit trust which is involved in property development, one would be able to secure a tax advantage compared with those who invest in superannuation funds and are taxed in the way in which I have just described. That means that in present circumstances the investor in life assurance is at a tax disadvantage compared with unit holders and those who are involved in other kinds of investments. It therefore does not follow that there is a justification for the Government's action in attacking life assurance in this way. In fact, the reverse is true. If there were to be an attempt to bring about tax neutrality in this area, perhaps other investors ought to be considered. The point I am trying to make is that there is a very real incentive for people to invest in life assurance because of the benefits and security that it brings in the event of the death of the owner of the policy compared with other kinds of investment. Indeed, it is a worthy objective on the part of all in Australia. There are many reasons why people want to have life assurance, as we know. They wish to provide some kind of benefit for their funeral and for outstanding mortgages and/or debts upon the death of an individual and matters of that kind. So there is a perfectly legitimate reason for people to want to make this kind of investment. I think we have to ask: Why does the Government not see that as a legitimate form of investment? Why does it argue that it is a tax avoidance measure when clearly life assurance is at a disadvantage tax-wise compared with other forms of investment? We look to the Minister to provide the answer in the course of the debate, but judging from remarks made to date in the House of Representatives we will not be satisfied in that respect. Finally, I refer again to superannuation funds. The Government has in recent months announced its intentions to tax lump sum superannuation payments. That has been a matter of great contention in the community and the Government, true to its usual form, has backed off from its original decision under pressure from its trade union allies. Indeed, it is no doubt again under pressure from the New South Wales Government, which is facing an election on 24 March. I wonder whether the Government is now prepared to bring forward that legislation for immediate debate ahead of the election. I hope that it will give us the opportunity of looking at that legislation in the not too distant future. Senator Walsh —There is only tomorrow. Senator MESSNER —Well, the Government has tomorrow to do it. Bearing in mind the intentions of that legislation, people who invest in annuities will have a tax exemption for lump sum payments in the circumstances that are envisaged. There is said to be some tax advantage if people take their superannuation in a lump sum in such a way as to pay tax on only 5 per cent of the total amount, whereas a person taking a pension or an annuity pays tax at the full marginal rate on his or her income. I think what is overlooked in the logic of that situation is that a lump sum which comes to hand when somebody retires is invested immediately and of course, generally speaking, returns income immediately. Therefore that income is immediately subject to tax. For that reason the logic of the tax system has been that in order to take account of any intervening problems, only 5 per cent of that capital sum has been included in the income of the taxpayer in the year in which it is received, because tax would be payable immediately upon the income generated from the investment. For that reason we on this side of the chamber find it difficult to follow the logic of the Government in applying a special tax at the rate of 30 per cent on lump sums, which is said to be in order to iron out the tax discrepancies between that form of receipt of superannuation and pensions or annuities. In fact, as you would know, Mr President, the Opposition has promised that upon return to government it will repeal that proposed legislation. Again, it would be very interesting if the Government, now nine months from its original announcement, could produce this legislation so that we could examine it ahead of the New South Wales election. But one is starting to wonder whether we will even see the legislation before the election which Mr Hawke has promised us by the end of this year. The Opposition will oppose the retrospective aspects of the legislation and I thoroughly support that position. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(11.43) —The Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 5 ) 1983 deals with eight separate and unrelated aspects of our tax system. It provides for the withdrawal of investment allowance where the property is used in tax exempt activities, makes some changes to the arrangements for leverage leasing and similar arrangements, makes special tax concessions for Australian trading ships, provides some tax arrangements for bonuses received in respect of certain short term life assurance policies, changes the arrangements for deductions for investments in qualifying Australian films, provides for the exemption from tax of payments of special benefits to victims of major disasters and deals with tax avoidance practices in relation to employee superannuation funds. Some of these matters have been the subject of considerable debate. I wish to raise two matters that have not yet been debated at all in this chamber. The first matter I deal with was not debated at all in the House of Representatives. I refer to the changes to the arrangements for deductions for investment in qualifying Australian films. The Australian film industry has been one of the most dramatic internal and international success stories of recent years. It has been a great benefit to all Australians both in our internal appreciation of ourselves and our international reputation. It is important that the tax arrangements should encourage a continuation of the production of quality Australian films. This Bill reduces the income tax deduction allowable from 150 per cent of the amount invested to 133 per cent. That does not mean, by the way, as some people seem to think, that an investor has a bonus given back to him when he invests. The 150 per cent deduction really means that if a person invests money in a film 90 per cent of that investment is tax free. In fact that person is effectively investing only 10 per cent, he is risking only 10 per cent of his investment. The Government is intending to reduce the concession rate from 150 per cent to 133 per cent. The Government will also be reducing the exemption from income tax with regard to the net revenue from a film from 50 per cent to 33 per cent. What does this do? The saving to revenue is estimated to be $1m in this financial year and about $4m in a full financial year. But this amount saved is more than offset by the $5m which has been given this year-and there is every indication that it will continue-to the Australian Film Commission. The Government's changes have not made any difference to the net cost to revenue. The Government has changed the structure of its support for the production of films and has given very much more direct control to the Australian Film Commission, a point to which I will come in a moment. The other change, one which we should certainly support unequivocally, permits the use of underwriting arrangements. An investor does not have to be a party to the contract for the production of a film but he can still invest in an underwriting arrangement. That is sensible and ordinary business administrative practice. This legislation represents yet another broken promise by the Hawke Labor Government. Senator Ryan, who was spokesman on affairs concerning the arts before the last election, was quite adamant that not only would the income tax arrangements for film investors remain intact but also they would be increased by a Labor government. I will quote her: Labor would pass legislation to stabilise the film industry and after passing this legislation would leave it untouched for two years. Among the measures was the provision for a 160%- that is an increase- income tax deduction if a film is completed within two years. Labor honoured the two-year promise which was part of the policy of the former Liberal-National Party Government; we were doing that. But Labor did not-I repeat the word 'not'-honour the 160 per cent tax deduction. Instead of increasing it this Government has decreased it. This is yet another example, I suppose, of Hawkespeak, saying one thing and doing the opposite. What is the effect of what this Government has done? A broken promise comes as no surprise; we are used to them. But it creates uncertainty. If the Government is going to change its mind in this way it causes uncertainty in investors. It is very doubtful whether the 133 per cent tax deduction is sufficient to create enough incentives for investment in feature films. Investing in films is a very chancy business. About one in six will show a profit. That standard in Australia , by the way, is higher than in a similar situation in America. What is also required by legislation-it has been required for some time-is that film producers have to spend considerable sums on prospectuses and dealers' licences. There are many other areas for speculative investment and unless the offerings are high enough in the film industry we will not get investment in films. One of the other problems in getting investment is that it is very difficult unless one has a distribution guarantee. As a consequence the number of feature films being produced this year is a little more than half what it was in the previous year. Certainly, an industry of the size of the Australian industry can produce too many films. A number of films have been produced which should never have been produced. I suppose we could say that we could produce 20 or 25 quality films, but it looks as though we will only be producing about 12 this year. A responsible government must look to its policy to see what has caused this drop in production in an area which, as I said at the outset, is of great importance to Australia, far more important than any net returns in overseas trade. Films project an image of Australia both externally and internally which is very much to the advantage of all of us. The Government's policy is not working well. I am not suggesting that we should make rapid changes; that is even more damaging. But the Government's policy is not working effectively in encouraging investment in Australian films. Worse still, the Government has transferred responsibility and enormous power to the Australian Film Commission. I have been concerned, as I think has everyone else, about giving such substantial concessions from revenue to people who invest in films. How do we ensure, within reasonable limits, that what is produced is culturally successful? One can never guarantee success in this area but we have been producing too many sub-standard films. I do not think the solution to that, though it is loved by the Australian Labor Party theoreticians and practitioners, is giving all power to a single body. The Australian Film Commission, with its $5m investment grant, is in an enormously powerful position in the Australian film industry. I very much doubt whether the effect of what it is doing and what it is likely to do will be to encourage wise investment and innovative, creative, successful new films. I will give a couple of examples of the problems of trying to obtain investment in films. The film Lonely Hearts produced by Paul Cox, which won the best film award in 1982, had to be financed privately because the producer could not get either the Australian Film Commission or the State film corporation to invest in it. Yet it was a very successful film. The following year the same producer could not get any money for Man of Flowers from the Commission or the State corporation. That film won the best actor award. They are very successful films and have been given international acclaim. The producer of those films could not get any government film corporation investment. Now that Paul Cox is so successful, his new films will be supported by the State film corporation. But that is where the system failed. It has not been able to identify people who are not yet successful. I will give just one more example although I could multiply these examples many times. Mad Max, one of the most financially successful films we have produced and also critically acclaimed by a section of the film-going public around the world, was privately funded because its producers could not get any investment from the State film corporation or the AFC. Mad Max II was also privately funded . Now that the producers are successful the AFC is investing $500,000 in a new Kennedy-Miller production, Bodyline. I have heard a lot of criticism by the people in the film industry about that. After the producers' success with Mad Max and Mad Max II they do not need this sort of investment; other film makers need it more. I do not want to second- guess the AFC; I understand its problems. The point I am making is that if we give this tremendous power to a single authority to decide what is and what is not produced in film making in Australia I think we will do great cultural damage to an industry that must survive and grow by originality and diversity. I think the system of allowing investors to invest and make mistakes is better than giving too much power to a government body in an area so sensitive and so difficult as investment in films. The second matter to which I turn is quite unrelated to films. I wish to deal with the special concessions for Australian trading ships. This Bill also introduces special provisions which will authorise depreciation over five years, in equal instalments, for eligible Australian trading ships. It will also provide for the extension of the investment allowance to those ships when used either outside Australia or on the coastal trade in Australia. Previously the investment allowance applied only to property used in Australia. The investment allowance applies to eligible Australian ships constructed or acquired on or after 29 July 1977. I said it applied to eligible Australian ships. The eligibility rules are that the ships must be engaged exclusively in the coastal or overseas carriage of cargo and passengers, they must be wholly owned or used by residents of Australia, they must be used wholly and exclusively to produce assessable income, they must be registered in Australia, they must be manned by residents of Australia or authorised non-residents and, most important of all-a point I will come back to-they must be manned at a level not exceeding the manning level determined for that ship. What will be the cost to revenue? It will be $8m this year and next year, rising to $25m-of course, this is an estimate-in 1985-86. So we are embarking on a program of heavy subsidy for the Australian shipping industry. What is the problem-there are problems-with this sort of subsidy for shipping? Other countries do it on a long term basis. Some people argue that because others do it we must do it too. I would caution that the costs will be very high and the consequences may not be what we expect. I am not dealing for the moment-I will come back to this also-with the question of the necessity for shipping for defence purposes. The real purpose of this Bill is to encourage a growth for non -defence purposes. One can only look at what has happened in the United States of America. Its shipping industry is very heavily subsidised. There has been a subsidy this year of $435m and this is not working. Despite these very heavy subsidies in the United States all its liner operations are in difficulties. There is a very small number of United States flag ships in overseas trade. The Americans have not got, under the American flag, an acceptable maritime industry. The reason is very simple. Its crew costs are too high. That may sound familiar, but the American costs are not as bad as the Australian costs. They are only just better ; they are just under Australian standards. The United States wage bill is nearly as high as ours and the Americans, too, have nearly two crews per ship. I would like to make it clear that I am fully in agreement with the decision to extend the five-year depreciation period to ships, to provide the investment allowance for overseas ships and to eliminate-this is also provided in this legislation-the 2 per cent import tax on ships, but only provided that the crews are brought down to reasonable levels. I would also like to make it clear that I am all in favour of a revitalised Australian shipping industry but with two vital provisos: It does not increase the cost or the unreliability of our overseas trade. The shippers, the people who will have to pay the first cost-in the long run, the community pays the increased cost of overseas trade-have been consulted very little in this whole business. It looks to me like a very cosy deal between the Government, ship owners and unions. That, of course, is my worry. Before I deal with that matter I would like to dispose of one other argument- the defence matter. At the moment coastal shipping is an Australian flag monopoly: We have 70 ships of 1.5 million tonnes on the coast with 13 ships of 450,000 tonnes engaged in overseas trade. I am sure that we could get enough ships from these to support even a Falklands scale operation, provided there was proper prior planning. We have not been doing that, but that is another story. The arguments advanced by the report of the Crawford Committee on Revitalisation of Australian Shipping are, in my view, all either wrong or suspect. It is unlikely that increased Australian flag shipping would make a significant net improvement in our balance of payments. It would be most unlikely to lead to increased employment and even more unlikely to provide a useful window on real shipping costs. But even if these advantages were realised they would still have to be balanced against the costs. At present, the Australian National Line is the darling of the shipping conference with a cost structure which is so high that it raises the average freight rates for all the other members of the conference and we pay the resultant costs. At least $20m a year in extra unnecessary cost because of the ANL's involvement in the conference is created by our east Asian trade alone. That $20m a year is passed on to the Australian community. Why are our costs so high? Australian shipping is costly because excessive crews are demanded by unions. I will give honourable senators an example: Of the three sister ships on the Australia to West Coast of America service, the Swedish ship has a crew of 28, the British ship has a crew of 35 and the Australian ship has a crew of 36. That is typical. I will give honourable senators a couple of other examples of the effects of this overmanning. In 1981 the average cost of operating a 100,000 to 130,000 dead weight tonne ship on the open registry was $1.8m a year. For the British the same ship would cost $2.4m and for Australia-a ship manned by Australians-it would cost $3.8m, double the operating cost per year for the open registry. The Europeans estimate that to run their ships on Australian manning standards would cost them an additional $1m a year. I will give honourable senators one further example. In 1975 the Labor Government brought the Christmas Island phosphate trade under the coastal shipping arrangements. The cost was $29,000 per job per year. That is now being passed on to the Australian farmer and is ultimately paid by the Australian public. Worse still, not only are the Australian crews the largest and the highest paid with the highest costs, such as workers compensation, but also they have five months leave a year, so we need nearly two crews for each ship, and they do less on-board maintenance than the smaller crews of other nationalities. This, of course, increases costs and reduces operational availability. I will give just one more small example: Stewards on our ships do not do any laundry. On ships of all the other countries they do. The result is laundry has to be done in port. That cost is $150,000 a year, which is passed on to our freight costs and passed on to the Australian community. One of the main reasons for the excessive Australian crew numbers is that six unions are involved. Surely this is one of the areas in which we should be pressing for a single industry union and for appropriate cross-training. It has been suggested that about 12 ships might be added to the Australian flag in the next three years. The only way these could be economically justified would be if the unions show, by performance, that they are prepared to bring the total manpower cost-not just the crew numbers-of running an Australian flag ship into line with those of other developed countries, such as Sweden or Norway. But here we are in a catch-22 situation. The unions will not make more than token cuts in crewing until they see the new ships and ship owners cannot afford to spend, say , $40m on a new ship unless they know that their total crew costs, total manpower costs, are down to competitive world levels and they have some guarantee that these crew costs will stay down-a guarantee that might be difficult to accept. The only other way to increase the proportion of our trade carried in Australian flag ships-other than by way of depreciation allowances or investment allowances-would be for the Government to give our flag ships and our ship owners a guaranteed proportion of the trade, regardless of the costs. This is what I think it will ultimately do, but it would be utterly disastrous for all Australians. I am all for bold initiatives that will overcome the high costs and low productivity of our shipping. But industrial peace can be bought at too high a price. I am fearful that we will burden ourselves with high cost ships providing unreliable services, with industrial blackmail being used to force shippers to use them despite their uncompetitive cost. What we may ultimately do is reduce our overseas shipping to the appalling level of our coastal shipping. The very high costs and low efficiency of our coastal shipping have caused grave damage to the whole economy of Australia and, as a result, to all Australians. I hope I am wrong in this fear, but I think I am right. I would like two assurances from the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh). First, that ship owners will not be given tax and depreciation concessions for their ships unless the total manpower costs for their ships have been brought down to reasonable world levels. The Minister in his second reading speech stated that the manning levels must not exceed the manning level determined for that ship. I would like to ensure that when the Government talks about a manning level, it is not just talking about crew numbers at any given moment; that it is talking about the total manpower costs including what the crew does, and how many crews are needed to man a ship throughout the year. That is the basis on which we should be looking at the total manpower costs of an Australian flag ship. It is vital, if we are to have these considerable subventions from government revenue to encourage ships, that we must be sure that their total manpower costs are competitive with those of other developed countries. The second assurance I would like is that under no circumstances will the Minister agree to give Australian ships a guaranteed proportion of our overseas trade. If they are to get that guarantee, they must do so by being competitive on the world shipping market. If they are given a guaranteed proportion, regardless of costs, it would, as I said, reduce our overseas shipping standards to the very low standards we now have on the Australian coast . Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(12.08) —The Senate is debating the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 5) which covers a range of subjects which have been debated at increasing length in the Senate. I will speak to just one aspect of the Bill; that is, the part which addresses itself to the changed government policy in relation to the film industry. Senator Hamer early in his speech referred to this aspect. I want to pick up a number of the points that he raised and to make some others. I believe that the Government's policy in relation to films is equal to any of the hypocrisies that have been listed against the Hawke Government on its broken promises. Just one year ago this Government was elected to office with a number of promises. As quickly as it could-within days-it ditched its promises on what are now shown to be spurious grounds. It ditched them on the grounds of an estimated forecast deficit. Only in the last few days the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the now discredited Treasurer, Mr Keating, have had cause to say that these figures mean nothing, because now that they are in government they are faced with releasing the same set of figures as was released at the time of the 1983 election. They have both said that it is not worth releasing the figures because they are meaningless. Twelve months ago those figures were the reason for the Australian Labor Party and Mr Hawke tearing up policy speeches and promises. The arts area-the film industry, in particular-is one area which has been noteworthy in this respect. In some areas of the arts promises have not yet been kept. In other areas they have been broken. But the extreme hypocrisy of the Government in the matter of the film industry is that it cannot even use the spurious Budget deficit figures as its excuse for breaking its promises, because there is no financial gain to the Government, if its own statements and projections are correct. The Treasurer, in his second reading speech on this Bill, stated in relation to changes in taxation concessions: These measures are estimated to save revenue of $1m for 1983-84 and $4m in a full year but this is more than offset by additional direct government assistance to the film industry through the Australian Film Commission. I am curious about the fact that the Treasurer, having given the estimates of savings in revenue, did not then nominate this more-than-offsetting figure. When the announcement was made that the tax deductions for films were to be reduced, the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, Mr Cohen, said that it would be offset by a $5m grant to the Australian Film Commission. When I went to school one plus four equalled five, which would mean that $1m this year and $4m in a full year would equal the $5m given to the Australian Film Commission. I do not know what is meant by the Treasurer's statement that the measures would be 'more than offset by additional direct government assistance'. It can mean one of two things. It can mean that more money is being given to the Australian Film Commission that has not been announced and I doubt that. It could mean that the Treasurer, to put it in the kindest way that I can think of, is gilding the lily . Perhaps he is including the AFC's annual budget in the amount of money given to the AFC. But it is still only $5m. Therefore revenue savings by the taxation changes are offset by an additional grant to the Australian Film Commission. So the grounds of the Budget deficit, which were always spurious, cannot be given. So what has happened? A number of promises were given and Senator Hamer has detailed them. I will detail those promises again and contrast them with the reality. The Labor Party in opposition promised to extend the eligibility for a previous tax deductibility to two years from completion of a film, as against the one year that applied earlier. The former Treasurer, Mr Howard, had announced at the beginning of the year that the Fraser Government has agreed to this extension, an extension which was being pressed on the Government for some little time before that announcement. I will return to that matter. So the promise of the extension of eligibility was kept. It was kept through legislation that passed this Senate with bipartisan support in May of last year. The promise-a bipartisan one-and the keeping of it so far remains intact. Another promise was to allow marketing expenses of films to be tax deductible. One of the reasons for at least one element in the tax concessions that have been given to the film industry is that marketing expenses, for example, are not deductible. The only expenses that are eligible in the deduction area are those actually incurred in making the film. That can account for 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the total project cost to the point of revenue being earned. That reduces the apparent attractiveness of the tax concession. The Labor Party promised to allow those expenses to be deductions in addition to the taxation concessions that existed. That promise has not been kept, and will not be kept. The Labor Party also promised that when it made its reforms to the film industry, which included an extension of eligibility to two years, an increase in the taxation rebate from 150 per cent to 160 per cent, and deductibility for marketing expenses, those changes would remain in place for two years. What has happened? I have mentioned the extension of eligibility to two years which was brought in in May. It was the policy of the Fraser Government and of the Labor Party during the 1983 election campaign. It passed through both houses with bipartisan support in May 1983. However, on Budget night in August 1983, less than three months after the change, the Treasurer announced that the tax concessions for film investment would be reduced. I will briefly clear up a misconception about these concessions held by a number of people, both in this Parliament and certainly outside the Parliament, who do not invest in films. In the case of investment, there was previously a 150 per cent deduction. I think there are people who have the idea, when a 150 per cent tax deduction for films is mentioned, that if $100 is invested in a film the Government drops $150 into the investor's pocket and that therefore this concession is some great rort and the investor cannot lose. Of course, that is not so, as various Ministers for Home Affairs and Environment have been at pains to point out from time to time. The 150 per cent refers to a tax rebate, it does not refer to 150 per cent of investment. The tax rebate has now been reduced by the Government to 133 per cent. Again, that contrasts with the promise it made to increase the tax rebate to 160 per cent. The associated tax benefit was the exemption from income tax of 50 per cent of the net revenue. That has now been reduced to 33 per cent-another broken promise. Putting it in the simplest terms possible the net effect is that the break-even point for a film has been increased by at least 20 per cent. That 20 per cent is the conservative calculation after taking all the factors into account, such as those items that are not deductible. I am informed by spokespeople for the film industry that in the case of some films these taxation changes by the Hawke Government have raised the break-even point by 36 per cent. It has already been stated in the Senate today that the film industry is a notoriously unreliable one in terms of return on investment. It is an extremely high risk industry for investors. A small percentage of films make a profit. Even so, in Australia our record has been pretty good compared with that of other countries. Nonetheless, the percentage of profit-making films is small; certainly it is less than half. The effect of raising the break-even point by at least 20 per cent-and possibly up to 40 per cent-must mean that the chances of a film returning a profit are reduced and the percentage of profitable films could thus be expected to reduce. The disincentive to investing in films because of the industry's high risk nature has always been there. The Government has compounded that disincentive. In the last few days the 1982-83 report of the Australian Film Commission was tabled in Parliament. As it covers the period from 1 July 1982 to 30 June 1983 comments made in the report are therefore relevant to government action in that period. I will quote relevant parts of the Chief Executive's report. The report states in relation to 1982-83: It was a turbulent year but some very solid gains were achieved. In particular, substantial progress was made in resolving questions of industry regulation. The long-awaited adjustment to the completion requirement under the tax incentives legislation was introduced . . . . . . . The industry has traditionally enjoyed bi-partisan political support and this support was reaffirmed when, after the change of Government in March 1983, promised legislation to amend 10BA was in due course effected. . . . . The industry's greatest need now-- that is, as at 30 June 1983- is for stability in its regulatory environment and the Commission draws comfort from recent undertakings by the Federal Government that the present incentives will stand for at least two years. The incentives stood for two months-not two years-after the Chief Executive of the Australian Film Commission wrote that report. The need for stability in the industry, the need to know with certainty whether laws will be changed, is essential. It is essential for those with film projects so they can make their plans; it is essential for those who would seek to sell investment in the industry so they can know what the devil it is they are selling to investors. It is also essential to the thousands of people who work in the industry. It is not always realised that the film industry is very labour intensive. We see the actors, the up-front people, and we hear about the producers and directors, the people who get the awards and credit for artistic creation, but there are many other people, such as technicians and those in associated trades who are employed by the film industry. Thousands of Australians are employed in the Australian film industry. It is necessary for them to have stability so that they can continue to commit themselves to working in the industry and not leave with their experience, expertise and talents to seek more stability and security elsewhere. This Government in breaking its promise stands condemned, and I reiterate that it is for no financial gain. In a debate in the Senate last year on a statement on such changes by the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment I pointed out that there were problems for the film industry in these changes. I addressed myself to the second aspect, which Senator Hamer has already addressed today. I am concerned that there has been a very real shift of power, through a shift of financial power, to the Australian Film Commission. The Australian Film Commission now has $5m to invest in Australian films. With the declining attractiveness of private investment that has to give the Film Commission a very powerful position in the market-place. One of the reasons the Minister gave for this was the quality of films being produced. I really do not think any politician should care whether people want to spend their money on seeing such movies as Mad Max or Alvin Purple or whether they want to spend it on films such as Man of Flowers. I do not think it is any of our business. The public will vote with its feet. The record shows that those films that have been commercially successful are about 50 per cent of the light-hearted variety and about 50 per cent of what we would roughly call the quality variety. Senator Button —There is nothing lighthearted about Mad Max. It is a very serious film. Senator MARTIN —It is interesting that Senator Button raises that point because last year the matter was raised in an Estimates committee with Mr Skrzynski, the Chief Executive of the Australian Film Commission. When questions were being addressed to Mr Skrzynski as to how the Australian Film Commission intended to approach the disbursement of this money and what its self-imposed guidelines and standards would be, he was asked whether, if Mad Max or Puberty Blues scripts had been presented to the Australian Film Commission, under the guidelines that it had determined, it was likely that they would have been funded. His answer was no. Senator Crichton-Browne —Why? Senator MARTIN —I was not interested in pursuing that. They are two very successful films. Mad Max is an extremely successful film financially-a film I have not seen because I do not like films of violence but apparently a lot of people do because they spend their money on it. Puberty Blues was a low budget, very sensitive film and would fall into that category that we call 'quality'. But those films would not have been so regarded by the Australian Film Commission. While Mr Skrzynski admitted it would have been a mistake not to finance them they would not have fallen into those guidelines. This illustrates that people vary in their standards of judgment. I reiterate: It is not the business of government what the quality of a film is, at least not in the sense the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has used that word. I do not think it is the business of a statutory corporation either but the Government has now made it the business of the Australian Film Commission. We should all be a little nervous when government and government agencies have such power over the content of films. I am not suggesting that the choices that have been made by the Film Commission so far are in any way sinister but I do not think it is a healthy trend in attitudes of government towards the content of artistic endeavour. In recent days there has been some controversy about the net effect that the changes in the taxation concessions will have on the Australian feature film industry. Some have predicted that it will be such a blow to the Australian feature film industry that very few-maybe only three or four-feature films will be financed this financial year. Some have said that it is the death blow to the feature film industry-- Senator Tate —What do you think? Senator MARTIN —I will give an indication later-and that in future investors will be interested in investing only in television series because there is an advance sale to a television channel before the series is made. The Australian Film Commission has entered this controversy and talked up the market a little. There may be good reasons for doing that but even so, without deciding on this date, because I think it is one for the future, I find the claim by Mr Skrzynski a little confusing. Mr Skrzynski, the Chief Executive of the Australian Film Commission, is quoted in the Australian Financial Review of 24 February in an article headed 'No tax ''disaster''-commission head' as follows: He- that is, Mr Skrzynski- named 12 films and two television mini-series which were already under way . . . and then produced a list of another 12 films and four mini-series which were expected to go into production. Of these, he said the Film Commission had been informed that at least five films were definite starters, three of which were being funded under the new tax regime, along with the four mini-series . . . In one sentence it is stated that 12 films are under way and 12 other films are expected to go into production. One would be excused for thinking that the Chief Executive of the Film Commission was indicating that maybe 24 feature films would be funded this year. However, he goes on to say that at least five are definite starters. I am not sure which five of which 12; whether it is five of the 12 that are already under way-in which case one wonders why he says 12 are definite starters-or five out of the 12 which are expected to go into production -- Senator Tate —Three out of one and two out of the other. Senator MARTIN —I repeat for Senator Tate, who has not been listening all the time, that Mr Skrzynski produced a list of 12 films under way and another list of 12 films which were expected to go into production. He said that he had been informed that at least five films were definite starters. I do not know what the difference is between 'expected to go into production' and 'definite starters'. Perhaps Senator Tate knows and can explain it to the Senate. I thought they meant the same thing. Senator Tate —In relation to films? Senator MARTIN —Yes. I am not attempting to predict whether 24 films, five or none will be financed this year. The proof of the pudding will be on 30 June this year when we will know the number of films that have actually started under the new tax regime. Investment in the film industry has traditionally been rather bunched towards the end of the financial year and it will be the figures that emerge at the end of the financial year which will give us the answer. I do not want to talk down investment in the industry but I do not think it is very helpful to talk it up. I have been concerned ever since the changes were announced as is everyone I know who is involved in the film industry, apart from the Minister and the Australian Film Commission. I reiterate what I said at the beginning. This was all so unnecessary. If the Government had only maintained its promise to extend the previous tax concession to two years the film industry would be on the sound basis it believed it was on after May 1983 when it looked forward to a period of stability. Maybe there are people in the film industry who have a fairly healthy scepticism who did not expect the Government actually to increase the tax concession from 150 per cent to 160 per cent as promised, and who did not really expect the Government to allow marketing costs as a tax deduction as promised. However, I know of no one who anticipated the reductions in taxation incentives. I know of no one who expected the Government within three months of changing the rules, flying in the face of a two-year stability promise, to change them yet again and for no good reason. Promises have been broken without even the excuse of saving money, of having to buy one's way out of something. Therefore one must ask the question: Why were the promises broken? There are a number of possible answers. The Minister has given none. I will suggest a couple. One is to take the sinister view which was referred to also by Senator Hamer that this Government is interested in control of the content of Australian films. However, Mr Skrzynski himself has admitted that one cannot objectively measure the viability of a film and that the Australian Film Commission would have made a mistake about two outstandingly successful films. Alternatively, perhaps the Government really is not interested in the film industry. I know the Minister is interested in the film industry. It seems to give a great charge to his adrenalin to go to Los Angeles and make speeches on the film industry. He has done it and good luck to him. I agree with the pride in the Australian film industry that he expressed in his speeches. But the adrenalin of investors in the Australian film industry is not flowing so fast. It may well be that there will not be many future occasions on which the Minister can make such speeches. As I said, the Minister is undoubtedly interested in the film industry; the Government clearly is not. It would have cost very little, if anything, for the Government to keep its promises. Whatever the results for Australian films prove to be, including the effect on thousands of jobs in the industry, the Government will bear the consequences in due course . Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(12.35) —We are debating the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 5) 1983. Details of the proposed amendments contained in this Bill have been very fully, very well and very clearly explained and debated by my colleagues. Rather than again canvass all the details of those amendments I will restrict myself to the retrospective provisions of clause 5 (1 ) of the Bill. This clause proposes to amend section 23F of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, which relates to superannuation funds. It proposes to make those amendments retrospective to 1 July 1977. Section 23F funds, of course, are private superannuation funds set up by employers for employees. The objective of the amendment to section 23F funds contained in the Bill before us is to remove abuses resulting from contrived and artificial schemes. Clearly there have been abuses of the very worst kind. Perhaps there is no better example than the Raymor case, which concerned a superannuation fund which was allegedly set up to provide benefits for employees of the company. In fact the real purpose of that fund was not to provide benefits to the employees for their years of service but was rather a blatant process to artificially provide taxation deductions for the employers at the expense of the employees. And what an expense it was. As the various employees approached retiring age and became eligible for superannuation benefits they were removed from the employers' payroll. By way of various confidence tricks they were persuaded to leave their employers and axiomatically to surrender their rights and entitlements to the fund. It was disgraceful that they should have been denied their benefit. The scheme was set up to be of benefit to the employees, not the employers. The employees were removed from the payroll when the time they could enjoy the benefit of the scheme approached. Those whose jobs were in greatest danger were those who had served the firm longest and presumably were in the older age bracket. They would have found it more difficult to find alternative work. Such conduct by employers can, of course, only be abhorred. It should create outrage within the whole community. However, irrespective of the amendments before us, I would have thought that such schemes and arrangements would not have fallen within the terms of the provisions of section 23F. In fact, I would have thought that probably they would have run the very real risk of falling within the terms of the Crimes Act, particularly when one considers the opinion Brinsden QC, now a judge of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, gave in an earlier case. Surely the new, enlightened interpretation which was cast upon the Income Tax Assessment Act by the High Court of Australia would allow section 260 to be available. I certainly think that part IVA should be available. Section 170 seems to me to be appropriate, as was suggested by Senator Hill. That section provides an opportunity for the Commissioner of Taxation, notwithstanding the fact that assessments have been made, to reopen the case and to issue new assessments. If any one of the provisions I have referred to apply, it would seem totally unnecessary to have legislation of a retrospective nature such as that we have before us at the moment. However, putting that aside, I record the view that I expressed previously: I have grave objection to the principle of retrospectivity. On my reading of this Bill as it relates to section 23F of the Act, not only will it catch employers of the type in the case I referred to but also it will catch many other innocent people. They will face not only a retrospective tax but also a new tax. I am moved to observe that the judge in the Kelly v. Raymor case referred his judgment to the Attorney-General of New South Wales and to the Commissioner of Taxation. I am sure that he did not do that for purely academic reasons. I am sure that he did it because he believed that enforceable provisions might come within the power of either the Commissioner or of the Attorney-General. In regard to retrospectivity, I refer to no less a person than Mr Temby QC, the Government's new Director of Public Prosecutions. In referring to retrospectivity he said: What justification can there be for making a person suffer on account of actions which were legal when performed? He went on to say: 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. Again referring to the principle of retrospectivity, he concluded: All who care about the rule of law should feel outraged by such a proposal. That is what Mr Temby thought about retrospectivity. In regard to catching the innocent, I notice that the Commissioner of Taxation, when responding to the previous Treasurer's suggestion that section 23F schemes be examined, made this observation: Because in revenue terms we have many larger tax avoidance problems in other areas and also because of the need to make certain that no avoidable difficulties are created in genuine superannuation funds I would recommend that you await the comments of the Task Force. So clearly at that time the Commissioner had grave concern that the type of legislation which we now have before us would catch innocent people. As I said, my fundamental objection to the legislation before us is its retrospective nature. It is retrospective, I might add, to 1 July 1977. While many provisions within the total package of the Bill give me grave concern, I would be prepared to support the Bill if clause 5 were deleted from it. In the event that clause 5 is still in the Bill at the time of the third reading, I propose to vote against the whole package. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.42 to 2 p.m. Senator DURACK(Western Australia) —by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That a Joint Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the conduct of the judge referred to in the tapes and transcripts delivered by the Age newspaper to the Attorney-General on 1 February 1984 and in particular the question whether the judge may have been guilty of misbehaviour or may have revealed any incapacity which could amount to sufficient grounds for an address to the Governor-General in Council from both Houses of the Parliament praying for his removal from office pursuant to section 72 (II) of the Constitution. (2) That provisions relating to membership, powers and proceedings of the Committee be contained in a subsequent resolution. (3) That the inquiry commence after the polling day of the New South Wales election. (4) That the foregoing resolution be communicated to the House of Representatives by message. Senator MacGIBBON —I ask the Attorney-General: Was the Minister who ordered the release of Mr Ramon Sala in 1974 and the return of his passport the then Attorney-General, Senator Lionel Murphy? Who made representations to the Minister for Mr Sala's release? Was the current Attorney-General in any way involved in advising the then Attorney-General on the Sala case? If so, in what capacity? Has the Government yet decided whether it will table the Menzies report into the handling of this matter? Will it also table any relevant departmental or Federal or State police files? Senator GARETH EVANS —It will come as no surprise to know that the Attorney- General of the Commonwealth in April-May 1974 was the then Senator Lionel Murphy , now Mr Justice Murphy, and he was the Minister involved in that particular case. Representations were made on behalf of Sala by his solicitors, and that is a matter of record within the Department and is not disputed. As to whether or not I advised on any matter relating to this case, the answer is no. I was at the time a part time consultant to the Attorney-General on racial discrimination and human rights matters, but I certainly had no role in the day to day operation of matters of this kind. As to whether the Government has completed its consideration of whether we will table the Menzies report on this matter, the answer is no. As to whether we are likely to consider tabling or be prepared to table other departmental files on this matter, including police investigation reports, I think the answer is not likely in the case of police reports for familiar reasons that I indicated, amongst other occasions, when I made the tabling statement in relation to this whole matter. As to the details of the departmental files, that is a question which needs to be resolved on the application of freedom of information principles and we will give consideration to that. Senator ROBERT RAY —I refer the Attorney-General to yesterday's bombing of the home of Mr Justice Gee of the Family Court. In view of the obvious implications of this incident for the security of judges of that court, will the Attorney- General indicate what steps the Government proposes to take to review and improve security arrangements? Will the Attorney-General approach the newly- created Electoral Commission and request it to grant silent listings on the electoral rolls to Family Court judges? Senator GARETH EVANS —As I indicated in a Press statement yesterday, I am appalled by the bombing of Mr Justice Gee's home and the injuries sustained by him and his young neighbour, as indeed any Australian would be. It is a great relief to the Government and, I am sure, to this Parliament and to everyone else in the country that neither the judge nor his family nor the young girl next door sustained serious injury. The Family Courts has a very difficult job to do in a jurisdiction where emotions very often run very high indeed. While the great majority of litigants accept the court's role, inevitably there are a few predisposed to violence who will not accept the due process of law. A number of measures have been taken to minimise the risks to judges and to their families, but unfortunately, as we have now discovered, serious incidents do still occur. The judges are well aware of those risks but regard themselves as having a duty to uphold the law in spite of the personal dangers associated with that role. I place on record my own very great respect and admiration for the way in which Mr Justice Gee and his fellow judges of the Family Court, under the leadership of Chief Judge Elizabeth Evatt, perform their vitally important functions in difficult and often dangerous circumstances. I find it regrettable that so many members of the legal profession tend to undervalue the role of the Family Court and Family Court judges in this respect. In recognition of the need for urgent action to be taken to review and improve security measures for Family Court judges, I am glad to be able to announce that I have today approved the calling early next week of a top level meeting of relevant departments and authorities, of which there are a large number with a possible role here, to consider a series of recommendations relating to the security of courts and judges. I give my personal assurance that I will make every effort, including in relation to the matter raised by Senator Ray about ensuring silent numbers for those Family Court Judges who want them and who do not already have them, as indeed most of them do, to ensure that the recommendations flowing from that meeting are implemented as fully and as speedily as possible. I have also approved, and will take steps to arrange, that the security of judges and courts be placed on the agenda of the meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General which occurs in Adelaide the day after tomorrow in order to maximise the co-operation of State Ministers and authorities. A great deal needs to be done to involve the States, particularly the State police forces, in effective security in the family law area. We will be taking every step ensure that, so far as it is humanly possible to achieve, that tragedy does not occur again. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I refer the Attorney-General to his answer yesterday to Senator Hill on the Sala case. Is it a fact that Mr Sala was holding a French passport? If so, why did the Attorney-General assert so definitely yesterday that the only country of destination under deportation would be Spain, a destination unsafe for Mr Sala? If it was thought that the French passport may have been a forgery, was that not even stronger grounds for holding him in detention until that possibility was properly investigated? Senator GARETH EVANS —What I meant to indicate yesterday was that the only appropriate country of destination for a deportee in the event that his passport was withdrawn from him on the ground of suspected forgery or otherwise would have been his country of origin-in this case, Spain. I thought I had made that clear, but if I have not that is the explanation for that. It was the case that questions had been raised as to whether or not the passport was a valid French passport or a forgery. Differences of opinion within the bureaucracy as to what ought to flow from that possibility are evident on the departmental files and are no doubt the reason why this particular matter surfaces again after all these years. Views were certainly held that the passport, given the queries that had been raised about it, should not have been returned. The particular point I was making yesterday, and I make again today, was that a mere suspicion that a passport may be a false one is not enough by itself in this or any other civilised country to keep a person in gaol when there is no other justification for doing so. We are not in the habit, mercifully, of holding people in custody on an open-ended basis while investigations of this kind proceed. The police in this matter had had Mr Sala's passport in their possession not for four or five weeks, as I said yesterday when I was speaking without the benefit of the file and the report in front of me, but for six weeks . The reality of the matter was that had there been grounds for suspicion sufficient to lay a charge there had been ample time for that suspicion to be checked out. It had not reached that stage by the time representations were made for the release of the person. In those circumstances, a decision, which I believe was a perfectly proper decision and which my senior departmental officer has found on investigation to be a perfectly proper decision, was made. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The Attorney-General has said that there were grounds to believe that there might be a forged passport. Therefore, why were steps not taken to check whether the passport was forged? It may not have been necessary to hold the man in gaol while doing that, but it would have been necessary to hold the passport. Senator GARETH EVANS —All that I can say about that is that the files demonstrate that steps had been taken to determine whether it was a forgery. The opinion of the French Consul-General had been obtained, and his view was that it might be. The passport had been sent to Interpol, or inquiries had been made of Interpol. The response did not come back until a considerable number of days after Sala had left the country. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator GARETH EVANS —The point is that the investigation had been proceeding for about six weeks. Despite the jungle-like fashion in which some members of this society, including some of those in this chamber, behave, our society is not a legal jungle such that people can be, or should be or are kept in gaol on an open-ended basis while the suspicions, which may or may not prove accurate, are made the subject of investigation. I indicated yesterday that, following the reaction of the French Consul-General or following the preliminary views that had been received that the passport may have been false, the views of the Foreign Affairs Department were sought as to what would be the international implications so far as the reaction of the country in question, namely France, was concerned, if the passport was returned to the person with a question mark still existing about it. I was able to tell the Senate yesterday, as I repeat today, that the view of the Foreign Affairs Department was that in all the circumstances of the case it would be understood that Australia should take the particular course of action that in fact occurred in this matter. There is no reason for anyone to apologise for anything in respect of what occurred. Senator MAGUIRE —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Special Minister of State. I refer to Press reports this week of a ballot to be conducted by the South Australian Electoral Office involving the counting of votes and the distribution of preferences by means of an electronic computer and to the proposal put to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform that Totalisator Agency Board networks be considered for voting purposes. Will the Commonwealth be monitoring the counting of votes by computer in Adelaide to see whether there is scope for the use of this technology in Commonwealth elections? Has any further work been done by the Commonwealth on the broader and even more important subject of computerised voting since the tabling last year of the Select Committee report? Senator GARETH EVANS —I understand that a computerised machine to read ballot papers is being used for a poll for the State Superannuation Board and that State officials will then make an assessment of its success in South Australia. The Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform examined the whole question of the application of computer technology, and while concluding that computer votes would be possible in Australia, the Committee did not recommend the application of computer technology at this stage. The Committee also said that it believed: . . . that the level of computer education among electors would need to be high to overcome the complications of a computer ballot paper . . . The present system has in its favour a close degree of supervision which might not be possible with computerisation. However, with developing computer-consumer education and the spread of technology, the Committee recommends that the proposal should be kept in mind. That appeared at paragraph 3.44 of the report. In the light of the Committee's comments, the recent amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act do not provide for computerised voting. However, I understand that the Electoral Commission is aware of the South Australian experiment and will be monitoring it closely with a view to the possible application, as Senator Maguire suggests, of that experience to the Federal voting sphere. Senator CHIPP —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to a question that I asked him on 2 December last year concerning the United States of America's decision to proceed with the development of a space-based weapons program. A very early reply was promised by the Minister. Is he aware that no such reply has been presented, three months later? Does this failure to inform the Senate indicate that the Government and its advisers have not yet determined a view on Australia's reaction to this escalation of the nuclear arms race to space? Is the Minister aware that on 6 January President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 119, which allocates up to $27 billion for research and development of space-based weapons? Given Australia's links to the United States military space programs through the United States bases at Pine Gap and Narrungar, has the Government been in consultation with the Reagan Administration as to this new phase in the nuclear arms race? What views have the Government's representatives conveyed to the United States Government? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is in my note here that I at least partially followed up Senator Chipp's original question with a statement at the end of Question Time on 2 December, when I said: The Government is aware that various estimates have been made of the cost of establishing a satellite-based weapons system. It is generally agreed that any such system would be extremely expensive. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) said in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly on 4 October that Australia will seek with all possible vigour an international agreement to ensure that the arms race does not extend to outer space. The contents of confidential consultations with other countries has to remain confidential. Honourable senators may be assured, however, that the Government's views are conveyed whenever appropriate. As to the other points in the honourable senator's question, I reiterate that the Government has stated on many occasions-I presume that this relates to the original question-that it is opposed to an extension of the arms race into outer space. The Minister for Foreign Affairs made this clear on a number of occasions and notably did so again recently at the University of Western Australia on 18 January. I am aware that the United States has investigated the feasibility of employing new and existing technologies for use in a defensive system against ballistic missiles. In addition to the vast expense that would almost certainly be involved, it is also generally agreed that the development of such a system is many years away if, indeed, it could be developed. I am not entirely sure whether that completely picks up all of the matters that Senator Chipp has raised, but I shall look again at the terms of his question and endeavour to give him an answer as soon as possible. Senator CHIPP —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I thank Senator Evans for that partial answer. Flowing out of it, I now ask, in the simplest of terms: Has the Department of Foreign Affairs or its Minister embraced the ultimate insanity of President Reagan of putting nuclear weapons into space? Secondly, what has been the Australian Government's reaction to that ultimate insanity? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not think that, as a government, we are in the business of embracing insanity in any form, no matter by whom it is perpetrated. Senator Chipp —Nor do you denounce it. Senator GARETH EVANS —I will refer Senator Chipp's question to the appropriate Minister to see whether he is in a mood for denunciation. Senator COLEMAN —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology. I refer the Minister to a report in the West Australian of 9 January relating to a wave power discovery by researchers of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Western Australia and in particular to the statements by Dr Allison that: I believe it has the potential to supply electric power to the coastal plain of Western Australia, and: Now it is up to some industrial development company to take it further if they think the idea has potential. Will the Minister advise whether the Australian Government has any special plans not only to support a project which promises large amounts of pollution free renewable energy but also to contain it as a government enterprise? Senator RYAN —The Minister for Science and Technology has not provided me with a brief on this matter; so it is quite possible that his attention has not yet been drawn to the very interesting developments covered in Senator Coleman's question. I shall make sure that the Minister for Science and Technology has his attention drawn to those matters. I am sure that he will pursue them with the vigour and interest that he always attaches to possibilities of new forms of energy for Australia. Senator BOSWELL —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. As members of the Federal judiciary are involved in the judgment of cases affecting State responsibilities, will the Attorney-General take steps to ensure that the Attorneys-General of the States are satisfied that the judge named in the transcripts of the Age tapes has committed no impropriety that could, in their view, prejudice the exercise of his responsibilities affecting the States? Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Boswell's question seems to be premised on the same extraordinary assumptions as permeated the contributions to the debate, if it can be so described, of Mr Lane and Mr Jennings, his State Party colleages. There is no foundation for any such enterprise on the Commonwealth's part, and I do not propose to satisfy the expectations, lurid or otherwise, of Senator Boswell and those who pull the strings whenever he opens his mouth. Senator COATES —I ask the Minister for Veterans' Affairs whether has has seen the letter about the assets test signed by Senator Walters and published recently in various newspapers, including today's issue of the Australian, suggesting Government compensation for ill-advised changes made by a constituent to her financial arrangements. Does Senator Walters have any grounds for her expressed delight at what she describes as the Government's backdown? Does she have any grounds for claiming compensation for her constituent? Senator GIETZELT —A number of points I think should be made regarding the letter written by Senator Walters. The first is that her credentials as an investment adviser are, as most honourable senators would agree, less than compelling. I do not think she has any expertise at all in that area. Secondly and most importantly, if Senator Walters's constituent has a case for compensation it should be against the Opposition, not against the Government. It is the Opposition which has created the delay, the confusion and the concern in implementing a matter that was clearly spelt out in the Budget presented to the Parliament in August 1983. As to the suggestion that the Government has backed down, of course, that is Senator Walters's observation and clearly ignores what the Prime Minister, Senator Grimes and I have said on this matter. Surely the confusion can be traced to dishonesty and opportunism on the part of the Opposition. It does not have any issue on which to fight the Government, so it has been suggesting that many people will be affected as a result of the assets test. Finally, I point out that the Government and expert investment consultants have consistently and repeatedly advised pensioners against investing their exempt assets in order to circumvent the test. The test was designed to encourage pensioners to invest their capital so as to have an adequate return on the funds they are able to invest at market interest rates. Any suggestion, therefore, which Senator Walters has made that there ought to be some examination of her constituent investing in furniture is a travesty of the legislation and has absolutely no bearing upon what should be the rights of pensioners properly to invest their surplus funds. Senator TOWNLEY —I ask the Attorney-General whether he recalls telling the Senate on 29 April 1980, as recorded on page 1924 of Hansard: But the fact remains that the standards we require of our judiciary are higher than might be reasonable to require of anyone else. Does he believe that the actions of the judge referred to in the Age tapes are consistent with such high standards? Senator GARETH EVANS —On the assumption, which is not accepted, that the material is authentic-I premise every remark about these tapes on that basis in case that is overlooked-I accept that the behaviour there revealed is not inconsistent with the standards appropriate to the occupancy of the judiciary. The context in which I made that statement in 1980, as I previously indicated to this Parliament, was the motion I moved in relation to the establishment of a parliamentary committee of inquiry, of the same order as that which I notice has been proposed by Senator Durack in a notice of motion today, to look at aspects of the affairs of the then Chief Justice, Sir Garfield Barwick, relating to his directorship of a private land and investment company called Mundroola Pty Ltd. What was in issue in that affair, as I have said before to this place, was pre- emimently a question of bias in the conduct of judicial office. Questions were squarely raised about conflict of interest in the exercise of the judicial function, a conflict of interest arising from the fact that shares were held in at least three companies-CSR Ltd, Brambles and Ampol-by Sir Garfield Barwick's company, which companies were involved in litigation before the High Court in circumstances where the Chief Justice hearing and determining those cases failed utterly to put on record any disclosure of his interest in the matter or to disqualify himself, both of which are the only appropriate course of behaviour for a judge in those circumstances. Nobody suggests that judges should be entirely isolated from commercial investments, any more than they should be entirely isolated from the rest of the world, socially or otherwise, but there are ground rules and standards of behaviour appropriate for members of the judiciary in the conduct of their judicial office. That, among other things, is what is involved in the concept of misbehaviour under the Constitution. It is that sort of behaviour and, in addition, criminal misconduct of a kind which is inappropriate for continued tenure of judicial office, that justifies parliamentary inquiry, but that is the only sort of thing that justifies parliamentary inquiry. Absolutely nothing in what I said in 1980 is inconsistent in any way with the position that I and the Government have taken on this matter. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. In view of the fact that the Minister is concerned with the effects of bombing and war disabilities, I refer him to the widely reported bomb outrage inflicted on a Family Court judge in Sydney yesterday. I ask whether there are any notable similarities with the bombing of his house in Caringbah which took place 13 years ago, almost to the day. Does the Minister have reason to believe that the perpetrator or perpetrators of this most recent outrage are more likely to be brought to justice than those responsible for the attack on him in 1971? Senator GIETZELT —I think it was Senator Childs who asked me a question in the last session of Parliament about the rather dubious behaviour of a group of people who, whilst not identified, have subsequently been said to have been members of the defence forces. Had they been injured or in any way involved in bomb attacks, rifle fire or any other activity that created injury, of course they would have come within my jurisdiction as serving personnel eligible for pensions and compensation as a result of that sort of violent activity. As to the other part of Senator Childs's question, I think it is something of a coincidence that 13 years ago, almost to the very day, and certainly to the very hour, a bomb was placed on my front step. It consisted of 17 sticks of gelignite , which I understand is a similar amount to that placed on Judge Gee's front steps. The only difference was that his house was demolished and mine was not. One aspect of the incident affecting me I found distasteful. Both Senator Murphy and Senator Anderson from the Government benches sent me messages of sympathy and support about the experience I had on that occasion. The State police, who in my view did a remarkable job of gathering evidence in respect of that matter, subsequently found that the then Liberal Attorney-General in New South Wales, the Hon. Mr McCaw, finally refused to prosecute the persons who the police claimed were responsible for that bomb outrage. One finds it very difficult to understand the double standards about corruption and law and order that seem to emanate from those who want to gain government in New South Wales. When they have the opportunity to do something about crime they refuse to act. Senator CHANEY —I refer the Attorney-General to the fact that widespread publication has been given to the naming in the Queensland Parliament of a judge as the judge referred to in the Age tapes. Does the Attorney-General deny the allegation which has been made in the Queensland Parliament? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have already indicated on numerous occasions that the Government will not release the names of any of the persons supposedly involved in these tapes, nor confirm nor deny any allegations which may be made about the identity of people in State parliaments. It has become very evident indeed in recent days that the Opposition has the material in its possession-or a substantial proportion of it-that was published in the Age. So much was evident from the deafening silence with which the Opposition leadership responded to Senator Chipp's challenge in this chamber a couple of nights ago to respond affirmatively or negatively to the suggestion that the Opposition had this material. So much is also very evident from John Howard's contribution to the radio program PM when he was debating the subject with me last night. If the Opposition is so keen to have the names of the people in question on the public record then it is up to the Opposition to do its own dirty work and put those names on the public record as it knows perfectly well what the names are. I make no concession that the names in question are in any way authentic in the sense of the conversations having occurred. But to the extent that names have been bandied around they are within the knowledge of the Opposition. If members of the Opposition want to go on with the job in this debate, rather than hiding behind the skirts of the thugs-if that is not a mixed metaphor-in State parliaments, then that is a matter for them. I note the rather neat description of the role of the Opposition in this respect in the report by Greg Hywood and Robert MacDonald in the Australian Financial Review this morning when they said: The Opposition appears to be attempting to play a double game of pushing the issue into prominence to help the coalition in the NSW election but staying ' clean'- the inverted commas are very appropriate- by not naming names without evidence of wrongdoing. There is no way in which the Opposition can stay clean as a result of its performance and conduct in this matter. Given the way it has behaved in this matter, whether or not it comes forward with the names in question, there is no way in which it will be able to redeem its reputation in the minds of the great mass of honest and decent Australians who regard as quite contemptible the way in which the Opposition is trying to misuse this issue. Senator REYNOLDS —I refer the Attorney-general to the report on this morning's Australian Broadcasting Corporation news of the views expressed by a Queensland Government back bencher, Mr Jennings, to the effect that the Queensland Parliament should exercise its alleged constitutional right to establish its own inquiry into allegations against a judge named in that Parliament yesterday. What is the Government's response to this proposal for a Queensland parliamentary inquiry? Senator Robert Ray —A man who was thrown out of the Liberal Party in Victoria. Senator GARETH EVANS —No one will be surprised to learn that the constitutional views of Mr Jennings expressed in the Queensland Parliament can only be described as constitutional codswallop. The situation is that an inquiry by State parliaments would be a quite unconstitutional intrusion into Federal affairs. State parliaments do not have any powers or role in relation to Federal judges and their capacity as members of the Federal judiciary any more than they have powers in relation to the conduct of Federal Parliament or, for that matter , the actions of the Federal Executive. Any steps at all in that direction and particularly in the direction of the purported inquiry into the judiciary would, of course, be a grave threat to the independence of the Federal judiciary. The findings of such an inquiry would have no legal standing or force of any kind. It is interesting to note in passing the identity of the persons who are responsible for these suggestions. As I think Senator Robert Ray indicated in an interjection a few moments ago, Mr Jennings was thrown out of the Liberal Party in Victoria for treachery, for betraying the secrets of his own Party room. Mr Lane, the Minister, whose bravery has precipitated his appearance on the front page of the nation's newspapers this morning is, of course, the turncoat, the man who switched parties for the price of a ministry just a few short months ago . It is also worth recalling just how reminiscent the present events in the Queensland Parliament are of that infamous occasion in 1975, just four days before the Federal election in that year, when a special one-day sitting was called of the Queensland Parliament in order to enable Mr Bjelke-Petersen, the then Premier-he is still Premier regrettably-to make outrageous, never substantiated and never subsequently pursued, allegations of serious criminal misconduct against Ministers in the Whitlam Government. Here we go it seems all over again. I conclude by saying that Mr Lane apparently said: 'All that is needed to be a Federal Attorney-General is a seven-inch whitewash brush'. I indicate, as I said in my statement last night, that it would need a darn sight bigger brush than one seven inches wide to whitewash Mr Lane and his colleagues in the Queensland Parliament. The standard equipment of any Minister in the Bjelke-Petersen Government is not so much a brush but a large bucket full of excrement. That Government should be treated with exactly the contempt that it deserves. Senator DURACK —My question, which is directed to the Attorney-General, arises out of answers the Attorney gave earlier today to Senator MacGibbon and Senator Sir John Carrick. I ask: Who was the solicitor who made representations to the then Attorney-General, Senator Murphy, for the return of the passport to Mr Sala ? What views did Interpol express when those representations were received by the Government in regard to returning the passport to Mr Sala? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not know who the individual solicitor was in that case who made the representations but the telegram on the record which seeks the immediate release and deportation-not the return of the passport but the release and deportation-of the person in question, was the Sydney firm of Morgan Ryan and Brock. Of course, the reason why the Age and everybody else has got so excited and why this piece of scuttlebutt has emerged is the naming of Mr Morgan Ryan, whether accurately or not, in various other places around the nation in recent days. The outcome of the Interpol investigation, when that report arrived some days after the person was released, was that the passport was a forgery. The suspicions had proved accurate, as indeed those suspicions were thought possibly likely to prove. There is no question about that. The question, however, in that case is what the situation was at the time that the person in question was in custody without having been the subject of any charge-a charge which could have been laid at any time if there had been a reasonable suspicion. The law is such that such charges can be made. No doubt the circumstances are such that an order for the remand in custody of the person could have been obtained from a court. Apparently the police were not prepared to go so far, on the basis of the information available to them, and in accordance with quite familiar practice of the application of legal principles, the man in question was released from custody in circumstances which I have already explained. I can appreciate the enthusiasm of members of the Opposition, aided and abetted by some encouragement, I notice, from members of the media this morning, to pursue this matter because it appears to them, quite clearly by now, that there is no substance whatever in any of the other allegations that they are pursuing. I can assure them that nor is there any substance whatsoever in this matter. It is pure muck-raking, pure scandalmongering for which there is no objective justification whatsoever. It is about time that a bit of decency crept into the behaviour of members of the Opposition in this place. The PRESIDENT —Before I call Senator Bolkus I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the President's gallery of former Senator O'Byrne, former Senator Bishop and former Senator Cavanagh. On behalf of all honourable senators I wish them all a warm and friendly return to Canberra. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator BOLKUS —Is the Minister for Industry and Commerce aware of a recent report which finds that commercial motor vehicles could be economically produced within Australia under a pre-determined local content plan which would provide a level of 30 per cent protection? Is the Minister in a position to state the Government's response to this report? Questions without Notice Questions without Notice Questions without Notice Questions without Notice Questions without Notice Senator BUTTON —There has been a lot of rumouring that there is a report from the Bureau of Industry Economics on this topic. That is not so. Senator Bolkus at least will recall that in November of last year I set up a Car Industry Council which was representative of the various interests in relation to the car industry to examine a number of questions relating to the industry. In the course of that Council's deliberations a report was commissioned from PA Australia, management consultants, to look into the question of the possible manufacture of light commercial vehicles in Australia and the feasibility of such manufacture. The consultants came down with a report which was dependent on a number of questions. That report was appended to the report of the Car Industry Council which was published on 14 December. The report had a number of qualifications in it. It in fact said that there should be only one manufacturer if light commercial vehicles were manufactured here; that there would have to be re-badging by other planned producers and acceptance by the market of a re-badged series of models; and that there would have to be protection involving quotas to limit imports to 30 per cent of the market and duties ranging from 35 per cent in respect of local assembly, going up to 67 per cent in respect of local manufacture if local manufacture were to take place. Since the Car Industry Council brought down its report, with the report of the management consultants appended to it, that question has been under consideration by the Government in the context of its review of the post- 1984 passenger vehicle policy. I hope that an announcement will be made within the next few weeks on all those matters. Senator JACK EVANS —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware of the latest data presented for publication in the Medical Journal of Australia showing that 21 per cent of 13-year-old girls smoke regularly and that by the age of 15 years this figure climbs to 38 per cent for girls and 32 per cent for boys? Has he read the claim by TV Week to advertisers that young teenagers are prime weekly targets for fashion, cosmetics, skin care, jewellery, perfume and travel? Is he aware that the most advertised product inTV Week is tobacco? What does the Minister intend to do to protect children who may respond to the advertisement in last week's issue of TV Week which invites readers of all ages to write in for two free packets of Camel cigarettes? Senator GRIMES —No, I am not aware of the data to which Senator Jack Evans refers which he says is for publication in the Medical Journal of Australia. To my knowledge it has not appeared there yet. Perhaps he gets an early edition of that august journal; I do not. I certainly am not surprised at the sorts of figures that he quotes. The only thing that surprises me in these figures ever is that young girls smoke more than young boys. I have been assured by many of my colleagues that young girls are smarter than young boys, but in this instance they do not seem to be. This has been a problem. We have all been aware in this place of the fact that more teenagers are smoking, whereas those of us who are getting closer to impending dissolution are giving it up. I give it up every day . We have always been concerned about this increase in smoking, particularly the increase in the rate of smoking by young girls. This matter has caused the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare considerable concern. Senator Evans will know that advertising of tobacco in the print media in this country is subject to a voluntary code that is monitored by the Department of Health. I am one of those people-and I think he is too-who are not very satisfied with the way in which that voluntary code operates. At the moment it is believed by not only the Federal Minister for Health but also State Ministers for Health that there should be a strengthening of that code. The matter is on the agenda for discussion at the next conference of State and Federal Ministers for Health. As for the advertisements in TV Week and the offer for people to send away for a couple of packets of Camel cigarettes, I would suggest, first of all, that that is clearly contrary to the voluntary code in that it makes no distinction between age groups. Nor can it make any distinction between age groups. I suggest that the company that is doing this is quite irresponsible. TV Week, like all journals of that type, relies heavily on tobacco advertising. I believe that the nature of that advertising should be looked at more carefully by the State authorities who in fact license those journals for distribution. I believe , in the end, that the voluntary code is not sufficient. If we are to retain the advertising of cigarettes in the print media, the State and Federal Ministers will have to legislate to ensure that that code is complied with, but that is a matter for discussion between State and Federal authorities. In the meantime, the Department of Health will continue its monitoring role, but I suppose that until it has teeth to take some action insofar as that monitoring is concerned we will have the difficulties Senator Evans has pointed out today. I will refer the question to the Minister for Health to see if there is any further information to be gained. Senator SIBRAA —Is the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women aware of the concern of the Women's International Zionist Organisation that extraneous political issues which emerged during the mid-term World Conference of the United Nations Decade for Women might recur and perhaps mar the 1985 World Conference in Nairobi to mark the end point of the decade? Senator RYAN —I am aware of the concern expressed by the Women's International Zionist Organization on that matter. Indeed, I have heard informally other expressions of concern by women and women's organisations throughout Australia who do wish to see the end of decade conference devoting itself to matters of central concern to women. Our Government certainly wishes to see the important work of the World Conference to mark the end of the United Nations Decade for Women not side-tracked by a focus on political issues which are not central to the important goals of the United Nations Decade for Women and which are more appropriately dealt with in other international forums. Our Government will be making every effort to ensure that such issues do not distract the 1985 conference in Nairobi from its primary task of reviewing achievements in the decade and developing forward-looking strategies for further action by the United Nations and other member states. Australia will continue to work to maintain the consensus which is developed internationally on measures to advance the status of women in all countries. Senator MARTIN —My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security and it refers to the submission from the Queensland Country Women's Association to establish a mobile outback support team in central western Queensland similar to that initiated by that organisation in north western Queensland. In view of the demonstrated importance of this type of project to people in isolated areas, will the Minister undertake to give this submission a high priority? Can the Minister indicate when a decision on the submission will be available? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I can confirm that the Queensland Country Women's Association has applied for a mobile outback support team to be established in central-western Queensland similar to the one which was established at Mount Isa for north-west Queensland in the past. As Senator Martin will know, the sponsorship of the Mount Isa project has recently been changed by me on behalf of the Government because of some difficulties which occurred. These difficulties, I believe, were largely the result of defects in the manner in which the sponsorship contract was established and not necessarily due to any behavioural problems of either the people employed or the organisation employing the group. As a result of that change, the Government offered the Queensland Country Women's Association the opportunity to establish one or more outback support teams. It has chosen to establish such a team in central-western Queensland. Its application at present is with the Department and the Government . I have ascertained today that at the moment discussions are going on between the Department and the Queensland CWA as to the details of the establishment of that group. I certainly hope that the details will be settled in the very near future. I do not think there is any doubt that such a team will be set up and that it will be sponsored by the Queensland CWA. As Senator Martin knows, I have had discussions with the President of the CWA who, for instance, informed me that a local committee will be set up in the area to supervise the conduct of that support team. I hope that, as a result of the discussions that are being held now and as a result of what we have learned in the past, we will be able to grant approval very quickly. The previous mobile outback support team which was established in Mount Isa by the CWA, is now under the sponsorship of the Uniting Church in Australia. After discussions with the CWA and the Uniting Church, it has been decided to change the name of the group in Mount Isa, which is no longer under the sponsorship of the CWA. The Uniting Church is quite happy with that and, as a result, I think we will have a series of mobile outback support team type projects in outback Queensland. They will be able to learn from each other and compare each other's methods. I think it will be of great assistance to the people of the area. Senator McINTOSH —Has the attention of the Minister for Resources and Energy been drawn to a series of letters to newspaper editors from a Mr Jack Beale advocating the damming and diversion inland of northern New South Wales rivers? Is he aware of Mr Beale? Has Mr Beale always advocated the policy that he now advocates? Senator WALSH —Mr Beale could be fairly described as a tireless Press correspondent. He has had dozens of letters published in the last 12 months or so advocating the damming and diversion inland of the coastal flowing northern New South Wales rivers. He has received particularly extensive coverage from that rusty flagship of the Murdoch fleet, the Australian, which has published no fewer than three letters from Mr Beale in the last five or six weeks including, I add, a reply to a letter of mine which was not itself published. I was advised very recently by that newspaper that it is not a good idea to send letters to it by telex because it was suggested to me that the three letters I had sent had all been lost because they were sent by telex-an act of carelessness and an oversight for which I suppose I should apologise. Mr Beale is a former New South Wales State Liberal Party politician. He was at one stage the Minister for Conservation in the Government of Sir Robert Askin. In that capacity he issued on 7 February 1968-this is most pertinent to Senator McIntosh's question-a Press statement headed: 'Coastal Diversions Inland Uneconomic'. In the Press statement, among other things, he stated: The time is opportune to put this matter-- that is, the diversion of coastal flowing rivers- in proper perspective, otherwise agitation for inland diversions might become a barrier to effective water development in this state. The most economic water projects are those already included in the state government's water plan. He also stated: Further, the coastal storage dams to provide the diversion would have little, if any, flood mitigation effect on downstream coastal townships. Those propositions have all been contradicted by Mr Beale's recent statements on this subject. I suppose two conclusions are possible from the reversal of opinion that he has displayed. One is that when he was actually charged with directing public expenditure he was more rational and responsible than he now is . The other, I suppose is, that the years have taken toll of his cerebral capacity. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Is the Government considering recommendations that a tariff be imposed on imported tractors, which will mean a cost of millions of dollars to Australian primary producers? Does the Minister realise that if the Government were to accept a 15 per cent tariff on imported tractors, as it did in the case of imported grain harvesters last year, the cost to primary industry would be about $43m? Will the Minister give an assurance that the Government does not intend to penalise the rural industry by imposing a tariff on imported tractors? Senator BUTTON —I do not recall whether the Industries Assistance Commission is considering the question of a tariff or some other duty on imported tractors. I assure the honourable senator that I am not considering it. I suppose that the answer to the question is that I am not considering, and the Government is not considering, the question of the imposition of a tariff on tractors. I am asked whether I will give an unqualified undertaking that, if the Government ever considers the question of the imposition of a tariff on tractors, no such tariff will be imposed. The answer to that question is no. I say to the honourable senator that we must all do our best to make up our minds about issues on an informed basis. I will try to do that. It may be that the conclusion we will reach in making up our minds on an informed basis is that there should be no such duty on tractors. But until we are in that position, I will not go into the realms of spooky speculation for the gratification of ill-informed members of the National Party in the outback of Queensland. Senator ROBERTSON —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. I refer to the report recently published by the Bureau of Labour Market Research entitled 'Retired, Unemployed or at Risk'. Will the Minister give some indication of whether he is giving consideration to measures to assist the older group of unemployed people? Senator GRIMES —I have read the report by the Bureau of Labour Market Research concerning, largely, the older unemployed. It is certainly a valuable addition to information on the labour market experience of older workers, highlighting developments which have occurred in the last decade or so concerning individuals in this area. In particular, the report looks at the reasons for the decline in the labour force participation of older workers which has occurred over this time. Among the reasons for the decline over the last decade are voluntary early retirement over the period and the increasing numbers of discouraged older workers who have left the work force because of the economic downturn. The report also notes that while unemployment for this group is low compared with young unemployed workers-part of that is due to the discouraged worker effect- the duration of unemployment for older workers is almost twice as long as the average. That is in many cases a tragedy and certainly very unsatisfactory. The findings of the inquiry raise a number of important concerns that must be under consideration by the Government and, I suggest, should be under consideration by everyone in the community. As the report states, the economic recession has played a large part in the declining labour force participation of older people. In many cases, when older workers who have been retrenched find it extremely difficult to find another job, they frequently seek other means of support through not only unemployment benefit but also in some cases invalid pensions and other forms of social security payments. The best way we can overcome this situation is, of course, to increase employment in this area. Nevertheless, consideration must be given to whether the unemployment situation warrants special attention for this group. The sorts of things we could look at would include increasing the unemployment benefit to people in this age group. Certainly the Government is committed to raising the unemployment benefit to close the gap between that benefit and the standard rate of pensions which has dropped considerably since 1978. We made the first steps immediately on coming to government and we continued to take steps in the last Budget in this regard. The difficulty faced by older people when leaving their employment is that they frequently find they are faced with high rents and high fixed costs. The question is whether we should not assist them further through increased public housing and increasing the supplementary assistance available to them. We certainly need to look at easing the work test for unemployed people in this age group whose skills are no longer appropriate or whose strength is no longer capable of enabling them to compete in the work force. Finally, we should all consider whether the trend to early retirement should be encouraged. There are some in the community who argue that we should give more active encouragement to people to retire and that this will in fact give increased job opportunities to younger people. Conversely, there are those who argue that further encouragement to people to retire early would result in a net loss of jobs and commit the Government to substantial additional costs in pensions for the retired which might be of particular concern given the prospective ageing of the population. Obviously this is a difficult issue. It is an issue that governments of all persuasions will have to face. As I have noted, the best thing we can do is to continue the present Government's policies of increasing economic recovery and the number of people in the work force. In view of this the Government will have to continue giving special consideration to this area. I urge the Opposition to give sensible consideration to this area rather than to the nitpicking that has gone on in the past. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yesterday Senator Bolkus asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, a question concerning the Filipino poet, Cirilo Bautista, about whom I gave a preliminary answer. I am now in a position to supplement that answer. The Australian Embassy in Manila has discussed this matter with Mr Cirilo Bautista. Mr Bautista said that as an employee of the Philippines Government until December 1983 he had held an official passport. As he was no longer a government employee at the time of his proposed visit to Australia it was necessary to replace his official passport with an ordinary passport. Mr Bautista said the papers required for him to do this were received from the Government on 1 March. Because the processing of the papers would take a minimum of 10 days he would not have received his passport in time to travel to Adelaide for Writers Week. Mr Bautista said that he had conveyed this information to the organisers of Writers Week. He said that he expected to have a valid travel document within a fortnight. In light of the information available to us at this time the Australian Government will not be making representations to the Philippines Government on this case. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Primmer asked me on 6 March a question without notice about Mrs Carmel Van Dartel. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Mrs Van Dartel made a number of public claims about alleged misuse of the diplomatic bag and alleged security breaches. She preferred not to contact the Department of Foreign Affairs on any of the matters she raised. These matters were, however, brought by the Department to the attention of the police. The claims were investigated by the Department and, as stated to the Senate by me on 28 February , in the absence of specific details, the Department of Foreign Affairs was unable to substantiate them. Senator GIETZELT —I would like to expand on my response to a question from Senator Macklin yesterday regarding the Repatriation Review Tribunal. Senator Macklin, in his question, correctly observed that legal practitioners are barred from appearing as advocates before the various levels of the determining system, and asked whether the First Assistant Secretary, Legal Services, is legally qualified, and whether he has appeared before the Repatriation Review Tribunal. I am advised that he does in fact have a law degree and has appeared before the Tribunal. However, he is not a legal practitioner, and the Tribunal has accepted that he is therefore entitled to appear before it. Moveover, none of the other Commission advocates are legal practitioners and, in fact, most are lay persons with no formal legal qualifications. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —by leave-I wish to make a personal explanation which I think arises naturally out of Question Time yesterday. In answering the questions yesterday from Senator Hill on the Sala case I made an inadvertent slip at one point in my narrative which I take the opportunity now to correct. The correction does not in any way alter the substance of my answer or the conclusions which I expressed. According to the Hansard pinks which I checked this morning, what I said was: The files are noted with the comments of senior departmental officers in the Attorney-General's Department stating that they agreed with the course of action proposed by the Attorney-General. Having now checked the files in question and Mr Menzies' report-which I did not have in front of me at the time I was giving the answer-a more precisely accurate statement would have been as follows: The files are noted with the comments of a senior departmental officer in the Attorney-General's Department stating that another more senior officer agreed with the course of action proposed by the Attorney-General although the first officer did not. There were, as I indicated in my reply-certainly in my reply today-and perhaps a little more clearly in my letter to Mr Steele Hall, a number of disagreements within the bureaucracy at the time as to the way the matter should best have been handled. No doubt, as I said again today, that is why the story has surfaced now as it has. The disagreement within the Attorney-General's Department was not, however, of any particular significance. The more senior officer concerned who agreed with the Minister's decision, was Mr Frank Mahony, then Deputy Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department and one of the best known and most widely respected men in the whole Commonwealth Public Service then, as now. His recollections, when he was interviewed by Mr Menzies, were consistent with the notation of his views-that is, of his agreement at the time. The less senior officer involved who disagreed at the time, Mr A. R. Watson, then a Senior Assistant Secretary in the Department, was also recently interviewed by Mr Menzies. The following quotes from Mr Menzies' report to me record Mr Watson's present views. These are: While the recollections of [the former Minister]- as I said today, the then Senator Murphy- and Mr Watson are not identical, there is no significant inconsistency between them. Mr Watson adds that [the former Minister's] attitude to the case was consistent with that he displayed in a number of other cases, namely a strong concern that a person should not be kept in prison for any longer than was abolutely necessary. The report continued a little further down: Mr Watson's attitude to the decision now in question was that, while he disagreed with it, he recognised that it was within the Attorney-General's discretion and he saw no impropriety in it. I thought it appropriate, given the concern, quite properly, of the Opposition to ensure complete accuracy in these matters, that I correct the record even though, as I repeat, that makes no substantial difference whatsoever to the character of the answer that I gave on this matter yesterday or, indeed, to the character of the answers I gave today. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.08) —I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving forthwith the following motion: That the Senate censures the Attorney-General for his handling of the Age tapes , and in particular his persistent refusal to provide information to the Parliament in order that it might properly perform its role in matters relating to the Judiciary. I have not yet had an indication from the Government, which has only just heard of this motion, as to whether it agrees to the suspension of Standing Orders. I therefore wish to address the question as to why the Opposition believes this motion of censure of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) should be brought on now. I am sure there is absolutely no doubt in anybody's mind that this is a matter of very great importance. It is a matter which has raised very considerable issues. It is a matter which has attracted a great deal of public attention. One of the issues which have been raised goes to the behaviour of someone who is described in the original reports as a senior judge. Subsequently , it has been identified that the person referred to is a senior federal judge. Therefore, the matter is one which goes to an important aspect of the Government 's administration of Australia. The Opposition has made it quite clear in a number of debates that it regards the activities and approach of the Attorney- General as unsatisfactory in a number of respects. The Attorney-General, for his part, has made his attitude clear by the sending off of the tapes debate until after the New South Wales election. He has made it quite clear that he believes that the decisions which he has taken are decisions which he is entitled to substitute for the decisions which are properly those of the Parliament. The Opposition does not regard that as satisfactory and believes that there are important issues of the role of Parliament in this matter and of the rights of Parliament. The Opposition has persisted in its attempts to get informaion from the Attorney-General. It has sought to use Question Time and it has made quite specific requests of the Attorney-General, which have been refused. It has requested from him the transcripts which are the basis on which he has been able to make his judgment. It has sought from him the transcripts which have been the basis on which counsel he has retained have been able to make judgments. Those documents have not been available to us and hence we, the people who have the constitutional responsibility in this matter, are left to rely upon the newspaper reports on which the public is also left to rely. The Opposition does not regard that as satisfactory. It has sought from the Attorney-General the assistance of an aide-memoire which he told us was prepared of two conversations between him and the judge who has been named in the tapes. In a throw-away line the Attorney-General, at the tail end of a debate two days ago, offered to make that aide-memoire available. He made that offer on the run in debate. He said that it was an offer that had previously been made to the Opposition, which he later conceded it had not. He made the offer on the basis that the aide-memoire should be available only on a private basis to those to whom it was given and that it could not be used. Clearly that is a ludicrous situation in which to leave the Senate when one bears in mind that our duty, the duty we are given under the Constitution, is to have the supervision of these matters. To suggest that a number of honourable senators holding whatever office could take this information from the Attorney-General and then agree not to use it if it was relevant to the duties of the Senate is obviously laughable. The Opposition believes that this is becoming a matter of wide public concern. It has become the subject of discussion in another Parliament in Australia. Although attempts have been made to link the Opposition with that-attempts which are not based on fact at all-the fact is that public discussion of these matters has been considerably widened by that event. Senator Chipp —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt Senator Chaney, but the Democrats and the Senate will be called upon at any moment to vote on a very important substantial issue. Neither I nor any member of my Party have been paid the courtesy of being told what we are debating. I was having an interview in my office at the time the matter was raised; I do not know what the terms of Senator Chaney's motion are. Is it stretching the bounds of possibility too much to ask the Opposition to inform at least the Democrats what it is asking the Senate to vote on so that we can understand more intelligently what Senator Chaney is saying. Senator CHANEY —I certainly regret that Senator Chipp was not here when I moved the motion. I am very happy to repeat it. The motion states: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving forthwith a motion that the Senate censures the Attorney-General for his handling of the 'Age' tapes, and in particular his persistent refusal to provide information to the Parliament in order that it might properly perform its role in matters relating to the Judiciary. I was addressing that motion and not the matter of substance. The PRESIDENT —You are speaking now on the reasons for the suspension of Standing Orders. Senator CHANEY —I am speaking to the suspension of Standing Orders and the reason why the Opposition believes this is a matter which should be brought before the Parliament today. This is a matter of major significance. It is a matter which goes to important areas of administration. It is a matter in which the Government and the Attorney-General in particular have had their opportunity to co-operate with the Parliament in the provision of information and in following courses which would enable this matter to be dealt with in another way . The fact is that the Attorney-General has shown himself obdurate in believing that it is his judgment which should be substituted for that of the Senate. I do not believe that this is a matter which we should leave lie. Since honourable senators on this side of the chamber have lost confidence in the Attorney- General in his handling of this matter, I believe it is a matter which properly should be brought on for debate today. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(3.16) —The Opposition seeks to suspend Standing Orders in order to bring forward this censure motion as a matter of some urgency. There are two elements to the censure motion. One is the censure of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans ) for his 'handling' of the Age tapes incident, and the second is his refusal to supply information. I think the two elements have to be distinguished a little one from the other. I make the point at the outset that we are into the seventh day of this session and I think it is true to say that on every day of those seven days the bulk of Question Time has been devoted to questions of a rather tortuous nature-I hope I do not unfairly describe them-seeking to establish, by innuendo largely, various pieces of information which might assist the Opposition or be perceived to assist the Opposition in some way. Not only is that true of Question Time but there have been several matters of public importance on the same issue. Most of yesterday was devoted to discussing such a matter. Nothing new has happened since last night, apart from the Attorney's contribution to Question Time today, which in any way changes the situation and makes it an urgent one which would require this motion to be brought forward. I want to say a couple of things about the first aspect of the censure motion. I think what the Opposition objects to most about the Attorney's handling of the matter is that he has handled it very well. He got very angry; he got very difficult with honourable senators from time to time. All those things are undoubtedly reprehensible when the day of judgment arrives, and that has been very offensive to members of the Opposition, unaccustomed as they are to being over on that side of the chamber. Be that as it may, the Attorney's handling of the matter is not a matter on which the Opposition in those seven days has made any progress whatsoever. On the second aspect, refusal to supply information to the Senate, let me make the point that it was only two nights ago in the Senate that the Opposition moved a motion for the tabling of certain material. When the Australian Democrats moved an amendment to that motion and the Opposition was not satisfied , it got the sulks and went home. The Opposition could have had the aide-memoire the other night. Senator Chaney complained about the aide-memoire a minute ago, but if the Opposition had not got the sulks on Monday night and gone home it could have had the resolution of the Senate to table that document on Monday. It now becomes a matter of urgency that it be done today. All sorts of tests can be applied to the importance of a motion of this kind. I imagine it is important to the Opposition because it is confronted with the growing horror of nothing to think about on this matter. If ever Question Time revealed that fear of a growing horror of nothing to think about, it was Question Time today. The arguments have been put over and over again in this place and the accusation again comes up today that the Attorney seeks to substitute his judgment for the judgment of the Parliament. That is a pretty glib way of dealing with the facts. The Attorney has not done that at all. He has explained to the Senate on numerous occasions the course he has taken in respect of these matters. Maybe he seeks, for reasons which he has advanced, to substitute the judgment of the Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia for the judgment of the Parliament in the circumstances which have been revealed. Senator Lewis —That is not a proper course. Senator BUTTON —Really, Senator Lewis! That is a matter which the honourable senator has sought to establish here over seven days without much success. If we go over the other matters which the Attorney has referred to on the question of impropriety or otherwise, the opinions not only of the Solicitor-General but also of Mr Temby were made available to the Opposition at the earliest possible opportunity. There can be nitpicking about those sorts of things, but what the Opposition is pursuing here is another smokescreen arising from a rather despicably failed Question Time again today. This device should be seen for what it is, but the Government does not oppose the suspension of the Standing Orders. Let's play it again, Fred. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(3.20) —I apologise to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button. I listened to most of what he said, but I did not hear whether the Government is going to support the motion or not. Senator Button —It is. Senator CHIPP —I thank the honourable senator. Of course the Australian Democrats would have supported it anyway. In accordance with practice and tradition, motions of such magnitude are brought on straight away. The few remarks I have to make about the substantive issue which Senator Chaney has raised can wait until the debate itself ensues. I have just had put in my hand the motion Senator Chaney moved for the suspension of Standing Orders, which states in part: The Senate censures the Attorney-General for his handling of the Age tapes- That is one question. The motion goes on to state: . . . and in particular his persistent refusal to provide information to the Parliament in order that it might properly perform its role in matters relating to the Judiciary. I cannot understand that, because the Liberal Party itself voted against the tabling of that information only two days ago. Only two days ago every single member of the Opposition voted with the Australian Labor Party to stop tapes, to stop the aide-memoire and to stop the transcripts-- Senator Lewis —No, you are wrong. Senator Walters —We did not. Senator CHIPP —I will not be deterred by amateurs such as those interjecting. I can make a speech without the assistance of people such as Senator Lewis or the honourable senator from Tasmania. I do not need any help from them, I can assure them. I repeat the fact, which Hansard will support: During the vote on the division every single member of the Opposition-- Senator Lewis —That is not true. Senator CHIPP —How does Senator Lewis know what I say is not true before I say it? He must be clairvoyant. A motion was before the Senate which demanded that certain transcripts, authenticated and genuine, of conversations between the judge and the lawyer should be tabled and that the aide-memoire of conversations between the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and the judge also should be tabled. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. It appears that Senator Chipp is anticipating his debate on the motion itself. There is no dispute from the Government that the motion should be brought on. I understand that there is no dispute from Senator Chipp that the motion should be brought on. I suggest that canvassing the substance of the motion at this stage is not in order and that we should proceed to deal with the substance of the motion itself. Senator Chipp —Mr President, I wish to speak to the point of order. I am not canvassing the substantive portion of the debate. I am questioning as to why the suspension of Standing Orders is necessary at this time when I would have thought that this matter had already been disposed of by the Senate two days ago . To that extent I submit, Mr President, that my remarks are relevant to this motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. The PRESIDENT —Senator Chipp, I rule you in order but I ask you to relate your remarks very much to the reason for the suspension of the Standing Orders. Senator CHIPP —Thank you for your ruling, Mr President. I will certainly abide by it. Before I was interrupted by Senator Chaney I was saying that only two days ago there was a motion voted on by the Senate, which the Democrats amended, demanding that certain transcripts relating to conversations between the judge and a solicitor-provided they were authenticated and genuine-plus an aide- memoire of conversations between the Attorney-General and the judge be tabled. That was the motion upon which the Senate was asked to vote. Every single member of the Opposition voted against that motion. Senator Lewis —That is not true. Senator Jessop —That is not true. Senator CHIPP —I acknowledge that Senator Lewis and Senator Jessop say that that is not true. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Chipp, I ask you to relate your remarks to the reason for the suspension of Standing Orders. Senator CHIPP —Let the readers of Hansard judge the truthfulness of the people who say that that is not true. The relevance is that this particular reason for the suspension of Standing Orders states: . . . in particular his persistent refusal to provide information to the Parliament . . . I find this to be mind-boggling hypocrisy. Notwithstanding that, because it is traditional for these matters to be brought on when a censure motion is in the air, the Democrats reluctantly give their support to the motion. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(3.24) —I wish to make a brief comment. I understand that we will move immediately to the censure motion which will take some time. I regret that, because this afternoon by report to the Senate we were going to give credit to the tenacity and courage of a woman in Queensland who for almost two years has sought to get some recognition for those qualities in seeking out information concerning the manner of her son's death and in seeking some justice . I trust that Mrs Dax and those who support her have been listening to this debate this afternoon. The report would have come down and debate on it would have taken place at about 5 p.m. I believe that members of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts would have given some recognition to this woman's courage over the years. I am certain that Senator Macklin, who has an interest in this matter, would have done so. It is a pity that now Mrs Dax must read of the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee in tomorrow morning's paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion of Censure Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.28) —I move: That the Senate censures the Attorney-General for his handling of the Age tapes , and in particular his persistent refusal to provide information to the Parliament in order that it might properly perform its role in matters relating to the Judiciary. I move that motion after another Question Time during which the Opposition sought information from the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), information which it believes it legitimately requires to do its duty in this matter, and when again it was refused information by the Attorney. I think that the judgments which could be made on the substance of this matter need to be considered, because in all of the argument, all of the political argy-bargy that goes on in this place, it is terribly easy to overlook the substance of what it is we are talking about. I think the substance was raised by Senator Townley in a question he asked today. Senator Townley asked the Attorney-General a question , quoting the Attorney-General in the course of it. Senator Townley said: I ask the Attorney-General whether he recalls telling the Senate on 29 April 1980 as recorded on page 1924 of Hansard: But that fact remains that the standards we require of our judiciary are higher than might be reasonable to require of anyone else. Does he believe that the actions of the judge referred to in the Age tapes are consistent with such high standards? The answer that the Attorney gave was that he thought that the behaviour of the judge as disclosed in the tapes 'was not inconsistent with those standards'. In other words, his view is that what is disclosed in the tapes is consistent with the standards required. The point is that the Attorney-General made it abundantly clear today that in his view what has been disclosed is consistent with the standards which are required of the judiciary. The Opposition does not have access to some material because it has sought it from the Attorney and it has been refused. What the Opposition has is the access which has been granted to the Australian people by a combination of-one can only guess at it-presumably policemen and the Age newspaper. But the Age newspaper first brought these matters to the Commonwealth Government's attention and first brought them to the attention of the Australian people. I remind the Senate of what is said to be the contents of the tapes in so far as they relate to the judge, because that is all we have to go on. Senator Gietzelt —You are just a merchant of smear. Senator CHANEY —This is what apparently the Attorney-General is saying is consistent with the standards required of the judiciary. I quote exactly from what has been reported in the Age because that is the source that I have. It said: A senior judge and a solicitor discussed trying to publicly denigrate a former leading Federal Government figure, who was being considered for a senior public position. The plan has been revealed in secret police tape recordings of telephone conversations between the judge and the solicitor . . . Senator Gietzelt —Tell us about Ellicott's and Sankey's association. Let us talk about Judge Ellicott and Sankey. Senator CHANEY —I note that in all this concern on the other side about smearing , they are quite happy to call out names by way of interjection. The first allegation is that a senior judge and a solicitor had a discussion about trying to publicly denigrate a former leading Federal Government figure who was being considered for a senior public position. That apparently is not inconsistent with the standards that this Attorney-General expects of the judiciary. The Age goes on to say: On one occasion the judge complained that the solicitor 'had done nothing about ' a Sydney suburban alderman and suggested that the alderman frequented 'one of these gay restaurants, where all these homosexuals hang out'. Again that appears to be a matter which, in the view of the Attorney, can either be explained away or is not inconsistent with the standards he expects or requires. It goes on to say: The telephone taps reveal that the judge promised to ask a prominent New South Wales Government figure to help secure a highly paid Public Service job for a man connected with the solicitor. Later the report says: A police summary of the transcripts says that it appears that the solicitor organised women for the judge 'when times permit'. . . . There is more in the report. I merely wish-- Honourable senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! The Leader of the Opposition has moved a very serious motion and I ask that he be heard in silence. Senator CHANEY —I merely wish to point out that that is the information which has been put before the Australian people not by the Opposition but by the Age newspaper on the basis of information which it has and the veracity of which it has made efforts to satisfy itself about. We have had from the Attorney-General an explanation which does not amount in any way to a denial of these matters. At best it could be described as an explanation. With respect to some conversations he says that detail cannot be provided because of legal professional privilege. With respect to others he says that the context throws a different light on the matter. But the important point, and the reason why the Opposition is dissatisfied and believes that the Attorney-General has not done his duty in this matter, is that the Attorney-General has not provided for us the information on which he claims to make that judgement. There is no dispute in this chamber about the fact that it is the duty of this Parliament to deal with these matters. That is accepted by all those who have given an opinion on it. The fact is that the Attorney-General has received this material. He has gone behind the material to some extent. He has had a couple of discussions with the judge concerned. He has not given Parliament the detail of that. He has said: 'On the basis of the additional information I have it is my judgment that there is no misbehaviour within the meaning of the Constitution and, therefore, the information should not be provided to the Parliament as has been requested'. We see a fundamental fallacy in the approach adopted by the Attorney-General. Within the last day he has said in this Parliament: 'I agree that this is a matter for the Parliament and, if it makes a decision, that decision is not justiciable'. In other words, it is not a matter for the courts. It is not a matter for lawyers. It is a matter for this Parliament. He says no more than that perhaps in some marginal case there might be a chance to interfere. I understand that the high point of the Government's claim that this is a matter for the courts would be the view put forward by, I think, Senator Tate that in some cases there may be some power for the courts to interfere. But in general the Attorney has taken the view that this is a matter for the Parliament and that it is not justiciable-it is not for the courts. That is also, I believe, in the ultimate the view that one gets from the opinions which have been proffered by the Attorney-General in support of his position. I quoted yesterday from the opinion of Mr Temby, I think on page 2, where he said that this is a matter for the Parliament. The opinion of Mr Griffith, the Solicitor-General, the second law officer of the Commonwealth, is that this is a matter for the Parliament. The opinion of Professor Lane that I quoted yesterday was that it was a matter for the Parliament. It is everybody's opinion that it is a matter for the Parliament. Yet it is not the Parliament which has been given the material on which to make a judgment but the Attorney- General and his advisers. If that cannot be seen to be a false position, a fictitious position, a position which cannot be sustained, I think we have lost sight of logic in this place. It is no use conceding, on the one hand, that it is the responsibility of this place and of the House of Representatives and, on the other hand, saying: 'I am sorry, the material cannot be made available to you. It has been made available to two lawyers'-no matter how learned the lawyers-'and they say that on their reading of it there is no misbehaviour'. The weakness of that position is borne out by the fact that even those lawyers have not had the benefit of all the information available to the Attorney- General. We are told, for example, that they have not had the advantage of the detail of any conversations that he has had with the judge. But that does not really matter. The simple fact, and the complaint of the Opposition, is that the Attorney-General has adopted a position inconsistent with the Australian Constitution and with the responsibilities vested in this Pariament. We censure the Attorney-General for that and we censure him for his persistent refusal to provide information to the Parliament in order that it might properly perform its role in matters relating to a question about the judiciary. A debating point has been made by Senator Chipp. Senator Chipp is an old campaigner in this place and I have not lost my admiration for his ability to find a quick debating point and to make it well. But two days ago when the Opposition sought by parliamentary motion to get the information it required from the Government we saw an inconsistent performance on the part of the Australian Democrats. Our motion was quite clear. What was sought by the Opposition at that time? The Opposition sought the tapes and the transcripts- those two bodies of material on which others have been called upon to make a judgment. We sought them with one reservation. We said that they should be treated; that the names should be deleted so that privacy could be preserved. We asked for the removal of names. We asked-although not in those terms-for a sort of sanitisation. Honourable senators interjecting- Senator CHANEY —All this baying is for naught. If the information is not to be provided properly, it is the way of these things that the sort of campaign that has developed will occur. The fact is that the Government is having to be dragged screaming to the point where it admits anything. I have very little confidence that the Government would have done anything at all were it not for the publication by the Age of these matters. To go back to the motion, let me stick to the cold, hard facts as they occurred. We moved a motion which asked the Government to produce those tapes and transcripts and that they be sanitised , to use the Attorney-General's expression. We wanted them to be available to us so that we could do the job that the Constitution gives to us. What did the Democrats do? Let us quietly examine and analyse that. Before dinner the Democrats moved an amendment. They moved that a word should be inserted so that the motion related not to the typed material, the transcripts, but solely to the recording. They said that we should get the transcripts plus authenticated recordings. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —And genuine. Senator CHANEY —Authenticated and genuine recordings. That matter was quite clear, because the point was made not only in the Senate chamber but also in discussion. I do not think there is any argument that the original proposition of the Democrats was merely to place some restriction on the tapes, those very important pieces of evidence, because there are a limited number of conversations which can be subject to some aural checking. Senator Chipp —What a terrible thing to do-ask for authentic tapes! Senator CHANEY —Quite. The first point taken by the Democrats was that only that should be made available. We had reservations about that for the simple reason that the Attorney-General, of course, is quick to claim doubts about authenticity whenever he wants to keep something from us. That is an argument which will be very hard to settle, whether we have a parliamentary inquiry or however this matter is dealt with. But when the Democrats came back after dinner they adopted a quite different stance. They adopted a stance which said that all of the material was to be subject to this restriction which originally they tried to impose only on the tapes. Senator Chipp —Because you changed the wording of your motion; now be honest. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask that the Leader of the Opposition be heard in silence. Senator CHANEY —I will not be accused of dishonesty in this matter by Senator Chipp, because the amendment that we had before us was an amendment which was discussed and an amendment was proposed with respect to a particular part of it, and subsequently that amendment was widened by the Democrats. The reason that the Opposition did not accept that was that we believed that the Democrats' amendment provided the Government with a semi-permanent if not a permanent out from ever providing material to the Parliament. We believed that it would leave the Attorney-General and the Government far too much room to manoeuvre, far too much opportunity simply to say: 'We will not provide material because we, the Government, are not satisfied as to its authenticity'. We believe that if there are questions of authenticity to be determined-I accept that there are-those questions need to be considered by the Parliament, too, and not merely by the Attorney-General and his officers. We do not agree that the responsibilities of this Parliament in that respect or in other respects can be lifted off our shoulders and assumed by some all-wise, all-benevolent Attorney-General, and we certainly do not believe that that can be done while Senator Gareth Evans is the Attorney-General. The failure of the attempt that we made last week-it was frustrated by the Government and, indeed, frustrated with the help of the Democrats-to get access to the material which was provided by the Attorney-General to the lawyers he has chosen to advise him, has left us in a situation in which, as a parliament, we have an inability to make the judgments which our duty requires and which the Constitution requires. If the Democrats claim that in some way we were rejecting material on the tapes two days ago, I would suggest to them that that is a simple misreading of history and that they should examine Hansard, in which they will find that the position is as I have outlined. The position as I have outlined would have left us with no guarantee whatever that this Government would ever have produced the information which was sought. I have made the point that these are matters of great seriousness. I would not wish to minimise the fact that they are matters of great difficulty and awkwardness. I do not envy the Attorney-General his having to deal with the matters. I agree that they are difficult and delicate. But perhaps they are not difficult and delicate for everyone. A number of people have been publicly named in this matter. When I switched on AM this morning, I was very struck when I heard one of the people who have been named come out and give a simple and forthright denial. That is a course which is open to anyone. This morning a man who many honourable senators present will say was smeared in the Queensland Parliament last night, and many honourable senators will be very unhappy at his name having been mentioned in that Parliament, came out and said: 'That is a rotten thing and it isn't true'. I believe that that is a very good and straightforward response; because if something is not true, it should be denied. That is not a bad starting point in the defence of this sort of thing. If people believe that they have been wrongly accused, let them deny it. The fascinating thing about what this Attorney-General has done over the last seven days is that he has never made a denial. He has not made the simple denial that would have been possible if that was open to him. The Attorney-General has admitted that when he went to see the judge he did not even ask him, having given him a copy of the tape: 'Is that you on the tape? Is that a conversation that occurred?' I ask the Attorney-General in what capacity he went to see the judge, and I still do not know what the answer is. Did he go as a friend, as a confidante, as an Attorney-General, as a prosecutor or as a policeman? Senator Gareth Evans —As an Attorney-General, you twerp. Senator CHANEY —He went, we are told, 'As an Attorney-General, you twerp'. I acknowledge the interjection, and I reciprocate. Senator Gareth Evans —Sanctimonious twerp. The PRESIDENT —Order! We will keep the debate within the terms of the Standing Orders. Senator CHANEY —I am sorry, Mr President. I have the great difficulty that if I treat matters seriously, the Attorney-General complains, and if I treat them lightly he complains. I have found that there is only one way to please the Attorney-General and that is to praise him. I have no intention of praising him during this debate. Senator Gareth Evans —That would really bury me. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask that the Leader of the Opposition be heard in silence. Senator CHANEY —The simple point I am making is that some advice has been given to us by the Attorney-General on this matter, but what we have not had from him is any suggestion of a denial. At best we have had questions about the authenticity of the tape and explanations. What I heard this morning was a refreshing reminder of the fact that someone who is wronged can take the step and say: 'That was wrong'. That is something that we have yet to see in this place on the serious matters that I am trying to address today. It is true that we have had a series of debates on this matter and that the Opposition's discontent with the behaviour of the Attorney-General has been detailed in part before. I have made it clear that we are concerned that the Attorney-General-and this is moving on to matters of lesser import and more of detail-chose to appoint as the Special Prosecutor in this matter a man with the very heavy task, the very onerous responsibility, of starting the new office of Director of Public Prosecutions. That concern is based partly on workload and partly on the fact that the two duties have a different statutory basis or statutory relationship vis-a-vis the Attorney-General. A matter that has been canvassed here is such that in one area Mr Temby will be subject to the direction of the Attorney-General and in the other he will not. We are concerned about that matter because we believe that in something that is as difficult and important as this, the Special Prosecutor should have no blurring of his independence by the merging of two roles. We are concerned, and we have expressed this concern before, about the short time that was given to Mr Temby to give his opinion on a great bulk of material. It remains a significant point of difference between us and the Attorney-General . The Attorney-General can walk into this chamber, as he did a few months ago, and say: 'I am not relying on advice when I give the Senate this assurance. I am relying on the fact that I have read this material'. We find out later that he has read 700 pages in 20 minutes. These are the sorts of matters which require long and careful consideration. We are concerned about the confusion in the Attorney's role when he saw the judge on two occasions. We are concerned at the Attorney's carelessness or his incompetence, whichever it is, in not seeking an answer to the simple direct question which could satisfy some of the doubts in this case, doubts which, in my view, he seems keen to foster. Why has the judge not been asked: 'Is that your voice on the tape? Is that a conversation which occurred? Is it a full record of a conversation which occurred?' All of these are legitimate matters which go to the concern felt by the Opposition about the behaviour of the Attorney-General in this matter. At times it is difficult to separate out the irritation that the Attorney occasions by his behaviour in this place, which was referred to by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) in responding to the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders, but in this debate I have tried to separate out those personal idiosyncrasies of the Attorney-General, which are no more than annoying, from the complaints of real substance which we have about his performance. I have said before that the Attorney-General stands to be judged in a harsher light than his front bench colleagues. When we talk of the duties of Senator Grimes or of any of the Ministers opposite, we make judgments on them about their political, ministerial and parliamentary duties which allow for a fair amount of latitude. But it is certainly true that the judgments which are made of an Attorney-General are made on a narrower and much more defined basis. They are made on the basis that the Attorney-General has a special, peculiar role in government. He has a role to put aside the partisanship and the defence of his party and his government when there is any suggestion that that might be in conflict with the public duties that he has. I and other senators have quoted over recent weeks the very famous words of Lord Shawcross. I quote them again because I think they go to the heart of the basis of our belief that the Attorney-General is worthy of censure. The Attorney -General is required to act in a way which gives prior regard not to the private interest, not to the party interest but to the public interest. Lord Shawcross said he had a duty- . . . to be wholly detached, wholly independent and to accept the implications of an obligation to protect what he conceives to be the public interest whatever the political results may be. It is in that very heavy duty that we see the Attorney-General having failed and it is for that reason that we have moved this motion of censure. We believe that the Attorney-General has not shown himself fit for the very high office which he holds. The PRESIDENT —Order! Before I call the Attorney-General, I point out that a most serious motion has been moved against him. As I requested silence for the Leader of the Opposition, I also request that the same courtesy be extended to the Attorney-General. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(3.51) —Senator Chaney tells me that I have lost the confidence of the Opposition. I wear that loss of confidence of the Opposition like a badge of honour. It suggests that, for all my notorious faults, I still at least possess some of those characteristics of common decency, respect for human rights, respect for privacy and respect for due process which are so conspicuously now lacking, if indeed they were ever present, in the Opposition and in particular its leadership. Senator Button has referred in his remarks on the procedural motion to the way in which members of the Opposition have been labouring mightily for the last six parliamentary days, trying desperately, although without, of course, dirtying their hands in the process, to build something to help themselves out of the dreadful political bind in which they now find themselves in New South Wales. Now it is the seventh day of their parliamentary labours. It seems that on the seventh day their feverish brains have now rested. Their moral sense has long since rested and their integrity has long since rested. Their integrity has not been evident at all in this parliamentary session. It is very clear from the terms of this motion that their brains, such rationality as they possessed, have rested as well. The reality is that this censure motion not only lacks justification as to its basic substance but also in its formulation makes, as Senator Chipp very effectively said, no sense at all. One of the things for which I am being censured is my persistent refusal to provide information to the Parliament. I am censured for my refusal to provide information to the Parliament when the Opposition itself voted two days ago against the disclosure of information which it wanted. The Opposition, had it chosen to vote that way, could certainly have access to the aides-memoires. Certainly, it could have had access to the tapes and transcripts in question, or at least to so many of them as were authenticated. Certainly, the motion then before the Senate may have been less all-embracing than the one on which the Opposition had set its heart and mind but, equally certainly, there was a great deal of substance in the material referred to in the motion that was before the Parliament. I cannot do better than to put it in the way in which Senator Chipp put it when he referred to the quite grotesque hypocrisy, quite apart from everything else, unless it is sheer stupidity, that is involved in the terminology of this motion and the tactical genius that lies behind it. Let me get down to the handling of this matter. Let me do so for the umpteenth time in this Parliament and repeat for the umpteenth time the points that have to be made to make clear that the Government's response and, I believe, my response have been consistent with the highest standards of government and, in my case, the highest standards which are appropriate to the first law officer of the nation. I readily concede, as I have done on previous occasions, that Senator Chaney is right when he says that higher standards or different standards are applicable to an Attorney-General than are applicable to Ministers generally. One not only has the political role of being a member of the government of the day but, at the same time, one is also responsible for the administration of justice and the maintenance of the integrity of the system of justice in this country. On occasions very difficult conflicts can arise, the most conspicuous example of which is perhaps that involving Mr Ellicott before me. Allegations were made and have been responded to. They have been responded to both in the Executive domain and in this parliamentary forum. In both respects, I believe that that response has been perfectly appropriate. What has occurred at Executive level has been set out in full and elaborate length in my parliamentary statement-26 pages of it. It was one of the longer parliamentary statements, certainly in the lifetime of this Government and, I suspect, any government. It set out in complete detail, with nothing hidden, the sequence of events and series of steps that the Government had taken. The first was the immediate reference of the material to the Australian Federal Police. Secondly, when the preliminary report of the AFP came back that material and the accompanying police report were referred to an independent counsel, Mr Temby, QC , who is peculiarly well qualified by virtue of his background and his status as Director of Public Prosecutions designate to advise the Government on whether any Federal offences had been committed by anyone or pointed to by anyone in the material on the assumption of its authenticity and to advise the Government particularly on the question of whether anything in the material suggested proper grounds for action under section 72 of the Constitution relating to the misbehaviour of a judge. Mr Temby advised accordingly a couple of days later. There has been a lot of sneering about the speed with which he responded to the Government's request. All I can say in that respect is that Mr Temby has not complained about being given that task. Senior barristers are well equipped to absorb a lot of material quickly and to respond quickly to requests of this kind. He was assisted by the Acting Crown Solicitor providing consultation and material assistance where necessary. He was assisted by the presence on the scene of the senior investigating officer from the AFP who was equally available to handle requests for the untangling of the material where there was doubt as to its contents, the indexing of it and so on. It was a prompt response and a very considered response nonetheless. It was a response moreover which, insofar as it made findings as to the proper law on the question of section 72 of the Constitution, was subsequently upheld in every significant respect by the Solicitor-General, who was asked as a further executive step by me shortly after receipt of Mr Temby's opinion to advise in a considered way, taking as much time as he needed, whether Mr Temby had got it right when he identified the criteria which were applicable to a parliamentary procedure for judicial misbehaviour under the Constitution. The other executive step that was taken was the decision to refer the material with the wide-ranging terms of reference-not limited in any way-to Mr Temby in order that he could pursue those aspects of the material which might have given rise to or suggested the commission of Federal offences both as to the circumstances of the taping and as to other possible situations. That task force -a joint task force-has been created. It is working away quite effectively and vigorously at the moment under the independent supervision of Mr Temby, who now wears two statutory hats which are quite compatible with each other-that of Special Prosecutor with particular responsibilities in this matter and now that of Director of Public Prosecutions. That job will be done honestly, competently, vigorously and as soon as it can be done. The other executive action which I took in this matter and about which I have been criticised was to visit the judge after I had received the police report and the first Temby report in order to give the judge the material in question as it affected him and to enable him to make such response to it as he chose to do. To act in this way was to act in accordance with what I believe are the finest principles of due process to enable the other side, as it were, to be heard in circumstances in which, as we all knew, there was every likelihood that the position of the judge would be called into question by those with various motives, high minded or unsavoury as the case may be. He was given an opportunity to be heard in circumstances which were deliberately formal and at arms length in character and which, I assure Senator Chaney, involved me acting as Attorney-General and in no other capacity. Just to complete that, I add that that step was taken, as I have said repeatedly, only after I was satisfied both by the police report and by Mr Temby's opinion, when specifically canvassed or sought from him, that to approach the judge in this way, to give him the material in this way, would not in any way prejudice any possible further criminal investigations which the police might be minded to make or which Mr Temby thought might be necessary. The other Executive action that was taken was, as I have already reported to the Parliament, the reference of certain parts of the material to the Special Prosecutor in Victoria, Mr Robert Redlich, and to Mr Justice Stewart under his continuing residual terms of reference in the Terence Clark matter and possibly also in relation to his present terms of reference relating to Nugan Hand. Further Executive action was taken to ensure that the New South Wales Government and police force were fully apprised of that part of the material which gave rise to possible suggestions of the commission of offences in that jurisdiction and which were otherwise quite outside the Commonwealth's competence. As I have said over and over again, in every single respect the Government has acted promptly-it seems rather too promptly for Senator Durack, whose metabolism operates at a rather slower pace in these matters than the present Government's. It has acted promptly, responsibly, responsively and properly. I do not believe there can be any conceivable foundation for a censure motion based in whole, or even in part, upon the conduct of the Government and myself at an executive level. To suggest otherwise, to argue otherwise, is cant and humbug, I say to Senator Chaney. The question then comes down to the parliamentary performance of the Government and of me in particular. That parliamentary performance is attacked wholly so far as it concerns the issue of the judge and the tapes. There has been complete indifference in the parliamentary forum to the 2,986 conversations which do not involve the judge. There are 11 conversations on the four tapes, only one of which involves the judge directly. All but 10, 11, 12-I still have not had time to count them-of the conversations or summaries of conversations in the written material, and there are just on 3,000 of those, do not involve the judge again. But that has not concerned members of the Opposition in this Parliament. They have concentrated wholly on the position of the judge, no doubt because they believe, for a variety of sordid motives, that there may be something in it politically for them. It is on that basis that I have responded. The nub of the criticism comes down today on my failure to supply the information, not as it concerns everybody else in the Commonwealth who may have been named or in some other way purportedly identified in this material but as it comes down on the judge. We are told by Senator Chaney that the emphasis comes down on the judge because this is a peculiarly parliamentary responsibility to deal with on the question of misbehaviour. That is not a new suggestion. It is one that has been with us since day one and present to my mind since day one, which is why I asked Mr Temby and then subsequently the Solicitor -General to advise on this very question of how the material should be treated, bearing in mind Parliament's responsibility. At the end of the day the answers come down to this, and they are in two parts and have always been in two parts. I have repeated this part of the argument over and over again. I am perfectly prepared to accept, without having it dragged out of me in any way-it does not amount to an admission or concession; it is just a statement of, I believe, legal fact-that this Parliament has the decisive constitutional role in determining whether or not misbehaviour has occurred. I add the caveat, as I always have, that it may be in the case of a quite exceptional and spectacular misuse or abuse of parliamentary power that the judiciary would wish to retain some sort of residual capacity to come in over the top and second-guess the Parliament. That is in the realm of speculation. On the face of it, this sort of question is not justiciable. On the face of it, it is Parliament's responsibility. True, true indeed, but what sort of responsibility does Parliament have? Here the point I have made, and made at the threshold every time I have risen to my feet on this matter, is that Parliament' s responsibility in relation to the judiciary is, and necessarily is, a very narrow one under the terms of the Constitution. It was recognised to be such by the founding fathers and is inherently such, given the language that they employed in the Constitution. The role of the Parliament is very much narrower than is the role of the United Kingdom Parliament when it comes to consideration of judicial misbehaviour. In the United Kingdom the authorities are perfectly clear that the Crown, the government of the day, the political majority of the day, has the power to remove of its own motion, without the necessity for any parliamentary intervention, a judge who has committed a crime that is incompatible with his continued membership of the Bench, or a judge who behaves in some other way improperly in the conduct of his judicial office. The government of the day has that power in Britain without reference to the Parliament. Parliament has a residual power for any other reason to pray for the removal of a judge or, by extension, the censuring, the admonition or, in some other way, the chastising of a judge on a whole variety of grounds that are well established and set out quite extensively in the book by Shetreet, which Senator Durack has recently discovered. It is a discovery it seems that he had not made in 1980, when I made my speech on Sir Garfield Barwick and made extensive reliance on the authority therein contained. In Australia, Parliament's role is, by contrast with the British situation, a very much narrower one. In Australia, there is no basis on which the executive government itself can act alone to remove a judge whom it does not like or for whom it believes there is some ground for removal. That that is so was readily acknowledged by the founding fathers. Indeed, they wrote the Constitution in such a way to ensure that the executive government of the day would not have that power. The reason they did so was because Australia is a Federal system-God help us-and it operates under a written constitution with an inbuilt separation of powers necessary, accordingly, in principle and in practice, to preserve the elements of that written constitutional federal system. As such it would be quite inappropriate for an executive government to be able to ensure the removal of a member of the judiciary for any reasons. So the role is given to the Parliament. The role that is given to the Parliament is the role which in Britain vests in the Government, and it is confined to two basic heads. They can be spread out to three-I think Senator Tate does this every time he speaks on this matter-but I prefer to describe them as two because there are two basic categories. The first is the conduct of judicial office, either positive misbehaviour in the conduct of judicial office involving bias or conflict of interest of the kind that was suggested may have been applicable to Sir Garfield Barwick in 1980-that is what I wanted tested then and I still believe it should have been tested but the government of the day refused to have anything to do with it-or negatively, neglect, default in the conduct of one's office, that being the other side of the coin. That is the first head-misbehaviour directly related to the conduct of one's judicial office . The second head under which persons can be removed for misbehaviour from the Australian judiciary is where there has been the commission, proved under appropriate conditions and circumstances in the parliamentary forum, involving in effect a trial at the Bar of the House, of a criminal offence. Such offence could be, perhaps, forgery, physical assault or something of the kind to which one might be on occasions in this place tempted to resort. I refer to physical assault in this place and not, of course, forgery; I leave that to members of the other House. There are occasions when criminal offences are committed of which proof can be produced which are quite incompatible with continued occupancy of a seat on the Bench. Those two broad categories are the only categories available to the Parliament. For parliament to do anything else than that is for parliament to go beyond its proper constitutional functions. Senator Chaney —But who makes the judgment? Senator GARETH EVANS —That of course is by no means the end of the matter. As Senator Chaney has said, we then have to address the second question: On what basis does Parliament make a decision as to whether those criteria have been satisfied? I am glad that at least the baying has stopped so far as the first part of the argument is concerned, because up until now there has been a great deal of resistance even to accepting that. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I take a point of order. The Opposition has shown a great deal of restraint as far as interjection is concerned, but if the Attorney-General is going to try to interpret silence in the face of some of his asinine suggestions as consent, then I do not believe we can be held to the view that you put to us that we should hear him in silence. I suggest that he can have it one way but not both. The PRESIDENT —Order! I suggest that the Attorney-General should restrain himself. Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr President, with the utmost respect, my restraint I think has been quite spectacular in the circumstances, but I do not canvass your ruling. The second question is: What are the circumstances in which it is appropriate for Parliament to have available to it the information which it might say it needs or thinks it needs in order to determine whether or not indeed there has been misbehaviour in one or other of the two categories I have mentioned? What I am saying to the Parliament and what I have been saying for days on end is not that Parliament cannot call for such information but that Parliament should not call for it. The Parliament should exercise an appropriate self-restraint in circumstances of the kind that already are in issue in this particular case. What is it that makes these circumstances so special and so different? Well, I will tell the Parliament what makes these circumstances so special and so different and I will say it for the umpteenth time. The circumstances are these: The material here is unauthenticated; the material here is, even if it is authentic, illegally obtained; the material here, even if it is authentic and even if it were legally obtained, involves a grotesque invasion of privacy and the material here is of such a character, particularly that part of it which the Opposition is so anxious to have on the public record which obviously does involve-notwithstanding satisfying all those other descriptions-something of an assault on the credibility and stature of the judiciary and individual members of it. It is the case, and it is understandable that the Australian Democrats should be so concerned about this, that the real threshold issue is the doubts and the concerns about the authenticity of this material. We have here, as I have repeated endlessly, something like 3,000 conversations for which there is not even electronic tape backing them up to be capable of being tested. Thus the only test of authenticity is not the nonsensical effort perpetrated by the Age of checking the telephone numbers in the tapes to see if they were in fact the same telephone numbers as the persons named in real life possess; the only way one can check the authenticity of written material of that kind, unaccompanied by electronic tapes backing it up, is by reference to ordinary techniques of police investigation, interviewing the persons concerned, seeking extrinsic evidence from one source or another to back it up. Their evidentiary status is worthless. They would not be admitted as evidence in any court in this land in the form in which those transcripts, that documentary material now stands. As to the tapes themselves, the considerations are different. As I have readily acknowledged there is a prima facie plausibility about voices on a tape. Of course that is so, but, equally, we know enough about the capacity of modern electronic techniques to tamper, to edit, to vary the quality of records to make that a matter of doubt too. I am able to report to the Senate today, not only as I have previously that expert assistance is being sought in this respect, but also that we have had a further interim report which I called for today, the substance of which is that detailed further investigation is necessary. There does appear to be prima facie evidence of editing or tampering in some form. Whether that is significant is something that can be tested only by further electronic means and that will take a considerable time; but that is occurring. The matter is in the hands of an independent expert and we are awaiting his advice. At the end of the day that then is the problem so far as this material is concerned. It is unauthenticated and even if it is, I repeat as I have repeated endlessly, it is illegal, it invades privacy and it is just simply not the kind of material which ought to be put into the public domain without a better provenance than it has. Notwithstanding all of that it is, of course, open to Parliament to insist on the matter of the production of this material. I have not argued that Parliament cannot do it, I have not argued that Parliament lacks the power; I have argued that Parliament should not. The point that I make is that so far Parliament has accepted that argument that the material should not be produced. The Opposition over there, this skerrick, this remnant, have not accepted it, but the Parliament as a whole-the majority of course in the House of Representatives but also the majority in this place-have not accepted that it is appropriate for this matter to be put forward in its present unauthenticated form. Here in this chamber the Government obviously cannot control the numbers. Here in this chamber of the Parliament it is open to the Senate-if it believes in the force of what Senator Chaney has been saying in this motion-to insist on its prerogatives. So far at least the Democrats have taken the view, the decent view , the humane view, the view that does respect due process and privacy, and human rights and values of this kind, that it is inappropriate for these names to be bandied about and this material to be lovingly and lasciviously put on the public record to be poured over by the political lechers on the other side of this chamber. It is important to appreciate the significance of what is being claimed in this particular respect. It is particularly important to appreciate in contrast to that, why the Government will not produce the names and why we will not confirm or deny the names that have been produced elsewhere. It is because to do so in the circumstances of this particular case where this material is of the kind that I have described would be to plunge the position of every public figure in this country and every institution those public figures are a part of onto a very slippery slide, to use one of Senator Chaney's favoured expressions. It is very easy, it is the easiest thing in the world, to make the kinds of allegations that are contained in this material interstices. It is an iron law of human nature that allegations of this kind containing mud will result in some of that mud sticking. Mud particularly sticks and mud particularly stinks in circumstances where the full details are put out with all the gravity and all the seriousness of a parliamentary forum and a parliamentary debate to be, as I said, lovingly and lasciviously poured over by the kinds of people we have on the other side of this chamber. Incidentally, my recollection to meet Senator Chaney's point head on in this respect, is that Mr Ducker this morning-I presume it was Mr Ducker on AM to which Senator Chaney was referring-did not in fact deny outright his own involvement in this matter although certainly he said the material was scurrilous and certainly a denial was a clear inference to be derived from what he said. But the reason, as I recall it, that he did not deny it specifically is exactly the reason that I have refused to identify, to confirm or to deny names and so on in this particular place-because to do so would be to dignify something which is beneath contempt. To respond to these sorts of allegations in the terms in which the allegations are made would be to dignify those allegations with a dignity their character simply does not deserve. This is the very point the Government is making and has been making, that material of this kind of character simply does not deserve that kind of reply. It is on that basis that I defend, and the Government defends, our handling of this particular matter. It is on this basis that I reject outright the censure motion-absurdly worded though it may be-that has been moved today. I believe that I can stand on the record of my involvement in this matter over the month or more that it has been on my plate. I believe, equally, that the Government can stand not only on its performance on this matter but also in the proper respect for the credibility of the parliamentary institution that the Government has displayed at all times. To accede to the demands of some elements within this institution of the minority in this place-clearly not the majority in the House of Representatives obviously nor ever the majority here-would indeed be to reduce this Parliament, not to elevate its stature, to something of a lack of dignity, a lack of concern for human rights, a lack of concern for privacy and a lack of concern for the due process that really would bring this Parliament into the contempt of all decent Australians. I reject this censure motion and I trust that the Parliament will do likewise. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.19) —It is nearly 12 months since the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) was sworn into office shortly after the Hawke Government was elected. Over that period, indeed from his early days in office, he has been riding for a very serious fall. I believe, and the Opposition believes, that the point has been reached where that fall should be emphasised and the Attorney-General should suffer it. Honourable senators should look at some of the other spectacular failures of the Attorney-General over that period of 12 months. Think of the incredible, infamous spy flights over Tasmania perpetrated by him, entirely on his own initiative within a few weeks of assuming office. There are a series of other matters in which he was deeply involved and about which he has offended a great number of people, particularly in relation to David Combe. I have already pointed out the complete contrast of the stance he is now taking and the paramount importance he has given in this matter to privacy-he has placed emphasis again today on the right of privacy-to the way in which he treated David Combe. That other extraordinary event also has paralells in this case. He dealt with David Combe and extracted a statement from him under very considerable pressure of time. Of course, Mr Combe repudiated it. There was also his entirely premature opinion in relation to Mr Young and the decision he made not to prosecute Mr Young even though there may have been breaches of the Crimes Act-a situation which pre-empted the decision of the Royal Commissioner Mr Justice Hope, in that matter. There have been many other matters of that kind . The Opposition has brought this motion of censure forward today because in a sense it represents a culmination of a great many matters in which the Attorney- General has failed in his duty as Attorney-General, failed in administering his office in his executive capacity, and failed in the proper treatment of this Parliament. His attitude to the role, powers and rights of this Parliament and, indeed, his general attitude to the institution itself and those who serve in it , is really the last straw. It was notable that in defending himself against this censure motion today, he assumed a posture and used language in relation to the members of this chamber in the way he has done repeatedly in every debate in which he has taken part as Attorney-General. We heard him in silence today in order to give him the fullest opportunity of being heard on such an important charge. Except for one quite justifiable protest from the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, we endured in silence while the Attorney-General defended himself by accusing us of being a remnant, accusing us of stupidity, cant and humbug. That is the sort of language he used the other day when he accused the Opposition of being tedious, tendentious and sanctimonious. Although this is not the subject of the censure motion, it is an indication of the continual attitude of the Attorney-General to this Senate and to those who serve in it, at least on this side of the chamber. I wonder to what extent those who sit on the other side receive the same treatment in private. The Opposition has complained over the last two weeks, and we complained before that time, about the way in which the Attorney-General has handled this matter. I want to deal with the two limbs of the Opposition's case that it has brought today. The motion covers both the attitude of the Attorney-General to the Parliament and his ability in handling this case. We have discussed these matters on a number of occasions. I do not want to labour them again in any detail today but I think they must be repeated. I have conceded that the Attorney-General treated the tapes seriously and referred them to a police task force for a report, which he obtained within a fortnight. I think the material was received on 1 February and he received the report from the police task force on 13 February. It was very interesting that in the peroration of the Attorney- General today he said that he thought a proper response to the material and the allegations was not to dignify them. But the Attorney-General took them very seriously from the word go. He has certainly continued to take the matter very seriously because, having received the police report, he referred it for opinion to Mr Temby. Having received Mr Temby's opinion, he appointed Mr Temby as Special Prosecutor and set up a joint police task force to look at the whole range of material. That is at work. He also obtained the opinion of the Solicitor-General, although he was rather slow in doing that. So the Attorney- General has treated the matter very seriously. One of the first and major complaints of the Opposition is that he set aside further consideration of the matter. He made it clear in his major statement on the matter on 17 February that, in relation to the further investigation by Mr Temby as Special Prosecutor and by the police task force, no further inquiry would be made or was required in respect of the judge. That is the first and most major criticism that we make of the Attorney's executive handling of this matter. We have also pointed out that he put great pressure on Mr Temby for a speedy opinion and gave him the impossible task of analysing the vast mass of material and providing an opinion within less than 48 hours. Yet he asked the Opposition and the Parliament to accept Mr Temby's opinion. We then have the extraordinary conduct of the Attorney-General when he went, he now says, as Attorney-General, to interview the judge. He did not ask the judge the very pertinent question, as Senator Chaney has pointed out, as to whether the judge admitted that it was his voice on the tape. Yet the Attorney-General has been at great pains throughout this matter to throw the greatest possible doubt on the authenticity of the material. We come now to the time when he had to face this Parliament. When we met for the first time after this problem had been faced by him, he made a statement to the Parliament in some detail and provided us with the opinions of the Solicitor -General and of Mr Temby. In regard to that statement, as I said on a previous occasion, he came into this Parliament wrapped in a cloak of unctuous piety about the rights of privacy, the untouchability of the judiciary and so on. The whole tenor of that statement was to shut up the Parliament and the Opposition. He thought that this matter should be accepted as closed and finished and that the Opposition should have no more to say about it. It has been a great complaint of the Attorney-General ever since that the Opposition has not taken that view. He said that he had answered the questions that I had raised, that that ought to be enough and that that should be the beginning and the end of the Opposition's interest in this matter. From the word go, from the time of that statement, there has been an offensive attitude to Parliament by the Attorney- General. He made it clear, through the whole tenor of his speech, that he wanted to emphasise that there was no authenticity, in his view, about this material. He even went on to say: We simply have no means, and are unlikely in the future to have any means, of being sure that we have a full, untampered with, reliable account of the conversations that appear to have been intercepted. He could not have emphasised more his wish to throw doubt on the matter. However , under the pressure of questioning, he has backed away from that. Indeed, in an interview, I think it was the very next morning, he backed away from that and said that it is almost certainly the case that a great many of the conversations between the parties in question did take place in some form or another. Indeed, in answer to a question-I think it was from Senator Sir John Carrick-about his conversation with the judge in relation to representations that allegedly the judge had made on behalf of somebody to obtain an appointment in New South Wales , Senator Gareth Evans told us that the judge had had some conversation to that effect, that the judge did agree with that. Yet the Attorney-General came into the Senate the next day and said that the judge made no admissions. I do not want to analyse all this material in great detail again. It has been analysed before. However, there is a very serious aspect of the Attorney-General's handling of this matter in that regard. The Attorney-General has refused to table and make available the aide-memoire, he has refused to table the transcripts and today he refused to deny allegations as to the identity of the judge in question. We have the most ludicrous situation that the leading stories in many newspapers of Australia today have identified the judge on the basis of what may have been said in the Queensland Parliament, yet the Attorney-General is not prepared to confirm or deny that matter. He is not only making a fool of himself in adopting that attitude but also placing this chamber in a completely ludicrous position. We are talking about the material that the Age newspaper gave to the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General has that material. On his own admissions there is quite a likelihood of authenticity about many aspects of the material, to the extent that he went to see the judge on two occasions. The Attorney-General admits that the Parliament has the ultimate responsibility for the decisions about the conduct of the judiciary. Yet he persists in refusing to give to the Parliament, to this chamber, the material on which it can make that judgment. The Attorney-General said, in one of his typically smart Alick defences that he adopts, that the Opposition could have had the aide-memoire. The Attorney- General himself-that is what the motion is about-has bitterly fought the tabling of the aide-memoire of his conversation with the judge. I am sure he will continue to do so. The matter the Attorney-General refers to is the Opposition's amendment seeking the tabling of all transcripts, including the transcripts of the tapes that had not been transcribed by the Age when it handed that material to the Attorney, and the aide-memoire. We moved an amendment asking for all that material to be tabled. The Australian Democrats, when they finally made up their minds about the matter, amended the amendment, rendering it in an unrecognisable and useless form, by requiring that the material should be authenticated and genuine material. That made it a completely different amendment. The original amendment was amended. How did the Democrats manage to amend it? The Attorney- General and those in Government supported the Democrats' amendment, thus emasculating the amendment that the Opposition moved. Now, with the aiding and abetting of the Australian Democrats, we have the Attorney-General saying that it was the Opposition's fault that it did not get the aide-memoire. The gravamen of our case is the attitude of the Attorney-General and the opposition he has maintained throughout this affair to giving the information to this chamber and to the Parliament. That leads me to the other limb of the Opposition's censure motion against the Attorney-General; that is, that he will not provide and will bitterly fight at every step of the way the provision of the material to this Parliament on which it could make the judgment which he grudgingly but finally admitted it had the right to make. Anyone who read his statement to this chamber on 28 February, coupled as it was with the Solicitor-General's opinion, could only conclude that the Attorney-General was 'heavying' the Parliament to stop it from dealing with this matter because, he said, the Parliament had no power to deal with this matter. That was the approach of the Attorney-General. He was backed into a corner a day or so ago, but he is now defending himself by saying what is his opinion. His opinion may be backed by that of the Solicitor- General, for what that is worth in view of some of the great omissions from his opinion. The Attorney-General is saying: 'Even though the Parliament has the ultimate power and it is not justiciable, except perhaps in some extreme circumstance, Parliament does not really have the power to determine what is misbehaviour or incapacity. That is very strictly defined. I have defined that with the opinion of the Solicitor-General'. Even accepting that that is the correct view of the matter, which we do not, the Attorney-General is still refusing to give Parliament the material on which it can make a judgment as to whether there has even been misbehaviour in the very narrow terms in which the Attorney-General himself defines it. Taking the argument further, there must be a wider power in Pariament. However, I am not going to debate that again today. We have debated that before. As I said, the gravamen of the charge we make against the Attorney-General is that he has refused to give Parliament the material on which it can make any judgment, even in the narrow sense that the Attorney-General has laid down. The Opposition is seeking today to censure the Attorney-General for all the reasons I have given-for his handling of the matter in most steps of the way in this journey from the time the tapes were handed to him on 1 February this year, because of his inept handling of the matter and, more particularly, because of his own offensive attitude to Parliament and the denial of the rights of Parliament on this most important matter. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(4.40) —The Senate is debating a motion of censure against the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), a most important and dramatic expression, if it were passed, of the chamber's view of the discharge of the responsibilities of that high office held by my colleague Senator Gareth Evans. However, it is quite evident from the fact that only two or three back benchers of the Liberal Party of Australia have sat behind their speakers as they mounted this exercise that honourable senators opposite have well realised that this is just a show, a sham, a political exericse with no substance whatsoever. (Quorum formed) I renew my speech in defence of the Attorney-General in relation to this censure motion which still does not command tremendous allegiance from Opposition back benchers. It is an attack, as I said, of a purely political character and it is not mounted in the good faith which should be underlying any such serious charge against the Attorney-General. As I listened to Senator Chaney, it seemed that he was making two points. First , he claimed that the Attorney had acted in a way inconsistent with the Australian Constitution. Secondly, there was the general charge that he had refused to provide information to this chamber. I intend to deal with both of those matters in sequence. It seems that there are two elements to the charge that the Attorney-General has failed to act in accordance with the Australian Constitution. One might be to assert that in some way the Attorney had not respected the fact that we live in a democracy which is favoured by the presence of responsible government, in which the Ministry and Ministers are responsible and answerable to this chamber. If it could be shown that the Attorney had run away from the need to put his actions in relation to this matter under the scrutiny of this chamber, there might be some cause for saying that he had not respected the role of this Parliament in relation to his role as a Minister responsible to it. However, when we look at the record we find that the Attorney, on the first day on which this Parliament was recalled this year, namely, 28 February, came into this chamber with the fullest statement and record of his activities in relation to the so-called Age tapes affair, so we had from the beginning a placing before Parliament for its scrutiny the activities of the Attorney. That was not dragged out of him as a result of some draconian motion passed in his chamber. He freely put down a very lengthy and very full statement. So right from the beginning there was due recongition by the Attorney of his relationship to the Parliament and to this chamber in particular. When one read that statement one found that the Attorney-it has not been challenged-acted in a timely fashion and with propriety. There was certainly no attempt on the Attorney's part to hinder, frustrate, obstruct or slow down the necessary investigations or the Age tapes. Within days the matter was in the hands of the Australian Federal Police and some days later in the hands of an appropriate eminent lawyer for the obtaining of his opinion. There was no attempt, as I say, to slow down or cover up the investigative processes. The matter was put into the hands of the Australian Federal Police with no attempt to direct them as to any boundaries in their investigations. It was alleged by Senator Durack and Senator Chipp, because they could assume only bad faith on the part of the Attorney-General, that he had somehow ordered the Federal Police merely to look at the provenance, the coming into being, of these transcripts and tapes rather than their substance. That was never the case. It was always the case that they were free and were instructed to investigate not only the coming into being of these transcripts and tapes, but also the substance, if there were any, revealed in a reading of them or a listening to them. It was the same with Mr Temby, Q.C., the designated Director of Public Prosecutions, a former President of the Law Council of Australia. I mention that because it shows he had not only the confidence of the Attorney in appointing him to that high office but also he clearly enjoyed the respect and confidence of his peers who had elected him to the presidency of the Law Council of Australia. There were no constraints, hindrances, restrictions or boundaries drawn for the opinion of Mr Temby. The Attorney was not aware of what Mr Temby might say as a result of his perusal of this material and his understanding of the law. In other words, the Attorney put himself and his Government in some political jeopardy. He did not know what the Director of Public Prosecutions designate, the Special Prosecutor in this instance, would conclude on the basis of his understanding of the law and his perusal of the materials. There was proper fulfilling of Lord Shawcross's injunction which has been quoted to this chamber by Senator Chaney. Without the Hansard I have not been able to note it down, but it is to the effect that the Attorney must discharge his duties of office without fear of political repercussions or consequences . I believe that that has been shown to be the case. The Attorney was not content to rest with the opinion on the law of Mr Temby, Q.C.; he sought an opinion from the Solicitor-General. He sought an opinion without giving the Solicitor-General the materials-in other words, without trying to colour his perception of the law in any way. The Attorney was simply asking what was the relationship of this Parliament to the question of misbehaviour on the part of a federal judge. In that respect the Solicitor-General wrote a learned opinion which, as I read, is well based in the custom and precedents applicable to an understanding of the role of the Parliament in relation to Federal judges in Australia. It is unfortunate for the Opposition-this is why I am so angry and disappointed -that those opinions do not give the Opposition the opportunity to do what it wants to. It wants to act as the English Parliament, the Westminster Parliament, is entitled to do in relation to judges of England and Wales. Honourable senators opposite want to come into this chamber and act as general censors over the conduct, the foibles and the misbehaviour in general of judges. Parliamentarians in England and Wales are able to do this; I do not know about Scotland because it has a different judicial system. It is quite clear that in relation to Australia, as the Attorney has pointed out and as the opinions assert, the framers of the Constitution deliberately denied to this Parliament the ability to undertake that general investigation into the conduct of judges. The Constitution limits the Parliament to praying for the removal of a judge on the ground of proved misbehaviour which must relate to some misuse of judicial office or some other matter which is a breach of general law such as could give rise to a conviction. The chambers of this Parliament are permitted to act in relation to those matters. That is the second point about the relationship of the Attorney to the Parliament. It has been claimed that the Attorney has acted in a way which is inconsistent with the Australian Constitution. If the Attorney had said that this Parliament was not the final arbiter of the meaning and the carrying through of section 72 of the Constitution, he could be guilty of acting inconsistenly with it. In fact he has stated to this chamber, and it is not by way of admission but as part of the proper understanding of the Constitution, that it is indeed the case that this Parliament is ultimately responsible for the interpretation of section 72 and for the carrying into effect of any prayer for the removal of a Federal judge. The responsibility lies fairly and squarely within these four walls. No bench of justices can interfere with the carring out of the role assigned to the Parliament by section 72 of the Constitution. It being the case that that responsibility lies fairly and squarely within these four walls, it is only proper that the Attorney-General should come into this chamber and attempt to aid the Parliament by pointing to a proper understanding of the law. As I have said, he has done that. He has laid on the table of this chamber the opinion of the Solicitor-General, supported as that opinion is by the underlying law used by Mr Temby on his persual and assessment of the material handed to him, it having been handed previously to the Attorney by the editor of the Age. As I have said before, in relation to those opinions the Attorney had no knowledge of the outcome of the perusal and understanding of the law by those two eminent lawyers. Nevertheless, he has put them into this chamber; he has made them available to us. In that, I believe he has discharged his duty as Attorney-General. So in relation to the constitutional propriety of the Attorney's action I believe there can be no question but that he has acted utterly in conformity with it, in the true spirit of an Attorney-General and not as a partisan political figure. We come to the second charge which underlies this censure motion, that is, that the Attorney has somehow failed to provide, has refused, has put up a barrier to the provision of information to this chamber. What is the information that is sought? The real question is this: Is what the Opposition wants placed on the table of the Senate chamber information? Merely puting the label 'information' on a bundle of material, unauthenticated tapes and unauthenticated transcripts, does not make it information. It remains a bundle of material which may convey no information whatsoever. Only yesterday, in reply to a question in the House of Representatives which received, wide publicity, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), very properly I think, told Parliament that the so-called corruption tapes were not authenticated, that transcripts existed which were not backed up by tapes, and that there was no identification of any person involved in taking the tapes. This is the whole crux of the matter. The Opposition is demanding of the Attorney that he place in this chamber quite unauthenticated material. It is to the credit of the Australian Democrats that they recognised that very important distinction and refused to support a motion which would have allowed that unauthenticated material to be placed on the table of the Senate. As I say, merely putting the label 'information' on a bundle of material does not make it information. I believe that the Democrats are to be congratulated for having accepted the force of that argument. When one looks at Mr Temby's opinion one finds this point made time and time again in relation to various assertions, but to give an example from one sentence on page 2 of his opinion, as a prelude to his examination of the whole matter, he says: The first general point to be made is that the material I have seen could not of itself warrant the laying of charges against anybody. Neither the tapes nor the documents are original, and it may be that they have been fabricated. Yet the Opposition is asking us to lay that sort of material in this privileged chamber for public scrutiny, to expose it to the view of Australian society. As Mr Temby says: The first step, if any aspect of the matter is to be taken further, is to establish their authenticity. It is that very necessary first step which the Opposition will not allow to be taken. As I said, it is to the credit of the Democrats that they agree that that first step must be taken before these materials can be said to convey any information whatsoever. In case it be thought that the Government is dwelling too much on Mr Temby's opinion in relation to these matters, I think it is also important to go to the opinion of Miss Mary Gaudron, the Solicitor-General of New South Wales, who gave an opinion on the tapes and documents concerning these alleged telephone conversations between prominent legal and crime figures in New South Wales. Amongst other things, this is what she has to say: In some conversations there are changes in speech patterns and/or speed which are to the untrained ear suggestive of 'editing'. Without full technical assessment it is not possible to exclude the possibility of 'editing' and/or ' patching' of conversations. That is what the Opposition wants us to lay on the table-matters which the Solicitor-General of New South Wales, Miss Mary Gaudron, has said, to her untrained ear are suggestive of editing and where patching and editing of conversations are likely to have taken place. After several paragraphs Miss Gaudron goes on: I have already stated that from a legal perspective the documents are wholly worthless. That was said by the Solicitor-General of New South Wales. She continues: The nature of the matter above quoted would lead me to the view that, in the absence of authentication it would be unwise to assume the accuracy of the various summaries. There we have it. We have tapes which, to the untrained ear, are suggestive of editing and patching, running at different speeds. We have transcripts which are not backed up by any electronic tapes but which are merely pieces of paper which are totally unauthenticated, and which to be authenticated would require the usual police investigative techniques of interview and the taking of statements. That certainly has not been done to this point. The key point is that on the basis of Mr Temby's and Miss Mary Gaudron's review of these documents and these tapes, if these tapes and transcripts were made available to the chamber-a wholly privileged situation-they would not add to the information available to it. A moment ago I took the opportunity to look up the meaning of 'information' in the Oxford English Dictionary. Amongst other definitions, it states: the action of informing . . . communication of the knowledge or 'news' of some fact or other occurrence; the action of telling or fact of being told of something. As another possibility for the meaning of the word 'information' it states: Knowledge communicated concerning some particular fact, subject or event. The fact is that if there is no authentication of these tapes or transcripts there is no possibility of conveying knowledge of any fact, event or occurrence. The tapes are possibly edited and patched. The transcripts are unauthenticated and they do not cross-reference with any of the tapes available. Nothing in this bundle of material would allow one to say that there is a communication of some knowledge of fact, occurrence or event. They are merely assertions. We are dealing with an area of mere possibilities. No assertion is possible that any conversation allegedly transcribed did in fact occur-that is incontestable-or that if any of the conversations occurred they occurred in the sequence or in the fullest manner of transcription. They could be just partial transcriptions, or the sequence of chronological order could be completely turned around. More importantly, even if one could say that those conversations occurred, there is nothing to say that any fact or event alleged to have occurred did, in fact, occur. These conversations could be based just on a completely false understanding or a malicious putting of matters that may or may not have occurred in the past and that may or may not occur in the future. Nothing in these transcripts allows one to say that conversations allegedly recorded took place or that, if they did take place, they convey any true knowledge of any particular facts or events. In other words, to put it simply, these tapes or transcripts would not be admissible in any court in Australia. Why not? Because they are not of sufficient certainty to allow, as a matter of natural justice, a judge or a jury to be influenced by exposure to them. They would not even get to first base. They would not be admissible, let alone put in the balance and weighed up or have their character assessed. If the Opposition ever achieved the objective it appears to have of transforming this chamber from a legislative chamber to a judicial chamber, surely it should apply to itself the same constraints we have always applied in judicial proceedings under the traditions of the common law and should ask itself whether it should expose its judgment to material which would not be admissible in a court of law. If this material could not get into the meanest, remotest magistrate's court in the smallest town in Australia because it might wrongly influence a magistrate or a jury, it would be quite improper to bring it into this chamber when we are talking about the holders of high judicial office with perhaps dismissal from that office and the loss of livelihood of a person. It is a well known principle of natural justice that where the livelihood, status or employment of a person is at stake, of course one could not act on anything less than admissible evidence. Natural justice demands it. No course should be embarked upon which is not based upon admissible and authenticated evidence. That is not the case here. The fact is that the Attorney-General has acted in a way which is wholly in accord with the Constitution of Australia and with the proper relation of his office to the Parliament as created by our Constitution. What is more, he has acted in a way which is wholly consistent with, explicable by and in harmony with the principles of natural justice. These are principles which commend themselves to the untutored mind of any decent, reasonable person. They are principles which have commended themselves to the common law as a proper basis for commencing any activity which may lead to the possibly dire consequences of that which the Opposition has embarked upon over the last several days. For these reasons and because the Attorney-General has acted wholly in accordance with the Constitution and with the principles of natural justice, I believe he deserves the support of this chamber and that the motion of censure should be repudiated. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(5.02) —The Senate is debating the following motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney): That the Senate censures the Attorney-General for his handling of the Age tapes and in particular his persistent refusal to provide information to the Parliament in order that it might properly perform its role in matters relating to the Judiciary. If this motion is passed by the Senate it does not, as I understand it, by tradition mean the automatic resignation of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). But I submit that if an Attorney-General is censured by the House in which he sits his position would be made intolerable, if not untenable. I am amazed by some of the wording of this Opposition motion which, of course, the Australian Democrats cannot and will not support, particularly the following words: . . . in particular his persistent refusal to provide information to the Parliament . . . relating to the Judiciary. As I mentioned before, only two days ago 25 members of the Opposition-I will name them if someone interjects on me again-voted with the Australian Labor Party against the motion which would have resulted in the provision of information concerning the judiciary, including an aide-memoire of conversations between the Attorney-General and the judge concerned. This was initiated two days ago by the Opposition which demanded that there be tabled certain transcripts of tapes concerning conversations between the judge and the solicitor involved, plus the aide-memoire to which I have referred. Senator Haines then did an outrageous thing, according to the Liberal Party. Senator Haines, my associate Democrat from South Australia, moved an amendment to the Liberal motion and said: The Democrats will go along with that provided the material is 'transcripts or parts of transcripts of authenticated and genuine tapes'. That was her amendment. Senator McIntosh —That is all you wanted. Senator CHIPP —That is all we wanted-to make sure that the transcripts came from authenticated or genuine tapes. Because we moved that, 25 members of the Liberal Party voted against it. That was of no use to them. It was of no use to have genuine material brought before the Senate. Senator Haines —Or even the aide-memoire. Senator CHIPP —Or even the aide-memoire apparently. Yet today the Opposition has moved this outrageous censure motion because the Attorney will not provide information to the Parliament. I find it incomprehensible. When I spoke on the motion to suspend Standing Orders I said that every member of the Opposition then present voted against it. I now find that I have to apologise to Senators Jessop and Lewis because they do not figure on the list in the Journals of the Senate. They have reminded me of that. If I do not misrepresent them, I understand that Senator Lewis did not vote because he did not believe in the hypocritical stance which the Opposition and the Liberal Party were taking at that time. As I understand him, he deliberately absented himself. One must read into the non-acceptance of Senator Haines's amendment, which was to the effect that she and the Democrats wanted transcripts only of genuine and authenticated tapes, that the Liberal Party was interested only in material from unauthenticated or non-genuine tapes. That logic cannot be argued against. I have said before-we seem to be saying it every day because the matter is before us every day-that whilst we have some criticism of the way in which the Attorney-General has handled this matter, we have no great concern in principle over his behaviour. He has expeditiously sought and gained legal opinions concerning the position of the judge. We might not agree with those opinions. I thank members of the Liberal Party such as Senator Missen and Senator Durack, both of whom I respect as lawyers, who have cast doubts on the strength of those legal opinions. I have some doubts about them myself. But at least the Attorney gained those legal opinions expeditiously. He established and referred appropriate matters to a joint police task force. We are now awaiting its report . He also expeditiously referred other matters to the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking, to Special Prosecutor Redlich and to Director of Public Prosecutions designate Temby. With respect to the tapes the Attorney took overt and positive action on five different fronts. However, as I have said twice before in this place, we have some areas of criticism. When the Age tapes affair blew the Attorney appeared to be more concerned with the possible offences connected with the obtaining of the tapes than with the probable offences disclosed in their contents. He criticised me for criticising him about that. In his statement of 28 February he still seemed to be preoccupied with the people who taped the conversations and transcribed them rather than with the alleged offences that the tapes and transcripts indicated had taken place, because he then said: Although the most obvious grounds for investigation by the Special Prosecutor clearly concern the circumstances of the interceptions, there are several other possible offences under Commonwealth law that may have been committed and which will require further investigations. Even at that stage, on 28 February, the Attorney had seen that priority number one was to catch the scoundrels who had been brave enough to tap and to transcribe alleged skulduggery by people in high places. My criticism of the Attorney remains on that score. Admittedly, the Attorney did not go as far as Mr Wran, who tried to dispose of the matter simply as a conspiracy of smear and sneer. He suggested that because the tapes were not made by his own criminal investigation unit they were false. That was a quite extraordinary conclusion by Mr Wran, and one which fooled no one. As it is, it took consistent prodding, mainly from the Age, to induce the Attorney-General to take the actions that he has taken, for which I have already commended him. I have already indicated my concern about the form of the investigation that the Attorney has initiated, and about its focus-namely, criminal prosecution, which may well preclude the investigation from ranging as far and as wide as a more general brief might have permitted. The Democrats wanted this whole question referred to the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union from the outset, or a like commission. Senator Peter Baume —That is an arm's length commission. Senator CHIPP —An arm's length commission, yes. But that is not the only point. The other important point is that Mr Costigan does not have as his final criterion only criminal prosecution. As I understand it, Mr Temby, unless he can see the light at the end of the tunnel being criminal prosecution, must stop going down that trail and follow another one. Mr Costigan has no such inhibitions in the way in which he investigates matters put before him. On a matter such as this, the Democrats would have by far preferred the wider brief of Mr Costigan. Therefore, we are critical to that extent. I come again to the Opposition's stand on this matter in wanting material from unauthenticated and ungenuine tapes produced at large before this Parliament. I invite honourable senators to contemplate the number of legal tape recordings made in Australia by people such as the Australian Federal Police; not illegal recordings such as those about which we are talking. I think that even the Opposition concedes that they are illegal. I do not hold the view that the person or persons who taped these conversations did wrong. It was illegal. I tend to the view, a personal view, that they could well have been made by honest men or women who had had such a gutful of corruption in the New South Wales Police Force that they were impelled to this action. That is my personal view of the motivation of the people who did this. Senator Chaney —I think that that is right. Senator Sir John Carrick —Therefore, the tapes should be taken seriously. Senator CHIPP —Indeed they should. Senator Chaney —That is the very theory that I put yesterday. I agree with you. Senator CHIPP —Senator Chaney has no argument from me on that. He never had one from the start. They are illegal. However, I suggest that Senator Chaney contemplate the number of legal tapes in existence which have not been able to be meddled with or doctored, namely, those tapes undertaken by the Australian Federal Police, particularly its drug investigation unit, on a legal judicial warrant. There are thousands of them. Those sorts of tapes would make fascinating listening-legal, accurate and undoctored, and the transcripts totally vouchable for, if that is a correct term. I would be prepared to bet that most of the names of the well known members of this Federal Parliament occur in those tapes. Remember that these tapes would have been taken of conversations on a telephone by one criminal to another criminal or by two persons contemplating a criminal act, otherwise the Australian Federal Police would not have got the warrants; so, these are conversations between villains, between crooks. One of the quirks of the criminal mind of a crook is to say that he has a well known politician in his pocket. I have no doubt that on those tapes my name, the names of well known members of the Government and of the Opposition occur, by some villain saying: 'Oh So-and-so, he's right. He's been on the take for years, and we've got him'. It is a well known weakness in which villains indulge when communicating with each other. What would be the Opposition's view if I moved an amendment to the Opposition's motion to the effect that all transcripts of all tapes of the Australian Federal Police concerning drug activity in which leading members of the Government, the Opposition or the Democrats were mentioned should be tabled in the Senate? I wonder what the Opposition's attitude would be? There would be total and utter outrage. Opposition members would say: 'How dare you impugn the good character of people simply because some crook mentions the name of Don Chipp, or whoever, in a conversation. How dare you drag through Don Chipp's name and blacken it in this way'. I remind the Senate that this would be about genuine authenticated tapes-which was the very thing that Senator Haines and the Democrats wanted and to which we would have agreed the other day but against which the Opposition voted. I have a high regard for Senator Chaney. Today I could not believe my ears when he asked what was wrong with the situation that happened on the AM broadcast this morning when a certain person who had been named in the Queensland Parliament-by two ex-Liberals, one of whom had been expelled from the Liberal Party for treachery for leaking party room secrets, and another member who had done a secret deal with Joh Bjelke-Petersen before the election-- Senator Peter Baume —You have to watch ex-Liberals, haven't you? Senator CHIPP —Listeners ought to have the benefit of Senator Peter Baume's interjection, Mr Deputy President, with your permission. He said: 'You have to watch ex-Liberals, haven't you?'. I concede the wit behind his interjection. That is all that I concede. Senator Sir John Carrick —He is not a chip off the old block. Senator CHIPP —No, indeed not. But here we have a person named in the Queensland Parliament by two nefarious ex-Liberals. Senator Chaney says: 'Okay; he was named under parliamentary privilege. But that man who was named was able, on AM this morning, the distinguished program broadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, to say: ''It is a lot of rot. It is not true''. So everything is fixed.' I could not believe my ears. I could not believe that a person as experienced in politics, public life and the law as Senator Chaney is would say that that exercise was all right. Yet I have not heard subsequent speakers from the Liberal benches go against that. In this public life there is no question but that if mud is thrown, some of it sticks, no matter how unjustified that is. I have had some copies of these transcripts for several months. I have made that fact public. The person who originally had the tapes gave the transcripts to me, among others, apparently for his own protection. He then immediately announced to the criminal world that he had done that, for which I have never thanked him since. But that was the motivation of Mr Bob Bottom in handing the transcripts to me and to some others. For many of these transcripts there is no partner tape-there is simply a transcript; a piece of paper, as Senator Tate said-but they contain the name of a national identity, much loved, much respected, who is allegedly in a business in Sydney. A person associated with the freehold of that business is the most notorious crime figure in Australia. I am totally persuaded that this much loved national personality who has a business there has not the slightest idea that those premises are owned by the notorious creature who owns them. But if we were to let the tapes lie on the table of the Senate that would necessarily be the subject of a page one headline in every newspaper tomorrow and that highly respectable, incredibly decent human being who is a national figure would be associated with a crime figure. That is where the danger lies in this issue. Lastly, the timing of this debate leaves a lot to be desired. Senator Durack has given notice that on the next day of sitting he will move that a joint select committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon, among other things, whether the judge has been guilty of misbehaviour and whether he has revealed any incapacity. I must say that the Australian Democrats are attracted to the general concept of that proposition. That is a different proposition from laying on the table of the Senate for the whole of the world to see tapes or transcripts incriminating innocent people-guilt by association. I say at this stage that the wording of Senator Durack's notice of motion leaves a lot to be desired. It states: That a Joint Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the conduct of the judge referred to in the tapes . . . What sort of conduct does he mean? Is it the judge's conduct at a local cricket match or his conduct from the time he was born until now? The notice does not say where or when. I give notice to the Opposition that if it is seeking any sort of support from the Democrats on this question-it will need that support for the motion to have any chance of being passed by the Senate-there would need to be much more consultation with us than there has been over this matter so far . The words in this notice of motion are too preposterous to contemplate, but let it be known that we are attracted to the idea of having a joint select committee or perhaps even a select committee of the Senate look at the conduct of the judge in question on the evidence in a sober, proper, dignified way. I say that we are not unattracted by the concept. It is worthy of consideration. I go no further than that. Paragraph 3 of the notice of motion states: That the inquiry commence after the polling day of the New South Wales election . I thought: 'At last the Liberal Party has become responsible and, rather than demeaning this important issue to win a few votes at the New South Wales election-- Senator Mason —Or lose a few. Senator CHIPP —Or lose a few. I thank Senator Mason for his interjection. I ask expert tacticians such as Senator Sir John Carrick, who has been in the business for a long time and is one of the best political brains in New South Wales, to contemplate the behaviour of the Liberal Party over the last few weeks and the plummeting in the support for that fine man, Nick Greiner, for whom I have undoubted admiration, and the summiting in popularity of that other man, Neville Wran, whom I hold in contempt. I wonder whether there is a lesson to be learned about politicking and demeaning this sort of issue. I would have thought that there were bigger issues at stake than simply the New South Wales election. I commended the Liberal Party when I saw this notice of motion. I thought that at last it was not going to dirty this very important vital issue about a senior judge in order to win or lose a few votes in the New South Wales election. But without notice, without warning, whilst the Opposition had indicated its intention to submit a matter of public importance about deficits, I think, Senator Chaney moved this censure motion. I think honourable senators opposite have only themselves to blame if the currency of this debate, which is a highly important matter, is debased by these tactics. With those remarks, I formally state that the Democrats will not support the Opposition in its motion of censure of the Attorney-General. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.24) —The post of Attorney-General, the first law officer, carries with it special responsibilities to the office and to the members of the pubic whom he represents. These responsibilities are quite separate and are over and above the duties which the Attorney has to the Government of which he is a part. I remember that when my friend Robert Ellicott , as Attorney-General, felt that there was a conflict between his role as Attorney-General and his role as a member of the Government, a political role, he had no hesitation in resigning from the post. He did that as a matter of principle. But this Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), the man who is the subject of this censure motion, does not in our view show the same concern for the primacy of his role as first law officer and the protector of the public good. It is a serious matter to move a motion of censure and we regard the course we have embarked upon today as a serious one. It is a heavy matter. I believe this is the first time since the election a year ago that we in Opposition have moved such a motion. I am supporting this motion as a member of the Opposition but also as a New South Welshman. I am supporting it also in the context of the election campaign under way in which the Labor Premier of New South Wales has invited the people of my State to make a judgment on him and his Government on the basis of their understanding of certain material contained in the allegations which come from what are now known as the Age tapes. It is a matter of importance to my State, to the people among whom I live and to the Senate. Above all, the Attorney-General has brought this censure motion entirely upon himself. It relates directly to his handling of very serious allegations against a number of persons including a member of the judiciary. These allegations go to affairs in New South Wales and to people's confidence in the maintenance of law in Australia. Senator Gareth Evans once again has put into doubt his position as Attorney-General, as a person fit to be a senior Minister in the Government. He has once again cast doubts over the office of Attorney-General by the way in which he has handled this matter. He has repeated the errors which he made in relation to the Combe case and he has repeated some of the errors in relation to the spy flights. Once again we have seen an attempt to reveal as little information as possible, to cover up what could be covered up, to release information only when he had to and to make subjective judgments away from the public view whenever any political sensitivity is involved. Quite clearly, the first task of the Attorney-General in dealing with these tapes and the allegations should have been to distance himself completely from the investigations, to remain aloof so that in due course he could exercise the judgments which are his as Attorney-General, free from any kind of criticism that he had involved himself in the process in a way which could make people uneasy or give rise to criticism. He should have established an objective inquiry as publicly as possible. It is incredible, and at the very least inconsistent, that Senator Evans did not proceed in this way. I remind honourable senators that the allegations contained in these tapes could not be more serious. It is alleged that public servants in my State were buying jobs, that trials and prosecutions in New South Wales were fixed not once but quite regularly. It is alleged that sexual favours were bought for senior judges and there were allegations of links between politicians, the judiciary and senior crime figures. Senator Gietzelt —They are only allegations. Senator PETER BAUME —Here we have Senator Gietzelt interjecting. I wonder why he is so sensitive. It is alleged that a solicitor was involved with a person who is widely considered in my State to be not of good repute. As a result of these allegations the Age newspaper has said in as careful a way as it could that an evil web had been revealed and had to be unravelled. It stated that the matters were too important to be set aside or dealt with in any way lightly. We had the same newspaper saying in its editorial on another day that the crime links were too grave to ignore. It set out the reasons why these allegations, based on tapes and transcripts which it believed to be genuine, should be acted on most seriously. Clearly, the Government considered the tape allegations to be serious. It thought them to be serious enough to seek the advice of Mr Ian Temby, QC. It thought them serious enough to seek the advice of the Solicitor-General. It thought them serious enough for the Attorney-General, himself, very unwisely, to visit the judge to converse with him on the matters that were raised. The Attorney has asked us as an Opposition to accept his assurances that the steps he took and the opinions he obtained were conclusive and should have been good enough. We do not accept it. It is interesting to note also that the Attorney-General seems to have set aside for some special kind of treatment the matters raised in the tapes relating to the senior judicial figure. We know that names have appeared in newspapers. The front page of every newspaper across the nation today carried names. A judge has been named. But the Government has still refused, in spite of that, to confirm or deny whether those names are correct or incorrect. In response to questions asked today it has refused to take the opportunity to clear either the name of the judge who was named or the names of all the other judges. The senior judges in Australia are hopping mad about this affair. The Government had a chance today to make it clear that they were not the people who were being named. The Attorney-General could have done that but he declined to identify the judge who was involved. He refused to identify the judge so that the other judges who were so concerned could say to people: 'It is not us. The newspapers are correct'. I do not wish to follow up the question of the person being named. On the issue of serious allegations against a prominent member of the judiciary, Senator Gareth Evans, with advice from Mr Temby, took it upon himself to be both judge and jury. Really, that is just not good enough. It is not just a legal matter. I say to all the lawyers in this Parliament who have argued the law: We have listened with interest, but there are other ramifications. This is a political matter in New South Wales. The people have to go to the polls for an absurdly early election in about two and a half weeks, called-- Senator Robert Ray —Mr Deputy President, I take a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 419. The Opposition speaker is digressing to other matters. He has not shown any relevance to the matter under discussion. The matter under discussion is the censure of the Attorney-General. It has nothing to do with the New South Wales State election. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! At the moment Senator Baume is relevant. He cannot develop too much the New South Wales State election. He must concentrate on the censure motion. Senator PETER BAUME —I do not wish to discuss the issue of the New South Wales State election. I wish to indicate that there is a link between the Age tape allegations which are before this Senate and the reasons the Premier of New South Wales gave for bringing the people to an early election, requiring them to vote in two and a half weeks on matters on which the people of New South Wales do not have the facts. They do not have the substance of the allegations and cannot therefore make up their minds in any reasoned way. The Parliament and the people of New South Wales need the facts. After all, as we had to extract with difficulty from Senator Evans, and as Senator Durack has referred to today, it is for the Parliament and not the Executive to make a judgment on a motion in accordance with section 72 of the Constitution which gives the Parliament a very clear role in respect of this matter. Senator Evans has consistently sought to limit, deny and prevent this Parliament getting the information which should be its right. He has sought to delay it and limit it. It is not good enough. We are concerned that he should have arrogated to himself decisions concerning the judge when there are real questions arising. We want to know that Senator Evans is at arm's length from that procedure. We want to know that Senator Evans is at arm's length from the judge in a professional, personal or political sense, that he has been acting as Attorney-General, as he said today, and not in some other role. In the light of everything that has come out how can he argue a dispassionate role for himself in this matter as Attorney-General? We are concerned on that matter. Senator Evans has based his views on a judicial figure, based in itself upon the opinion of an eminent QC, Mr Iam Temby. I do not in any way question the professional integrity of Mr Temby. But I question the judgment of an Attorney- General who was foolish enough to select for this task someone who is a political partisan, who has very recently been an Australian Labor Party candidate for election. The foolishness of the Attorney-General is evident in the way in which he is proceeding. Senator Button —Whom are you talking about? Senator PETER BAUME —I am talking about the special investigator. It is just not good enough. The public and the Parliament must have the information. We believe that Senator Evans never should have visited the judge; it was not an appropriate role or action for an Attorney-General. He should have stood aloof and he did not do so. He should have recognised the conflict of interest that could arise by his going to see the judge who was named and by his then being required to exercise a judgment about the matters raised in relation to that judge. I cannot accept that the Attorney's judgments or actions in this matter have been wise, prudent, or consistent with his role. The other part of the Oppositions' censure motion concerns the refusal of the Attorney-General to make information available to this Parliament. All we asked for was information which would be edited and sanitised to remove names. Either Senator Chipp chose to ignore that fact or he did not understand it. At no stage did we ask for the revelation of information which would identify individuals. The people of New South Wales want to know what are the allegations. We did not ask in our motion two days ago for any names to be released. In fact I think we specifically sought to have names expunged. Senator Durack —And identifying characteristics. Senator PETER BAUME —We wanted identifying characteristics expunged. The whole argument which Senator Chipp has raised falls to the ground. We have not sought to identify, denigrate or make it very difficult for particular individuals. What did we have? We had an attempt by the Australian Democrats, working as the limpet fish of the Australian Labor Party, to emasculate the motion we put up. With the help of Senator Chipp it was emasculated. The motion that was eventually passed provided an excellent vehicle for the Labor Party to be able to delay, forever if it wished, the release of any information and to hide behind the fact that it was merely seeking to authenticate. Let us be clear once again that we have been seeking to have put before the people of Australia information which does not identify people but which identifies allegations. The people of Australia are entitled to know what were the allegations that caused a very responsible newspaper so much concern and have caused a large number of responsible people to be so worried. I remind the Senate that just 10 days ago, on 21 February, the Sydney Morning Herald published an editorial headed 'Justice behind closed doors'. That editorial described the situation, part of which is our concern today. From these tapes it has appeared that it was wrong for the Attorney-General to do anything less than provide a full and public disclosure to this Parliament of the matters involved in the tapes and the transcripts-not to identify people, not to identify names, not to identify special characteristics which might allow us to know the identity of people, but to identify the matters. It is the refusal of the Attorney-General to go down that track which gives us the second limb of our motion of censure. As long as this matter remains unresolved it is potentially damaging and reflects very badly on every member of a small group of citizens who make up the senior judiciary in Australia. All of them are complaining that they feel tainted. They require action which will clear their names. Let me say once again that Senator Gareth Evans has brought this matter upon himself. It is in the tradition of his action in the Combe affair, in the tradition of his action in relation to South West Tasmania. This issue now is urgent. The people of New South Wales are anxious to know what is the material which has caused Mr Wran to scuttle to the polls so quickly to avoid having it brought into the public place . What is the material which the Attorney-General has referred to a number of investigators? Public concern is not satisfied. What the Government has done has not satisfied anyone. Public disquiet had not been assuaged. It has not been assuaged by the Attorney-General by his actions and it has not been assuaged by the weak defence he put up today. The numbers in the Senate will determine the outcome of this censure motion, but let the Attorney-General know that we moved this censure motion reluctantly and only after much concern and much soul searching. It is not a course that we welcome. Senator Gareth Evans is an attractive man who has been a failure as an Attorney-General, not only in the political sense, not only as a Minister in the ordinary sense, but also we believe to the office which he was sworn in to represent. As regards the allegations, I do not care how long it takes, but the people are going to know the facts one day, and when that happens the people will judge. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(5.44) —I am afraid I cannot muster the passion of a Bonnie Prince Charlie, a person in permanent exile from government whose speeches on all these matters carry that embittered tone which goes back to 3 March last year. I am not responsible for that, Senator Peter Baume is. Senator Withers —Get on to Evans. Senator BUTTON —Senator Withers would prefer me to talk about anything but the Opposition. In spite of all the bluster and so on that has gone on in the course of this debate, there are some very revealing things in the speeches which have been given by Opposition members today. As the temperature goes out of the exercise, because there is no substance to it, the speeches get more and more repetitive and more and more dreary. There are two essential elements in this matter. The first criticises the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) for his handling of the so-called Age tapes affair. The second criticises the Attorney- General for failure to provide information. The censure motion on the Attorney- General was brought forward as a matter of urgency. It was only this morning that Senator Durack gave notice of motion that he wanted this matter investigated by a committee of the Senate. Senator Durack —Two different things. Senator BUTTON —No, not two different things, let us be clear about that. In every effort Senator Durack has made this week, and he has made plenty, the whole matter which has been the motivation of those endeavours, which I want to come to in a minute, has been the hidden agenda. I will talk about that later. Quite apart from the notice of motion that was given, the Opposition gave notice today of a matter of public importance, namely, the alleged double standards of the Government in refusing to release the forward Budget deficit estimates. It is the first time I can remember, in this session of the Parliament and in most of the last session, that the Opposition has paid any attention to the affairs of government in this country. Every matter of public importance has been directed at this issue, which I say relates to the hidden agenda. There has been no concentration at Question Time or at any other time by the Opposition on the questions which most concern the people of Australia. Senator Withers —Ha, ha! Senator BUTTON —That is something Senator Withers laughs about. As I recall it, he has asked one question in the last 12 months. That would have been a multi- thousand dollar question on his salary. There have been no questions on these important matters. Senator Peter Baume, the last speaker, referred to the Attorney-General's alleged conduct in relation to South West Tasmania, and the Combe affair. That leads to the discussion of the hidden agenda. He went on to say that this is a political issue in New South Wales. That is the prime concern of the Opposition and that is what this is all about. The first hypocrisy which is present in the attitude of the Opposition on this matter, and has been now for some weeks, is the fact that the Opposition has all the information. Members of the Opposition have told me that. Senator Archer —I have been waiting for 14 weeks for replies I cannot get. Do you have the information? Senator BUTTON —Senator Archer should ask the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney). He will give the information; or perhaps he would not trust the honourable senator with it; or perhaps the honourable senator would be shocked to find that there is nothing much in it. That would be the reason why he would not give it to Senator Archer. The fact of the matter is that the Leader of the Opposition has had the information and he has said so. Other people say so. Senator Walters —Name them. Senator BUTTON —Senator Walters bleats out-she is suffering from a disease which in sheep is called blast-'Name them'. The Attorney-General today said he would not name them, and that has been the consistent position of the Government since this matter began. The Government will not be about, on the basis of fairly spurious information, bandying names about. The Opposition may be not so concerned. Turning to another matter, I wrote down a passage of the speech made by the shadow Attorney-General of this country, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Durack). He said: 'There is quite a likelihood that the material is authentic'. He said that this afternoon in this place. On the basis of the allegation that there is quite a likelihood-there is quite a likelihood that it is not, in total-that the material is authentic- Senator Durack —We are only going on what Senator Evans said about it. Senator BUTTON —Yes, I know. The Opposition has, day after day, pursued this matter at Question Time, in matters of public importance, in all sorts of activities in the Senate, to try to see whether the material, authentic or not, is any grist for the mill. I want to go through some of the questions of substance. First of all, the Attorney-General has been accused about the way in which he has handled the matter. I remind the Senate that the Attorney-General, on the first day the Parliament met, brought down a lengthy statement about the matter. He provided the Leader of the Opposition with opinions from Mr Temby, now the Director of Public Prosecutions. Senator Walters —One man's opinion. Senator BUTTON —One man's opinion. He provided the Leader of the Opposition with a copy of an opinion of the Solicitor-General. He brought down a lengthy statement in the Senate and since then he has elaborated on that statement in a number of respects. Senator Missen —The opinions are illogical. Senator BUTTON —That is an extraordinary thing. Senator Missen said that the opinions are illogical. Senator Missen —I said that on Monday in detail. Senator BUTTON —I am sorry, I did not hear the honourable senator at that time. But his leaders are so sensitive about that question that there has been no attack at all on the opinions. That has not been the burden of the Opposition's complaints at Question Time or at any other time. The burden of its complaints has been to find what it calls material which may or may not be authenticated. Senator Durack —Not at all; you have not been listening. Senator BUTTON —I would have thought that at least one of the honourable senator 's matters of public importance would have been devoted to that question; but it has not been. The point I was making before I was interrupted referred to the question of the handling of this matter by the Attorney-General. I was making the point that he has taken every reasonable step from the beginning of this matter to make as much information as possible available to the Parliament, consistent with the protection of the reputation of an individual, based on considerations of privacy. Consistent with that, all the information that it is possible to bring to the Parliament has been brought to the Parliament by the Attorney-General. The Opposition has asked numerous questions over a long period . It has not succeeded in extracting anything which in any way reflects inconsistency in those statements which have been made by the Attorney-General and the statement which was made on the first day of the parliamentary session. The second charge, of course, relates to failure to provide information and in a sense I have commented on that. As I said earlier today in this place, on the one occasion that the Opposition had the opportunity to see that further information was tabled which would not necessarily assist it, it abandoned that opportunity in a fit of pique and is still complaining about that abandoned opportunity today. The major question in this matter goes to what is the duty of parliament. I take it that that is the reason for the Opposition seeking information in the way in which it has been doing, unless the reason for seeking that information relates to Senator Baume's revelation about there being an election in New South Wales. But assuming the best motives on behalf of the Opposition, assuming that it is genuinely concerned that allegations have been made against a Commonwealth judge, and that it is concerned with the substance of those allegations, the simple point I make is that it is often overlooked in the heat of this debate that we are dealing with tapes which were taken illegally-that is common ground between the parties-in respect of which there are transcripts, not necessarily direct transcripts, but summaries, as I understand it, of what is said to be in the tapes. This is the information which the Opposition has and which it is asking the Government to table in this place. That is the nature of the information. I find it a very spurious exercise for an Opposition to embark on a fishing expedition which is now seven days old in order to try to substantiate facts allegedly about a Commonwealth judge and probably about other people, based on illegally taken tapes of private conversations. That is the standard which the Opposition adopts in this matter. What the Government, of course, is concerned to do-and there were all sorts of allegations in speeches that have been made in this place today-is establish a standard where the privacy of an individual is not affected by that sort of process in Australia. That is all that the Government has sought to do. Under section 72 of the Constitution, a Federal judge may be dismissed by a petition of both Houses of the Parliament. I think there is no disagreement with the view that if the Parliament were to make a judgment about that issue, it would have to do so judicially. I refer to the opinion of the Solicitor-General on that matter. He made the point, which is made, of course, in Quick and Garran and other authorities on the Constitution, that: . . . the duty of Parliament is practically indistinguishable from a strictly judicial duty. Senator Missen —He said that, did he? Senator BUTTON —I am putting that as an authority of Quick and Garran and the Solicitor-General. Senator Missen —Oh, are you? Senator BUTTON —Yes, I am. No doubt the honourable senator will cite his own authorities, and they are likely to be him. But if one accepts that view, in any judicial proceeding the sort of material which is sought and has been sought in question after question in the course of the last seven days is not material upon which any judge or magistrate would act. Senator Crichton-Browne —Why not? Senator BUTTON —Because it would not be admissible in evidence. Perhaps the honourable senator will give us a legal opinion about that at a later stage. Before any proceeding which requires a judicial act comes before a court for consideration, there has to be a prima facie case made out which is investigated in normal proceedings by a committal. I refer the Senate to the statement of 17 February by the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) and the Attorney-General. In the last paragraph of that statement this point is made: 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. On the basis of that, of course, it is open to Senator Missen and others to attack the character of somebody who gave that opinion, or to attack the police, the Solicitor-General or anybody else because it is alleged that those opinions are substituted for the opinions of Parliament. The point I simply make is that before that sort of material is admissible, it ought to be examined, as it has been. I do not know who else it would be suggested, from the Opposition side, should have examined that material other than the people whom the Attorney- General asked to examine it. So the point I make is that it is our view that the Parliament has a duty in this matter, both in respect of the preservation of privacy of individuals in relation to the source of the material which Parliament may wish to deal with and certainly in the way that that material is handled, in order that the preservation of civil liberties may be observed by this Parliament. It is quite extraordinary to find somebody like Senator Durack, the shadow Attorney-General, referring to material which may or may not be authenticated. We would argue that the Parliament, conscious of separation of power issues, should be very careful before it interferes in any judicial office . That sort of attitude is not being displayed by the Opposition. I said something earlier about the question of motives in relation to this matter. I suppose they were best revealed by Senator Baume when he referred to the New South Wales election which is to take place shortly-a quite extraordinary reference to make in a speech which was allegedly devoted to the behaviour of the Attorney-General and the conduct of a Federal judge. That admission has been made again and again by Opposition speakers in the same sort of way in which Senator Baume made it; a concern to influence events in New South Wales being the prime concern and a concern which is detrimental, of course, to the civil liberties of the judge in question. So the sound and fury has all the flavour of an election stunt. It has all the flavour of this Opposition. It has been handled badly from the beginning. The Opposition has given no indication day by day of its intentions, what it is seeking in terms of information or what it is seeking to establish. Senator Sibraa —Smearing! Senator BUTTON —The Opposition has made smear after smear by way of question and innuendo in respect of information which on its own admission it had. It is extraordinary that an Opposition with that information seeks to raise this issue again and again in this Parliament. There can be no other explanation for it than the one given by Senator Baume. Piety in respect of this matter rings very hollow. I suppose the Opposition will pursue this matter in various ways, as it has pursued other issues with the same effectiveness. That does not alarm the Government at all. I said earlier today, and I repeat it, that in relation to the Attorney-General's handling of this matter he may have aroused some passion and some ire but that is not a charge justifying a censure motion. Senator Chaney —I agree with that. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney certainly has had his ire roused at various times . Senator Chaney —I agree with that. Senator BUTTON —I am happy to say that Senator Chaney agrees with me. He has indicated that he should not have got embittered or angered by the Attorney- General; he should have restrained his passions as Senator Baume earlier in this debate was quite incapable of doing. That is not the basis of a censure motion against an Attorney. Nor is the failure to provide information, having regard to the history of this matter, a basis for a censure motion against an Attorney. Samuel Beckett once wrote a great play called Krapps Last Tape. I might invert the title of that play for the benefit of the Opposition. That is what the dealings in Parliament in the last seven days have been like. Senator Durack —Don't you recall the matters of public importance on the Alice Springs railway and also on the resources rental tax? Senator BUTTON —I do recall those matters. That is an amazing achievement for the Opposition. I congratulate Senator Durack on it. I am very surprised-- Senator Walters —I am not surprised that you have no fire, no enthusiasm. I am not surprised at all. There is none there. Senator BUTTON —Senator Walters is a wheelbarrow full of surprises. I am not surprised that she is not surprised. That has nothing to do with the topic of this discussion. Senator Peter Baume —It is an impassioned defence of the Attorney. Senator BUTTON —I do not want to make an impassioned defence of the Attorney. All the passions have raged on the Opposition side. Of course, the result is a tale full of sound and fury which at this stage signifies nothing. The passions will go on but they will get dimmer as time goes by because there is really no substance in the Opposition's case. I do not want to make passionate speeches for the Attorney. I appeal to the Opposition to see where this Parliament is going. This is an Opposition which relies on unsubstantiated material illegally obtained which invades the privacy of individuals. This is an Opposition which relies on all those things to embark on fishing expeditions in respect of information which it already has. That is a classic abuse of the processes of this Parliament. It is a classic abuse of the processes of the Senate. It is a classic abuse of the censure procedure against a Minister in a government. That is what the Opposition has done continually. As I said, I am not here to provide impassioned defences of anybody. All the passion has been on the other side. That passion has concealed a great deal of absence of fact and argument. The debate has very largely been passion, some of which I suppose has been engendered by the Attorney-General's responses to questions which have not been comforting to the Opposition. I understand that. That is what has happened here over the last week. It is a very sad situation for the Parliament that we have an Opposition which is not only inept generally in conducting its business but which has proved its ineptitude in its conduct of this matter. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(6.05) —This censure motion against the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) concerns his handling of the tapes which were published by the Age newspaper, the contents of which are now widely known. Those tapes and transcripts concern some 3,000 conversations, some 524 pages and some dozen or so tapes. They concern illicit drugs, prostitution, the rigging of race meetings, the alleged bribery of magistrates and the judiciary and the alleged bribery of public servants. They make allegations against a judge named on the tapes. In spite of these facts the Government says that the Opposition, day by day, is smearing. I think it is important to put this matter in perspective. These tapes appear against the background of five royal commissions-the Moffitt Royal Commission on Alleged Organised Crime in Registered Clubs in New South Wales, the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking, the Woodward Royal Commission into Drug Trafficking and the Williams Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs. All of these commissions have said that there is corruption in Australia of a massive and organised kind and that crime is inbuilt into the community, reaching right throughout the community. They have stated that crime reaches into the political and judicial spheres. I think that nobody says that Moffitt, Costigan, Stewart, Woodward and Williams are smearing. I wonder why? The Government has not said that a number of people who are mentioned on the tapes are also mentioned many times through the reports of those five royal commissions. For example, it is alleged the tapes concern the man Trimbole who is wanted, I understand, for the Griffith murder. His name is contained in those reports. Is that a smear? Is it a smear to say that these names are on the tapes even though the tapes are unauthenticated and not properly verified? Is it a smear to say that these names should be taken seriously? Is it a smear that the New South Wales Solicitor- General, Mary Gaudron, says that the tapes contain some serious matters that should be investigated? What a strange thing it is that the Government can say only that we are smearing when in fact it knew that in regard to a major part of those tapes it had no recourse but to refer the matters to a special prosecutor and to the Stewart Royal Commission. If indeed the substance of those tapes is such that they should be studied by a royal commission-unauthenticated as they are-why should not they be studied by an inquiry and by this Parliament? The fascinating aspect of the situation is that the Attorney-General, in deciding these things, hived the tapes and the transcripts off into two quite separate sections. Those aspects that related to matters other than the judge have gone in their proper process to royal commissions and inquiries for proper investigaion. Well they may. Nobody in the Government would say that the great body of those matters-I think the Attorney-General said 2,980 conversations-are smears and because they are unauthenticated should be disregarded. On the contrary. Is the Government going to disregard all references in the tapes to Trimbole? If it is willing to take them seriously, should it not take seriously every other page of transcript and every other situation? No, the Government does not do that at all. It decides to have selective investigation. It has said that there shall be only one type of investigation of the judge and that shall by be a special investigator appointed by the Attorney-General, namely, the Attorney-General himself. In the year that the Attorney-General has been in office he has gone from crisis to crisis. He has always been in turmoil. His only recourse here simply is to hurl words of abuse across the chamber. He has been in a state of panic and calamity the whole time. The Press has drawn attention to this matter. The Attorney-General-the person who should be aloof, who should be quite apart from investigations and who, in the end, should be the person objectively judging matters free of politics-chose to be the only investigator. Fundamentally this censure motion is on this key point that the Attorney said that he would be the only person to do so. There would be no investigation by the Solicitor-General, the head of his Department or a special investigator. He was to be the person who would decide what questions would be asked of the judge and what questions would not be asked of the judge, and who would decide what the Parliament should be told on this matter. That is the crux of this matter. Is that smearing? The Attorney-General and two Queen's Counsel have said that the responsibility for judging the conduct of a judge lies with this Parliament. It does not lie with the numbers in the Labor Caucus. It is not good enough for the Attorney- General to tell us that the lower House has not acted to do something because that is simply a numbers game. The responsibility of the Attorney-General is to be free of the numbers game, to be quite separate from that, and to recognise, to use the words that the Attorney used today, that Parliament has the decisive constitutional role to decide and adjudicate on the conduct of a judge. Nobody else has that role. There is no justiciable situation outside; it is for the Parliament. Therefore the Attorney-General has the absolute responsibility to come into this place and give us the information on which we are to base our decision. However, he put himself in what I believe is an intolerable situation, a situation which raises the very question of his future tenancy of his office, because when the Attorney went to see the judge he made subjective judgments as to what he should and should not ask the judge and how he should respond. He went to the judge having heard the tapes, having heard the alleged voice of the judge in conversation on the tapes. Knowing the judge, as he must as Attorney- General, he would therefore be able to make a value judgment as to whether it was the judge's voice or not. Why did he put himself in this situation? Why would anyone do that? He went there having decided to ask about certain things. The Opposition has questioned the Attorney-General about whether he asked the obvious question of the judge, namely: 'Is that your voice on the tapes?' This is the key test. If the senior law officer of Australia were to go to a judge and investigate on behalf of the community of Australia whether or not a judge had had a series of conversations, would not the main question be: Is that your voice on the tapes? The Attorney has not replied to us on that. That raises a very interesting situation. Out of it has come a number of things. He says the tapes create a prima facie plausibility. That is very interesting. The Attorney says that real difficulties may be encountered with the transcripts because there are no tapes to back them up, but there is a prima facie plausibility on the tapes. It is not suggested that a conversation of some kind did not occur between the judge and the solicitor. Indeed, there is virtually an admission that that happened. However, the question lies with the interpretation of the matter. The Attorney- General does not say to us, 'This is what I asked and this is the response I got ', so that the only places that have the responsibility and obligation to evaluate this matter-the Senate and the House of Representatives-can do so. On the contrary, the Attorney says that he will be the sole investigator. The Attorney relies and falls back on two opinions; the opinions of the Solicitor-General and of Mr Temby, QC. I will rely on the opinion of Mr Temby, QC. Maybe he was a Labor candidate, but let me rely on his opinion. Senator Grimes —Charming! Keep it up. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I have been invited to do so. Mr Temby in his opinion poses the question: Has (the Judge) acted injudiciously? He goes on: On the material I have seen his conduct cannot be so categorised, unless it be established that he well knew that a man with whom he was having frequent dealings was of poor reputation. We know the test of whether a judge acts injudiciously. On Mr Temby's say so he acts injudiciously if it can be established that he well knew that a man with whom he was having frequent dealings was of poor reputation. Did the Attorney- General say: 'I tried to find out from the judge whether that is so or they are the facts of the matter'? It is alleged that the solicitor was a man of known poor reputation. I will read what Mr Temby went on to say because I have been invited to do so. He said: It places a Judge in an invidious position if he has frequent dealings with any person of poor reputation. Has it been determined by the Attorney-General whether the judge had frequent dealings with a person of poor reputation? Mr Temby then went on to say something else. Honourable senators should not put any qualifications on it because Mr Temby did not. He continued: Presumably (the judge) now realises this and will act more carefully in the future than he has done in the past. If there is doubt in this regard, it may be that he should be approached and advised as to the desirability of not further nurturing the relationship he has with (the Solicitor) if it presently remains on foot. Here is quite a clear case. Senator Bolkus —You have left out two lines at the bottom of page 6. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I am perfectly happy to read the lines again because this is fundamental to the situation. Mr Temby asks: Has (the Judge) acted injudiciously? He goes on: On the material I have seen his conduct cannot be so categorised, unless it be established that he well knew that a man with whom he was having frequent dealings was of poor reputation. I pause there and ask: Did the Attorney-General test this? Did he ask: Do you know that this solicitor has allegedly been convicted in the courts and is of poor reputation? Mr Temby goes on: (Judges) occupy lofty and rather isolated positions, and it may be that (the Judge) did not know in any detail what (the Solicitor's) reputation was. I presume that the Attorney-General would establish with us that the judge in question had only a very passing acquaintanceship with the solicitor; that he has no long established acquaintanceship at all. Mr Temby continued: Even if he did, there is room for debate as between persons of good sense and goodwill as to whether any people, including those who hold high office, should be traduced by reason of the reputation of their friends and acquaintances, in the absence of actual and established improper conduct on their part. Mr Temby put the test and the Attorney-General fails completely because he did not seek to do these kinds of things. In a series of tapes it is alleged that the judge in question sought politically and publicly to denigrate the character of a person and the judge gratuitously allegedly put forward ideas about denigrating and damaging a local alderman by vouchsafing the information that he was a homosexual who frequented gay bars and therefore his reputation could be damaged. Is this the conduct of a judge? Is this the conduct of a man? Do the tapes suggest that this was a casual conversation between a judge and a solicitor? Is this the sort of conversation that one would have occasionally with a solicitor? The conversations suggest that he approached a very senior Minister in the Wran Government to fix a job for a person. Where is the separation of powers between the judiciary, the Parliament and the Executive if this is so? We come back to the test that was put to us. The tapes that deal with drugs, prostitution, race rigging, bribery and the fixing of the judiciary are not traduced and are not said to be rubbish. It is important that they should be the subject of investigation by the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking and other royal commissions. Yet the rest of the tapes go to the Attorney-General who decides that he will be the sole investigator, the sole person who is judge and jury? He cannot see that that put him in the position of subjective compromise and that he has now done great damage to the office of Attorney-General. He cannot see that the questions are being asked and will continue to be asked. Did he know this judge personally? Was there a long association with this judge? Had there been a close association? Had there been in the past or now any conflict of interests? He cannot see this. Because he cannot see this, he deserves to be censured. Any man who excercised such bad judgment as the Attorney exercised during the Tasmanian dam incident, using the streaker's defence which he did, and any man who came into this chamber today and said that he stood for common decency, human rights and due process and yet was responsible for the Moscow-style trial of David Combe is not fit to hold the office of Attorney-General. Nobody could have done more to harm human rights and human liberty than to force a man to agree to a statement under duress, as was the case with Mr Combe. We have the strange situation that, in the view of the Attorney-General and of Mr Temby, private conversations on the telephone are not to be taken seriously. They are not to be taken legally at all; they should be disregarded. Yet Mr Combe was scarred for life on exactly that basis. This Attorney-General, who supposedly values human liberty, did not see that the right thing for the Government to do was to set up an inquiry into Combe's actions. He had to be dragged screaming before a royal commission and was condemned by his own people in that affair. The reason for the censure motion today is to make the point that if an Attorney-General is to serve his office well he must be a man of intellectual capacity, capable of being objective and standing aloof from the numbers game. I put the test very seriously to him: He said that 2,980 pages of the transcript can go before a royal commission because they are about drugs, prostitution and race rigging. He said that we cannot condemn them because they contain the names of people whom the Stewart Royal Commission, the Woodward Royal Commission into Drug Trafficking, the Williams Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs and the Moffitt Royal Commission on Alleged Organised Crime in Registered Clubs in New South Wales know very well to be bad people. They are not scuttle-butt, to use the words of the Attorney. We must take them seriously. Yet with the other tapes concerning the judge we are in an entirely different situation. The Labor Party knows that it has the numbers in the lower House. It knows that it can get a quick trick given the numbers of the Democrats in the Senate. Yet an Attorney-General should be above that. He should be above the numbers game. His job is to carry out his responsibility. As he said today, Parliament plays the decisive constitutional role in regard to the removal of a judge on the grounds of his conduct. Yet he has absolutely refused to allow a full and frank discussion on this matter. He has gone on in the way he did with Mr Combe until inevitably Combe's name was exposed, because the Government dragged him behind closed doors and sought to put up a phoney explanation that they were distancing themselves from lobbyists. Government senators interjecting- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Sibraa) —Order! Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Let them shout. These are the human liberties people. What has the Government done in this situation? It has done exactly the same thing. It has not set up a decent inquiry. A judicial inquiry is right for 2,980 pages, but an inquiry regarding the other tapes is wrong. What an extraordinary piece of selective thinking. Why did the Attorney-General ever get into the situation of choosing himself as the investigator? Why did he when it was quite clear that he would compromise himself and his office and when he knew that the responsibility in the end lay with Parliament? What kind of arrogance is that? What kind of disregard for democracy is it for a man to say: 'I will come into this chamber. I will tell you what I will let you know and no more. I will answer questions if it suits me to do so, and no more. I will not let you know anything else.' He says that Parliament should not call for the information on this matter; Parliament should leave it to him. He says: 'I applied the test of Mr Temby because this matter rests upon him. Mr Temby said that a judge can be said to have acted injudiciously if it can be established that he well knew that a man with whom he was having frequent dealings was of poor reputation'. Mr Temby went on to say that we had better tell this judge that he ought not to deal any further with this man of poor reputation. Mr Temby assumed the validity and authenticity of the material. The Attorney has indicated to us that it would be wrong to assume that the tapes in question did not contain some authenticity. What an astonishing situation! The Attorney says: 'You say that I am withholding information from you. You say that I should be censured for persistent refusal to provide information'. But let us ask the Attorney-General whether he asked the judge in question whether he had had frequent dealings with the man he had been talking to on the telephone. Did the judge have frequent dealings with this man? Was that so? That piece of information has been withheld, has it not? Did the Attorney ask the judge whether he knew that this solicitor was of poor reputation, as Mr Temby indicated? Senator Gareth Evans —Yes, I did. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —If he did ask those questions and if the answer was that the judge did have frequent dealings with this solicitor-it is no good Senator Evans trying to whisper to me. The way to tell these things is not by whisper now; it is to tell them while one is on one's feet during Question Time. Senator Gareth Evans —Are you in possession of the material? Has the Opposition got the material or part of it? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —If the Attorney-General is asking me whether I have seen the tapes- Senator Gareth Evans —I am asking you: Has the Opposition got the tapes? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I have never seen them. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Sibraa) —Order! Senator Gareth Evans —I am not asking you that: I am asking you whether the Opposition has them. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Evans! Senator Gareth Evans —Answer me, you fraud, you windbag! You are a fraud, a windbag and a hyprocrite. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I think that those who are listening to this debate ought to understand that was the Attorney-General speaking. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! There are too many interjections. I suggest to Senator Sir John Carrick that he not answer the interjections and that he speak through the Chair. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Mr Acting Deputy President, I am delighted to do so. The President has asked the Attorney-General in the past not to intervene when other honourable senators were speaking, because the Attorney was heard in silence. I invite those who are listening to understand that these are the general tactics of the Attorney-General. He stands censured today because all he can do is to hurl abuse. All he can do with his intellectual snobbery and arrogance is try to talk down the Opposition and to tamper with the very framework of democracy. I was asked whether I am aware of or did I see the tapes or the transcripts. I can answer without qualification that I have not done so. I have simply read what is in the Press. Indeed, I do not ask to see the transcripts of those things that go before the Moffitt Royal Commission or others, because what the Attorney has failed to say- Senator Grimes —The Moffitt Royal Commission was about you. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Let Senator Grimes shout. After all, he is the Minister for mistakes. Senator Grimes, who now shouts, is the Minister of whom the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said: 'We have made a mistake'. It was not the Senate stopping him-intellectually the idea was wrong. The whole tenor of the Government's argument has been that we have raised a smear. That was said by the Attorney-General about the Rex Jackson tapes in October-November, when the Attorney-General did the same kind of thing. For days and days he said that there was nothing in them and that he would not read them. He was reluctant. Yet he knows now that those were taped conversations of a person trying to rig three people to be drug distributors for a major drug importer. Honourable senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! I will hear silence before I call Senator Sir John Carrick . Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —No wonder those opposite raise their voices! The fact is that what was reluctantly forced out of the Attorney-General in October- November ended up in the resignation of a Minister in New South Wales, Rex Jackson. Is this whole thing a smear? Is it wrong? Did we smear Rex Jackson? Did the Commonwealth Government of the time, the Fraser Government, smear when it gave information which would not have been acted on otherwise and which proved that a senior police officer, Superintendent Allen, who had been favoured by the brilliant Mr Wran, needed to resign from the force? Was the Four Corners royal commission, the Street Royal Commission, a smear? It ended up with a judge saying that a man had to be committed for trial and that there had been a breach of judicial practice. One man was convicted and another man was committed for trial. Are these smears? Is not the situation that five royal commissions have shown the most ghastly wave of crime and corruption through the whole fabric of the Australian community, which commissions got their evidence in identical fashion-not authenticated and not tested? Is it not also a fact that evidence obtained illegally in Australia is not inadmissable as evidence but has to be proven? That is very important. To suggest that because something is obtained illegally it cannot be acted upon judicially is nonsense. Senator Crichton-Browne —That is what Senator Button was trying to say. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —That is what they are all trying to say. They are trying to say that it is a smear, but five or six royal commissions have proved them wrong. They are trying to say that we cannot deal with things that are not authenticated. Yet they gave evidence to the Stewart Royal Commission. They are trying to say that Mr Temby supports them. I come back to this situation: The Attorney-General stands condemned. He was the lone investigator and for his own political motives, whatever they are, he did not pass the test. Senator Gareth Evans —You contemptible person. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Attorney-General will withdraw that remark. Senator Gareth Evans —I withdraw. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Every time the Attorney-General does this, he reinforces the importance of the censure. If one pressed these matters, I think it would be found that there might well be a case to be answered, that a judge might well have known that a man with whom he was having frequent dealings was of poor reputation. If that is the test of Mr Temby, the only place it can be tested is in this Parliament. The Attorney-General has said that the place to test this is the Parliament, but, of course, he is not going to do that until after 25 March, as he said, because of action he has taken. In fact he stands condemned because his actions are political and they are not the ordinary behaviour of an Attorney-General. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Debate interrupted. Notice of Motion Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. Notice of Motion Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Judiciary Act 1903. Notice of Motion Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) -by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976. Debate resumed. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(6.35) —The Senate is debating the following censure motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition ( Senator Chaney): That the Senate censures the Attorney-General for his handling of the Age tapes , and in particular his persistent refusal to provide information to the Parliament in order that it might properly perform its role in matters relating to the Judiciary. I have been in this place in the past when we have debated censure motions. They have been occasions of high drama. They have been occasions of very serious import. They have been occasions when most honourable senators on both sides have been present to hear the debate, because it is a serious motion and, as a result, a serious debate. That is not what has happened this afternoon. If the Government can be excused for not getting too enthusiastic about this debate, it is because of the absence of enthusiasm from all speakers opposite with the exception of the last, Senator Sir John Carrick, with no one listening to the debate. I suppose that the last speaker, as he has done in the past, demonstrated what this motion is all about. His last words, when he brought up the importance of this to the New South Wales election, really demonstrated to us what it was all about. He also demonstrated the sorts of tactics he was only too willing to use when he was Leader of the Government in the Senate and now uses as an Opposition backbencher, tactics which some of his colleagues do not always use. Let me give a couple of examples of what he did this afternoon. In mentioning Mr Temby, a gentleman of impeccable legal qualifications who was recognised by his peers by being elected president of an Australian legal association, Senator Sir John Carrick, in a snide remark, said: 'I will not mention the fact that he was a Labor candidate'. Why would Senator Sir John Carrick bring up that snide remark other than to try to blacken Mr Temby's name indirectly? He also said in this place that the judge should have known that the solicitor with whom he was dealing in 1979 and 1980, according to these alleged tape conversations, had been convicted in the courts when that conviction in fact occurred after those conversations. How on earth could the judge have known that at the time? Senator Sir John Carrick often does this. He often uses these tactics. When someone on this side decides to respond to those tactics in kind, Senator Sir John Carrick generally gets very upset. I do not want to see him upset. Let me take up a couple of his other points. Senator Sir John Carrick should read Alfred McCoy's book Drug Trafficking in Australia in which Dr McCoy says: During the 11 years from 1965 to 1976, with the Liberal-Country Parites in power, the State- that is, New South Wales-- endured a period of political and police corruption unparalleled in modern history. Senator Sir John Carrick mentioned the Moffitt Royal Commission on Alleged Organised Crime in Registered Clubs in New South Wales. The Moffitt Royal Commission exposed penetration of licensed clubs by organised crime in New South Wales during the period of the former Liberal-Country Party Government. It mentioned the flourishing of elaborate illegal casinos. It mentioned the domination of SP bookmaking by organised crime. During that time there was a Liberal-Country Party Government. The Premier of that State was Sir Robin Askin. We have seen the articles about him, which have never been denied. A senior official of the New South Wales Liberal Party at that time was Senator Sir John Carrick, the honest man who sanctimoniously says: 'I knew nothing about all that corruption. I was a friend of the Premier. I was the State Secretary in New South Wales'. There is endless evidence of what was happening in New South Wales at that time, and this gentleman, a knight of the realm, casts aspersions on people in this place and on judges on no evidence at all. I am an ex-citizen of New South Wales. I know people in New South Wales. I know what happened in New South Wales when no one could get into business or do anything without the kick-backs. Senator Sir John Carrick was the Secretary of the Party, and he says: 'I knew nothing about it. I was pure. I sat up there in Ash Street. I wrote the minutes and I did the books. But I knew nothing about what was going on'. He will never get up in this place and deny that anything was going on. This is the person who speaks in the way in which he did about the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) when the Attorney-General has spent the last seven or eight days in this place answering endless questions and taking part in debates upon matters of public importance. About three-quarters of our time has been spent on what? We should look at what we have been debating. Allegedly, a series of telephone conversations were intercepted, recorded and transcribed by a person or persons unknown, a manifestly illegal act and a gross invasion of privacy. The tapes were made available to the Age, and the Age printed transcripts. But the tapes were first rejected by the Sydney Morning Herald, which would not have a bar of them because they could not be authenticated, and the transcripts certainly could not be authenticated. The Age could not even get it right. In printed alleged transcripts of the tapes which had the judge saying one thing and the solicitor saying another, which reflected badly on the judge, but when the tapes were heard by other people, including members of the Opposition, it was found that it was not in fact the judge who was speaking the words attributed to him but the solicitor. Since then we have had rumour; we have had innuendo; and we have had disgraceful behaviour by members of the Liberal Party and the National Party, not only in this place but in the Queensland Parliament. This culminated last night in the naming, under privilege in the Queensland Parliament, after a spurious question, of the people who were allegedly taped in these circumstances . The tapes have not been authenticated. The transcripts have not been authenticated. We had a debate in this place two days ago in which the Opposition, the Liberal Party, had the opportunity to vote for a motion for the production of the tapes and these transcripts. With the exception of Senator Lewis, who, I understand, would not take part in such hypocrisy, the Liberals voted against it. Today Senator Durack comes into this chamber and says that he wants a select committee to investigate the whole affair. This afternoon, after Question Time, and without warning, a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders was moved, which of course the Government took up. Since soon after 3 o'clock this afternoon-and if the recent additions to the speakers list are any indication, we shall be continuing on the same subject tomorrow morning-we have been listening to this debate and waiting for something new to happen, waiting for some decent arguments to be put forward. All that we have heard is Senator Peter Baume, the first one, admitting that what the Opposition is about is the New South Wales election. Then we heard the tirade from the knight of the realm opposite who comes in here and casts aspersions on anyone who dares to get up. I dare say that when it is all over, he will be indignant and will say what terrible people Grimes and others who follow are for daring to question his past activities when he does what he has done today and what he has done so often in the past in this place, which is to blackguard people, individually and collectively, and then to squeal like a stuck pig when someone responds. Of course we will respond to that sort of nonsense. Why should any honourable senator put up with such hypocrisy from someone who for so long was the secretary of a Party which was known to be corrupt by everyone in Australia? Why should we put up with such hypocrisy, such handwringing, such nonsense, as we put up with from Senator Sir John Carrick? He cries and he bleats every time it happens. I hope that he cries and bleats now. Senator Sir John Carrick —It is only Balmain boys who do that. Senator GRIMES —Balmain boys do not cry. When I was at school in New South Wales , most North Sydney Tech boys did not cry, either. Senator Sir John Carrick is the first one I have met who has cried. No wonder they do not want anything to do with him. Tell us, Senator Sir John Carrick, about the days in Ash Street. Tell us about your activities. Senator Robert Ray —They have moved to George Street now. Senator GRIMES —They have moved because there are too many ghosts in the old building, too many skeletons in the cupboards and too many ghosts and the place was not fit to inhabit. What did Senator Evans do? Senator Archer —Just give us one word in favour of him. Senator GRIMES —Senator Archer, you replaced an honourable man in this place. You replaced him by donating a house to the Liberal Party in Burnie to use as its headquarters. Deny it. Senator Missen —I raise a point of order. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Grimes, it is not in order to impute improper motives or behaviour to members except by motion. Senator GRIMES —Mr Deputy President, I stated a fact. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —It does not matter whether it is a fact or not. That remark should be withdrawn. Senator GRIMES —It is a fact, but I will withdraw it. Senator Missen —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy President. Senator Grimes is not speaking in any way to the motion- Senator Robert Ray —Were any on your side? Senator Missen —One can put up with the noise of the empty trumpets. Mr Deputy President, what Senator Grimes has been doing, in wasting time here now, probably to play out time until 7 o'clock, is making an attack upon my colleague Senator Sir John Carrick which, of course, is not relevant to the censure motion . The censure motion is not related to Senator Sir John Carrick or Senator Archer but to the Attorney-General. Senator Grimes is avoiding the subject. I suggest, Mr Deputy President, that you bring him into line and make him address the subject before the Chair. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Grimes is in order. He was, in my view, commenting upon remarks by Senator Sir John Carrick. However, I ask him now to return to the motion before the Chair. Senator GRIMES —Good idea, Mr Deputy President. Let us talk about Senator Evans and what he has done. I repeat that what we have is a series of unauthenticated tapes and unauthenticated alleged transcripts of tapes. When this matter was raised, Senator Evans treated it with care and seriousness. Senator Peter Baume, I think, said this afternoon that Senator Evans's responsibility as the first law officer of this land is to the Parliament and the people of this country. That is right. It is also his responsibility to see that justice is done wherever possible, and he has a responsibility to individuals in this country. It is not an easy job. Senator Archer is interjecting. It is certainly a job beyond the capacity of Senator Archer. What did the Attorney-General do? He sought and received copies of the alleged tapes and the transcripts. He appointed to investigate the situation a man of impeccable reputation, a man who was smeared indirectly this afternoon by Senator Sir John Carrick, that honourable man, and by Senator Peter Baume. It was suggested indirectly that this man's political affiliations had something to do with his appointment. We have received a report that has been grievously misquoted this afternoon by Senator Sir John Carrick, that honourable man. The Attorney-General appointed a man of impeccable reputation to investigate the next little affair that arose, an affair of which he was aware, because it was mentioned in the tapes and it was later raised in this Parliament-the Sala affair. The Attorney-General appointed a man of impeccable reputation to investigate that, and that man has reported on the matter. At all times in this place the Attorney-General has striven to protect the rights and privacy and to deal with natural justice with those people, including the judge, who were named in the tapes and whose names have been bandied around this country ever since the tape transcripts appeared in the Age. He has done so under considerable pressure in this place from members of the Opposition, who are unwilling to name people themselves but willing to list plenty of people by inference, and who are unwilling to come forward with any facts although they have the tapes and transcripts in their possession. He has at all times answered in as much detail as he could, protecting the rights and privacy of the people involved. He has done so with openness and while under considerable stress in debate and in Question Time. He has acted with honour, he has acted well and he has treated honourably the position- Senator Archer —And with great loyalty. Senator GRIMES —That was a charming interjection. I said that to ensure that it will be recorded in Hansard. It was a charming interjection. It was typical of the honourable senator. Senator Evans has done that consistently for six or seven days since the beginning of this parliamentary session, with all the nit- picking, all the inferences and all the nasty interjections from those opposite. Members of the Opposition failed to get a motion through this place to have those tapes-as they said, with the names crossed off-exposed to the light of day in this place. They failed to do so because they would not vote for the motion themselves. This morning they gave notice, through the shadow Attorney-General, of a motion which they were going to debate tomorrow, but they decided that they were getting too much of a caning in the Press for not putting up or shutting up , so they have now come up with this censure motion. Is it not bad enough that in this country we have people acting illegally, taping conversations in the way in which they have been? Is it not bad enough that those tapes, without any authentication, and transcripts of other alleged tapes, without any authentication, have been bandied around this country? Not only the Government but also the Opposition has copies. The Australian Democrats have copies. The so-called respectable Press such as the Age has copies. The Toorak Times has copies. The only two people who do not have a copy, apparently, are Senator Archer, who could not be trusted, and Senator Missen, who probably would be shocked. Is it not bad enough that we have that sort of situation without the Opposition trying to debase this place by having those things tabled so that they can be treated as privileged documents and bandied around even further? Who are the people who are trying to do this? Who are the allies of the Opposition? We had last night in the Queensland Parliament the extraordinary situation of Mr Jennings, who was expelled from the Liberal Party in Victoria for treachery-he is an extraordinary character-and who then joined that political garbage dump, the Queensland National Party, putting up a dorothy dixer to no one other than Mr Lane. Mr Lane is a Minister in the Queensland Government who left the Liberal Party-he is a turncoat-to join the National Party. His greatest distinction as a member of the police force was to arrest a man and charge him with obscene language only to have the charge thrown out because the man was proven to be deaf and dumb. These two characters, under the privilege of the Queensland Parliament, named the people involved. In the Senate this afternoon Senator Chaney put forward as justification for the questions that were asked about the names and in justification for seeking the production of those tapes the fact that those names were produced last night in the Queensland Parliament by a couple of such unsavoury characters. I might add that last night in the Queensland Parliament another member of the National Party, a friend of Senator Bjelke-Petersen, made the following charming remark: 'What the Federal Government should do is introduce the ministry for dogs, led by a bitch, Senator Susan Ryan'. These are the sorts of people with whom the Opposition is associated. These are the sorts of people who are saying in this place that Senator Evans is not doing his job properly because he will not indulge in the sort of much-raking exercises in which the Oppositon wants him to indulge. Nothing would have been easier for Senator Evans, if he were an unscrupulous Attorney-General, than to let all this stuff out and to say: 'God, we cannot put up with all this stuff; we will have a royal commission or something like that'. Instead, he asked people whom even Senator Missen would recognise as respected legal people of high repute to give him an opinion on what had happened. He looked at the tapes and the transcripts and said, quite justifiably and quite reasonably, as Mary Gaudron said in New South Wales: 'We have to get these tapes . We do not know whether they are authentic. We do not know how fair dinkum they are. Let us find out. But even if they are authentic there is nothing on these tapes about the judge'-it seems to me that the judge is the only one about whom the Opposition is worried-'and we should respect the rights of that judge just as we should respect the rights of any ordinary citizen'. As Senator Chipp said today, we have come to a great point in this country if people can illegally tap telephones and illegally intercept conversations and, having done so, produce them anonymously and distribute them around the country anonymously. Tapes can be spliced or altered if necessary. Bits of conversations can be put together selectively. That is possible. We have seen an example of how easy that is this afternoon with Senator Sir John Carrick's selective quoting of the Temby report. The material has been distributed in that way and we have no idea from where it has come. Not too many people in this place would like their personal conversations to be spread about the country in this way. This matter has been brought into this place under privilege and the Opposition has said: 'This is a terribly important matter. We should not worry about whether the tapes are fair dinkum, accurate or anything else. We should not worry about who took them or about who did the transcribing'. Senator Missen —Who says that? Senator GRIMES —Senator Chaney says that. He says: 'We should bring them into this place and we should all sit around like a lot of voyeurs, have a good laugh and a good listen, and then castigate whoever happens to be recorded on the tapes.' Debate interrupted. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! It being 6.58 p.m., under sessional order the debate is interrupted. I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.59) —During the debate on the Sex Discrimination Bill in another place on Monday Mr Gerry Hand, who is the spokesman for the socialist Left faction in that place, made baseless accusations against me. Although the daily Hansard is not yet available, for reasons that would be known to you, Mr Deputy President, Mr Hand's tirade was carried by Australian Associated Press in the following terms: Gerry Hand (Labour Victoria) criticised the Bill opponents . . . Tasmanian independent Senator Brian Harradine had used 'outright lies' in his campaign against the Bill yet had not had the courage to actually vote on the Bills passage, he said. Senator Harradine is without doubt the greatest exponent of the Goebbels' theory of distort, distort and distort and maybe the people will believe what you say,' said Mr Hand. Senator Robert Ray —Mr Deputy President, I take a point of order. I do not want to inhibit what Senator Harradine is saying. I realise the difficulty he is in as Hansard is not available. But I think he is in contravention of standing order 414, which says he is not allowed to quote, except from Hansard, any debate in the current session. I realise we have problems because an industrial dispute has resulted in Hansard not being available. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Harradine is making what is in effect a personal explanation. Senator Chaney —Mr Deputy President, if I may address you on the point of order, standing order 414 refers to debates in the Senate, not to debates in the House of Representatives. I think it is in order for Senator Harradine to proceed. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Harradine is in order. In any case he is making what is in effect a personal explanation. Senator HARRADINE —I had hoped to make this personal explanation after Question Time. The report continues: I put it to you that Senator Harradine is an opportunist of the lowest or greatest type. The Australian and the Canberra Times carried part of the AAP report. My record over 25 years in the anti-discrimination struggle is well known both inside and outside the trade union movement, but apparently not by Mr Hand. Instead, Mr Hand, from under the cloak of parliamentary privilege, used the tactic of character assassination. Mr Hand could not give one example of anything that I have said about the Bill which was untrue. Honourable senators will recall that my main concern with the Bill was to have it amended in a manner necessary for me to honour my commitment to both cherished family values and anti- discrimination measures. Because of the arguments I and others advanced, the Bill was substantially amended. Mr Hand's statement that I did not have the courage actually to vote on the Bill's passage was dishonest and followed a similar statement by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, on 16 December. I will not go into that at this stage. I remind honourable senators that on that day I participated in 38 of the 39 votes taken on the Bill. I refused to participate in the last vote of the day in protest against the gag and because the Bill equates a de facto relationship with marriage and fails to protect the individual's genuinely held, informed, conscientious belief. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.03 p.m. The following Papers were presented: Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act-Orders 1983-M14-Quality Control Programmes and Inspections-Meat M15-Export Documentation Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981-6 March 1984 (Gazette No. S 85, 2 March 1984) The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 528) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 18 November 1983: (1) What new authorities, committees, bureaus, or other such groups: (a) have been established; or (b) are proposed, by or within this Department, since 5 March 1983. (2) How many additional staff: (a) have been, or are being appointed; or (b) are proposed to be recruited, as the result. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No new authorities, committees, bureaus, or other such groups have been established, or are proposed, by or within this Department, since 5 March 1983. (2) None. (Question No. 631) Senator Walsh —The Minister for Finance has provided the following supplementary information with respect to Senator Messner's question upon notice, on 16 December 1983, concerning Division 312 of Appropriation Act (No. 1) 1983-84: Since answering the honourable senator's question on Division 312 of Appropriation Act (No. 1) 1983-84 (Hansard, of 28 February 1984, page 98), a determination pursuant to that division was made on 16 February 1984 in the sum of $38,270,500. A direction was also made on the same date allocating that sum to relevant departmental and agency heads of expenditure. Particulars of the determination are to be submitted to the Parliament pursuant to the terms of Division 312.