Thursday, 8 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: Nuclear Disarmament 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 210 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: We have become the innocent victims of your Government's Medicare scheme. We are forced to pay 1 per cent of our wages only to receive less per capita benefits than the people of other states. Without canvassing the rights or wrongs of the dispute between the Federal Government and the State of Queensland the fact is that because of it over one million Queenslanders, who contribute to health funds, are being blatantly discriminated against compared with people in the rest of Australia. Because of the dispute over the introduction of Medicare, Queensland public hospital bed charges are $120 per day compared with $80.00 per day in the other states. This is grossly unfair. As it was the Federal Government which decided to introduce Medicare, we believe it is their responsibility to take action allowing health funds' rates in Queensland to be kept at reasonable levels. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should use its influence with Government so as to avoid the discrimination (of $ 40 per day) against insured Queenslanders And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 427 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth their desire to stop the commercial exploitation of the kangaroo. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House re-apply the ban on the export of kangaroo products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Childs (from 147 citizens). Petitions received. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland) -I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the Federal Government for reneging on its pre-election promise to reduce the price of petrol for Australian motorists; (b) deplores the action of the Labor Government in not allocating the increased revenue raised through the indexed excise tax on petrol to the bicentennial roads program; and (c) regrets that this Government is deliberately misleading the Australian people by not allocating all moneys raised from the indexed excise to the construction and maintenance of the Australian road network. Senator MISSEN(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) draws the Government's attention to the campaign by Amnesty International against torture and the evidence provided of the practice of various forms of torture in the 1980s in at least 98 countries; (b) calls on the Australian Government to assert influence to dissuade governments from continuing to use or to connive in the practice of torture within their national boundaries; (c) urges the Australian Government to support the United Nations Voluntary Fund for victims of torture; and (d) requests the Australian Government to seek the expediting of the completion of the proposed international covenant against torture. Senator JONES(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate congratulates the Hawke Labor Government on its magnificent achievement in implementing-in spite of the financial constraints caused by the disgraceful economic mess that the previous coalition Government created and attempted to cover up-more Labor policy initiatives and promises than any previous Labor Government, namely: 1. The creation of a spirit of national consensus, reconciliation and reconstruction. 2. The success of the Prices and Incomes Accord. 3. The success of the National Economic Summit Conference. 4. The establishment of the Economic Planning Advisory Council. 5. The success of the Hawke Labor Government's economic policies in turning a rapidly declining economy into one of recovery and growth. 6. The success of the Hawke Labor Government in reducing seasonally adjusted unemployment from 10.3 per cent to 9.5 per cent in January 1984. 7. The reduction in the inflation rate from 11.5 per cent to 8.6 per cent. 8. The re-establishment of a centralised wage fixing system. 9. The establishment of the Prices Surveillance Authority. 10. The establishment of an Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. 11. A reduction in the number of working days lost through industrial disputes in the 12 months to November 1983 to the lowest in a comparable period for 15 years and nearly 30 per cent less than for the year ended November 1982. 12. The development of the Steel Industry Plan. 13. The success of the Community Employment Program. 14. The huge expansion of the public housing program. 15. The spectacularly successful First Home Owners Scheme. 16. The increased assistance provided to young unemployed, students and children of pensioners. 17. The imminent passage into law of the Sex Discrimination Bill. 18. The increase in education funding to needy government and non-government schools. 19. The salvation of the World Heritage area of South West Tasmania. 20. The declaration of the entire Great Barrier Reef as a Marine Park. 21. The Jobs on Local Roads Scheme, combining roadworks and job creation. 22. The introduction of Medicare. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. Bill presented by Senator Gareth Evans, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.07) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to facilitate the giving of effect to the intentions of the Parliament when Acts of the Parliament fall to be interpreted. The Bill makes a number of amendments to the existing Acts Interpretation Act 1901 for this purpose. Eighteen new provisions are proposed to be inserted in the Act, in some cases in substitution for existing provisions. Some of the amendments are of a technical nature and are explained in the explanatory memorandum that has been circulated. I deal with the more important provisions in this second reading speech. Use of Extrinsic Material in the Interpretation of an Act First and foremost I refer to the proposed new section 15AB, which provides that, if any material not forming part of the Act is capable of assisting in the ascertainment of the meaning of a provision of the Act, consideration may be given to that material. The important point to note is that the word used is ' may', not 'shall'. That is to say, reference to such materials is not to be compulsory but is to be left to the discretion and the judgment of the courts. The provision also states that, in the contemplation of the Parliament, such material would be used for one of two purposes: (a) to confirm that the meaning of the provision is the ordinary meaning conveyed by the text of the provision taking into account its context in the Act and the purpose or object underlying the Act; or (b) to determine the meaning of the provision when either the provision is ambiguous or obscure, or the ordinary meaning is manifestly absurd or is unreasonable. The provision therefore does not contemplate that extrinsic material would be used to overturn the ordinary meaning of a provision, arrived at by taking into account the purpose or object underlying the Act, unless there is an ambiguity or obscurity or something that is manifestly absurd or unreasonable. On the other hand, the provision does make it clear that extrinsic materials can be looked at to confirm the ordinary meaning of an Act. The fact is that judges do this already, and have been doing so for some time. The provision goes on in sub-section (2) to specify, in a non-exhaustive way, the main categories of extrinsic materials that can assist in the interpretation of Acts. As well as such obvious matters as headings and marginal notes to provisions, and end notes in the text of the Act as printed by the Government Printer, the following categories are covered: any relevant reports laid before or made to Parliament before the time when the provision was enacted; any treaty or other international agreement that is referred to in the Act; the explanatory memorandum relating to the Bill circulated to members of parliament before the time when the provision was enacted; the second reading speech of the Minister; any document that is expressly declared by the Act in question to be a relevant document for the purposes of section 15AB; finally, any relevant material in the Journals or Votes and Proceedings or in Hansard. Attention is also drawn to sub-section (3), which conveys the clear wish and intention of Parliament that in applying section 15AB regard shall be had to: the desirability of persons being able to rely on the ordinary meaning conveyed by the text of the provision, taking into account the purpose or object underlying the Act; and the need to avoid prolonging legal or other proceedings without compensating advantages. In my ministerial statement tabled in the Senate on 30 November 1983 I said that the reaching of a satisfactory outcome in relation to the use of extrinsic materials would depend on the good sense of both judges and parliament combining to produce a situation in which the range of materials, and the way in which they are used, are reasonably defined and confined. Section 15AB meets these requirements. It does so in a way that respects the independence of the judiciary. Judges are neither required to nor prohibited from looking at any materials. On the other hand, the Parliament in section 15AB would be giving a clear lead as to the way in which extrinsic materials can best be used, without imposing undue burdens on the users of legislation or on the legal system generally. The provision is in accord with the deliberations of the top level Symposium on Statutory Interpretation-convened by Senator Durack last year-the proceedings of which were tabled at the time of my ministerial statement of 30 November 1983. The Symposium supported the proposition that Parliament should give a lead, as it had already successfully done in section 15AA of the Acts Interpretation Act, by recognising that judges have, or should have, a discretion to refer to extrinsic materials where to do so can assist in the interpretation of Acts. There is a clear link between the proposed new section 15AB and section 15AA, which was inserted in the Acts Interpetation Act in 1981 on the initiative-which I commend-of the then Attorney-General, Senator Durack. We strongly supported that provision when in Opposition. It requires the purpose or object underlying an Act to be taken into account when interpreting its provisions. As Attorney- General I successfully moved the adoption of a similar provision for inclusion in the Companies and Securities (Interpretation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act passed in 1983. I am pleased to say that the provision so inserted has already had a significant beneficial effect. In a decision handed down on 28 February 1984-just a few days ago-Mr Justice Hampel of the Victorian Supreme Court expressly relied on that provision in deciding that a share offer should have been made by way of a prospectus. As one commentator observed, use of this approach will lead to less legalistic or literal interpretations of the national code of companies and securities legislation, as was the original intention. A provision identical with section 15AA was included in the Interpretation of Legislation Bill recently introduced into the Victorian Parliament. That Bill also contains a provision dealing with the use of extrinsic materials. That provision is less elaborate than our proposed section 15AB, but the two provisions are basically consistent one with the other, partly as a result of consultation at officer and ministerial levels. Perhaps in time there will be greater commonality between the laws of the Commonwealth and the laws of various States in this area. However, I am sure honourable senators will agree that it is appropriate for the Commonwealth to take the lead in this area, as indeed it did with section 15AA. Reference to Gender in Acts The existing Acts Interpretation Act provides in section 23, and has so provided since 1901, that words importing the masculine gender shall include the female, unless the contrary intention appears. I propose by this Bill that this sexist way of dealing with matters of gender should be altered so that the provision simply provides that, unless the contrary intention appears, words importing a gender include the other gender. Modern Methods of Recording Information Section 25 of the existing Act needs to be rewritten to define documents and writing so as to include modern modes of storing and reproducing words, figures, symbols, et cetera. Also, a provision needs to be inserted to provide for the production of records kept in a computer or in similar facilities, where an Act requires a person to produce the information in question. This is dealt with in the proposed new section 25A. Statement of Reasons A new standard provision needs to be inserted stating that where an Act requires the giving of written reasons for a decision, the instrument giving the reasons shall also set out the findings on material questions of fact and refer to the evidence or other material on which those findings are based. The form of this provision is derived from section 28 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 and from section 13 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. Attaining a Particular Age There is a little known legal rule of medieval origin-no doubt of appeal to the Opposition-that a person attains a particular age at the first moment of the day immediately before the anniversary of his birth. Thus a person becomes, say, sixty not on the first instant of the sixtieth anniversary of his day of birth but on the first instant of the day immediately before that birthday. I refer anyone interested in this esoterica to the judgment of Sir Owen Dixon in Prowse v. McIntyre (1961) 111 CLR 264. References to age in Commonwealth legislation clearly need to be brought into line with the common understanding that a person attains a particular age on the first moment of the actual anniversary of his or her birth. This is proposed to be brought about by the new section 25E to be inserted by the Bill. It is proposed that this particular provision will apply on and after 1 January 1985. A provision along these lines has already been included in the Superannuation Act 1976. Alterations in Penalties I propose the insertion of a new section 45A (1) providing that, where an Act increases a penalty for an offence, the penalty is to apply only to offences committed after the commencement of the provision of the Act increasing the penalty. I also propose a new section 45A (2) providing that, where an Act reduces the penalty, the penalty as reduced extends to offences committed before the commencement of the provision reducing the penalty-but not so as to affect any penalty imposed before that commencement. Both the above provisions are in accordance with the requirements of Article 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Other Amendments I have already referred honourable senators to the explanatory memorandum in relation to the other amendments. They are all of a technical nature. The only comment I would make is that they deal with deficiencies that have come to light over the years and are long overdue for attention. The Bill has no financial implications. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. 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)(10.15) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Judiciary Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 serves two purposes. In the first place, it aims to relieve the High Court of Australia of some of its existing workload by removing provisions for appeal as of right to the High Court and by empowering the Court to remit certain matters now within its exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal Court of Australia or to State or Territory courts. Secondly, the Bill provides for the establishment of the Australian Government Solicitor in place of the present office of Crown Solicitor. Measures to Relieve the Workload of the High Court The justices of the High Court have expressed concern about the effect of the increasing workload of the High Court on its capacity to function effectively as a final appellate court in Australia and as the interpreter of the Constitution. This Bill deals with two of the matters that have given rise to that concern. One is that, where a case involves subject matter to the value of $20,000 or more, there is a right of appeal from the Full Court of a State Supreme Court or the Federal Court to the High Court, irrespective of the merits or general legal significance of the points in issue. The amount of $20,000 was fixed in 1976 and changing money values have had the result that many more cases fall within the provisions of appeal as of right. In the second place, there are certain matters within the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court which may, on occasion, involve a lengthy trial of the issues of fact involved. It is not appropriate that the time of the High Court should be taken up with the trial of issues of fact which could be more conveniently disposed of by another court. The appellate jurisdiction of the High Court derives from section 73 of the Constitution. Section 73 provides for appeals to the High Court from State Supreme Courts, or State courts exercising Federal jurisdiction and Federal Courts. The Parliament may prescribe exceptions to that appellate jurisdiction and regulate its exercise. I have already indicated that an appeal lies as of right from a State Full Court or from the Full Court of the Federal Court to the High Court where the appeal involves subject matter of the value of $20,000 or more regardless of the merits of the matter. The case involving constitutional issues may also be taken on appeal as of right from a State Full Court to the High Court whether or not the constitutional point is of real substance. It is generally acknowledged that a financial test is not really an appropriate test for determining whether there should be an appeal as of right. The value of the subject matter of an action is no necessary indication of the intrinsic importance of the action. My officers have had discussions with representatives of the Law Council of Australia on the matter, and I have also discussed the matter with those representatives. They have not been able to suggest a more satisfactory test to isolate those cases in respect of which there might be an appeal as of right to the High Court. Consequently, the Government has agreed to accept the proposition put by the justices of the High Court that all appeals to the High Court from the Federal Court and from State and Territory courts should be by special leave only. I have had some discussions with the Chief Justice on measures which might be taken by the Court itself to meet some of the criticisms which the legal profession has made of the existing procedures for seeking special leave to appeal, and those discussions are continuing. I am hoping that, in particular, arrangements will soon be able to be made for regular sittings of the Court in Sydney and Melbourne to hear applications for special leave. The present exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court is defined by section 38 of the Judiciary Act. The matter specified in that section covers matters arising directly out of any treaty and suits by the Commonwealth and the States. Except to the extent to which jurisdiction is already conferred on the Federal Court of Australia, the High Court also has exclusive jurisdiction in matters in which a writ of mandamus or prohibition is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth or a Federal Court. The Bill would amend section 44 of the Judiciary Act. This section already provides for the High Court to remit to a Federal Court or to a State or Territory court matters commenced in the High Court in which that other court has concurrent jurisdiction. Clause 5 of the Bill will empower the High Court similarly to remit matters arising directly out of any treaty or suits between the States or suits between the Commonwealth and States. The High Court will be empowered to remit the whole of the matter or it may remit part of the matter as, for example, the hearing of evidence to establish findings of fact. The proceedings in the court to which the matter is remitted will be subject to any directions of the High Court, so that the High Court will retain control over the progress of the matter. The Australian Government Solicitor An important function of the Attorney-General's Department is the provision of the services of a solicitor to the Commonwealth, to Ministers, departments and, as required, to Commonwealth instrumentalities and other persons. The Secretary, as permanent head of the Department, is ultimately responsible under the Public Service Act for the proper carrying out of this function, as for all other functions of the Department. However, the greater part of the work of the solicitor for the Commonwealth performed by the Department, particularly the conduct of litigation, is carried out in the States and Territories. The supervision of this work must be done on the spot in each State and Territory. An administrative structure is required to ensure that this work is properly integrated with the other legal work of the Department and that there is effective accountability, both under the Public Service Act and to the courts, of those who perform these solicitor functions. During 1983 a comprehensive review of the structure and organisation of the Attorney-General's Department was undertaken at my direction. The review had as its objective improving the Department's efficiency, effectiveness and responsiveness to the Government, the Attorney-General and clients. The committee which conducted the review recommended the change in the 'solicitor' functions of the Department embodied in this Bill. Clause 6 of the Bill provides , in place of the personal office of the Crown Solicitor, for the establishment of a statutory corporate entity, to be known as the Australian Government Solicitor. The Australian Government Solicitor will perform the function of solicitor for the Commonwealth, Ministers, Commonwealth authorities and certain other bodies and persons. The Australian Government Solicitor will be, in effect, the 'firm-name' under which the legal services functions of the Attorney-General's Department which would ordinarily be performed by a solicitor for his client will be carried out. The Australian Government Solicitor will not be a separate authority constituted by a person or body of persons, nor will it have its own staff. The Secretary to the Department and certain legally qualified senior officers of the Department authorised by the Secretary for that purpose will be empowered to act in the name of the Australian Government Solicitor. Thus, the members of the 'firm' will be, in effect, the Secretary and the authorised officers and they will have the ordinary responsibility of a solicitor to the courts in respect of acts done in the name of the Australian Government Solicitor. This will ensure judicial control over those responsible for handling matters before the courts. Officers authorised to act in the name of the Australian Government Solicitor will be responsible for their actions in the conduct of their activities to the Secretary to the Department, and through the Secretary, to the Attorney-General. In addition, the authorised officers will be subject to the direction of the Secretary and, where so directed, the responsibility to the courts for acts performed in accordance with those directions will rest with the Secretary. The Australian Government Solicitor will be empowered to act on behalf of those entities, persons and bodies on behalf of which the Crown Solicitor is presently empowered to act by virtue of section 55E of the Judiciary Act. For the purposes of acting as solicitor for these persons and entities the Australian Government Solicitor is entitled under the Bill to the same rights and privileges of a solicitor in each of the States and Territories. These entitlements which are the same as those currently bestowed on the office of Crown Solicitor will enable the Australian Government Solicitor to carry out the function of solicitor in the various States and Territories. In addition, for the purposes of acting in the name of the Australian Government Solicitor, the Secretary or an authorised person will be entitled to do all things necessary and convenient to carry out the function and will be entitled to all the rights and privileges of a solicitor in each State or Territory whether or not he is entitled to practise as a solicitor in any State or Territory. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976. Bill presented by Senator Gareth Evans, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.20) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill complements the changes proposed in the Judiciary Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 which removes existing provisions for appeals as of right to the High Court from State Supreme Courts. The effect is to remove the right of appeal from the Full Court of the Federal Court to the High Court where the appeal involves subject matter of the value of $20,000 or more. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —by leave-I make this statement on behalf of Senator Ryan. This is the eleventh annual report of the Education Research and Development Committee. It is unique because it is the last report on the activities of the Education Research and Development Committee. Some members may need to be reminded that the Education Research and Development Committee was abolished in June 1981 on the recommendations of the Review of Commonwealth Functions, better known as the razor gang. Established in 1970, the ERDC played a vital role in educational research until its recent demise. It is generally acknowledged in the wider education community that the ERDC was active and imaginative in the pursuit of its goals. This Report demonstrates that the razor gang and indeed the previous Government had little understanding of the organisation and process of education when it suggested that ERDC was concerned with research on matters which were the responsibility of the States. I would challenge, for instance, that Dr Warren Lett's Survey and Report on the Needs and Priorities for Research on Arts Education in Australia-page 34-the report by Connell, Ashenden, Kessler and Dowsett, entitled 'making the Difference-Schools, Families and Social Division'- page 13-and Professor Colin Power's paper 'Factors Influencing Retentivity within High School'-page 40-are concerned with matters that are the sole responsibility of the States. My colleague, the Hon. Senator Barry Jones-Senator! We have promoted Mr Jones- in his Science and Technology Statement for 1982-83 highlighted the dismal state of affairs for educational research in Australia. His report to Parliament clearly showed that between 1980-81 and 1982-83 total Commonwealth expenditure on research and development overall increased by 32 per cent whereas research and development expenditure on education declined by 25 per cent. This Government came into office with the clear announcement that education reform was central to its general program. Within this context we did not envisage that educational research was an optional extra which can be turned off to save a few pennies. Educational research is essential in order to improve the general quality of Australian education, and to provide strategies and policies to deal with current and future problems. This Government has made a commitment in the Prices and Incomes Statement of Accord that it sees as a matter of priority 'raising Australia's educational research effort' from the depths where the previous Government has placed it, and we are looking at ways in which the Government can most effectively revive this important area of education. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. I will speak briefly because of the pressures on our program today. I hope that a member of another place takes appropriate umbrage at having been described in this statement as a member of this chamber, although we of course think it is a promotion for him. Senator Macklin —He might get ambitions. Senator PETER BAUME —He might get ambitions, as others seem to have done in the past. Acknowledging that the person referred to is probably Barry Jones, the Minister for Science and Technology, this statement, which has been countersigned at the bottom 'approved' with initials which look as though they are probably the initials of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs ( Senator Ryan), clearly has not involved close reading or any kind of proof reading. The point I make about this statement is that it completely misses the opportunities and responsibilities of the present Government. It is all very well to criticise a decision by a previous Government with which it does not agree, but it was within the capacity of the present Government, in the year in which it has held office, to have provided the money and to have taken the administrative decisions to restore the Education Research and Development Committee. It is quite apparent that this statement is hypocritical, because it is quite apparent that this Government, now having held office for a year, has brought down a Budget and educational guidelines, and has done nothing to restore the ERDC to existence and has done nothing to cut short the process by which the ERDC was winding up its activities as set out in the statement. This Government had an opportunity to redress the situation which it claims to deplore so much. It will not wash in the Senate to say what a terrible thing it is, having wound down the ERDC. That may be a very defensible statement. Senator Macklin has made that point on many occasions. But I put to all honourable senators that if it was a bad thing and if the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs wants to say so, she must explain to the educational establishment and to those who care about the ERDC why she and her Government have not taken the opportunity, during their first year of office, to set right a situation which they find to be so deplorable. Unless and until the Government is willing to restore the ERDC, it has no legitimacy in coming here and saying what a terrible thing it was to abolish it. It may well have been an error on the part of the previous Government, but it was a matter on which it was proper and open to the present Government, if it cared, to have reversed the decision and to have corrected it. It has not done so. It has not matched this rhetoric with any kind of action. When that is realised by education research workers, this Government will have to answer for its failure to act. The fact that it has offered us these words this morning will in no way mollify people who wanted something more than these words from the Government for which they voted. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.32) —The last report of the Education Research and Development Committee is in many ways a report which brings to mind, certainly in its appendices, the type of activities in which the Committee has been engaged over the years since its foundation. From the beginning of the report one gets some idea of what the report is talking about when it refers to the fact that we are withdrawing financial support for the research grant program, the cessation of the research training fellowship program and the dissemination program. The statement of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) on behalf of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan), refers to something about which the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) has often talked-the funding for research in Australia, research not only in education but in every area. We know that private industry, for example, in Australia has been remiss by comparison with private industry in other countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in that a very small percentage of the budgets of the larger companies goes towards providing adequate funds for research. As a country, we have tended to live on the research done in other areas. In education this has proved a dismal failure, and there are very good reasons for that. By and large each country has developed, historically and socially, an education system suited to itself, and much of the research which is done in other countries on education matters is not easily transferred, and certainly not easily applied, in countries which have different educational institutions and different social structures. I remind the Senate of some of the research programs which were undertaken by funding of this Committee. From those, one can see fairly clearly that we are not talking about something which the previous Government said was a matter for State governments. I think it is useful to indicate the programs of national importance that the Committee was attempting to fund. One such program dealt with cognitive abilities of moderately and severely mentally retarded individuals. That program, as one sees when one reads an abstract of the work that was done, which is well known in the education community, was not bounded by lines on the map. It concerned a group of people within the Australian community who had similar problems. It is not bounded by the different types of educational programs that the States mount. It is a national issue and ought to be addressed at the national level. A piece of research which was undertaken in my own State into the effects of class size on pupils was of world class. Attempts have been made for 20 to 25 years to establish the relationships between class size and educational outcomes . This piece of work was one of the two-the other was undertaken in the United States of America-pathfinders in this area conclusively to come up with what is necessary for the types of things which every teacher knows but which have never up to this stage been able to be linked in any effective way. Another such program was for the teaching of basic reading skills and a mastery of learning procedures. Another dealt with language and numeracy demands on work for school leavers. If that is not a national issue, I do not know what is. Other programs dealt with semantics for early deaf communication, reading disabilities, the education of severely and profoundly hearing impaired children, young hyperactive children, specific learning disorders in migrant children, transition from school to work and nutrition and physical education. So the list goes on. They are very important matters that need funds over and above those which are available at the State level. The previous Government made a decision which had no educational backing whatsoever, a decision which has been defended in this place by Senator Peter Baume, the previous Minister for Education, and which effectively pulled the guts out of the educational research in our universities and colleges of advanced education. Eventually that has been turned round to the type of statement put down by Senator Ryan today. I agree with the sentiments expressed by Senator Baume, although I find it very difficult to understand why he is expressing them now. I would have much preferred him to express them on the many occasions when I asked questions about this issue when he was Minister for Education. The last two paragraphs of Senator Ryan's statement leave one in wonderment. The criticisms of the razor gang's decision in the first paragraphs are good ones, but one has to ask: What is the follow-up from this Government? I condemned the previous Government's action, which action was supported in this place by such people as Senator Baume and Senator Teague, but we now find that Senator Ryan is not willing to undertake the necessary restoration in that area or to indicate from which alternative institutions those funds will be available. It is not necessary to re-establish that Committee to be able to provide those funds. However, I believe that on any objective and dispassionate reading of this report, particularly of the appendices, one would be hard pressed to think of a better way of dispersing scarce funds for maximum returns. It is not just a matter of someone coming up with an idea, applying to this Committee and having the idea accepted because some money happens to be around. The Committee, over the years it worked, came up with some very rigid and very useful guidelines for education funding. The Committee was the only body which was able to oversee the direction of research in this area in Australia. Indeed, it had many cases before it of admirable research programs that it refused to fund. The reason it refused to fund them is, precisely, that they were being conducted elsewhere or it did not seem to the Committee that the argument put had sufficient contact with ongoing research or the ability to effect practice. All those types of things that people outside the research area feel fairly strongly about were taken into consideration by this Committee. If one were to speak to anyone in the education community one would find that the Committee was held in the highest regard. Yet in a report that had no educational backing, a report that went from a group of people whom I believe had no understanding as to what they were doing, the previous Government cut the ground from under a very admirable way of organising scarce resources to maximum effect. I must admit I am at a loss to think of a better way of doing this. Yet the current Government has not indicated in this statement how it intends to follow through those things that it was criticising and still is criticising in the first two paragraphs of this statement. For that reason this is an extraordinary statement . Why bother bringing it in, why bother putting these types of propositions, unless we know where we are going now? We have a new government, a government that has made claims to the electorate. Yet in this report we find absolutely nothing of what this Government intends to do. Surely any government, in tabling a statement on a report, should be prepared not only to criticise actions of previous governments but also to put down the positive programs that it intends to implement. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.43) -I support the views that have been expressed by Senator Peter Baume and Senator Macklin. It seems extraordinary that we should have such a statement approved by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) and brought into this Senate, yet the Minister is not present to answer the questions that have been validly raised by both Senator Baume and Senator Macklin today. In what direction is the funding to go in order to adopt some of the very important educational research activities that were undertaken under the auspices of the Education Research and Development Committee? That is the question that should have been addressed in this tabling statement. It is not addressed in this tabling statement. There will not be a response from the Minister because she is not in the chamber. Admittedly, Ministers and members of parliament have legitimate activities associated with their ministerial or parliamentary responsibilities, or their responsibilities to their constituents which take them out of the chamber from time to time, but why bring in this statement at this time? Why bring it in today when the Minister is not in the chamber to answer the very valid questions that have been raised? I contrast Senator Ryan's absence on this occasion with her statement on 19 December last year. Honourable senators will recall that 16 December was the last sitting day of this parliament last year. There was a good deal of debate then on the Sex Discrimination Bill. I did not have any breakfast or dinner on that day because I was in the chamber for the whole of the day until about 4.45 p.m. when the last vote was taken. On that day the Minister issued a Press statement to the effect that I did not even come into the chamber for the vote on the Bill. That was taken up by the Press-for example, by Australian. The Press reporters were all at a booze up given by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), so they were not present in the Press Gallery. They took the Press statement issued by Senator Ryan. I moved 21 amendments on that particular day, as everybody will recall. Of course, the newspaper simply took Senator Ryan's less than honest statement that my contribution to the debate was that I did not come into the chamber for the vote on the Bill. In fact, I participated in 38 of the 39 votes on that particular Bill and did not participate on the last vote for a very good reason which was clearly stated at the time. We do not have any statement now as to why Senator Ryan is not here to defend this statement, why she is not here to answer the very important questions that arise out of this statement. I therefore seek leave to continue my remarks later because I hope that at a particular stage that would enable this matter to go back on to the Notice Paper to enable the Minister, when she is available, to respond to the matters that have been raised in this debate. Leave granted. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —by leave-I apologise to Senator Harradine for the absence of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) who is obviously not here for a good reason because of ministerial duties. Senator Harradine has done what is done with all these statements-he has sought leave to continue his remarks later and, therefore, adjourned the motion that the Senate take note of the paper. The matter will go on to the Notice Paper and will be answered. I do not accept that the criticism of Senator Ryan is fair. Senator Ryan is assiduous in her attendance in this chamber. She is back here now and I am glad she is. I merely point out that Senator Harradine chose not to come here at all on Monday because there was a holiday down in Tasmania. He was down there having a good time. I think Senator Ryan's reasons for being absent are pretty good. Senator Harradine —Labor had a holiday. Senator GRIMES —Yes, Senator Harradine was having a holiday. We were all here working and he took a holiday. Debate adjourned. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —by leave-On the front page of the Canberra Times today an article by Paul Malone, the political correspondent of that newspaper, under the heading: 'Opposition senators abstain on tapes', very much misrepresents my position in connection with the production to the Parliament of the so-called Age tapes which relate to corruption in New South Wales and to the difficulties or problems raised in connection with a certain judge. I will quote the first paragraph which, as I say, totally misrepresents my position under that headline . It states: Cracks have appeared in the Opposition's strategy on the Age tapes with the revelation that two government senators-- I am sure he means two Opposition senators- failed to vote with their colleagues on the motion to table the tapes. That implies that in some way or other I was not supportive of my Opposition colleagues in the motion which we put before the Senate. I am sure the Senate will know that I totally supported that motion, spoke in favour of it and voted in favour of it. To suggest that I was not supportive of the Opposition's strategy in regard to the Age tapes totally misrepresents my position and I think, frankly, is libellous. Actually, if one reads further on in the article one will see that Mr Malone does tend to put my position by saying that I said that the Australian Democrats had combined with the Government to amend the Opposition's motion and to 'gut it'. I said that I was not prepared to vote with Labor and therefore had walked out. That again misrepresents my position slightly. It is not that I am not prepared to vote with Labor on any matter- which the article implies-but that I was not prepared to vote with Labor on this particular matter which had then become a charade. In my view, the Liberal- National Party Opposition should have walked out of this chamber on that occasion and observed the Australian Labor Party voting against the Democrats. In my view, that should have been our proper position. We did not have an opportunity to discuss that matter, so I took that course myself. Clearly, I have been misrepresented in this article by the suggestion in the headline and the first paragraph that I was not supportive of my colleagues in this matter. It also misrepresents me in the suggestion that I will never vote with the Labor Party in any matter in this chamber. Senator JESSOP(South Australia) —I also claim to have been misrepresented and seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator JESSOP —I thank the Senate. I, too, object to the leading paragraph of the article in the Canberra Times to which Senator Lewis referred. I assure the Senate that, like Senator Lewis, I do not want to appear to be causing a split, or any other inference that one would like to make, with regard to Opposition strategy. Senator Foreman —What about the photograph? Senator JESSOP —I was not responsible for the photograph. I thought it was a good photograph, actually. The attitude I took was exactly the same as that taken by Senator Lewis. I did not want to vote with the Australian Labor Party on the matter. I believe that the Australian Democrats' amendment would have advanced the cause somewhat, and I did not wish to vote with the Labor Party on that matter. On a radio program last night I made it quite clear that if the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) claims that the judge in question did not do anything illegal, the Attorney-General and the Government have a responsibility to come clean and present the Senate with the evidence. As far as I am concerned, I believe that the Opposition is behaving quite responsibly in trying to get the facts placed before the Senate. Perhaps the best way to do that would be to establish a select committee so that these things can be elucidated. Senator Robert Ray —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I certainly understand Senator Jessop speaking on this matter, but I think he is now starting to stray into more general issues. He is saying that he was misrepresented by the newspaper-I think everyone accepts that-and he is now pointing out the defects in Liberal Party strategy. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The Senate granted Senator Jessop leave to make a personal explanation. He can make that statement in the way he wishes. Senator Chaney —Mr Deputy President, I rise on the point of order. I think it may be true that Senator Jessop has now started to debate the precise strategy we will advance this afternoon, and I welcome his support for it. I suggest that he is within bounds in trying to make clear his own position, when it has been put in a very prominent way by a newspaper. I think he ought to be permitted to complete his personal explanation. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I have ruled that Senator Jessop is entitled to make his statement in the way he wishes. Senator JESSOP —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. My main concern in this whole exercise-this is why I made the statement, quite truthfully, that I did not think there was any harm in the Democrats' motion-is the question of privilege. The best way to deal with the question of protecting people who may be named in some way or other in unauthenticated tapes would be to establish a select committee, where adequate protection could be afforded them. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of all or several of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of all or several of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole, and as would prevent the reading of the short titles only on every order for the reading of the Bills. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. First Readings Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.54) —I move: That the Bills be now read a first time. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. The following Bills were returned from the House of Representatives without amendment: Sex Discrimination Bill 1983. Foreign Proceedings (Excess of Jurisdiction) Bill 1984. Debate resumed from 7 March, on motion by 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. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.57) —We were debating yesterday afternoon for almost four hours a censure motion moved by the Opposition on the Attorney-General. I note that eight more senators wish to speak on this matter. If that situation remains, it is quite clear that we will continue debate today. Because we cannot leave a censure motion hanging over a government or a Minister in this way, we may well have to continue the debate in the time set aside for General Business. The motion was moved without enthusiasm and it received very little enthusiastic support on the other side of this chamber until, of course, the entry of Senator Sir John Carrick into the debate. I said a few words about that last night. During the speech of Senator Sir John Carrick in particular, and to a lesser extent the speech of Senator Peter Baume, we were treated to a display of personal abuse of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), of innuendo, vituperation, and almost every other tactic that could be used in these procedures. Senator Sir John Carrick was ably assisted along the way by various interjections from Senator Archer, some of which I am glad will appear in Hansard to demonstrate the standards we have had. We are dealing with a motion of censure against the Attorney-General which came about because of the existence of some tapes and some alleged transcripts of tapes which no one questions were illegally obtained; which no one questions involved a gross invasion of privacy; which are of uncertain authenticity; which have been examined not only by members of the Government but also by members of the Opposition, practically every newspaper in this country, numerous members of the general public, and heaven knows who else. The tapes and transcripts have been examined, particularly as they pertain to the judge in the case, by Mr Temby, a prominent legal practitioner and recognised as such by the whole of the legal profession in Australia, though not recognised as such of course by Senator Sir John Carrick. However, that does not cut much ice with us. The circumstances also have been looked at by the Solicitor-General. Now, after seven days of almost continuous debate in this place and question times during which questions were repeatedly asked of the Attorney-General, with the Opposition indulging in a fishing expedition employing all sorts of innuendo , a Minister in the Queensland Government and a backbencher in that Government, in a deplorable incident the other night, have exposed the names of the people on the tapes. As justification of this we have the Opposition demanding that the Attorney-General produce all this unauthenticated, dubious and doubtful material so that we as a Senate can all sit around, look at it and come to some collective decision. Apparently the Attorney-General is condemned for not supplying this information. The best justification I heard yesterday for the production of the information was that given by Senator Chaney who said that we had to supply it now because these charming characters in the Queensland Government had named names. We believe that this censure motion is a nonsense motion. We believe the tactics of some members of the Opposition in debating this motion were deplorable. The behaviour of Senator Sir John Carrick, knight of the realm, ex- secretary of the Liberal Party of New South Wales, was deplorable. We believe that the behaviour of Mr Jennings and Mr Lane, Mr Hodgman last night in the other place, and Senator Sir John Carrick and Senator Archer, for good measure, yesterday afternoon has been squalid. This question has to be asked: Where are we going in this country? Where are we going when this chamber can spend so much time debating tapes which quite clearly, if they are authentic, were obtained illegally, were distributed widely throughout this country illegally, and were the subject of innuendo and scurrilous articles in some parts of the Press? They were not even re-produced accurately in the Age. Are we going to spend hours in this place, week after week, every time someone produces tapes of telephone conversations? What will it be next? Will we have tapes of bar room conversations, tapes of conversations illegally obtained in all sorts of circumstances and then selectively produced to condemn any individual, not only in the High Court but any individual in this chamber or the other place? Are we going to allow debate of the type that occurred here yesterday when Senator Sir John Carrick stood up and indirectly smeared Mr Temby, directly smeared the judge and very directly smeared the Attorney-General? He then sat with a pained expression on his face when he got a bit of his own back. He will get a bit of his own back if he keeps up that sort of behaviour in this place. This chamber will become a farce. This Parliament will become a farce. The rights of privacy and the rights of natural justice in this country will not be protected if we behave in this way. The Attorney-General has had a difficult job balancing his responsibility for the administration of justice-balancing his responsibility to see that justice is done collectively against his responsibility to see that justice is done to individuals. He has had a difficult job to do but he has done it well and honourably. At all times he has tried to retain a sense of decency in this place , which other honourable senators have not necessarily done. Senator Walters —It depends on your standards. Senator GRIMES —If my standards were as low as Senator Walters's I would be down in the gutter with her. That is all I have to say. The Attorney-General deserves praise, not censure. It is about time we stopped this debate. If we are going to debate this matter for another four hours we will have wasted another day in this place when there are far more important things to do. The motion deserves to be defeated and I am pleased to say that it will be defeated. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(11.05) —I remind the Senate that we are debating this motion moved by 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. This is a serious motion, as the Government has acknowledged, and it calls for further dispassionate debate. We are not on air today and I do not expect my speech to have any influence on the New South Wales election or any other election but I hope it will have some influence here. I believe that there are matters that need reiteration. I believe that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) deserves censure for the way in which he has handled this matter generally. I think the Attorney- General has taken a very arrogant attitude towards the development of the argument about the tapes. I think it was last Wednesday week that I read into the record some statements on the duty of the Attorney-General. It is not his duty to be a partisan in debate. The Attorney-General has a role which is very separate from that of other Ministers. I regret that this Attorney-General has shown himself to be extremely partisan, to be extremely concerned for his own situation and ready to abuse other members of Parliament rather than to take a reasonable attitude and to answer questions. I will briefly state what I think are the major criticisms of the Attorney- General made in this debate and others which justify the motion of censure. Even though the motion may not be carried because the Australian Democrats have indicated they will not vote for it, nonetheless I think it is necessary that we should place these things on record. Since the Age exercised what it believed was its public duty-I believe it was its duty-disclosed the tapes and these serious allegations and called for Parliament and other bodies to investigate, the Attorney-General has acted in a considerable hurry. He tried to pre-empt the Parliament by getting opinions and advice and suggesting a limitation upon the Parliament's power. It is very significant that in the statement which he made last Tuesday week he said: One might hope that that is where the matter will be allowed to rest-in the interests not only of the judge concerned, who has already had to endure a disgraceful campaign of gossip and innuendo, but also of the whole institution of the judiciary. I think the Attorney-General hoped and had expectations that by obtaining opinions from the Solicitor-General and Mr Temby and putting his own view we would agree that no further investigation should be made, particularly in the area which is the concern of this Parliament-that is serious allegations against a member of the judiciary. I think the Attorney-General hurried to obtain that advice in order to by-pass this Parliament and to stop it from proceeding to consider the matter. The matter has not been allowed to rest and the Attorney- General must be very aware of that now. The Attorney-General accepted the advice as to what 'proved misbehaviour' was which came hurriedly from Mr Temby-advice of a very limited nature. He accepted also the unfortunate advice that he should see the judge in question and ask him certain questions about the matter. As we know, he has reported selectively back to Parliament in regard to those matters. As I have said before and I do not propose to go into the argument, it was a grave mistake for the Attorney-General to do that himself rather than get it done by someone of eminent status outside the political area. As I said, it is unfortunate that he got Mr Temby to investigate and give his opinion in the first place. I believe Mr Temby is a man of considerable ability and one would hope that he will make a very good director-general of prosecutions-- Motion of Censure Motion of Censure Motion of Censure Motion of Censure Motion of Censure Motion of Censure Motion of Censure Motion of Censure Motion of Censure Motion of Censure Motion of Censure Motion of Censure Motion of Censure Motion of Censure Motion of Censure Motion of Censure Motion of Censure Motion of Censure Motion of Censure Motion of Censure Motion of Censure Motion of Censure Motion of Censure Motion of Censure Motion of Censure Senator Robert Ray —However. Senator MISSEN —I do not say 'however'; I say the Attorney-General has done Mr Temby an injustice by setting him-a man who has got, reasonably enough, a political background within the Labor Party-this job. It should have been done by someone of no political background. Senator Robert Ray —But you appointed Costigan to the painters and dockers. Senator MISSEN —We appointed Mr Costigan to do a job and he has done it in a very fine way. I am saying that in a matter which is so highly political-and obvious so-it would have been wise for the Attorney-General to have appointed someone outside the political area to advise him. I think he did an injustice to Mr Temby in doing that. The Attorney-General also got the advice of the Solicitor-General, and I will have more to say about that in a moment. I attacked that advice at length in the Senate last Monday. I think the Attorney- General has been unwise to accept the definitions of misbehaviour and the other advice in that opinion. I also believe that since that time the Attorney-General has shown in this Parliament a lack of initiative, an inability to try to advance the resolution of these matters in a way in which Parliament could ably handle them. He has answered questions at various stages. This week we had Senator Durack and other members of the Opposition attempting to have the tabling of a sanitised version-without names-of the material. Senator Gietzelt —So it becomes a public document. Senator MISSEN —No, not so that there would be names and descriptions of people but so that members of this Parliament could see what was raised in those tapes and statements. I have not heard any tapes or seen any transcripts. I have read what has been put in the newspapers. I think it is important for us to consider these matters in due course. Of course, the Government then performed a very clever sleight of hand. The Democrats had moved an amendment about which they were misled and which would have guaranteed that the documents to be tabled had been accepted as authenticated and were genuine. We may never have seen any documents tabled by the Government and this would have considerably delayed the settlement and finalisation of this whole matter. Senator Robertson —You much prefer phoney ones; they are easier to work with, aren't they? Senator MISSEN —No. Senator Robertson —It suits your style of operation on that side. Senator MISSEN —It does not suit my style of operation. What the Government did was a trick. By supporting the Democrats' amendment the Government turned the Opposition's amendment into a nonsense. The Government then crossed the floor, cleverly, to vote against the amendment when it had become ineffective. I will give the Government a B grade pass for clever tactics but that does not help this Parliament in the resolution of this matter. It is important to decide today the question of whether a committee should be appointed. That is a question which we sorely need to deal with here so that the other matter is dealt with outside the range of public debate. A committee of the Parliament could consider these matters and hear from those persons who may be involved in the tapes. I refer to what I think are four propositions that have arisen in this debate so far as the rights and duties of the Parliament are concerned. I do not intend to repeat the arguments which I raised in detail in my speech in this Parliament on Monday and which I stand by. Several of the arguments, which the Opposition has raised, have been conceded by the Attorney-General. He endeavours to say that he has not changed his ground but, of course, he has. The first is the proposition that these matters, arising under section 72 of the Constitution, are not justiciable, that they would not be dealt with by a court, in particular the High Court of Australia. There is an exception, which both the Attorney- General and I maintain, that is, that if the Parliament proceeded where there was no semblance of misbehaviour but where there was merely a political exercise or prejudice and there was no evidence of misbehaviour, the Court may well intervene. However, it is clear-the Attorney-General now accepts the proposition -that otherwise the Court will not intervene. The interesting point is that, in the statement which the Attorney-General made on Tuesday week to this Parliament and, in particular, in the detailed opinion which the Solicitor-General gave him and which accompanied it, there is no reference to the question of justiciability. There is no argument whatsoever about it and no acceptance there of the proposition that this is a matter for the Parliament, not one for the courts to intervene. However, it has now been accepted and we must be thankful for that. Senator Gietzelt —Without a charge? Senator MISSEN —Without a charge, of course. Parliament is not a court. Parliament does not deal with these as if it were a criminal trial. Senator Robertson —You want it to be, though, don't you? You want to play lawyers in this situation. Senator MISSEN —No, I do not want to play lawyers. I retired from that after 25 years. Senator Gietzelt —Where is the misbehaviour? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! Senator MISSEN —I am not going to bother to deal with such childish interjections; I will proceed with my argument. Senator Chaney —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. There has been a continuous stream of interjections, including from the front bench. There have been requests by the Chair during this debate that honourable senators be heard in reasonable silence. I ask you to request that Senator Missen be given an opportunity to make his speech in silence. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. All interjections are unparliamentary. Senator Missen, I suggest you address your remarks through the Chair. Senator MISSEN —I will certainly do that, Mr Acting Deputy President. I was saying that, so far as justiciability is concerned, one need only read the Convention debates-both Senator Durack and I put them into the record on Monday- to see that when section 72 of the Constitution was formed these matters were very much in the minds of the founding fathers who created the Constitution. They made it very clear that they expected Parliament to be the premier body to determine these matters. They regarded as ludicrous the idea that courts-for example, the High Court-might be forced to sit in judgment in appeal on something affecting perhaps a member of its own Bench. Obviously this was not the intention when the Constitution was drawn up. That is accepted now. It is not a judicial procedure by Parliament; it is a matter about which Parliament certainly must be fair and ought to exercise all the elements of natural justice , allowing people to be heard and represented. It is not a matter in which the courts are intervening, nor is it a matter about which evidence which may be necessary to prove a charge or conviction in a court is all that can be considered. The Parliament can consider what it believes is reliable information in determining this matter. That is the first proposition where, now that the Attorney-General has retreated, it has been accepted as being one of Parliament' s objectives. It is solely Parliament's duty to consider these complaints. I think this point has now been conceded. It must be proved to the satisfaction of Parliament. The word 'proved' is in the Constitution because the founding fathers wanted to make very clear that Parliament had the sole right to do that. That point has now been acceded to by the Attorney-General. Honourable senators should remember that when he put down the opinion by Dr Gavan Griffith on Tuesday week there was a very different situation as to whether Parliament should make up its own mind, create its own procedures and decide whether, in its view, there was some proved misbehaviour. Paragraph 21 of Dr Gavan Griffith's opinion states: It follows that the terms of section 72 dictate meaning for ''proved misbehaviour''. Dictate to whom? Senator Gietzelt —Where is the misbehaviour? Senator MISSEN —I will come to that. Dr Gavan Griffith goes on to say: Inasmuch as Parliament considers the matter, the question is whether there is proved offence against the general law ''of such a nature as to warrant the conclusion that the incumbent is unfit to exercise the office''. That is taken from an opinion of Mr Garfield Barwick, as he then was, long before he was a member of this Parliament or even a judge. It is one which I believe is not backed up by any other evidence. Dr Griffith goes on to say: Parliament is not at large to define proved misbehaviour by reference to its own standards or views of suitability for office or moral or social character or conduct. The Parliamentary enquiry is whether commission of an offence of the requisite quality and seriousness is proved. Parliament would act beyond power if it sought to apply wider definition or criteria for misbehaviour than the recognized meaning of misbehaviour not pertaining to office. That is his interpretation of 'misbehaviour'. That is what he regarded as having to be proved. He also referred to the Parliament acting beyond its power. I presume he means some court would intervene. When the Attorney-General relied upon that opinion he was relying upon one that told Parliament what it could not do. That is advice which the Attorney-General has now abandoned. I turn to the third proposition in this matter, that is, the two grounds of ' proved misbehaviour' which the Attorney-General tells us are the only grounds the Parliament can look at. One pertains to some action by a judge in his judicial office which is so offensive that he ought to be removed. The second is what has been said by Dr Gavan Griffith and repeated and accepted by the Attorney-General. I note that it was accepted yesterday by the Prime Minister ( Mr Hawke), despite the fact that I think we have refuted it already in this Parliament. It is 'the commission of an offence against the general law of such a quality as to indicate that the incumbent is unfit to exercise his office'. I am not at all sure what is meant by 'an offence against the general law'. I know the common law and I know the statute law, but 'the general law' is such a vague idea. Presumably it does not include taxation law, for example. If a judge were seen to be acting in a very fraudulent way in regard to the taxation law, setting a standard which made other citizens despise him, I think that would be a matter which ought to be considered. So even if one were to take the two criteria of Mr Temby and Dr Griffith, the second proposition is too vague. I do not know what it means. Of course, the answer is that no such definition is exclusive. We showed this the other day. The words used by the authorities relied on by the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General talk about the definition of misbehaviour being inclusive of these things. By a slide and by a very poor argument they have then assumed its exclusiveness, that is, that there are no other grounds for proven misbehaviour. Of course, we know that many things which could be done by a judge would not break the general law, yet may be far worse in terms of behaviour than a criminal breach. For example, a judge could be found guilty of drunk driving or some offence of that sort. That is a criminal offence. Yet it would be much worse if, in fact, a judge were found to be conniving with corrupt elements in our community, or if he were found, for example, to be engaging in politics to the denigration of other people's characters. People who expected from him much higher standards-and I notice that it is accepted generally that a judge's standards should be higher than average-would find that to be a worse offence, although it is not a criminal offence. That is the problem, of course, for the Attorney-General. He has got Mr Temby and the Solicitor-General to say that the behaviour must be criminal behaviour. Yet the behaviour of a judge may be much worse than that where a crime is committed. The definition which Parliament has of misbehaviour must be wide enough to cover all those incidents. However, in the opinion before us here, Mr Temby talks not about just the general law. His view is that the offence must be an 'infamous offence'. He resurrects the very old view of what are called 'infamous offences', which include treason and, I think, misprision and all kinds of offences, some of which are no longer relevant. So there is an alternative. Even according to the Attorney-General's advice, the offence can be an infamous offence or an offence against the general law. Senator Durack, I and others have maintained that the definition of misbehaviour cannot be defined and that Parliament is the body to determine it in particular circumstances. The important thing is that once one concedes, as does the Attorney-General, that Parliament must make these decisions and that this matter should not be dealt with by courts, what is the value of the Government trying to put Parliament in a straightjacket? It acknowledges that Parliament should not be overriden but it suggests that, in effect, this is what Parliament ought to do. The last of the four propositions is that Parliament should not insist on the documents being produced, should not insist on taking this matter further and should not insist on asking the Attorney-General more questions. That is a matter about which the Attorney-General and his adviser can advise the Parliament and make suggestions, but it cannot demand. Parliament, of course, must go ahead to deal with this matter through a committee inquiry quietly examining the allegations which were seriously made and questions such as the reliability of the record, whether the tapes have been tampered with and whether they are illegally obtained. The latter seems to be generally accepted-- Senator Gietzelt —Are you an expert on that, that you can make a decision? Senator MISSEN —No. Senator Gietzelt does not understand. It is so long since he has been active on Senate committees that he apparently does not realise that committees of the Parliament can and must call in experts. They must listen to the material which the joint investigating bodies-the police and others-have found regarding the allegations. I trust they would have to bring in the judge if necessary and question him as to the conversations-- Senator Gietzelt —Would you like every one of your conversations taped? Senator MISSEN —I have a very strong opinion against the taping of conversations and so forth. But I am not as concerned with what people say during their conversations as with what they do. I do not presume anything, either in regard to this judge or in regard to other people on the tapes. One has to be satisfied in regard to what they do, that is, whether they are directing or requesting people to do things which are abominable and vicious. One has to be satisfied as to their actions and not just as to their conversations. I do not disagree with the Attorney-General, with Senator Chipp and others who have pointed out the dangers inherent in the taping of these conversations and the necessity for us to be satisfied that they took place and that they are really more than just windy conversation or even lies or puffery on a conversational level. They have to be shown to be more than that. That has not been shown. I have not formed any fixed judgment whatsoever in regard to these parties. There are two or three other matters. We have heard extraordinary speeches by Senator Button and Senator Grimes. It is quite evident that neither really defends the Attorney-General or his actions. The honourable senators went on to the attack about other people and the misuse of tapes-- Senator Gietzelt —Misuse of parliamentary privilege, too. Senator MISSEN —And misuse of parliamentary privilege. I am very concerned about the misuse of parliamentary privilege. I say quite definitely that I do not take much notice of anything that is said by that couple of renegade Liberals in Queensland. I am pleased to say that I voted for the expulsion of one of them from the Liberal Party in Victoria, after he had denigrated his parliamentary leader over a long period. I am proud of the fact that I voted for his expulsion . He moved elsewhere. I do not take notice of what happens in other parliaments on this subject or think that it is something that this Parliament should take much notice of. This Parliament has the responsibility to deal with the matter. Senator Button's speech yesterday was extraordinary. I think we could call it a Rip Van Winkle speech. Obviously, he has been asleep for the whole of the last fortnight. He said that nobody in Opposition had challenged the opinions in question during the debate. Incredibly, Senator Button was not with us last Monday-although I thought he was-if he does not know that these opinions were challenged. Unfortunately, we have a fairly servile media in this country which is interested in what the Attorney-General says but is not interested in reading what we have said. Now that the copies of Hansard are here, the media representatives can read what we said regarding the unsoundness of the opinions on which the Attorney has based his views. To say, as Senator Button said, that these opinions have not been challenged is, of course, incredible. It reminds me of a meeting in 1975 of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs which was having a tremendous argument over the matter of national compensation. A row was going on in the Committee meeting between the Chairman, former Senator Everett and former Liberal Senator Reggie Wright, who were not exactly bosom pals. Senator Chaney will no doubt remember this incident. After we had tried to settle something finally the Chairman said: 'We could solve this thing if only Senator Button were here'. Pointing across the room, I said: 'He is here. There he is in the ringed-back chair. He has fallen asleep and missed the whole of this row.' He was there. Obviously he has been sleeping through the whole of this debate in this chamber over the last fortnight. Senator Button said that the Opposition has made nothing of the inconsistency in its questioning. I beg to differ entirely with that. He said that the Senate must be judicial in what it does. I have refuted that. It is not so. He finished up by asking: 'Where is this Parliament going?'. That is a good question, because I think we have to determine in a practical sense where it is going. We have to determine whether this series of allegations, which may or may not be faulty and which may or may not be reliable-- Senator Gietzelt —But don't you agree, Senator, that the Justice's reputation has been torn to shreds as a result of this? Senator MISSEN —I agree that a justice's reputation has been gravely damaged. I think that it is the duty of this Parliament to investigate this matter now in a dispassionate way, preferably by a committee where the same flourishes and the same desire to impress the public outside does not exist. It is important, and not only in the interests of that judge's reputation, that this matter be carefully examined. It has to be done. We cannot leave the matter where it stands now. It is not good enough for Senator Evans to say: 'I want to let it rest'. The matter cannot rest. In fact, it is our duty under the Constitution to investigate these matters. We must do so. I hope that Senator Durack's initiative, which requires some change in the wording-- Senator Gietzelt —About censuring the Attorney-General? Senator MISSEN —I do not expect that to be carried. Senator Gietzelt —But that is the motion you are speaking to. Senator MISSEN —I know that I am speaking to that motion, but I am being realistic about it. I am saying that I hope the subsequent proposal will be adopted. If it is, we can get this criticism of judicial behaviour into a framework and a forum where these Houses of Parliament can be advised by a committee after careful investigation of the matter. We have to do that now because the situation has been reached where not only is the judge's reputation being damaged but also the reputation of the judiciary throughout Australia is being somewhat affected. There are articles in the newspapers which recognise the concern. We must recognise the facts. We must recognise the great dangers in the invasions of privacy that occurred in the taping. Senator Tate —You used to be a champion against bringing material forward that could damage people's privacy. Senator MISSEN —I continue to be so. I have not changed my views in any respect. Senator Tate —Would you wait for the material to be authenticated? Senator MISSEN —No, because the damage is done long before that time. It is not good enough for us to wait. We must have, as quickly as possible, what evidence there is as to its authentic nature. We may need to ask the people in question, because they are the ones who can say: 'No, that is not an accurate statement. I did not say that and, if I did, I did not mean it to be taken seriously'. Senator Gietzelt —You have decided it is prima facie evidence? Senator MISSEN —I am not deciding anything is prima facie evidence. I have no personal animus against the judge who I believe is criticised or against the other persons on the tapes, most of whom I probably do not know. I claim to have no personal bias or animosity in this matter. I am concerned that Parliament does it right. For example, having read recently how the other House of Parliament in 1920 dealt with the expulsion of a Mr Mahon because he had made what was considered to be-- Senator Gietzelt —That was before tapes were ever thought of. Senator MISSEN —It does not matter. He made over a weekend a public speech which was regarded as seditious, pro-Irish and anti-British Empire. He was expelled by the other House of Parliament. The way in which that was done was one of the disgraceful performances of this Parliament. Likewise, the way in which the Parliament performed its duties in the Browne and Fitzpatrick case, in which the other House of Parliament again exercised its privileges in 1965, I think, was a disgrace. It had these powers then but it used them very badly and did not deal with justice with people outside its ranks. This present matter has had a bad start but we have to finish it by trying to see that it is properly done, without the sensationalism which has accompanied it and which is influenced, to some extent, by an imminent State election, although I think that election will probably be very little affected by things said and done in this Parliament. It is this Parliament's honour and integrity which are at stake at this time. We cannot avoid going into this matter properly by committee. Although this motion concerns the Attorney-General's actions-I regret that his actions have heightened and failed to solve the matter. Therefore, this is a relevant question. The important discussion is: Where do we go to from here. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(11.34) —The Senate is considering a motion of censure against the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, for his handling of what is called the Age tapes affair and his refusal to provide appropriate information to this Parliament. The first line of defence the Attorney-General has put up is the illegality of the taping. There is no reasonable doubt that these tapes were illegally made, but the attitude of the Government and of Government Ministers seems to be fairly flexible. Some time ago the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) used a tape which was illegally obtained. On the Mike Willesee show he was asked about his attitude to his use of this illegal tape. This was his answer: . . . not only do I not regard it as any significant invasion of privacy that I should be concerned about, but I believe it's a duty of anyone who's got information which will disclose the nature of these people and what they will do to decent Australians, then they should be revealed for the sort of people they are and the perfidious and hypocritical actions that they undertake. That was the remark of the present Prime Minister when he was using, for his own purposes, an illegally obtained tape. It is important to understand that the fact that this information is obtained illegally-there is no reasonable doubt about that-does not prevent us taking appropriate action, although of course we have to be satisfied before we take action that the material is authentic and relevant. The Attorney-General has made a great deal about the invasion of privacy involved, and certainly that is very serious, but of course the invasion of privacy is exactly the same whether the tapes were obtained legally or illegally. The invasion of Mr Combe's privacy , although his tapes were obtained legally, was just as much an invasion of privacy as this is. The problem I find with the Attorney-General's attitude is that he is putting up smokescreens to prevent his doing what I think he knows he should be doing. Worse still-I think he was well described as an Inspector Clousseau in his behaviour and success-he seems to be most concerned, because it is a simply proved offence, one would have thought, to get the people who made the tapes. One wants to think about the circumstances in which these police, and I am sure they were police, made these tapes. They were confronted with a situation in New South Wales where some level of corruption has been endemic for years. It has become much worse under the Wran Government. They were confronted, when trying to investigate serious crime, with a network that covered police, politics, the criminals and elements of the judiciary. In order to try to find out what was blocking proper law enforcement in New South Wales they illegally taped things. Their methods were wrong; their motives, I think, were admirable. The danger is that Senator Evans's Inspector Clousseau-type activities will get the honest cops in New South Wales thrown out and leave the people they were trying to expose still in positions of power and influence. He has to start considering what will be the consequences of his actions. Like nearly all the things he does , they will have quite counter-productive effects. I now turn to the responsibility of Parliament in this matter. Section 72 of the Constitution makes it quite clear that this Parliament is responsible for removing judges who have shown themselves to be inappropriate to hold that position. We have to define misbehaviour. It is not for the Solicitor-General or for some Director of Public Prosecutions. We have to make up our minds what is misbehaviour. Consider what might happen if there were before this chamber a motion to remove a judge for misbehaviour. We would have to decide whether we accepted that his behaviour constituted misbehaviour. It is our responsibility. Of course, being a responsible body, I hope that we would listen to people, including the Solicitor-General and others. Knowing lawyers, we would have very diverse arguments to listen to, but we ultimately hold the responsibility. We in this Parliament must decide whether a particular type of behaviour constitutes misbehaviour. No one else can do it. They can advise us, but our responsibility remains. Senator Robertson —Not from first principles. Senator HAMER —Of course, from first principles. It is our responsibility. We can take such advice as we wish, but we must have responsibility. There is another point in the Constitution I should refer to-the reference to 'proved misbehaviour'. That does not mean, as some honourable senators appear to think, that there has to be some sort of conviction in a court of law before the Parliament can act. The 'proved' undoubtedly refers to this Parliament having to accept, to decide, that the offence which it is complaining about is proven. We have to be the deciding body. We can take what advice we like, but ultimately the responsibility is ours and we cannot get away from it. The question of the justiciability of these decisions is pretty clear. There is no way in which our decision that the offence was proved is justiciable. I can conceive of circumstances in which the Parliament might act completely irrationally so that the decision that behaviour constituted misbehaviour within the meaning of section 72 of the Constitution might be reviewed by the High Court. The question of proof is not justiciable. The definition of misbehaviour which Parliament accepted might be challenged. In the first instance, after taking proper advice, it is the responsiblity of this Parliament, not the Executive, not the judiciary, to decide what constitutes misbehaviour. If we are to make such a decision, we must have the information on which that decision can be made. The Government is trying to push us into a catch-22 situation in which the Attorney-General says: 'Yes, it is your responsibility, but no, I will not give the information on which you can exercise that responsibility'. That is a position which we cannot accept. Senator Robertson —Two bob each way. Senator HAMER —No, I am having it all on the one horse. We must make the decisions. We are the responsible body. We must decide whether the material is genuine or authentic. We should not delegate that decision to the Executive. We shall not make it by ourselves; we shall get advice-which is what the Attorney- General will be doing-which will allow us to decide whether the material is genuine or authentic. It is our responsibility. That was the weakness of, and why I voted against, the amendment moved by the Australian Democrats on the question of producing these tapes and transcripts in this chamber. They had left the decision as to whether the tapes and transcripts are genuine or authentic to the Executive. That is quite wrong. It is not the Executive's responsibility; it is the Parliament's responsibility, and we cannot yield it to anyone else. Senator Gareth Evans has referred the material to the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking. He did not check it for authenticity first. He gave the material to the Commission. That Commission will no doubt decide whether the material is genuine or authentic. Senator Gareth Evans gave it the whole lot. Why does he treat a royal commission in that way, and Parliament, which has quite different but clear and separate responsibilities, in a different way? He should give the relevant material that he gave to the Royal Commission to that Commission and he should give Parliament the relevant material that concerns us. He should not filter it first. We agree that it is to be published-I shall come to that shortly-and that it has to be sanitised, to use the expression which is in current use, to remove persons' names. But nevertheless, ultimately the responsibility is ours, and we must have the material on which we have to exercise that responsibility. I accept the difficulty involved in tabling this material even when it is sanitised by removing the names and distinguishing characteristics of individuals. They will be identified. But on balance, I thought that it was proper to table the material, because most of it had already been published in a newspaper. We have the situation that the material was in the hands of the Government, having been given to it by the newspaper, but was not being given to the Parliament. I accept this difficulty, but the Attorney-General has not said: 'There is a difficulty, but I shall endeavour to overcome it'. He has never, for instance, said: 'I cannot give it to the Parliament to be tabled publicly, yet of course I will give it to a select committee'. If he says that a select committee is not appropriate, I draw his attention to the fact that he has proposed the setting up of a select committee of Parliament to monitor security matters and to have access to information far more sensitive and far more damaging to individuals than is this information. Yet he has made no such proposal in this case. All that we have been met with is a blank and sometimes childish refusal to provide any information of any relevance to the Parliament. We have gone on, day after day, probing so that we can perform our proper role, the role assigned to us by the Constitution and the role for which we are elected. All that we are met with is indifference, sneers or frivolous answers from the Attorney-General. That is just not good enough. I must mention one further matter about the judiciary. Until this case is resolved there will be a permanent stain on the judiciary. All of them are under this slur. Until the one judge is identified, all are under suspicion. I believe that it would have been decent and proper for the judge concerned, when this matter first arose, to come forward and say: 'I am the judge concerned. Of course, I do not like the invasion of privacy; I think that it was outrageous. But I am innocent of any wrong doing'. He should identify himself. There is a very good precedent for this. When, in England, a similar slur was cast on the members of the Conservative front bench, Winston Churchill junior, one of the Conservative front bench, came forward and said: 'To avoid my colleagues being unjustly reflected upon by this sort of misinformation, I announce that I am the Conservative front bencher concerned'. I think that the judge should have done the same because until he is publicly identified this slur will be hanging over the whole Federal judiciary, to the great damage of our judicial system. Finally, I return to the Attorney-General himself. It is very sad that he has shown himself-although in many ways he was quite successful as shadow Attorney- General-to be quite unable to cope with the job itself. He seems quite unable to combine the job of being a party Minister in a party government with the job of being the first law officer of the Commonwealth and the legal adviser to this Parliament. He also does not seem able to distance himself from his former contacts, some of whom, in current circumstances, are inappropriate. He reminds me very much of a footballer bounding forward and shooting at goal with both feet-but, of course, being an Inspector Clousseau type, missing all the time and probably falling over. Nevertheless, he is bounding forward and shooting wildly at goal, then suddenly he stops, blows the whistle, becomes the referee, and says that the opposition is offside. He cannot combine these two functions in the way in which he is trying to do. He has neither the style nor the temperament for it. The Attorney-General has lost the confidence of the Opposition in his ability and impartiality as Attorney-General. From this debate it also appears that he has lost the confidence of the Government. Neither the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) nor the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Grimes) bothered to defend him. They spent all their time attacking the Opposition. This is a problem for this Parliament. It is most important that this Parliament should have an Attorney-General in whom it has confidence and whom it can trust. Senator Robertson —Did you say that the Leader of the Government in the Senate and his Deputy did not support him? Senator Gietzelt —Do you suggest that you have an open mind on this? Senator HAMER —I have a very open mind about it. I repeat, for Senator Robertson 's benefit, that in their debating speeches neither the Leader of the Government in the Senate nor the Deputy Leader of the Government spent much time defending the Attorney-General. They spent most of their time attacking the Opposition. We have an Attorney-General who, by his actions and by his childish behaviour, has lost the confidence of this chamber and this Parliament. He should be censured. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales)(11.46) —I rise to defend the Attorney- General, Senator Gareth Evans, against this censure motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Chaney). I state from the outset that I shall be defending the Attorney-General's handling of this matter in a very personal sense. From the very first moment that the Age tapes surfaced the Attorney-General immediately referred the material for investigation. He referred them to Mr Temby, QC, an eminent lawyer and one whose integrity, I should have thought, would not have been in question. The Attorney-General referred the material to the Solicitor-General, Dr Griffith, one of the senior law officers of the nation and, again, a person whose integrity is not and should not be in question. Their opinions showed conclusively, without any doubt , that the judge in question was not guilty of misbehaviour. The Attorney-General, as he has already stated in the Senate, conducted an interview with the judge himself. Again, after the interview, after reading the transcripts, after hearing the tapes, after looking at the opinions of Mr Temby and of the Solicitor-General, he came to the conclusion that the judge was not guilty of misbehaviour. That he should be satisfied with those opinions of independent men of integrity should come as no surprise to any of us. That the Opposition should not be satisfied with those opinions should, equally, be no surprise to any of us because this matter should be seen and known to be a purely political exercise, one to even old scores in a vain attempt to make new impressions-but a vain attempt it will remain. The amazing scenes in this Parliament over the last few days, in the New South Wales Parliament a few days earlier and in the Queensland Parliament can only serve to bring down the public esteem of our institutions. I do not wish to comment too much on the performance of Mr Jennings in the Queensland Parliament except to say that it was Barry Simon, Andrew Peacock's henchman and hired help, who successfully had him booted out of the Victorian Liberal Party, and that Andrew Peacock should seek to rely on him and hide behind his skirts is pathetic . But it is indicative of the Opposition's campaign of recent weeks. As to the fact that I should call this a political exercise, some would say that it is because I have a bias in this matter. But I would like to quote from this morning's Sydney Daily Telegraph. The editorial on page 10 states: Only a fool would believe that the drama being enacted in both Houses of Parliament over the past few days was not a jostle for political advantage. . . . . The Liberals must think the electorate naive enough to forget the early concern of the Opposition Leader, Mr Peacock, 'to observe the civil liberties of those named in the transcripts'. It is amazing how that concern evaporated with the announcement of a State election in New South Wales. That, of course, is what all this tawdry operation has been about. That Senator Gareth Evans, who has acted so honourably, so promptly, so fairly and so properly in this matter, should have a censure motion put forward in an attempt to besmirch his name is again indicative of how low the Opposition will stoop. That all this could be based on tapes and transcripts-purported transcripts of conversations not backed up by tapes and, what is more, thrown over a journalist 's back fence-shows just how far the Opposition is willing to go. Ms Mary Gaudron, the Solicitor-General in New South Wales, one of the first persons of repute in our community to have the opportunity to investigate this material, when looking at how authentic these tapes might be, said: In some conversations there are changes in speech patterns and/or speed which are to the untrained ear suggestive of 'editing.' The question then becomes: Should the Attorney-General be a party to this political exercise? Should he denigrate this House and the Parliament as a whole by playing the Opposition's game? I am told that 11 conversations are recorded on these tapes. Some 3,000 conversations, taken over six months, are summarised or in some cases purported to be recorded faithfully in transcripts. How could any person named on those transcripts, whether he allegedly took part in a conversation or was merely referred to in one, ever defend his name once that material was made public? Those people would remain forever damned, forever blackened, with no opportunity for defence. Those transcripts can never be properly verified or authenticated. There have already been expert opinions on them. No doubt when the Australian Federal Police has finished its investigations into them even more expert opinions will be available. But, regardless of how many expert opinions we get, how do we verify transcripts that will never be backed up by tapes? There have been doubts as to where this material originated. It was said that it came from the Crime Intelligence Unit in the New South Wales Police-something upon which the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Neville Wran, has already cast serious doubt. We must get back to the original question about which Senator Gareth Evans has been very concerned since this matter began. Senator Gareth Evans has a long record in the fight for civil liberties in this country. What civil liberties would exist for the people referred to on those tapes and transcripts if the demands of the Opposition were met by the Government? Which civil liberties would be allowed for those who are referred to but who are not involved directly in the alleged conversations? It should be noted at this stage that Ms Mary Gaudron has had much to say on this point as well. In her original report she said: The remaining six bundles of documents are not matched with corresponding tapes . There is thus no measure by which their accuracy or authenticity can be assessed. In view of the fact there just is not any way in which we can authenticate the material, how can the Parliament subject itself to being the arbiter of the future reputation of those people when it knows that there is a doubt about the material from the beginning that it can never erase? Let us look at the Attorney -General's responsibilities against the background of the points I have already made. The motion seems largely to have been forgotten in debate by those Opposition speakers who have spoken. I note that no member of the National Party has so far spoken. Perhaps members of that Party are sufficiently embarrassed by Mr Jennings's performance to wish to remain quiet. Judging from what members of the Opposition have said, the Attorney-General should not at the moment be sitting in his office shaking too much because the motion actually refers to providing information to the Parliament. I would have thought it was the Attorney-General's responsibility-indeed, the very essence of his job-to ensure that if he provides information he is at least confident of its authenticity. No proper, honourable or competent Attorney-General could do anything less. Given the opinions of Ms Mary Gaudron that I have read out, one wonders just how the Attorney-General would go about providing authenticated material to this Parliament, especially when the information on these transcripts and tapes can damage irreparably the reputations of people in high public office and ordinary citizens alike. In this case, of course, it is the person in high public office who has received the most notoriety. That relates to the point I made about settling old scores. But surely the reputation and the integrity of the Senate and the Parliament as a whole are more important than just settling old political scores or making new points. Having pointed out the worthlessness of this material at law, one wonders why, if the material could not be used in even the lowest magistrate's court, let alone a district court, a Supreme Court, or the High Court, it should suddenly be sanitised enough for use in either House of the Parliament. Why should either House of the Parliament entertain the tabling of this material? Why should the Attorney-General entertain answering all of the Opposition's queries when there is absolutely no hope of authentication? In the New South Wales Parliament only a couple of weeks ago the Premier, Mr Neville Wran, quoted Mr Collins, an independent expert briefed by a Canberra solicitor who had run a test on these tapes via computer signals. Mr Wran reported that Mr Collins had said 'there had been a conspicuous change in the nature and amplitude of the background noise occurring'. Further, after his computer analysis-something I do not think any member of the Opposition can claim to have done thus far-he said that he had detected evidence 'strongly indicative of tampering'. Not only do we have tapes that are unauthenticated but also we already have expert opinion which at least points to a very grave and serious doubt as to their authenticity. Can this ever come within the ambit of reliable information? I would have thought that if the Attorney-General were to provide information to the Senate its reliability ought to be established before he did so. How can the Senate or the House of Representatives pretend that the allegations in these tapes and transcripts amount to reliable information? There is so much doubt about them, and that doubt can never be erased. The Parliament's dignity should not be lowered or dragged down any further in the public's esteem by being pushed into the role of a kangaroo court to hunt down, to besmirch or to kill off the reputation of political enemies, some of whom might have been members of the Senate. Those enemies-past, present or future-should not be subject to the abuse of their name and to what in some cases amounts to their name never being able to be restored to its former glory. The abuse of parliamentary privilege that has gone on in the parliaments of New South Wales and Queensland for some time unfortunately has been carried on in our Parliament in recent times. A vicious attack in another place last week upon a senior member of the judiciary should never have been contemplated. In this chamber in the last few days we have seen some members of the Opposition descending into a degree of muck-raking that really surprised me and I know surprised some of their own colleagues. All it can do is serve to undermine the public's confidence in its institutions-the Parliament and the judiciary. That is something to which I would have hoped none of us would be a party. For the Attorney-General to agree to the Opposition demands to name names and destroy reputations would be to demean his office and to demean the institution of Parliament as well. The Attorney-General acted promptly and properly. His propriety cannot be questioned. He has a long record of defence of civil liberties. His concern for that matter has been shown in his handling of the tapes as he has gone through the last few harrowing weeks. The real question is: Should anyone be tried by the Parliament or the courts on the basis of this material; material which was thrown over a journalist's back fence, transcripts of conversations without tapes and a few highly doubtful tapes, all illegally obtained? Some honourable members and honourable senators seek to pretend that the process by which this material was obtained is irrelevant. But if honourable senators opposite bat on with attempting to censure Senator Gareth Evans or if parliamentary committees begin examining these tapes this will encourage the law breakers. They will know that they can get away with monstrous invasions of privacy. What is more, if anyone wished to set up an opponent, or anyone wished to do some enemy damage, this would be giving that person the perfect blueprint. The sorts of proposals which the Opposition is coming up with will allow the unscrupulous to flourish and the innocent to suffer. I would have thought that it was the job of the Attorney-General to prevent that very thing happening. That is what he has been doing over the last couple of weeks. I, all members of the Government and, I am certain, the majority of Australian people support him in his endeavours. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(12.02) —Notwithstanding the fact that the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) has been forced to admit that this Parliament is solely responsible to decide the question of a prayer for the removal of a judge , the Attorney-General refuses to supply this Parliament with the material necessary to enable it at least to consider that question. That is why the Attorney-General is facing a censure motion in the Senate today. We have not seen the tapes and the transcripts. One gathers, from the debates, that some 300 conversations have been recorded. Apparently there are 524 pages of transcript and 12 tapes. I understand that they contain prima facie evidence of prostitution, drugs, horse race rigging and bribery in the State of New South Wales. Of course, they support the charge of corruption in New South Wales which has been established by inquiry after inquiry. Notwithstanding the flimsy attempts on the part of Government senators in this place to protect their Premier, Mr Wran, and his Government, that corruption has been established-so much so that it is evidenced by the fact that genuine policemen, sincere in their efforts in New South Wales, realised it was hopeless getting the Government to do anything and so they leaked this material to sources. Those sources realised it was hopeless to get even the New South Wales newspapers to publish it; so they arranged to provide the material to a Victorian newspaper. The corruption in New South Wales must surely be one of the things which the Australian Labor Party in this Federal Parliament ought to be ashamed of. It appears that the tapes and transcripts contain material relating to members of the Australian Labor Party. One thing is certain: They do not contain any material in relation to Mr Ian Sinclair, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in this Parliament. If they did, the tapes would have been tabled in this Parliament a long time ago. However, it appears also that the tapes contain allegations of improper actions of a judge. I ask the Senate: If there is nothing in those allegations, why did Mr Temby, who considered these tapes, advise the Attorney-General that he ought to tell the judge to discontinue his association with a solicitor whose name apparently figures very prominently in the tapes and transcripts? Further, the Attorney-General told this Senate that the judge claimed legal professional privilege in relation to his conversations with that solicitor. So one must presume that there is a solicitor-client relationship between the solicitor and the judge. Recently the High Court of Australia narrowed the definitions and application of legal professional privilege. I ask the Attorney-General whether he believes that legal professional privilege applies to these conversations or whether, under the recent case held in that regard in the High Court, that privilege should stand. As I mentioned earlier, apparently in some ways these tapes and transcripts relate to people involved in other criminal activities, for example, Mr Trimbole who is involved with drugs and other criminal activities. The Attorney-General has, quite properly, sent the parts of those tapes which relate to these matters to the various investigators concerned. But what did the Attorney-General decide to do in regard to the allegations relating to the judge? He decided to become the chief investigator. He told us yesterday that in this role he was acting as the Attorney-General, the first law officer of the country. But when he went to see the judge did he warn the judge that any statements which the judge might make to him might subsequently be used in evidence? Of course, they might subsequently be used in evidence. If the solicitor, under investigation from the joint task force of Commonwealth and State police, gives admissions to the task force which involve him in some criminal activity, then the link between the solicitor and the judge will be the evidence of the Attorney-General. I wonder whether the Attorney-General gave the judge the normal warning which members of the police force are required to give to a person whom they are questioning? Apparently the Attorney-General did not even have the intelligence to ask the judge whether it was his voice on the tapes. Did the Attorney-General believe that, having heard the tapes, there was no question that it was the voice of the judge and he did not need to ask him that question? I do not know and neither does the Parliament because the Attorney-General refuses to tell us. Did he take any of these matters which were raised in the transcripts and the tapes and ask the judge whether he denied them? Apparently, he did not or he certainly is not prepared to tell us that the judge denied them. It now appears that the judge does not deny them. That can be the only conclusion we can draw after the debate in the Senate this week on these matters. As we come to the end of this debate, it becomes perfectly clear that the Labor Party is not prepared to support the Attorney-General. We have heard the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) and the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Grimes, neither of whom has stood up for the Attorney-General. They have attacked the Opposition. In particular, they have turned on Senator Sir John Carrick. They have savaged Senator Sir John Carrick, but at no stage did they attempt to defend the Attorney-General's actions in this matter. They have talked about smearing tactics and all that sort of thing but they have not turned to the defence of the Attorney-General. Why? Because they know that the Attorney-General has acted improperly in this matter in not providing some scheme or making some arrangement, whether it be a select committee or whatever. They know that it was the Attorney-General's responsibility to this Parliament and to the nation to provide the Parliament with the material, in some way or other, that the Parliament is entitled to have in order to consider the questions raised concerning constitutional responsibility. As neither Senator Button nor Senator Grimes defended the Attorney-General, it will be interesting to see how Senator Gietzelt might defend the Attorney-General. This morning Dr Paul Gerber, apparently an expert on constitutional law, was interviewed on the radio program AM. I can recall, when he was in practice in Victoria, talking to him socially from time to time. This morning on AM he said some things which I would like to read to the Senate. Dr Gerber said: We have, we that is the population as a whole, have hitched our judges to a higher star behaviour than we expect from the rest of us. On any view, if the allegations are genuine, this judge has evinced mortal foibles, if you like, of a kind which we do not expect our judges to indulge in. Later on he was asked: Of course the Attorney-General has said that judges are real people; they do live in the real world. Why should they be held accountable for things which are quite normal for us mere mortals? In response Dr Gerber said: Well, I think the answer to that is that I view judicial office-- Senator Georges —I raise a point of order. I have been listening to what Senator Lewis has been saying and I have raised the point of order because I heard the same program. What Dr Gerber said this morning was plainly defamatory. Senator Lewis at present is introducing this matter and giving it the cover of privilege . I say that that is a matter he ought not to pursue. I think it is a very serious matter. Dr Gerber, at his own risk and at the risk of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, was giving currency to a defamatory matter without proof. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Lewis is entitled to conduct his speech in the way he chooses. Senator LEWIS —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I have the greatest admiration for Senator Georges in many respects but in this particular matter he is quite wrong. Dr Gerber has already gone public. If people wish to take action against him, they may do so. I am quoting Dr Gerber's opinion of these matters. I am not trying to do what Senator Georges suggests. Dr Gerber stated: . . . I view judicial office in a different plane from Mr Evans. These conversations if they can be attributed to the judge show the kind of behaviour which I would regard as lese-majesty, in other words, a High Court judge has got to be the kind of person who can always voice his thoughts on the public telephone. In this case, I think that has not happened. Finally, he stated: . . . indeed, I understand that Mr Evans in fact went to see the judge and confronted him with part of the allegation. The judge, as I understand it, whilst being outraged on the basis of an assault on his personal liberties and freedoms, did not disclaim the substance of the conversations although he said they were taken out of context. Senator Georges —Again, I rise to a point of order. Senator Lewis is proving exactly what I was saying. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Georges, I have already ruled on your point of order. Senator Lewis is entitled to make a speech as he chooses, provided he is within the Standing Orders. He is not exceeding the Standing Orders in his speech at the moment. You cannot keep on taking the same point of order. Senator Georges —I am entitled to raise the matter a second time. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —You have raised it and I have ruled on it. Senator LEWIS —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. Senator Georges has achieved his aim. I have run out of time and I must now sit down. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(12.14) —The Senate is dealing with a censure motion against the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). The Attorney-General has been on trial in the Senate yesterday and today. I believe parliamentary democracy is on trial as a result of the dastardly, disgraceful and disgusting tactics of members of the Opposition. We have seen evidence in recent days of the dregs of parliamentary democracy. I refer to the National Party members in Queensland attempting to use parliamentary privilege for the purpose of besmirching the reputations of citizens to whom no charge or trial has been afforded. They have made statements of a disgraceful nature against members of this Parliament. A statement was made against the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan), describing her as a bitch, and statements were made by Mr Jennings, a turncoat Liberal and now a member of the National Party in Queensland, and by Mr Lane, a turncoat. Having seen the muck-raking, having seen the dirt and filth which emanates from that Party, we now have the pious and so-called Liberal element of this national Parliament endeavouring to take advantage of that situation. They are speaking on constitutional matters, suggesting that all of those statements have a certain credence, a certain validity, and that this Parliament, made up of party political representatives, should therefore take the next step of putting these citizens on trial in this place and using constitutional legal mumbo-jumbo to establish some validity for the statements made in another place. I believe that parliamentary democracy has been weakened, has been demeaned, has been put in an indefensible position. I quote from an editorial in the Sydney Daily Telegraph to which one of my colleagues referred previously. It states: The Opposition has used parliamentary privilege to impinge the reputation of a citizen. Now their credibility is on the line. What did Senator Evans do with the very first publication of these alleged unauthentic unauthorised tapes? He presented a statement to Parliament, and he has been subjected to a concentrated barrage of questions which I believe he has answered with candour and frankness. In some respects, he answered very fully the questions put to him, but his answers were designed to protect the interests of the citizens who have been named in these unauthorised tapes and transcripts. If anybody should be on trial in this place it is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Senator Durack, because, clearly, it was during his reign as Attorney-General that the tapes were made. He has not made any criticism of the fact that the tapes were made. The Parliament has passed legislation setting responsibility for phone tapping in the office of the Attorney-General. No speaker on the Opposition side has suggested that there has been laxity or the commission of a crime in respect of these tapes, which were made in 1979. Yet Senator Durack, in seconding the motion that the current Attorney-General should be censured and criticised for his behaviour on this matter, has not sought to explain his lax administration in the period in which the tapes were made. As I understand it, the tapes were known to the Liberal-Country Party coalition . They were in fact referred to a Cabinet committee back in 1980, and the then Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, refused to have anything to do with them. So Senator Chaney, Senator Peter Baume, Senator Sir John Carrick, Senator Durack and all the other front bench Opposition senators who were members of the previous Government knew of the existence of the tapes but did absolutely nothing about them at the behest of the former Prime Minister, Mr Fraser. He did not accept their authenticity and did not want to have anything to do with unauthorised eavesdropping by telephone tapping in this country. We have a situation where guilt by association seems to have its place in the thinking of honourable senators opposite or, should I say, dishonourable senators opposite, who have attempted to traduce and besmirch and smear the character of prominent citizens without any prima facie evidence. Senator Missen suggested that he was not prepared to say there was a prima facie case against any person in this dispute. Nevertheless, he is prepared to lend himself to the suggestion that somehow or other Mr Morgan Ryan might be a person of some disrepute and, because he has some association with a member of the judiciary, that that places the member of the judiciary also in some state of disrepute. I remind honourable senators of a letter dated 21 June 1982 from E. K. White, a founding member of the Liberal Party, to Malcolm Fraser. He set out a character reference for Morgan Ryan and suggested certain things to the Attorney-General at the time, Senator Durack. The consequence of that correspondence to the Prime Minister was that the principal charge of forgery against Morgan Ryan was dropped and the other charge that was levelled against him was reduced in severity to the point where only a minor fine applied. The Opposition is not prepared to undertake the hard, slogging work of a creative, responsible Opposition. We do not hear it talking about the state of the economy; we do not hear it talking about unemployment; we do not hear it talking about the nuclear problems in existence throughout the world; we do not hear it talking about the poverty areas of Australia, the iniquities in our taxation system and all of the other areas in which the responsibilities of the Opposition are clearly as great as those of the government of the day. Rather, since the Parliament resumed, it has talked about the matters allegedly associated with the tapes and transcripts-tapes and transcripts that have been clearly doctored. It has suggested that the Age newspaper is the epitome of respectability; that because the allegations were published in that paper they have some measure of respectability and should therefore be a matter for the national Parliament. But one of the statements in the original Age article was shown to have been nothing more than an incorrect transcription of the tapes. As Senator Evans has consistently pointed out, thousands and thousands of conversations were involved. Persons other than the couple of names that have been mentioned may be affected. It may well be that other people's names were mentioned in the telephone conversations. Mr Deputy President, is the Opposition conscientiously saying that your Party believes that every time there is an unauthorised taping of telephone conversations, it becomes the responsibility of the national Parliament to concern itself, to set itself up as a higher court of appeal and to sit in judgment upon what is said on such tapes and in such transcripts? Are we saying that we come here as men and women with open minds, as does a jury in every other legal circumstance, and that we are capable of making value judgments about what a person may say, or did say, in respect of the transcripts? We know that that is hogwash. We know that there is no substance to that view. We know quite well that this is a party house, that the attitude that has been taken by the Opposition has been determined in the party room and that the Government's is clearly defending the position and judgment made by the Attorney-General who, I believe, has been very frank in the way in which he has dealt with this matter and whose behaviour throughout this incident has been satisfactory. His behaviour cannot under any circumstances be regarded as unsatisfactory in respect of his responsibilities to this Parliament. We are beginning to see a backlash amongst the Australian people about this matter and about the reputations of prominent citizens. I refer to an article in today's Australian, which states: But there are many lawyers-including some close to the High Court-who say it is grossly improper for the parliamentary Opposition to drag out the issue the way it has. Those lawyers believe that the standing orders of Parliament, which require any criticism of the judiciary to be undertaken by substantive motion rather than by questioning or innuendo, should be rigorously applied. Of course that is the case. But members of the Opposition have relied upon the dregs of parliamentary democracy in the Queensland Parliament because they did not want to put themselves in the position of mentioning names in the Parliament . But once persons had been named, they took the next step of moving a censure motion against the Attorney-General without any substance at all. The Attorney- General has taken the correct procedure in seeking information about these matters, in seeking the advice of reputable people who have been appointed to assist him in the processing of the claims, innuendoes and smears that are characteristic of the tapes. Those tapes are illegal. They were improperly taken . They were not authorised. There has not been a word from the Opposition about the legislation for which this Parliament was responsible which relate to inquiries that are available to satisfy any sensible, reasonable person about the authenticity of the tapes. I do not want to enter into the smear campaign being carried on by National Party members in other places and the innuendo by members of the Liberal Party. However, if that is the way the Parliament is to operate, we will be able to put together any amount of cases of irregularity and improper procedure by other people in public life in Australia, including those on the High Court. Do we want to apply that sort of standard to parliamentary debate, or do we want the Parliament to carry out its proper responsibility of introducing legislation and looking after the interests of the Australian people? I find it distasteful that people for whom I had some respect, even though I did not share their philosophy or ideological position, should allow themselves to be pushed into this sort of character assassination in the belief that somehow or other it would help their colleagues in the State election in New South Wales. It is without doubt a coincidence that on the last day on which the Senate proceedings were to be broadcast, Senator Chaney moved that sort of motion, knowing full well, or hoping that it would have some impact on the State election. Anybody who listened to PM and AM would have heard discredited individuals such as Jennings and Francis. They were associated with graft and corruption in Victoria to such an extent that they were expelled from the Liberal Party. They tried on AM and PM to give some sort of justification for this muck-raking process. The pattern that is developing is that anything is good in love and war . In politics, one can throw whatever mud or human excrement that one likes, as long as a little bit of it sticks. That is the way to achieve an objective. I believe that people outside who look to parliament for some inspiration and assistance in the way in which the country should be governed are appalled at the behaviour of the Opposition in this place. It used members in another place as a front to name people. Until that happened I respect the fact that in this place Senator Chaney and others refrained from naming people. But once it had been done, they jumped on the bandwagon, determined to extract every bit of political mileage possible. I am absolutely disgusted with National Party members-even those in this place- who countenance the behaviour exhibited by their colleagues in the Queensland Parliament. Once the muck-rakers have done their filthy, underhand work it is no good for the goody-goodies of the Liberal Party in this place to take advantage of that situation and to try to extract some political gain. It is a disgrace to the Westminster system. It is a disgrace to the fundamentals of British democracy and British justice. The principle that nobody is guilty until so proven seems to me to have been forgotten by some of those who pose as Liberals in this place. Let us look at what has happened recently. I will conclude on this note, because I realise some time limitations have been placed upon us. There was a case involving a Mr Anderson, a person about whom I make no comment. When his trial had been almost completed, certain utterances were made on television by public figures in New South Wales. What did the judge do? He dismissed the jury because of the influence and innuendoes that were inherent in the television reports because they could have prejudiced Mr Anderson's right to a fair trial. The judge correctly took the important step-it is one of the safeguards in our legal system-of dismissing the jury so that there would be no undue or other influence upon the deliberations of the jury. Does anyone suggest that in the Senate, where the Government lacks a majority, the same sort of approach to human decency and fundamental human rights, the principles of democracy and British justice, will be available to any person who has been named in the tapes and transcripts? Any honourable senator who believes that believes in fairy stories. In my belief this has been a very sorry and dark week in politics. I am glad that it is the last day of this sitting period and that when we come back the New South Wales election will have receded from the attention of the Senate and the House of Representatives and we will be able to get on with the job that we are here to do. We are here to pass legislation and to carry out properly our parliamentary responsibilities-not to be in a cesspool of excrement, which has been the tactics followed by the Opposition in this place. All I say is thank heavens the balance of power rests with the Australian Democrats and not with those in the Liberal-National Party ranks who seem to believe that they have the right to besmirch and destroy the reputation of any person just for political gain. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(12.31) —in reply-We have had a very lengthy debate on the motion which I moved to censure the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). The debate has been lengthened because a significant number of honourable senators felt they had to or wished to make a contribution to a debate which we regard as very important. Like Senator Gietzelt, we might all wish we had been able to spend the week on other matters. The Opposition simply says that we have spent so much of the week debating this matter because it is important and because the Government has not faced up to its responsibilities, and in particular the Attorney-General has not faced up to his. I think it is the universal wish of those in the chamber that we should take a vote on this motion by 12.45 p.m. Hence my response to the very many points which have been made in the course of the debate will be brief, as will my summing up. I wish to deal with the complaint of the Attorney-General and other honourable senators who allegedly spoke in his defence that the Opposition has concentrated its attention solely on the small number of tapes and transcripts involving the judge and has paid little or no attention to the approximately 3,000 tapes which involve other serious allegations, such as prostitution and SP bookmaking. I simply remind the Senate that the fact of the matter is that all of those matters, other than the allegations relating to the judge, are under a police inquiry headed by a special prosecutor. The Opposition has at all times said that it believes that is appropriate and that the Government was right to set that course of action in train. Our main concern is with the fact that as long ago as 17 February, in a statement put out by the Attorney-General and the Special Minister of State, Mr Mick Young, it was made quite clear that there would be no further investigation of the behaviour of the judge. That matter was excluded. It is therefore that matter which is of concern to the Opposition. It is properly our concern also because it is that matter which is peculiarly within the responsibility of the Parliament. It is the Parliament which has the responsibility of taking action if a member of the judiciary behaves improperly. That is our responsibility. We cannot escape it. While all of us might wish to be off doing something else, I remind the Senate that it is quite clear that unless the Parliament takes its responsibilities in this matter seriously they will not be dealt with satisfactorily. I was appalled to read in this morning's Australian Financial Review a well sourced article by Mr Hywood in which he said that the Federal Government's attitude is that it will defend somebody but it will not be making information available unless the Opposition tables material. Does not that go to the sort of complaint the Opposition has been making that the response of this Government and preparedness of this Government to make information available depends on whether the Opposition is prepared to do things which the Government senators have been telling us would be quite improper? We are in an awkward position as an Opposition where to get the Government to give a response we are being challenged to do things which the Government would then say is muck-raking. The whole of this debate on the Government's side has been characterised by a refusal to face up to the issues and, indeed, a preparedness to discuss anything but the issues. I will use the brief time that I have to use not the words of the Opposition but the words of other observers about the Government's conduct in this matter. As the Opposition has been continually met by abuse of the sort that was so common in the debate yesterday, when it was accused of muck-raking, I will put the views of some other people as to the inadequacies of the way the Government has handled this matter. I thought there was an excellent summary, as recently as this morning, of the sorts of complaints we have made about the Government and its handling of this issue. I quote from an article in the Sydney Morning Herald by Mr Les Carlyon, which I think puts it particularly clearly. Talking about Neville Wran and Gareth Evans and their response to these matter, Mr Carlyon stated: All through, it's seemed as though both men, on finding a body on their front doorstep, have been concerned not so much to discover what's going on-but to rail against the neighbours for having the gall to tell them the thing's lying there. Don't worry about the news: kill the messenger. That is what we have seen in this debate. We have been told not to worry about the substance of the matter and the allegations that there has been behaviour on the part of a judge that does not measure up to the high standards which Senator Evans himself said are required, but to kill the messengers and to abuse them and say there is something wrong with them. Mr Carlyon continued: It gets more serious. The story broadened, the messengers refused to cringe, so the Premier hauled on his overalls and began a litany about filth and muck, and even said: '. . . at times I feel like giving the whole thing away.' Then, next thing, he's holding an election, a victory in which would presumably stop him giving the whole thing away for another four years. A victory would be a fine achievement-except he'd still have to step over this body on the doorstep. A proper legal inquiry, rather than an election, would have removed it. Senator Evan's behaviour has been just as curious. The Attorney-General, a great civil libertarian (remember the Bill of Rights?), said the material shouldn't have been published. It invaded privacy. He didn't mention that he was responsible for the release of the Combe telephone show. He was incensed that The Age report contained an error. He didn't mention that the Combe transcripts contained many errors. The senator gave a homily on 'reasonable journalism,' all the more terrifying because he seemed to think the press an arm of government. The reponses of the Premier and the Attorney-General have been misguided all along. Terribly misguided. Week after week, they side-stepped the substance-the 10 lines of legal inquiry suggested by the New South Wales Solicitor-General and the Commonwealth Special Prosecutor-in their attempts to maim messengers. What a perfect summary of this debate! Do not bother with the issues. Maim the messengers. Complain about the fact that the issues have been raised. Again I will quote the comments of a series of newspapers on the matters. Senator Gietzelt —He is a journalist, is he? Is that all you have to rely on? Senator CHANEY —Senator Gietzelt quoted from newspapers in his speech. He should not complain when I do that in response. The Australian Financial Review, in discussing the allegations about the judge, stated: This is probably the most serious aspect of the reports based on tapes. For if it should emerge that a 'senior judge' was in fact behaving in this fashion, then there is absolutely no doubt that he is not fitted for his office, and should be removed from it at the earliest opportunity. That was one comment in one of the leading articles of the Australian Financial Review. The Melbourne Herald of 22 February stated: . . . there has been a concerted effort by the NSW Government to divert attention from their substance. It was referring to the substance of the tapes. It continued: If genuine, the contents reveal an alarming state of affairs. . . . . It is vital we establish whether the matters now raised have substance, and where they fit this pattern. It is the kind of job a National Crimes Commission could handle. On 29 February the Age said of the Attorney-General: He is more outraged by the invasion of privacy and the damage to reputation- although we have not named or precisely identified those involved-than by the evidence of crime, corruption and impropriety which the telephone tapping revealed. I could quote the opinions of many people who have nothing to do with the Opposition, who have had no political axe to grind and who are totally dissatisfied with the failure of the Attorney-General to come to grips with this matter and who are totally dissatisfied by the Government's failure to come to grips with the matter. I believe that the motion of censure is properly brought against an Attorney-General who has failed to meet the demands that he act in the public interest and not in party interests and partisan interest. Question put: That the motion (Senator Chaney's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lajovic, M. E. Boswell, R. L. D. Lewis, A. W. R. Carrick, Sir John MacGibbon, D. J. Chaney, F. M. Martin, K. J. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Missen, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Rae, PeterDurack, P. D. Reid, M. E. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Scott, D. B. Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C. Hill, R. Townley, M. Jessop, D. S. Walters, M. S. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Bolkus, N. Hearn, J. M. Chipp, D. L. Jones, G. N. Coates, J. McClelland, DouglasColston, M. A. Macklin, M. J. Cook, P. F. S. Maguire, G.R. Crowley, R. A. Mason, C. V. J. Elstob, R. C. Primmer, C. G. Evans, Gareth Ray, RobertEvans, Jack Reynolds, M. Foreman, D. J. Richardson, G. F. Georges, G. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Gietzelt, A. T. Ryan, S. M. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O. Watson, J. O. W. Childs, B. K. Archer, B. R. Button, J. N. Baume, Peter Coleman, R. N. Messner, A. J. McIntosh, G. D. Question so resolved in the negative. The PRESIDENT —The Senate and the House of Representatives have agreed to new sitting hours which involve each chamber continuing its sitting through the lunch period on each Thursday. The decision not to suspend the sitting of either House for lunch on Thursday creates difficulties for the Hansard staff. The staff is not large enough to permit continuous manual reporting during the lunch period while at the same time allowing reporters, typists and other Hansard staff to have an uninterrupted meal break. Accommodation constraints within the Hansard offices also preclude the recruiting of staff in numbers sufficient to enable this to be done. Under these circumstances, I have approved the Principal Parliamentary Reporter 's proposal that the proceedings of the Senate on each Thursday between 12.45 p. m. and 2 p.m. be tape-recorded. The Principal Parliamentary Reporter has advised that this arrangement will not interfere with the reporting of the Senate. Honourable senators will continue to receive pinks, although perhaps somewhat later than at present, and the tape-recorded segment will be included in the Hansard in the usual way. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-I wish to make a brief statement on the last vote. I abstained from it. I had hoped to advise the Senate of the purpose of my abstaining but the debate petered out earlier than I thought it would. I believe I will have the opportunity of stating why I abstained because it involves an interest that I have in one of the persons named on the tapes. Debate resumed. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(12.47) —I will not take the opportunity of the first reading to speak on an issue other than the issues regulating to the Bills but I take this opportunity now of raising an issue since the Parliament will rise for a couple of weeks. It relates to the Dried Fruits Levy Amendment Bill. I do not wish now to rehearse the comments that I will make during the second reading stage of the Bill, but since the Government is intending to double the current maximum rate of the levy in relation to dried fruits, which of course are levied for research purposes, and given the consideration that the 1984 season has been the worst season on record for the dried fruit industry, during the second reading stage I will be asking the Government to provide a financial impact statement on the financial impost on the industry of the increased levy. I wish to make only one other comment and that relates to a series of Press reports about the Democrats' position in relation to these Bills. If one reads them one is greatly confused as to what precisely is going on. Indeed, in some of the newspaper reports there were contradictions within the item itself. On 29 February I issued a Press release, which was not carried in any of the newspapers, but which related to the fact that the Bills that the Government was about to introduce in the House of Representatives arose out of the razor gang report. The criticism contained in that Press release related to the fact that the current Australian Labor Party Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, at the time of the introduction of the razor gang report had said that the measures -measures which he has now introduced in the House of Representatives-were mad and crazy. The Government now proposes to introduce six Bills which when in opposition, it severely criticised. This is the first reading stage of those six Fraser razor gang Bills. As I say, I issued that Press release on 29 February. Obviously Mr McVeigh read my Press release because he certainly did not make any statement about those Bills prior to the 29th. He made a statement in the House of Representatives that the Australian Democrats would support the Opposition in referring the matters to a committee of the Senate. A number of people in the Press contacted me about this issue and I felt that it was useful to put on record our position. Briefly, that position, as set out in my Press release of 7 March, is as follows . Firstly, the Opposition has not approached the Australian Democrats in relation to the reference. Secondly, the Democrats object to the notion of House of Representatives people suggesting what Senate committees should do. Any reference to a Senate committee will be determined by the Senate, not by Ministers or shadow Ministers in the House of Representatives. I made the point that we were not going to be a party to the Fraser operation, when he was Leader of the Opposition, of running this place from the House of Representatives. Thirdly, the Democrats believe that the problems that emerged with the honey Bill last year, which is part of this package, can be met by amendments which we intend to move, amendments which I have to hand and which will meet the issues. However, I went on to say-and this is the first point in which I raised what our response would be in relation to the Opposition's notice of referring these Bills to a Senate committee: If approached by the Opposition and if the Opposition have good reason for taking up the Senate Committee's time to look at these Bills over and above the problem that emerged last year-our amendments would easily overcome that problem -we will, however, give it favourable consideration. The Canberra Times has an article headed 'AD will not support Opposition move'. The Australian has one headed 'Democrats won't help ''delay'' export charges bill'. The Australian Financial Review has one saying 'Democrats opt out'. I remind honourable senators of what I said in my Press release in regard to this matter: If approached by the Opposition and if the Opposition have good reason for taking up the Senate Committee's time to look at these Bills over and above the problem that emerged last year, we will, however, give it favourable consideration. I will be rehearsing in the second reading stage a range of these matters. We will be seeking to look not only at that issue which was raised in the honey Bill but a whole variety of other issues. We believe that this is an important matter because it affects the livelihoods of a lot of people in Australia. But while this Parliament has been engaged for hour upon hour with matters which ultimately, I predict, will affect nobody in this country, because we have not the capacity to do so, we have put aside, have not debated, something which in fact could end up ruining people in this country and taking away their chance of a livelihood. I believe that they are important matters and unfortunately, because so much time has been taken up, we will not have a chance to discuss them in depth. I went on to make the further point that the Democrats believe that the reason behind Mr McVeigh's actually suggesting this is that the Opposition parties do not want a vote on these particular Bills because as Mr McVeigh has indicated, the Opposition parties will support the increase in the levies. They will vote to increase all of these levies and the last thing that the National Party of Australia requires in an election in New South Wales is to have voted for an increase in these levies. I also indicated to the Press that we would be seeking to contain these levies in the same way that we sought to contain them in relation to the meat inspection levies last year. We were defeated on that, when in fact the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the National Party voted to double the levy proposed in the Democrat amendment. We will seek yet again to contain these inspection charges, some of which of course are completely new. They are charges indicated by the razor gang as new avenues for taxation in the primary industry area, charges which were condemned at the time by the Labor Party but which it now has introduced into the House. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(12.56) —I wish to take advantage of this first reading debate to make some remarks about a recent announcement made by the Special Minister of State, Mr Young. The Minister announced that a plain English project under the direction of Professor Robert Eagleson has been established by the Federal Government, and I would just like to quote some of the remarks that were made in the Press about Mr Young's announcement. An article in the Canberra Times said, amongst other things: A plain-English project under the direction of Professor Robert Eagleson would aim to ensure that government publications were comprehensible. Also a special team would review all government forms, including the Australian Taxation Office 's Form S. Mr Young said the review of forms and the use of simple English in all government material meant that the public could look forward to a much easier time in dealings with the Government. Simple forms were not only easier to complete, they were also cheaper, because people made fewer mistakes trying to fill them out and less time and money had to be spent following them up. I would like to congratulate the Government and Mr Young for this initiative. About five years ago in this place I raised the matter of incomprehensible government prose. I read to the Senate a letter from the Australian Taxation Office and indicated that the particular letter went almost off the scale of a well-known reading ease score. I should mention that it almost went off the scale the wrong way. It was exceptionally difficult. That speech, for those interested, is on pages 976 to 980 of the Senate Hansard of 27 March 1979. I am aware that some government departments are doing their best to communicate clearly with the public. The Department of Social Security is a case in point. Its pamphlets have been much improved in readability over recent years. Unfortunately, difficult to read prose still rears its ugly head. I recently encountered an excellent example of what is now commonly referred to as gobbledegook. Having exhausted my reading material on an Ansett flight, I glanced at the small print on my ticket. I imagine that very few people ever bother to read the terms and conditions on their tickets but if they do, then they are to be complimented for their tenacity. One sentence on this ticket runs to 197 words. It includes so many obscure qualifications and parenthetical comments that it requires both a high degree of literacy and industry to read it . It reads this way: Subject to the foregoing and to any other conditions imposed by any of the said Acts, the Companies accept no responsibility for damage of any kind whatsoever ( including death injury delay or loss) arising out of, or incidental to the carriage or any services ancillary thereto (including embarking and disembarking and the transfer of the passenger and his baggage to or from an airport, taking off or landing place) whether or not such damage be due to negligence on the part of the Companies, their servants or agents or otherwise howsoever, and the passenger for himself and his executors administrators and dependants expressly renounces all claims against the Companies in respect thereof (other than claims made pursuant to the provisions of any of the said Acts) whether they may be due to negligence on the part of the Companies their servants or agents or otherwise howsoever; notwithstanding anything herein contained the Companies will be under no liability for loss of or damage to registered baggage occurring more than 12 hours after such baggage became available for collection or for loss of or damage to any baggage resulting from the inherent defect, quality or vice of the baggage. To calculate the reading ease of that sentence is an exercise in futility. There is no ease at all. I did calculate a score for the sentence but the score went off the scale backwards. What it means is difficult to interpret. What it could mean is that one has to be an intellectual genius to read the sentence with complete comprehension. It does indicate that the sentence is unnecessarily difficult. It is obvious that plain English is required not only in government departments but in many public and private organisations as well. However, if the Government takes a lead, as it apparently has done, it may be that other organisations will also see the benefits of writing in plain English. Senator JONES(Queensland)(1.02) —I take the opportunity of this first reading debate to make a few comments in relation to the Government's housing policy. I will be reasonably brief in my remarks. I think it is worth while pointing out at this stage that the Hawke Labor Government's first home owners scheme came into effect in October and it is probably one of the most effective and fairest schemes that the country has ever seen. It is a major component of the Government's housing program and is playing a key role in Australia's economic recovery. It has been designed to ensure that Australian families in particular will be able to gain access to adequate housing at prices they can afford. It has been designed so that young couples purchasing houses can afford to raise the deposit to make a purchase of a dwelling and gain a home for themselves. Since the inception of the first home owners scheme some five months ago, the scheme has been a stunning success. The figures show this statement to be correct. Figures available to 17 February are testimony of the scheme's success and I am happy to note that roughly a quarter of the applications and approvals belong to my own State of Queensland. By 17 February, there were 42,629 applications for first home owner assistance and 8,205 of these applications were in the State of Queensland. So far, 16,560 applications have been approved throughout Australia, 4,246 of which were in the State of Queensland. The value of these approvals over the next five years is more than $81m Australia-wide and more than $20m in the State of Queensland. The total number of inquiries that have been received by the Department of Housing and Construction by 17 February is a staggering 317,857, and that does not include the inquiries received by banks, building societies, lending institutions, real estate agents and other people involved in the building industry. I think that number certainly shows that the scheme has caught on and that it has been very successful in relation to the financing of new dwellings being constructed. New home approvals during December 1983 represented an increase of almost 50 per cent over the figure for December 1982 yet the Government still faces a huge backlog of housing needs. I think some of that backlog was created by the non- activity of the previous Government. In the 1983-84 Federal Budget the Hawke Labor Government, aware of this appalling neglect, increased funding for housing by 50 per cent to $500m. The results of the statistics I have just cited clearly show that this scheme is doing something to alleviate the housing problems or the shortage of housing that we have in Australia. The December 1983 improvement in housing statistics is in stark contrast to the situation in the final year of the Liberal-National Party Government. Australian banks approved housing loans last December totalling $510.5m. This was $154.8m more than the previous December in seasonally adjusted terms. The December figures brought the total value of approvals for 1983 to $5,021m. Building societies lent $304m in December 1983, more than double the amount for December 1982. Lending by savings banks and total lending for housing by all other lenders were both at a record level in December 1983. Total dwelling approvals for 1983 were 133,300-up 13 per cent on the 1982 figure. The interesting point here is that the improvement was most pronounced towards the end of 1983 when the scheme came into operation. This is evidenced by the fact that in the six months to December, approvals were 30 per cent higher than for the corresponding period in 1982. But in the three months to December, the corresponding increase was 41 per cent. I think that it is quite apparent from those figures that the first home owners scheme is certainly playing a role in the development of the housing needs of Australians and that it is also playing a role in regard to the lifting of the economy throughout the Commonwealth of Australia. The scheme has enabled the housing sector to join the rural industry as a pacesetter for economic recovery in this country. It is also worth noting that the industry is also responsible for creating employment in many related fields. For every job created by the Government's economic and housing policies on a building site, one full job is created in other industries, such as the production of building materials or fittings for home furnishing. There are something like 26 allied trades tied to the building industry, so one can see that any increase in the participation of the building industry in the construction of homes certainly has a marked effect on the employment of people in the trades that are tied to the building industry and generally as an assistance to the growth that we are now experiencing in the economy. We have such allied trades as plumbers, painters, carpenters, builders, labourers and tilers, who are particularly tied to the building industry. But beyond that are the people who are in the real estate industry and in the lending industry, the financial world. There are people who are tied to the activities of the building industry in furnishing and retailing, et cetera. These sections have started to gather some growth because of the growth in the building industry. I believe it is fairly important at this stage to make one further point and that is that under the Commonwealth housing agreement, the Commonwealth Government should take a very strong look at the question of public housing as well as housing in the private sector. I think there needs to be some alleviation of the problems that exist in the public sector for those young people who cannot gain enough money or borrow enough money to build a house of their own in Australia. Senator HILL(South Australia)(1.09) —This is, of course, a first reading debate when senators have an opportunity to speak on any matters of interest or concern to them and it is the first occasion that we have so had this sitting. I want to use it to speak of what to me is one of the most disappointing events to occur during the recess and that was the overthrow of civilian government in Nigeria. When I last spoke on Nigeria in October 1982, it was after returning from a parliamentary delegation to Africa and I observed the factors, particularly economic factors, that were placing great stress upon that country. I was concerned then, and expressed my concern, for the possible consequences of such economic stress, because the delegation had witnessed in that country a strong commitment to democracy and a desire as Nigerians to make it work and also I believe, a recognition that the military experience that they had had for 13 years had so patently failed. For 13 of its 22 years since independence it had experienced military rule and it was clear to the delegation the possibility that such could return if the civilian government was unable to meet the aspirations of the Nigerian people. That unfortunately did in fact occur in the early hours of 1 January this year when the military left the barracks and the government of President Shagari re- elected only last August was forcibly usurped. The great tragedy is not only the loss for Nigeria but the loss for the whole of Africa. When President Shagari was re-elected a second term only last August he was reported to have said: This is not a victory for me alone, but a victory for democracy in Africa. The lesson is that if Nigeria can run a democratic system, there is no reason why other African countries should not. The coup that toppled Shagari therefore dealt a blow to the hopes of a black Africa that looked to Nigeria as a trailblazer for democratisation. The failure was regrettably just the most recent recurrence of a pattern of failure that has gripped the continent, a failure which has led such as Eden Kodjo, the former Secretary-General of the Organisation of African Unity, to say: Our ancient continent is now on the brink of disaster, hurtling towards the abyss of confrontation, caught in the grip of violence. Gone are the smiles, the joy of life. Mr Deputy President, I give a few brief statistics in support of what he says. In the last 25 years more than 70 leaders in 29 African nations have been deposed by assassination, purges or coups. Among the 41 major independent black African nations only seven allow opposition political parties, 17 are single- party states and another 17 are ruled by military regimes. But this was a particularly significant coup, not, if I might use the language of the Economist , a 'run of the mill coup in a third world Statelet where guns were better than the ballot boxes'. Nigeria last Christmas was in fact the world's fourth largest democracy. It had provided vital leadership in Africa, particularly in the OAU. It was a significant voice in the Commonwealth, maintaining strong and implacable opposition to South Africa's apartheid policies. It had the status of a member of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries. It is a major trading partner of Britain and the United States of America. It played a leading role in the non-aligned movement and through it in the United Nations. On a continent increasingly dominated by nations under military or one-party rule, Nigeria was providing a working example of a democratic way. For four and a half years an experiment in democracy was being tried, and now the soldiers have regrettably closed the experiment. It is disappointing to see the response by Western nations and observers to the military takeover in Nigeria, as one of either disinterest or cynicism. I understand that the United States said: We regret the removal of Nigeria's Government by unconstitutional means. But it quickly added: We are looking forward to working with the authorities there. Although I have searched I have been unable to find any statement by the Australian Minister. To imply, as this does, that a military government would be no worse than the democratic government of President Shagari displays a disturbing acquiescence to authoritarianism being triumphant over democracy. The point I wish to make, Mr Deputy President, is that too much has been expected of democracy in Africa too soon. Winston Churchill's dictum that ' democracy is the worst form of government except for all others man has ever tried' remains true. But democracy is a new concept for Africa. Suitable institutions must evolve and experiments must occur. Mistakes will be made, and there is no doubt that this has happened in the Nigerian experience. But the process demanded much more respect and support than the Western World has given. As Hilary Ng'weno, Editor in Chief of the Weekly Review in Nairobi, recently wrote: If democracy is worth fighting for in South Africa, it is worth fighting for in the rest of Africa. The indignation that Africans justifiably direct at undemocratic developments in South Africa should be directed at similar development elsewhere on the continent. The same indignation should be expressed by those of us fortunate enough to live under the freedom of liberal democratic governments. It is not true that Africa' s men in uniform know more about governing society that their civilian counterparts, nor is it true that they are cleaner and more devoted to the national interest than politicians. Soldiers claim, as soldiers often do, that they alone can clean up corruption. But it is worth remembering that the military juntas in Nigeria of 1966 to 1979 included and patronised as many crooks as their civilian predecessors and successsors. As the Economist said-I think in most eloquent terms-in the article to which I earlier referred: Now the hands in the till will again have braid on their sleeves. The new leader, General Buhari, as with the former President Shagari, although appearing personally untainted was, when the military was last in government in Nigeria, the person who presided over an oil sector beyond argument corruptly inefficient. I do not intend to stand here, and say, as I did not in October 1982, that all was well in Nigeria. The economic position was disastrous; inflation was heading back to the levels that Shagari inherited from the military, and corruption was rife, as it is all over Africa and in many other places. Democracy itself must be conceded to have been rough around the edges. There are widespread allegations of vote rigging at last August's election but in balance there were many factors in its favour. I mention just a few. There was a system of courts in which the Government itself could be challenged. It is worth noting that in the case of at least one of the rigged ballots at the last August election the decision was overturned in the courts. The country had free Press that was able to and often did criticise the Government. It had a number of opposition parties which had won power in seven of the 19 states at the last August elections. It is worth noting also that it was a country with no political prisoners. These freedoms are rare in Africa and I think it might be reasonably contrasted with what happened in the early hours of 1 January this year when the armed forces closed all airfields and seaboards, severed communication links to the outside world, banned all political parties and imposed a dusk to dawn curfew warning that anyone caught 'misbehaving' would be executed summarily. What is also important, is that at the time of the coup steps were being taken to address the accepted difficulties in Nigeria. Shagari had made it clear both before and following his re-election that corruption and inefficiency within the bureaucracy would have to be eliminated. He undertook a major Cabinet reshuffle following the August election when only eight of the previous Ministers survived . He also set about establishing a ministry specifically charged with fighting corruption, and on the economic front he had brought down a severe Budget only two days before his overthrow, including a 40 per cent cut in imports, together with a 30 per cent reduction in government capital spending. Significantly, the new leadership in Nigeria announced its own economic program which did not vary from that proposed by Shagari. I know that it will be said that these reforms should have come much earlier but such statements fail to appreciate the position of Shagari in his first term of office. He was virtually drafted into the job; he did not come with any great personal authority and his party had only about one-third of the seats in the two Houses of the Parliament. His own election had to be settled in the courts because he did not completely meet the unique constitutional requirements necessary to overcome tribal and regional rivalry. Additionally, he had to wrestle with the rapid change on the world economic scene, particularly the oil slump which had detrimentally affected his country. There is no doubt that Shagari's achievements during his first term of office were modest, but it is significant that in contrast to his first term he had put down this positive program to which I have referred, to combat the accepted evils. He was and is a respected and idealistic man. It was clear that it was he as a person who was re -elected last August, rather than his party. Whilst he was carefully putting down his program to combat Nigeria's difficulties for the next four years, less patient men usurped it. I conclude by reminding the Senate that the coup in Nigeria coincided with the second anniversary of the coup in Ghana in which Flight Lieutenant Jerry Rawlings brought an end to a similar democratic experiment. Ghana has since moved from poverty to destitution. One must be concerned for the future in Nigeria and as was said in an excellent article in the Times of 2 January this year: If a man with a gun and a military following can impose his will on a nation when he disagrees with the actions of the elected government, then another man with a gun and a military following is entitled to replace the present ruler when things become too much for him in his turn. Major General Mohammed Buhari and his friends have much to answer for. Sitting suspended from 1.22 to 2 p.m. Senator COLLARD —I draw the attention of the Attorney-General to the story which he appears to have given to Mr Gregory Hywood in this morning's Australian Financial Review. It is stated that the Government is prepared to release details of comments by the judge whom the Attorney met to discuss the allegations in the Age tapes and transcripts. Is it true that the Government will not do so until the Opposition tables any material which the Attorney- General claims it has in its possession regarding the judge? Has he spent the last several days attacking the Opposition for relying on this material and deploring in the strongest terms any suggestion that it should be made public? Does the withholding of information to which the Parliament is entitled unless action is taken which he has so strongly condemned highlight the double standards which the Attorney has applied throughout the current debate? Finally, will he without further delay make available to the Senate the aide-memoire and any other relevant material regarding the discussions he had with the judge on February 15 and 24? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not know the source of Mr Hywood's story in the Australian Financial Review this morning. I do not propose, nor does the Government propose, to take any steps to make public any of the material in this matter, for all the reasons that have been stated with nauseous frequency in this place over the last two weeks. Senator GEORGES —Would the Minister for Industry and Commerce draw upon his photographic memory to give me the latest labour force figures, which I believe were released today? I ask whether these figures are consistent with the Government's economic strategy and commitment to growth in employment? Senator BUTTON —I thank Senator Georges for the kind way in which he phrased his question. I do not, in fact, have a photographic memory but I do have a bit of paper here with the figures written on it to which I will refer. I am, of course , aware of the latest figures. They confirm the Government's view that the labour market is continuing to recover. Seasonally adjusted employment increased by 21,000, the eighth increase in 10 months, which more than offsets the decline in January and reinforces the view that the January figures were nothing more than the traditional blip. Since April 1983 more than 140,000 new jobs have been created. On average, over the three months to February employment has grown by 60,700, while unemployment has fallen by 38,400. New jobs in the financial year to date number 116,200, with four months to go. That figure is already ahead of the Budget estimate of around 90,000 additional jobs during 1983-84. Unemployment is currently at 9.4 per cent, down from 9.5 per cent in January of this year. Of course, in giving those figures I express some caution as to whether the recent rapid employment growth can be sustained. The Government has been encouraged by the figures in the last few months, but we again make the point that economic growth will have to be sustained. One might expect, in relation to the consideration of employment figures, that participation rates will increase as the recovery proceeds. Recent trends in employment have exceeded the most optimistic expectations of the Government. Taken with other indicators, the evidence is that the Government's economic policies are working. Nonetheless, I reiterate that we must approach these figures not only with optimism but also with caution. It is the Government's belief that the recovery can be sustained and that will have a steady effect on reducing unemployment and increasing the number of new jobs available in the community. We look forward to that happening . Of course, the elements of the Government's economic policy have to be kept in place if that is to happen and that, of course, concerns many areas of the economy outside the area of government administration. We are very pleased with the figures and we look forward to a greater improvement in later months this year. Senator DURACK —My question is to the Attorney-General. I ask whether he is aware of the views expressed by Dr Paul Gerber, a former Reader in Law at Queensland University, on this morning's AM program. Referring to the standards expected of judges, Dr Gerber said: Now, true it is, they are made of flesh and blood, but once they take judicial office they assume a degree of probity rightly so, I think, which does not entitle them to the kind of eccentricities which are revealed in these tapes. I ask the Attorney: Does he agree with the view of Dr Gerber, who, I believe, accurately reflects the feeling of community repugnance and concern at the conduct of the kind alleged on the part of the judge in the Age tapes and transcripts? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am aware of the views of Dr Gerber, as expressed on AM this morning, so far as behaviour falling short of constitutional misbehaviour is concerned. I do not share those views. I take the view that judges, like everybody else, are entitled to their privacy, and that extends to enabling them , in circumstances where they are entitled to rely on privacy, to blow off steam or in other ways use language that might well be inappropriate in a public context, where there could be expected to be some damage to the reputation of the institution of which they are members. Private behaviour is a very different thing from public behaviour. Where that private behaviour does not bear upon their capacity or integrity in the performance of their judicial functions or does not constitute the kind of criminal misbehaviour such as would clearly be inappropriate for continued membership of the Bench, I think private behaviour should remain just that and should be recognised as such by this Parliament. Senator DURACK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I refer the Attorney-General to the fact that I was not talking about those aspects of the conversations which might be said to be blowing off steam. I was referring to those aspects which relate to external conduct being discussed by the judge. Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not think anybody, least of all Dr Gerber, is entitled to make any assumptions at all about what conduct might have occurred on the basis of the material in those tapes which, as we all know, is and remains totally unauthenticated and certainly has not been the subject of any admissions as to it having occurred by the judge in question. Senator GILES —Can the Minister for Veterans' Affairs clear up the apparent confusion amongst some repatriation beneficiaries regarding their treatment entitlements now that Medicare has been introduced? Have any repatriation beneficiaries, including war widows, been disadvantaged in respect of those treatment entitlements following Medicare's introduction? Senator GIETZELT —Contrary to a lot of misunderstanding by certain medicos and their associations, treatment entitlements for repatriation beneficiaries have not changed in any respect at all as a result of the introduction of Medicare. Repatriation beneficiaries have gained an advantage as a result of Medicare in that they are now free to choose between the two systems at any time for their treatment needs. In other words, a veteran living a considerable distance away from a repatriation general hospital who is entitled to treatment is able now to go to a public hospital of his or her choice. The Government still accepts the financial responsibility. I take advantage of Senator Giles's question to refute the blatant untruth that veterans now need to take out private insurance in order to receive their previous entitlements. That has created a great deal of confusion and has allowed a number of medical associations to suggest in advertisements in the newspapers that veterans' entitlements have changed. Of course, that is not the case at all. The entitlements are unchanged and there is no need for veterans to take private insurance to preserve their existing entitlements. Many veterans are likely to find this freedom of choice to use Medicare or their repatriation entitlements for their treatment to be a very good change, and a very valuable choice. That is particularly likely to apply to veterans who live in country areas or a fair distance from repatriation hospitals. For example, some figures which came to my office within the last few days show that nationally 45 per cent of the Department's treatment population live in rural areas and a further 34 per cent in metropolitan areas, most of them more than 10 kilometres from the nearest repatriation general hospital. In New South Wales the respective figures are 50 per cent and 35 per cent, in Victoria 44 per cent and 38 per cent and in Queensland 55 per cent and 23 per cent. The proportion is somewhat lower in the other mainland States. I reiterate that the decision as to which system repatriation beneficiaries want to use, Medicare or the repatriation system, is now a choice for them to make personally. Senator MASON —Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware that there is no adequate means for over 100,000 people in Australia with limited sight to distinguish the difference of denomination between Australian bank notes and that, as a result, they are forced into the demeaning position of having to rely on persons with whom they are conducting financial transactions to get the correct change? Is the Minister also aware that in countries such as Switzerland , Israel and the Netherlands bank notes are also distinguishable to the blind by raised markings on the notes and to those of limited vision by very conspicuous numbering? With your indulgence, Mr President, and for the interest of the Senate, I exhibit a Dutch bank note with its touch sensitive indications and its prominent numbering which show that it is a 25 guilder note. Is the Minister considering the long overdue redesign of Australian bank notes? If so, and in view of the previous Government's conspicuous and consistent ignoring of this issue, will he consider the introduction in Australia of similar raised markings , either embossed on the bank notes or provided by different numbers of metallic strips, to enable those with limited sight to distinguish more easily and reliably between the notes? Senator WALSH —I understand that some 100,000 people or thereabouts are sight impaired to the point that they probably would not be able to distinguish between notes of different denominations, at least if they were the same size. Therefore, the question that Senator Mason has raised is quite important to quite a significant number of people. I have been advised by the Treasurer that the notes used by the Netherlands, among other countries to which Senator Mason referred, are satisfactory when new, but that when they have been in circulation for some time the dots tend to be erased and other distortions take place. This could even add to the confusion when they are severely worn. The present view, I understand, is that the most practical and foolproof device currently available is to have notes of different sizes for different denominations, which has been the Australian practice for some time anyway. The United States, of course, has notes not only all the same size but also all the same colour, regardless of denomination. However, the United States Bureau of Engraving has investigated various methods of affording assistance to the blind. A recent survey in the United States of some 22 organisations concerned with the blind resulted in no group responding in favour of special tactile markings on currency to assist them and a significant proportion, I understand, opposed the use of Braille-type markings. The Reserve Bank of Australia is not proposing to incorporate markings on Australian notes at this stage. But the bank is, of course, sympathetic to the problems of the visually impaired and, as such, will carefully monitor technical developments in this area of note differentiation. I will pass on Senator Mason' s request to the Treasurer to ensure that, when a technically feasible method of identifying with some certainty notes of varying denominations is developed, it is implemented as speedily as possible. Senator ELSTOB —I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Is the Government aware that the Commonwealth heads of government at their meeting in Jamaica in 1975 decided that the second Monday in March each year would be designated as Commonwealth Day? As the Parliament will not be sitting on 12 March, will the Leader of the Government in the Senate consider making an appropriate statement supporting the Commonwealth's aims and ideals before the Parliament adjourns? Senator BUTTON —The Government is aware about Commonwealth Day and the decision made in the 1971 declaration of Commonwealth principles. Rather than make a statement at some length later in the course of this most important session of the Parliament which has devoted itself to so many constructive issues, I propose to answer Senator Elstob's question at some length. The present Government values the contribution which the Commonwealth makes to upholding human dignity and equality, to combatting racial prejudice and to assisting smaller States. The Commonwealth association is based on consultation and co- operation. Consultation occurs on a number of levels. First, the two-yearly heads of government meetings provide a useful facility for open and frank discussion with over one-quarter of the world's leaders. Equally importantly, they provide an opportunity for Commonwealth leaders to meet and get to know each other in an informal atmosphere. I should also mention the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association which provides a forum for discussion and consultation for parliamentarians throughout the world. There is also a web of valuable non-Commonwealth professional consultation in the Commonwealth which underpins the official Commonwealth activities. The Commonwealth, through programs such as the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation, provides much needed assistance to the developing country members of the Commonwealth. An essential element of these programs is mutual assistance whereby all members, including the developing country members, contribute to the well being of other members. This Government welcomes the expansion of the activity of the Commonwealth secretariat in the areas of manpower development, human rights, employment and labour, functional co- operation and women's affairs. The Government is aware of the high regard that many of our neighbours in the Pacific, particularly the islands states, ascribe to the Commonwealth links. We will be pursuing a constructive and pragmatic approach to enhancing consultation and co-operation within the Commonwealth. We are, as I said at the beginning, aware of what happened in 1971, and this is an appropriate question to be directed to a Minister of this Government. The answer which I have given reflects the Government's concern about the matters raised by Senator Elstob. Senator LEWIS —I ask the Attorney-General whether he was correctly quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald on 6 April last year as follows: One of my very real idols in politics remains, surprisingly enough you might think, Lionel Murphy whose style was very far from being that of a mellow reflective pragmatist. I ask him whether he also recalls writing in the publication Labor: Directions for the Eighties: The Murphy years of marvellous, lasting, recognised achievement. Does the Attorney-General still hold these views about Mr Justice Murphy? Does he accept the description of himself as being a protege of Mr Justice Murphy? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do indeed still hold the views ascribed to me by Senator Lewis which I believe were accurately quoted by the Sydney Morning Herald. I have in front of me the whole quotation-it goes for about a page and a half-from the Labor: Directions for the Eighties chapter. Senator Grimes —Read it all out. Senator GARETH EVANS —I might just read it all out for the benefit of the Senate because I think it puts some of the allegations presently being made in public about former Senator Murphy in a little better context. It says: In office between 1972 and 1975, the Labor government set about implementing- under the direction of its impetuous, but extraordinary imaginative, energetic and effective Attorney-General, Lionel Murphy, a set of law and justice programs , which, while not especially systematic, were sane, humane, civilised and far- reaching. Being accustomed to the sonorous and reactionary banalities usually uttered by lawyers of stations high and low, inside the Labor movement as well as outside it, very few people had, before Murphy, appreciated the potential for sweeping and radical social change locked away in the Attorney-General's portfolio. Murphy changed all that. The Family Law Act revolutionised the law of divorce and matrimonial relations. The Racial Discrimination and Queensland Discriminatory Laws Acts gave racial and national minorities important new tools with which to combat discrimination in law and practice. The Human Rights Bill, had it survived the hostile environment of the Senate, would have provided powerful tools for challenging infringements of fundamental liberties across the whole spectrum of political and civil rights. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act (together with the Ombudsman Bill, before parliament the day it was dissolved) created a whole new machinery for remedying bureaucratic maladministration. Restrictions on public servants' free speech were abolished and moves were set in train for full-scale freedom of information legislation. Appeals to the Privy Council from the High Court were finally abolished. Customs administration was changed so as to relax almost completely federal censorship of films and publications. Amendments to the Electoral Act were passed to provide for equality of voting power. The Australian Legal Aid Office was established, making the right to representation for the first time a reality to thousands of Australians. The Australian Law Reform Commission was set up as a dynamic and innovative agency for on-going reform. Murphy-and Whitlam, whose own personal contribution to Labor's law reform programs should never be underestimated-encouraged the testing of Commonwealth constitutional power to its fullest limits, not only in the law and justice matters within his own immediate domain, but also in the measures promoted by departments dealing with economic management, commercial regulation, environmental and resource management and social welfare. These were years of breathless and unparalleled activity. The changes they wrought were always progressive and usually fundamental, and their full impact is in most instances just beginning to be felt and understood. There is one more paragraph, Mr President, and I shall finish with this: The Murphy years had about them all the exhilaration, and a good deal of the danger, of a downhill sleigh ride. They were not a time for legal wowsers. Public opinion, in the Murphy philosophy, was there to be led, not cautiously and nervously followed a step at a time. It could all have gone disastrously wrong: become a succession of A.S.I.O. raids-entirely defensible in principle, but conceived in a hurry, embraced with excitement, executed with vigour-and repented at leisure. But somehow it all came together. The Murphy years- to use Senator Lewis's quotation, selectively extracted- were years of marvellous, lasting, recognised achievement. As a demonstration of the art of the possible in government, they provide a model, and a touchstone, for any Labor reformer of the future. The prose is somewhat purple, I readily acknowledge. This was in my youth, three or four years ago. But I would be inclined to be equally graphic in my descriptions of Mr Justice Murphy's role on the bench since his elevation there. Indeed, there is a parcelful of quotations from newspapers in recent days-John Slee in the Sydney Morning Herald a couple of days ago, and Bill Goff in the Australian this morning-which I think properly recognise the character of Mr Justice Murphy's achievement since his elevation to the Bench and properly point to the way in which so many lawyers, of stations high and low and of various political hues, have come to eat their words about his quality as a lawyer. I have no regrets at all about having expressed my admiration in the past for Mr Justice Murphy. I have no hesitation in expressing my respect and admiration for him now. Senator LEWIS —I ask a supplementary question. Arising out of the Attorney- General's answer, I ask whether, during those years in which Senator Murphy was Attorney-General, the current Attorney-General worked for Senator Murphy, and, if so, for what period and in what capacity? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is a question that I answered yesterday, but I appreciate that Senator Lewis's memory these days is somewhat fading. I worked as a consultant for the Attorney-General, and more particularly for the Attorney -General's Department, from 1973 to the end of 1975. I was employed to work on matters related to the racial discrimination legislation and the Human Rights Bill. That involved my coming to Canberra never more than one day a week; in fact, rather less than that over that entire period. During that time I worked out of the Department rather than the ministerial office, although there were, of course, a number of conferences involved in dealing with and developing that legislation with the Minister. As I said yesterday, I did not have any role in day to day matters of the administration of the portfolio and certainly had no role, as I also said yesterday, in relation to the particular matter which has been the subject of so much enthusiastic and misguided attention in this Parliament. Senator HEARN —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. The log hauling industry in Tasmania is urging the State Government to allow log road-trains on Tasmanian roads. There is already deep public concern about the dangers of present log trucks, as many of the roads in Tasmania are unsuitable for such heavy traffic. Has there been any evaluation of the cost to the taxpayer of providing the additional cost of building and maintaining roads for such use as log road-trains or of the impact upon the tourist industry in Tasmania? Senator GIETZELT —The Minister for Transport has provided me with a number of briefs, including one on the problems of log truck operations in Tasmania. It is clear from reading that brief that there are problems of excessive speed, excessive loads and excessive traffic which beset many of the citizens in various parts of Tasmania. Nevertheless, the brief indicates that the responsibility for this lies largely in the State Government's area. No restriction is placed upon the log trucks when they are travelling on private roads, but when they go on to public highways and the public road system the State Government gives permits and it provides for some control of the use of the public road system. However, it must be said that there is abundant evidence that this creates a feeling on the part of many private motorists and the public generally of a degree of intimidation and concern at the extent to which these permits have been granted in the past. The most that the Federal Government could do would be to draw the attention of the State Minister for Transport to the nature of the problem. We recognise that most of the roads that are being used by the log trucks were not constructed for such heavy traffic or for the quantity of traffic movements. Consequently, that creates difficulties with reconstruction of the road system. One would have thought that a State government worthy of its name would be insisting that a great proportion of the logs used for proper purposes in our economy be handled by the railway system. If the State Government were to insist that more of them be carried on the railway system, that would provide much needed revenue and such traffic therefore would not be a problem to the average motorist using the road system, which is clearly being excessively used by log trucks. Senator SCOTT —I ask the Attorney-General whether he recalls telling the Senate on Tuesday, when asked about possible conflict of interest which might have arisen in his dealings with the judge referred to in the Age tapes: No, there is no foundation on which any reasonable person could possibly come to the conclusion that there is any conflict of interest in this matter. Does he still stand by that answer? If he does, what sort of personal or professional relationship could or would give rise to a conflict of interest? Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes, I stand by that answer. I will leave the development and refinement of hypotheses to others. Senator JONES —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Is it a fact that a former Queensland Special Branch policeman, Don Lane, when contesting the 1972 State election for his seat of Merthyr, discovered by some dubious means that a postal vote cast overseas by the late Mr Justice Douglas had gone to his Australian Labor Party opponent, Mr Dennis Pie, and that Mr Lane then made his information available to the Queensland Premier? Is it also a fact that the same Mr Justice Douglas was later to be politically bulldozed out of contention for the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Queensland, a position for which he was not only qualified but also for which he was next in line in the traditional terms of seniority with the support of the legal profession in that State? Can the Attorney-General verify whether this is the same Don Lane who is currently engaging in another attack on the judiciary as the Minister for Transport in the Queensland Government? The PRESIDENT —Before the Attorney-General answers the question, I draw his attention in the first instance to standing order 418. I call the Attorney- General. Senator GARETH EVANS —Thank you, Mr President, I have no direct personal knowledge of the matters to which Senator Jones has referred but I am informed that it is a matter of some notoriety in Queensland that Mr Don Lane is indeed the same Mr Don Lane as the present Minister- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I wish to raise two points. The first is that I was curious from the formation of the question as to in what way it impacted on matters which were within the ministerial responsibility of the Attorney-General. The second point is that, the question having been asked, the Attorney-General said that he had no personal knowledge of it. I assume that he was also saying that his Department has no role or has provided no information for him. On that basis, I suggest that there is no ground for a question to be asked of the Attorney on that matter. Senator GARETH EVANS —I wish to speak to the point of order, Mr President. Of course, it is not the case that direct personal knowledge of matters has ever been a requirement for an ability to answer questions technically in this place. That cannot possibly be a ground for objection. As to the foundation for the question more generally, clearly it goes very directly to the credit of Mr Lane in his current attack on a member of the judiciary, an attack which was directly motivated by and related to events in this place and to matters which are presently the subject of debate in this place. As such, it is perfectly appropriate that the Parliament should have the benefit of such knowledge as I possess about the character of this man who is so willing to assassinate the character of others. The PRESIDENT —Order! I will allow the Minister to develop his answer but I remind him, of course, that there is a distinction between a question and a debate. I suggest that the Minister bear that in mind when he is answering the question. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am informed that the Mr Lane in question, good McCarthyist zealot that he is, did breach- The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister will withdraw that remark because it is in breach of standing order 418. Senator GARETH EVANS —I will withdraw it. He did breach the hallowed rule that every man's vote is secret and he did inform the Premier of Queensland that the late Mr Justice Douglas was a Labor supporter. Of course, the Queensland Premier , with his usual approach to these matters-I hesitate to use the expression ' bigotry'-used this information to prevent this distinguished judge from becoming the Chief Judge of the Supreme Court of Queensland, a position for which he not only was eminently qualified but also he was next in line in the traditional terms of seniority and had been supported by the legal profession. It is evident that there is much else that I could say but, on looking at my notes, I see that it comes within the character of debating material rather than giving further information to the Senate. I will save that up for a more appropriate occasion, but I think the point is clear. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I refer the Attorney-General to the Sala case and ask him: Why was Mr Ramon Sala released from custody and his passport returned when there was an outstanding inquiry with Interpol as to the bona fides of that passport? In view of the fact that the Interpol report confirming the suspected forgery was received only days after Sala's departure from the country, does the Attorney agree that former Senator Murphy was clearly in error in ordering Sala' s release and the return of his passport? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have already answered this question at some length in various ways. I do not believe that he was in error, for the reasons I gave before. One might take the view that it is proper to keep people cooling their heels in gaol under cover of a deportation order when they have already been dealt with by the courts of the country on all outstanding charges, as was the case with this gentleman. One might think it appropriate to keep a person in gaol cooling his heels because of the possibility that the police might get around at some stage to charging that person with another offence. The police on this occasion had had the passport in question for some weeks and had had an opportunity to check out such suspicions as they had in relation to it. The Interpol response came, I am informed, six days after the man was released from gaol and had left the country. From my knowledge of the files and the events at the time, I do not think anybody had any reason to anticipate just when the Interpol reply would have been received at the time Mr Sala was released. I repeat: The principle in issue here is the propriety and legitimacy in the Australian system of criminal justice of keeping people in gaol with their freedom denied, for the reason-the only reason-of enabling police inquiries to take place. That is simply not a principle which has hitherto been regarded as acceptable in the conduct of our criminal justice system whether for Australian citizens, residents, tourists or anybody else. Although there may be different views about the decision that was made-certainly, different views were taken at the time-there is no way in which the judgment of the then Minister can, I believe, be properly called into question. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Was there any knowledge in the Attorney-General's Department as to the likely contents or the contents of the Interpol report prior to its being formally lodged with the Department? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have no reason whatsoever to believe that there was any advance knowledge of the likely content of the Interpol report. The information available to me was that the report was received six days later. I presume it was telexed, vocadexed, telegrammed or transmitted in some other way, but I do not know. I will find out and give the honourable senator better and further particulars in that respect. Certainly, there is no reason to believe that anyone had the hard information in question other than a mere suspicion of something being the case at that stage. Senator RICHARDSON —My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. Has there been an increase in Federal Government spending on education in New South Wales this year? What percentage of non-government schools in New South Wales have been advantaged by the new Federal funding arrangements for education? Have any New South Wales non-government schools been seriously disadvantaged by these new financial arrangements? Senator RYAN —Yes, there has been an increase in funding both for government and non-government schools in New South Wales. The Government is providing over $ 237m for non-government schools in New South Wales in 1984, which represents an increase in real terms of over $4m on what was provided in 1983. In terms of capital projects, since 5 March 1983 the following have been approved: Three new schools projects totalling $2,630,700, 11 projects for new places in existing schools totalling $3,969,900, 19 major projects for improved facilities, 62 minor projects for improved facilities and 26 library projects. With respect to the percentage of schools that have received improvements, I am advised that 89 per cent of all non-government schools-that is, 683 schools-will receive increased grants in 1984. Only 15 schools in New South Wales will have their recurrent grants reduced and these schools will still receive over $4.7m from the Commonwealth in 1984 and thus cannot be said to have had their operation seriously affected. Senator REID —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Did Mr Menzies in his investigation into the Sala case receive information that an attempt was made to bribe police officers handling the case? If so, did Mr Menzies find the allegation proved? If that is the case, is any action planned against any person or persons? Senator GARETH EVANS —One of the elements in the oceans of scuttlebutt which surround this matter, for reasons which one can only guess at, was that some attempt was made to bribe a police officer at one stage of the proceedings. The allegation, such as it is, is that the bribe offer was made indirectly and at a very low level. Certainly, there is no question of involving senior departmental officers, let alone the Ministers at the time. Reports were made by the police officer in question, as I recall from Mr Menzies' finding. The senior police officers given the job of investigating the matter found that there was no basis on which any further action could then properly be taken. Mr Menzies in his recent report tracked back over this territory and found no evidence whatsoever to justify his concluding that there had been such a bribe offer or that anything required further police-type investigation in this respect. So there would not appear to be any foundation whatever for the currency that is being given to this aspect of the matter. Senator TATE —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware that a French pharmaceutical company has been granted permission to import into Australia a flu vaccine known as vaxigrip? Is it also a fact that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories has built up very considerable facilities and expertise for the production of sufficient vaccine to meet the surges and variability of strains of influenza which hit Australia from time to time? Does the Minister agree that the introduction of French vaccine puts the commercial viability of CSL in jeopardy, given the fact that maintenance of a state of readiness and, indeed, overproduction is required if this national organisation is to guard against epidemics of new strains of flu? Will the Minister consult with his colleagues with a view to preventing this serious threat to this facility so important to the health of all Australians? Senator GRIMES —I am aware that an application for the marketing of vaxigrip, which is a French-produced flu vaccine, was considered by the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee in July 1983. The Committee, which comprises experts in the fields of pharmacy, pharmacology and clinical medicine, advises the Minister for Health on the suitability of imported drugs for marketing in Australia. It is that Committee's task to be satisfied that, on the evidence available, the therapeutic substance is acceptable on the grounds of quality, safety and efficacy. Marketing approval was given by the Director-General of Health who, in accordance with the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations, may refuse to grant the application in respect of the substance only for reasons related to quality, safety and efficacy. No other consideration can be taken into account in this decision. The charter of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories requires it to conduct its business in a manner which is commercially viable. I understand that the efficacy of production of influenza vaccine by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories is such that it has recently been able to reduce the price of the vaccine. The question the honourable senator has raised suggests that the production of influenza vaccine by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories may be of special national interest. I advise honourable senators that over a period of some years successive Ministers have determined that a level of reserve stocks of influenza vaccine should be maintained at CSL in order to meet any anticipated demand caused by epidemics. The Government reimburses CSL for the maintenance of such stocks. The Minister for Health has recently received a submission from the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories on this question, which his Department is examining. The Minister has assured me that he will give full consideration to the options available. I will certainly convey to the Minister the concerns expressed by Senator Tate. As all honourable senators I am sure are aware, the Government wishes to see the development of high technology skills in the Australian economy. The production of vaccine and medical research in general offers great scope for the encouragement of these skills and processes. The Government is, therefore, closely interested in this matter, not only from the public health point of view , important as that is, but also to ensure that no steps are taken which may adversely affect the ability of Australian companies such as CSL to acquire new advanced technology capability. Senator CHANEY —My question, which is directed to the Attorney-General, follows the answer he gave to the question from Senator Crichton-Browne about the Sala case. Accepting the explanation he gave of the reasons for the then Attorney- General's release of Mr Sala on the basis that there was no reason for his liberty to be taken from him, why did the then Attorney-General order the return of the passport prior to receipt of the Interpol report which covered its status ? That seems to be a quite separate issue and I ask the Attorney to address himself to that. Senator GARETH EVANS —It is a separate issue and it is one that I addressed in answer at some length to Senator Hill, if Senator Chaney was not listening, just a couple of days ago. To the extent that it is possible to reconstruct what occurred, because people's memories are less than sensationally precise after a 10-year period, it seems clear that two separate factors were at work here. One was the routine bureaucratic consideration that deportees, if they seek a capacity to leave the country voluntarily, paying their own way, are very often allowed to do so, if not actually encouraged to do so, in the interests of the Australian taxpayers and also in the interests of making easier some of the bureaucratic difficulties associated with deportation. Those difficulties were present here, given the problems it appeared were occurring in getting the appropriate entry papers from Spain, which is the only place to which the person could go if his French passport was not given back to him. The second matter that was clearly in circulation as a relevant consideration, because it had been the subject of a detailed psychiatric report to the court at the time of the sentence for the offences for which the man was convicted, and is part of people's recollection of the case, although it is not carefully or fully documented in the files, is the consideration that the person was claiming to be a political exile; someone who had suffered punishment for various sins at the hands of Franco's regime; someone who had a conviction outstanding against him for failing to report for military service; someone who had not only suffered formal punishment in the sense of deprivation of liberty but also claimed to have been cruelly physically treated in the way that I described the other day. Under those circumstances one can readily imagine a Minister, and this is the former Minister's recollection, taking that into account as a further consideration for allowing the man to take a passport, particularly since the Department of Foreign Affairs had raised no objection on the ground of possible implications for foreign relations if the passport proved to be false. Under those circumstances one can readily imagine the Minister taking the view that that in itself was excellent reason for allowing the person to leave voluntarily rather than be deported. I make the point, as I did yesterday, that the only written representation that is on file is a telegram from the solicitors for the man in question, which refers specifically to deportation rather than to seeking the return of the person's passport. I really believe, with the utmost respect, that the details of this matter have been plumbed with quite extraordinary and irrelevant and unnecessary fervour by the Opposition on this occasion. There is very little more to say about the merits of the particular case. They seemed to me, as they did to my senior officer, to be very obvious indeed. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. It is not absolutely clear to me from that reply but I have drawn the inference that information was known to the Minister and/or his Department at that time that there was a possiblity that the passport was not valid, or was forged or fraudulent. Is that so? Senator GARETH EVANS —There is no doubt that it was the opinion of several police officers-I cannot recall how many-some officers in the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and at least one officer in the Attorney-General' s Department, that the passport was probably invalid, although nobody had the proof and the police did not seem to carry their beliefs to the point of being willing to charge the man. There was certainly the view that that was possibly the case, but against that were the competing considerations I have been endeavouring to point out at some length which made the decision one that perhaps other Ministers might not have made with equal confidence. There were obviously considerations that had to be balanced. One can disagree with the decision, as a number of departmental officers obviously did, without in any way taking the view that there was any impropriety or worse involved in the making of that decision. That is clearly Mr Menzies's conclusion and that is a conclusion which I share, having seen the files, his report and his accounts of witness interviews and having myself spoken to the former Minister. Senator CROWLEY —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs seen the publication called New Times, published by the Australian League of Rights, and the material published in it, particularly addressing questions of human rights, racial equality and the right to no discrimination on the grounds of sex? Is he aware that such rights regularly come under attack from the Australian League of Rights? In the light of this Government's commitment to policies and legislation supporting human rights, can the Minister make clear what is this Government's attitude to these attacks? Senator GARETH EVANS —I answer this question also in my own right as Attorney- General because there are questions of human rights and racial discrimination legislation here involved. I have seen the issue of New Times to which Senator Crowley refers. Regrettably it is the case that the League of Rights remains an organisation dedicated to racial intolerance, political and religious obscurantism and voodoo economics. It sustains a vicious line of anti-semitism, supports racially unjust societies, particularly South Africa, and projects a perception of world affairs which would be laughable were it not so anti-human and calculated to arouse division and hatred. I will give the Senate examples. The January/February issues of New Times, the League's organ in Australia, as Senator Crowley said, contains a series of quite odious anti-semitic articles. I think the following quotations convey the general flavour: 'Judiaism is implacably anti-Christian and it is by definition an Incarnate Lie ;' 'Mr Michel Fribourg, who controls 90 per cent of U.S.A. grain and is the agent for all U.S.A. grain sales to the Soviet, is one of those Zionist Jews who have permanent luxury residences in the Soviet and who come and go as they like;' 'One of the major factors of the American Christian scene is the growing number of Christians who are starting to reject the widely held belief that the people known today as Jews are God's Chosen People . . . If only those nations which accept the Jewish Chosen Race dogma can prosper, why then has the U.S.A. been in a state of decline?' There is a considerable degree more of contemptible material of this kind in the publication. It does, therefore, come as a great surprise and a disappointment to me and to the Minister for Foreign Affairs that the same issue of this disreputable publication publishes a message of greeting from Senator Bjelke- Petersen to an International League of Rights seminar being held in Canada. In a message the good senator states: the League of Rights stands for many good principles, one of which is of course , supporting so strongly State Rights. One trusts that Senator Bjelke-Petersen's association with this organisation represents simply poor judgment on her behalf and a failure to really appreciate what the organisation does stand for rather than support for its anti-human principles. If this is the case, one would hope that she might be now prepared to dissociate herself publicly from the organisation and to repudiate the message of support which she has sent to it. If she does not do so, one might hope that certainly the Leader of the Opposition and perhaps even the Leader of the National Party might be prepared to dissociate themselves and their parties from that organisation. Senator Peter Baume —They have done it before. We have done that many times. Senator GARETH EVANS —Well, it might be time to do it again, given that it is the January/February 1984 issue of this particular publication that we are now talking about and still this Opposition and its members are on record as supporting the organisation. I mention finally-- Senator Peter Baume —I raise a point of order. Senator GARETH EVANS —Is this a point of order? Senator Peter Baume —Yes. Senator GARETH EVANS —The honourable senator can get up and make a personal explanation. Senator Peter Baume —No, it is a point of order. I find it personally offensive to me, as the only Jewish member of this Senate, to have Senator Evans saying that the Opposition associates itself with that organisation. I find it personally offensive and ask you, Mr President, to ask the honourable senator to withdraw that remark. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am indebted to Senator Baume for his contribution to this debate and I would welcome other such contributions after I have sat down. It might help establish the proper situation. I mention finally-- Senator Missen —I raise a point of order. I suggest that this is a general reflection on the Opposition. I strongly object to those comments as a long term enemy of that organisation. I ask that the honourable senator be made to withdraw the remark. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Missen has asked for a withdrawal on the ground that it is personally offensive to him. Under standing order 418 I therefore ask you to withdraw. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am very willing to make-- Senator Grimes —I raise a point of order. I think this is an important point of order and it is something that I have asked for for a long time. If Senator Missen is to have the capacity to ask for a withdrawal of a statement made on this side which referred collectively to the Opposition, that is a great change from the practice in this place in the past. Senator Sir John Carrick, the former Leader of the Government in the Senate, almost daily used the technique of blackguarding people collectively without anyone having the capacity to seek withdrawal. I would agree very much if we had a standing order which prevented that sort of behaviour, but, in the past, Presidents in this place have consistently ruled that collective impressions were not the subject of this standing order. The PRESIDENT —The advice given to me is that these sorts of objections, when taken, have been allowed in the past. Senator Grimes —When? The PRESIDENT —That is the advice given to me. I am advised that in ruling that way I am carrying out past practice. However, I agree that it is a matter that needs to be looked at and I certainly will look at it. Meanwhile, Senator Missen has asked for a withdrawal and I would therefore ask the Minister, under standing order 418, to withdraw his remarks. Senator GARETH EVANS —I certainly withdraw any suggestion of Senator Missen in any way giving aid or comfort to this. Indeed, I doubt that more than a handful of members on the other side of this chamber would in fact subscribe to the values that I have here described. I mention finally, in answer to Senator Crowley-- Senator Martin —Which handful? Come on-otherwise we are all involved. Senator GARETH EVANS —That is up to the honourable senator. The final point I make, since Senator Crowley asked what the Government is doing about this sort of stuff, is simply this: The whole question of race hatred propaganda, which is obviously a very difficult and a very sensitive one raising the whole question of balancing rights of free speech on the one hand against the legitimate interests of minorities against this sort of scurrilous material on the other, has been the subject of a recent report from the Human Rights Commission and is now the subject of active consideration by a human rights task force that I have established within my Department which has called for and received a number of submissions from the public and which I hope will be in a position to suggest possible legislation later this year as part of a review that is going on of the whole Racial Discrimination Act. Senator TEAGUE —As a Liberal senator I dissociate myself entirely from the remarks attributed to the Opposition. I make that statement only because I happen to be the next senator called by the President. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator will ask his question. Senator TEAGUE —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. There has been reference today and on earlier occasions this week in Question Time to the Menzies report into the handling of the Sala case. Will the Attorney-General forthwith table the report? Senator GARETH EVANS —No, I will not forthwith table that report or anything else . What I will do is what I am doing, that is, giving the matter consideration and preparing a Cabinet submission for consideration by the Government next week . As I have made perfectly clear by my willingness to give a great deal of detail in answers to questions about the Sala matter, I believe there is much in the report that could quite properly and indeed could quite helpfully be put on the public record. The difficulty, as always with this kind of report, embodying , as it does, references to internal departmental files and a number of allegations that are made by particular individuals about things that they believe may or may not have been the case, is that a number of individuals are named in circumstances where it is perfectly clear, when one looks at the evidence, that the material was quite unjustified in relation to them. So one has this dilemma, this difficulty, about people's names being trailed around publicly in circumstances where, ultimately, the material is not such as to justify that. It is that sort of question which is making difficult the instant answer to what is quite a reasonable request that has been made by the Opposition for the tabling of this report. It is against that background that I am genuinely trying to work out what it is that can be quite properly put on the public record without giving rise to these other difficulties. Senator TEAGUE —I ask a supplementary question. Will the Attorney-General be able, having already had 48 hours notice of that question, to give a firm answer to the remaining matter for consideration, that is, the sanitising of names, before the Senate rises today? Senator GARETH EVANS —No. The PRESIDENT —Before I call the next question I must point out that there have been nine questions from members of the Opposition today and five supplementary questions. Senator COOK —My question, which is on jobs and the economy and is of interest to the Australian people, is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. As the first meeting of the China/Australia iron and steel industry joint study group is scheduled to be held in Peking in the first week of April, can the Minister give the Senate any further information about the general initiative on the steel industry taken by the Prime Minister when he was in China recently? Opposition senators interjecting- Senator BUTTON —There is scepticism from people who were in government for seven years and who took no initiatives on anything in relation to Australian industry . I expect that to last, because it was the most deplorable seven years in the history of this country, when numerous opportunities were lost. If any evidence is required of that, it can be found in the comments of the former Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, on the Science Show a week ago, when he put forward a few ideas about Australian industry and was asked: 'Why didn't you do something about this when you were in government?' He said: 'It would have been a good idea if I had thought of it eight years ago'. That is the fairest description we can get of the performance of the Liberal Party in respect of industry policy when it was in government for those seven years. Insofar as the particulars of the question are concerned, the Prime Minister, when he was in China, took an initiative in opening up discussions with the Chinese Government about the possibility of having some integrated mechanisms in relation to the steel industry in Australia and the steel industry in China. That was an initiative taken at the political level. When he got back to Australia he discussed that matter-indeed, I have discussed that matter-with representatives of the Australian steel industry and the Australian iron ore industry. There are currently two Australian officials in China discussing with Chinese Government officials the follow-up to the Prime Minister's visit and the political initiative which was taken. It is the view of this Government that no opportunities should remain unexplored in terms of developing Australia's industry and in terms of developing our export capacity. We do not pretend for a moment that any one, or all, of these initiatives will succeed. But in the view of this Government none of them should be left unexplored. Therefore, officials are in China at present having discussions with Chinese officials. The reports from those officials are that there is a lot of interest at the official level in the political discussions which were undertaken between our Prime Minister and the Premier of China in relation to this question. The question of most importance and relevance which has been discussed is the time framework for the implementation of any possible future arrangements of benefit to both countries. It has been agreed, as I understand it, that there can be an increase in technological exchanges on a commercial basis between the two countries in the immediate future and that later there can be further discussions relating to the export of the Australian finished product and, more particularly, the export to China of Australian iron ore. The joint study group will meet in China in the first week of April. I am happy to say that the Chinese Minister for Metallurgical Industry, Li Dongye, will be visiting Australia in the near future. He has accepted an invitation which has been sent to him to visit Australia to have discussions with the Australian Government and the Australian steel industry and we believe he will visit Australia in May. We look forward to that visit. As I said, all these opportunities are being explored. Again, in this area there is room for cautious optimism that benefits will be brought to the Australian iron and steel industry, to the community as a whole and to the Australian-China relationship as a result of the efforts which have already been undertaken. The PRESIDENT —I present the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing. The report presents the revised estimates for the Department of the Senate for 1983-84 which the Committee, in accordance with its resolution of appointment, has determined for inclusion in the Appropriation ( Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1983-84. Consequent on the Committee's determinations, I have forwarded details of the revised estimates to the Minister for Finance for inclusion in the Bill. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I welcome the fact that during Question Time the Leader of the Government in the Senate ( Senator Button) responded to a question about the Commonwealth in very positive terms and acknowledged the fact that it is Commonwealth Day next Monday. On behalf of the Opposition, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a brief statement in similar terms expressing the Opposition's support for the Commonwealth, and its view that in 1984 it remains an important body which should have the support of this Parliament and of all parties in the Parliament. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- Mr President, next Monday is Commonwealth Day. On March 12th, the peoples of an extraordinary diverse group of nations dotted round the globe will commemorate the foundation and ongoing work of the Commonwealth of Nations. The Commonwealth is unique in form and function amongst world bodies. In a world filled with tension and the threat of the ultimate armed conflict we need the Commonwealth. We need the dialogue it promotes and the understanding which results. Australia has played an important part in the work of the Commonwealth. We have contributed to its development as an effective international forum. The Regional heads of government meeting is an Australian initiative. Australians have come to recognise that our future is bound up with that of the Pacific Region. The ever increasing trade amongst nations of the region underlines that. The opportunity for the Leaders of Pacific Commonwealth nations to exchange views freely is one which we must continue to take advantage of. In a broader context, the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings fill an equally important function. The outstanding success of the Melbourne CHOGM in 1981 gave all Australians added insight into the importance of the Commonwealth. Australia's own stature and influence in the world would be smaller if the Commonwealth did not exist or if we failed to continue to play an active part in its work. With some 75 per cent of the Commonwealth composed of Asian and African nations our good relations with the countries of those regions would be less well advanced. We would be denied a major line of communication with significant portions of the Third World. The Commonwealth is about people of diverse cultures and backgrounds. It provides forums in which people in a variety of careers and professions can meet and exchange views with their colleagues in other countries. In this context, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association plays an important part in bringing together those nations whose governments are based on the Westminster system. The CPA of which you, Mr President, and the Speaker are Joint Presidents, has for many years enabled matters of legislative and Parliamentary importance to be discussed. Many senators have benefited from active participation in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Although there have been some who have questioned the relevance of the Commonwealth in the 1980s, its record of effectiveness in solving international problems and promoting much needed understanding effectively answers the doubting Thomases. I point to the positive role played by Commonwealth countries, including Australia, in solving the conflict which preceded the emergence of Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe itself is now part of the Commonwealth. If anything, the Commonwealth of 1984 is even more important as an instrument which we, along with others, can use to promote co-operation and reason in a world so much in need of them. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —by leave-I am pleased to inform the Senate that the Executive Council this morning approved the appointment of Jocelyn McGirr as Deputy Chairman of the Repatriation Commission. Miss McGirr has a distinguished background in law, public administration and community service. She practised law with a leading Sydney firm of solicitors and has given excellent service in a range of community organisations. Miss McGirr is at present Executive Member of the New South Wales Privacy Committee. The Repatriation Commission has important responsibilities in relation to the welfare of veterans and their dependants. I am particularly gratified that it has been possible to appoint someone so well qualified to this senior position on the Commission. I add that Miss McGirr's appointment is the first appointment of a woman to the Repatriation Commission in its 60-year history. I am particularly pleased that I can make this announcement on International Women's Day. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —I seek leave to make a statement announcing the Government's legislative program for the current period of sittings. Leave granted. Senator GRIMES —I seek leave to have the text of the statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- Last year the government established the practice of announcing its legislation program at the start of each period of sittings. It remains our view that the parliament and the Australian people should know about the program at an early stage. We believe that an informed and open public debate about major national issues is an essential ingredient for effective government. In this way members of parliament will be better informed and able to organise their own priorities and the community at large will be better able to understand the timing of the implementation of government policy. The government's legislation program for the current sittings is aimed at consolidating the record established last year for economic management and social reform. A number of the Government's priority objectives have already been achieved. Legislation introduced last sittings has recently been passed to overcome the problems associated with sex discrimination to protect Australia's trading interests and policies against the extra territorial enforcement of foreign laws to strengthen anti dumping procedures. In the budget sittings last year we introduced bills to: establish a national crime authority; give effect to the law reform commission recommendations for the insurance industry; enable ratification of the Torres Strait treaty; facilitate the management of supplies of fuel in emergencies remove discrimination in relation to citizenship between British subjects and other immigrants; The Government attaches importance to these elements of its program and debate will be resumed on these matters during these sittings. It has already been announced that the assets test legislation, also introduced last sittings, will be considered further by a consultative committee. I shall now outline briefly the new legislation which we intend to introduce. Welfare and Community Development As the first stage of national land rights proposals, Aboriginal heritage protection legislation will be introduced relating to sacred sites and objects. This measure will ensure a consistent national approach to site and object protection. Further land rights legislation may also be introduced if time permits. Legislation already introduced gives legislative backing to Aussat as a publicly owned company and allows Telecom to hold a percentage of Aussat shares and persons using the satellite system to erect their own telecommunications facilities related to the satellite. Legislation is also expected to be introduced to re-establish the curriculum development centre establish an Australian National Gallery fund by which non-government moneys can be accepted and invested. Environment The Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act will be amended to implement Government policy including its reponse to the recommendations of a number of parliamentary reports. The changes will increase the opportunities for public participation in commonwealth environmental assessment and provide a better basis for reconciling economic and environmental considerations. Related legislation will assist in the protection of people and the environment from damage caused by various contaminants. It will provide for an assessment of the hazards in new chemicals being introduced into Australia and for the regulation of chemical substances. Another measure being considered would regulate the development of tourist structures beyond the limits of the territorial sea. Proposals have been put forward to develop resorts on the Great Barrier Reef. There is currently no legislation which could be used to adequately control such developments. Constitutional and Law Reform Major legislation in this area will establish an Australian Bill of Rights which will meet our international obligations under the international covenant on civil and political rights upgrade the structure, role, jurisdiction and enforcement powers of the Human Rights Commission. Further important measures will apply the new electoral laws to the conduct of referendums as relevant establish the Australian Government Solicitor as a corporate body in place of the Crown Solicitor facilitate the use of extrinsic aids in statutory interpretation. Other legislation will establish a new Federal Guarding Service widen the High Court's powers to remit matters to other courts thus improving the efficiency of the judicial system enable ratification of The Hague Convention on marriage give effect to international agreements on extradition allow confidentiality orders made on grounds of national security or to protect the safety of persons by Victorian Criminal Courts in proceedings arising out of the Sheraton Hotel incident to be enforced throughout Australia. Financial Measures In addition to the Appropriation and Supply Bills and important cost supplementation legislation for education, the Government will introduce a number of taxation measures including measures in relation to superannuation and taxation avoidance. Other legislation will enhance the Commonwealth's ability to collect air navigation charges amend the Co-operative Companies and Securities Scheme to deal with registration of charges under the Companies Act corporate membership of stock exchanges implement a number of double taxation agreements. External Relations Bills will be introduced to appropriate funds for Australia's contribution to the International Development Association restrict the use of Australian passports to Australian citizens and remove the distinction between immigrants who are British subjects and those who are not register the deaths of Australians travelling overseas. Public Service The Government will introduce major legislation to implement its plans to reform the Australian Public Service. The statement of the Government's intentions which was issued in December 1983 has been the subject of wide- ranging consultations, and the package which will be introduced will provide for a more responsive, accountable and efficient Public Service employment which will be open to all Australian citizens on the basis of merit. Other measures will arise from any report of the Remuneration Tribunal which might follow the forthcoming National Wage Case update legislation relating to the Defence Force. Assistance to Industry Important measures relating to primary industry will restructure the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation to increase its effectiveness and restrict its role to commercially oriented activities establish a meat livestock policy council and a joint industry selection committee to advise the Minister for Primary Industry on Meat and Livestock Policy issues and on the composition og the Board of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation provide assistance to the States for soil conservation clarify the borrowing power of the wool corporation (already introduced) provide for new arrangements for the sugar industry increase penalties for breaches of the Quarantine Act (already introduced). Other measures will implement various Bounty Measures approved by the Government correct problems in regard to sites for the retail marketing of petroleum exempt small vessels from the requirement to register under the Shipping Registration Act (already introduced) regulate patents with regard to micro-organisms reform road contract tendering requirements discourage the underlifting of indigenous crude oil and offset the cost of coastal freight paid on deliveries of crude oil prevent unauthorised use of the Advance Australia Logo update national measurement legislation. In addition the usual statute law (miscellaneous provisions) bill will include a number of matters of minor significance. As always, unforeseen circumstances may give rise to additional legislation and pressure on the Parliamentary Counsel and other people's time may not enable all matters to come forward as soon as we would like. In addition, the government is still considering other reform measures which may result in legislation in the current sittings. But the program I have outlined continues the direction established by the Government in its first year and will put into effect a number of social, environmental, legal and institutional reforms to which the Government is strongly committed. I commend the Government's program to the Senate and look forward to the assistance of Honourable Senators in its implementation. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —I present the first report of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983, the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 1983, and the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1983. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator TATE —On behalf of the Committee, I lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 1, dated 7 March 1984. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia) —I present the seventh report of the Publications Committee. Report-by leave-adopted. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —I present the 223rd report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts on the Committee's inquiry into HMAS Tobruk. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator GEORGES —by leave-This report details the findings of the Committee's inquiry into the amphibious heavy lift ship-HMAS Tobruk-project of the Department of Defence. The inquiry was commenced following the Auditor-General's critical report on the HMAS Tobruk project in March 1982. Initially the Committee planned to report on the findings of this inquiry in conjunction with its findings on other references from the Auditor-General's March 1982 report. However, because of the magnitude and the seriousness of the problems associated with the project the Committee decided to issue a separate report on the matter. Among the issues reported on by the Committee are: HMAS Tobruk's excess weight; the Defence Department's poor quality assurance and grossly inadequate on-site representation at the shipyard; Tobruk's inoperable davit hoist system for its landing craft; several alleged major design faults including a lack of watertight integrity following damage; major deficiencies in the Defence Department's overall approach to project management; and the history of design related problems with HMAS Tobruk's air conditioning system; the engine control system; the deck mounding of the ship's forward cranes; the ship's excessive vibration; its underdesigned auxiliary boilers; the ship's dangerous sewerage system; and its inadequate kit lockers. The Committee is most concerned about the variety of serious problems that were revealed during the course of the inquiry. The Committee questions the failure of the Department of Defence to rectify technical problems which emerged during the HMAS Tobruk project. The Committee would not have expected the Department to have mismanaged the acquisition of a major piece of equipment. During this inquiry the Committee found that many highly significant events and documents were not readily brought to the attention of the Committee by the Department. Rather, their existence was revealed only after prolonged investigation and probing inquiry by the Committee. The Committee was not satisfied with this aspect of the Department's conduct for it believed that a committee of the Australian Parliament should be given a full and frank account of all relevant events and documents pertinent to the matter under consideration. It is not a matter of receiving information on a need to know basis. It is for the Committee only to decide what material is relevant. I wish to comment further on two matters raised in the report. First, during the course of the Tobruk inquiry the Committee learnt of the tragic death of Naval Reserve cadet Kenneth Dax and the critical findings of the subsequent board of inquiry and the Department's review of that board of inquiry. While the Department is to be congratulated for the thoroughness of the review of the board of inquiry report it is, at the same time, to be severely censured for the deficiencies and mismanagement reported on by the review. The Committee is concerned at the way the Department handled the Dax family's request for information and compensation following the tragic death of their son Kenneth. The Committee has carefully considered this issue and concludes that the amount of $3,550 is not an adequate amount to compensate for the death of a 14-year-old naval cadet and the subsequent distress to his family. The Committee recommends that the matter should be looked at again and a more adequate amount determined. Secondly, during the course of the inquiry a question on HMAS Tobruk's watertight integrity following damage was raised. The Committee heard evidence on this serious matter from a variety of sources at both public and in camera hearings and carefully considered this allegation. The Committee remains doubtful about HMAS Tobruk's watertight integrity in certain circumstances. In this report the Committee makes 33 recommendations for action by the Defence Department. Of these I wish to highlight one recommendation which states: That rectification of HMAS Tobruk's many serious technical problems should be carried out in advance of the scheduled refit. In the meantime consideration should be given to the operation of the ship to ensure its safety. The Committee wishes to emphasise that it does not question the concept of, or the need for, a ship such as HMAS Tobruk. Clearly, the existence and operation of a heavy lift ship like HMAS Tobruk is of benefit to the Australian defence forces and the Australian community. Similarly, the Committee in reporting on the findings of this inquiry does not question the role of the Australian shipbuilding industry in defence projects. The Committee emphasises that it does not wish to prejudice shipbuilding in Australia. It recognises the valuable contribution to the Australian economy made by Australian shipbuilding companies and their employees, and welcomes the development of this industry. The Committee believes that the recommendations of this inquiry will go some way towards improving overall project management and administration in the Department. However, there still remains a need for project management in the Department of Defence and its related organisations to be further improved substantially. As honourable senators will be aware, the Committee will be undertaking a detailed and comprehensive examination into the Defence Department's overall project management and administration this year. With this in mind the Committee requests that the response to this report be available to the Committee on or before 1 September 1984. In commending the report to honourable senators I will add some further comments. I cannot put the report down without giving credit to the secretariat of the Committee and those who have worked on this long inquiry for the manner in which they produced the report to enable it to be tabled this week. I wish also to put on record my personal admiration for the efforts of Mrs Dax, the mother of Kenneth Dax, the 14-year-old who died in such unfortunate circumstances. Since 1981 Mrs Dax has persisted with great courage in bringing to the public's attention and to the attention of this Parliament the circumstances which led to her son's death. Unfortunately it is not to the credit of the Department of Defence or in fact those who represent the Department in this Parliament to have revealed the manner in which that family was treated. Mrs Dax had to persist against great odds in order to get the information concerning the circumstances of the death. Mrs Dax with great effort obtained co -operation from the Department in her family's time of need. It does not reflect any credit on those concerned when one looks at the family's treatment. As the report reveals, the death of the lad was the result of an unfortunate series of events, design faults, misjudgment and errors. It is a death that could have and should have been avoided. However, the death having occurred, surely the Department could have responded as it should respond to the families of all Service personnel when something tragic occurs. If this case is any example of how the Service departments respond to the death of one of their number, of course, as the Committee report recommends, such responses will have to be substantially altered and corrected. One finds it hard to accept that Mrs Dax should have had so much difficulty. One finds it hard to accept that she was not given consideration. One can talk about compensation but compensation is secondary. I do not think the Dax family or Mrs Dax are concerned about money. There is really no amount that would compensate them for the tragedy. Nevertheless, it is my belief that they seek to create a precedent in this area. It is for others to determine how the compensation can be increased. Many simple things should have been done in an understanding of the trauma which that family, in particular the parents, suffered. The report gives the whole chronology of the exchange of correspondence between that family and the Department over two years. One incident seems to indicate the lack of sensitivity of the Department. When the lad suffered the accident he was rescued by one of his fellow cadets who went into the head or the toilet area and brought the boy out at great risk to himself. The Dax family recommended an award for bravery. The Department accepted that and made an award for bravery to the cadet concerned, but it failed to advise the Dax family until after the award had been presented. That seems to me to demonstrate such a lack of sensitivity, understanding and co- operation. Even when the Department was trying to do the right thing it failed to carry out the details. In the report I would say that we have hammered the Department rather remorselessly because, in a way, our approach may have been affected by the tragedy of Kenneth Dax and our belief that those errors should not have occurred . We felt that that toilet should not have become a trap and that those who altered the design of the system should have known, as the report shows, that certain consequences would flow from that change in design. They should have been aware, if they were changing the design, that the seal in the toilet head was only 17 millimetres of water, not 35 millimetres as in a domestic toilet. They should have known that the seal was less than that, and that when considering the pressures that built up there was not sufficient seal to counter those pressures. They were simple, ordinary problems of design that should have been recognised. Unfortunately, throughout the whole project there appear errors of this type. Having gone through this whole exercise, I feel that the Department of Defence will respond not only because of the criticisms of this report but also because of its own review. The report of the inquiry by the board of review into the death of Kenneth Dax was the document upon which the Committee depended greatly to expose the serious problems of the Tobruk. There is the expertise within the Department to counter these problems and to solve them. I hope that as a result of this report that will happen. I have spoken for longer than I intended, but I think it is necessary to indicate to the Parliament the serious deficiencies which occurred during the construction of Tobruk and subsequent to its commissioning. The matter is serious and ensuring understanding of that seriousness has been very necessary. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —by leave-After hearing the remarks of Senator Georges in relation to the parents of Kenneth Dax one can understand the reason why he spoke with such emotion yesterday, with the expectation that Mrs Dax would be listening to the parliamentary broadcast. The forms of this place are such that it is unfortunate that situations like that have to occur. I support the remarks that were made by my colleague Senator Georges, who is Chairman of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and who guided what was at times a highly technical investigation. Seldom has the Public Accounts Committee come up with such a concentration of criticism of a matter under review. The building of HMAS Tobruk has reflected very poorly on sections of the defence forces, on their project management, on the lack of communication between the personnel at the shipyard and the central co-ordinating authorities. It is a matter of some concern that when the matter was earlier under investigation by the Committee, the naval authorities did not draw to the Committee's attention the death of naval reserve cadet Kenneth Dax. In fact the existence of many significant events and documents was not readily brought to the attention of the Committee. They were revealed only after prolonged investigation and inquiry. This is tragic and reflects poorly on the Department. It should be emphasised that the Committee does not question the concept of or the need for a ship such as HMAS Tobruk, nor does it wish that its 223rd report be used to prejudice shipbuilding in Australia. The Committee recognises the valuable contribution to the Australian economy made by the Australian shipbuilding companies and their employees, but there is a need for an overhaul of project management and shipbuilding techniques be applied within Australian defence establishments. It is unfortunate that because of the low level of shipbuilding activity in Australia much of the expertise has been lost through personnel resignations, retirement and transfer. There are now serious deficiencies in the adequacy of skills needed to build a large vessel in Australia. It is regrettable that a country with such a large coastline as Australia's has to defend itself with so few vessels which are so poorly equipped. Although not covered by the report, on the information gained by me through my participation in this investigation, I would like to express the view that the Tobruk in the event of war would have to rely very heavily on other ships and aircraft for protection since it has so few capabilities for protecting itself. A vessel of this kind is a number one priority for an enemy attack. I believe that many needless lives could be lost because of the defence forces' decision to try to save money. I also wish to take this opportunity of thanking Commander Moreton for his help to the Committee while some members sailed off the Queensland coast aboard HMAS Tobruk. None of the criticisms should be taken as criticism of the crew, which certainly while we were aboard showed professional seamanship and dedication to the job. I now think it is relevant that I list to the Senate some of the shortcomings which are outlined in the report in the hope that others may be induced to read it and note the seriousness of the matter. I also hope it will lead to a thorough reappraisal of many of the current policies and practices, which the Committee thinks should be radically overhauled. There is the question of the Department not allocating sufficient resources to develop such things as quality assurance programs for monitoring, particularly matters of weight control procedures. An unauthorised weight increase was due to the Department not ensuring that the correct specifications were met, something pretty fundamental and elementary to most people. The Department did not give adequate consideration to the commercial practicalities of converting a particular specification from an imperial old design to metric measurements. The Department did not realise the consequences of what might be termed soft or appropriate conversions when dealing with very narrow tolerances. Given the magnitude and obvious implications of converting the ship's design from imperial to metric measurements, the Department should have monitored more closely the contractor's conversion processes and material acquisitions. In this respect the Department was derelict in carrying out its contract supervisory role. There is little purpose in building a specialised beaching design vessel such as Tobruk if the resulting ship can use the specified design only in a secondary role and then under restricted circumstances. The number of on-site departmental representatives at the ship yard, at practically all times, was grossly inadequate. The level of on-site departmental expertise and experience was inadequate given the task in hand. The Department's tender specifications were deficient and not correctly oversighted. As these matters are quite extensive and because of the pressure of time, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard my other remarks. Leave granted. The document read as follows- the Department has been dilatory in devising a remedy for HMAS Tobruk's contaminated hydraulic system; continuing problems with HMAS Tobruk's devid hydraulic system, point to a lack of expertise with hydraulics in the Department or inefficient systems in the Department to rectify defects in well known engineering technology; the problems experienced by HMAS Tobruk since commissioning are not minor teething problems; many of the major problems HMAS Tobruk has suffered since its commissioning stem from design related causes; the ship's existing air conditioning system is unsatisfactory and in need of replacement in the long term; problems with the ship's engine control system, partly attributable to the use of a mixture of ferrous and non-ferrous pipes, contravene the contract specifications on dissimilar metals; the problem of HMAS Tobruk's excessive vibration has not been resolved; the ship's excessive vibration may constitute a long term health hazard to the crew; there is little doubt that HMAS Tobruk's excessive vibration will increase the ship's maintenance costs and reduce its life; problems with HMAS Tobruk's auxiliary boilers typify the difficulties of producing spare parts from overseas manufacturers; HMAS Tobruk's sewerage system was not adequately understood by the Department's designers, the contractor's designers and installation staff, the ship's company and the Department's maintenance personnel during the building of the ship; HMAS Tobruk's poorly designed kit locker spaces have led to the development of a potential safety hazard in the form of congested troop passage ways when troops are on board; the Department proceed as a matter of urgency to thoroughly research questions surrounding HMAS Tobruk's potential for lack of watertight integrity and initiate corrective action as soon as possible if needed; the Department research the risks associated with HMAS Tobruk's external PVC Piping; the amount of $3550 is not an adequate amount to be paid for compensation to Mr and Mrs Dax given the circumstances; a more adequate act of grace payment should be made to Mr and Mrs Dax. From the evidence of poor project management manifested throughout the inquiry into HMAS Tobruk, the Committee is embarking on a new reference-Project Management in the Department of Defence. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.29) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. If other senators wish to speak I will certainly not pre-empt them. Senator Mason wishes to comment on this report and I hope that in two weeks time, when the Senate resumes, we will be able to continue the debate. I hope that the last speaker in this debate will enable that to occur. I intend to make some brief comments on only one part of the report of which I have any knowledge and that relates to Kenneth Dax. On many occasions I have spoken in this chamber on this matter and have probably annoyed many Ministers by constantly bringing up this problem that occurred. This is another step in what was an unsatisfactory method of dealing with such a difficult and tragic problem. I am glad that Mrs Dax took up the fight. It is not something that I think many people could have done or would want to do. The fact is that Mrs Dax did it. If, as I hope, the recommendations of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts which are set out on page 118, are taken on board, it will mean that her fight will bear fruit not only for her and her husband but also for others who may be caught in such tragic circumstances. I believe that the recommendations of the Committee are very sensible and reasonable and meet the issue we face. I too would like to echo the sentiments expressed by Senator Georges as Chairman of this Committee. One of the things that struck anybody who had to deal with this case was the complete lack of sensitivity involved. The aspect which struck me as being the worst was not that which Senator Georges raised, but the letter which was sent by the then Minister for Defence to Mrs Dax saying that there would be no ex gratia payment. Anyone reading that letter cannot but be struck with the fact that it was written with callous disregard to its contents. It was as though somebody had applied for a licence, a contract or some inanimate object and was simply turned down. It seems to me that the person who wrote it almost totally lacked any feeling and sensitivity. From talking to Mrs Dax it became very evident that she would not have pursued this fight if there had been some sympathy, some understanding and some compassion at the outset. The fact that she had to deal with a total lack of those qualities on the part of the bureaucracy and the feeling that she did not have a need to know anything drove her on in her desperate fight. I am buoyed up by the fact that a committee of this Parliament can spend time on one citizen's problem and hopefully, if these recommendations are accepted, help to resolve it. After some of the things that have happened this week I think that the activities of the Parliament in relation to this matter concerning one citizen show that there are people here who will fight these types of cases on behalf of ordinary people and who, if these recommendations are accepted, will win. It adds to the good name and reputation of this House that one person in this country can get that type of support from his or her elected representatives, can pursue an issue to the point where one of the most important committees of this Parliament spends much time considering it. I believe that that reflects a great deal of credit on the institution of parliament in a democracy such as ours. I urge the Government to accept the recommendations of the report. They seem to me to have been compiled by people with a very detailed understanding and knowledge of the case and with an eye to future occurrences of this kind. I believe that if these recommendations are accepted Mrs Dax will be satisfied that at long last the problems that she encountered have been recognised and that the treatment she received is recognised as having been wrong. I believe that the Parliament, and the Government in particular, will also accept the errors made by the Executive, both in the previous Government and the current Government. I am sure-certainly, Senator Grimes, the Minister for Social Security, has expressed this view-that there will be a review of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act. I hope we will see that review come to fruition in this session of Parliament. I conclude on a word of commendation to the Committee which I feel has tackled this problem with great vigour. I have looked at the rest of the report as well and it seems to me that if any report has substantiated the work of the committees of this Parliament it is this one. The work it undertook in ferreting out information, reducing it and compiling its recommendations shows that the Public Accounts Committee of this Parliament is second to none in the history of a committee which has had a long and fairly illustrious history. I expect that any government would be hard pressed to turn down any of these sensible and reasonable recommendations. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia)(3.37) —I also wish to say a few words in regard to the findings of the Joint Committee of Public Account's inquiry into HMAS Tobruk. First of all, I congratulate Senator Georges and every member of the Public Accounts Committee for bringing down this report. I believe it is in the finest tradition of the Australian Parliament's committees. I believe that everyone on that Committee has to be congratulated. I believe that the injustices caused to the parents of young Kenneth Dax are a disgrace. I also congratulate the Committee for recommending that the Government look seriously at increasing compensation in such matters. Although I realise that such compensation will never replace the life of Kenneth Dax I believe, as Senator Georges has said, that it will at least show some concern. I believe that there will have to be caning in the Department of Defence. The handling of this case was a disgrace. I do not wish to say any more than that but I want to indicate that if no other senator wishes to speak I shall seek leave to continue my remarks later. I believe that we would be paying a tribute to the Dax family if a tape recording of the remarks made could be forwarded to them. I propose to move accordingly. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Leave is not granted, Senator Elstob, as someone else wishes to speak. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(3.39) —I thank the Joint Committee of Public Accounts for its report. I do not know anything about the aspects of the report concerning the Department of Defence, hence I do not intend to comment on them. I assume that the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) will comment on them in another place. A matter which does arise in the recommendations and which does concern me is the question of compensation for the Dax family for this most unfortunate incident. Some time after becoming Minister for Social Security I had this unfortunate accident drawn to my attention. There was no provision under Defence Department legislation or under Commonwealth compensation legislation for compensation to be paid for the death of a minor in such a situation who had no dependants. I found this a somewhat difficult situation. There is obviously a deficiency in the legislation and I was determined that an ex gratia payment should be made. The difficulty then arises as to how much that ex gratia payment should be. The Department, in this one-off case, chose to look to other compensation legislation in this country and, as the report says, we chose to use the Queensland Workers Compensation Act 1916 which provides for a payment of 10 per cent of the maximum death benefit under these circumstances to the parents of a minor leaving no dependants. That resulted in a payment, with the approval of the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins), of $3,550 to Mrs Dax. As I said to Mrs Dax at the time, it did not seem like very much of a compensation payment, but it was a compensation payment under legislation similar to the Commonwealth compensation legislation. We intend to amend the Commonwealth employees compensation legislation to make provision for such payments, but I merely point out to the Senate what is obvious from this report: It is not easy. It is easy to say that $3,550 is not enough. It is easy to say that 10 per cent of the maximum death benefit is not enough. The Committee has been unable to decide what is a reasonable payment. In fact no reference is made to what might be a reasonable payment. The only reference the Committee made was that it found the Queensland Workers Compensation Act, provided as a guide, was not relevant to these conditions. I am not quite sure what that means, but clearly the Committee came to the conclusion that that Act in some way was not relevant. We will put our minds to it. I hope that the members of the Committee will put their minds to it so that, when we come up with a decision as to just how much the compensation might be, we do not have too much difference of opinion. I notice that everyone is willing to say that it is not enough but that no one is willing to say what is enough. I dare say that is what governments are about and what Ministers are for. I have only one other remark. It was unfortunate-I think the Committee should look to its procedures-that this Committee report was released to the Press under embargo before either honourable senators or Ministers were able to look at it. I am sure that was an accident and I hope that in the future we can look at that. If the Press is to have reports, senators and members should have them also. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(3.43) —I wish to correct what might be a misunderstanding on the part of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes ) as to the release of the report. There was some confusion about the release of this report yesterday, possibly because of the postponement of its consideration by the censure motion. When I was sitting in my room waiting to hear the tabling of the report in the House of Representatives, which would have made it a public document, I was surprised that the report was delivered to my room. It may be that the few remarks I made yesterday before the censure motion triggered off the release of the report. I heard that a complaint was made to the Speaker that a copy of the report was in the hands of a reporter prior to the tabling of the report. Senator Grimes —Several reporters, not just one. Senator GEORGES —I am not quite certain how that could have occurred. The matter is under investigation, but the Joint Committee of Public Accounts did not release the report under embargo. I make it clear that, if the report reached the hands of any reporter prior to its tabling, that would have happened between the moment it left the Committee secretariat and the time it was received at Parliament House. I do not know how long before its tabling the report was released. It might have been only 10 or 15 minutes. I do not know when it was brought to the notice of the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) that the report was in the hands of a reporter. I am trying to ascertain that now. But the report was not released under embargo. There is no doubt that there has been speculation in the Press about the report and there was also in the Bulletin a report which seemed to indicate some knowledge of the contents of the report. But that Bulletin report was written by a reporter who had followed this inquiry from the beginning and was able to assess much of what was in the Committee's mind and much of the evidence before the Committee. In fact the journalist concerned wrote the article which attracted the Committee's attention to the fact that the Defence Department had not given it all the information. That reporter who was very close to it wrote the article in the Bulletin which seems to indicate that she may have had access to some information she should not have had. The report was not released with an embargo. If the Committee or any committee believes in future that should be done, the matter should be brought before the Senate which can then debate the procedure we should follow. If that is to be the case, such an embargo would have to be as secure as the embargo placed on the Budget Papers before they are delivered in the House. We cannot trust an embargoed release of a report without such careful precautions. Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Baume) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Elstob)-by leave- proposed: That a tape recording of the proceedings in relation to the report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts be sent to the Dax family. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I should make clear to the Senate that I have inquired about this matter. Normally when maiden speeches are made or condolence motions moved the recording is done by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation using its facilities. The Hansard reporters have back-up tapes which, I am informed, will be of adequate quality to meet Senator Elstob's purposes. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —by leave-I present the official report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to the spring meetings, Helsinki, and the seventieth Inter-Parliamentary Union conference, Seoul, in 1983, together with the summary record, results of the meetings and the minutes of the Inter- Parliamentary Council. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator WATSON —by leave-In presenting the report of the Australian delegation to the Inter-Parliamentary Union meetings in 1983, I wish to make a few comments concerning the role of the Union and the results of the seventieth conference. The purpose of the Union as defined in Article 1 of the Statutes is: . . . to promote personal contacts between members of all Parliaments, constituted into National Groups, and to unite them in common action to secure and maintain the full participation of their respective States in the firm establishment and development of representative institutions and in the advancement of the work of international peace and co-operation, particularly by supporting the objectives of the United Nations. In relation to the Union's Statutes' relevancy to the Australian Parliament, I would like to draw the Senate's attention to the words of the leader of the delegation in 1983, Mr Ralph Jacobi, who is present in the gallery today, in the foreword of the report, in which he said: Joint Committee of Public Accounts Joint Committee of Public Accounts Joint Committee of Public Accounts Joint Committee of Public Accounts Joint Committee of Public Accounts Joint Committee of Public Accounts Joint Committee of Public Accounts Joint Committee of Public Accounts Joint Committee of Public Accounts Joint Committee of Public Accounts Joint Committee of Public Accounts Joint Committee of Public Accounts Through their meetings the IPU provides a unique opportunity to Parliamentarians world-wide by formal and informal personal contact to share views and to better understand each others problems. The difficulty for many in approaching the IPU from a Western standpoint is the measure of unreality about an organization of 'parliaments' which includes most of the Eastern Bloc as well as many other Nations with a dubious claim to the practice of multi-party parliamentary democracy as we know it. In my view the diversity of parliamentary systems and political ideologies of the member nations in no way weakens the Union as an effective organ for the meeting and exchange of views between Parliamentarians; it is, perhaps, its strength. As in the United Nations where representatives of Governments meet to debate world issues, the IPU provides a forum where Parliamentarians can discuss world events and problems. It provides for a meeting of minds between East and West and North and South where matters ranging from disarmament to poverty in the Third World can be debated and resolutions formulated for submission to the Parliaments and Governments of the National Groups represented. The IPU also provides an opportunity for work in specific areas. One of the most important and successful of these areas is in the pursuit of the human rights of Parliamentarians. The Committee on the Violation of Human Rights of Parliamentarians, under the chairmanship of Mr van Dam (Netherlands), investigates cases which come to attention and reports to the Council. The Special Committee, in Helsinki, reported that 37 Parliamentarians had been released since the Rome Conference while at Seoul, reported that a further 10 Parliamentarians had been released following negotiations. In this work the Committee works in close liaison with Amnesty International. I endorse these remarks made by Mr Jacobi and urge all honourable senators to participate fully in the activities of the Union. I turn now to the results of the seventieth Conference. The Seoul Conference produced a number of worthwhile resolutions relating to youth unemployment and the work of UNCTAD VI-the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. I note the participation and useful contributions by my colleague Senator Elstob, who is also in the chamber today. It also produced a resolution condemning the act of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic in shooting down Korean Airlines Flight 007. Australian delegates, under the leadership of Mr Jacobi, played a prominent role in ensuring that this resolution was strengthened and passed by the Conference. I wish to mention briefly the work of the Economic and Social Committee which dealt with the problems of the world's economic system and the work that UNCTAD VI undertook to overcome those problems. Many speakers expressed the wish for the rapid creation of a new economic order, particularly by means of the effective implementation of the agreement establishing the Common Fund for Commodities and by the adoption of concrete measures by UNCTAD. Two themes emerged from this. The first was the role that parliaments and governments of all countries could take to ensure that action be undertaken for the establishment of a new international economic order which would enable all countries to develop, particularly the developing countries, for the signature and ratification of the agreement establishing a Common Fund for Commodities, and for the adoption by UNCTAD VI of a program of action strongly in favour of a reduction in the military expenditure of all countries and of the utilisation of the resources thus released for the development of the developing countries. The second theme was the role that the parliaments and governments of the developing countries could take to initiate national programs which used all possibilities for the enlargement of mutual co-operation and which consolidated international economic co-operation. UNCTAD VI was held in Belgrade in July 1983. Although UNCTAD VI failed to achieve the high goals many countries placed upon it, there has appeared a willingness by all countries, both developed and developing, to come to some new arrangements to ensure that the world economy does not collapse. The resolutions of the Conference point to the development of this new economic order, and I recommend that all honourable senators read these resolutions. I wish to thank the organisers and peoples of the host countries for their wonderful hospitality and work to make the work of IPU in 1983 so successful. Helsinki was a most appropriate city in which to hold the spring meetings, where parliamentarians from around the world could meet and seek solutions. Finland so often has shown commendable application of the democratic processes amid tremendous pressures. Finland presents to the world some of the answers which I believe the world is seeking at a time of tremendous pressure and turmoil. I particularly thank the people of the Republic of Korea, who persevered with the seventieth Conference following the tragic and brutal act of terrorism perpetrated against the people of that country during the Conference. It is to their credit that the ideals of the Union were upheld amidst national grief and mourning. During the visit to Seoul, one of the highlights for all members was the opportunity to visit the Commonwealth War Memorial at Kapyong and for the delegation to present wreaths commemorating the deaths of Australian and Korean soldiers during the Korean War. This event was attended by the whole of the Australian delegation, who were escorted in a dignified manner through a guard of honour of Korean school children in national dress and Korean soldiers to appropriate music played by the local school band. Later we were led through lines of thousands of school children along the road. They welcomed the Australian delegation. It was a most moving occasion. I place on record my thanks to Congressman Chi and the War Veterans' Movement of Korea for their courtesy in arranging this. Finally, Mr Deputy President, I wish to pay tribute to the leader of the delegation, Mr Ralph Jacobi, who was able to achieve a high degree of success in ensuring that Australia's point of view was heard and noted. He was ably supported by all members of the delegation and the accompanying staff who worked together in a co-operative spirit enabling the delegation to take a strong and united approach. I emphasise the term 'united approach', because although we represented people from the respective parties, we put a solid and united Australian point of view on all issues which were raised in 1983. I commend the report to honourable senators. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia) —by leave-I add my comments to those of Senator Watson, the deputy leader of the Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation, led by Mr Jacobi, to Helsinki and Seoul. Other delegates in the past returning from Inter- Parliamentary Union meetings have made derogatory remarks. Until I was involved in the IPU meetings, I believed also that perhaps Australia should withdraw from these meetings. I now have a totally different view since attending the meetings in Helsinki and Seoul. I believe that the IPU gives an opportunity for politicians all around the world to meet and discuss the problems that beset our world. If young people, such as those in the gallery listening to this speech today, are to have any chance at all, we must reduce the possibilities of war and reduce ignorance and poverty in the world. That is the only way we can have peace. I believe that the Inter-Parliamentary Union is a venue for politicians from around the world to get together and help solve the problems that beset us. I urge strongly that Australia keeps on sending delegates to the IPU. I endorse what Senator Watson has said, that is, that all the delegates, irrespective of what political parties they came from, represented this country. It was the very solid approach taken by the Australian delegation which beefed up the resolution regarding the destruction of the Korean airliner, which was a terrible occurrence. I believe that the world should be outspoken on such occasions. There were many issues discussed-better education, how to lift the Third World countries, how to get employment for young people, how to reduce world tension about war, and how to reduce world spending on armaments. All these things are vital to the world if we are to survive. I congratulate Mr Jacobi, who led the delegation. His voice in the Ten Plus meeting was heard with the greatest respect. Australia is respected by the majority of countries in the world. We have no axe to grind, as have many other countries. Australia has a role to play as a peacemaker and in bringing sensible decisions to international meetings such as those of the IPU. I also congratulate the staff who accompanied us. Every one of them acted in a very admirable way and gave us all the help that was necessary. I believe that the IPU meetings are valuable. Australia has a real role to play. My advice to the Australian Government is that it ensure that we keep on sending delegates to attend the IPU meetings. Debate resumed from 5 March, on motion by Senator Collard: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(4.03) —The Australian Dried Fruits Corporation annual report for 1982-83 shows clearly that there is presently a world oversupply of approximately 145,000 tonnes a year and that this is now virtually fostered by the European Economic Community, which is supporting the overproduction, particularly in Greece. The Australian industry is still working hard to improve its quality, to develop new varieties and new markets, to rationalise costs, and to upgrade the various methods of production involved. At the same time, it is trying to advance its markets in South East Asia, where there is some potential, although the best market still seems to be in Australia. Australian sales of dried fruits, have increased from about 13,500 tonnes in 1975 to over 22,000 tonnes in 1980 and last year sales were up to 31,000 tonnes. Approximately 35 per cent of the total production is consumed locally and the balance, 65 per cent, is exported. In 1983-84 about $350,000 is to go to dried fruit research. At this stage we can only hope that that sort of expenditure will show results while there is still an industry. Judging by the way in which the industry is going, I am not sure that the expenditure of $350,000 will be of value. Some very positive action will have to be taken and government will need to become really involved. The industry will have to come up with solid propositions and constant watching of the overseas market will be required. I believe that we are not doing enough at present to see that this happens. I see the dried fruits industry as a very vital small industry and I believe that Australians generally want to see it maintained. I think it needs far greater recognition in the future. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 5 March, on motion by Senator Martin: That the Senate take note of the papers. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(4.06) —I wish to make a few brief comments on the annual report for 1982-83 of the Australian Heritage Commission. I congratulate the Commission on its work over the year. I particularly draw attention to several comments made in the annual report, first of all about South West Tasmania. I think it needs to be noted that the Heritage Commission's activity in relation to the saving of the Franklin River and the preservation of South West Tasmania was an important factor in that event. I draw attention to the Commission's belief that consideration should be given to the revision of boundaries to include a wider area. The Commission makes that opinion clear and I think it ought to be supported in that recommendation. Another issue to which it refers is that of the National Estate being constantly under threat. Rainforest logging is one of the issues to which it draws particular attention. I think all of us need to be continually vigilant about threats to both the built and the natural environment throughout the nation. Despite the comments that have been made in Tasmania in recent days about the inhibition on development because of the existence of the National Estate listings, I suspect that the inhibition is not very great at all. Whether we like to think so, or not, the powers of listing do not mean that development is automatically prevented. Concurrent legislation is needed in some of the States which have not yet legislated to establish heritage protection. I regret to say that Tasmania is one of those States in which State legislation is lacking. One needs also to draw attention to the very worthwhile Commonwealth grants that are made through the Australian Heritage Commission to State government authorities, local government bodies and other bodies such as the National Trust and the Conservation Trust in Tasmania to help in the preservation of important aspects of our national heritage. There is not time in a debate in which one is allowed only a few minutes to go through all of those valuable grants. They are generally small, of the order of $2,000 to $20,000. They are very worthwhile, but in the overall scheme of things not nearly large enough to make sure that the things we all want to keep are preserved. One other issue that I would like to raise in this debate was referred to in the Heritage Commission's report a couple of years ago and I think was raised in the Senate on Tuesday. It is the question of Commonwealth statutory authorities and their funding for the preservation of historic buildings. A couple of years ago the Australian Heritage Commission referred to the post offices at Cambell Town and Oatlands in Tasmania, beautiful old stone buildings which were an integral part of the streetscape of those two historic towns. Unfortunately, in the 1950s and 1960s some unfeeling person-- Senator Archer —Vandalised. Senator COATES —Yes, vandalised. Senator Archer agrees with me. They vandalised the facade of those buildings by putting on a so-called modern exterior that destroyed the overall appearance. The Australian Postal Commission would like to restore the original appearance of those buildings but it claims not to have the funds to do that as soon as it would like. I think the Senate, the Australian Heritage Commission and anybody else who believes that those two post offices are examples of buildings that ought to be restored should insist that action be taken to do that. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(4.12) —In speaking briefly to the seventh report of the Australian Heritage Commission, the report for 1982-83, I think the Australian Heritage Commission, its chairman and commissioners are to be congratulated for the work that they have carried out during the year. Australia and its people can be well pleased by what has been achieved by the Heritage Commission in its seven years of activity to protect the National Estate. In particular I commend the Heritage Commission for the work it is carrying out in education in publishing booklets listing nominations. This is excellent material . Honourable senators will note that material has been put out in regard to three Australian sites-the Willandra Lakes Region, the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu National Park. As I have said, the work is excellent and is invaluable. In the education area, the Commission hoped to have its school kit ' Investigating the National Estate' updated by the end of 1983. I do not recall having seen the updated material but no doubt it is available. I commend the Commission for its efforts in this area as this material is spread far and wide amongst the schools. I note that this year the Northern Territory has received very many grants. Various Northern Territory authorities, such as the Conservation Commission, museums and art galleries, the Sacred Sites Protection Authority and the National Trust have been funded. I commend also the work that the National Trust is doing. Funds have been made available and this has allowed many of the old buildings and valuable sites in the Northern Territory to be protected. I wish to mention a matter that has arisen between the Heritage Commission and the Northern Territory. I do not say that there is confrontation but it appears that some legislation is required to bring about better teamwork with the Commission. I wish to read from a letter written by the Northern Territory Government. It states: Dear Prime Minister, I wish to draw your attention to a matter of some uncertainty in the provisions of the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975 which my Government believes should be resolved by legislative amendment. The issue concerns the application of the Act to the Northern Territory and its statutory authorities. The scope of the definition of ''authority of the Commonwealth'' (section 3 of the Act) is uncertain. It appears that there is a conflict of legal opinion as to whether the definition extends to Northern Territory statutory authorities. I understand it has even been advanced that the definition is sufficiently wide to encompass the Crown in right of the Northern Territory-a simplistic approach which entirely overlooks the fundamental changes effected by the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act. Legal advice suggests that the Act's definition of ''authority of the Commonwealth'' does not extend to either the Northern Territory as a body politic or its authorities. However, I believe there would be little merit in legal advisors to our Government engaging in a long and tedious technical debate which appears unlikely to reach finality short of a judicial ruling. The present situation is clearly unsatisfactory. The Commonwealth Act is undoubtedly uncertain on the issue and, unless amended, inevitably will remain a source of friction. The Australian Heritage Commission, while adopting an interpretation of its Act at variance with that of my Government, has recognised that the self-governing status of the Northern Territory is inconsistent with application of Commonwealth legislation to entirely ''State'' administrative decisions. As long ago as 1979, in a submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, the Commission stated that it would be appropriate to amend the Act to place the Northern Territory in a position similar to that of the States. The Standing Committee, in both its first and second reports (1979 and 1981) agreed that there was no reason why the Territory should not be treated in the same manner as the States. The Committee also suggested that complementary Territory legislation should also be introduced. However, this is entirely a matter for my Government's consideration and should not be adopted as an excuse for inaction in removing the present ambiguity from the Commonwealth legislation. I hope that the two authorities will come to some agreement on this matter. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 5 March, on motion by Senator Collard: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 5 March, on motion by Senator Collard: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 5 March, on motion by Senator Collard: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(4.18) —The 1982-83 report from the Barley Industry Research Council is again a good report. Like the wheat industry the barley industry seems to manage its affairs very well. The Barley Industry Research Council is splendidly representative of the people and organisations best able to help the industry. It is run by the people in the industry. They are part of it. They built it and they control it. The decisions they make are based on very practical and solid grounds. The report covers what they have done and also goes a long way towards explaining future progress, the question of research generally and how they intend to see that the dollars that are going into research produce the maximum result. The Barley Industry Research Council is a quite substantial organisation. Its total receipts for the year were $704,892. I believe that the Government provided $350,000 of that. In trying to get the best value for money there is more co-operation now with the wheat industry. I am pleased to see that money is now being spent on matters such as engineering, economic research, minimum tillage and the like. This is being done in conjunction with the other grain industries. I believe that this organisation needs to be encouraged. I think it is doing a tremendous amount for the rural community it serves. I wish that all the other rural research industries were endeavouring to get as good a return for their research dollar as the Barley Industry Research Council. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 5 March, on motion by Senator Peter Rae: That the Senate take note of the papers. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(4.22) —I want to enlarge a little on the comments I made in a question to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan ), who represents the Minister for Science and Technology, about the effect on Commonwealth employment in Tasmania of the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Commonwealth Laboratories. I asked the question on Monday. I do not wish to be critical of the very full work of the Committee of Inquiry. It was given a job to do by the previous Government, a job that was continued under this Government. I do not pretend to have read all three volumes of the report. I want also to emphasise that I am not opposed to sensible rationalisation of Commonwealth laboratories or of any other Government activity. But I was pleased to hear Senator Ryan say in answer to my question the other day that there was not, as yet, any Government decision on the report and that the aspects that I raised will be taken into account. The problems that the report refers to in respect of Tasmania concern, in particular, the Armed Forces Food Science Establishment at Scottsdale, which has been referred to by other Tasmanian members. There is also mention of the section of the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories in Hobart and the future of the Commonwealth Department of Health Pathology Laboratory. These matters seem to come under the general recommendation of the Committee of Inquiry that there should be a concentration of Commonwealth laboratory service activities in larger and more viable laboratories. One needs to ensure that in Tasmania, as in other small States and in the regions of this country, there is a correct proportion of Commonwealth employment. We have been pushing for this for many years. Honourable senators may recall that the Australian Labor Party initiated the policy of taking into account regional needs, in Tasmania in particular, when considering the distribution of Commonwealth activities. Arising out of that initiation there was the report of the Callaghan Inquiry into the Structure of Industry and the Employment Situation in Tasmania. The first move was the location of the Antarctic Division's headquarters in Tasmania. I was proud to be associated with this. It arose out of a suggestion in the time of the McMahon Government that the one small part of that Antarctic Division which had been located in Tasmania should be moved to the mainland and concentrated in Melbourne. I am not suggesting that there should be a section of the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories in every town in the country, but there should be some balance of distribution of Commonwealth services and employment around the country. I ask: Why cannot Hobart be the location of the section of the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories which specialises in certain tests where it would not be efficient to duplicate expensive equipment? I do not automatically believe that it is necessarily most efficient to transfer all activities to Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne. While rationalisation may well be useful, one can rationalise in ways which do not affect Commonwealth employment. My understanding is that the State does not want to take over the Commonwealth pathology laboratory in Hobart. It is important that pathology not be left to the major private laboratory alone. At least the existence of the Commonwealth laboratory provides medical practitioners with a choice as to the body they send their samples to for testing. I will mention very briefly the Scottsdale research laboratories. As everyone will appreciate, defence expenditure in Tasmania is very low. I am not pushing for having any major base. The existing operation, especially as it is an ideologically sound component of defence expenditure, should be allowed to continue in a town which, to a large extent, depends on it for its existence. It should not be moved to the mainland just for the sake of centralisation. That does not mean that it should necessarily remain within the Department of Defence . Perhaps it ought to be a Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation activity. But I do not think that a closure at Scottsdale would necessarily go along with that other rationalisation. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(4.27) —I wish to support the remarks made by Senator Coates. Although he and I are on opposite sides of the chamber, we both come from Tasmania and have common interests in the welfare of that State. I support his remarks about the low level of Commonwealth involvement, particularly from the defence forces, in infrastructure and personnel in that State. So the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry into Commonwealth Laboratories should be deplored by all Tasmanians. Earlier I commented publicly in support of my colleague the honourable member for Bass, Mr Newman, whose constituency covers the Scottsdale area, where one of the recommendations is to take effect. The transfer of the laboratory would have a detrimental impact on the Scottsdale community. The personnel in that establishment have developed a world-wide expertise in the area of the preservation of food. Its techniques have been adopted by the Australian Army in a great number of cases. We often criticise the fact that only a low level of research and technology has taken place in Australia. Associated with that criticism we say that research and development in the laboratories, et cetera, should be where the operative manufacturing takes place. We have a food processing company in Scottsdale. So it is highly desirable that the Commonwealth laboratory specialising in the preserving of food for a long time, the manner in which that food is packed and carried, the nutritional value and all the associated matters be located in an environment which has not only a high level of expertise but also is cost efficient. So often we find when we centralise all these sorts of things that there is a lack of dedication and specialisation and sometimes other areas which happen to be popular at the time get prominence. A fairly low level of priority is given at the moment to defence and related matters. I hope that is not a reason behind the Committee's recommendations for the transfer of the laboratory and the unit out of Scottsdale. We must encourage specialised institutions which are close to the area of activity. I believe this is in conformity with the view of the current Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones). I might be wrong, but I have read a lot of his papers and he seems to subscribe to the theory that we should encourage science and technology and that this should be done essentially at the place where the main activity is carried out. I hope we will get a wide level of support from Tasmanians in this place. I know the Minister for Social Security ( Senator Grimes) has publicly supported the need for the maintenance of this particular unit in Scottsdale. I also support the continuation of the other laboratories and centres in Hobart. After all, we are trying to develop a high level of expertise at the Antarctic Division laboratories in Kingston. Such a closure of facilities would have a detrimental impact on the whole concept of trying to decentralise some of the activities of the Commonwealth. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(4.31) —I speak to the report of the Independent Committee of Inquiry into Commonwealth Laboratory Services and Facilities, as a parochial Tasmanian but with the wider Australian view in mind. I find that whenever an inquiry such as this is set up, all it seems to do is to recommend centralisation. It does not really matter what we do. How often do we find an objective assessment that says it would be better if we did not put these facilities into the cities? It is important to look at this report in light of that attitude. We went to a lot of trouble to decentralise at places such as Albury-Wodonga. We have had government decisions stating that we need to send industries to South Australia, Tasmania and the like. This is such a case. I pay tribute to the tremendous skill and dedication of the officers at the Armed Forces Food Science Establishment in Scottsdale. Of course, not only do they operate a first class plant and have the dedication to back it up, but also they are situated, funnily enough, in what happens to be the best place to grow vegetables. Any talk of moving the station to somewhere else and then probably having to take vegetables to it would be absolute nonsense. If we mean what we say on these various issues, we must follow through. We need to utilise the plant and the people in these areas. We still need to see how best we can utilise the less populated parts of Australia. We need to see what else we can take into such places to make such facilities even more viable than they are. My understanding of the food processing plant is that we have a great opportunity, properly handled, to produce foodstuffs for all sorts of organisations, such as the armed forces and scientific expeditions of countries around the world. It is a great organisation. Any talk, even in jest-I doubt whether the report was prepared in jest-should be totally ignored and the whole approach should be broadened and strengthened in any way possible. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 5 March, on motion by Senator Robertson: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory)(4.34) —I welcome the response by the Government to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. Honourable senators will note that the report was brought down by the Committee in October 1982. Therefore, it was presented to the previous Government. I join with the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding ) in commending the work done not only by the Committee, but also, in particular , by the then Chairman of the Committee, Mr Phil Ruddock, who is a member of the other place. The Minister in his statement has made some very commendatory remarks about the work done, even though there were two or three dissenting reports. I join with him in those commendations. Honourable senators will recall that the report deals with a most difficult area, that of Aboriginal people living in what we used to call fringe camps, but which the report has called town camps. The problems with which the people living in such areas have to deal are graphically illustrated by the comments made in the Minister's response. On page 2 he said: Name a disadvantaged, or a social problem and the town campers suffer it: Offensive unsanitary conditions; abominable housing (if the pitiful shelters can be called that in many cases); virtually no employment prospects; inadequate education; and all the physical and mental health problems including alcohol abuse, social tension and frequent violence that accompanies despair, anguish and hopelessness. This was the task which the House of Representatives Committee originally set itself to look at. The recommendations with which it came up, I feel, have been fully dealt with by the Government. I think the Committee will be very pleased with the response which has come down. Quite clearly-I have no doubt that the Chairman in the other place made this comment-more can always be done. I agree wholeheartedly that more can always be done. Nevertheless, I think the Committee would be gratified at the number of recommendations that the Minister has agreed to not only in principle but also by setting in motion the provision of finance. The only limitation-this is accepted, I think, on both sides of the chamber-in this area which is essentially a bipartisan one, is that of finance. The problems faced by the town campers, if we can call them that, differ significantly from those of the Aboriginal people living in the non-urban areas, for want of a better phrase-the Aboriginal communities, outstations and so on- although there is some similarity among them. The report calls for consultation. When we look through the Minister's response we see that the Minister who, incidentally, was a member of the original Committee, has accepted a good deal of the recommendations and has worked towards consultation. I suggest that honourable senators study the schedules which have been attached to the response to see the extent of the recommendations involving consultation. It is interesting to see how other Ministers have gone ahead with some of the recommendations of the report even before this response was issued. I make reference to Yipirinya outside Alice Springs. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) has agreed that money should be made available to it. In fact, this was done last year. It was one of her first actions after becoming Minister. I commend her for making the money available to Yipirinya as an experiment. I know that Senator Peter Baume and others on the other side of the chamber would accept the proposition that this is a most worthwhile experiment. I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presentation of the schedules which show, first, the Government's response to each of the recommendations and secondly, a summary of existing situations in respect of town camps that were mentioned in the report. I congratulate those who were responsible for the preparation of this material for the good way in which it was presented. It is easy to read and it enables us all to have a quick look, first, at the way in which the recommendations have been accepted, modified or not agreed with and, secondly, to see the present situation in the town camps. I make only one criticism, and it is a general one. I ask the Government to adopt the use of the noun 'Aborigine' rather than 'Aboriginal'. I know that the Department of Aboriginal Affairs adopted this in the early 1970s and both the Department and governments have continued to use this word. I think it is obviously more appropriate, as suggested by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, to use the noun 'Aborigine' and the plural 'Aborigines' and retain 'Aboriginal' for the adjective. I commend the Government for its response to this report. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.38) —I join in saying something about the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs which is before us. I have particular pleasure in seeing this report because when I was Minister for Aboriginal Affairs I sent the reference to the Committee. On that occasion I was concerned that the House of Representatives Standing Committee should receive not just a nuts and bolts kind of reference stating: 'Here is the problem'. I did not want the Committee to come back with a shopping list of some kind, saying: 'The way to solve it is to spend money on the following 20 things.' Rather, I wanted it to take under study a matter of real significance to Aboriginal people-and, because of that, to Australia-a matter which it could address in terms of the concepts involved and on which it could make an attempt to advance our thinking and our understanding. I believe that the work done-the Committee attempted to take on the task-is to the credit of the Committee and its Chairman, Mr Ruddock. Any solution which it reaches will involve a set of programs and expenditure proposals. That is inevitable. But the importance of a report like this in the long term will be the extent to which there has been an attempt to derive concepts, to alter our means of thinking, to clarify our understanding of the issues. It is this aspect of the report to which we should turn our attention. Far too often standing committees of the Parliament take on tasks which are not really worthy of their time or effort-jobs which are what one might call pot boilers. This report, which has been done so well, with such application and dedication by the Committee, is not such a task. The very idea of making us think of town campers, to concentrate our minds by way of that description, on where the problem lies is an example of the way the Committee has addressed the real problems which the reference threw up. There is always a compromise, in terms of a report such as this, as to how far they take the lofty intellectual road to try to make us understand things but do nothing to help the people involved and how far they take the program road which sets out a list of particular proposals. I believe that this is probably the best report the House of Representatives Standing Committee has produced. It is certainly very satisfying to see and to read. I say again that I am very grateful to the Chairman and members of the Committee for what they have produced. I find that I do not agree with some of the dissenting reports, but that again is not in itself a bad thing. They represent certain divisions of view within Australian society. While I do not agree with the members who presented the dissenting reports, I am glad they have taken the matter sufficiently seriously to put down the dissenting reports. I would like to see the many positive recommendations in the report advanced as quickly as possible. I join other senators in hoping that this will occur. Above all, I hope that from reports such as this there can come some real improvement in the problems the Committee addressed so well and so adequately. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(4.42) —I too join with Senator Baume and Senator Robertson in congratulating the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs on its report entitled 'The Strategies to Help Overcome the Problems of Aboriginal Town Camps'. I think the Chairman and his Committee have done exceptionally well. The subject is a most difficult one with which to deal and it is very demanding in time. I believe that the Committee has carried out its responsibilities very well. I think the term 'town camps' to some degree is a misnomer in some areas. Although I agree that in some places there are town camps, and 'camps' is the only way of describing them, I think we must look to some of the other places in the Northern Territory where both the Federal Government and the Northern Territory Government have now made very sincere efforts to overcome the housing problem of Aboriginals. Certainly some of the housing projects-I do not like the term 'settlements'-that have been developed in Alice Springs and other places are to be commended. While these projects have come a long way in providing facilities for Aboriginal people and are to be commended I do not say that problem has been overcome; far from it. Much more needs to be done. I have also been looking at the Aboriginal Affairs Committee report on Aboriginal hostels. With what has been done in the area of Aboriginal hostels and in improving housing projects for the Aboriginal people, things have come a long way. I believe that the time has now come when we have to extend that development, but I will say more about that when I discuss the Aboriginal hostels report. I say again that it is a most complex situation. Some of the housing projects are working extremely well. Some projects are in tremendous difficulty. I believe that much more work has to be done to ensure that the living conditions of Aboriginal people in town areas is improved. Money is not the only answer. There are also social problems, and I think much more has to be done to assist them. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 5 March, on motion by Senator Collard: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(4.45) —I have been asked to raise the matter of the Industries Assistance Commission report on dried fruits. The report is dated 13 December and it is a very poor, terribly depressing report. I am disappointed that to date the Government has not decided to take some action, contrary to what the report says. We cannot ignore the fact that circumstances over the last 12 months have changed very considerably. There are two main factors affecting this industry. Firstly, there has been an expansion of the world surplus of dried fruits due to the entry of Greece into the European Economic Community, with an expanded production there. Secondly, in Australia, the levying of duty on grape spirit this year will result in considerably less dual purpose grapes going in to spirit and more into dried fruit production. The dried fruit industry is demographic by nature. A lot of these areas would be in considerable sociological trouble without the dried fruits industry. Poverty is very high in a lot of these areas. In some places the vast majority of the people involved in the dried fruits business have to seek off-farm income as well. Mr Henry Tankard, the Chairman of the Australian Dried Fruits Association board of management, expressed his disappointment in the Sunraysia Daily of 1 March. He described the response from the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, as a pathetic non-response. I am sorry that the industry and the Minister are unable to be closer to one another in matters of such importance. I hope that every effort will be made to try to bring the two parties together. I can quite understand why the industry is disappointed. The three main points that are made in the report are firstly, that rural readjustment is inappropriate; secondly, that there is limited scope for improvement in marketing; and thirdly, that the underwriting situation of 1982, 1983 and 1984 should not be varied. When the industry is in great difficulty as it is now, such negative approach can only make the growers even less inclined to do what they can. What about the positive approach? Who is going to come up with what should be done and how to go about it? I believe there is scope for keeping this industry going. As I said in speaking to an earlier report, Australia produces the best dried fruits in the world. If we are able to develop further the home market and get a reasonable share of the overseas market we should do so. I should have thought that it was far more important for either the IAC or the Cabinet to take some time to determine how we can protect the Australian market, at least for Australian fruit, rather than to sit back and follow its demise. At the same time as the IAC report was being discussed quite substantial quantities of very low priced, very poor quality Greek fruit were coming into Australia. I believe it is important that we endeavour to maintain the standard of dried fruit in Australia. This poor grade fruit should not be brought in. I believe the Government should be monitoring the situation almost on a daily basis. If we can get together over the months ahead I think a plan could be prepared to take care of this situation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 5 March, on motion by Senator Colston: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(4.49) —I would like to give a short background to the statement tabled by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) on 5 March. In October 1979 the Commonwealth and State Minister for Education met as the Australian Education Council. The Ministers decided that college of advanced education and university staff covered by Academic Salaries Tribunal recommendations should be paid the rates recommended by the Tribunal. This decision referred to all staff including vice-chancellors and college principals. The decision of 1979 was confirmed by the Commonwealth and State Ministers in June 1982. Section 42 (2) of the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1981 permits the Minister to reduce grants to tertiary institutions by an amount by which salaries have been paid in excess of those recommended by the Academic Salaries Tribunal. The statement tabled by the Minister sets out the amounts to be subtracted from the various institutions' grants. I will mention the situation in Queensland. The University of Queensland had $ 13,000 subtracted from its grant because of overpayments to the vice-chancellor and deputy vice-chancellors. The James Cook University of North Queensland had $ 3,000 subtracted from its grant because of an overpayment to a vice-chancellor. The same amount was deducted from the Griffith University grant and for the same reason. The most amazing consequence of the Minister's announcement was criticism of her by the Minister for Education in Queensland, Mr Powell. I will quote from statements in an article in the Townsville Daily Bulletin that were made either by Mr Powell or the political reporter, John Gagliardi. The article stated: Senator Ryan has been increasing the strength of her threats over the past six months or so, and has now acted. By reducing grants to universities, she is imposing what amounts to de facto Federal Government control of university salary levels. That part of the article was not in quotes so it may have been the political reporter's comments, not Mr Powell's. The article also states that Mr Powell: . . . told the Bulletin from Brisbane yesterday that Senator Ryan's attitude was ''socialistic'', and she was not recognising the traditional autonomy of universities and university colleges. Later on the article states: The amount involved at this stage is believed to be around $20,000. Of course the amount was not $20,000 at all; in the case of James Cook University of North Queensland it was $3,000. From that article it is patently obvious that Mr Powell does not know that Australia's education Ministers agreed to this course of action. It is also obvious that Mr Powell does not agree with his own Government which has appeared before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission advocating that workers should not get the 4.1 per cent consumer price index increase in their wages and salaries. Apparently Mr Powell applauds the payment of salaries from the public purse above those which are awarded by a proper tribunal. It is time that the Education Minister in Queensland got his act together and understood that if public funds are not being used correctly the responsible Government will act to rectify the position . Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.54) —The issue raised by the paper on the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act is far wider than the issues which Senator Colston has talked about. The issue really goes to questions of institutional autonomy in the tertiary sector. There are some serious unresolved problems, problems which will be very difficult to unravel, which I found difficult when Minister and which I set out to the Australian Vice -Chancellors Committee's conference in 1982. The issue is that the Government paying prices is, in the end, going to want to have some say in certain aspects of policy. On the other hand, the institutions will want to retain for themselves proper autonomy. There is no sharp line between the two and there will be a shifting backwards and forwards on different matters. A very difficult issue between institutions and governments is where the institution can make decisions on its own behalf and put them into effect and where governments, asked to carry the bill, can insist that they have a say in what they see as the public interest. It is a major issue in tertiary education. I say to the Government in a spirit of good will that it is an issue which it will have to take on and consider in some depth and with some sympathy. It is an issue which the former Government had before it. Senator Crowley —Not in Senator Colston's case though. It is quite clear the award sets the wage and they have been giving more. Senator PETER BAUME —I will come to that in a moment because that is part of the problem. The decision relates to payments made a couple of years ago. I state for the record, because I was approached by one newspaper, that the reason I took no action when I was Minister was that I did not have the returns before me . There is a lag time between the events occurring and the universities and colleges making their returns to the Tertiary Education Commission which, in turn, makes information available to the Minister. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, has received the information and made decisions which I do not question and with which I have no argument. However the issue does not relate to the James Cook University, the University of New South Wales or Sydney University where small amounts of money were involved. The issue which has been raised is in relation to Senator Crowley's State, to the South Australian Institute of Technology, where a very large amount of money has been withdrawn from its grant. The issue is thrown into sharp accentuation in relation to SAIT. This institution has been caught between the requirements of the Commonwealth Government, laying down a general policy in relation to payments and awards and the Academic Salaries Tribunal, and an institution situated in a State, created under the legislation of a State and required to meet State awards or State negotiations. SAIT has been penalised a very large amount of money for reasons which relate to its position in South Australia as a South Australian institution. This issue arises in one other area and that is superannuation payments. The Commonwealth took some action to try to create a new superannuation scheme for tertiary institutions and that scheme was offered to colleges. Many State Governments have refused to allow the colleges to enter that scheme and there could be cost consequences of that State Government decision which could flow to the Commonwealth in years to come. I hope that the Commonwealth will take a similar, firm view in relation to these superannuation matters and will do it perhaps as part of an examination of this difficult interface between institutional autonomy and its needs and the proper role of a Federal Government protecting the taxpayers' interest. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 6 March, on motion by Senator Watson: That the Senate take note of the papers. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(4.58) —I wish to draw the Senate's attention in the time available to me to the fact that there is a continuing problem with Trans Australia Airlines which I believe needs to be rectified. I have spoken to the Senate on a number of occasions about the problems with TAA. I am not talking about its service in any way at all. I am talking about its capital construction , its operating expense construction, the impact of the way in which it draws its accounts on the Independent Air Fares Committee's operations and the comparability between Trans Australia Airlines and the other member of what at the moment is a duopoly, Ansett Airlines of Australia. In particular I draw attention to the Auditor-General's report of 24 February 1984. On page 2, in relation to interest payable, he sets out his disagreement with Trans Australia Airlines about the way in which its accounts are prepared. It states: I do not agree with the Commission's treatment of interest payable on moneys borrowed to purchase aircraft that have been brought into service. In my view these expenses are a charge against revenue of the year in which they fall due for payment. As detailed in Notes 1 (h) and 1 (j) of the statements submitted under sub- clauses 13 (1) (a) and (b) respectively the practice of capitalising interest payment on aircraft had resulted in the total expenses and hence the net loss for the year being understated- I emphasise this- by $9.620m. That means that the total loss for TAA for the year-if one adds to it the loss disclosed in its profit and loss account which appears on a later page of the document and which shows a net loss for the year of $12,664,000-is $22,284,000. The Auditor-General goes on to say: In addition the net amount of interest not expended in previous years amounts to $23.977m. This sum, together with the interest expense of $9.620m understated in the current year means that the book value of aircraft and thus the equity of the Commonwealth Government- that is, the Australian taxpayer- as at 30 June 1983 as shown in the sub-clause 13 (1) (b) Balance Sheet is overstated by $33.579m. I do not think that this is a matter for the Senate chamber to debate, other than to draw attention to it-I see that Senator Coates, the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, is present-and to hope that the appropriate committee, which certainly is Senator Coates's committee, will endeavour to bring about some reconciliation between TAA and the Auditor-General so that the accounts can be prepared on an agreed basis and a basis which can be accepted by everybody as accurately reflecting the operations of that airline during the year. We have had a continuing problem in regard to different attitudes towards superannuation which made a difference of some $240m . We now have a further difference of some $24m being referred to by the Auditor -General. These sums just cannot be ignored. They are matters which we cannot just let go by. I do not wish to intervene ahead of the Chairman of the Committee. Therefore I conclude my remarks Senator COATES(Tasmania)(5.02) —I assure Senator Peter Rae and the Senate that the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations still has this matter under investigation. In fact, it was dealt with only yesterday at a Committee meeting. I hope that it will not be too much longer before the matter is resolved. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator COLLARD(Queensland) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.05) —I 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, requesting its concurrence in the Resolution. The proposal by the Opposition to establish a joint select committee to investigate this matter arises from the debates which have taken place in this chamber over the past two weeks since the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans ) made a statement about this matter on 28 February, the first day of sitting. The attitudes of the Government and the Opposition in relation to these matters are, I believe, very clearly drawn as a result of those lengthy debates, the number of questions asked of the Attorney-General and his answers to them. I do not propose to canvass them again. Suffice it to say that the Opposition first sought to assert the role of Parliament in this matter by moving for the tabling of the transcripts and the transcripts of any tapes that had not been transcribed with the deletion of all identifying names and characteristics in order to protect the privacy of the people concerned and particularly that of the judge, although we are concerned about everybody's right to privacy and not just that of the judge. The object of that exercise was to enable Parliament to make a judgment about this matter for itself. However, the Senate did not agree to that proposition, although on the part of the Australian Democrats there was quite considerable support for the principle behind it. I welcomed that support from them. It seemed to the Opposition that, in the light of the broadly favourable response to its case that the role lay with Parliament, the appropriate parliamentary role should take the form of a joint select committee. That is the object of the motion I have moved. 'Age' Tapes The reason the Opposition proposes the establishment of a joint select committee is that this is a matter essentially for both Houses of Parliament. Neither one House nor the other can make any effective decisions alone in relation to the question of the grounds for removal of a judge. Both Houses must pray for his or her removal through the Governor-General in Council. I believe that the appropriate first step is for the matter to be fully investigated and a report made to both Houses of the Parliament. On the basis of the committee's report, both Houses will be in a position to make a judgment as to whether they should or should not pray for removal of the judge. The appropriate decision then will be able to be made. In the first instance, of course, the Parliament needs to be advised of the facts. As all parliamentary committees have certain powers and have a fine record of exercising their duty in these matters, the object of this committee will be to obtain those facts. That will certainly involve the question of the authenticity of the tapes. I believe that, on the basis of the motion I have moved, the committee will have those powers. That is the exercise upon which the committee works embark. The role of the committee- although perhaps, as has been pointed out to me, the motion does not quite clearly delineate this-would be to investigate the conduct of the judge as revealed in the tapes and transcripts. That would be the role of the committee and the limitations on the Committee. It would not be a wide-ranging inquiry. I understand that there will be further discussion about that in the course of the debate, but it certainly was my intention in moving the motion that the judge's conduct would be within the four corners of the material referred to in the motion, which material hopefully will be available to the proposed committee. I hope that, if the motion is carried, the Government will co-operate, make that material available and not take the stance that it has been taking here in relation to this chamber in refusing to table it. I do not think other aspects of the motion require any further elaboration by me. We want the Parliament to vote upon the principle of this exercise, and the matters relating to the membership, powers and so on of the committee can be subject to further motions and debate. The only other explanation I should make is in relation to the third part of the motion, that is, that the inquiry commence after the polling day of the New South Wales election. As events are developing, that would seem to be now inevitable because of time constraints, with both Houses rising later today. Nevertheless, in view of the concerns expressed about this matter being mixed up with the politics of the New South Wales election, we want to emphasise that we do not see this as part and parcel of that election. But it is a very major issue for the Parliament, as it is for the judiciary. It is a question which goes very much to the basis of our Constitution. The standing and independence of the judiciary are, of course, at stake. That is the reason why the Opposition sought to make that matter clear in the third limb of the motion. One further point I would like to make in concluding my remarks is that we believe it is proper for both Houses of Parliament to be involved in this exercise. Nevertheless, it would be quite appropriate for the Senate itself to embark on this inquiry and to report to the Senate. That would be a second best, but is certainly an altenative which the Opposition has in mind if, in the event , the Government takes the same intransigent attitude to the role of Parliament which has been exhibited not only by the stance that the Attorney-General has taken in this place but also by the stance which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Government as a whole have taken. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(5.13) —The Australian Democrats support the thrust of the motion moved by Senator Durack, namely, we support the concept of a joint select committee of both Houses to inquire into the matter. However, I will move the amendment which was circulated in my name two or three hours ago and which refines the motion moved by Senator Durack. The cleanest way in which I can do so is to move that all words after ' report upon' be left out and other words inserted so that the motion will read: That a Joint Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon: (a) whether any or all of the tapes and transcripts delivered by the Age newspaper to the Attorney-General on 1 February 1984 are authentic and genuine; It must be remembered that almost daily in these two weeks of sitting, each of four days, both Houses of Parliament have been dealing with tapes, and transcripts from tapes, and that nobody, to my knowledge, knows who did them. Nobody knows whether it was an Australian Federal policeman off duty, a New South Wales State policeman or a private person. That they were obtained illegally is sure. That some of the transcripts cannot be matched by tapes is sure. Therefore, I would have thought that one of the first functions of a joint select committee would be to discover the authenticity or otherwise of the tapes and transcripts. Notwithstanding the status of the tapes and transcripts, reputations and careers have now been put in jeopardy by statements that have been made on the basis of the tapes in this Parliament, in the Queensland Parliament and elsewhere. Having said that, let me not be regarded for one moment as suggesting, as the Attorney-General did, that the Age newspaper acted in any way improperly or imprudently in publishing the tapes. I commend it again for its actions. It tried to discover authenticity and genuineness to the best of its ability before publication, and I believe that the Age newspaper has done the community an enormous service. It is unfortunate that the matter has been politicised for two weeks. One can say, with the wisdom of hindsight, that all this garbage we have listened to over the past two weeks could have been resolved on the first day Parliament resumed had the Government adopted this move of referring it to a joint select committee of both Houses or had the Government agreed with my suggestion of referring the whole matter to someone like Costigan. But the Government, for the good reasons that Senator Gareth Evans has advanced, along with other not so good reasons, has decided to sweat it out. The Government ought to recognise that, notwithstanding the New South Wales election, this is one issue that cannot be toughed out. It is one issue that just will not go away. If I could give gratuitous advice to the Government, it would be in its interests to wipe the slate clean as soon as possible and discover the truth. Therefore, the Democrats believe that one of the functions of the committee would be to decide whether the tapes are authentic and genuine. That would certainly give the committee the opportunity of calling before it the solicitor and the judge involved, and of saying to them: 'Did you say something like this? If not, would you like to correct the public record by saying that you did not say it or that you said it in some context other than that reported?'. It seems an eminently fair and proper exercise. Some members of this Parliament owe that judge the opportunity to clear his name of any suggestion of wrong-doing. Senator Gareth Evans —Would you accept the appropriateness of those proceedings operating in camera? Senator CHIPP —Not necessarily, but it may well be that those proceedings should be conducted in camera. That is why the Democrats are attracted to the concept of a select committee. Even the Attorney-General has been fair enough to agree that Parliament has a responsibility to determine whether the behaviour of the judge involved is such as would offend section 72 of the Constitution. What do we mean by the Parliament? I do not think any people in their right mind in this Parliament would suggest that Parliament sit as a whole-all the 64 senators and the 124 members of the House of Representatives-have the tapes dumped on the table and call the judge and the solicitor before it. What an absurd circus that would be. One certain result would be that justice would not be done. It would be the greatest political grandstanding of all time. That is clearly an absurd proposition. Senator Gareth Evans —That is what you have to do at the end of the road, though , if you want to get right down to section 72. Senator CHIPP —Not necessarily. Joint select committees have a reputation in this place of being able to shed party politicking from their activities and approach a problem with an objectivity that we cannot manage on the floor of this chamber. I would hope that there will be a minimum of party politicking when the report of the joint select committee or the senate select committee, as the case may be, is finally laid on the tables of the Parliament. We would support the logical definition of that statement, that Parliament must resolve the issue, in that a committee of the Parliament-preferably, as Senator Durack says, of both Houses-should do the homework. To protect the innocent I believe that some, if not a great proportion, of the evidence would have to be heard in camera. Because of the notoriety of the information given, it would be desirable that most of the evidence be heard in public. I asked yesterday: Why harm people who are clearly and palpably innocent of any wrong doing or guilt by association if in the public interest members of that committee, of all political parties, deem that the evidence could best be heard in camera? Again, after acknowledging the suggestion that Senator Gareth Evans put forward, I say that as far as is possible, honourable and practicable, the evidence should be heard in public. Senator Tate —Do you mean that your paragraph (a) must be satisfied before you go to paragraph (b)? Senator CHIPP —I am coming to that. My amendment, in sub-paragraph (b), will then read: whether the conduct of the judge as revealed in the tapes and transcripts referred to in sub-paragraph (a) constituted misbehaviour or 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. Clearly, in answer to Senator Tate's interjection, sub-paragraph (a) does not have to be satisfied before the committee can go to sub-paragraph (b). In the unlikely event that the committee reaches a firm conclusion that the tapes are utterly false, clearly the committee would have no cause to go to sub-paragraph (b). But the Senate will notice that there has been a refinement, by the Democrats' amendment, of the original Liberal notice of motion. We were not satisfied with the original Liberal Party motion, which said that the Committee shall inquire upon the conduct of the judge referred to in the tapes and transcripts delivered to the Age and so on. That seemed to us to be so open ended that it would enable the committee to inquire into the judge's conduct on a whole range of matters over an unlimited period, and on unrelated matters. So we have tied the committee's scope to those allegations as are revealed in the transcripts and the tapes. I repeat: There is no necessity for the committee to prove the tapes to be authentic before proceeding to discuss that. In other words, under both of these headings the committee will be empowered to call the judge, the solicitor, whomsoever it may please, to elicit the truth. I repeat that I believe the judge concerned will welcome this opportunity, which is virtually the first real opportunity he will have to put his side of the case to representatives of the Parliament, as distinct from a representative of the Executive, in the person of the Attorney-General. We hope that the Government will agree to the House of Representatives joining in this joint House exercise, notwithstanding the immediate response from the Prime Minister ( Mr Hawke) that it would not have a bar of it. I think that those were his words. Without being patronising or seeming to teach one's grandmother to suck eggs, I put this simple point to the Government: If the House of Representatives refuses to join with the Senate in this exercise, one thing is certain. When it comes back here, if the Liberal Party does not move that a Senate select committee be appointed to undertake this task the Democrats will. Senator Chaney —We shall. Senator CHIPP —I acknowledge Senator Chaney's interjection. Therefore, I respond by saying that if in that event the Liberal Party moves a motion along those lines, it will have the Democrats' support. The difference for the Government would be that if it is a joint exercise, I imagine that the Government would have at least some say in the business and control over it. It would be able to appoint its own chairman and would have some say in the running of it. It does not necessarily have that privilege if the matter comes back here and the Senate , in which the Government does not have the numbers, determines the committee's terms of reference and numbers, and so on. I am not suggesting that the Government has anything to hide. What I am suggesting is that about the last thing the Labor Party would want would be a Senate select committee over which it has no control roaming at large in this minefield. Senator Gareth Evans —What if that joint committee had people such as Hodgman on it? Would that not make impossible any rational consideration of this matter? I ask that as a serious question. Senator CHIPP —I am very tempted to answer the Attorney-General's interjection, because I think it is a fair question. However, I shall resist the temptation, because I would be hopeful that the Democrats will be represented on the committee and it is not impossible that I might be the Democrats representative on the committee. It would be improper for me to respond to the interjection, tempting though that is, as the Attorney would recognise. However, I make this appeal to the Government. The motion will be passed in the Senate this afternoon and will go to the House of Representatives. Clearly, the House of Representatives will not contemplate it this afternoon. So, in the calmer days of the two-week recess it will be contemplated first by the Cabinet. I appeal to those ministerial senators to put to the Cabinet the proposition as put by Senator Durack. I commend him and the Liberal Party for showing good faith in trying to make it a joint house exercise. They could have scored a few cheap political points by moving for a Senate select committee. They have not done that; they have done the decent and proper thing. It gives the Government opportunity to make it an all-party affair, a both Houses affair. Senator Missen —Because both Houses are involved. Senator CHIPP —Yes, and because of the gravity of the matter. A senior Federal judge is involved. Because of the gravity of the matter, this would be an appropriate course. I hope that the Ministers in the Senate will put that point before Cabinet when the matter is discussed during the next two weeks. Therefore , I move: Paragraph (1), leave out all words after ''report upon'', insert: (a) whether any or all of the tapes and transcripts delivered by the Age newspaper to the Attorney-General on 1 February 1984 are authentic and genuine; and (b) whether the conduct of the judge as revealed in the tapes and transcripts referred to in sub-paragraph (a) constituted misbehaviour or 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. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.30) —Honourable senators will appreciate that I have not entered into the debate on these tapes at any stage. I have deliberately not done so for two reason. One is that along with, I believe, other senators I am deeply concerned about the distribution of documents and tapes which are able to be used publicly against citizens, whether they be judges, racial groups or individuals. Because I have an ingrained aversion to the fact that, presumably, the tapes were illegally provided to the news media I have not even read the publications. I have, of course, heard the debate in this chamber. Therefore, I am aware of the personalities who are alleged to be involved in the tapes. I will come shortly to the question of my responsibility and the responsibility of the Senate As somebody said, one cannot just shoot the messenger and forget about the message. One is faced with a responsibility and one must honour one's obligations. But I believe that this Parliament, before today, has been faced with similar circumstances and that action taken in this chamber has not reflected very well so far as human liberties and the free access of the individual to due process are concerned. I will deal shortly with my own individual case. I have been on the receiving end of many anonymous documents over the years. Racial groups in this community have suffered because trayloads of documents have been placed on the Senate table. Names have been mentioned and that fact has been used against those individuals. It is almost 11 years-it was in March 1973-since, I believe, one of the most disastrous attacks on civil liberties was perpetrated in the Senate when the then Attorney-General, Senator Lionel Murphy, tabled in excess of 2,000 pages of documents. Senator Murphy claimed: The documents constitute evidence that Croatian terrorist organisations exist in Australia and have so existed for many years. The documents contained reference to the names of 857 Croatians who were either current or former residents of Australia. The documents had either been intercepted by police or security authorities or obtained in raids on the homes of Croatians. In the subsequent Senate inquiry the then Commissioner of Commonwealth Police and witnesses from the Department of Immigration denied that they had been consulted about the declassification of the documents. It is clear that the decision to declassify the documents and table them was made by the then Attorney-General himself. In the context in which they were tabled many innocent Australians of Croatian origin and their families and relatives were implied to be somehow involved in terrorist organisations. In some cases the listed names were those of people who had innocently contributed to raffles in fund raising drives not knowing that their contributions might have been misused for other purposes. The 857 people whose names were listed on the 2,000 pages of documents were never given the opportunity to defend their reputations. So great was the interest in the matter that a special committee room was established for persons seeking to obtain those names. The clerks at the table would recall that. It is possible-only history will indicate whether this is the case-that some of the material was used to the detriment of a small number of Australians then in prison in Yugoslavia for political crimes. Certainly, it is public knowledge that three imprisoned Australians of Croatian origin were executed by firing squad around this time. As I have said, I have been concerned about the distribution of anonymous blackguarding material. I have been in receipt of a lot of such material over a period of years. Some of this material was presented in this Parliament in 1975. Strangely enough, the publication Socialists and Industrial Labour carried a fair bit of this anonymous, slanderous type of material. One day I got a bit sick of it and tried to sue the named publisher of the paper. He had an address in Kings Cross in Sydney. When the solicitor went there to serve the writ he discovered that the chap had been dead for five years. This sort of thing goes on all the time. In fact, accusations went on to such an extent that in 1968 at the Federal Executive meeting of the Labor Party I was declared, by nine votes to seven, not to be a fit and proper person to take my seat on the Federal Executive of the Party. I will come in a moment to the person who cast the ninth vote. The then secretary of the Labor Party, Mr Cyril Wyndham, in a statement to the Melbourne Observer on 15 August 1971, said: Exactly the same thing happened over the infamous Harradine case. Even now, with so many years passed, I still feel a keen sense of dirtiness about having been a passive participant-passive, that is, at the actual conference table-in one of the most unseemly episodes of sheer naked force and inhumanity that I have ever seen. During my association with the Labor Party, I have sat through many trials when people were up for expulsion. I have expelled some and even pronounced the sentence. I have also saved some from expulsion. So disciplinary cases were not new to me. But the Harradine trial was a monstrous occasion. Harradine sat through gruelling days of what must have been agony-with upwards of 10 prosecuting lawyers, but not one defending council. Even his co-delegate, Doug Lowe, from Tasmania, was circumvented in what he could do to defend him. Not once was any specific charge laid against Harradine, but he was remorselessly questioned, and badgered, and hammered. All the normal laws of evidence and justice were thrown carelessly out of the window as some ruthless men had a heyday at his expense. Max Walsh, in an article in the Australian Quarterly in June 1968, said: Senator Murphy, a Q.C. and a prominent defender of civil liberties, demonstrated a surprising lack of sensitivity to either his legal training or moral proclamations when during the process of cross-examining Harradine ( according to the minutes) he asked, ''Was Harradine prepared to withdraw in writing, to be signed by him and for publication the following, that he ' unconditionally and without prevarication that he does not suggest and will not suggest that any members of the Federal Executive or any of the State Executives of the A.L.P. is a communist or a pro-communist or a friend of the communists' ' ' . . . Harradine replied no, because he had not said the things suggested. Mr Walsh goes on: The minutes show that Harradine was subjected to a gruelling cross-examination solely on the basis of hearsay evidence throughout Wednesday and Thursday. For some honourable senators 1968 might be a long time ago but it is very fresh in my memory. That is the second reason why I have refused to enter into any of this debate. I do not believe that the principle of propter affectum applies as far as the Senate is concerned. Fortunately, or unfortunately, it cannot apply because in the end the Parliament must make the judgments. It may well be that this is one of the penalties of appointing active politicians to the High Court of Australia. This is something that presumably did not occur to the founding fathers, who were largely a group of independents loosely connected with trade parties, protectionists and so on. But where one has the situation of a person being deeply involved in the party political toing and froing of a democracy and then going to the High Court, it raises some very important questions. The dictum of propter affectum applies in respect of jurors. The accused can obviously challenge a juror on the basis of propter affectum either for suspicion or partiality, which is either a principal challenge, as is the case where the juror is of kin to either party or has an interest in the cause, or a challenge to the favour where there is merely a probability of bias. Even though it is very clear in my mind after all those years, I feel I could put that aside. I suppose without declaring this interest, as I am doing in the Senate, I could have jumped into this debate boots and all and tipped buckets here, there and everywhere, but I believed that that was not my role as a member of parliament. It is my role as a member of parliament to ensure that the rights of all individuals, including judges, and all groups, including racial groups, in our community ought to be upheld and properly upheld. I understand that one has an obligation ultimately under section 72 of the Constitution. That obligation will be honoured by me if the time comes. At that time and between now and that time I will treat the matters on their merits. But I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the Senate chamber will excuse me from being a member of that select committee if it is established. I would like to see what recommendations come from that committee from persons of good will and persons of reason after having examined the whole case. I would have hoped that this result could be achieved in some other way; that is, without the establishment of a select committee. However, we have reached this stage. I felt that I needed to explain my situation to the Senate despite the fact that it gives me a little pain to explain it. At this stage I do not desire to be available for the select committee if requested-I will not be-when it is established. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.44) —The Government will oppose this motion even in the slightly more acceptable form represented by the Australian Democrats' amendment. I say 'slightly more acceptable' because although, on the face of it, the Democrats' amendment is much more attractive, focusing specifically as it does on the authenticity issue in a way that the original motion does not, nonetheless, as Senator Chipp was frank enough to acknowledge, the language of the amendment is couched in such a way that the committee will not be obliged to satisfy itself about the authenticity of this material before it goes on to consider and draw conclusions about the larger questions as to whether or not misbehaviour has occurred. In a sense, while not quite going so far as to say it is fraudulent to have the references there in those terms, it is the case that the authenticity issue may be one that regrettably the committee, if it is established, will feel itself able to slide over pretty quickly. The reasons for our opposition to referring this matter to any kind of parliamentary committee will come as no surprise to anyone who has been following the endless debates on this matter over the last two weeks. Essentially, there are two inter-related propositions: Firstly, there is nothing in the material which justifies a full scale parliamentary investigation given the constitutional responsibilities of Parliament in relation to the judiciary. Secondly, there are very real dangers involved in setting the precedent of a full scale parliamentary committee investigation in the circumstances of this kind of case where the material is, as we all know, anonymous, unauthenticated, clearly illegal to the extent that it is authentic, and manifestly grossly invasive of personal privacy. We believe, and we do so quite frankly and sincerely, that to mount an investigation of the kind that is here contemplated on the basis of material as tenuous and as insubstantial as this will really constitute an open invitation to damaging but ill-founded attacks being made on public figures in the hope simply, of course, that some of the mud will stick. We do not believe that Parliament as an institution should lend itself and its dignity to this kind of exercise. As to the material that is involved in this case, one or two more things need to be said. The motion quite properly confines its attention to the grounds under section 72 of the Constitution for considering judicial behaviour. But we say that it is clear that section 72 involves only two grounds for possible attack on a particular judge: Firstly, as I have said a thousand times, criminal misconduct of a kind that does not sit with continued occupancy of that office or, secondly, misbehaviour that is directly related to the conduct of judicial office even if falling short of criminality. That is clear, as we have discussed over and over again, from the opinion of the Solicitor-General and the opinion of Mr Temby. Although I know Mr Temby's opinion has been contested in some quarters of this Parliament, nonetheless I believe it has very real force behind it and is such that a committee looking at it carefully and properly would inevitably come to that conclusion. We also believe it is clear on the materials which we have examined very carefully, as have the police, as has Mr Temby, that the judge is simply not caught up in either of those two standard and only components of section 72. That is the position which we have stated over and over again, that at the end of the road, at the end of the day, what one is left with is something much less than criminal misconduct or activity directly related to judicial office-if anything at all. We ask, as the Opposition has pointed out over and over again, for the Parliament to take us on trust in that respect-if not me, if not the Government on trust, certainly Mr Temby and certainly the Solicitor-General on the question of law involved. The reason we ask Parliament to take us on trust in this respect rather than have Parliament insist on going through the process of inquiry itself, which is its prerogative I readily acknowledge under section 72 of the Constitution, is once again because of the nature of the material here in issue-I can only repeat the point so many times without boring everyone-its anonymity, its unauthenticated character, its illegality and its grossly invasive of privacy character. There are very real dangers under those circumstances of Parliament getting involved in this sort of exercise. We ask that Parliament exercise self-restraint. So far we believe from asserting the invincibility of parliamentary sovereignty , so far from improving the quality of parliamentary democracy by embarking on this sort of enterprise, the Government believes that to do so is to write a game plan for, ultimately, the destruction of democratic and libertarian values in this country. The reality is that an inquiry like this, whatever its procedures may prove to be, cannot occur without people getting hurt. Even if the people whose reputations are right on the firing line come up smelling like roses at the end of the process of the scrutiny of this inquiry, there is no doubt that they will suffer as people before them have suffered in those series of recent royal commissions which have produced a clean bill of health for the people centrally involved. There is no doubt that the people will suffer hurt, humiliation and pain while that process is working itself out. Senator Missen —They are suffering now. Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not stop to comment upon the hypocrisy of those who have created the very issue now crying that the issue can be resolved only by some further continuation of the circus that has already occurred. The point I make though about that hurt, humiliation and pain is not simply one that bears upon the personal experiences of those who are involved and are going to be involved. In the case of the judiciary, it has consequences that are considerably more important. It is not just a matter of making the position of the individual judge concerned impossible, but really it goes to the whole question of the credibility and capacity of the judicial institution to stay intact. How can it be business as usual for the court involved, for the judge involved, more particularly, while this particular process is working itself out ? The nature of the whole enterprise is such that that simply cannot be the case . What we ask would appear to be a quixotic question at this stage of the business because minds are apparently made up. The Parliament, this Senate, should think very carefully indeed about whether the likely end of this particular road, given what we know of the opinions, the conclusions of others who have objectively considered this material, justifies the means that are now contemplated. If the Senate does vote to establish a joint select committee-we hope that the situation will not arise, but it may well do in a few minutes time-the Government will give very serious consideration to its attitude, both to the establishment of such a committee and its operation before the motion comes on for debate in the House of Representatives. We will do so against the background of Senator Durack's not very subtly concealed threat, reinforced of course by Senator Chipp's comments, to go down the path of a Senate committee in the event that the joint committee is not accepted. Among the matters to which we will be giving very careful consideration if this motion is passed will be the composition and especially the procedures of the proposed committee and whether the proposed procedures-we have no motion before us in this respect-are likely to be satisfactory to protect, so far as is possible to do so, the privacy, confidentiality and liberty of the individuals concerned while the committee is formulating its views. Certainly I hope that if a committee in any form is established, very careful attention is paid to the principle of avoiding publicity while an investigation is proceeding. There will be no one on trial in the context of a parliamentary committee exercise. Charges have not been laid. It is wildly premature to contemplate their being laid. It may look like a trial in many respects and certainly that has been the experience already in what has occurred. It is one way of characterising it. It will go on being a trial, a trial by media, a trial by innuendo, but it has to be appreciated when one is engaged in essentially an investigative exercise, as this will be, that the same sorts of principles ought to apply as I have argued over and over again should apply to the kind of criminal investigation process through crimes commissions and royal commissions and so on. But they are matters that can be subjects of further discussion should the occasion arise. I hope and the Government hopes that the situation will not arise, that we will not have to give consideration to all these particular questions. We hope that ultimately the view will prevail in the Senate that there are very real dangers, dangers that are almost impossible to overstate in any further consideration of a matter of the kind that is contemplated. To repeat, I am not asking the Senate to accept my views, the Government's views, but rather to be receptive to the conclusions, the very careful and well reasoned conclusions I believe, of independent credible third parties, men of integrity and competence such as the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Solicitor-General. We hope that for all these reasons, despite the apparent inevitability of it, the committee will reject the motion in question. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.58) —I just want to say one or two words in reply on the motion. I am pleased that Senator Chipp, on behalf of the Australian Democrats, has indicated his support in principle. He has moved an amendment to my motion which I can only readily concede improves it considerably and gives effect, in very clear terms, to what was certainly always the Opposition's intention. When I moved the motion I understood that the Senate would be acting responsibly, as parliamentary committees do in these matters, and that it would give great attention to the authenticity of the material. I am happy that that has been emphasised. The conduct of the judge would be confined to the conduct as revealed in the material. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in his response pointed out that the committee could virtually ignore limb (a) and just concentrate on limb (b) of the motion. I suggest that that would be a totally irresponsible approach by a committee because, as has been pointed out over and over again in these debates, the Constitution requires proved misbehaviour and incapacity and, therefore, the committee's attention, if it has been directed to this question- which is the constitutional responsibility of Parliament-must have regard to the required proof. There is no dispute on the part of the Opposition that the Parliament must be satisfied with an adequate form of proof on these matters. Therefore, the question of authenticity would, clearly, be on the threshold for such a committee. I am disappointed but not surprised at the response of the Attorney-General, although I felt, despite all the heat, fervour and whatever that has gone on in this place for the last eight days on this subject, that perhaps we are proceeding to a calmer and more rational approach on the part of the Government. I hope that if the motion is passed the Attorney-General and the Government- because this matter does not depend on the Attorney-General alone-will tackle the problem presented by it in an attitude of reason and good will and that this matter may be brought to a satisfactory conclusion. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The question is: That the words proposed to be left out by Senator Chipp's amendment be left out. Question resolved in the affirmative. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The question is: That the words proposed to be inserted by Senator Chipp's amendment be inserted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the motion (Senator Durack's), as amended, be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 2 —— Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Macklin, M. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Martin, K. J. Carrick, Sir John Mason, C. V. J. Chaney, F. M. Messner, A. J. Chipp, D. L. Missen, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Rae, PeterDurack, P. D. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Evans, Jack Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Haines, J. Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Lajovic, M. E. Bolkus, N. Hearn, J. M. Button, J. N. Jones, G. N. Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. S. F. Primmer, C. G. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Elstob, R. C. Richardson, G. F. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Grimes, D. J. Collard, S. J. Sibraa, K. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 1 March, on motion by Senator Missen: That the Senate- (a) deplores the decision of the Victorian Government to close (and sell) 4 hostels which were used for the accommodation of more than 200 country students in the Melbourne metropolitan area; (b) condemns the failure of the Australian and Victorian Governments to accede to widespread complaints made by rural councils, student organisations and concerned parents against this decision which is a clear breach of ALP education policy; and (c) urges the Australian Government to reach early agreement with the Victorian Government providing for the continued financing of the hostels so that essential facilities exist for country students seeking to acquire tertiary education. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(6.08) —I do not have a great deal to add to what I said when we debated this matter last week. The Government is very sympathetic towards the accommodation needs of students and, as I pointed out previously, we have asked the Tertiary Education Commission to review the whole question. It will advise me shortly about what steps we can take in the next Budget to give assistance to students on an equitable basis. The situation with regard to the particular hostels that Senator Missen talked about last week-those hostels which the Victorian Minister of Education has decided to sell-is that the hostels are being sold, but two hostels, Frank Tait House and Minimbah, continue to have places available for students. As at 7 March about half of the 78 places had not been taken up, which is rather an interesting result, given all the news we have had about the shortage of places and the need for students, particularly country students, to find hostel accommodation. I cannot explain why half of those places that are available have not been taken up. The Victorian Minister has also had discussions with student housing officers to keep them informed of the State Government's thinking on student housing. The Chairman of the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission has commenced discussions with various agencies concerning the possible use of other hostels by students. The Victorian Education Minister has established a steering committee to inquire into student housing problems in Melbourne with particular emphasis on first year students. That committee is chaired by the Chairman of the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission. Obviously the Victorian Government is very well aware of the problems that have been created by the decision to sell the hostels and is taking constructive steps to get advice on how they can be overcome. Similarly we are doing this at the tertiary level. I conclude my remarks by repeating that the Commonwealth had no capacity to purchase those hostels or to run them. The hostels would need to be taken over and run by individual institutions. It is not something that the Commonwealth is able to get into at this stage. The new forms of assistance that we will have available for student accommodation will need to wait until the Budget decisions . Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.11) —I indicate that the Australian Democrats will support Senator Missen's motion in relation to colleges in Victoria. Because of the briefness of time available I will curtail the remarks I had intended to make. I want to make some points in relation to previous statements by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan). The Minister said this in relation to what the Government intended to do: The Federal Government, having as it does the strategies for increased participation in higher education-in particular increasing participation by previously disadvantaged groups-is very aware of the need to have available low cost accommodation for tertiary students. I think this is extremely important. Senator Peter Baume —They could have put some money out to back that idea. Senator MACKLIN —I think that is a sentiment which would be supported by all honourable senators in this place. However, the problem facing us in relation to the hostel situation in Victoria is a very pressing one since the auction is advertised for 27 March. Therefore, I believe that urgent action is required. If indeed, as the Minister has indicated, there will be a review undertaken in that area it seems to me to be appropriate that there be a stay of execution on these hostels pending the results of the review. This is particularly necessary because of the make-up of the students. It has already been said but I think it is worth repeating that in the submission by the Students Housing Officers Association of Victoria in relation to the 369 students in the hostels last year it was stated that 63 per cent of them were women. Some 68 per cent of the students had attended State high schools rather than independent schools and 62 per cent were on tertiary education assistance scheme finance. I think that suggests a profile of probably the major disadvantaged group. If one wished to break the students up into the four categories of urban males, urban females, rural males and rural females, obviously the group most disadvantaged would be the rural female group. The profile of the people living in these hostels is precisely that. I would have thought that in terms of the oft-expressed wish-I know it is a very firmly held belief in the mind of the Minister in relation to disadvantaged groups-we ought to look again at this profile, particularly as 68 per cent of those students attended State high schools, not independent schools. If one looks at the profile in the institutions that is quite different. We are looking here at a particular group of people who have difficulties. A further point is that nearly 60 per cent of these students are undertaking teaching courses. The Australian Democrats in Victoria undertook a survey of their own in relation to these students. In the interviews we had with the students the overwhelming majority said that upon completion of their teaching education they wished to teach in the country. As anyone would know, one of the major difficulties in relation to teaching in the country in Australia is that the teachers tend to turn over very rapidly. The quality of education in the country is below that in the city because of the demand by teachers to be transferred back to the city. If here we have a group of people who wish to teach in the country, who come from country areas, who are women and who come from State school backgrounds, I would have thought, putting all those things together, that this Government, in terms of the things it has been talking about , would be most anxious to support them. Indeed, I would have thought that that would have been the Government's No. 1 priority. I will not have time to raise the various other items that I wanted to. The last point which I think is worth mentioning is that the accommodation we are talking about is for students in colleges of advanced education, not universities. Only a very small percentage-I think less than 10 per cent-of students in that accommodation is going to universities. We are talking about people at CAE level. In Victoria none of the CAE institutions have any accommodation. That is different from universities which have colleges and so on which do take up part of the problem. The CAEs do not have any accommodation. Therefore, these hostels are providing accommodation for a group of institutions which are not provided for. If one looks at the pressure on housing within any of our major cities, the difficulty of finding low cost accommodation which is adequate to the task is very difficult. If this group of people has already had difficulty in getting to the tertiary institution level, to impose this additional problem on them runs against all the policies that the Government has been enunciating. I believe that the suggestion which has been put forward by Senator Missen, that there be a stay of execution for one year pending the results of the Commonwealth's own inquiry into student housing, is admirable. The total all up cost is really quite small in comparison to the disadvantage that will be felt by a considerable number of people. I would urge, if the Senate supports this motion, that the Minister look again at the problem to see whether it might be possible to hold open these institutions, at least for that short period pending the results of her own inquiry. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(6.17) —The Senate is debating a motion moved by my colleague from Victoria, Senator Missen, deploring the decision of the Victorian Government to close and sell four hostels which were used for the accommodation of more than 200 country students in the Melbourne metropolitan area, condemning the failure of the Australian and Victorian Governments to get together to try to resolve this problem and urging a solution to the problem. I do not intend to cover the ground already covered by Senator Missen last week in his excellent speech on this subject. As usual he has done his homework well and again has demonstrated his care and compassion. As Senator Macklin pointed out, Victorian country students, and in particular country women, are being discriminated against by both the Federal and State Ministers for Education who have shown callous disregard for the plight of some 300 Victorian country students who, through their actions, have now lost access to low cost hostel accommodation. As Senator Macklin pointed out, unless this matter is resolved by 27 March these hostels will have been sold at public auction and the opportunity will have gone forever. On 6 October last year I raised the question of the disposal of a number of hostels in response to representations made to me by many Liberal Victorian members of parliament. I think in particular of John Radford from Bendigo, but others, such as Tom Austin, John Delzoppo, Harley Dickensen, Bill Ebery, Lou Lieberman, Don McKellar, Tom Evans, Tom Reynolds and Adam Kempton, have made representations to us Victorians. They were trying desperately to get the Cain Labor Government in Victoria to have some compassion for country students. The Cain Labor Government was pushing the matter off to the Government in Canberra and it could not get any solution. We could not get any solution to the problem here either. When I put the matter to Senator Ryan on 6 October 1983 she blamed the postal strike for lack of advice from her Victorian colleague, Mr Fordham, and then said: The provision of low cost accommodation for tertiary students was the subject for a current review by the Tertiary Education Commission. At the time both Senator Chaney and I asked the Minister what year that would be and she claimed it would be 1983. Subsequently Senator Ryan had to retract that and, in effect, acknowledge that the Tertiary Education Commission would not be completing its investigation of this matter until 1984; that is, this year. So this Government will not do anything for these students before 1985 at the earliest. I ask Senator Ryan, who is in the chamber at the moment, to do something with her Victorian colleague and to have some care and compassion for these students of Victoria by seeing whether this terrible error can be rectified. Subsequently Senator Ryan advised me in a letter: The matter is entirely the responsibility of the State. There is no justification for purchase of the hostels by the Commonwealth. In the circumstances it would be more appropriate for you to pursue your concern with Mr Fordham Mr Fordham is, of course, the Victorian Minister of Education. The Victorian Government has been engaged in a spree of employing some 10,000 additional people in the short time it has been in office. The result of that has been that it has run short of money. It has raised taxes in the State to the extent that some people have estimated that it is costing the ordinary family in Victoria an additional $30 a week under this Government. Yet it is still so desperately short of money that it is selling the State's assets to outside organisations and leasing them back, on an operative basis, in order to give it some funds to carry on. What a terrible position for a government to get into after such a short period in office. It is a demonstration not only of its lack of heart and compassion towards these people but also of its lack of communication with the Labor Government in Canberra and the Minister in particular. On 21 February this year Mr Fordham, in a letter to Mr John Radford, the member for Bendigo Province , stated: As you would be aware the Commonwealth accepted full responsibility for tertiary education some ten years ago and in this sense the accommodation needs of tertiary students is the responsibility of the Federal Government not the State Government . . . while the State Government does not have direct responsibility for providing accommodation for tertiary students we are doing whatever we can to assist. What the Victorian Government is doing is selling, by public auction, these hostels on 27 March. I ask: Is the Victorian Treasury in such a parlous state that it could not await the outcome of the Tertiary Education Commission's deliberations before disposing of these hostels? What will happen after they have been disposed of? Will the Government have to purchase some other low cost accommodation for country students, or will it perpetually disadvantage these students? What will it do? Certainly whatever it will do will cost more money than it would if the Government had continued with its current accommodation. The absurdity of the situation is perhaps highlighted by the number of Victorian students who are now enrolled at the Australian National University and accommodated in low cost accommodation there. One must have sympathy for many of these students. I have heard of many students who have had to leave educational institutions in Melbourne in particular, who have had to drop out of educational opportunities, because of this problem. We must have sympathy for those who have managed to go on and their parents who will have to supplement their unindexed tertiary education assistance scheme allowances to enable them to pay for the expense of the alternative accommodation which they have had to find. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(6.24) —in reply-In closing the debate I thank my colleagues for their assistance and the further facts which they have given to me. I think it is important that this matter be dealt with today before this situation becomes beyond repair. The two Governments-the Victorian and Commonwealth Governments-cannot let these students and their lives fall between two stools, two governments. Something must be done about it. I urge the Senate to adopt the motion and ask both governments to respond responsibly. Question put: That the motion (Senator Missen's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Macklin, M. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Martin, K. J. Carrick, Sir John Mason, C. V. J. Chaney, F. M. Messner, A. J. Chipp, D. L. Missen, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Rae, PeterEvans, Jack Reid, M. E. (Teller)Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Scott, D. B. Haines, J. Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Lajovic, M. E. Bolkus, N. Hearn, J. M. Childs, B. K. Jones, G. N. Coates, J. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Primmer, C. G. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Elstob, R. C. Richardson, G. F. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Grimes, D. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! It being 6.30 p.m., pursuant to sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator PRIMMER(Victoria)(6.30) —On 29 February in a ministerial statement, the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) purported to clear Mr John Ryan, the former head of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, of the range of allegations I made against him in my speech on 8 December last. The basis for his speech was an internal investigation by the Department of Foreign Affairs. I will not mince words. The investigation upon which the Minister's speech was said to be based was conducted by the very people who fulsomely and, I believe, falsely cleared Mr Ivor Bowden, the ex-Ambassador in Tehran in 1982. They were the very same people who provided Mr Street with a speech containing what I demonstrated was a false alibi for Mr Bowden over the fradulent misappropriation of some $8,000-odd in Hong Kong in 1972, the very people who had Mr Street at that time praise Mr Henderson and Mr Bowden to the skies. As I have said before, members of the public and I, as well as the vast majority of Foreign Affairs staff, regard internal investigations, particularly when they are conducted by friends of the accused, as being farcical, in the extreme. Mr Hayden's statement, and it is almost as though Mr Ryan helped in its preparation, by no means tackles all my allegations. Where it does so, it raises more questions than it answers. More seriously, in preparing the statement, the Department of Foreign Affairs has failed to reveal to the Parliament, and probably to Mr Hayden himself, a range of extremely adverse and well-known material involving Mr Ryan. It might be said that this is par for the course, an attitude I refuse to accept. What I find remarkable is this: I believe that Mr Hayden was aware of some of this adverse material when I made my speech on 8 December last. What is more remarkable is not that Mr Henderson apparently chose to conceal his and Mr Ryan's knowledge of this material from Mr Hayden, but that Mr Hayden apparently decided not to display the knowledge he had gained from honest Foreign Affairs officers to the Parliament. That may explain why the Minister's statement seemed designed to distance himself from what the Department had provided and what Mr Hayden knew was lacking in at least several aspects. Figuratively speaking, Mr Hayden held that statement about 40 feet away from himself as he read it. As one senior retired Foreign Affairs officer opined to me only last week: 'Any Minister would be unwise to defend Foreign Affairs'. You will appreciate, Mr Deputy President, that my speech of 8 December last year, followed by Mr Witheford's persecution, has had the effect of bringing other people forward with information on these issues. I am in consultation with these people with a view to making further information available to the Parliament. Mr Justice Hope has branded Mr Ryan as incompetent in several respects. I intend to demonstrate, as the Bulletin and the National Times have done, that this matter goes much further than mere incompetence. I express the view of many people, including some members of this chamber, when I say that something is very fishy when a man of Mr Ryan's incompetence can be promoted to a very high level on a salary of $60,000-plus and cheerfully accepted back into the Department of Foreign Affairs after the Sheraton fiasco. Rest assured, Mr Deputy President, that the ex-Ambassador in Stockholm of a decade ago, against whom Senator Gareth Evans has chosen not to prepare criminal charges, and in the cover-up of whose case I believe, contrary to Mr Hayden's statement, Mr Ryan was closely in- volved, is again but one of the many skeletons in Mr Ryan's cupboard . All honourable senators have probably seen what I believe to be a misleading editorial which appeared in the Canberra Times on 5 March which compared me with Mr Sinclair and claimed that I had misused parliamentary privilege in respect of Messrs Bowden and Ryan. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard my letter of reply dated 6 March. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- AUSTRALIAN SENATE CANBERRA, A.C.T. 6 March 1984 The Editor The Canberra Times Mort Street Braddon, A.C.T. 2601 Sir While less than flattered by the linkage of myself with Mr Sinclair in your editorial of 5 March, my principle concern is with the selective, biased and I believe inaccurate way you have reviewed the handling of some of the allegations I and some other Senators have made about the bureaucratic corruption in Canberra. My concern is heightened by the fact that the 'Canberra Times' unlike other major newspapers has failed to report some of the more serious allegations about the Department of Foreign Affairs, indeed you have not reported, nor did you mention in your editorial, my question without notice last week concerning Mr Henderson. In saying this I must add that I have no complaint to make at all about the calibre of your working journalists. They are extremely competent and possessed of social conscience. What does worry me is an apparent editorial bias which has been commented on by others some of whom express the view that you may well have allowed yourself to become too close to 'City Hall'. Allow me to state for the record that over recent weeks you have either failed or refused to publish letters from at least two people concerning (a) the Tehran Embassy affair and (b) the more recent diplomatic bag smuggling and security breaches matter. I maintain the view that my speeches under parliamentary privilege over the past two years concerning the Department of Foreign Affairs have been fully justified by the number of people who have and still are coming forward with contributions on the issue. That so little progress has been made is due in my opinion, to the fears of legal action justifiably held by many, combined with what I see as a lack of zeal on the part of some of those charged with the investigations. In my opinion we will only get to the bottom of these matters through a Parliamentary Committee with full protection for witnesses. Would it be too much to hope that the Canberra Times will support that goal and , in the meantime provide balanced coverage of what are extremely serious matters. As I have said before internal investigations by the Department of Foreign Affairs can and are seen as being farcical and it amazes me that this aspect has been completely ignored in your March 5 editorial. Your sincerely CYRIL G. PRIMMER Senator for Victoria Senator PRIMMER —I remind this chamber again that no answers have yet been given to the many questions I have asked on this issue over the past months. If there is nothing to hide, why have these questions not been answered? At the end of last session the Attorney-General tabled a report from the Ombudsman, Professor Richardson, concerning complaints of public misconduct from the Foreign Affairs people who gave evidence on the earliest set of Tehran Embassy allegations which I first raised in this chamber over two years ago. In my opinion, Senator Evans' s tabling statement was rather misleading, as was the Ombudsman's report to Mr Hayden. To illustrate this I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the letter of response to the Ombudsman dated 30 December 1983 from the leader of the three complainants, Mr D. Witheford, of Foreign Affairs, who now faces charges under the Crimes Act. I also seek leave to incorporate in Hansard Professor Richardson's reply dated 18 January 1984, which in my view does not tackle the very serious points made by Mr Witheford. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Is leave granted for the incorporation in Hansard of these two documents? Senator Chaney —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy President. I do so to try to simplify the matter. The convention, as endorsed by the Senate Standing Orders Committee is that where incorporation of material in Hansard is sought it should be shown to an honourable senator on the other side of the chamber. It is a little difficult to follow that procedure during an adjournment debate, but because of the contentious nature of Senator Primmer's comments, I ask you to ask him to honour that convention by letting me see the material he is seeking to have incorporated. At the moment I prefer to refuse leave and intend to do so , subject to my being able to see the letter in case it contains matters which I regard as totally inappropriate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The attendant will take the letters to the Leader of the Opposition. I will raise the question of their incorporation at the end of Senator Primmer's speech. Senator Chaney — I refuse leave at the moment, for reasons I wish to explain. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I call Senator Primmer. Senator PRIMMER —I believe that those three people were harshly treated by the police. I say this having had access to most of the tape transcripts and written statements of the police investigations. Last session I informed this chamber that I would be taking up these matters with the Ombudsman. I have done so. At my request he examined the police report of investigations into later allegations made by Messrs Witheford and Henne against Mr Bowden and by other informants, who are senior people and whom I shall not name, against Sir Nicholas Parkinson and a former Ambassador to Germany. Subsequently I had a very useful conversation with Professor Richardson in the course of which it became clear to me that in many areas we agreed about the Department of Foreign Affairs . The only obvious point of disagreement we had was that he was much more relaxed than I on the question of the capacity of the Federal Police to obtain evidence of criminal offences by senior Foreign Affairs staff. I was therefore somewhat surprised at the much more formal and less concerned tone of the Ombudsman's subsequent letter to me, dated 9 December 1983. This is indicated in my letter of reply dated 24 February 1984. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard both those letters. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I think that in view of Senator Chaney's previous remarks you should pass those letters to him, Senator Primmer. The question of their incorporation will be raised at the end of your speech. Senator Chaney —Are these all the letters which Senator Primmer is seeking to have incorporated in Hansard? Are they all there? Senator PRIMMER —If they are not all there, I have neglected to bring them with me. Senator Chaney —Mr Deputy President, I take a point of order. I am examining a letter given to me by Senator Primmer dated 6 March from him to the editor of the Canberra Times. I also have a letter addressed to Professor Richardson dated 30 December 1983 from Mr Witheford. I have a letter dated 18 January 1984 to Mr Witheford from the Commonwealth Ombudsman, Professor Richardson, and a letter to Senator Primmer dated 9 December 1983 from the Commonwealth Ombudsman, Professor Richardson. I am in the process of perusing those. Until I have done so, I would refuse leave to incorporate them in Hansard for the reason I explained earlier. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The question of incorporation can be raised at the end of Senator Primmer's speech, if Senator Chaney has had a chance to read them by then. Senator PRIMMER —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. During the recess I was shocked to learn of the suspension and subsequent charging under the Crimes Act of Mr Don Witheford, one of the officers involved in the Tehran Embassy allegations. On 26 January I issued a Press release expressing my concern over what had happened to Mr Witheford. It is certainly ironic that he remains suspended from duty, locked out of his office, and frankly treated in other respects like a petty criminal while Messrs Henderson and Bowden and others continue uncontrolled. Mr Witheford's suspension and subsequent events, of course, had the effect of bringing another person into the fray-Mrs Van Dartel. Horrified, I believe, at the victimisation of Mr Witheford, Mrs Van Dartel has come out with another set of allegations against Mr Henderson. As a consequence, we have had another internal investigation which has been unable to substantiate the claims made. Frankly, internal investigations into matters such as this do not by any means turn me on. By such means justice is not seen to be done. Meanwhile, Sir Nicholas Parkinson, whose eyesight has been classified as too poor to work, not only plays tennis and runs a walnut farm but also drives around the streets of Canberra as he draws his invalidity pension of $1,000 a week. I am heartened by the strong support given to Mr Witheford by the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association in a situation in which any honest public servant could find himself or herself were he or she to stand up and be counted, as Mr Witheford has had the courage to do. I hope that the Foreign Affairs Association, with whom I have had contact in the past, will do likewise. Witheford today-tomorrow who? It becomes evident to me that this case points up the crying need within the Public Service for whistle-blower legislation, about which I have spoken in the past and which I have taken up with the responsible Minister, the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters, Mr Dawkins, and with the Chairman of the Public Service Board, Dr Wilenski. In my Press statement of 20 January I noted that I had received information that there had been what I believe to have been unauthorised persons in my office in this place during each of the first two weeks in January. My own inquiries tended to confirm that information. What their intent was I know not, but one does smell a rat, and I wonder whether they were after some evidence to try to pin something on me, on Mr Witheford or on some other person. Any such intrusion, as we are all aware, is a flagrant breach of parliamentary privilege, and I am gratified by the concern expressed by other honourable senators about such intrusions. Finally, there is some light at the end of the tunnel, however faint. Honourable senators may recall that one of the allegations I made in relation to the Tehran affair concerned the movement of furniture, including one piano, from Tehran to Canberra on behalf of the ex-Ambassador, Mr Ivor Bowden. I am now able to report that I have been informed that, as a result of the investigations which ensued, the Department of Administrative Services has been asked to prepare for Mr Bowden an account for the component of the freight that he avoided paying for almost six years. I suppose that, if nothing else, that assurance proves that the wheels of government move slowly, and in this instance only with a bloody lot of prodding. However, I believe it is inevitable that this chamber will be hearing more of both Mr Bowden and Mr Ryan in the future. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Is Senator Chaney ready to make a decision on the incorporation of the material? Senator Chaney —I have had a very quick look at what is quite a large amount of material. For example, the letter from Mr Witheford is seven pages long and I have had time only to scan it. I notice, however, that there is a letter from Mr Witheford to the Ombudsman which sets out complaints. There is a quite lengthy reply from the Ombudsman to Senator Primmer, not necessarily on all of the same points but answering a number. Therefore, provided that all this material is going in, if Senator Primmer seeks leave to incorporate all this material, I would not deny him leave. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Leave is granted for the incorporation. The letters read as follows- DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS CANBERRA, A.C.T. 2600 30.12.83 Dear Professor Richardson, Please refer to your letter of 20 October concerning the investigations resulting from the assistance sought from your Office by Mr Henne, my wife and myself over the police investigation and other matters concerning the first set of Tehran Embassy allegations. I did not reply to your letter earlier owing to the need to inform the other complainants, one of whom is on a long term overseas posting, and to give them, and others who have been supporting us throughout the various stages of this affair, an opportunity to consider what if any further action should be taken in the light of your report. While this letter takes into account to the maximum extent possible the views of my co-complainants and our various advisers, it has not been cleared point by point with any of them. This is partly due to the clear impression gained that you would see no advantage in further exchanges about the first police investigation. While your view is noted, it is felt that a number of points have to be registered with you and this I will do as briefly as possible. While your report was a very disappointing one from our point of view-and you will not be surprised to know that we continue to believe that there was police misbehaviour-I wish to place on record our gratitude to you and your staff not only for the amount of time spent on the report but also for the moral support provided at what was a very difficult and stressful time for all three of us. A general point I will make is that the police attitude in discussion with all three of us was a clear example of what unfortunately remains the automatic reaction of law enforcement authorities towards whistleblowers in the bureaucracy. My motives, my efficiency, and my emotional stability were raised over and over again as was the possibility that I had breached other laws in seeking to bring the Tehran allegations to attention. This was done so vigorously that my wife, who is not normally thus disposed, was driven to tears. A further witness, who was poised to approach the police for an interview, stayed his hand, following my advice to him of what had happened to my wife and myself on 13 August, 1982. None of us, nor any of those whom we have shown the transcripts of interview, believe that these can simply be passed off as ''plain speaking''. It horrifies me to realise that the police would feel quite free to treat others in exactly the same way or, perhaps, in the case of suspects, especially those of lower social-economic status, even more discourteously. In saying this, however, I would register with you that I am aware of and applaud the prompt and effective way you achieved redress for Mr A. T. R. Griffiths from Mr Hayden's office, who had been treated abominably by a group of senior Foreign Affairs and AFP personnel very similar to those that Mr Henne, my wife and I faced. I.I.D. Investigation I would like to record that in discussion about the police tapes of interviews, Dr Preston put it to me firmly that the police were not worried about the contents of the tapes, since, if they had been worried, they could easily have destroyed them. I hardly need to say that that is a remarkable point of view. He also urged me to accept what he said was his view, viz. the Internal Investigations Division was completely trustworthy. I was concerned to receive the impression that the IID report not only ''cleared'' the police officers involved but praised them. (a) Breach of confidentiality-While you understood what we meant by this phrase , the IID obviously did not. Their canvassing of the code names is irrelevant. Our complaint was that the police officers did not treat as confidential expressions of opinions or facts which had more or less clearly been communicated ''in confidence'' and which in many cases they had revealed for no good reason to the other interviewees. To state the obvious, if police did not hold their sources of information on criminal matters closely, their sources would quickly dry up. Their regard for confidentiality is, however, very strong with respect to the police reports themselves! I have been unable to achieve access to them. (b) Descriptions of allegations as baseless-Your view on this is noted. However I would draw to your attention two points which would tend to raise a serious questionmark about the baselessness of these allegations and subsequent ones: (i) a large number of allegations have subsequently been made against this suspect and others; these seem to have substance and there has been a deliberate effort made to avoid tackling or investigating some; (ii) according to Hansard, Mr Loveday-the target of later allegations of which he was ''cleared''-will not be getting any further overseas postings; there are strong rumours circulating to the effect that a similar decision has been taken in respect of the suspect, who has been back in Canberra for 5 1/2 years. (c) Police criticism of me-The IID view on this matter is not shared by us (my para 3 refers). Wallace was, with scant subtlety, conveying those assertions to my wife, just as they would have been conveyed to him by the Departmental contact. (d) False claims that witnesses had changed their evidence-It is rather peculiar if the police questioning elicited different stances from witnesses than they had adopted previously and, in the case of Henne and Johns at least, subsequently as well (including in Hansard). As you know Henne has alleged that there was a transparent ''stage setting'' operation by the police, before the tape recorder was turned on. (e) Absence of documents-As I informed Dr Preston some time ago, the police had not been shown X/A files relating to me or others; indeed these files were later also concealed from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the President of which rebuked my Department publicly. At the time of the interviews the police betrayed an ignorance of my communications with Mr Street and, subsequently, a lack of interest in those I passed to them. I disagree with your view of the significance that there was no complaint about my earlier interview with the Police. What is significant is that the first interview covered the ground entirely, thereby tending to prove that the second was purely a bullying exercise. On the question of criminal intention, the impression I gained was that the suspect had, on several occasions, claimed ignorance of the law/regulation in which he was in breach and the police had accepted this without concern. On the removals matter (which I'll cover later) Dr Preston was informed that separate evidence was held directly relevant to criminal intention. That appears to have been ignored in your report. While I do not intend to go over each of the allegations again, I would draw to your attention that it is the view of many that the wilful submission of false accounting certificates is a serious matter for which the law provides heavy penalties; it is not just an administrative blemish. Overall our advisers continue to agree with our view that there was not in fact a ''complete lack of any evidence of criminal action''. You refer in passing to the fact that the allegation had already been investigated by the Department of Finance. Please refer to our frequently stated serious criticism of that investigation. These were also made personally by Mr Henne to Dr Preston. None of them has ever been explained or denied. Mr Lucas' disavowal of the influence of one or more Foreign Affairs Officers sits oddly with the secrecy being maintained over the details of those contacts, one of which appeared to occur in the course of my interview on 13 August, 1982. My principal concern is with contacts between Lucas/Wallace and a particular senior officer of my department. It remains my understanding that Inspector Whiddett withdrew from the investigation before any witnesses were questioned. In any event Mr Whiddett's attitude as expressed to me was very different to the extravagant and misleading terms of his Minister's letter to Mr Street (quoted in Mr Street's statement (26/8/82). Our view remains that the investigating officers by whatever means-and note carefully Mr Henne's allegation about their off-tape conduct-achieved results at odds with views separately expressed by a number of interviewees, both before and after the police investigation. Incidental issues Number of complaints-Our principal concern remains that those protecting Mr Bowden's interests were at pains to emphasise that the allegations/complaints had been from only one person (''and no-one supports him''). As you know all three of us viewed ourselves as co-complainants and did everything we could to convince you of that. We were, of course, interviewed separately. Concern is felt at the informal contacts between your Office and Mr Street's on this particular point. Our belief is that Street's staff, under pressure from their Foreign Affairs superiors, approached you with the single goal of saying you had endorsed the view that there was ''only one'' complainant. Objectionable material off the record-Your dismissal of the most serious implications of the sort of conduct off-tape alleged by Mr Henne is unacceptable . This sort of prompting, particularly when applied to junior officers, such as Mr Sergi, already under pressure in the workplace, will inevitably result in many giving the answers they think the police want. Your glib dismissal of the veracity of Mr Henne's claims in this regard is unacceptable, even offensive. It seems that neither you nor the I.I.D. have bothered to consider the importance of putting Mr Henne's allegation to the detectives. Are you assuming that both would deny it completely? Retrieval of the R-file-It must have been crystal clear to your Office that there had been a considerable breach of faith in the timing and nature of the transmittal of the ''R''-file to you. We were likewise amazed to learn much later that you had let it out of your hands. As advised earlier, Dr Preston was told that evidence relating to criminal intention in this matter was held separately, as were photocopies of the relevant papers on the file. I understand that you are now examining the second police report. These particular allegations have obviously not been properly investigated, especially since neither Mr Henne nor I have been questioned about them. Orchestration-Continuing secretiveness both by the Department and the AFP about their contacts on this matter would suggest to almost anybody that there is something to hide under this heading. Nobbling of the IID investigation-At the time Dr Preston agreed IID had done the wrong thing. We persist in our belief that the Department's reaction-viz. to deal with the IID approach as if Mr Smith had authority to release Mr Henne-was also improper. Variants of our complaints-I see no point repeating our views on items (i) to ( v) other than to say that those who have seen the transcripts share our view that the tapes speak for themselves. Questions raised on transcripts A1 It seems that neither the Ombudsman nor the AFP has seen the evidence which I raised with Dr Preston. Your view on the importance of Mr Lindeman is at odds with that put to me by Dr Preston-obviously Mr Lindeman's assertion would constitute evidence against Mr Bowden. A2-5 The problem is that they seem to have accepted claims of ignorance of laws/ regulations by the suspect without quibble. A11 I disagree entirely on this point. Isn't ''a bit improper'' roughly equivalent to ''underhanded''? Bear in mind that most would believe that Henne was, as he has stated, dealing with police who had ''programmed'' the interview before turning on the tape. A12 Johns' advice is incomplete, Sergi's incorrect. Henne had collaborated and later continued to do so e.g. see Hansard of 16 November, 1982. A13 Johns' views on the nanny affair have remained constant for twenty years and up to this very day-except for the time he spent with the detectives. I can only think that they succeeded in (temporarily) moving his long-established stance on this particular issue. Subsequently he was sufficiently moved to write to Senator Primmer on this issue, as Hansard records. B1 The X/A files were concealed from the police, the Ombudsman, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Public Service Board. My X/A file contains material relevant to the allegations against Bowden. B3 I'd contest this on the basis of my knowledge of the X file. In my view Wallace demonstrates bias and a sort of amateur psychiatry that police sometimes engage in. B4 I do. Was the suspect's wife questioned about her husband in these terms? B5 My views and Mr Henne's on the Finance Report are comprehensive, firmly held and have been totally ignored. B6 But it proves programming by a Foreign Affairs officer working to ''clear'' the suspect. C2 It strains credulity to portray Wallace as aggressively seeking evidence against the suspect-if he'd been on that tack, the suspect would have been charged with uttering a false certificate, to give one example. C3 Our suspicion is that Wallace may have been seeking a name to pass to the Department. C5 Our concern is that the police were trying to close the whole thing down i.e. that by whatever means they were trying to prevent officers in Foreign Affairs coming forward with allegations against senior officers, as in fact happened subsequently. I would submit that this is both improper and illegal. I wish to record our very serious concern, which was expressed orally to Dr Preston-that your Office had provided information, last May, to Mr Hayden or to others, which had been employed in the Minister's speech, which was unfairly critical of me, amongst others. In my view that represented an inexcusable breach of confidentiality. A further recent example was your letter of 14 December to Mr Hayden which was tabled on the following day, to our complete surprise. Your letter does not provide any clue to the timing or nature of the process of consultation leading up to the preparation of that letter. We don't regard your statutory right to talk to Ministers as constituting an adequate excuse for what was apparently done. I would also mention that I have become aware that another departmental officer learned of the contents of your report to us several weeks ago and has since used a distorted account of it to further a private legal action. To cap if off I became aware on 23 December that you had some time previously conveyed some sort of information about the handling of our complaints to Mr F. C. Pryor of the Public Service Board. These various breaches of confidentiality on your part have shocked us. As indicated earlier these are our reactions to your report. But in the interests of saving your time and ours we have not prepared a comprehensive response to you, drawing on the tapes etc etc. Since so much time has passed, and so many new allegations have been voiced against the original suspect and his colleagues, we are prepared, with reluctance, to desist from pursuing our complaints against these police officers through your Office. I would hereby note that the nature and scope of the subsequent allegations is such that many are now suggesting that the first group of allegations should be re-examined by a parliamentary committee. Let me make it clear that you cannot properly say that your Office has fully or adequately re-investigated the allegations I put to Mr Street. Had it been agreed between your Office and ourselves that you would do so, we would have insisted on the involvement of further witnesses and documentary evidence, not to mention Mr Henne and my wife. Let me also assert that the view being put publicly that you have cleared a number of senior officers of a number of allegations is both false and misleading. Yours sincerely, (D. W. Witheford) Professor J. Richardson, Ombudsman, Prudential Building, CANBERRA CITY A.C.T. 2601 COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN Prudential Building, Cnr London Circuit and University Avenue, Canberra CityG.P. O. Box 442, Canberra A.C.T. 2601Telephone (062) 47 5833 REF CP83/28 18 Jan 1984 Dear Mr Witheford Thank you for your letter of 30 December 1983 about my findings in relation to your complaint against the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and related matters. In your letter you have disputed facts and disagree with my conclusions. All I can say is that I reached those conclusions after a thorough investigation and I do not consider that there is any more I can or should do in relation to your complaint. My investigation was, of course, into your complaint against the AFP not into the allegations you originally made to the Hon. A. A. Street, the then Minister for Foreign Affairs. I made it clear in my letter to you and subsequently to the present Minister, the Hon. Bill Hayden, that I did not receive a complaint from Mr Street about those allegations and that I have not investigated them. As you know, I have reached some conclusions about actions of officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs on the basis of my review of the investigations by the AFP and by the Department of Finance. It is on this basis that I commented that your primary allegations were in essence allegations of defective administration. This is still my view. You have alleged that I conveyed information about the handling of your complaint to Mr Pryor of the Public Service Board. This is not correct. An officer of the Public Service Board did seek clarification of what I was investigating. One of my officers advised him, without giving any details, that we were investigating your complaint against the AFP but not other allegations you had made. We did not provide any further comments or information. I should point out that in writing recently to Mr Hayden I was not acting pursuant to s25 (10) of the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981 which permits me to discuss any matter relevant to an investigation with a Minister concerned. Rather, I had decided that it was in the interests of the Australian Federal Police and the Department of Foreign Affairs as well as in the public interest to provide the Minister with a statement setting out the results of my consideration of your complaint. Under a new section-s41A-of the Complaints Act, I have the power to make a statement where: ''in the opinion of the Ombudsman, it is in the interests of the Australian Federal Police or any Department, prescribed authority or person (including a member), or is otherwise in the public interest, so to disclose that information or to make that statement.'' I am sorry that you are so dissatisfied with the outcome of my investigation. I note, however, that you do not propose to pursue your complaint against members of the AFP. Accordingly, I have now closed my file. Yours sincerely, J. E. Richardson Commonwealth Ombudsman Mr D. W. Witheford 12 Coleman Street, Pearce, A.C.T. 2607 COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN Prudential Building, Cnr London Circuit and University Avenue, Canberra CityG.P. O. Box 442, Canberra A.C.T. 2601Telephone (062) 47 5833 REF: CP83/207 9 Dec. 1983 Dear Senator Primmer, At the close of our meeting on 25 November 1983 I told you that I would confirm in writing my conclusions with respect to your complaints about the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and related matters. In this letter I will deal first with your complaint about the AFP's second investigation and then comment on other matters we discussed at that meeting. The AFP's second investigation covered your allegations about Mr Loveday, Sir Nicholas Parkinson's retirement, Mr Bowden's piano and his missing silverware. Ms Pidgeon of my office has examined the investigation report and all the relevant documents and concluded that the investigation was as thorough as possible in the absence of more specific leads or sources of information. Mr Loveday Mr Loveday's trip across the German border into Austria took place in November 1979 (not, as you believed, November 1980). The AFP investigating officers interviewed several officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs including Mr Loveday. They also examined relevant departmental files, the hotel account and the log of the car Mr Loveday used for that trip. It is clear from those documents that the Department's Canberra office had approved Mr Loveday's proposal for a two day trip to visit the Frankfurt Book Fair, accompanied by his wife. Mr and Mrs Loveday travelled from Bonn to Frankfurt on the morning of 12 October 1979, driven by an official driver. He attended the Book Fair and gave a speech. During the afternoon he travelled to Ulm where he inspected the local university. He then travelled to Lindau for the night. The next day he visited another university in the city of Frieburg and also went over the border into Austria to the city of Feldkirch for a short time . Mr Loveday described this as a minor side visit. They then returned to Lindau for the night and travelled to Bonn the following day. We are satisfied that Mr Loveday was entitled, as Ambassador, to decide to visit the universities in Ulm and Frieburg as part of his official duties. While there may be a question as to whether Mrs Loveday should have accompanied him on the visits to those towns, I doubt that there would have been a great saving (if any) of public money if he had driven back to Bonn immediately after the Book Fair and then set out on the trip to the universities without Mrs Loveday. With regard to his trip over the border, I do not consider that he acted improperly in making a short private trip while in the area in the course of his official duties. the AFP believes that it was not a formal requirement for an ambassador to notify the German Government of proposed absences from the country . The Foreign Ministry did expect ambassadors to notify it of absences so that they would know who would be in charge of a mission but such notification was not warranted for a trip of only a few hours during a weekend (as in this case). Moreover, travel over the border is not unusual in Germany-for example to make use of better roads when travelling from one part of Germany to another. I do not consider that there is any further action that the AFP or this office should take on this complaint. Sir Nicholas Parkinson The AFP examined medical and other records relating to Sir Nicholas' retirement and interviewed his doctor, several officers of the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Health (including senior medical officers) and Sir Nicholas. They also verified the signatures on medical reports and related documents. After a thorough investigation, the AFP found no evidence of the retirement racket you believe is going on. From our examination of the AFP's report and the relevant documents, we are satisfied that Sir Nicholas Parkinson's retirement was bona fide. We are also satisfied that the fact that he may still be capable of undertaking some employment does not imply that he should not have been retired from the Public Service as medically unfit-he was certainly unfit to continue in employment appropriate to his level and experience within the Public Service. If there is a retirement racket going on in the Department of Foreign Affairs, the AFP found no evidence of it when investigating Sir Nicholas' retirement. Without further specific leads or sources of information neither the AFP nor my office is able to take any further action. I appreciate the difficulties you have in disclosing your sources of information but if you are able to assist the AFP any further, I strongly recommend that you do so. As I told you at our meeting, I am happy to make members of my staff available to be present at any interviews between the AFP and your informants. Mr Bowden's silverware As you know, I have already investigated Mr Wilson's complaint against the Department of Administrative Services concerning Mr Bowden's silverware. Mr Bowden claimed that Wilson Removals failed to deliver to him a box containing silverware valued at $1100.00 and Mr Wilson complained to me about the Department's decision that he was liable for the loss. I concluded that the complaint was unsubstantiated. My investigation focussed in particular on the nature of the agreement between Wilson Removals and the Department but I also considered the question of whether or not the box had been included with those delivered to Mr Bowden. Wilson Removals had stored 30 boxes belonging to Mr Bowden and Mr Bowden claimed that the company delivered only 29 to him. There is no evidence of how many were delivered-the company's employees had failed to note this on the receipt signed by Mr Bowden. Mr Bowden, on the other hand, did note on his copy of the receipt that 29 boxes had been delivered. He also told the Department that he had seen the company's records which showed that four of his boxes had been stored on one pallet in the company's warehouse, but, when the time came for the boxes to be delivered, the company had taken only three from that pallet. An assessor from the Department had tried to investigate this point but the company had refused to allow him to see its records. When the AFP interviewed Mr Wilson concerning your allegation he had been adament that his grievance was about the Department's decision, not about Mr Bowden. He also told the AFP that he did not wish to make any complaint about any of the circumstances to which you referred as he intended to take civil action against the Department. The AFP did not make any further inquiries, therefore, into the matter. In the circumstances, I consider the AFP acted reasonably in discontinuing its investigation. I have reviewed my own investigation of the complaint and have had to conclude that there is no further action I could usefully take to investigate it further. Piano The AFP also investigated, as part of its second investigation, the movement of Mr Bowden's piano from Tehran to Canberra. After a lengthy investigation which included interviews of officers from the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Administrative Services and from the Australian National Gallery, and an examination of files and relevant documents from all three organisations, the AFP concluded that no-one had committed an offence. From our examination of the report and of the relevant documents we agree with the AFP's conclusion. In brief, Mr Bowden included his piano in his inventory of possessions to be shipped back to Australia at the end of his Tehran posting. The Department of Foreign Affairs decided that he should pay for the transport of the piano, a piano stool and some other items as they had not been among the possessions Mr Bowden had taken to Tehran when he was appointed. At the same time the Department decided to use a container to ship his possessions to Australia, along with some paintings and other objects belonging to the Australian National Gallery. This was the cheapest method. The container was a standard size and the piano and other extra items took up space which would otherwise have remained empty. The cost to the Department was the same whether or not the piano and other extra items were included. The Department decided, therefore, to charge Mr Bowden only for the cost of packing his piano and extra items in Tehran and for the overland freight from Geelong to Canberra. The Department billed Mr Bowden (and he paid) for the extra packing in Tehran. Once in Australia, the Department of Administrative Services transported the shipment to Canberra and billed the National Gallery for its share of the freight cost. It failed to bill either Mr Bowden or the Department of Foreign Affairs for Mr Bowden's share. The normal practice was for the Department of Administrative Services to charge the Department of Foreign Affairs who in turn would recover the money from Mr Bowden. There is no record of why the Department of Administrative Services failed to do so and we have had to conclude that it was an oversight. The Department of Foreign Affairs now regards the amount as irrecoverable as the Department did not bring it to Mr Bowden's attention within twelve months. I am currently examining this point to see whether, in fact, the amount is recoverable. Mr Bowden did not take the initiative to pay the Department but this did not constitute an offence or a misdemeanour. He may have simply overlooked the matter. Even if he did remember the debt but decided not to do anything about it , this is not a matter I can criticise as Ombudsman. First police investigation The first police investigation was into allegations made by Mr Witheford about Mr Bowden. As you know we have thoroughly investigated the AFP's actions in following up those allegations. We have also investigated a number of related issues. After this substantial effort by my office, I am satisfied that Mr Witheford's allegations were without substance. I did have some reservations about a few minor aspects of the police investigation, which I mentioned to you at our meeting and which I have explained to Mr Witheford. I do not consider that these in any way reflect, however, on the impartiality or thoroughness of the police investigation. With regard to your concern that witnesses may have been bullied by police into changing their evidence, I am satisfied that this did not occur. My staff listened to the tapes of all interviews of witnesses and confirmed that the investigation officers acted fairly and gave them full opportunity to support Mr Witheford's allegations. The witnesses did not support them. Other matters I have considered whether there is any action I should take to investigate other matters you have raised with me or in Parliament. As I explained to you, these are generally outside my jurisdiction as they relate to the employment of officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Section 5 (2) (d) of the Ombudsman Act 1976 provides that the Ombudsman is not authorised to investigate: 'action taken by any body or person with respect to persons employed in the Australian Public Service or the service of a prescribed authority, being action taken in relation to that employment, including action taken with respect to the promotion, termination of appointment or discipline of a person so employed or the payment of remuneration to such a person'. In addition, I understand that a Public Service Board inquiry is looking into issues relating to the Department of Foreign Affairs' treatment of Mr Witheford and Mr Henne. In the circumstances I do not consider there is any action I can or should take on these matters. Conclusion Subject to any further comments you may wish to make, I propose to advise the Commissioner of the AFP that I do not intend to take any further action on these allegations. You are, of course, welcome to contact me again at any time if you obtain further information on any of these matters or are able to assist the AFP with leads or sources of information. As I have mentioned, I am following up the question of whether Mr Bowden is still liable for his share of the cost of transporting his piano and other items from Geelong to Canberra. I will write to you again on this issue. Yours sincerely, J. E. RICHARDSON Commonwealth Ombudsman Senator C. G. Primmer, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 February 24, 1984 Mr J. E. Richardson, Commonwealth Ombudsman, G.P.O. Box 442, Canberra, A.C.T. 2601 Dear Sir, Thank you for your letter of December 9, 1983 and my apologies for the delay in answering same. Whilst at our meeting on November 25, 1983 you went some way towards alleviating my doubts about the matters we discussed, your letter has to some extent, served to refuel my long held suspicions that all is not well. As one example, no account seems to have been taken of the fact that neither Mr Henne or Mr Witheford were not interviewed by the police about the removals irregularities which they had brought to Minister Street's notice in November 1982. As you will recall, I told you of my previous experience about the meat industry scandal which left me somewhat suspicious of expressions such as 'no evidence was found by the police'. Events have now moved on and Mr Witheford stands charged under the Crimes Act for having in his possession, certain documents. Quite frankly, it is my assessment that any public servant in Canberra worthy of his or her salt, could find themselves in the same boat. People do take work home and in all honesty, I find the charges ludicrous but that will be for the Court to decide. Other happenings over recent weeks have tended to confirm my suspicions and these I shall hopefully, be able to follow up in the Parliament. Yours faithfully, C. G. PRIMMER Senator for Victoria Debate interrupted. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) while upholding the privileges of individual members of Parliament, regrets the attacks made upon the integrity of members of the Foreign Affairs Department by Senator Primmer; and (b) records its full confidence in the integrity of the officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Debate resumed. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(6.46) —Having given that notice of motion, I will speak very briefly on the matter raised by Senator Primmer. I do not wish to repeat the speeches I made on two occasions since the Parliament resumed when Senator Primmer made attacks on Mr Ryan. Since that attack on Mr Ryan by Senator Primmer quite a lengthy statement has been tabled by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), and once again I made some remarks then which I do not wish to repeat. I have given that notice of motion because I think that we can usefully have some debate on this matter and on the principles we ought to follow. As I said earlier, there are a number of avenues open to Senator Primmer. I suppose that his response might well be that he has followed those avenues by referring matters to the Ombudsman, the Australian Federal Police, and so on, that he simply remains dissatified and that, therefore, he brings into this Parliament in extremis, as it were, or as a last resort, the continual allegations he has made. It is a little ironic that we have spent a great deal of time this week debating matters relating to the High Court and other things in which we have had a continuous stream of complaints and criticism from Government Ministers and senators about the use of privilege, the possible abuse of privilege, and so on. In this case we have really a long running saga in which there has been allegation after allegation and answer after answer, those answers coming through Liberal Ministers initially, as I recall, and subsequently from Labor Ministers. I think it is most unhelpful to the institution of Parliament, to the efficient functioning of the Public Service in Australia and, I suspect, to a number of other things that we ought to be concerned about, that Senator Primmer persists in this course. However, he has the privilege which we all have and wish to maintain and he is, of course, exercising his personal judgment as a senator. I have not known any of the people Senator Primmer has referred to in his comments and, therefore, a detailed defence of them is not possible. Indeed, it would not be possible even if I did know them because I have no first-hand knowledge of the administration of the Department of Foreign Affairs or of any individual embassy. One person he has mentioned tonight is known to me-Sir Nicholas Parkinson. He is known to me only through his serving Australia in Washington. I have met him only in that context. I have met him on one or two occasions but I could not for a moment claim him as a friend or say that he would claim me as a friend. I have had nothing but politician-public servant contact with him. The limited contact I have had with him has left me with very great admiration for his professional skills. When I saw him as Ambassador to the United States he was, I thought, on top of his subject. He briefed a mixed group of parliamentarians. I do not even remember whether it was in 1976 or 1978 , but I do remember being extremely impressed by his competence, his enthusiasm and his grasp of Australia's interests. At that time it was apparent to me that he had very considerable deficiencies of sight. In the meetings I have had with him over subsequent years it has become even more apparent that he is very disabled visually. These days a very substantial number of people retire for all sorts of psychological and other reasons-and I am not trying to throw doubt on anyone's resignation-but here we have a gentleman who has served Australia at great length and who has a very obvious disability. The rest of Senator Primmer's allegations seem to me to be thrown into doubt by the sort of comment he makes about the retirement of Sir Nicholas Parkinson. On the evidence of what I have seen of that man, it would appear to me that that element of what Senator Primmer has to say is nonsense and is grossly unfair. I regret that we are again faced with this matter. I have given the notice of motion because I believe that it is important that the couple of hundred thousand people who serve Australia in the Public Service and who at times feel that they have had insufficient support from those of us in Parliament, whether in government or opposition, know that they are not simply fair game in this place. I again express my regret that Senator Primmer seems to find that the only course that he can follow, when his own Party is in government and when he should have access to men with whom he has worked for years and should have plenty of private opportunities to vent any concerns that he has, is to persist in making allegations after they have been investigated and answered and when very strong statements have been made by Ministers of the Government that he supports which suggest that the allegations are baseless. I do not know to whom Senator Primmer should give notice when he makes these allegations, but I note that the Minister who represents the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Gareth Evans, is not present, and I assume that that means that he was not notified that this would be happening. Senator Primmer —He was notified. Senator CHANEY —Well, I can only say that I think it is important that when statements of this sort are made it should be immediately on record that Senator Primmer has made similar statements before, they have been subjected to examination by politicians, by bureaucrats, by the Ombudsman, and by the Australian Federal Police, and none of them seems to have come up with anything which would support his allegations or which would enable any action to be taken . I really think that Senator Primmer has trespassed well beyond the line of the proper use of this place, and I very much regret that he has once again taken this matter up. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(6.52) —Honourable senators will be aware that the Northern Territory Criminal Code has been a contentious matter and that I have raised it at Question Time and at various other times in Senate debates. This matter continues to receive criticism from the Federal Government and continues to be a source of conflict between the Federal Government and the Northern Territory Government. Later, Mr Deputy President, I shall seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a statement released today regarding the matter by the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Durack, and the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr James Porter. Before doing so, I wish to spend a little time going through the major points of the statement. Judging by comments from the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) made in the Senate this week, it would seem that the Federal Government is intent on making alterations to the Northern Territory Criminal Code, come what may. However, I am somewhat alarmed at the Federal Government's methods of achieving these changes. Rather than following the conventional methods of discussion and consultation with the Northern Territory Government, the Labor Federal Government has chosen to bully the Territory into changing the Code. I remind the Attorney-General and the Senate of his statement that: If no satisfactory response is obtained through our latest communication and within a short period of time-seven days-then we will recommend to the Governor- General that he in turn recommend changes to the Code to the Northern Territory Government. The Attorney-General went on to imply that if the Governor-General's intervention did not achieve the required results, the Federal Government would step in directly and repeal or disallow certain provisions of the Code. I find Senator Gareth Evans's statements nothing less than threatening to the Territory and its Government. They are also unjustified. I should like to read to the Senate two paragraphs from Senator Durack's statement, which will be tabled, as I have indicated. They read: The Federal Government's move to force amendments to the Northern Territory Criminal Code is a betrayal of self-government, an infringement upon the Territory's legislative independence, and wholly without justification. He goes on to say: It is clear from debates of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Bill that both the Government and the Opposition consider that following self-government, the Northern Territory would exercise plenary legislative powers. The Commonwealth would only move to disallow the Territory's legislation if it conflicted with Federal legislation. The Code does not so conflict. It seems obvious to me and others that the Federal Government's real reason for seeking to interfere is simply that the Code does not conform with the Government's own view upon criminal law reform. To that extent, I take this opportunity to ask the Attorney-General some questions which I had been hoping to raise during Question Time in the Senate this week. I refer the Attorney- General to his answer to a question by Senator Macklin regarding the Criminal Code on Tuesday 28 February. In that answer, the Attorney-General said that in its present form the Code was: . . . quite unconscionable by reference to Australia's international obligations, particularly under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. By the Attorney-General's careful use of the term 'quite unconscionable', is the Senate to assume that he concedes that the Criminal Code does not directly violate any of our international obligations but merely contravenes the Attorney -General's perception of the spirit of those treaties? Will the Attorney-General identify the treaties, other than the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the Code contravenes? Also, will he state how the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has been violated, if at all? Does the Attorney-General disagree with the report made by Australia to the Human Rights Commission established by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that reverse onus provisions such as section 7 of the Criminal Code do not contravene the presumption of innocence guaranteed by article 14 of the Covenant? If so, does the Government intend to deliver a fresh report to the Human Rights Commission? It has been a very busy week in the Senate. I have been endeavouring to have these questions put to the Attorney-General, but to no avail, so I am using the adjournment debate tonight to bring them to his attention. I now seek leave, Mr Deputy President, to have incorporated in Hansard the statement to which I referred earlier. It has been referred to the Government. I hope that it will help to clear up these matters with the Attorney-General and his colleagues. It is a statement by Senator Peter Durack, QC, shadow Attorney-General, and Attorney-General in the previous Government, and Mr James Porter, MP, shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- The Federal Government's move to force amendments to the NT. Criminal Code is a betrayal of self-government, an infringement upon the Territory's legislative independence, and wholly without justification. It is clear from the debates of the NT (Self-Government) Bill that both the Government and Opposition consider that following self-government, the NT would exercise plenary legislative powers. The Commonwealth would only move to disallow the Territory's legislation if it conflicted with Federal legislation. The Code does not so conflict. The Government's real reason for seeking to interfere with the Code is simply that the Code does not conform with the Governments's views upon criminal law reform. The criminal law must be a matter clearly within the independent ambit of territory responsibility. It is a local matter enacted by the NT Legislative Assembly with a mandate from last year's election. Even though the Code may not follow the same approach which the Federal Government would have taken to similar legislation, that divergence of views cannot justify Federal interference. Self-government, as a principle, must mean the right to make your own mistakes or achieve your own successes without interference from ''big brother''. Anything less is a denial of self-government. In any event there is nothing in the Code which warrants Federal intereference with the Territory's legislative process. The Government has identified four areas of criticism in relation to: (a) The abolition of unsworn dock statements. (b) The Legislative Assembly's power to proscribe terrorist organisations. (c) The defence of intoxication-the onus is placed upon the defendant to prove intoxication where he seeks to rely upon it as a defence. (d) Payment of costs and compensation to victims where the defence of intoxication is successful. None of these criticisms are valid (see detailed paper attached). They could not, in any event, justify Federal intervention. CANBERRA 8 March 1984 NORTHERN TERRITORY CRIMINAL CODE ACT 1983 The following is a critique of the ''matters of concern'' noted by the Prime Minister in his letter to the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory on 29 February 1984. 1. Intoxication-Reverse Onus of Proof-In R v O'Connor it was held by the High Court that at Common Law in Australia the defence of intoxication was available not only for crimes requiring a specific intent but also for crimes requiring a general criminal intent. This is not the situation in the U.K. nor in those States (Qld, W.A. and Tas.) which have a criminal code. There intoxication is a defence only to crimes of specific intent. This decision was criticised by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. Most crimes of specific intent (e.g. wounding with intent to resist arrest) have an alternative, less serious counterpart requiring only a general intent (e.g. malicious wounding) and carrying a lesser penalty. The O'Connor decision meant that an accused may go free from all criminal responsibility because of self- induced intoxication. The Code accepts the O'Connor decision but seeks to place a barrier in the way of an accused seeking to plead intoxication. Section 7 Code deems that where intoxication is raised as a defence the intoxication will be presumed to have been voluntarily induced. Unless the intoxication is involuntarily induced, the accused will be presumed to have foreseen the natural and probable consequences of his acts and to have intended them until the contrary is proven. The Government has criticised this provision as placing a reverse onus upon the accused to prove that he was, through intoxication, unable to form an intent. Alcohol related crime is a serious problem in the N.T. 80% of all crime is alcohol related and the homicide rate is 6 to 10 times that of the States. Intoxication is a common defence and, where it is falsely raised, it is difficult for the Crown to disprove-a matter recently noted by the High Court- because usually the accused alone will know of the event and circumstances surrounding his intoxication. The rationale of the approach adopted by the Code is that where the accused wishes to rely upon his intoxication as a defence- (a) he will have to give evidence of matters peculiarly within his own knowledge; and (b) he will therefore have to enter the witness box and be subject to cross examination upon that issue. In adopting this approach the N.T. has complied with the guidelines for the use of reverse onus provisions recommended by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. The alternative approach is to allow intoxication as a defence only for crimes of specific intent but this could be a harsher approach from the accused's perspective. 2. Intoxication-Acquittal-The N.T. was concerned at overcoming the R v O'Connor anomaly that an accused may escape all criminal liability for an offence because , at the time of the offence, he was voluntarily self-intoxicated. Accordingly, in keeping with similar approaches from various Law Reform bodies, and, indeed, some of the Court in O'Connor's case, an offence of strict liability has been included in the Code. It relates to situations where an accused commits an act that causes serious, actual or potential danger to the public in circumstances where an ordinary person similarly circumstanced would clearly have foreseen the danger and not committed the act. It had been suggested by some of the Law Reform bodies and, indeed, the former Chief Justice Barwick in O'Connor's case, that such an offence of strict liability should extend to all acts, not just acts that cause danger to the public, e.g. to cover offences such as criminal damage. The Territory chose not to go this far as it considered it could cause undue hardship to an accused. For example, if a group of final year medical or law students (or anyone facing a possible loss of career upon conviction for a crime ) in celebration of completion of their final exams, got completely drunk and caused a deal of damage to property, their careers and lives might be ruined by a conviction. The Territory sees a better remedy in allowing an acquittal, and where the jury specifically finds the only reason it acquitted the accused was because he was too drunk to know what he was doing, then to allow the Court, in its discretion, to impose a fine on the accused. The imposition of a fine, rather than a conviction, may well be a far more satisfactory alternative to an accused facing this type of situation. The normal rules relating to the exercise of a Court's discretion would indicate any fine should not be beyond a person's capacity to pay. The imposition of a fine is not mandatory. 3. Abolition of Dock Statements-The Federal Government says that the abolition of unsworn statements will prejudice Aboriginal defendants and has cited a decision of the Chief Justice of the Northern Territory, Sir William Forster, as supporting their criticism. Dock statements are an historical anomaly. They have been abolished in Queensland and W.A.-States with large Aboriginal populations-and no noticeable injustices have occurred. Last week the N.T. Chief Justice said in the course of proceedings: ''I think it is an abomination-the unsworn statement. I would have done away with it years ago.'' His Honour added that, in his opinion and experience, unsworn statements had been of little, if any, assistance to Aboriginal defendants. 4. Terrorism and Proscribed Organisations-The Code provides provision for the Executive Council to declare organisations ''proscribed organisations'' and it is then an offence to be a member of or assist such an organisation. Following proscription the matter must be submitted to the Legislative Assembly for review. The Government considers that a specific right of judicial review would be more appropriate. The N.T. counters this on two bases. Firstly, it considers that a decision to proscribe is one that should be made by the executive, not the judiciary. In a terrorist situation, judges could be placed in extreme danger if the decision was placed in their hands. Secondly, the provision does not exclude the common law rights of judicial review for breach of natural justice or if a decision was ultra vires because it was so unreasonable. In those circumstances a proscribed organisation should be able to apply to the Courts for a prerogative writ setting aside the proscription. It is noted that this provision has been studied and acclaimed by the N.S.W. Law Society as model legislation. Senator KILGARIFF —I thank the Senate. The last letter from the Prime Minister ( Mr Hawke) to the Northern Territory, of only a few days ago, indicated that he and his Government are now prepared to meet the Chief Minister, Mr Paul Everingham, and members of his Government to discuss the matter further. I appeal for a cool approach to these discussions. Let us have this contentious matter resolved. The whole matter is most unfortunate. I believe that there could have been better liaison and consultation. However, let us see now whether the two governments can come together and perhaps the Prime Minister and Ministers of the Federal Government will appreciate the problems of the Northern Territory and what it is endeavouring to do through the Northern Territory Criminal Code that was passed in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly last year. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(7.00) —I rise to acknowledge that today is International Women's Day and to take the opportunity to draw attention to some of the achievements of the Labor Government over the last 12 months on behalf of women. I think the achievements of the Government overall are well worth noting but I will be selective tonight. Also, my list is not definitive. I do not have a copy of the last and ultimate achievements for women but I shall take the opportunity to mention some. Perhaps the first and most important one was the re-establishment of the Office of the Status of Women and its relocation in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, acknowledging the importance and significance that this Government places on the need to consult appropriately with and acknowledge the importance of women. Also, the Government has moved to establish a broad consultative committee of women's organisations around Australia to replace the previous consultative committee, the National Women's Advisory Council, known as NATWAC. The problems of NATWAC lay essentially in the limited number of women in that organisation with whom other women and organisations could consult. This Government felt it was much more important to have a more broadly representative consultative committee. The appointment of that committee of some 20 women strong ought to be announced in the very near future. Further, the Government has appointed a great number of women to boards, statutory authorities, government departments and so on. At last count, some 66 women had been appointed. As was stated the other night, it will be very useful when we begin to take those things as a matter of course and not as a matter of particular celebration. But I think it is to this Government's credit that it has set out actively to increase enormously the representation of women in positions of importance and responsible decision-making. For most women in Australia they are still matters of considerable celebration and acknowledgment. In more specific areas of policy, the Government has addressed itself to the particular needs of women. Very often it has done this by addressing the needs of the community but women, representing some 51 per cent of the community, have benefited. The Government was concerned to address itself to the problem of massive unemployment that it inherited when it came to office. The terms of reference of the community employment program require that some 50 per cent of the positions established under it be available to women. This is not an easy thing to achieve because many of the jobs for which local government, regional councils and so on might submit proposals tended to be in the more traditional mould and therefore to provide more work opportunities for men. But the Government was very insistent that a number of those work opportunities be available to women and it has maintained that requirement. It has not required that any local initiative or application for money under the community employment program provide 50 per cent job opportunities for women but requires that overall, over a region, over a State, some 50 per cent of those jobs be available for women. It adheres to this requirement and that is a great benefit to the many unemployed women in our community who are seeking work. Another very important policy whose implementation has affected women has been the introduction of Medicare. Very often it is women who take young children or older folk to the doctor. It is the women who have had to contend with the problem of finding the cash in hand to pay doctors' bills. Under Medicare that is no longer a problem. It certainly directly advantages women in that way and, of course, it advantages any women who seek medical assistance on their own behalf. They do not have to find ways of dealing with the financial problems that many of them faced previously before they went to see a doctor. We have seen the establishment of the first home owners assistance scheme. This has been a great advantage to women. Any number of women have been able to apply and successfully take out loans and any number of married women have benefited also. In fact, the first home owners assistance scheme has been more popular than was predicted because as employment has improved more people have been able to exercise their rights to take out a first home loan. On behalf of Aboriginal women an Aboriginal women's task force has been established within the Office of the Status of Women. That is another important acknowledgment by this Government that not only white Australian women but all Australian women are seen to be important and to have rights and dignity and are seen as people with whom this Government wants to consult. I will leave the area of social security more to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes), who is a full bottle on all of these things, but I certainly acknowledge the contribution from his ministry to the areas of child care. While all of the aims that women, and I think the Minister, would like to see achieved cannot be achieved within the first 12 months, considerable achievements have been made in that very important area. If we are to provide more opportunities for women in employment and education, we must also ensure that they are able to take up those opportunities through the provision of proper, quality and adequate child care facilities. The indexing of pensions is another thing that is of benefit to women because women are so heavily represented amongst pensioners and beneficiaries in our community. Serious consideration has been given by Senator Grimes and his ministry to the area of women's shelters, an area which started largely from individual women's initiatives but which is now seriously supported by this Government in acknowledgment not only of the needs of the shelters but also of the many women who go there and the needs that bring them there. The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations has established an occupational health and safety interim commission to inquire into occupational health and safety. The importance of occupational health and safety to women and women at work is quite clear to anybody who has been reading the newspapers over the last few months. There has been a large campaign on tenosynovitis, sometimes called rapid repetitive injury syndrome. One would sometimes think that this disease strikes only white collar women workers working with word processors. Anybody who understands industry knows that tenosynovitis is a disease of women working on assembly lines and, for that matter, men working on assembly lines, and is broadly present in industry. It will advantage women when that interim commission recommends the establishment of guidelines for the first commission. That commission will, of course, benefit women. In the education area, I highlight in particular the participation and equity program so well put forward, argued and established by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan). This, of course, will not advantage only women but, as I said, tonight I am stressing the advantages of these policies for women. We have also seen the appointment of an Ambassador for Disarmament. For the women in this world matters of peace and nuclear disarmament are a powerful consideration. This Government is right behind that kind of concern. We have also seen the effects of legislation. I simply highlight the amendment to the family law legislation and the significant passage of this Government's sex discrimination legislation through the House of Representatives yesterday. Very timely it was, too, as today is International Women's Day. I think the effects of the sex discrimination legislation in the Federal sphere will bear fruit over many years to come. As a South Australian, I come from a State that has had very similar legislation in place since 1976. From our experience, it is of great benefit to the community and in particular to the women of South Australia. One of the things that strike me is that all of these changes point to improvements for the future. Maybe we have failed or missed an opportunity to highlight the achievements of women in the past and/or the present. I think we have to acknowledge the importance of the achievements of women not only in terms of how many million dollars they make or how many times they score a century at cricket. I guess that while women have an opportunity to do that, women's cricket is not widely reported; however, I can say for the record that Australia currently holds the world cup for women's cricket. I hope that is a matter of surprise to most because it would confirm my suspicion that our newspapers do not adequately report women's sport. I hope that in looking to the achievements of women we will look at other achievements besides centuries scored or high achievements in business or government. One way in which I think this can be acknowledged is with the increased allocation or awards of the Order of Australia for women. I have written to all women's groups in South Australia urging them to nominate more women for the honours awards next year. If we look through the Order of Australia appointments or awards we see that they cover a whole range of community achievements. It is true that they represent achievements in sport; I like to see achievement in sport acknowledged. But I think we also acknowledge other achievements, in dance, theatre, art, business, community participation and so on. While those awards are still very much presented to men I would hope that in the future we will see the same acknowledgment given to women. It is for this reason that on this day I have written to the women's groups asking that they give serious consideration to nominating many more women for consideration for the Order of Australia and other Australia Day awards. One of the reasons I have done that is that I have inquired of the Council for the Order of Australia. It suggested that the principle reason not many women were appointed was that not many women were nominated. I understand that some women who have been nominated have not been accepted for those awards. I therefore do not think insufficient nomination is a sufficient explanation. But appreciating that perhaps there has been a shortage of good women nominated, I hope to see many more nominations come through to that Council this year and, hopefully, they will be represented in the honours list next year. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(7.12) —During the adjournment debate tonight I wish to speak on a subject about which I feel very strongly and on which I believe it is time that action was taken. However, before doing so I would like to clarify a statement that was made during Question Time today by the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans. He clearly misrepresented by inference my association with the Australian League of Rights. Last year I sent a greeting to a conference in Calgary in which I voiced my support for the League of Rights commitment to Senate rights and maintenance of our Constitution . I would like to put on record though that I have never and will never support any anti-semitic stance by any organisation. As a Christian I find that belief totally unacceptable and indeed repugnant. I take this opportunity to dissociate myself from any reference to anti- semitism. In connection with the other matter that I wish to raise tonight, I feel that I have a responsibility, not only as an Australian senator but also as a mother and grandmother, to draw the attention of honourable senators in this chamber- although there are not very many in it I must admit-to the totally unacceptable level of television violence and crudities to which our children are subjected daily and to the increasing number of seedy videos which are finding their way onto the television screens. As all honourable senators would know, much research has been done both in Australia and overseas in recent years about the effects of television violence on young children. Indeed, I am quite sure that at some time or other most honourable senators would have had the experience of seeing totally unsuitable material on children's prime television viewing time. I certainly have. It concerns me greatly when I see the conclusive results of research into this matter which prove a definite co-relation between the level of violence on television and the level of teenage violence in the community. I have received many representations over the past few months from various community minded organisations and church groups, all of which have expressed grave concern at the amount of bad language, explicit scenes and violence with which our television and movies are infested. Of course, I realise that in some homes such language and behaviour is acceptable. Nevertheless, my concern is that the privacy of the family home is being invaded by television programs and, increasingly, home videos which prove to be less than desirable material for our children to view. I accept the fact that adults should be able to discern for themselves what is suitable or not suitable for their own viewing consumption. But I do feel that where our children are concerned we, as parents, grandparents and as representatives in this place, should be most concerned with what those who choose the television programs dish up. This is certainly not a new problem. For many years now-almost I suppose since the introduction of television to this country-much has been written and spoken about the amount of explicit language and scenes on television and the way in which children are prone to mimic such behaviour in real life. I think we have all heard horrific stories in the media of children who try to imitate Batman and want to jump off buildings or who mimic the vicious crime fighting antics of what is called the A-Team. But I feel that the situation has gone beyond the acceptable level of childlike behaviour. Professor Peter Sheehan of the Queensland University Department of Psychology has been researching this area of television violence for many years now. Recently, he made some startling comments on the impact of television violence on children. One of his main concerns is that children tend to model themselves on what they see on the television. I suppose this is particularly true of young boys and their often violent television heroes. When we consider that the average Australian child watches television for something like 18 hours a week and, in some instances, as much as 70 hours-a figure which seems rather hard to go along with, nevertheless, this is what Professor Sheehan tells us-we see that this can indeed prove to be a very real problem. The research of Professor Sheehan and his team has revealed the results of a contents analysis survey which shows that, in Australia, there are approximately five and a half acts of physical violence each broadcast hour which, I might add , is more than is the case in the United Kingdom and in Canada. I think this should be of real concern to us all. The problem is, of course, that some children find it very difficult to differentiate between the television world and the real world. What they see as the norm on television they feel ought also to be the norm in real life. I believe that there needs to be a much greater awareness among parents as to what their children are watching on the television. I am convinced that many parents have no idea what their children watch, whether perhaps through lack of time or lack of interest. I guess it does not really matter. The children's program committee does a good job in ensuring that the bulk of television programs during children's viewing time is suitable. But outside this specified period of children's viewing is where I believe the trouble starts. Perhaps it is the responsibility of the industry not to import so much in the way of violent programs, particularly from the United States of America. We also have a situation where recently the Federal Government passed legislation which will allow hard core, pornographic videos and publications in Australia. Indeed, I understand that a new X rating which is designed for films that are too hot for the movie theatres has been introduced. I do not really think that that sets a very good example for our children. I believe that such movies only further entrench the notion that blatant violence and explicit sexual scenes are acceptable in a community in which I am sure the majority of people do not find them acceptable. I feel it is time that we, as responsible and caring members of the community said: 'No more'. We want our children to grow up having a balanced outlook on life-not one which has been corrupted by excessive violence and explicit scenes. On a similar theme I would like also to draw attention to the amount of unsuitable printed material which is prevalent and available for our children to read. In fact one has only to walk into the local newsagencies to see something of the type of publications to which I am referring. Whilst I again acknowledge the fact that adults are able to discern for themselves what they wish to read, nevertheless, the abundance of such publications is within the reach of our young children. Even some of the magazines which are distributed to our educational institutions are open to question. Recently I read a publication which is actually supposed to be Australia's contribution to the Year of Youth 1985 in which there are a few sections which I really did not believe to be addressed to youth at all. I must admit that some valuable and worthwhile information was contained in that booklet, which I understand has been put out by the Australian Medical Association. It is unfortunate that there are some parts of it that I believe are really not suitable for our young people. The whole crux of the matter which I bring before the chamber tonight is the fact that, as parents, we must take our responsibilities to our children very seriously. It is ultimately up to us in our own individual family situations to ensure that the type of television we want our children to see, the movies we want our children to enjoy, and the publications we want our children to learn from are all suitable and, indeed, desirable. We cannot monitor every little bit of information that our children are subject to, but we can take a very active and responsible part in ensuring, as much as possible, that our children are given the very best of visual and mental stimulation. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(7.21) —I rise to speak very briefly tonight, having had no opportunity to do so through the week, against the visit by the Vietnamese Foreign Minister next week as the guest of the Australian Government. Nothing could be more damaging for Australia's place in the world than to have this representative of such a murderous regime here as our guest through that week. It is true that there have been previous high functionaries from the current Vietnamese Government in Australia. We had either the Vice-President or the Deputy Prime Minister here in 1978, but that was before Vietnam moved into and invaded Kampuchea, and it is still there. The explanation as to why the Foreign Minister is coming is quite simple: The Australian Labor Party wishes to give developmental aid to Vietnam to help the communist regime. Bringing in the Foreign Minister is part of the conditioning process, part of sanitising this muderous regime so that there will not be political reaction in the country when the move is made to give developmental aid to that nation. The invitation is by the Australian Government. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) will wine and dine Nguyen Co Thach when he comes next week. It illustrates, once again, the double standards followed by this Government. We cannot have two parliamentarians from South Africa in this country because somehow or other society is not free enough to tolerate a point of view which might be abhorrent to all of us, but we can have a representative of this regime here being entertained by the Australian taxpayer. There are two consequences of this visit by the Vietnamese Foreign Minister. The first is that it directly helps the communist cause because Australia has a position of responsibility in foreign affairs to countries that are not in the region and to countries that are not informed. The fact that a Vietnamese Foreign Minister can come in here puts the imprimatur of respectability on that regime, in just the way that some of those dictatorial regimes in central America are benefiting from the pro-socialist philosophies of this Government by its giving non-residential diplomatic recognition to their regimes. The other consequence of having the Vietnamese Foreign Minister in Australia is that it further damages the Association of South East Asian Nations relationship, a relationship that is now strained almost to breaking point. We need the support of the ASEAN nations. Historically, after World War II Australia really had no place and no contact with the group's that now form the ASEAN alliance. By dint of very hard work by successful Liberal Foreign Ministers following Liberal policies we have built a position where we do not always agree with the ASEAN and South East Asian countries but at least we have a relationship of mutual respect. It is a relationship that this Government seems hell bent on destroying as rapidly as it can. It is a bit late at night to start going into the background of the disastrous diplomacy that was involved in the denial of support for the ASEAN motion to recognise the Kampuchean coalition, which was moved in the United Nations in September last year, and I will do that at another time. By recognising and inviting the Foreign Minister from Vietnam to Australia we are straining that reliance further than it has been up to the present. We have enormous problems with the Thais over this on matters that have never reached the Press. They have been hidden and whitewashed and sanitised by this Administration. The relationship between Australia and Thailand is very much in disarray and it is in disarray because of the way we are cosying up to the communists in Vietnam. If we just look at it from a self-interest point of view, we need the support of the ASEAN nations as part of a regional defence policy. In our sector of influence, there are areas in which we are going to be trading and through which we are getting our oil supplies from the Mediterranean to Japan. We have the Russians, with a proven history of expansion, supporting the Syrians. They have occupied and usurped Afghanistan. India is a servile client state. It signed a treaty with the Russians in 1971. It has one of the largest navies in the world, a navy which is rapidly being expanded for no functional or defensive use for India but purely as a client of the Russian communist expansion into the Indian Ocean. Around the corner to Vietnam is Cam Ranh Bay. From intelligence reports, over 100 Russian aircraft are based there-not Vietnamese aircraft, Russian aircraft. The harbour is the port for the Russian nuclear submarines operating out of Petropavlovsk and for other Russian surface ships. The best view we can put on this Government's actions is that it is naive and it is ignorant. The worst view is that it is treasonable. I do not attach the blame for this to Mr Hayden alone. Quite clearly, as a member of this Government , as a Minister of the Government, he represents a considered Cabinet view. For this Government to be prattling on about peace in Kampuchea and how peace could be achieved simply by having an honest broker go up there, quite oblivious of the history of thousands of years of warface, just strains the credulity of the Australian population. The reason we do not have peace in Kampuchea is because the communist Vietnamese went in there on Christmas Day 1978. They went in there on Christmas Day 1978 because on 8 November 1978 they signed the treaty of friendship and co-operation with Russia. That treaty has a clause which relates to the military activities of both countries, which concerned some of us at the time, and it has been the guise under which Vietnam has gone on its expansionist role into Kampuchea. I would like to quote briefly from a statement by Mr Hawke when he was in Thailand on 21 November 1983. He stated: Australia strongly mindful of these risks, is concerned that continued isolation of Vietnam will only serve to exacerbate or heighten those risks. It is in none of our interests that Vietnam continues to be in a situation of virtual isolation in the international community resting almost solely on a relationship with the Soviet Union. I will come back to the point about the relationship with the Soviet Union in a moment. While the Vietnamese are in Kampuchea, they have seized the country, they have displaced the refugees and they are using them as a human barrier against the Thais on the Thai border. That little act has cost Australia, in refugee support, $50m in the last few years. We have given more humanitarian aid to the refugees in Kampuchea per head of population than has any other country in the world. It is a most inhuman way to go on. That leads me to one of the most galling things about the Labor Party's relationship with Vietnam. The great champions of human rights in this country are members of the Labor Party. The performance, though, never backs up the rhetoric. One would not meet a regime in the world with a worse record for human rights than the present Government in Vietnam. The only crowd that can come near them is the Ayatollah Khomeini's regime in Iran. Senator Grimes —What about Pol Pot? Senator MacGIBBON —Pol Pot probably is not as bad as the Vietnamese. The honourable senator is splitting hairs. I will have to concede that they are pretty close, but the Pol Pot regime is not a government; the Vietnamese Government is a government. Australia does not have a relationship with the Pol Pot regime. I take Senator Grimes back to the treatment by the Vietnamese of the allied prisoners through the Vietnam war. It was every bit as bad as that of the Japanese in the Second World War. They only modified their treatment of allied prisoners towards 1970 when they realised that the inhumane torture and murder was having an adverse effect on public opinion around the world, so they backed off. If Senator Grimes looked at their present treatment of political prisoners and the way they are shipping people around the world as slave labour to satisfy their alliance with the Soviet bloc he would not be so critical of my comments. The Australian Labor Party supports these people because it wants to give aid to Vietnam to satisfy its socialist beliefs. Last year on a quite dishonest basis Australia gave $500,000, allegedly for humanitarian aid, to Vietnam. It realised it could not give it as development aid, so it gave it as humanitarian aid on the basis of typhoon damage. There was no unusual typhoon activity in Vietnam in 1983. No suffering was occasioned by it. The whole thing was a trumped-up fabrication to get money into Vietnam. I return to the disinformation contained in Mr Hawke's address in Thailand in November, when he stated that it was an intolerable situation to have Vietnam relying entirely on its relationship with the Soviet Union. Many honourable senators on the other side of the chamber would say that we must be kind to the Vietnamese because if we do not, they will be reliant on the Russians. Do they really believe we can take over the $2,000m a year that the Russians are currently paying? Do they really believe we can put in 10,000-plus advisers? Do they really believe we can support it economically in the way in which the Russians are doing? Do they really believe we can abrogate the treaty that the Vietnamese have signed which runs for 25 years from 8 November 1978? This is disinformation in the classical Russian way. Australians want no part of it. We want no part of any association with Vietnam and its murderous representatives until they are prepared to live honestly amongst the community of nations, until they are prepared to respect and observe the many resolutions, ever since they moved into Kampuchea on Christmas Day 1978, to vacate that country and to get right out. Then we will be prepared to talk to them. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(7.33) —Senator Primmer made some remarks about officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs. I have no knowledge of anything he has said tonight but I want to point out that he has made charges of this type before which have been investigated by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and the Department of Foreign Affairs. I will refer the matters to the Minister for his attention. Senator Kilgariff talked once again about the Northern Territory Criminal Code and the Federal Government 's objections to that Code. I will refer that also, as I have no expertise in that area, to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) for him to deal with. Senator Crowley spoke learnedly and at some length about International Women's Day and the contribution of the present Government to women. I found it interesting and enlightening. Senator Bjelke-Petersen spoke of her concern for the amount of violence and sexually explicit behaviour-I think that was the term she used-on television. I found it interesting, but was unable to elicit from her speech any actual details of some of the publications and films she was talking about. I am certainly sure the Australian Medical Association will be interested that Senator Bjelke-Petersen finds one of its documents risque, if not obscene. She also mentioned a matter which arose in Question Time today when Senator Gareth Evans questioned her apparent support for the Australian League of Rights. I am glad that Senator Bjelke-Petersen does not support the anti-semitic utterances of that organisation. I hope she also does not support some of the other extremist statements it makes about race relations generally, about white supremacy generally, and some of its strange economic views. I think it is very difficult for someone in Senator Bjelke-Petersen's position, or anyone else in this place, to associate with an organisation like that on the ground that it apparently supports States' rights in our written Constitution and ignore all the other undesirable areas it mentions. Senator MacGibbon demonstrated that some things never change in this Parliament or this country. There will always be people who will speak about foreign affairs in the way in which Senator MacGibbon did. He has talked tonight about disinformation. He made allegations about the present Government's relationships with the Association of South East Asian Nations which he says are strained to breaking point. He gave no evidence for that except an assertion of his own. I would have thought that the recent visits by Mr Hayden and Mr Hawke to that area and their relationships with the ASEAN Ministers demonstrated to the Australian people the opposite to what Senator MacGibbon was saying. With regard to our relationships with Thailand, he not only made the assertion that they are almost at breaking point, but also that there was some cover-up and conspiracy not only by the present Government but also by the Press in this country to hide this from the Australian people. In the absence of any evidence, I do not believe that I can take that seriously, nor do I think anyone else will. I do not think our relationships with other countries are helped by honourable senators from either side of the chamber saying, for instance, that India is a servile client state of the Soviet Union and making assertions of that type. I will refer Senator MacGibbon's remarks to the Foreign Minister but I doubt whether he will take them any more seriously than I do or than the Press apparently does. As I say, some things never change. We were told by the predecessors of Senator MacGibbon that the Vietnamese were actually clients of the Chinese, that we were spending hundreds of millions of dollars in Vietnam, raining bombs on that country and killing people, to stop the downward flow of the Chinese. We had the extraordinary situation of a Minister for Foreign Affairs of this country going to Russia and warning the Russians that what the Vietnamese were doing was on behalf of the Chinese. The gentlemen in the Kremlin in those days must have laughed to hear that sort of nonsense. I think what we need in this world is rational behaviour on both sides in regard to foreign affairs. We certainly have not had it from Senator MacGibbon tonight. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.37 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 27 March 1984, unless otherwise called together in accordance with the Sessional Orders. The following papers were presented: Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposals 1984- No. 2-Survey of Foreign Ownership and Control of Agriculture-February 1984 No. 3-Exploratory Collection of Lending Commitments by Financial Institutions- February 1984. Lands Acquisition Act- Statement by the Minister describing land acquired by agreement under sub-section 7 (1) of the Act, for specified public purposes. Public Service Act-Determinations 1984-Nos 1, 2 Remuneration Tribunals Act-Determination 1984- No. 1 Remuneration payable to holders of certain public offices-Australian Shipping Commission and others, together with an explanatory statement, dated 10 February 1984. The following answers to questions were circulated: Senator Grimes —on 17 November 1983 (Hansard, page 2755) Senator Lajovic asked me, as the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs , without notice, whether I had seen newspaper reports about the decline during the June quarter in both overall arrivals and permanent settler arrivals and to provide exact figures on (1) how many permanent settlers arrived during the quarter; (2) which countries they came from; (3) how many belonged to the family re-union category; and (4) how many came as refugees. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Australian Bureau of Statistics, ABS, figures, to which the newspaper reports referred, show a decline in total arrivals (which include settler arrivals, Australian residents returning home and long and short term temporary entrants) during the June quarter of some 40,000 over total arrivals during the same period of 1982 and seem to reflect a trend evident over the past three quarters. In reply to your specific questions: (1) 20,483 permanent settlers arrived during the June quarter of 1983; (source: ABS) (2) they came from the following countries: Country of last residence (arrivals) or country of intended future residence Settler (departures) arrivals AFRICA- South Africa 671 Zimbabwe 213 Other and unspecified 305 Total, Africa 1, 189 AMERICA- Argentina 88 Canada 329 Chile 127 United States of America 463 Other and unspecified 127 Total, America 1,134 ASIA- China 130 Cyprus 44 Hong Kong 726 India 356 Indonesia 847 Japan 107 Lebanon 112 Malaysia 1,004 Philippines 1,077 Singapore 204 Thailand 2, 224 Turkey 135 Other and unspecified 882 Total, Asia 7,848 EUROPE- Austria 275 Denmark 99 France 151 Germany 1,054 Greece 95 Ireland 204 Italy 117 Malta 65 Netherlands 219 Portugal 331 Spain 109 Switzerland 179 United Kingdom 5,143 Yugoslavia 249 Other and unspecified 333 Total, Europe 8,623 OCEANIA- Fiji 104 New Zealand 1,399 Papua New Guinea 117 Other and unspecified 67 Total, Oceania 1,687 Other and not stated 2 Total 20,483 (Source: ABS) (3) 6,961 belonged to the family category (Source: Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs). (4) 5,070 were refugees (Source: Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs).