Tuesday, 27 March 1984 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: 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 legislation 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 half 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 Senators Macklin (from 143 citizens) and Scott (from 139 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain elected representatives and officers of local governments in Australia shows that: General revenue grants to local government under personal income tax sharing entitlements have increased by 8.2 per cent in 1983-84 over 1982-83, The inflation rate over the same period was 11.2 per cent, The increase in grants to State Governments over the same period was 11.8 per cent, Increased demands are being made on local government authorities to participate in Federal Government programs e.g. Community Employment Program, The Labor Party made a pre-election commitment to allocate not less than the real value of the previous year's allocation in general revenue grants to local government. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will amend the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act of 1976, to provide a real term minimum guarantee to local government general revenue sharing arrangements in 1983-84, and in future years. by Senators Lewis (from 13 citizens) and Scott (from 38 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That, with the exception of the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Collard (from 29 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 21 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to: Undermine civil liberties and religious freedoms; Entrench abortion funding and render liable to action hospitals, doctors and nurses, who conscientiously refuse to become involved in morally objectionable operations; Deny to parents their rights to insist that the school 'community' provide an environment conducive to the development, including moral development of their children. Your petitioners humbly pray the the Senate, in Parliament assembled; should amend the Bill so as to prevent the possibility of its use in the manner stated above and urge, because of the importance to society of all principles involved, that a conscience vote on the Bill be permitted to all members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Scott (from 23 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we support your efforts to strengthen our family and community life particularly by increased penalties for 'drug pushers' and distributors. We, however, wish to register our firm opposition to any legal changes which would increase or encourage the distribution or availability of so-called 'soft drugs' such as marijuana. We believe such drugs to be harmful to the physical and psychological health of the individual and therefore to the interest of the community of which such individual is part. Although there is current controversy concerning the question of such harm it appears to us quite foolish to legalise and encourage the use of such drugs unless or until it be shown that such drugs are in fact harmless. The serious social problems of alcohol should provide sufficient warning to our society. Any efforts to legalise or decriminalise usage or distribution of such drugs will have the following results: 1. Encourage and inculcate a social acceptability towards such drugs. 2. Increase the volume of usage of such drugs in schools and the community by present users and by ''drug pushers'' through the proposed one oz. legal possession. 3. Extend the usage of such drugs to persons who would previously have abstained because of the legal sanctions. 4. Put pressure upon Parliament to establish and licence import, growth, manufacture and/or distribution of such drugs, that is, to regulate another destructive industry contrary to the best interest of the individual and society . 5. There would be the probable temptation to tax such drugs as another source of Federal revenue. We urge the Government to increase the medical and counselling facilities for the assistance of drug users and to expand existing drug referral centres and clinics. We have general confidence in the existing law and its sympathetic implementation by the Police and Courts. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will firstly take no measures that could extend the major social problem of drug usage and secondly will oblige those who are promoting marijuana and/or similar drugs to prove without doubt that such drugs are harmless before any legislation or decriminalisation of use is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Scott (from 26 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 488 citizens). To the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Victoria showeth that any reduction in Government funding of non-Government schools would seriously affect the quality of the educational services provided and cause financial hardship for many parents. Your petitioners therefore pray that any change in the funding system for non- Government schools recognises the fundamental right of all children to an equitable share of Government funds for education. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume (from seven citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: But for a High Court decision narrowly favouring the Federal Government, recently discovered 20,000 years old archaeological cave sites near the Franklin River, Tasmania, equal in importance to those in the V'ese`re Valley in France, would have been destroyed, like a United Kingdom Government unable to stop a Wiltshire authority from clearing Stonehenge for a freeway. The constitutional basis for protecting historical and environmental assets remains weak. Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should request the Government to hold a referendum to amend the constitution so that: The Federal Government has the duty and a right superior to state and local governments to set above the commercial advantage of one generation, protect and restore, those things we hold in trust for the future; Being relics, sites, features, areas, wildlife, buildings or things of Aboriginal and other historical, cultural, scientific, aesthetic, ecological or environmental importance; To care for the maintenance of the balance of nature, to manage land, marine and atmospheric use so as to avoid their degradation and in any other matter which might be seen to be in the same spirit; In particular to prevent beach mining, preserve the Heritage Areas, The Great Barrier Reef Region at least as originally defined in the 1975 Act and consider its extension into the Torres Strait. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from 27 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition from parents representing the government schools in New South Wales respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the Federal Government to re-affirm publicly that its primary obligation is to government schools. 2. They support the Federal Government's policy decisions which have reduced funding to wealthy private schools and which have broken the nexus between government and non-government school costs. 3. They endorse the Federal Government's opposition to the provision of a 'base grant' to all non-government schools. 4. They ask that the Federal Government create a general recurrent resource base which is adequate for government schools through the provision of increased recurrent funding. 5. They call upon the Federal Government to negotiate agreements with State/ Territory Governments which will ensure a planned program of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Scott (from 73 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the Great Barrier Reef is unique and is included on the World Heritage List. Although the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act was to create a marine park to provide for the proper protection and management of the Reef, only 14 per cent of the total area defined in this Act as the Great Barrier Reef Region has been declared marine park. The only insurance against an oil drilling blowout in Reef waters is to prohibit oil drilling in the Region and its vicinity. This can only be effected by declaring the whole area of the Region a marine park under the above legislation. Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should request the Government to take action to hold a referendum together with the next Federal Elections on the question that: 'The entire area of the Great Barrier Reef and its surrounding waters, defined as the Great Barrier Reef Region in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, as amended 1978, be immediately declared a marine park under the provisions of that Act. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from three citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned, being electors in the State of NSW, respectfully submit that the Government review its intention to tax Friendly Societies after so many years of service to the community at large. And in faith your petitioners will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 25 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth government: 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognize that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection , storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving ' property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 21 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: The policies of Australia Post within the Ministry for Communications are discriminating against small business in that most suitable and well patronised small shops are being denied the opportunity to operate as its sub-agents. This discrimination is in contravention of, or contrary to, the spirit of the Trade Practices Act. We respectfully request that a sub-Post Office be restored to its original historical site since the 1860's: the newsagency in the Central Court Shopping Centre, Doncaster Road, Doncaster. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Missen (from 342 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Senators of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) That it was announced in May 1982 that the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission is to provide $2.7 million over the next three years to institutions in all mainland states and the ACT to specially fund the study of certain modern foreign languages. (2) That the study of the Lithuanian language was excluded from the said allocation. (3) That the Lithuanian Community in Australia was led to believe that Lithuanian would be taught at at least one Australian university as a result of the findings of the review of multicultural and migrant education published by the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs in September 1980. (4) That Lithuanian is taught at secondary level in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia and apart from its relevance to the present Lithuanian Community is an extremely significant language in linguistic theory. (5) That Monash University in Victoria already has a teaching staff suitable for incorporation of a Lithuanian language Department and already provides a course in Slavic and Baltic studies. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will make an immediate appropriation of funds to ensure the study of the Lithuanian language at one of the Australian universities, preferably Monash. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from 5,067 citizens). Petitions received. Notice of Motion Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend laws relating to companies and securities. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate condemns the Federal Government for its failure to reduce the price of petrol by 3c a litre as promised during the 1983 Federal election campaign. Senator DURACK(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge, 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; 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. (2) That the Committee consist of six Senators, as follows: (a) three to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate; (b) two to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate; and (c) one to be nominated by the Leader of the Australian Democrats. (3) That the Committee proceed to the despatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy. (4) That the Committee elect as Chairman one of the members nominated by the Leader of the Government. (5) That the Chairman of the Committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the Committee to be the Deputy-Chairman of the Committee, and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the Committee at any time when there is no Chairman or the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee. (6) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman, or the Deputy- Chairman when acting as Chairman, have a casting vote. (7) That the quorum of the Committee be three members. (8) That the Committee have power to send for and examine persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations it may deem fit. (9) That the Committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources. (10) That the Committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public. (11) That the Committee report to the Senate on or before 31 May 1984. (12) That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Notice of Motion Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Health Insurance Act 1973 and the Health Legislation Amendment Act 1983. Notice of Motion Senator HAINES(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend section 17 of the Health Insurance Act 1973, and for related purposes. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That: (a) The Senate believes that a year yet to be decided should be declared the international year of the geographically isolated person; (b) The Senate urges the Government to make preparations to use this year to highlight the special problems of people living in the outback and remote communities; and (c) This suggestion be conveyed to the United Nations through the Australian delegation. Notice of Motion Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to enable certain information obtained under the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 to be furnished to the Honourable John Patrick Slattery for the purposes of a special commission of inquiry established under the New South Wales Special Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1983 of New South Wales. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Tasmanian State Grants Commission-Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to Section 10 of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976. 2. The Australia-Japan Foundation-Annual Report 1982-83-Pursuant to Section 25 of the Australia-Japan Foundation Act 1976. 3. The Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority-Annual Report 1982 -83-Pursuant to Section 16 (2) of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973 4. Interim Council of the Australian Defence Force Academy-1st Report. 5. Progress in the Migration Program 1983-84-Text of a Statement made in the House of Representatives on 7 March 1984 by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. 6. Automotive and Industrial Filters (Anti-Dumping)-IAC Report. 7. River Murray Commission-Annual Report 1983-Pursuant to Section 14 of the River Murray Waters Act 1983. Notices of Motion Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I ask the Attorney-General whether he recalls telling me on 7 March, in relation to the Sala case: The reality of the matter was that, had there been grounds for sufficient suspicion to lay a charge, there had been ample time for that suspicion to be checked out. It had not reached that stage by the time representations were made for the release of the person. I also ask him whether, in a letter to him dated 8 March from Mr T. P. Boyle, one of the police officers in the Sala case, Mr Boyle said: 'We, as investigating police, had sought to lay charges against Mr Sala in relation to his false passport almost immediately after the offence was detected but we had been prevented from doing so because the deportation order had been signed' and that 'We were also informed that any possible charge under other statutes would not be entertained by your Department'. I ask: Why did the Attorney-General mislead the Senate on 7 March by claiming that there were insufficient grounds for charges when it is now clear from Mr Boyle's letter that the police wanted to take such action? Senator GARETH EVANS —I replied to Mr Boyle's suggestions in this respect in a letter of 16 March, a copy of which was given to Mr Peacock, the Leader of the Opposition, since Mr Boyle's original letter to me was in fact also copied to Mr Peacock. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the text of that letter. Senator Chipp —Hadn't you better incorporate Boyle's letter as well? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am certainly happy to do that. I will incorporate the exchange of letters, if I may. I seek leave to do so. Leave granted. The letters read as follows- P.O. Box 154, Bexley, N.S.W. 2207. 8th March, 1984. Senator G. Evans, Esq., Attorney-General, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Senator Evans, Re: Ramon Llul Sala: Issues Currently Under Examination. As your enquiries will confirm, I am a former Commonwealth Police Officer and I was one of the arresting officers of the abovenamed person in 1974. I have already been interviewed by Mr Andrew Menzies in relation to this matter and I understand that his report has already been submitted to you. During the course of my discussions with Mr Menzies, I pointed out my reluctance to become involved in the current political morass, especially when the behaviour of many of the Parliamentary members seems to leave so much to desire. I am nearing the completion of my studies to gain my degree of Bachelor of Laws and I conduct my own business, which is currently enjoying a period of rapid growth. I therefore have no wish to be distracted by the antics of politicians over something that happened so long ago, even though the issues involved had a marked impact on my life. What has prompted me to write, however, is the report on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald of this date in which you are reported to have said, inter alia, that ''the police had the passport for six weeks, but had not been prepared to lay a charge-which they could have done at any time when they had a reasonable suspicion that the law had been broken.'' Mr Menzies was made quite aware of the fact that we, as investigating Police, had sought to lay charges against Mr Sala in relation to his false Passport almost immediately after the offence was detected, but we had been prevented from doing so, because the deportation order had been signed. As you should be aware, the permission of an authorized officer was required before a charge could be laid under the Migration Act in respect of the offence and we were not able to obtain such permission because of the existence of the deportation order. We were also informed that any possible charge under other statutes would not be entertained by your Department. I also made it quite clear to Mr Menzies that the passport itself was quite obviously false upon inspection and, in itself, formed prima facie evidence of the offence. Had we been permitted to charge Mr Sala in relation to the matter, I am confident a magistrate would have remanded Mr Sala until our investigations could be completed, especially as his identity was supported only by the patently false document. There are a great many issues associated with the Sala matter, including offers of bribes; the exertion of pressure by the naming of senior police officers; administrative inaction; political and interdepartmental interference; etc. I, like so many people, have come to accept corruption and ineptitude as a fact of life and I no longer take any particular notice of it, unless it affects me or my family. As I also explained to Mr Menzies, I have no particular axe to grind in the current issue and I said that I don't envy the job of any one who would be given the task of ''playing down'' or explaining the events surrounding the person tentatively identified as Mr Ramon Sala. Your reported comments have caused me considerable agitation, however, as they are suggestive of a failure on the part of the investigating police to follow through on the enquiry. This, as you should be aware, is far from the truth and, since many of those involved in the matter at my level are still employed by the Commonwealth and subject to disciplinary action for speaking out publicly, I feel a certain amount of duty to bring these matters to your attention. Basically, I don't particularly care how the various parties extract themselves from the quagmire in which they so proudly strode ten years ago, but I will not have them do so at the expense of those of us that tried so hard to do the right thing. As I said to Mr Menzies, if the government wishes to write the issues off , they had better not ask those of us at my level of the enquiry for a public opinion on the matter. I'm afraid the statements that would be forthcoming would not auger well for any ''whitewash''. Yours faithfully, T. P. BOYLE C.C. The Hon. Robert J. Hawke, Prime Minister of Australia, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. The Hon. Andrew Peacock, Leader of the Opposition, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. Senator the Hon. Gareth Evans Attorney-General Parliament House Canberra A.C.T. 2600 15 March 1984 M/84/2327:ACCM Mr T. P. Boyle,PO Box 154,Bexley, N.S.W. 2207 Dear Mr Boyle, Thank you for your letter of 8 March 1984 in which you refer to a report in the ''Sydney Morning Herald'' of that date of statements said to have been made by me in the Senate in relation to the case of Mr Ramon Sala. You were one of the investigating police officers in that case and you recently furnished information to Mr A. C. C. Menzies, a former senior officer of my Department whom I asked to furnish a report on that case. You state in your letter that the investigating police were anxious to lay charges against Mr Sala in relation to this false passport but the permission of an authorised officer required under the Migration Act was withheld. You are concerned as to any suggestion that the police were not prepared to lay such a charge. The words that ''the police had . . . not been prepared to lay a charge'' are the words of the Sydney Morning Herald, not mine. What I intended to convey to the Senate on 7 March was that, had there been grounds for suspicion sufficient to lay a charge, there would have been ample time for that suspicion to be checked out and decisions taken thereon. The time available was at least from the time of the person's arrest on 28 April. From the then Attorney-General's viewpoint, the facts were that there had been ample time to investigate and lay a charge and, for whatever the reason, no charge had been laid. However, I was not to be taken to be implying any criticism of the police role in this case. I understand that the police supported a proposal by a prosecuting officer made at the time of Sala's committal proceedings that a charge be brought under section 27 of the Migration Act in respect of the passport but, as you point out, a decision was made by the Department of Immigration not to prosecute. Its consent to a prosecution was necessary. Mr Menzies' report to me indicates that the basis for the proposal for prosecution of Sala, as communicated to the Central Office of the Department of Immigration, was that it was feared that Sala might be remanded and released on bail but, if he were dealt with on the section 27 charge on a plea of guilty as anticipated, his release would be deferred. The Police and the Prosecutor had in mind that, the longer Sala's release was deferred, the greater the chance that he would disclose his confederates. Mr Menzies' report shows that the decision of the Immigration Central Office was that, as a deportation order had been signed, they could not agree to a section 27 prosecution merely as a precaution against bail. The Central Office noted that the Court could be informed that the Minister had ordered deportation and that this would be effective when court action was complete. Mr Menzies concluded, and I would agree, that this decision was by no means unreasonable. However, it appears from the records of the Sydney Deputy Crown Solicitor and the Sydney Office of the Department of Immigration, that the decision was understood in Sydney to be that, merely because there was a deportation order, there could not be a prosecution; this of course, is not correct in law. Mr Menzies' report thus concludes that suspicion of the decision appeared to have arisen from a misunderstanding of the real basis for it and, when all the facts were known, the decision was not open to serious criticism. In any event, there was not the slightest evidence that either the then Attorney-General or the Central Office of his Department was involved in the decision. I trust that this explanation will remove the concern that you have expressed. Yours sincerely, GARETH EVANS c.c. The Hon. R. J. L. Hawke, A.C., M.P., Prime Minister The Hon. A. S. Peacock, M.P., Leader of the Opposition Senator GARETH EVANS —There has been some misunderstanding of the position as I explained it on 7 March. What I intended to convey to the Senate, as indeed I said in my reply to Mr Boyle, was that had there been grounds for suspicion sufficient to lay a charge there would have been ample time for that suspicion to be checked out and decisions to be taken thereon. The time available was at least from the time of the person's arrest on 28 April, and that is something between four and five weeks, to the time that Mr Sala actually left the country. From the then Attorney-General's viewpoint the facts were that there had been ample time to investigate and lay a charge and, for whatever the reason, no charge had been laid. It now appears clear to me, although I was perhaps less than clear in articulating this at various early stages in the barrage of questions I received on the Sala case, that certainly the police were anxious to lay a charge, although it remains a matter for argument to this day as to whether, before the arrival of the Interpol confirmation of the falsity of the passport, the evidence then available to the police would have been such as to sustain a charge had that been the only evidence before the court. There is a genuine difference of opinion possible about that. The particular reason why a charge was not laid was not in any way the fault of the police and certainly not the fault of Mr Boyle who seems to have been as assiduous then as he is now in endeavouring to bring the matter to some kind of judgment. Certainly, the police immediately charged with the task of investigating the matter were of the view that a charge ought to be laid and communicated that fact to the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in Sydney. The Immigration Department in Sydney in turn communicated the request for consent to prosecute, because such a consent was required and still is required under the Migration Act, to the Immigration Department central office. It appears that the difficulty-I have explained all this again in a letter to Mr Boyle-arose in the content of that communication because the proposal to prosecute on the passport charge, as it was communicated from the Immigration Department office in Sydney to the central office in Canberra, was based on a desire to ensure that Sala stayed in custody following the conclusion of the original committal proceedings in the hope that by being kept in custody he would disclose his confederates. The actual decision that was made by the Immigration Department in Canberra not to consent to a prosecution was based, in turn, on the belief-I believe it was a quite reasonable belief-that it could not agree to a prosecution on the passport charge merely as a precaution against bail being granted. When, in turn, it communicated that decision back to the Immigration Department in Sydney there was a further misunderstanding because the Immigration Department in Sydney believed that the decision that had been made in Canberra was that, simply because a deportation order had been made, it was not possible in law, for that reason, for a charge to be made under section 27 in relation to the false passport which was, of course, a very considerable simplification of the facts. The reality of the matter is that everybody seems to have acted in good faith throughout at the police and Immigration Department levels. But there was a series of misunderstandings at these levels which produced a situation of no charge being laid. On any view of the matter, this all occurred at the police and departmental levels and did not, on any view of the facts as they are available to us, looking backwards, in any way involve the Attorney-General of the day whose own decisions came rather later in the piece. The net result of all that and the nub of Mr Boyle's allegations really reduce to the answer that I gave him. There may have been some misunderstandings. There was certainly no lack of diligence on the part of police officers concerned but there was no impropriety by anyone in the course of the decision that was then followed. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. In view of the clear evidence that the police, from the outset, suspected that the passport was forged, that this suspicion was backed up by the French Consul- General who believed it was forged and that the then Attorney-General knew of this, why did the Attorney-General not simply withhold the passport? I am not suggesting that the Attorney-General should have kept that person incarcerated. I direct my question specifically to the reason why the Attorney-General, in the knowledge that there was a strong suspicion and in the knowledge that Interpol had been asked whether the passport was forged, did not wait for Interpol by simply withholding the passport while leaving the person free in this country. Senator GARETH EVANS —I have indicated previously the circumstances of that decision. I suggest that this question is not so much a supplementary one as a wholly new question. The answer, in short, to track back over familiar territory , is that there was a deportation order outstanding against the person which implied the continuation of that person in custody until the deportation order was executed. It certainly was not within the capacity, as I understand it, of the then Attorney-General to order his release into the community at large given the currency of a deportation order still outstanding against him. I may be wrong about that. I will check it. It is not my belief that he had any such power. The only power the then Attorney-General had was either to order his release from gaol and order that he may be deported or alternatively to ensure that he would be released from gaol and forthwith dispatched from the country, not by way of deportation but carrying his own passport. I have said that the reasons why he was given back his passport at that stage rather than being simply deported-the representations from the solicitor were, as they survive on the record, solely to the effect that the person should be deported- have to do, it would appear, first with administrative reasons and the difficulty that was being experienced in getting the appropriate bit of paper to enable the person to be deported to Spain; secondly, the fact that very much in everybody's mind by that stage was the consideration that the person claimed, apparently on a credible basis, to have been something of a political exile from Franco's Spain and that there were very real consequences associated with his being returned to there; and, thirdly, the consideration that, as Senator Sir John Carrick should be well aware, it is not at all uncommon for people subject to a deportation order to be allowed to leave the country, if they are prepared to pay their own fares and leave immediately, if there is no overwhelming reason for them to be deported as such. In the absence of overwhelming evidence as to the falsity of the passport the third consideration no doubt applied. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and refers to a Press report quoting the South Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry economist as saying: Doctors could wreck the Hawke Government's economic strategy if they dug their heels in over Medicare. Does the Minister see this as a significant statement, coming as it does from a major employer organisation? Does the Minister believe that actions by some sections of the medical profession could threaten Australia's overall economic recovery by threatening the prices and incomes accord? Senator GRIMES —I read the article referred to by Senator Maguire. Although I think that some of the projected outcomes of the doctors dispute were a bit exaggerated in the article, I am pleased at least to see that one member of the business establishment and one important business organisation recognises the importance of Medicare and its advantages to the Australian people and the Australian economic situation. It is terribly important that we all remember that one of the key planks of the Australian Labor Party's policy before the last election was the introduction of a universal health insurance scheme. That scheme has been introduced. It is fair. It has been developed by the Party and was approved by the people of this country at the last election. Those doctors who are acting in an irresponsible way, as some of them are at the moment, are acting against the wishes of the people of this country. The important matter which was raised in the article was the recognition by the business organisation and its economists that Medicare, the universal health insurance scheme, is an important part of the prices and incomes accord. I do not think anyone in this country believes that the accord is not essential if we are to continue the economic recovery that we have. It is worth while quoting clause 48 of the National Economic Summit Conference communique, which also drew attention to the importance of the health policies of this Government. It stated : The Summit notes the announced health policies of the Government and believes that it is imperative that at the Commonwealth level a stable system should be introduced as a matter of urgency. The unions reaffirm their commitment that they will accept an offset in wage increases on account of the health insurance scheme. The Chamber of Commerce overstates the issue a bit if it regards Medicare as being of importance to this country only because of its economic benefits to the whole country. The scheme is important to the whole community because under any other scheme large numbers of people are not covered by health insurance and do not have adequate health cover. It is important that this scheme continue to operate with the acceptance not only of the patients but also of the doctors. It is a great pity, I believe, that those doctors who are acting in an irresponsible way by refusing to accept that there must be some restrictions on their capacity to operate in publicly funded hospitals, using publicly funded facilities, do not accept that there has to be some restrictions if the taxpayer is to provide for their livelihood in this way. As Senator Maguire said, it is an important article; it is an important recognition by an important business organisation that health insurance is an important part of the social wage. It is of great importance in maintaining the accord and, therefore, of great importance in maintaining the economic progress which this country undoubtedly has made. Senator REID —I refer the Attorney-General again to the letter which former police officer Boyle wrote to him on 8 March in which he rejected the Attorney- General's claim in Parliament on 7 March that police had not sufficiently advanced their investigation of Mr Ramon Sala's passport to justify charges being made. I ask: In the Attorney's defence of the actions of the then Attorney -General, Senator Murphy, has he relied heavily on the false claim which has now been exposed by Mr Boyle? If not, why did the then Attorney-General not take steps to fully acquaint himself with the police view before ordering Mr Sala's release? Finally, does he now agree, in the light of the new evidence, that the Attorney-General of the day erred in his decision to release this man? Senator GARETH EVANS —No, I do not believe that the Attorney-General of the day erred in his dealings with this matter. As I indicated in reply to Senator Sir John Carrick, all that the Attorney-General knew at the time he was making his decision was that the allegedly false passport had been in police possession for something over a month, or of the order of a month, and that, for whatever reason, no charge had been laid. No doubt if he had pursued the matter he would have appreciated that there was no barrier in law to a charge being made. Certainly, it did depend on the consent of the Department of Immigration, but there was no reason on the face of it why such consent should not have been given if indeed the evidence was such as to justify a charge being laid. The facts as they were available to the Attorney-General of the day were such as to justify him, I believe, and Mr Menzies believes-he dealt with this matter very fully and reported to the Government-reaching the view that it was unconscionable in our system of justice for someone against whom a charge, for whatever reason, had not been laid to be kept in gaol on an open-ended basis, presumably while further investigations could take place. That might be the way in which some countries or indeed some honourable senators opposite might choose to run a judicial system, a criminal investigation system or a penal system, but it has not hitherto been the Australian way. I do not in any way divert from my support for the former Attorney-General for reaching the decision on the grounds that he apparently employed. Senator ELSTOB —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Social Security, refers to the present experiment by the National Party of Australia member for Hume, Mr Lusher, who intends to find out in one week whether the unemployment benefit is too high. In view of the realities of unemployment, does the Minister agree that such an experiment indicates a very simplistic mentality ? Is the Minister concerned that the experiment will be only an insult to genuine unemployed people who are desperate for more, not less, understanding and positive support from politicians? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I have noted the reports of Mr Lusher's publicity stunt which is being conducted in conjunction with a well known television program in this country. I do not know that we can- Senator Chipp —Why give him more? Senator GRIMES —There is a statement condemning sin. As Senator Elstob said, there is no question that if this is intended to be a serious exercise it demonstrates a simplistic mentality. I think it demonstrates an extraordinary lack of sensitivity in this area on the part of Mr Lusher in particular and also the television program concerned. It was reported that Mr Lusher would forgo life's luxuries next week and go on the unemployment benefit in order to prove his personal theory-one which he has often espoused in the Parliament and outside-that people on the unemployment benefit receive so much money that there is insufficient incentive for them to try to find work. He is also known for his attacks on supporting parents and other pensioners and beneficiaries. I believe this distasteful little stunt is an indication of Mr Lusher's immaturity and arrogance. His assumption that he can put himself in the position of someone who is unemployed, who is demoralised, and come out a week later with a certificate for good housekeeping is an appalling reflection on the way he thinks. The fact that the average duration of unemployment benefit payments is now in excess of, I think, 40 weeks demonstrates just how stupid Mr Lusher's exercise is. Of course the honourable member concerned will be employed all this time as usual in Parliament House, occupying a nice, centrally heated office. He will not face the loneliness or humiliation those on unemployment benefits face. I presume his wife and four children will still be living in Cootamundra, having all their bills paid and the security that no unemployed persons can have. Their schooling expenses will still be paid. Mr Lusher will still have deducted from his salary contributions to the parliamentary superannuation fund, providing for his retirement in a way that no unemployed person can ever do. How a well fed, wealthy person of this type can expect to prove anything in a week, I do not know. Members of parliament had the unedifying spectacle this morning of seeing Mr Lusher, pack on back and on his bike, apparently trying to look like someone who is unemployed, hiding behind the bushes outside Parliament House waiting for the television cameras to turn up and take pictures of him. A shopkeeper reported on the radio this morning that Mr Lusher went to a supermarket in the Monaro Mall, did his shopping, took it out and put it in the 60 Minutes van and then got on his bike and rode off. This is an appalling farce and a disgraceful, insensitive display by Mr Lusher and by 60 Minutes. I do not think I have ever read an issue of the Canberra Times quite like this morning's issue. Everyone, from Professor Henderson to a local doctor and local citizens, roundly condemned Mr Lusher for carrying out this cheap stunt. As Professor Henderson said: It's a very partial experiment-quite inadequate if he really wants to know what sorts of costs long-term unemployed people face. The most he will find out is how much he will have left over after food. He just won't have the expenses of long-term unemployed. I doubt he will be buying clothes or shoes, paying an electricity or gas bill or paying rates. One of the best statements in this morning's paper was that by Dr Frank Slater, who said: I suggest Mr Lusher takes sardine sandwiches instead of vegemite sandwiches for lunch. Fish is supposed to be a brain food and he certainly needs it. All this morning contempt and ridicule have been heaped on Mr Lusher as a result of this extraordinary state of affairs. One person stated that Mr Lusher's experiment was about as valuable as putting a first grade footballer in a wheelchair for a week and expecting him to be an expert on the problems faced by the disabled. I think 60 Minutes and Mr Lusher should seriously consider calling off this distasteful farce and leave the unemployed to what little dignity they have in going about their lives, trying to become productive citizens of this country. We can do without this sort of distasteful nonsense and, if Mr Lusher will not reconsider his position, I hope that his colleagues will reconsider it and somehow manage to get him to stop this nonsense. Senator CHIPP —Has the Attorney-General seen a copy of an obscene publication entitled 'Your Rights 1984', written by a Mr John Bennett? Can the Attorney explain why such a person was invited to the National Crimes Commission Conference in July 1983, given his repeated assertions that the destruction of 6 million Jews in nazi Germany was a hoax perpetrated by Jews in order to drum up emotional support for Israel? Does the Minister believe that the Government ought to elevate the public status of an individual who has become so obsessed with this issue that his opinions are now those of a virulent anti-Semite, who knowingly would offend millions of decent people whose friends and relatives were deliberately and cold-bloodedly murdered by the Nazis? Is the Attorney- General concerned that Mr Bennett has urged unauthorised endorsements of individuals, including that of the Attorney-General as I understand it, to be seen, falsely, to be giving support to the offensive, immoral and obscene lies that Mr Bennett espouses with regard to the holocaust? Will the Minister assure the Senate that no Commonwealth Government funds have been used to support the so-called civil liberties organisation to which Mr Bennett claims he belongs or to fund the publication of 'Your Rights 1984'? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have seen a copy of the booklet by John Bennett entitled 'Your Rights 1984' and I have moreover seen my name appearing on the back cover by way of an alleged endorsement of it. I will say something about that in a moment. Mr Bennett was not an invited participant in the National Crimes Commission Conference held in the middle of last year. He did seek the right to attend and he was in the event, along with a number of other people, given a limited status as an accredited observer, in which capacity he spoke, I think on one occasion. There was no question of his being given, any more than anyone else, any financial assistance to attend the conference. He attended in his capacity as a long standing alleged civil libertarian and former convenor of the Victorian Council for Civil Liberties and now a one-man organisation known as the Australian Civil Liberties Union. Mr Bennett, although he has been in many ways for a long time a distinguished advocate of civil libertarian causes in this country-albeit perhaps a slightly eccentric one-in recent years has been a constant source of dismay to those genuinely concerned with the protection and recognition of civil liberties. What I believe started out as a genuine concern for free speech, a genuine concern for the application of historiographical principles to the documentation of the Second World War and, I think, an intellectually defensible exercise in weighing the claims of the so-called revisionist historians about the Second World War, has now become clearly, in the words of Senator Chipp, an obsession on his part. His views over the years have become increasingly unattractive, increasingly unpalatable and, moreover I believe, increasingly intellectually indefensible. Moreover, it is the case that Mr Bennett, simultaneously with this passion for rewriting the history of the Second World War and the holocaust, has become a staunch and very visible public defender of the re-establishment of the white Australia policy, and I suggest that those things are not entirely unconnected. I do not contest in any way, nor would any senator at least on this side of the Parliament, the right of Mr Bennett to express or indeed publish his views on this matter, but I certainly would not wish to associate myself or the Government in any way with the expression of the positions that he has increasingly taken and which he has now taken with a great deal of vigour and incongruity in chapter 14 of the 1984 edition of the booklet 'Your Rights 1984'. The booklet itself is primarily an updated rerun of material which ranks as a straightforward and helpful summary of citizens rights in a whole diversity of areas of criminal and civil law. As such- Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order, Mr President. The answers which have been given by the Attorney in Question Time this afternoon have been extremely long. I simply ask you to ask him to address the specific question in order to enable other questions to be asked. The PRESIDENT —I have been listening carefully. I think the Attorney-General is addressing his answer to the question. There is no point of order. I call the Attorney-General. Senator GARETH EVANS —Some years ago I did write a review of an earlier edition of this book in which I said-it was published in the Age-that the booklet constituted a remarkable feat of compression and was well worth the $1.50 or whatever the cost was at the time that the review was first printed. That endorsement does in fact appear on the back of this latest booklet without any indication that the endorsement relates to an earlier edition rather than the present one. I find this attempt to use my name as an endorsement of the booklet to be false and indeed bordering on the fraudulent. The booklet contains, as I said, a chapter expounding Mr Bennett's views about the Second World War, which are palpably offensive and, I believe, quite indefensible. I totally disassociate myself from them. I condemn the deceptive use of my review, and indeed many other endorsements that are printed on the back of this, in an attempt clearly to promote sales of a work which, in its present form, contains views and opinions and alleged statements of fact which are not only inaccurate but also abhorrent and, I believe, indefensible. Senator COATES —I ask the Minister for Veterans' Affairs: Has his Department taken any action, other than by newspaper advertisements, to advise disability pensioners who do not already receive a service pension that they may now be eligible to receive a service pension following changes in recent years in the treatment of their disability payments under the income test? Is it likely that significant numbers of veterans are unaware of their full entitlements? Will the Minister ensure that full information is made available to clients of his Department? Senator GIETZELT —The previous Government, I think in 1980, established a task force to look at the problems of conveying to Australian citizens their rights under existing laws, relating not only to the Department of Veterans' Affairs but also to the Department of Social Security and other such government departments. Arising out of that task force it was found that tens of thousands of citizens were not aware of their rights as far as Commonwealth entitlements and facilities were concerned. However, it was not until last year that the Department of Veterans' Affairs decided to commission W. D. Scott and Co. Pty Ltd to evaluate the Government's public information program. The report on that evaluation, which is now available, to some extent answers the question that Senator Coates has asked of me because it makes it clear that thousands of veterans are not aware of their rights to benefits administered by my Department , and I am sure to benefits administered by many other government instrumentalities. The survey that Scott carried out showed that of 2,000 veterans and war widows, only 57 per cent belonged to ex-service organisations, and 74 per cent would prefer to use departmental information channels but only 31 per cent did so. So it would appear that the Department, by placing emphasis upon conveying information through the ex-service community, has not in fact been reaching the very people it ought to reach, the people who should have had made available to them information about their particular rights in respect of disability pensions and the service pension. I think there is evidence that many veterans who are in receipt of disability pensions are not aware of the fact that having reached the age of 60, under certain criteria they are eligible for a service pension. Despite the efforts of the Department a lot more needs to be done. The report by W. D. Scott has made a number of serious recommendations which the Department is currently examining with a view to improving communication and therefore making available to people who, if made aware of their rights, would qualify for the many benefits available through the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Senator COATES —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. I ask the Minister: Can that report be made public or circulated to honourable senators? Senator GIETZELT —I do not see any particular difficulty in the report being made public. In fact I would be quite happy to table it. It is a rather large document. Sufficient copies are available for honourable senators. There is a precis of it here which I am quite happy to table. Having seen that, if honourable senators want copies of the report they will be made available. The PRESIDENT —The document has been tabled. Senator COLLARD —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. I point out that the Government has now had three weeks to consider whether it will table the Menzies report into the Sala case. Will the Attorney now table the report? If not, why not? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government has decided it will not table the Menzies report on the Sala affair of 1974, and there are four reasons which I would advance in support of an explanation of that decision. In the first place, the report is essentially that of a non-judicial investigation conducted to inform the Executive but not the general public, and its standing in that respect is not essentially different from the report of a law enforcement officer, which is traditionally not tabled. It will be recalled that police reports in the Age tapes matter were not tabled, and indeed will not be tabled or published by the Government. The second point I make is that, in the view of the Government, the queries raised in relation to the Sala matter have been adequately answered by my letter to Mr Steele Hall of 5 March, by my letter to Mr Boyle of 16 March, and by the answers numerous and lengthy that I have given in Parliament in response to specific questions. In the Government's view, it would be over-dignifying the present attacks and innuendos to table the full report. The third point I make is that not only is the report written for the information of Ministers rather than for general publication, but also it contains references-and this is a particularly important matter-to individuals, and especially allegations or suggestions reported by Mr Menzies to have been made by some individuals about other individuals that might reasonably be considered by the persons concerned as intrusions on their privacy or as otherwise offensive. I mention particularly in this respect that some of the individuals names in the report emerge at the end of the day and in the conclusions in the report as having only a remote connection with the central issues of the case; but it was necessary to explore their roles, their names having been mentioned in the course of the labyrinthine events surrounding this affair. My fourth and final point is that, if tabled and if, as usual, a resolution to authorise publication were to be passed, subsequent publication of the document would be absolutely privileged in relation to defamation, and this would be inappropriate having regard to the real status of the document. Senator CHANEY —Pursuant to standing order 363, I ask that the Minister table the document from which he is quoting. Senator GARETH EVANS —By all means. The PRESIDENT —The Minister will table that document. Senator HEARN —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Since 1978 patients in approved non-government nursing homes have been required to contribute towards their care and treatment. Under regulation 29 such amount has been maintained at a level equivalent to 87.5 per cent of the sum of standard age pension and supplementary assistance payable under the Social Services Act 1947. Does this regulation also apply to long term geriatric patients in the Launceston General Hospital? Is there any special relief for elderly people maintaining a home while in short term hospital or nursing home care? Senator GRIMES —Speaking from memory, I believe that Senator Hearn is right in her assertion that the fee in approved nursing homes is 87.5 per cent. I understand that that does not apply to those people who are long term patients in hospitals such as the Launceston General Hospital and who are there because of an inadequate number of other nursing home beds. I shall check the position with my colleague the Minister for Health and obtain a detailed answer for Senator Hearn. The only relief available to people in these circumstances in hospital is that the supplementary allowance, which is the rent allowance paid to eligible people on pensions, would still be paid. For instance, if they owned their own homes, there would be no relief. It is a matter in which we will take an interest, and matters of that sort certainly were taken into account when the Government planned the proposed assets test whereby we ensure that people would not be affected for at least 12 months after they went into such a nursing home. However, I shall find out from Dr Blewett the details required by Senator Hearn and give her a detailed answer as soon as possible. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I refer him to the Prime Minister's response to a suggestion on the Sunday television program last Sunday that the question of the alleged conduct of the judge referred to in the Age tapes should be reviewed by a panel of his peers headed by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia. I ask the Attorney-General: Is he aware that the Prime Minister's response to this suggestion was that it was a novel suggestion which had some attractiveness? Has the Attorney-General given any consideration to the proposal? If so, what is his attitude to the proposal? Has he discussed it with his Cabinet colleagues? If so, has the Government made any decision in relation to it? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government did give some consideration to this matter yesterday and resolved that although the proposal did have some elements that were attractive, as the Prime Minister said, basically it was not a proposal that was likely to be ultimately productive in satisfying everyone's concern about this particular matter. If there was any evidence that the Opposition is willing to accept the judgment of a group of the judge's judicial peers rather than pursuing the nonsense of a committee of inquiry, there might, of course, be something to be said for that. There does not seem to be, as I read it, much evidence that the Opposition is so minded. Equally, it would not appear that the proposal would have a great many attractions so far as the High Court is concerned, although its views have not been specifically sought by me. It might be thought to be a proposal which, while indeed having the attractions of a peer group review that were acknowledged by the Prime Minister, might nevertheless provide some difficulties, particularly of a technical kind, for the High Court. It is a proposal that was given due consideration but not thought in the event to be such as to warrant further pursuit. Senator ZAKHAROV —Has the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs read reports in the Press about allegations that she has refused to provide money for the Monash University Teaching Centre at the new Queen Victoria Hospital at Clayton in Victoria? Will the Minister inform the Senate whether those allegations have any foundation? Senator RYAN —I have read such reports in the Melbourne newspapers and I am amazed that those allegations continue to be made. I think they are being made by the Opposition in Victoria, which seems to be as devoid of ideas about how to promote its cause as the Opposition in this place. The fact of the matter is that Monash University has submitted a concept proposal to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission for the construction of clinical teaching facilities in the new Queen Victoria Medical Centre. It has been advised that the proposal has been approved in concept at a figure of $6m. That figure is based on June 1982 cost values. This approval indicates the Commission's agreement that the proposal warrants consideration along with other proposals as funds become available. The matter has been the subject of extended discussions between the Commonwealth and Victorian governments. I am aware of the high priority accorded to the project in the State. I have asked the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission to ensure that the proposal is considered in accordance with the normal planning processes for the 1985-87 triennium. Senator MARTIN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. How many employees has the Health Insurance Commission recruited from the private health funds since August 1983? What is the total number of additional Health Insurance Commission employees since August 1983? How many of the non-private health fund employees were recruited on a temporary contract basis and how many on a permanent basis? Senator GRIMES —I do not have the exact figures that Senator Martin asks for but I will certainly obtain them for her as soon as possible. When Medicare was introduced the Minister for Health announced, and I think I also said in answer to a question in this place, that we would be taking particular care to ensure that people employed by the private health insurance groups would receive preference for jobs. The Minister for Health has made certain efforts to ensure that this has happened. For instance, the Health Insurance Commission gives preference to former employees of health insurance funds. The Minister for Health has had consultations with various State Ministers for Health to see whether preference can be given to these employees by the State health departments. Discussions were held with the voluntary health insurance funds to ensure that we as a government knew just how many employees they were likely to put off. The restrictions on health insurance funds were lifted, as Senator Martin will know, to enable them to diversify their activities and in this way protect the jobs of those working in health insurance organisations. I know that the Minister for Health has the figures that Senator Martin requires. I will get them to her as soon as possible. I am sure I will be able to do so before the end of the week. Senator ROBERTSON —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. The Minister will be aware of the damage caused in the Northern Territory, particularly at Borroloola, by Cyclone Kathy. Will the Minister indicate what action the Federal Government intends to take to assist those people at Borroloola who have been adversely affected by the cyclone? Senator BUTTON —The damage to which Senator Robertson referred occurred last Friday morning, 23 March. I am advised that the emergency phase in relation to that cyclone is now over. I should say that a request came from the Northern Territory emergency services at the time of the cyclone for Royal Australian Air Force assistance. A Caribou aircraft and emergency supplies were sent to the area on Friday afternoon, some four hours, I believe, after the cyclone struck. On Friday afternoon the Prime Minister also sent a telex to the Northern Territory Government saying that the Federal Government stood ready to assist under the national disaster relief arrangements. As yet, there has been no reply from the Northern Territory Government to that offer from the Prime Minister last Friday. I am further advised that by Saturday, the day after the cyclone, all power and water supplies had been restored and the roads were open. So it appears that the worst effects of the cyclone were dealt with very quickly. Whether there will be any request from the Northern Territory under the national disaster relief arrangements remains to be seen. Senator CHANEY —I preface my question to the Attorney-General by referring him to the policy speech delivered by the Prime Minister on 16 February 1983 in the Sydney Opera House. The Prime Minister said, under the heading 'Law and Justice' : Among the measures we will vigorously pursue are a national Bill of Rights. I ask the Attorney-General: Is the Government vigorously pursuing this matter or have the realists in the Caucus again overruled the Attorney-General's proposal? If the decision has been taken not to proceed, is it intended to resurrect the proposal after the next election? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government is vigorously pursuing the Bill of Rights initiative. It is just that it will take us a little longer to vigorously pursue it than was originally anticipated. The short explanation for the Government's decision to defer the introduction of this measure, whilst still approving it in principle, is this: The measure makes sense only in the context of a package of legislation including reforms to the restructuring of the Human Rights Commission because the Commission will have a very substantial role in relation to the implementation and, in a sense, the enforcement of the Bill of Rights as well as, of course, having its responsibilities under the Racial Discrimination Act and the new Sex Discrimination Act. It was believed originally that it would be possible to introduce this whole package of measures this session. The Bill of Rights part of the package is very close to fruition, although I was hoping for more substantial consultations with the States and other relevant interest groups before actual introduction. That part of the package dealing with the restructuring of the Human Rights Commission, however, was, because of the complexity of some of the issues that revealed themselves, lagging somewhat behind. It became apparent that the whole package, including the machinery part of it, would not be ready for introduction until well into the Budget session. We would then be confronting a situation of an election year, albeit, perhaps, an election for only half the Senate. But it would be a context in which passions could be expected to rage fairly high. In that anticipated hothouse atmosphere it was thought unlikely that here in the Parliament, let alone in the community at large, it would be possible to have a calm and rational debate on this measure that its significance and importance justifies. We will be certainly pursuing this measure because we regard it as being of quite fundamental importance for the liberties of individual citizens. But we will be doing so at a later time than was originally anticipated. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. The Attorney- General appears to be saying that a decision has been taken not to introduce this legislation until after the next election, whenever that might occur. Is that correct? Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Chaney is entitled to draw whatever conclusions he likes from my remarks. Senator COLEMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to a statement by the United States Secretary of Defense, Caspar Weinberger, on page 33 of the February 1984 issue of the Defence Report, which states: Our strategy excludes the possibility that the US would initiate war. The US would use its military strength only in response to aggression, not to pre-empt it. Given this statement, will the Minister for Foreign Affairs press the United States Government to make an official announcement pledging no first use of nuclear weapons as the Soviet Union has already done? Will he request that Government, as part of that stated commitment, to discontinue such programs as the anticipatory retaliation program, which is simply another fancy phrase meaning 'first strike'? Senator GARETH EVANS —I thought I had sufficient material with me to give a sensible answer to Senator Coleman's question. In the absence of a brief on this , it is preferable for me to refer the matter to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and seek an early reply. Senator MESSNER —Did the Minister for Social Security advise the Senate recently that some 1,400 employees had been recruited to the Department of Social Security in anticipation of the passage of the assets test legislation and that these persons had been redeployed for more urgent tasks within the Department pending the Government's final determination of its direction? Is it a fact that many recruits have been offered employment in other departments and many have been stood down? Is this a clear indication that the Government has now abandoned its assets test legislation altogether? Senator GRIMES —No, it is not any such indication at all, nor is Senator Messner' s statement accurate. Some 1,500 people were employed in anticipation of the introduction of the assets test. I think I pointed out when I answered the previous question that these people have been deployed doing other tasks in the Department of Social Security. Some are being transferred on loan to such departments as the Australian Taxation Office, the Department of Housing and Construction-to deal with the first home owner's assistance scheme-the Department of Communications and, I believe, to the Australian Electoral Office. There is also a natural wastage of some 300 people per month in the Department of Social Security. At the moment, the Public Service Board, the Department of Social Security, Mr Dawkins and I are keeping a close watch on the redeployment of such people and the lending of such people to the Taxation Office. What we are doing is ensuring that people have useful employment. We are deploying those people to places where they can be usefully employed to carry out the task of government. It has nothing to do with the introduction or otherwise of the assets test. As Senator Messner knows, the assets test is being looked at at the moment by a review panel, which we hope will report back to the Government soon. The Government and, eventually, the Parliament, will then decide on the future of that test. Senator ROBERT RAY —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has the Australian Government taken any action to condemn the use of chemical weapons in the Iraq-Iran war? Secondly, what steps does the Government intend to take to ensure that such chemical weapons are outlawed? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, has made a number of public statements today since the report to the United Nations Secretary-General was released in New York yesterday, 26 March; that is, the report of a team of experts, including Australian defence scientist, Dr Peter Dunn, who was sent to Iran to investigate reports that chemical weapons had been used in the Iran-Iraq war. That report concluded, as honourable senators will be aware, that two chemical agents, sulphur mustard and tabun, have been used in the areas visited by the experts. Sulphur mustard is a blistering agent which was used widely in World War I and was responsible for the majority of gas casualties in that war. Tabun is a chemical weapon developed by nazi Germany during the Second World War. It is an extremely lethal nerve agent which kills with a quite horrific and agonising effect. It is the firm view of the Government, as would no doubt be expected, that there can be no justification whatever for the use of these barbaric weapons, which constitutes a clear breach of international law. Both Iraq and Iran, as well as Australia, are parties to the 1925 Geneva Protocol which prohibits the use of chemical weapons. The Minister for Foreign Affairs also briefs me that he has instructed his Department to raise the whole question once more with the Iraqi Government in the light of the United Nations report, and Australia's missions to the United Nations and elsewhere will also be initiating urgent consultation on what measures the international community can take against further use of these weapons. Senator WALTERS —Has the Minister representing the Prime Minister seen the article in the Tasmanian Mail reporting that compensation to Tasmania for the Labor Government's denying us construction of the Franklin dam will not extend beyond $25m in cash? Can the Minister say whether this report is in any way accurate? Senator BUTTON —I have not seen the report in the Tasmanian Mail. Senator Walters —Would the Minister like me to show him? Senator BUTTON —No. I would not like Senator Walters to show it to me. I am not able to comment on the veracity or otherwise of the report in the Tasmanian Mail . All I know is that the matter which Senator Walters refers to is the subject of discussions which have taken place today between the Prime Minister and the Premier of Tasmania and it would be presumptuous of me to try to anticipate the conclusions of those inquiries. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It concerns the Government's impending revision of the post-1984 assistance arrangements for the car industry and, in particular, the local content plan. Is the Minister aware of the view held by some sections of the industry that any further increase in the export credits scheme could lead to a further erosion of design and tooling skills within the Australian car industry? Will the Minister give an assurance that any possible changes to the local content plan will be made with a view to maintaining these skills within Australia? Senator BUTTON —I am aware of the concerns which Senator Foreman raises about sections of the motor vehicle industry and the component industry to possible changes which would lead to a further erosion of Australian design and also tooling for the motor vehicle industry. Those concerns have been expressed to me on a number of occasions. I remind Senator Foreman that the Government appointed the Car Industry Council, which is an industry body of representatives of plant manufacturers, component manufacturers, unions and others, in November last year to consider a number of questions relating to the post-1984 plan of the previous Government. The terms of reference which I drafted for the Car Industry Council specified that it should give consideration to design questions and how design elements might be retained in the Australian industry. The Car Industry Council, in its report, made some suggestions in relation to that matter which would have to be considered by the Government as a whole because basically they deal with questions of sales tax reductions and tax incentives of one kind or another. I mentioned the terms of reference of the Car Industry Council report simply to indicate that this important question has been in the minds of Ministers concerned for some time and it will remain so. The Government will certainly take those matters into account in considering the plan for the post-1984 period . Senator KILGARIFF —My question, which follows the lines of that asked by Senator Robertson, is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. It refers to the destruction which Cyclone Kathy caused to the Northern Territory town of Borroloola, an old historic town which still plays an important part in a remote area of the Territory. It has many Aboriginal and European residents. The Government is to be commended for indicating that aid is available. I note also that the Government is still awaiting advice from the Northern Territory authorities, which no doubt will come. It is reported that the Government is considering providing relief on a three to one basis. Can the Minister advise that contributions are expected and from which sources? Can he give more information regarding the matter? Senator BUTTON —No, I cannot give more information concerning the matter. I think that if Senator Kilgariff had listened carefully to the answer I gave to Senator Robertson he would realise that apart from his statutory function of trying to allow the electors of the Northern Territory to hear him in this place the question was really quite superfluous and irrelevant. Senator Kilgariff —I was talking about the three to one basis. Senator BUTTON —I understand that. I made it quite clear in my answer to Senator Robertson's question that this was a matter for discussion between the Commonwealth Government and the Government of the Northern Territory. Until the Northern Territory advises what the situation is in terms of the application of the natural disaster relief arrangements there can be no response from the Commonwealth Government. It will be a matter of ongoing discussion. Insofar as I am aware, I will advise the Senate at an appropriate time of any arrangements which are made. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(3.08) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The Australia-Japan Foundation has operated since 1976. This report concerns the 1982-83 financial year. Members of the Foundation are appointed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The legislation provides for up to 15 members of the Foundation. Currently the principal members include representatives of business, the academic world, the Public Service and the community. The Foundation's major functions are to encourage closer relationships between Australia and Japan and to further the mutual understanding between our two countries. Also, it has been given the function of promoting study in each country of the language, culture and tradition of the other. The Foundation was also established to encourage visits of groups and citizens between the two countries. Unfortunately, during 1982-83 the Foundation was hit, as were many other authorities, by the so-called razor gang. As a result of the cut-backs enforced by that body, two staff positions were lost which represented quite a significant reduction in the Foundation's staffing level. Further, in the 1982- 83 Budget there was a 10 per cent cut in funds available to the Foundation. According to this annual report, this considerably dislocated the Foundation's activities. The Australia-Japan Foundation is now seeking the restoration of funding, in real terms, to previous levels. Relations between Australia and Japan are now at an important stage. We are major trading partners. Japan is a major and vital market for Australian iron ore, coal, wool and beef but at present there is concern in some organisations about Australia's market share of key commodities. I instance coal and beef. Recently the Government had discussions with the Japanese Government about reports that Australia is to lose part of its share of the beef market in Japan. Traditionally we have supplied some 65 per cent of that market and unofficial reports appearing in the Press indicated that larger quotas were to be given to the United States, to the disadvantage of Australian beef producers. I welcome the Government's actions in stepping in and making its views known on that matter. Recently the Japanese Prime Minister made some interesting comments about the need for further co-operation among the Pacific Basin countries. These views are particularly interesting, given that the two largest industrial nations in the world now border either side of the Pacific Ocean-the United States, the largest industrial nation, and Japan, the second largest industrial nation. Certainly the emphasis in world trade and affairs must be shifting to the Pacific region as a result of the emergence of Japan as a major industrial power. A study of Pacific Basin trade flows and investment flows between the major countries, as proposed by Mr Nakasone, would be very useful and something in which the Australian Government could play a role. I certainly took note of the comments made by Mr Hawke late last year in Thailand when he called for countries of the western Pacific region to work together, for example, to secure generally agreed objectives such as common positions in multilateral trade negotiations. Of course Japan would be a major party to those negotiations. An opportunity for members of Parliament to study and learn about Japan is provided under the biennial exchange provided for in the agreement between the two countries. Together with other members of this chamber, I visited Japan last year as a member of the all party exchange. We inspected, at our request, Japanese high technology industry. The steel and motor vehicle industries were other industries that we had the opportunity of visiting. We were struck by developments in the Japanese computer industry but noted some concern among Japanese industrialists that, while a relatively high percentage of expenditure is devoted to research and development, a relatively small proportion of that amount actually goes to original research and development. A major debate is occurring in Japan about the level of original research and the relatively higher level of moneys being spent on development and application rather than on the development of new ideas. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(3.14) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The annual report of the Tasmanian State Grants Commission is made, pursuant to State legislation, to the two Houses of the Tasmanian Parliament. But under Commonwealth legislation, because after all it is Commonwealth money, the report is tabled in this House and, I understand, in the House of Representatives. The report is dated 18 August 1983. It has been more than a little delayed in reaching this chamber and I ask the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs ( Senator Ryan) whether she could, through the appropriate channels, inquire into the reasons for the delay between the presentation of this report on 18 August 1983 and its appearance here. I would like to draw attention to two aspects of the report. One is that Tasmania's entitlement was initially fixed at 2.86 per cent of the total. That was under the Commonwealth legislation when it was first introduced in 1976. Following a limited review conducted by the Commonwealth Grants Commission in 1977, the State's proportion was increased to 3.1977 per cent of the total funds available, and this percentage has remained unchanged since 1977-78. I trust that, notwithstanding certain matters which may even be going on at the moment involving discussions between the State of Tasmania and the Commonwealth, there is no question that Tasmania's entitlement under the Commonwealth tax sharing legislation will in any way be reduced from that agreed percentage. If anything, for the sorts of reasons that are set out in the report, it should be increased. One of the reasons to which I will refer very briefly is set out at page 7 of the report. It refers to the impact on the revenue side of local government of the drought as well as of the economic recession. Because many of the rural municipalities in Tasmania face delays in the collection of their rate revenue, they must bear an interest cost and the subsequent losses suffered. Many rural property owners have been severely hit by the drought and have been unable to make rate payments on time or only over a period. Therefore, I simply draw attention to the report, ask for an explanation of the reason for the delay and point to the importance to the State of Tasmania and its local government bodies of the two aspects of the allocation; that is, the 3 .1977 per cent of the total funds available under the basic legislation, and the 2 per cent which goes directly to local government, which was first introduced by the former Government for the year 1980-81 and which was an action warmly applauded by local governments throughout Australia. It was certainly sorely needed. Local government is probably the area of government most limited in its capacity to increase its income and therefore is deserving of continued favourable consideration by the Commonwealth and State governments of this country. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(3.18) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This report has arrived on our desks somewhat earlier than the report in respect of the year 1981-82 which arrived immediately after the mini-Budget, as I recall it, last May. The point raised by the Opposition about that report at that stage was whether there would be any specific exemptions in respect of taxation to be applied to lump sum superannuation payments payable to Defence Force personnel. Apparently in the course of the last ten or so months the Government has considered this matter but has not moved in any particular way to exempt Defence Force personnel from its proposed legislation. I hasten to add that in fact no legislation has been brought down notwithstanding that we were first given notice of the Government's proposal some ten months ago. During the period since then we have been wallowing in ignorance of the Government's final intentions in this area. Of course, the matter has been the subject of the same kinds of connotations as were applied to the Government's disastrous handling of the proposed assets test legislation. Clearly, the Government is headed for another disaster with this one. It is significant to note that the Government failed to introduce the legislation ahead of the New South Wales election. That, of course, is an obvious example of its trying to hoodwink the voters in that State about the state of the Government's legislative program but, more particularly, to give some indication to them that, in light of its actions over the assets test legislation, it is also reconsidering the effect of lump sum superannuation tax. I think we have to acknowledge that the Government has shown some common sense in this regard by moving in such an obtuse way as to allow Defence Force personnel to commute the four-year pension to a five-year pension. That has yet to be confirmed, as I said, because we have not seen any legislation. But the net effect of that action, naturally enough, is to make sure that each Defence retiree receives less in the way of pension to keep himself alive after his retirement. So it is not as though any concession has been given to Defence Force personnel by the Government's action in lump sum superannuation; in fact, the reverse is true because over a period the Defence Force retiree will have lost the value of that taxation from his net benefits. I think it needs to be said that the Government appears to have lost its sense of direction on the whole question of retirement policy. That has been acknowledged by the Government through its past actions in relation to the assets test. It is pretty clear too that the people of Australia have acknowledged that in the course of election campaigns run since May 1983. I think the Government is labouring under a basic misapprehension on the whole question of lump sum superannuation and indeed ought to come to its senses about the tax treatment of this matter. In fact the whole justification for the Government's imposition of the tax has been on the basis that there is somehow some inequity between the way in which lump sums are treated for tax purposes and the way in which annuities and pensions are treated; that is, that only 5 per cent of a lump sum is included for income tax purposes in the year that it is received whereas the tax on annuities and pensions is payable in full each year. The point has to be made that in fact once a lump sum is invested the investment return from that sum is taxable in the same way as is a pension and an annuity. Therefore, how can it be argued that there is inequity in the treatment of that? Indeed the original premise for the establishment of the lump sum taxation regime was simply that tax was to be collected from that lump sum in the first year to ensure that some part of it was brought to tax that year. Thereafter the investment return will suffer tax in the same way as annuities and pensions do at present. We, on this side, see very little difference in the overall tax treatment. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(3.24) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This statement was made by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) in the House of Representatives on 7 March 1984. I do not intend to traverse the same area as was covered by the shadow Minister for Immigration, Mr Michael Hodgman. I wish to raise a couple of other issues that I think arise out of the Minister's statement. Last year the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs made a statement to the Parliament on the Government's objectives and priorities in relation to Australia's immigration program. At the time he said that he wanted to change the emphasis-on some occasions he called it the bias-of the previous Government's immigration program. Certain targets were set for the Hawke Government in terms of numbers and priorities. The statement by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, delivered recently in the House of Representatives, outlined a number of failures in terms of targeted immigration programs and the bases of such programs. The Minister stated that the Government's original immigration intake expectations for 1983- 84 were in the range of 82,000 to 90,000 people. In the statement made on 7 March 1984 that estimate has been revised downwards to a figure of 70,000. The Minister criticised the Fraser Government for the fact that in 1982-83 there were 83,000 arrivals in Australia. He criticised it on a number of grounds, including whether the Fraser Government had reached the targets it had set itself and announced specifically in the family reunion category. The Minister pointed out that the targets set by the Fraser Government in 1982-83 were not met in the family reunion category and instanced that as a criticism of the program. Nevertheless, in 1982-83 the Fraser Government's program was so successful that 13,000 more people came to Australia than the present Government will manage in 1983-84, despite the fact that the Government set itself a higher target than that achieved by the Fraser Government in 1982-83. It had set an upper target, a ceiling, of 90,000. Senator Robertson —You said 125,000. Senator MARTIN —If Senator Robertson reads my speech, he will understand the point I am making. The area on which the Minister dwelt in his statement is category C, involving family reunions of brothers, sisters and non-dependent children. He pointed out that the family reunion numbers will not be more than 16,000 in that category and that applications and admissions have fallen far short of what was anticipated. I am puzzled by that. A large number of immigration representations go through my office. The area in which I meet with the greatest change in effect of the Government's policy in terms of success in this family reunion category involves adult brothers or sisters and their families, people who migrated to this country some time ago. That is the most difficult area. I have one case where a family, middle-aged people, had had indicated to them that they would be allowed to come. This was at a time when assets were a factor-a factor which has now been downgraded by the present Government. Members of the family had sold their homes, but when the official letter came from Australia House they were told that they had been rejected. They have, of course, lodged an appeal, but that is fairly typical of cases that occurred last year. By rearranging its priorities, the Government is discriminating against these people. I suggest to the Minister that, since his targets are falling so far short of what the Government had hoped for, he might re-examine this area. The Minister, quite rightly, in his statement to Parliament last year said that nobody should be able to buy his or her way into Australia, and I agree with that. But we are talking of people who have families here, who are established, who have been here for some time, and who have independent means of support and money to invest in this country. Australia needs that investment. We have been hearing from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in recent times how much this country needs investment because such investment means jobs for Australians, yet such people are being downgraded in their eligibility. The fact that they have money to invest and can be self-sufficient is no longer as important a category as it used to be, and the Government denies its own economic priorities. I have almost exhausted my time in this debate and I shall refer to only one more matter. The Minister said in his recent statement: . . . on balance the Government feels that the changes made to the points assessment systems last May-- which is the system about which I have been speaking- have already significantly moderated previous bias in favour of highly skilled, English speaking, youthful and affluent migrants. I do not know whether it was a bias but, whatever it was, I ask the Minister: What is wrong with highly skilled, English speaking, youthful and or affluent migrants? I do not say they are the only desirable migrants, but I would have thought that they were desirable traits in migrants. Something in our program that encouraged people with those characteristics would possibly be a good aspect. Perhaps the Government might rethink its views and stop referring to these things as a bias as though they were something negative. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.31) —I wish very briefly to enter the debate on the statement on the migration program. I feel that the whole question of the migration program needs a broader debate than five minutes permits but I want to raise a couple of issues. I would be concerned if the intake of refugees was limited by this program that is before us today. Of course it is important to achieve, if possible, a well-oiled orderly departure program from Vietnam. But I would be concerned if in some way or another the Government or the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs was offsetting the numbers coming in on that program against the numbers that Australia should be accepting in the overall refugees program, particularly from this part of the world. Some questions about the migration of Asian people to Australia have been raised in the community recently. I deplore the underlying racism that is inherent in those sorts of statements. Senator Peter Rae —But you are not suggesting that Professor Blainey was racist in his remarks, are you? There may be some who are, but you are not suggesting that about Professor Blainey, are you? Senator HARRADINE —I think Professor Blainey should stick to history. He has no qualifications in this particular respect. As a matter of fact, as Chairman of the Australia-China Council, his comments were most ill-fitting because many of the refugees who came from Vietnam were ethnic Chinese. I point out also that many people in category A are finding it most difficult to get into the orderly departure program from Vietnam. I am talking about spouses of people who are already here. I know of a number of such cases. In one particular case, a woman with four young children has been battling on her own. Her husband has had his application in and has been sponsored for some considerable time. I just wonder whether people like him who are prepared to give the orderly departure program a go and who have not the wherewithal to do otherwise are somehow put at the bottom of the list. I am not suggesting that there is anything untoward happening in the Department. I believe that the Department has an enormous job to do and is doing it with efficiency. But I fear , as do quite a number of people, that something more than the agreement that has been reached by the Australian Government and the Vietnam Government in respect of the orderly departure program is required. Senator Martin —That is by the Vietnamese Government? Senator HARRADINE —That is by the Vietnamese authorities. With respect to the person to whom I am referring, an exit permit has been issued by us. Somehow or another, because of the place that he is in in Vietnam, he cannot seem to get on the list. I would hope that in discussions between our Government and the Vietnamese authorities it is emphasised that in order for this to be a creditable orderly departure program it must be engaged in with a good deal of integrity on both sides. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(3.36) —I join in debate on the statement on the migration program very briefly to say that I agree with the remarks of the two previous speakers. I point out to the Senate that when I was overseas recently some people in Australian posts in European countries said that at this stage they have a lot of difficulty in justifying the number of migration officers they now have associated with their posts. The number of people who are being allowed into this country from European countries-those I would call our traditional countries for immigrants-is so small that the officers that go there to do the health work and the permanent appointees there are now not required to the extent they were in years gone by. Senator Martin —Are they getting applications for family reunion that are being rejected? Senator TOWNLEY —I cannot answer that. But I can say that when I was in the United States I also spoke about this matter to somebody who should know about it because of past experience in immigration matters. This person said that it was now almost impossible for someone from the United States to get into this country. It seems to me quite ridiculous that people who would like to come to this country, people who would add to likely employment rather than be a cost to the country, find great difficulty in getting into Australia. Senator Martin —This is the business category? Senator TOWNLEY —It is the business category I believe the honourable senator spoke about a moment ago. I believe the Government should look at this category very closely. We should look at our traditional areas as well as these other areas that are now being gone into. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory) —I seek leave to make my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator JESSOP(South Australia) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —In accordance with the provisions of the Audit Act 1901, I present the report of the Auditor-General upon audits, examinations and inspections carried out under the provisions of the Audit Act and other Acts, dated 26 March 1984. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Pursuant to the resolution of the Senate of 22 May 1980 relating to the release of evidence and documents of Senate committees that are more than 10 years old, I report to the Senate that the President has authorised the release of a document submitted to the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse. The document is an opinion dated 10 April 1970 of the Attorney-General's Department relating to Commonwealth law on the advertising of drugs and the President has authorised the Department of Health to provide the document to Amatil Ltd in response to a request under the Freedom of Information Act. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —by leave-I would like to place it formally on the record, as the former Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange, which was formed at the beginning of the 1970s and which reported first in 1974 and then in 1975, that undertakings were given in relation to a large percentage of the documents provided to that Committee that they would never be made public. I would like that to be formally recorded. I take this opportunity to put that in Hansard and on the record. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —I present the seventy-fourth report of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, being a report of consideration of delegated legislation for 1983. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, I present the reports relating to the following proposed works: Construction of facilities for a tactical fighter squadron, RAAF base Darwin, Northern Territory-supplementary report relating to the engine runup facility; New building for the Australian Film and Television School, North Ryde, New South Wales; Reconstruction of pyrotechnic section at the munitions filling factory, St Marys, New South Wales; and Forty-seventh general report. Ordered that the reports be printed. Senator FOREMAN —by leave-Once a year the Public Works Committee is required by its Act to report to Parliament on its activities over the preceding 12 months. The report contains factual information on such matters as Committee membership, number of meetings held and details of the various works referred to it and the number of reports presented. The report highlights the new area of work now being examined; namely, those relating to statutory bodies and overseas embassies. This widening of the Committee's purview resulted from recent amendments to the Public Works Committee Act. Two further amendments to the Act are foreshadowed in this report: One is to cover the possibility of work being declared urgent by the Governor-General because of an emergency situation, the other to raise the current mandatory limit of work being referred to the Committee from $2m to $6m and that the Committee be given discretionary power to examine works estimated to cost between $2m and $6m. For the benefit of honourable senators, officials and others likely to be dealing with the Committee and the public generally, I turn now to the functions of the Committee. The Committee, as expeditiously as is practicable, considers each public work that is referred to it in accordance with the Public Works Committee Act and makes a report to both Houses of Parliament concerning the expedience of carrying out the work. It also reports on any other matters related to the work in respect of which it thinks it desirable that its views should be reported to both Houses. It may recommend any alterations to the proposals for the work that, in its opinion, are necessary or desirable to ensure that the most effective use is made of the moneys to be expended on the work. It is the practice for the Chairman of the Committee to read out sub-section 17 (3) of the Public Works Committee Act at the commencement of each public hearing . This sets out the pertinent matters to be taken into consideration when the Committee reports on a public work. Honourable senators may be assured that the members of the twenty-seventh Committee will continue to uphold the tradition of all former committees in its important role as a watchdog, on behalf of Parliament, over proposed expenditure on public works. I commend the report to honourable senators. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs) —by leave-For the information of honourable senators, I present details of the membership of the National Advisory and Co-ordinating Committee on Multicultural Education. The establishment of this Committee was recommended by the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs following its evaluation of post-arrival programs and services in 1982. This Government endorsed the proposal in September last year and in November placed advertisements in the national Press calling for nominations. Communities and other interest groups were also asked to advise their members of the establishment of the Committee. Following receipt of the nominations, my Department has been engaged in a process of consultation with the States and Territories on actual membership. In arriving at the final nominees I have taken into account the fact that the membership should reflect the broad spectrum of Australian society. I am confident that, on examining the membership list, honourable senators will agree that this group of people does just that. The Committee will fill an important role in providing advice on the needs of multicultural education for those in schools and tertiary institutions and for those outside the formal education system. More specifically, the Committee will advise me on matters relating to multicultural education; co-ordinate, monitor and review multicultural programs and activities; and determine an appropriate procedure for information exchange on multicultural education and put that procedure into practice. This Government believes it is essential that our education system should adequately accommodate the changing ethnic composition of the Australian community. There is considerable ethnic diversity in our society. This provides excellent opportunities for cultural and educational enrichment. For too long this wealth of cultural resources has been ignored or under utilised. This Committee should help to change that situation. It will help to identify those resources and to advise on how best they can be tapped and drawn upon for the benefit of all Australians. I am sure that honourable senators will agree that the establishment of the Committee is long overdue and will enhance the Commonwealth's efforts in multicultural education, extensive as these already are. The Chairman and membership of the Committee are as follows: Professor D. L. Jayasuriya, Head, Department of Social Work and Social Administration, University of Western Australia (Chairman) Mrs A. Eckstein, Victorian Department of Education Mr J. Giles, Assistant Director-General, South Australian Department of Education Ms E. Hopkins, ESL teacher, Bruce College of Technical and Further Education, Australian Capital Territory Mr J. Lo Bianco, Policy Development Officer, Victorian Teachers Union Ms V. Nihas, professional assistant, multicultural education, New South Wales Ministry of Education Mr H. Overberg, Senior Lecturer in Education, Victoria College, Rusden Campus Ms H. Rudnik, Consultant, New South Wales Board of Adult Education Ms M. Schinella, Principal, Mt Carmel Primary School, Rosewater, South Australia Ms R. Tang, Supervisor, Child Migrant Education Program, Catholic Education Commission of Western Australia Ms M. Valadian, Co-director, Aboriginal Training and Cultural Institute, Sydney Mr R. Warry, Director, Planning and Services, Queensland Department of Education. The Government has also accepted nominations from Tasmania and the Northern Territory, but negotiations are still in progress with local authorities regarding their endorsement and release to work on the Committee. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.50) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) indicated that the establishment of the National Advisory and Co-ordinating Committee on Multicultural Education arose out of the work of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs which conducted an evaluation of post-arrival programs and services in 1982. This was an evaluation initiated by the former Government. I am delighted to see that the present Government is acting upon the recommendations from that evaluation. It was a Fraser Government initiative but it required follow-up action. We appreciate that the Hawke Government is doing this. I do not know all the members appointed to the Committee. I therefore offer no comments upon whether they will be suitable for the job which the Minister has set for them. However, we wish them well in trying to achieve what the Minister has said are the objectives: to enhance the Commonwealth's efforts in multicultural education. Professor Jayasuriya is known to us from his work. I am delighted to see Ms Margaret Valadian's name on the list because we know of her work in Aboriginal education. A couple of points need to be made in relation to the work done by AIMA when it carried out the evaluation of post-arrival programs and in relation to what the Government expects from this new Committee. First, I would have thought that the main thrust of the work done in the evaluation should have related to outcomes. It was my impression-I put this on record publicly-that one of the grave deficiencies of the evaluation by AIMA was that it concentrated largely on structure and process and was often very intrusive in the recommendations that it made in various departmental functions. To my mind, whilst it was extremely detailed and prescriptive, it was not what I would have thought was one of the best evaluations I have seen. I did not think all its recommendations were terribly good. I refer particularly to its quite prescriptive recommendations in relation to the structure and conduct of technical and further education in Australia. That evaluation recommended the ways in which certain moneys available to TAFE should be spent in certain programs. In fact, it hypothecated them and made the moneys unavailable for any other purpose. I am sorry that that course was followed. There was considerable public disquiet from within the technical and further education sector when that course was followed. I return to the question of outcomes. I observe to the Minister that there is nothing in her statement which really talks about the outcomes she wants to achieve either for multicultural education as a result of this Committee being established or for mainstream education and its appreciation of multicultural needs. This Committee is a new structure and a new group. It will meet, its members will talk with each other and will no doubt interview people. However, unless it produces outcomes which will do something for education in Australia then it will not have proven itself or justified its existence. This Committee may be an eminent one, but I believe that the challenge for it is that, in a year or so, it will look back on what it has done, carry out an evaluation and look for outcomes which it has produced for education in Australia. For my part, that is how I will judge it. I will not judge it by the way it has met, the frequency of its meetings or by the kind of recommendations it puts out. In the end I will judge it upon its capacity to alter education in Australia to produce better results for multicultural and mainstream education in ways which are probably desirable having regard to the kind of society which the Minister has identified and the kind of community which she identified in her statement. Having said all that, we wish the Committee well. We will watch with some interest to see whether it can influence or alter what is done in Australia or whether it is just one more group meeting and talking to itself and no doubt imagining it is doing marvellous things if nothing changes on the ground. Question resolved in the affirmative. Assent to the following Bills reported: Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1984 Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 1984 Foreign Proceedings (Excess of Jurisdiction) Bill 1984 Sex Discrimination Bill 1984 Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to this Bill. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(3.55) —by leave-I move: That the time for the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs to report on the National Crime Authority Bill 1983 and the National Crime Authority (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1983 be extended to 1 May 1984. Honourable senators will recall that when these Bills were referred to the Committee on 17 November 1983 the Committee was given until 30 April 1984 to report. Under the new pattern of sittings, 30 April occurs at the end of a three -week non-sitting period and the last sitting day before 30 April is 6 April. In order to give the Committee the time originally intended by the Senate, I have moved this motion to allow it to report on the first sitting day after 30 April. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 7 March, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(3.57) —We are discussing the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1983 to which the Opposition has foreshadowed an amendment. I intervene briefly in the debate to outline a couple of my policies on taxation. Of course, taxation is one of the main interests of the public. I think nearly every person who gets a pay slip each week scans it to see what has happened with the rates of taxation. Many have noticed recently that the amount taken for taxation has increased due to the Medicare levy. Of course, most people would prefer to see their rates of taxation decreasing. I cannot see that happening for a long time because at the moment this Government is very much a taxing government. Somehow this year it has got away with imposing a huge deficit on this country. It has blamed the previous Government for it but I do not believe that blame is properly placed upon the previous Treasurer of the previous Government. This Government used the foreshadowed deficit, before any adjustment by the previous Government, to get into the pattern of things that those of us who have been here during the term of Labor Party governments recognise; that is, they just love to spend money. They seem always to take the line that leads Australia to become more deeply in debt. A few minutes ago I was looking at figures that show that in this country we are now spending almost as much on interest bills as we are on education- certainly within a few percent. If the trends that are obvious from the graphs I drew from those figures continue, next year we will spend more on interest than we do on education. At the moment our interest bill, as a part of the total Budget outlays, is over 7 per cent. It has been going up quite dramatically over the last two years. I believe that during the time of the Liberal Government there was an attempt, if one looks at the graph, to contain the percentage of Budget outlays spent on interest payments. That is one of the reasons why the Liberal Party was trying so hard to keep the Budget deficits under control. To say that it would have allowed a deficit of the magnitude that is being seen by this country in today's climate is absolute rubbish. For the record, we are now in debt per head by about 20 per cent more than Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Chile or Poland. They are the countries that the International Monetary Fund is quite worried about. In fact, during the weekend there were articles in the local Press showing the concern of that Fund about what is going on in those countries. If we are not very careful in this country we could be placed under the same kind of restrictions that are being enforced on those countries if they are to get the money they need to keep the country rolling. If, perchance, Japan did not continue to buy our iron and coal, if the left wing of the Labor Party got away with restricting sales of uranium and if we had a bad year for wheat, this country would be in quite a mess. We could easily be placed in the same kind of situation as that of the countries I mentioned a moment ago. I have been taking a look ahead at taxes. I think that under Labor they will do nothing but increase. I believe that governments have the right, if taxes are to increase, to decide how they will be increased. If they want to increase pay as you earn tax it is their decision. If they want to increase excise duties, payroll tax or sales tax, as has been done, that is entirely their decision. But I do not believe that governments have any right to take money from people retrospectively. That is the real reason I have entered this debate. I do not believe that the Government has any right, for example-I am not suggesting for a moment it is doing it in this case-to apply retrospectivity to pay as you earn tax. The Government for one reason or another toward the end of a financial year could bring in legislation that imposed taxation right back to the beginning of the financial year or even further. We have seen situations-Liberal-Country party governments have been as much at fault as Labor Party governments-in which taxes brought in in the Budget towards the end of August have been backdated to the beginning of July. That is entirely wrong. I believe that any taxation imposed should be imposed only from the date of its announcement. This has been said by several other people in this place today. To do otherwise, I believe, is unfair and dishonest. It almost becomes a matter of stealing from a person money that he may have already spent. I have always opposed retrospective taxation for whatever reason. I opposed it when the Liberal-Country Party Government was in power and I always will oppose it. In the times I have spoken previously on this matter I have said that I believe that retrospectivity in taxation should be unconstitutional. In fact, I have had a referendum Bill in my desk for several years. I believe that if such a referendum were presented to the public of this country people would wholeheartedly support it. I do not believe that the people of this country are automatically against referenda. Referenda are usually brought in because a government wants to get something. It does not want to give the public something ; it wants to make life easier for itself. That seems to be the way with many referenda that have been in and out of this place over the time I have been here . Very few of them really do much for the public. They seem to do things for government and that is why the voter tends to kick them out. Voters should never be under- estimated. I have always had a high admiration for the intelligence of the public. People can understand the difference between making something illegal retrospectively and otherwise. I will be voting to oppose any retrospective clauses in this Bill. In other words, I will be supporting the moves by the Opposition to get rid of the retrospectivity and, if those clauses cannot be removed, I will vote against the whole Bill. As I said, the Government has the right to decide how it will tax the people of this country. People had better believe that they will be taxed very heavily over the next few years. Governments have a right to impose taxation from a certain time but in my opinion they have absolutely no right to impose tax retrospectively. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(4.08) —I rise to speak on the second reading of the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1983. It is an important Bill insofar as it deals with taxation and, as Senator Townley said, this is now a matter of major public concern because we face ever-increasing taxation. That should not be a surprise to anyone who knows anything about Australian politics because the Australian Labor Party is always indissolubly linked with high taxation policies. We are suffering high taxation at the present time-an increasing level of high taxation, as Senator Townley said-because of the lack of business understanding and the lack of feeling for how to manage the economy that is manifested so much in this Government. It is worth reminding the Australian public that one of the big problems we suffer is the problem of inflation. We thank for inflation the Whitlam Government of 1972 to 1975 which blew apart the Australian economy. We tried to control it and, in fact, we went a long way towards controlling it in the years we were in government. But now we are faced with a reckless and irresponsible deficit. This year's deficit is absolutely inexcusable. It should have been wound back because of the increase in the state of the economy which has come from the breaking of the drought, the consequences of the improvement in overseas trade and the effects of the pay pause which was introduced by the Federal Liberal Government which preceded this Government. We have a deficit that is comparable in respect of gross national product to the horrendous United States deficit. How many people in Australia realise that the deficit position that the Labor Party has put us into is every bit as bad as the deficit that the United States Government suffers at present? It is not a paper entry; it is a fact of life. Senator Townley rightly drew the attention of members of this chamber to the fact that we will pay more and more for the interest on that debt because of the borrowings that the Government has to enter into. Australians will have to pay more by way of interest rates on our homes, cars and everything that we buy because of the competition in the market-place from Government bond issues. Senator Messner —It brings more unemployment, too. Senator MacGIBBON —Yes, there will be increasing unemployment. Investors and business people say: 'Why should we invest when there is no return and if we are to be ripped off by a rapacious Labor Government?' During the New South Wales election campaign in the streets of Sydney the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) begged: 'Please invest more'. Nothing happened. It is a simple business equation. If we look at the increase in taxation which will arise through the introduction of Medicare we will see what an immoral proposition it is. The Government will never make Medicare work. The problems will run on for ages. How can the Government tax people for a system at the rate of one per cent, 2 per cent next year or 3 or 4 per cent and then not deliver the goods? The Government should have fixed up the problems before it introduced Medicare. I return to the point on which I started: There is a need for taxation reform in this country; there is a need for a simple system of levying tax, a system which everyone can understand. Above all, there is a need for an incentive so that people will produce and be creative in a commercial sense. That is the only way we will ever get the unemployment rate down. It is the only way we will grow and develop as a country. The Labor Party has no intention of bringing in an incentives system. It does not want people to earn money because it is very much part of the socialist objective that people become dependent on the state. A fundamental part of that is to deprive them of their own capital so that they do not have any independence and ultimately lose their freedom. Two parts of the Bill have attracted my attention. The first concerns tax avoidance practices in relation to superannuation funds. The second concerns the special concessions in relation to Australian trading ships. Dealing with the tax avoidance practices in relation to superannuation funds, I indicate that I have no truck at all with dishonest perpetrators of schemes, that is, those who are involved in fraud. I will support any government that wants to stamp out fraud in that way. Where I depart from supporting this Government is in respect of the retrospectivity aspect of this part of the Bill. It is not my fault; it is the fault of incompetent bureaucrats that legislation has stayed in place for years and has not been corrected. Now that legislation has been brought forward I am prepared to support it, but I am not prepared to go back and deprive people who, in the main, entered into commercial agreements in good faith. Before the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) flies to his feet and asks me where I was in previous times, I will reaffirm for his knowledge that I was the first person in my State, and probably in the whole of the country, to oppose retrospective taxation moves. I voted against them when they were introduced by the previous Government. I have no problems at all with the prospective clauses of this Bill, but I have a total incompatibility with the retrospective elements and I will vote against the clause in accordance with the Opposition's amendment. If the Government does not have the sense to accept that , I will have to vote against the whole Bill despite the fact that there are some very good parts in it that need supporting. The second part of the Bill to which I want to refer concerns the special concessions for Australian trading ships. I have no quarrel with this part of the Bill. I think that the intention of this part of the Bill is excellent. In the longer term it aims to re-establish the Australian merchant marine, which is something that is long overdue in the national interest. An effective merchant marine is a national asset. I believe that rail and sea transport in Australia has been grossly underused and mismanaged through this century. There are great economic benefits to this country in our having a good and efficient merchant marine and a good rail system. The rail services in the States have been mismanaged by government monopoly controls. Regrettably, the merchant marine has suffered at the hands of the Australian union movement. But there is a real place for that service where bulk cargo is to be moved and where speed is not a parameter. There is also a very important national benefit with respect to defence in possessing efficient transport services in both those mediums. With respect to the sea, the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia ashore and the seagoing unions have killed the goose that laid the golden egg. The part of the Bill that interests me is the part to which the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) referred in his second reading speech. He said: In addition, the level at which the ship is manned must not exceed the level determined for that ship by the Secretary to the Department of Transport. In other words, to qualify for the 20 per cent depreciation allowance on or after 29 July 1977, the ship must be manned in accordance with a figure put forward by the Secretary to the Department of Transport. I cannot resist making the comment that if I had $20m and wished to build a factory or buy plant or anything like that I would be entitled to claim a 20 per cent depreciation allowance without any reference at all to how many people I employed. Yet if I build a ship for the same amount, $20m, I have to comply with a requirement of the Department of Transport as to how many seamen or crew members I can put on board that ship. Be that as it may-it is a bit of an irrelevance-the importance of this clause is that there is no definition as to how the number of people manning a ship is arrived at. There is no explanation of the formula that might be used to arrive at the manning number. I would presume that if a shipowner did not meet the level determined for that ship by the Secretary to the Department of Transport he would receive none of his depreciation allowance. If that is so, I think it is unfair. Clearly, any improvement in productivity should be rewarded by the Government. As a legislator, I think that it is bad legislation not to have this definition. Its omission will make trouble in the future. It also places a very great responsibility on the Department of Transport. Regrettably, we cannot have the Secretary to the Department of Transport present at the Committee stage. If he were present I would like to ask him whether he welcomed this move and what his qualifications were to comment on how many crew members should be employed on a ship. Improving productivity and thereby getting costs down for the Australian merchant marine are worthwhile objectives but in this way it is a very cowardly path for the Government to follow. We have a circuitous route of the Government, in secret, telling the Secretary to the Department of Transport how many crew members there should be on a particular ship. Then we have the Secretary to the Department of Transport telling the shipowners, presumably in public, that they can have only so many crew members and then the shipowners having to tell the unions: 'Sorry, you can only have 20 people instead of the 40 people that you want on the ship'. Quite simply, that does not work. The Bill says that one may: . . . request the Secretary to vary the manning notice and, where the Secretary receives such a request, has had regard to any relevant industrial relations considerations and is satisfied that the manning notice in force in relation to the ship is no longer appropriate by reason of . . . What does that mean? Does it mean that if the shipowner has said to the unions that he needs to lower the manning strength, the unions will comply with his request? If they do not, does the ship- owner then go back to the Department of Transport and say: 'I am sorry, I tried and I can't get the manning figures down '? How does this square with the statements of the Minister for Transport, Mr Morris, in another place when he said that shipowners must be able to finance and man them competently? That was in relation to the manning of ships. Later in the speech, he said he had no support at all for seagoing unions which did not come to grips with modernisation of shipboard practice. Those of us who take some interest in union affairs will remember the River Boyne incident in Gladstone Harbour, Queensland, at the end of 1982. It was a bulk ship which was tied up for a very long period at a cost of millions of dollars. It was a coal burning ship that had just come on the run. That was a disastrous strike. Does anyone believe that that strike would have been averted by legislation such as this? I do not believe we can come to that conclusion. I support the intention of this part of the Bill but, as I have indicated, my concern is with how it will be implemented. One of the issues here is that of demarcation. We have far too many unions in the Australian maritime field. We have the Federated Marine Stewards and Pantrymens Association of Australasia, the Marine Cooks, Bakers and Butchers Association of Australasia, the Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers, the Merchant Service Guild of Australia , the Seamens Union of Australia, the Professional Radio and Electronics Institute of Australasia and the Professional Divers Association of Australasia. Those seven unions, and I think another three or four minor or State unions, are involved in the maritime trade. I return to the dispute involving the River Boyne. The owners of that ship reduced the manning strength dramatically. Most of the unions, including the Seamens Union and the Institute of Marine and Power Engineers, co-operated in that regard. All gave ground except the Merchant Service Guild of Australia. It ended up with one shipwright left in the crew. That was the sticking point. One remembers the long argument about who would drop a rope over a bollard to moor the ship. It was an issue of the utmost triviality. The fundamental point is that, because of the demarcation disputes among the unions, the matter was insoluble. I do not know how it was resolved. There was no way of arbitrating at the time to get over this point of demarcation. Surely if Mr Morris is serious in his claim that he wants to see modern manning practices in the Australian merchant marine area, the very first thing for the Government to do is amalgamate these seaborne unions which are now relics from the past. Incidentally, the ship owners in this case did achieve quite an increase in productivity. A manning strength of 31 was used on the River Boyne and that gave a 63 per cent increase in productivity with regard to tonnes per crew member per year. That is a very significant increase. The suggestion is that the departmental figure for manning strengths for that ship is 29, which would give a theoretical improvement in productivity of 74 per cent. If that figure is true , if the Department of Transport does have in mind a manning strength lower than that which was achieved by the owners, Bulkships Ltd, would the Minister for Resources and Energy be able in the Committee stage to inform us as to how the owners are to get another two members out of the crew? It may be with a reduction of that order that the owners could reduce the crew by several more because the number of stewards and cooks might be able to be reduced. Beyond this matter of demarcation, we come to a larger issue facing Australia- that of compulsory unionism and the closed shop of the waterfront. That leads to all the matters such as overtime and penalty rates and the fact that Australian crews do nothing other than carry out pure watchkeeping duties. They cannot be used for maintenance work while they are at sea or in harbour the way they were in former times and the way crews from other countries are used at present. As Senator Hamer said, that leads to our having two crews for every ship on the Australian coast. That is an enormous overhead, an overhead which other maritime powers do not have to put up with. We need some competition in the market place for the supply of labour. We can have that as soon as we grow up and get away from the closed shop approach to the supply of labour which pervades the whole of the Australian labour market. It is worth commenting on the changes that have taken place in the United States. The United States was never raddled with unionism the way Australia is. The union component in the United States work force never got beyond 33 per cent. At present it is just below 15 per cent and falling. If we compare the productivity of workers in the United States with the productivity of workers in Australia, we find that there is a glaring discrepancy. I support the intention of this section of the legislation dealing with the manning of Australian ships but I do believe that the Bill is unworkable in the way it is worded and time will prove that the Government will have to come back, have the courage of its convictions, and tackle the fundamental cause of the lack of commercial competitiveness of Australian maritime traders. It will simply have to get rid of the multitude of unions and break the closed shop hold that the unions have on the supply of labour for the Australian maritime industry. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.28) —I wish to address my remarks directly to at least one clause of the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 5). I do not wish to debate all the issues raised either today or the last time this matter came before the Senate. I shall simply raise two matters, one of which was raised by Senator Missen. He wondered why the Government did not take the opportunity that this Bill afforded it to address itself to the very real question that I raised on 25 May 1983, which dealt with bushfire relief donations and tax deductions. I asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh: Is the Minister representing both the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance aware of the different attitude being taken by the Australian Taxation Office in relation to donations of cash as distinct from donations in kind for the victims of the Victorian and South Australian bushfires? To give an example- this example was given in a letter written to me- there was an appeal for fodder and dairy cattle for the farming victims and a number of dairy farmers, including Tasmanians, made contributions of dairy cattle. Is it a fact that the Australian Taxation Office has decided to interpret certain provisions in the Income Tax Assessment Act so as to require farmers who make donations of farm produce and livestock to charitable appeals to pay tax on the value of such gifts? If so, is that not distinct from the attitude of the Commonwealth in respect of these appeals? The Minister, in his reply, said: In reply to the first part of Senator Harradine's question, I am not aware of what distinctions, if any, the Taxation Office is drawing between donations of cash and donations in kind. I will seek that information from the Minister. I can, however, see that an argument could be mounted for making a distinction between the two types of donations. Expenses incurred by a farmer in producing the two commodities that Senator Harradine has cited-fodder and animals-have been tax deductible. If, in addition to that, the item that was donated was allowed as a tax deduction at full market price there would be an element of double counting. Whether that is the basis for the Taxation Office's distinction , if in fact it draws such a distinction, I do not know. But I just raise the point that that could well be the case. I will seek a definitive answer from the Minister. No response from the Minister has been forthcoming to me. Of course, that reference by Senator Walsh is an inadequate basis for any distinction to be made between donations in cash and donations in kind. I mention to the Senate that I was not the first person to raise this question, although at the time I thought I was. The honourable member for Murray, Mr Bruce Lloyd, actually raised the matter in the House of Representatives on 21 April. I raised it on 25 May, Senator Missen raised it with the Minister on 28 July, and on 24 August Senator Chipp proposed a private members Bill to remove this serious anomaly. In his response to the second reading stage, I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about this anomaly. The second matter I wish to raise today relates to clause 5 of the Bill. In his second reading speech, in relation to the amendment to clause 5, the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) said: This amendment is directed against a particularly distasteful tax avoidance practice containing clear elements of fraud against both the revenue and unsuspecting employees. It will, in accordance with the Government's announced policy in relation to blatant tax avoidance practices, apply with retrospective effect from 1 July 1977. He went on to talk about the schemes and then said: This is done in circumstances where the accumulated assets of the funds are paid out, not to the employees, but to the proprietors of the business concerned . The procedure is possible because employees are either not informed of their rights under the superannuation scheme or have their employment terminated in circumstances where they become disentitled to benefits from the fund. What does the Government do? It does nothing about the affected employees. All it proposes is to introduce retrospective tax legislation to benefit the Treasury. I foreshadowed on 6 March 1984 that I would move an amendment-it has been circulated-to the second reading motion which will go to this very question . I move: At end of motion, add: 'and (a) that clause 5 of the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1983 be referred to a Select Committee to inquire into and report upon the adequacy of the clause, particularly in relation to the overriding need to redress any financial disadvantage which might have been suffered by unsuspecting employees who were ostensibly the beneficiaries of a superannuation fund but were disadvantaged either by not being informed of their rights under the superannuation scheme or had their employment terminated in circumstances where they became disentitled to benefits from the fund; (b) that provisions relating to membership, powers and proceedings of the Committee be contained in a subsequent Resolution.'. I consider that this amendment is the logical outcome of all the arguments that have been advanced by the Government for the amendment contained in clause 5 of the Bill. Indeed, the wording of my amendment follows very closely the arguments that were advanced in the second reading speech and the words which were used by Senator Walsh in his speech in reply to Senator Chipp's motion. Quite obviously, if the Bill is enacted and the money goes into the Treasury, the ability of the funds to compensate the persons affected will be substantially reduced. The question that the select committee would have to consider is what remedies are available to the employees concerned. One of the things that would need to be ascertained is how unsuspecting employees would be able to be advised of the fact that they were ostensibly beneficiaries of the superannuation fund. Clearly , the Commissioner of Taxation is in a position to ascertain the names of beneficiaries of a fund; in fact, under section 23F (2) (e) of the Income Tax Assessment Act the Commissioner is so informed. Furthermore, there appears to be a strong possibility that with the new lump sum taxation arrangements trustees will be required to deduct tax at source before paying a benefit. Therefore, trustees will be required to furnish regular returns to the Commissioner of Taxation, providing such details as names of beneficiaries, amounts, salary, date joined, service, et cetera. The other aspect is the question of remedies available to the employees. Clearly, in New South Wales some limited remedies are available. The New South Wales Employment Protection Act of 1982 is relevant. Apart from compelling employers to give notice of and provide details of retrenchment, the New South Wales Employment Protection Act 1982 empowers the State Industrial Commission to order various kinds of severance payments to retrenched employees, including gratuities and superannuation payments above the normal entitlement. With regard to superannuation benefits, the Industrial Commission of New South Wales may make orders under the Act requiring, firstly, the payment of benefits from a superannuation scheme of which the employee is a member, as if the benefits ordered to be paid were provided by the scheme. That is contained in section 14 (1) (d) of the Employment Protection Act. It may require, secondly, the payment of an amount to the employee to compensate him for any loss of accrued benefits under a superannuation scheme of which he is a member. Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act refers to that. As I said, there are limitations to this even in the New South Wales Employment Protection Act 1982. The limitations are that the employee would need to be aware of the fund's existence and of his entitlement under the scheme. That addresses the first matter that I mentioned, and it is one of the reasons why I wish to have such a select committee established. Of course the Act applies only to New South Wales awards. It also applies only where there are 15 employees or more. To my knowledge as yet no other States have similar legislation, although Victoria tried to bring down similar legislation but it was held up in the Legislative Council. I understand South Australia is also examining the possibility of such legislation. The simple point I am making is that a select committee established by the Senate would be able to identify what might be available to affected employees and it could make recommendations which are more in keeping with the reasons that were advanced by the Government for clause 5 than in fact are contained in clause 5. I commend the amendment to the Senate and hope that it is carried. Incidentally, I propose to move a consequential amendment in the Committee stage and copies of that amendment have been distributed to honourable senators. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.43) —The Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1983 is an omnibus Bill covering a wide range of taxation matters. There is really only one contentious matter. Before moving on to that I will deal with some of the other matters. Senator Hamer asked some questions regarding the amendments to shipping taxation. I have shown to him the reply on that, although he has not had a chance to read it yet. Senator MacGibbon also touched on the same subject. I have received a reply from the responsible Minister, the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris), and I seek leave to incorporate the reply in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- SPEAKING NOTES FOR ISSUES RAISED BY SENATOR HAMER DURING DEBATE ON INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL (No. 5) During the debate on this Bill, on 7 March, Senator Hamer sought two assurances regarding Australian shipping. Firstly, he sought an assurance that a shipowner seeking taxation concessions would not be given concessions unless the total manpower costs for eligible ships have been brought down to reasonable world levels. The proposed legislation seeks to build a nexus between lower capital costs available through concessions and lower operating costs. Crew numbers are a major determinant of total manpower costs and a reduction in manning will have a beneficial effect on the overall competitiveness of Australian ships. A pre-requisite for granting of the taxation concessions contained in the proposed section 57AM is the issue of a manning notice by the Secretary, Department of Transport for the particular vessel. The manning notice specifies a number of officers and members of the crew of specified designations with which the ship should be manned to enable the ship to be operated in a safe and efficient manner. In determining the qualifying level, account is taken of manning levels and work practices on comparable ships operated by our international competitors. To be eligible for concessions the ship must not be manned at a level which exceeds that specified in the manning notice. The Industry Task Force which examined the report of Sir John Crawford concluded that the adoption of the Crawford package, of which manning reductions and taxation concessions were central, would allow Australian ships to compete on similar terms with Australia's major trading partners. Secondly, he sought assurance that under no circumstances would the Minister for Transport agree to give Australian ships a guaranteed proportion of our overseas trade, adding that if they were to get that guarantee they must do so by being competitive on the world shipping market. May I answer this by quoting my colleague, the Hon. Peter Morris when he commented on cargo reservation, when speaking in support of this Bill in another place. ''There is no sidestepping the fact that the only responsible way to expand our shipping industry is for the industry to become more efficient, more competitive and more aggressive in the marketing of its services. Australians will not support revitalisation of Australian shipping if they have to foot the bill of higher freight rates raising the cost of goods they buy. They will not support seagoing unions which do not come to grips with modernisation of shipboard practices''. I hope this gives Senator Hamer the assurance he seeks. I am not sure whether this matter has been raised in this debate as I have not reread the record of the whole of the second reading debate, but some representations have been made to the Government regarding the possible effect of clause 8 of the Bill relating to a type of leveraged leasing arrangement, the purpose of which is not to defraud the revenue. It is a complex question. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —Yes. I raised that matter. Senator WALSH —Very well. We have had representations from other quarters as well. The reply of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is this. The Government has received representations about the provisions contained in clause 8 of the Bill. The measures in this clause would deny income tax deductions sought under leveraged leases and similar arrangements in cases where the subject plant is used in tax exempt activities. It has been put to us that the clause would have a wider reach than was indicated when the previous Treasurer foreshadowed such measures on 18 December 1981 and again on 24 June 1982. The particular burden of the representations is that the measures contained in the Bill would adversely affect prospects for investment in industrial developments by the private sector where, as a concomitant of the projects, there is a need to construct major electricity generation plants. It is put that the Bill is likely to have untoward effects in the context of bona fide private sector investment in power generation brought about by a merely incidental or minor link with public sector power supply activity. I interpolate there that one of the representations considering this matter originated from the Western Australian Government. Again , these are the words of the Treasurer rather than mine. Against this background of the representations that have been made the Government has undertaken to review the scope of the legislation very carefully. If that examination confirms that the provisions are likely to have unintended and inappropriate consequences for bona fide private investment, amendments will be introduced to correct the situation while not altering the main thrust of the legislation. The third point, other than the contentious matter in this Bill, which has been referred to and which was raised by a number of people-most recently by Senator Harradine a few minutes ago-concerns the treatment by the Commissioner of Taxation of donations for bushfire relief or national disaster appeals made in cash or in kind. I am afraid I still do not have a reply from the Treasurer on that. I will seek to get one and provide it at some future time. The main point of contention in this Bill is, of course, the provision which will collect revenue which has been avoided under what is known as the cherry- picker scheme. I will outline that in more detail later. That is a scheme under which employers pay employer contributions into what purports to be a superannuation fund for employees, but which is ultimately revealed to have been a device used to obtain deductions from taxable income for the employers, of which the employees frequently are unaware and from which they rarely receive any benefit. As I said, I will go into that in more detail. That is the contentious issue and notice has been given of a number of amendments relating to it. As is customary in legislation designed to collect revenue from tax avoiders and tax dodgers, we have seen a great amount of cant, humbug and hypocrisy displayed by various speakers in this debate or, at best, at the most charitable , unawareness of the facts. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle and Senator Hill both raised the question of why Part IVA and section 170 (8) of the Income Tax Assessment Act cannot be used against these schemes. This was also raised by Senator Archer by way of private correspondence to me. Part IVA can be used against paper schemes where there is a round robin of cheques passed around the same table or on the same day, but it cannot be effectively applied to the main stream cherry-picker schemes because the fraudulent nature of those schemes is not apparent at the time they are set up. The fraudulent nature of them becomes apparent only at a very much later stage when the employees are by some device or other, removed from the employ of the company prior to retirement date and therefore forfeit their entitlement under the superannuation fund. It is not possible to use Part IVA effectively to prevent the use of these schemes because the fraudulent nature of them is not and cannot be proven at the time the funds are established and at the time the contributions are paid in, with the possible limited exception of the last year in which the payments are made. Similar limitations apply to section 170 (8) of the existing Act. Only in the last year can the Commissioner disallow entirely the deductions claimed by an employer for payments into this fund. For previous years in which deductions from taxable income may have been claimed by an employer, the Commissioner could disallow payments in excess of $400 per employee but could not disallow the statutory limit of $400 per employee. So section 170 (8) would be partially effective in dealing with these schemes, always providing there was some money left in the fund for the Commissioner to get at. I understand there are some cases where that is highly doubtful. Senator Watson and Senator Messner attempted to drop the blame for the development and persistence of these schemes on to the Tax Commissioner, with the spurious claim that if the Commissioner had been exercising the rigid oversight of the operation of these schemes that he ought to have, the cherry pickers would never have been in a position to pick the cherries. Senator Watson and Senator Messner are thereby proposing that a regiment of people be added to the Australian Taxation Office to snoop around every existing superannuation fund, to interrogate or question employees on whether they have been properly notified in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and that sort of thing. I have two comments to make on that. Firstly, if the people who set up fraudulent schemes, or schemes which are ultimately revealed as being fraudulent, such as the cherry picker schemes, know that sooner or later they will have to pay the tax, they will not bother to set up the schemes. The way to get the message through to such people with total effectiveness is for the Senate to pass this legislation. Then every potential tax cheat will know that although in the short term he might be able to keep money that should have been paid in tax, in the long term he will have to pay the tax and the appropriate 20 per cent rate of interest between the time the tax should have been paid and the time it was actually paid. If, however, the Senate rejects this legislation, would-be perpetrators of any type of tax fraud scheme will receive the message from this House that they can set up such schemes, avoid income tax, and indeed not have to pay income tax ever, provided that they stop operating these schemes at the time Parliament passes some legislation. The second point I make is about the proposition by two Opposition senators that the Taxation Office should employ a regiment of snoopers to police superannuation schemes, which I note as an aside yield almost no revenue because , by definition, they are tax exempt. It is a testimony to the audacity of Opposition members that when their Party was in government it ignored for years annual report after annual report from the Taxation Commissioner urging that more staff and facilities be provided to deal with tax avoidance. Those requests by the Commissioner were consistently ignored by the previous Government. A former Minister in that Government now has the audacity to put the blame on the Taxation Commissioner, who has had inadequate staff and who was starved of staff to pursue other sections of taxation law for many years. He has the audacity to suggest that the Commissioner should have used his already inadequate resources in attempting to police in the finest detail aspects of the taxation Act which did not yield revenue when he did not have sufficient staff to deal with those provisions of the Act that did yield revenue. Even if the Government were to follow the suggested route of adding on a regiment to the Taxation Office, that will not redress past frauds. There is no guarantee necessarily that it would prevent future frauds. The way to prevent future frauds against the revenue is for Parliament to pass this legislation. The way to give the green light to would-be tax avoiders of the future is for the Senate to amend this Bill in the way proposed by the Opposition or Senator Harradine. The Senate has heard a lot of cant about justice for tax dodgers and tax avoiders. How about a little justice for honest taxpayers, the overwhelming majority of whom have met their obligations without devising and utilising notorious schemes such as the cherry picker scheme. Senator Harradine talked of justice to the employees of Raymor, about which I shall have something to say shortly. What about some justice for all the other business proprietors who did not indulge in tax avoidance but who were placed in a situation where they had to compete with less scrupulous firms which did indulge in tax avoidance? What about justice for all the honest pay as you earn taxpayers who for many years were forced to pay more tax than they ought to have done because companies such as Raymor, the Kelly brothers, an one or two chosen associates, were using loopholes in taxation law to avoid paying the tax they should have paid? Senator Townley said that it was dishonest to apply retrospective legislation, but apparently he accepts without equivocation the massive fraud on the revenue perpetrated by Raymor, of which I shall give details shortly. Finally, there is a clear commitment under the prices and incomes accord reached last year between the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions, to stamp out tax avoidance schemes. The government, insofar as it is able, will honour that commitment under the prices and incomes accord. If we are prevented from doing that, that is to be regretted. If because of the capricious acts-I put it at best-by some honourable senators the Government is prevented from upholding that section of the accord and it is endangered, then economic recovery is endangered. That brings me to the Raymor case, a case which finally got to court not because of its tax avoidance or dodging aspects but because the two chief perpetrators of the fraud, the Kelly brothers, subsequently fell out. One of them decided, as well as lining this pocket with what should have been paid in tax jointly by him and his brother, to appropriate the benefits entirely to himself. Consequently the case got to court and judgment was handed down by Mr Justice Wootten on 18 November 1982. The basis of the Raymor scheme followed the classic lines of all these cherry picker schemes. The owners of a company, who were also employees nominally of that company, set up what purported to be an employees' superannuation fund and claimed deductions from taxable income for payments made into that fund. The statutory limit of the amount that may be paid into such funds is $400 per employee, although that can be exceeded if the Commissioner allows. Apparently, it was not exceeded in the Kelly case. The employees notionally are to receive benefits on reaching retirement age, and only on reaching retirement age. If the employees terminate their employment with the company before reaching normal retirement age, the trust deed is set up so that the benefits go to other employees of the company. In the case of Raymor only one such employee, other than the Kellys themselves probably, received such a benefit or actually got any money. In the five years ended June 1977 some two and three quarter million dollars was paid into the Raymor fund, at which time it reached the limit at which further contributions ceased to attract taxation advantages. The two and three quarter million dollars paid into the fund, according to the evidence of the Kelly brothers themselves, the effective owners and controllers of the company, was claimed as deduction from corporate income for tax purposes in the year in which it was paid into the fund. After June 1977 most of the money in the fund was then lent to the company at interest rates of between 2.7 per cent and 4.4 per cent. Mr Justice Wootten found that if money had been lent at the market rate as distinct from the concessional rate to the company itself, another $800, 000 or thereabouts would have accrued to the fund. All the employees of the company had a notional entitlement to receive superannuation benefits on reaching normal retirement age. Mr Justice Wootten's judgment, which has been circulated to all senators, makes it very clear that the Kellys went to extraordinary lengths to ensure that employees did not reach retirement age. Mr Justice Wootten said in his judgment: . . . in 1980 there were three employees who were within a month of reaching retiring age. And what happened to each of them is instructive. Mr Mitchell was due to reach the retiring age of 65 on 11 March 1980. His supervisor asked him if he would mind leaving on 27 February, and he said that it did not make any difference to him, and he left. He was asked to leave 13 days-it was a leap year-before his normal retirement age. He said it did not make any difference to him and that he would leave. Mr Justice Wootten continued: . . . unknown to him it made a difference of $48,000, the sum credited to him in the books of the fund, for which his employer had obtained taxation deductions. Mrs Lowndes was due to reach retiring age on 15 July 1980. At the end of June her employment was terminated on a Friday on the pretext that staff had to be kept down, and that as a married woman she was the obvious person to go. Nevertheless, she was re-employed as a casual on the following Monday . . . Is any more convincing evidence required of the blatant and contrived manner in which this fund was manipulated? It was not possible for the Commissioner of Taxation to determine at the time the fund was established in 1973 that it was established for essentially fraudulent purposes, for the purpose of defrauding the revenue. That was the purpose for which that fund was established, but it was not possible for the Commissioner at that time to determine that. But I doubt whether even the most gung ho apologist on the other side of the chamber for tax evaders would deny that what happened, particularly in the case of Mrs Lowndes, demonstrates the essentially fraudulent purpose of that fund. Mr Justice Wootten said: . . . she was re-employed as a casual on the following Monday and was still working when the case came on for hearing before me. Other examples are given of similar blatant manipulation of the fund for the clear purpose of defrauding the revenue. I refer anyone who may think that that interpretation is over-vigorous to page 600 of Mr Justice Wootten's judgment. On page 600 he quotes Mr Paul Kelly, the Kelly brother who brought the action against the other Kelly brother who tried to appropriate all the money for his personal benefit instead of splitting it principally with his brother, as was the original intention. Mr Paul Kelly said that if the court allowed his brother to keep the money: . . . the court would be lending assistance to a blatant tax avoidance device to permit the trustee and the employers to have the advantage both of a trust deed which on its fact renders contributions tax deductible and also of an understanding between them that destroys the very basis upon which social policy allows tax deductions for contributions. The defendant, Mr William Kelly, said in his reply that the type of fund established was 'by no means unusual', so called 'tax avoidance funds' being ' quite well-known'. I repeat: Could anything be more blatant or contrived? I submit that there is a clear, unassailable prima facie case that as a result of the manipulation of this fund the Kelly brothers, together with one or two favourite employees-but for practical purposes the Kelly brothers-have deprived the Commonwealth revenue of more than $1m over the period they operated it. The people who are opposing clause 5 of this Bill propose to ensure that the Kelly brothers are allowed to keep that ill-gotten gains. Senator Harradine professed a concern for the employees of the fund who were deprived of an entitlement because of the way in which it was manipulated by the Kelly brothers. One could make many points in response to that. I make two, not necessarily in order of importance. The employees themselves were not aware of the existence of a benefit; on those grounds, they had no expectations. It would have been for them a windfall gain if the benefit to which they were notionally entitled had been received. They had no knowledge of it and therefore no expectations. Therefore, it would have been in the category of a windfall gain. Senator Harradine —Are you saying they therefore have no entitlement? Senator WALSH —They have no legal entitlement. If they had a legal entitlement, they would have got it. They had no legal entitlement because the fund was manipulated by the Kelly brothers for the benefit of the Kellys. Senator Harradine has dropped in, at the eleventh hour, two amendments. Senator Harradine —That is not so. I told you about it on 6 March. Senator WALSH —I first saw these amendments when they were dropped on my desk not one hour ago. Senator Harradine —Look at page 487 of Hansard. Senator WALSH —The honourable senator gave a vague notice of some intention at some time or other to bring in some amendment which would ensure that the employees gained the benefit of-- Senator Harradine —Like this amendment, exactly. Senator WALSH —I am coming to that. Senator Cook —This amendment does not guarantee the employees anything. Senator WALSH —That is perfectly correct. I underestimated Senator Harradine's ingenuity. We know, of course, that in 1982 when retrospective legislation was introduced by the previous government and his vote was not crucial to its passage, he voted for it. When retrospective tax legislation was introduced by this Government and his vote was crucial to its passage, he voted against it. His most recent excuse for voting against the legislation last year was that thousands of employees would be thrown out of work if the people who had avoided tax had been forced to pay what they should have paid in years before. I wondered how he was going to get out of this one. I thought he would be stuck, but he has demonstrated that he has more ingenuity than I thought. He is doing what he has consistently done; that is, he is using his vote in this Senate when it is crucial to protect tax dodgers and to allow them to keep their ill-gotten gains. He is sticking very consistently to his record on that matter. The amendment in the first place proposes to refer to a select committee the question of whether it is possible in any way to use the taxation law to ensure that employees get benefits from a superannuation fund to which, according to strict legal interpretation of the trust deeds of that fund, they have no entitlement. Not only does the honourable senator propose to get something which cannot be obtained under the law in any form as it stands but also he proposes to do so in some miraculous way through the taxation Act. But that is just a fairly innocuous amendment to a second reading motion. The really important part of this device incubated by Senator Harradine, again to protect tax dodgers, is the amendment to clause 2, the commencement clause-of the Bill. The amendment provides effectively that clause 5 of the Bill before the House can come into operation only if at some subsequent date both Houses of the Parliament decide to allow it to come into operation. This raises a number of legal questions. I have sought some preliminary legal advice. That preliminary legal advice is that it is probably legal to tack a clause such as that on to a Bill. However, I am also advised that there is no known precedent for it. The essential nature of Senator Harradine's manoeuvre this afternoon is as fraudulent as the scheme set up by Raymor and the Kelly brothers to pick cherries. Senator Harradine —What is wrong with the amendment? Senator WALSH —I am coming to that. An indication of the fraudulent intent of that amendment is the fact that not one hour ago the honourable senator dropped something in this Senate which requires quite complex legal examination. But I can tell the Senate this much: Senator Harradine, who purports to be the friend and champion of the workers in this Senate, has proposed an amendment which would delay the introduction of clause 5 of this Bill until such time as both Houses of Parliament subsequently passed or re-approved it. He has done so on the pretext that he is protecting the interests of the people who had notional entitlements in companies such as Raymor. Not only would his device do nothing for the employees of companies such as Raymor but also it would ensure that clause 5 could not be applied retrospectively to people such as the Kellys. It would also ensure that it could not be applied prospectively. That is, if Senator Harradine gets away with this amendment, every potential tax cheat in Australia will have the green light to go ahead and establish new cherry picker funds and pick the cherries secure in the knowledge that clause 5 of this Bill cannot be used to ensure that he does not get away with it. That is what the honourable senator proposes to do. The Government will oppose all the amendments which have been suggested. I will be moving, on behalf of the Government at the appropriate stage, a number of Government amendments. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Lewis) —The question is: That the words proposed to be added by Senator Harradine's amendment be added. Senator Harradine —Mr Acting Deputy President-- Senator Walsh —I take a point of order. The honourable senator has already spoken. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Senator Harradine, I understand that you have already spoken. Therefore, you have no right to speak at this stage. Senator Harradine —Mr Acting Deputy President-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Are you seeking leave to do so? Senator Harradine —No, I am not, I thought that I had an entitlement to respond to the nonsense that I have just heard because obviously Senator Walsh has not understood the amendment. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I regret that I have to rule against you. You cannot speak at this stage. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Senator Harradine's amendment) be added. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 53 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 47 —— Chipp, D. L. Harradine, B. (Teller)Evans, Jack Macklin, M. J. Haines, J. Mason, C. V. J. Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Peter McClelland, DouglasBjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J. Bolkus, N. McIntosh, G. D. Boswell, R. L. D. Maguire, G. R. Carrick, Sir John Martin, K. J. Childs, B. K. Messner, A. J. Coates, J. Missen, A. J. Coleman, R. N. Primmer, C. G. Collard, S. J. Rae, PeterCook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCrichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Crowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Durack, P. D. Richardson, G. F. Elstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A. Evans, Gareth Ryan, S. M. Foreman, D. J. Scott, D. B. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Jones, G. N. Withers, R. G. Kilgariff, B. F. Zakharov, A. O. Lajovic, M. E. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 4-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 5. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(5.23) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 3, sub-clause (1), proposed new paragraph 26AFA(1)(a), line 36, leave out '1 July 1977', insert '7 December 1983'. (2) Page 4, sub-clause (1), proposed new sub-section 26AFA(3), line 28, leave out '1 July 1977', insert '7 December 1983'. (3) Page 5, sub-clause (2), line 2, leave out '1 July 1977', insert '7 December 1983'. The effect of the amendments proposed by the Opposition is to remove the retrospectivity aspect of the Bill. It will be recalled that the Bill relates to a date, 1 July 1977. Despite the advice that has been given to us by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) throughout the debate, we are not of the opinion that we would support retrospectivity in the Bill in the way in which it has been inserted. Despite Senator Walsh's remarks with regard to prospectivity, I am able to say that the Opposition is prepared to support, prospectively, the provisions of the Bill with regard to employee superannuation funds but that we have very great difficulty with regard to the application of those provisions to a date in 1977. I refer to one or two other points by the Minister in closing the second reading debate. He quoted one case at great length and in great detail. I wonder why, under income tax ruling 294 which requires an auditor's certificate, it is not further protection to the Commissioner of Taxation that at all times the fund is conducted in accordance with the requirements and that it complies fully with all the requirements of section 23F. In the ruling by the Commissioner there is a requirement that, every year in the case of a loan back fund and every three years in the case of other funds, a certificate be supplied by an independent auditor verifying that the assets of the fund actually exist in the fund, that they are in a form suitable for the purposes for which they exist and , in the event of the retirement or resignation of employees, the assets are readily realisable. It is also to be indicated whether, in the opinion of the auditor, the fund is being conducted in accordance with its constituent documents. That is a clear requirement under the income tax ruling. It seems to me that the aim of the Taxation Office is to determine those funds which do not meet the requirements of section 23F and deal with them accordingly . The auditor will be commenting on the test which is set out in section 23F(2). If there were a qualified audit of any aspect of those requirements, the Commissioner of Taxation would treat the fund as a fund other than a fund meeting the requirements of section 23F, that is, a section 121DA fund. Such funds do not qualify for any special tax treatment. I presume that the Minister will say that he can only do that in a particular way. It seems to me that, in setting up a long term fund, if there is an annual requirement for an audit certificate giving those details, the Commission, at any time, has the protection of section 23F to determine for himself, retrospectively, whether the fund meets those requirements. One case has been mentioned at great length to support the introduction of the requirements backdated to 1977. However, that seems to us not to be justified. The Commissioner could determine whether the arrangements that were made under such funds worked against the provisions of section 23F. He could determine whether the conditions had been compiled with, that this fund was not exempt and, if it is terminated and justification is not given for the way in which it is being dealt with by the employers concerned, the Taxation Commissioner has his own powers under his own Act. His discretion may be exercised. It seems to us to be an unnecessary provision to go back to 1977 without more evidence being given by the Minister other than that of the Kelly case which he has quoted in great detail. We have talked about the provisions during the second reading debate and maybe we will talk about them further today. They are very precise under this section of the Income Tax Assessment Act. They are for particular purposes. They must be compiled with continually in the opinion and the discretion of the Commission. There must be an audit certificate. In support of Opposition's amendment to remove the retrospectivity clause, I indicate that if the numbers in the Senate mean that our amendment prevails or if the clause is amended in some other way at any time that is appropriate we will deal expeditiously with prospective amendments such as the Commissioner feels he requires. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(5.27) —I support the retrospective aspects of this provision. I have pointed out many times in this chamber that I do not regard the strictures against retrospectivity as being of absolute force in relation to taxation legislation as opposed to areas of penal legislation. I do so with some misgivings. To explain that misgiving I invite honourable senators to consider the transcript of evidence of a hearing of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs held in Sydney on Tuesday, 13 March 1984. We had the benefit of a public hearing with Mr Gyles, QC, the Special Prosecutor. He appeared before the Committee. In relation to the failure, as he said, of the Australian Taxation Office to use the criminal laws as one of its arms of enforcement, at page 483 of the transcript he said: Indeed, it-- that is, the Taxation Office- did not even use, for example, section 231 of the Income Tax Assessment Act to hit at artificial schemes, for reasons which quite escape me. That is a semi- criminal remedy that led into penalties rather than gaol. He went on in the course of that public hearing to speak of section 231 of the Income Tax Assessment Act as being 'an appropriate mechanism for dealing with taxation frauds'. He then said that an organisation would emerge to provide task forces to follow them up. That was in answer to a question posed by Senator Hill . The section involved reads in these terms: 231. (1) Any person who, or any company on whose behalf the public officer, or a director, servant or agent of the company, by any wilful act, default or neglect, or by any fraud, art or contrivance whatever, avoids or attempts to avoid assessment or taxation shall be guilty of an offence. Penalty: Not less than $50, or more than $1,000 and, in addition, the Court may order the person to pay to the Commissioner a sum not exceeding double the amount of tax that has been avoided or attempted to be avoided. In answer to a further question from Senator Hill, Mr Gyles said: If that-- that is the use of section 231- had been perceived in 1970 or 1965, this would not have occurred . . . He was referring to his office as Special Prosecutor. He continued: I cannot say whether the message has got through-- This is the relevant response. He said: I am a special prosecutor dealing with one particular matter. But I did notice, I think last week, in the 'Financial Review' that the Taxation Commissioner in justifying some retrospective legislation described the scheme, which was to do with superannuation, in terms which, if he was correct in his description, would have amounted to a fraud on the Commonwealth. He continued: I do not know whether he has referred that to the Attorney-General's Department or whether it has responded. It would be interesting to know. Indeed, I am interested to know. I would like to know whether frauds of the type described by the Government have been referred to the Attorney-General's Department for consideration under section 231 of the Income Tax Assessment Act and whether there is some explanation for the long period of disuse into which section 231 has fallen. I am told that it has not been tested in the court since 1947. On the face of it to an ordinary reader like myself it would appear to provide a reasonable statutory basis for attacking fraudulent avoidance of tax that is said to have occurred and, undoubtedly, has occurred in relation to superannuation schemes. I simply ask whether, for example, the Kelly brothers case has been referred for the purpose of prosecution under section 231. Senator HILL(South Australia)(5.33) —I wish to speak briefly in support of the comments made by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle. From the very beginning of this debate I have asked now many cases we are concerned with. The only case that continually is mentioned is the decision of, I think, Mr Justice Wootten. It has been repeatedly mentioned and no one on this side of the chamber has in any way attempted to condone the factual situation in that case. On its facts it was an obnoxious affair. We would not seek in any way to condone the carrying on of superannuation business of that nature but, as we also all know, hard cases make bad laws. As far as we have been informed, that case is the total basis for this legislation. That is of particular concern to me. I will look at the type of cases with which we are told we are dealing. I think that tends to reinforce the one specific example that has been given. I will take the Committee back to the second reading speech delivered by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) which stated: This amendment is directed against a particularly distasteful tax avoidance practice containing- these are the critical words- clear elements of fraud against both the revenue and unsuspecting employees. As the debate proceeded we found further use of the same type of language in justifying this legislation. Put into the transcript was a letter from the Treasurer to Senator Walsh regarding the matter. Again, the same language appears. Speaking of the scheme he said: Not only are they of a most blatant kind, but they contain elements of fraud against employees . . . In the transcript also is a letter addressed to the Treasurer from Mr Boucher, the Acting Commissioner of Taxation, giving further information of the type of case that has caused a need for this legislation. I will read a couple of sentences from that letter which again uses a similar type of language: That kind of thing involves clear elements of raids against the revenue and also against the unsuspecting ordinary employees concerned. The letter continued: The practices seem to me to be brazen and bare faced and involve abuses of the tax law . . . Senator Chipp sought further information regarding the extent of these abuses and the amount of tax that had been lost. That is another question to which we still do not have an answer. We have been told how much revenue is expected to be obtained by the implementation of clause 5 but we have at no time been told what has been lost to the revenue. The Minister for Resources and Energy ( Senator Walsh) in his speech on 6 March said: The schemes only became clearly fraudulent at the time they were wound up or at the time that various devices were employed to defraud the employees . . . Again, he spoke of fraud. He continued to speak of the disgorgement of benefit from those funds in an improper way. He said: A way which the employees of the company, for whose benefit ostensibly the fund was established, are deprived of their entitlements . . . A little further down on page 486 of the transcript of that day, he said: These are artificial, contrived, blatant schemes, the intent of which was at all times to defraud the Taxation Commissioner of revenue . . . It is that fraudulent intent by the managers of these funds which this legislation sets out to correct. I think that is clear evidence that what we are being told we are dealing with in this matter is cases of fraud against the revenue and possibly fraud against certain employees. As I said when I commenced, one specific factual circumstance has been put to us that could be described as most improper with all usages of that word. That is the position we are told we are to address. The point I made in my speech on the second reading was that the net has been cast far wider than that. The net has not only been cast but also is now to be backdated to 1977. It can entrap many people who gained an excess benefit in quite innocent circumstances. Senator Chipp received certain assurances from the Australian Taxation Office that it would not implement the provision except in extreme circumstances. I suggest to the Senate that that is a totally unsatisfactory way in which we should be imposing taxation laws. The Commissioner of Taxation, apparently has to make an interpretation on whether there are blatant contrived circumstances and then to apply this provision. If he does not think there are blatant contrived circumstances he will not apply it . The Minister will say that even if he does apply it the taxpayer, under a provision in the Bill, can go back to the Commissioner and ask him not to exercise his discretion in that way. But, as I said in my speech on the second reading, no clear guidelines are given as to the basis upon which the Commissioner is to act or upon which the taxpayer has the right to have his matter determined. This is totally unsatisfactory tax law. I turn back to the fraudulent case which we are told justifies the provision and our particular concern as to why the Commissioner and the Government are not utilising provisions that already exist to remedy the situation. It remains my view, notwithstanding what the Minister said today, that there are adequate provisions within the Income Tax Assessment Act and the Commonwealth Crimes Act to deal adequately with the problem of fraud. Today the Minister gave us an interpretation of Part IVA of the Act. I think that that interpretation and its narrowness will amaze tax experts throughout Australia. I am sure that most honourable senators here were surprised, to say the least, as to the extremely narrow interpretation that this Government apparently wishes to place upon Part IVA of the Act. Senator Harradine —They were wrong on the Acts Interpretation Act last time, so they are probably wrong this time. Senator HILL —With the greatest respect to the Minister, I suspect that he is wrong in this case. The Minister did not mention the potential for using section 260 of the Act, which is still in force and has a wide application. Perhaps the question should again be asked: Why has the Commissioner not used that provision in the past? The Minister mentioned section 170 of the Act but again I think his interpretation is open to question. I want to raise the matters which were mentioned by Senator Tate, namely, the matters that were put to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs by the Special Prosecutor, Mr Gyles, QC, who looked at bottom of the harbour taxation cases. I will not quote from the transcript as Senator Tate has just put the matter before the Senate. Regarding bottom of the harbour taxation schemes, Senator Tate asked why the Commissioner of Taxation and the Government have not used section 231 of the Income Tax Assessment Act. We have not yet received an answer to that question. I hope that we will get it from the Minister during our consideration of the Bill. Senator Tate asked why section 86 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act, which is the provision dealing with conspiracy to fraud-in most of these cases there was a conspiracy-had not been used. He said he was amazed that these provisions were not used in the bottom of the harbour cases. Senator Tate said that in the media he had noticed reference to this legislation regarding superannuation and attempts to make it retrospective to 1977. Again, he asked the same question: Why have these provisions, which have existed for so long in our legislation, not been implemented? These questions remain. What we are asked to do today is to pass legislation which I suspect, on most interpretations of the law, is unnecessary. I suspect that there are adequate powers in the Income Tax Assessment Act and the Crimes Act to ensure that fraudulent cases are adequately dealt with and that the cherry-picking scheme, as it has been referred to, is wiped out without any need for this legislation. If that is correct then the justification to back-date the legislation to 1977 and make it retrospective for so many years is even more difficult to understand . As I said, I support the points which Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle put to the Committee. We believe this provision is bad law. Retrospectivity should not be supported in any way. As I indicated, I suspect that, even without the retrospectivity aspect, this legislation is totally unnecessary to achieve the purposes the Government seeks. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.43) — The Minister, Senator Walsh, has put forward clause 5 knowing full well that it contains a retrospective element that is not acceptable to the Committee. In rejecting out of hand the amendment that I proposed at the second reading stage of the Bill, he has telegraphed the intention of the Government blindly to levy retrospective taxes at any price, even the rights of employees involved. I remind the Committee that had my amendment been adopted I would have moved a consequential amendment to this clause. Senator Walsh, in referring to that consequential amendment, said that the amendment meant that not only would the managers of the superannuation funds or the superannuation funds be able to have levied from them certain taxes retrospectively but also they would not be able to have those taxes levied prospectively. I rose to put the Minister on the right train, but I was not in order at that stage. Anybody reading this would see that what Senator Walsh said was, as usual, incorrect. I will leave to another stage the biggest blunder that he has made on these issues last year, but it is coming to him. The Minister said that he had received the advice from the Taxation Office, which, again, is a real clanger. Senator Walsh —You got exactly the same advice. Senator HARRADINE —Yes, I heard correctly. Apparently the Minister did not. The proposed amendment stated: At any stage after this Act receives Royal Assent, both Houses of Parliament may pass a Resolution specifying a day on which section 5 shall come into operation. The amendment continued: Section 5 shall come into operation on the day specified in a Resolution agreed to by both Houses of Parliament in accordance with sub-section 2 (2). The reason for that was to enable the select committee to do its work and report to the Parliament. Depending on what that report said, or irrespective of what that report said, at any stage after the Act received royal assent, both Houses of Parliament could have moved a motion specifying the date on which section 5 came into effect. That could have been either retrospectively or prospectively. Senator Walsh's statement at the second reading stage again misled the Parliament. We will come to the crunch one day when we deal with the new Acts Interpretation Act, the extrinsic aids and the interpretation of the law. If Senator Walsh carries on the way he is going and misleads the Parliament almost every time he stands up, the poor old judges will have their work cut out if and when we pass that legislation. The other aspect I raise is that clearly anybody would realise that Senator Walsh did not address himself to the amendment. He said that the employees concerned had no entitlement. Senator Walsh —And more-until they reached normal retiring age. Senator HARRADINE —But what did the Minister say on 6 March 1984? The Minister quoted from the Taxation Commissioner's letter. Page 485 of Hansard states: The letter goes on to state that what then happens is that the employees who are ostensibly the beneficiaries of the fund are in one way or another deprived of their entitlement. Mr Chairman, as I indicated at the second reading stage, I thought in quite some detail because a good deal of work has been done on this matter, at least one statute in place in Australia-it presumably covers the bulk of the workers in the biggest State of Australia-could conceivably be utilised to ensure that some recompense is provided to employees who have been used in respect of these schemes. I refer to the Employment Protection Act of 1982. That Act says quite specifically that, in regard to superannuation benefits, the Industrial Commission may make a number of orders. The orders need not be orders strictly applying the terms of the fund. The Act says: The Commission may make orders under the Act requiring the payment of benefits from a superannuation scheme of which the employee is a member as if the benefits ordered to be paid were provided by the scheme. We are always talking about deeming provisions in these pieces of tax legislation, and there is a deeming provision there. I am sorry that my proposal was not adopted because had it been agreed to I would have made myself available to be on the committee and I would have been very hopeful that the committee would have been able to unearth the details of a number of these schemes and do what I thought was proposed in the Minister's second reading speech-that is to say, redress the wrong done to employees. That is why I said in my amendment that we ought to establish not the primacy of the Australian Taxation Office, as this legislation is doing, but the overriding need to redress any financial disadvantage which might have been suffered by unsuspecting employees who were ostensibly the beneficiaries of a superannuation fund. Senator Walsh did not address himself to why that select committee should not be established, why the facts cannot be unearthed. He is acting in the same way as he acted on a previous occasion, in respect of the bottom of the harbour legislation. Honourable senators will recall that the proposal for a committee to unearth that bottom of the harbour problem was rejected. Instead of addressing himself to the essence of the amendment, he tried his usual vilification stunt. That did not work, so he called, of all things, on the Australian Council of Trade Unions' prices and incomes accord, to deny the opportunity of employees who have suffered disadvantage to seek redress. That did not work, so he said that I did not give him enough time. Again he is wrong because on 6 March 1984 I said in this chamber, in his presence, that I would be seeking to draft an amendment to do precisely what I have proposed in my amendment. It is all there on pages 486 to 487 of Hansard of 6 March. Ample notice was given, and given formally to the Senate. At the conclusion of my statement on that occasion, I said: Therefore, I will now have to retire and consider what will be the appropriate amendment to the second reading motion so as to ensure that the workers get something, and not just the Taxation Office. And Senator Walsh says that no notice was given! Clearly, my amendment sought to have the Senate establish the overriding need to redress any financial disadvantage suffered by employees for whose benefit the schemes were ostensibly established. Maybe this is possible and maybe it is not. I suspect that in some cases it will be possible and in some cases it will not, but the Government is proposing to pass this Bill and give priority to the Taxation Office, and to do it retrospectively. I say quite bluntly and openly that, in rejecting this move, Senator Walsh has telegraphed his intention to pressure the Government into blindly levying retrospective taxes at any price, even at the cost of the rights of the employees concerned. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(5.58) —I wish to answer some of the propositions that have been put in this debate. The main concern of Senator Hill and Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle seems to have been that the Government has relied on only one case-the Kelly case-with the implication being that if others were produced we would assent. The argument runs that this is an isolated incident and bad law is made if we take one incident and legislate. I refer those honourable senators to my second reading speech in which I drew attention to at least one other case, a case in Newcastle. I also refer them to the decision in the Kelly case by Mr Justice Wootten in which he quoted approvingly- I do not have the actual decision in front of me-from the evidence of an expert witness, a person expert in superannuation funds. His evidence to that hearing stressed that essentially there were two types of superannuation funds-the type meant legitimately and the type meant illegitimately as tax avoidance mechanisms. Those who move in the commercial world know that the evidence given by that expert witness did not refer just to that particular case but also to a practice that has been reasonably widespread in the small business sector. Of course, there are none so blind as they who will not see. Simply because a spectacular case has been mentioned in the Senate this does not mean that it is the only case. There is sufficient evidence around to establish that this provision is necessary to stamp out a practice that is, or has been, widespread and could become even worse. The remarks to which I want to address myself most of all are those of the previous speaker, Senator Harradine. As I recall what he said in the debate previously, it was that he would remedy what he alleged was a defect in the legislation by bringing forward an amendment at this stage that would confer a benefit on the employees of the false schemes run in their names. As I recall it , that is what was said. The amendment before us confers nothing on any worker and cannot be said in any sense to do so. Senator Walsh —It confers some benefit on the Kellys and others. Senator COOK —Yes. I want to look at the logic of the Harradine proposal, which thankfully was defeated. It is farcical to pretend that it would have conferred a benefit on any worker, or would have been likely to confer a benefit on any worker. In saying that, I believe that we on the Government side are quite reasonably and properly suspicious of the real intention of the Harradine amendment, given the record of Senator Harradine in voting down all of the tax avoidance legislation that this Government has put forward. It seems to me that Senator Harradine's amendment was merely a device to justify yet again a voting down of an amendment to the Income Tax Assessment Act that will stamp out tax avoidance. Senator Harradine's first proposition was that we have a committee to redress any financial disadvantage which might have been suffered by unsuspecting employees who were ostensibly beneficiaries of a superannuation fund but who were disadvantaged by not being informed of their rights under the superannuation scheme, had their employment terminated, et cetera. I suppose that, were such a committee to be established, the first thing to be done would be to call all those people who did not know of their rights to come forward and give evidence. We cannot go past the point that the cherry-picker scheme operates on the fundamental principle that the rights of workers are not known by those workers or that their rights are obfuscated so that they have only a vague understanding of the scheme. That is how the cherry-picker scheme operates . How can we establish how widespread the practice is by asking workers to come forward and claim a right that they did not know, or know for sure, existed under the principle of the scheme? The second proposition was that, if we were able to establish that cases existed, how would we address that? Do we confiscate all the moneys that were due and pay them back to the workers? I would have thought that that was a reasonable way of addressing the problems for the workers if we could identify the schemes and knew how extensive they were. How we would go about doing that is indeed an important question. It raises a plethora of problems, none of which , I argue, are capable of being answered in any conclusive way. They can be looked at only vaguely but not answered directly. As Senator Walsh has said, a principal way in which the cherry-picker scheme operates is for one company to transmit all of its responsibilities to another company but not transmit the payment of superannuation. Extensive amendments would be required to uncover such cases and such companies. How we would locate all such employees, since it has been a widespread practice in the past rather than a current practice, is another problem. The logical way to proceed is, of course, to do what the Government proposes to do and require that legitimate taxes be paid. The legitimate taxes would be recovered. In that case legitimate superannuation schemes would be established. The problem with the cherry-picker scheme is that one cannot prospectively move against it because it becomes illegal only when it is wound up, when the workers are dismissed. During the running of the scheme it is not manifestly illegal. It becomes an avoidance mechanism only when the workers are dismissed or induced to leave. Of course, the principle of that scheme is to deny the rights of the workers by encouraging them to leave without their being aware of their entitlements. The fact that their employment is actually terminated means the severance of the employment contract and that the rights of the employees automatically and legally cease. What Senator Harradine's amendment aimed to do was to take on a task which bordered on the impossible and which would not solve the problem fully, directly or at all. Secondly, it contemplated the very thing that Senator Harradine has railed against in all of the legislation that we have brought forward previously, that is, a massive retrospective payout. Senator Harradine —That is right, to the workers. Senator COOK —But only if one could identify those workers. Senator Harradine should bear in mind that those workers who did not know of their rights are required to indicate that they did not know. That is an impossibility. It is not the question of retrospectivity that Senator Harradine opposes. It is only the question of retrospectivity with respect to tax avoiders that he opposes. The quickest way of demonstrating a real concern for the workers is to look at the official position that workers' organisations have put forward in this country. A key aspect of the prices and incomes accord with the Australian Council of Trade Unions is to wipe out tax avoidance. If anyone in this chamber wants to pretend to represent the interests of the workers, he had better explain, because it is not obvious to any worker in this country, why the provisions of the prices and incomes accord should be voted against on tax avoidance and it be pretended that it be in the best interests of the workers. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia)(6.08) —After speaking on the Income Tax Assessment (Amendment) Bill (No. 5) 1983 some two and a half weeks ago, apparently a number of people heard what I said. Up till now eight people have been in touch with me. One person has fully documented what happened. He does not want his name revealed and I will honour that but I will name the firm concerned. I do not have documentation relating to the other firms at this stage . The cases refer to superannuation that should have been received but was not received. In this one instance, the person paid into the fund five and a half per cent of his salary. He was duped out of any moneys. He received only the amount that he paid in, plus 2 per cent. Much has been said by Senator Hill and Senator Harradine about this legislation. The terrible thing is that these schemes are legal. This is the terrible part. Employees sign up for a scheme which requires them to stay in that employment either for a certain number of years or until they reach a certain age in order to benefit from it, but the firms see that they do not stay for that time. The firm involved in the case of this individual is now known as Haden Engineering Pty Ltd, a commercial and industrial air-conditioning firm. If I recall correctly, it was formally known as Carrier Air Conditioning Pty Ltd. I have information about another seven firms which has amazed me. This chap thought he was going to receive something like $80,000 but he got back only a couple of thousand dollars. I do not have the figures here. I did not bring all the details of the case with me. What the firm has done, in the true sense, is legal. How can the employees be paid back when they have been duped into going into these schemes? They were legal schemes but, unbeknown to the employees, if they did not serve the full term-15 years in this case or until a certain age-they had no legal right to receive anything out of the fund. This chap was not a member of top management; he was a sales manager in the firm . What can a person do if he gets the sack or becomes redundant at 55 years of age? Senator Hill —Did he get the sack? Senator ELSTOB —Yes, he did, for no valid reason whatsoever. But this case goes even further because under this agreement he lost even his long service leave. Senator Hill —He can't. Senator ELSTOB —The honourable senator says it cannot be done. I will show him and any other honourable senator how it can be done. It is documented here. He sent this to me late last week. The agreement was that the payments could be offset with long service leave. So he lost not only the amount that was rightfully his-the firm never intended to pay him anything on that-but also his long service leave. That was also written into the agreement. I do not want this man's name disclosed because he has asked that that not be done. I have checked whether the agreement is legal, and it is, so honourable senators should not say it is not. These people deliberately went out to rob the employees, who thought that they were going to receive a certain amount of money. This individual told me that he has never voted Labor in his life. He has been a Liberal voter all his life. He said: 'I can't understand what the Liberal Party has done to me'. This is what is going on. It is the most dishonest thing I have seen in my life. It is widespread; there is no doubt about that whatsoever. I will name the other companies which people have said they have been duped by: Dalgety, Kelvinator Australia Ltd and Email Ltd. All of those firms have been involved in such a scheme. All these people have been in touch with me in a short period. Do not tell me those firms should not be fined and that money recovered. What they have done to people over many years is an absolute disgrace. It does not become known until the people are ready to receive the benefit that they thought they were going to get. That is the terrible part. Those firms have destroyed people's lives. That is what has to be considered. Another point I have made previously is that this is unfair to the honest firms that are trying to compete . If a firm dodges taxation by various means it has an unfair advantage over those which are paying taxes and being honest. They cannot compete. I think that is another aspect that all honourable senators should think about. The terrible part is that it is impossible to pay this money back to the people who should have it. I agree with anyone here who says that if it is possible to pay it back it should be paid back, but these superannuation schemes were designed to ensure that the employee would never benefit. No one can convince me that these firms that have deliberately destroyed people's lives should not suffer a penalty. Any of us who thought we would receive a benefit at the age of 55 or 60 and who received virtually nothing would realise that. There is a range of schemes. A lot of them have had no money paid into them. It is impossible to pay these people back. Every person I spoke to went into these schemes believing them to be legal. A lot of these schemes were carried out in conjunction with the Australian Mutual Provident Society. They were signed up with the AMP. It is all recorded. Everyone I have spoken to has said the schemes were designed by the AMP in conjuction with the firms. The top or three people in those firms are getting the plums out of the scheme. That is what is going on. What I am telling honourable senators is absolutely truthful. I can show them the case histories. They amazed me and they will amaze a lot of people. It is so widespread-- Senator Harradine —Are you saying that AMP is involved in these schemes? Senator ELSTOB —AMP is involved, but not illegally. Senator Harradine —To get out of taxes? Senator ELSTOB —The schemes were written up by AMP but the benefits go to only a few people. AMP is not actually doing anything illegal that I can see. But the schemes were designed so that only a small number of people in these firms would get anything out of them. The firms have had tax concessions over the years. Nobody can convince me that these firms or individuals should not pay retrospective tax, having crippled people's lives. People who thought they were going to get a benefit have got nothing. Every case that has come to my notice involves an amount of between $50,000 and $90,000. All the people concerned, having put money into the schemes, finish up receiving under $3,000. In some cases it represents 3 1/2 per cent of what they put in. The case of the person in the employ of the air-conditioning firm got back 2 per cent of what he put in . I have a photostat copy of the cheque that was paid to him and everything else . Senator Macklin —Are you talking about 23F schemes? Senator ELSTOB —I am talking about the way the scheme has been designed to defraud people. It is not illegal; it is legally correct. But it is dishonest. The people are not informed about it. What I said in my speech about three weeks ago was that the information concerning the scheme is held in the general manager's office. If anyone wants to go into that office-I have heard cases of this happening-he or she is called a com., an agitator and everything else and is kicked out. That is what actually happens. This chap got a job in another firm after being unemployed for about 18 months. He does not want his name to be known because he fears that he will once again lose his job. I ask honourable senators to understand this human tragedy. All the crocodile tears about these firms not being required to pay retrospective tax are disgraceful. I think that the firms should be made to pay for what they have done to these individuals and their families. That will stop these totally dishonest schemes from continuing. Senator Macklin —They have been stopped. Senator ELSTOB —They have not been stopped. They are still going on. I reject the amendment. I do not believe in retrospective legislation generally, but where people are being deprived it is justified and right. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.20) —Last year Senator Harradine used to make sanctimonious pronouncements about the sanctity of certainty before the law. Today he has presented the Committee with an amendment, which in the most nebulous terms almost three weeks ago he signified an intent to move and then produced less than three hours ago. That amendment, which originates from an honourable senator who used to sermonise about the need for certainty before the law, means that clause 5 of the Bill, if enacted, will not come into operation for the time being. It might come into operation at some stage in the future, after both Houses of Parliament have given assent. In the meantime, not only would people like the Kelly brothers be allowed to keep money which should properly have been paid in taxation many years ago, but would-be perpetrators of new cherry picker schemes, subject only to the uncertain constraints of section 260, section 341, section 170 (8) or Part IVA, would then be given the green light to continue to operate these schemes. So much for the sanctity of certainty before the law, which Senator Harradine upholds as a fundamental principle, when it is necessary to concoct some other apologia for his consistent record, when his vote counts, in voting down legislation in the Senate which seeks to recover money that should have been paid years ago by tax avoiders. Senator Harradine takes the view that if his amendment had been adopted-he believed in it so much he did not even bother to move the first one-then, in some way he is not able to explain, this Senator committee would have worked out how to transfer, through the taxation act, money to the employees who did not get money ostensibly paid into superannuation funds for their benefit. Senator Cook —And did not know about it. Senator WALSH —Even though they did not know about it-I do not know about all cases, but certainly in a great number of cases they did not even know about it. It is argued that at some time in future the Senate will say that clause 5 will be operative from some date or other. After the proposed committee has conducted this hypothetical investigation, which could easily take the rest of this year, the proposition will then return to the Senate and the House of Representatives, to this effect: 'We will allow clause 5 to be operative at some date or other'. That is where the catch-22 comes in. People like Senator Harradine will say that we cannot apply the clause backdated even to 7 December 1983. Senator Harradine —Why not? Senator WALSH —Because people like Senator Harradine will raise spurious excuses for not doing it. He will say it if his vote is crucial. Other people like Senator Macklin and Senator Chipp have said it consistently. Senator Harradine says it when it suits him. The argument will then be put that it would not be right to proclaim clause 5 with a date operative from any date other than the date on which the proclamation motion is introduced into Parliament. It will be said by people like Senator Harradine, and some others who have a more consistent record on this matter than does Senator Harradine, that it would be morally indefensible to apply that clause retrospectively when for some years, and for perhaps another year hence, people have not been certain whether that clause would be proclaimed, and for what operational date it would be proclaimed . That is the proposition which has been introduced to the Committee tonight by Senator Harradine, who used to sermonise about the sanctity of certainty before the law. He believes so much in that proposition that he did not even bother to move the amendment. That shows how committed he is to it. This is a subterfuge. The additional factor is that if his amendments had been carried, there would have been no certainty that prospective operators of cherry picker schemes could have been stopped from setting them up and operating. The Commissioner would then have to fall back on other sections of the Act which cannot be guaranteed to work. Senator Harradine's next red herring was to mention the Employment Protection Act 1982, of which I confess I was previously unaware, which is apparently a statute of the State of New South Wales. He explained how that Act could be used to recover moneys to which employees had a nominal, though strictly speaking not a legal, entitlement under the deeds of trust. I shall not pass an opinion about an Act of which I was previously unaware, but I will state this with absolute certainty: Whatever potential that Act has to recover from the operators of the cherry picker schemes, the notional or presumed entitlements of workers still exist irrespective of what happens to this Bill. It is extraordinary, even for Senator Harradine, that he should name a statute of another parliament which, he says, gives the employees a right to recover the money and use that as an excuse to defer the proclamation of a clause in a Bill before this Parliament which gives the Taxation Commissioner the right to recover the tax which should have been paid years ago. Even by Senator Harradine's standards, that is an extraordinary contortion. Whatever potential the Employment Protection Act 1982 has for redressing what Senator Harradine claims are the wrongs perpetrated against the workers, even though the notional entitlement was not even known to the workers, in some or many instances, whatever potential that Act has to recover moneys which it could be argued are due to workers, that entitlement exists irrespective of what happens to clause 5 or to this Bill. I invite Senator Harradine to pursue through the courts of New South Wales the Employment Protection Act and to use that, which he says is a vehicle to recover the just rights of the workers. I add that I will not hold my breath while I am waiting for him to do so. Senator Harradine referred to this nebulous Senate committee being able to unearth the facts. I am not sure what he meant by that, but one thing of which we can be certain is that the only cherry picker case in which there is authenticated information is Kelly v. Raymor, upon which Mr Justice Wootten gave judgment. The reason we have detailed information about that matter is that one of the manipulators of the scheme brought a civil action against the other chief manipulator of that scheme to stop the second manipulator cheating the first manipulator, as well as the Taxation Office and everybody else. That is the only reason we know those details. We have not got them from the Taxation Office. We cannot get them from the Taxation Office, and by 'we' I mean any member of parliament, including the Treasurer. We are not permitted under the provisions of section 16 of the Taxation Act to get specific information about such cases. Yet Senator Harradine would have the gullible believe that somehow all the facts pertinent to this case will be ferreted out in a Senate committee, even though the Commissioner of Taxation and his officers are explicitly precluded from providing detailed information on them. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator WALSH —Before the suspension of the sitting, I canvassed the possibilities if the amendment that Senator Harradine circulated but did not move had been carried. I have only one further comment to add. By the time a Senate committee had completed its deliberations we might well have been dealing with a different Senate, which adds further uncertainty to the inherent uncertainties of the amendment he proposed. In the five minutes remaining, I will deal with the comments of other people who have spoken on these amendments or on clause 5. Firstly, as I have already indicated, the Government will not accept the amendments that have been moved by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle. The reasons given by the Opposition for moving those amendments seem to focus on the belief that either section 4A or section 170 (8) of the Income Tax Assessment Act would achieve the objectives which the Government seeks to implement in clause 5 of this Bill. To some extent I deal with this in the second reading debate, but perhaps I should summarise it again. Apart from the doubts as to whether section 4A is completely effective against the cherry-picker scheme, as it is colloquially known, it could not, of course, operate in that period prior to its passage in May 1981, its date of commencement. Therefore, on the most optimistic assessment of the effectiveness of section 4A, all cherry-picker schemes which became operative between 1 July 1977 and May 1981 would not be covered by it. I say that with certainty. A specific case which would be excluded from the scope of section 4A is the notorious Kelly v. Raymor (Illawarra) Pty Ltd case to which I have already referred. I have already given the Government's case, indeed the factual position, with respect to section 170 (8). The Commissioner of Taxation could disallow all the deductions which had been claimed in the year in which he decided to disallow the deductions, but for all previous years he could not disallow any deduction other than that in excess of the statutory limit of $400 per employee. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, if I heard her correctly, appears to have misunderstood what I said. The Opposition amendment, if carried, would not prevent the prospective application of clause 5, but it would, of course, prevent its application to any date prior to 7 December 1983. My reference to prospectivity or, rather, the effective emasculation of the application of clause 5 of the present Bill was to Senator Harradine's amendment. I have already dealt with that. Senator Tate raised some questions regarding section 231 of the Income Tax Assessment Act and asked why it could not be effectively applied against the types of schemes the Government seeks to deal with under clause 5 of the Bill. For a number of reasons, the application of section 231 would be limited. Firstly, it relies principally on the proving of a charge which is tantamount to a charge of conspiracy, which under any conditions is difficult to prove. Secondly, some of the trust deeds of the funds no longer exist. Thirdly, the time limit of six years in some cases would have expired. Therefore, although arguably section 231, like section 260, could conceivably be applied to some of the schemes which the Government aims to cover with clause 5 of the Bill, it certainly could not effectively deal with all of them. Only clause 5 of the Bill could do that, although I am advised that in those cases in which criminal prosecutions could be launched under section 231 the Commissioner intends to take action. Senator Tate —It should have been applied before. It is about time. There have been 40 years to do it. Senator WALSH —I suppose Senator Tate's view may have some merit. The point is that it has not been applied and the only way of effectively dealing with these schemes is the way the Government proposes in clause 5 of the Bill. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(8.06) —I will not keep the Committee long. All I want to do is respond very briefly to something Senator Walsh said and to attempt to indicate that what I had proposed and which is now defeated could have assisted, in my view-- Senator Walsh —It was not defeated; it was not moved. Senator HARRADINE —I moved an amendment at the second reading stage. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —We voted on it. Senator HARRADINE —We happened to vote on it and the Minister voted against it. Senator Walsh —Yes. Senator HARRADINE —Well, the Minister just said that I did not move it. Senator Walsh —It was a motherhood amendment. You had many amendments that you did not move. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The Minister will cease interjecting. Senator Harradine will address the Chair. Senator HARRADINE —Mr Chairman, how does one vote for or against a proposition that is not moved in this chamber? What I have not moved, of course, at the Committee stage is the amendment which was contingent upon the other proposal being adopted. Senator Walsh indicated that my proposal was not consistent with my firm belief in the principle of certainty before the law. There is nothing uncertain about the fact that my amendment in the Committee stage would have enabled both Houses of Parliament to determine a date upon which clause 5 could come into operation. There is nothing uncertain about the fact that that date would be not later than 7 December 1983, because that is the very date that is being proposed by the Opposition. It would have been the earliest date on which this clause would come into effect had the Government chosen to support the amendment. If the Government did not choose to support it, it allowed things to lapse. Senator Walsh accused me of suggesting in the proposition that I moved at the second reading stage that we should through the tax law put an overriding emphasis on the need to redress financial disadvantage suffered by employees for whose benefit the schemes were ostensibly established. I did not suggest that it should be done through the tax law. I was suggesting that a select committee be established to examine who was involved, what were the notional entitlements and how to redress the situation for those most affected. Senator Walsh —Come on. Your subterfuge has been blown. You might as well give up. Senator HARRADINE —I will challenge the Minister by recommitting my amendment. The Minister would then have to face up to the situation and vote for my amendment because what I am proposing is eminently reasonable. The Minister even admitted that somehow he did not know of the existence of the Employment Protection Act. It may not be possible to deal with this matter under the Employment Protection Act. However, as I read the Employment Protection Act there is a likelihood of some redress being achieved if the claims of some of the persons involved could be established. I turn briefly to the claim that I am inconsistent in respect of my position on retrospective law. I am not inconsistent when it comes to a retrospective payment to workers who had a notional entitlement under these schemes. That is not retrospective law. Determinations and awards are made retrospectively. None of them is made retrospective beyond the date of the serving of the log of claims. Senator Elstob raised a number of very important matters. I am concerned and obviously a number of people on the Government side and the Opposition side, I suspect, as well as the Australian Democrats are concerned about the fact that people have been seen off in respect of superannuation schemes. Senator Walsh said there was no need for my amendment because the notional entitlement of the employees concerned would still exist if this Bill were passed. That might be true. But there would not be much money left in the bucket to pay out and support-- Senator Walsh —How do you know that? Senator HARRADINE —How does the Minister know the opposite? That is why I am suggesting that we have a Senate inquiry into this whole matter. Obviously there would not be the amount of money that should be available for that sort of payout. I put it to the Committee that a Senate select committee could establish which employees were most affected. The committee could advertise broadly throughout Australia. The committee could receive submissions from any employee who suspected that he had been dismissed so as to put his entitlement in jeopardy. Certainly eight cases have come to the attention of Senator Elstob. We would be able to determine the nature of these schemes. The Taxation Office could be called before and examined by such a committee. The committee could question it not only about the schemes but also about why the Taxation Office did not take the action that is available to it under existing legislation. Although we would not be able to get the names of individuals, we would be able to examine the Taxation Office about the best way it sees of giving some redress to the employees concerned. The Taxation Office would have to forgo the belief that it always has first right to anybody's money. We have had arguments about this matter time and time again. When people go bankrupt the Taxation Office gets in for its dig before the workers get a cent. I have no time for that sort of attitude. I believe that the Government is exhibiting this attitude in regard to this matter. Senator Walsh described the committee as a nebulous Senate committee. Senate committees are able to achieve a great deal. Let me remind the Committee that when the trade union movement of this country was faced with decimation under the Viner legislation-- Senator Cook —That is a bit extravagant. Senator HARRADINE —No, it is not extravagant. Because of similar legislation in Western Australia some Western Australian unions lost three-quarters of their members over four years. I do not know what the figures were, but the membership certainly was down from 100 per cent to 25 per cent. The Senate select committee involved in this instance called for evidence and was able in various ways to get the then Government to drop the legislation. There is an old story about an Englishman, a German and a Frenchman pondering over how to get a dog to eat some mustard-it was French mustard actually. The Englishman sat the dog down and appealed to reason. That did not quite work, so he appealed to the glory of the Empire. The dog was quite unmoved. The German, using a different tack, attempted to jam the mustard down the throat of the dog and got his arm bitten for his trouble. Senator Kilgariff —What did the Irishman do? Senator HARRADINE —No, it was a Frenchman. The Frenchman lifted the dog's tail and dabbed the mustard underneath. Twenty seconds later, after a loud licking noise, the mustard was ensconced in the stomach of the dog. There are more ways of doing things than the direct way. I am confident that had we been able to establish such a committee this matter could have been brought to fruition. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 0 —— Archer, B. R. Jessop, D. S. Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F. (teller)Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Carrick, Sir John Macklin, M. J. Chipp, D. L. Martin, K. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Messner, A. J. Durack, P. D. Rae, PeterGuilfoyle, Dame Margaret Scott, D. B. Haines, J. Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Harradine, B. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Bolkus, N. McIntosh, G. D. Button, J. N. Maguire, G. R. Childs, B. K. Mason, C. V. J. Coates, J. Primmer, C. G. Coleman, R. N. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F. Elstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A. (teller)Evans, Gareth Ryan, S. M.. Evans, Jack Sibraa, K. W. Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C. Jones, G. N. Walsh, P. A. McClelland, Douglas Zakharov, A. O. Collard, S, J. Giles, P. J. Chaney, F. M. Colston, M. A. Reid, M. E. Hearn, J. M. Missen, A. J. Grimes, D. J. Lajovic, M. E. Georges, G. Question so resolved in the negative. Question put: That clause 5 stand as printed. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 0 —— Bolkus, N. McIntosh, G. D. Button, J. N. Maguire, G. R. Childs, B. K. Mason, C. V. J. Coates, J. Primmer, C. G. Coleman, R. N. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F. Elstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A. (teller)Evans, Gareth Ryan, S. M.. Evans, Jack Sibraa, K. W. Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C. Jones, G. N. Walsh, P. A. McClelland, Douglas Zakharov, A. O. Archer, B. R. Jessop, D. S. Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F. (teller)Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Carrick, Sir John Macklin, M. J. Chipp, D. L. Martin, K. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Messner, A. J. Durack, P. D. Rae, PeterGuilfoyle, Dame Margaret Scott, D. B. Haines, J. Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Harradine, B. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Giles, P. J. Collard, S. J. Colston, M. A. Chaney, F. M. Hearn, J. M. Reid, M. E. Grimes, D. J. Missen, A. J. Georges, G. Lajovic, M. E. Question so resolved in the negative. Remainder of the Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(8.28) —It is very important to note for the record that the 26 honourable senators who just negated clause 5 have allowed, inter alia, the two Kellys and a few of their chosen cronies to keep the $1m plus of which they have deprived, not the Treasury, but honest taxpayers of Australia. Senator Harradine —I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. He cannot help himself , can he? What clause is he talking about? The CHAIRMAN —He is talking about the remainder of the Bill. Senator Harradine —I see. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Walsh should address himself to the remainder of the Bill. Senator Harradine —I mean that, if Senator Walsh wants to go on, I will answer him. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator Harradine will resume his seat, please. Senator WALSH —Well, you have not done too well now, Harradine. I would be interested to hear you explain why you who have no-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator Walsh will address the Chair. He will confine his remarks to the remainder of clauses from clause 6 onwards. Senator WALSH —Very well, Mr Chairman. The Bill as a whole is substantially devalued because of the vote that has just been taken. I know that some honourable senators have had consistent views on this subject and some have not. On behalf of the Government I seek leave to move three amendments as circulated together. Leave granted. Senator WALSH —I move: (1) Page 5, clause 6, after proposed sub-section 26AH (1) insert the following sub-section: '' ' (1A) Where a paid-up policy of life assurance is issued to a taxpayer in lieu of an eligible policy- (a) the paid-up policy shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be a continuation of the eligible policy; and (b) no amount shall be taken for the purposes of sub-section (3) to have been re-invested or otherwise dealt with on behalf of the taxpayer or as he directs in connection with the issue of the paid-up policy to the taxpayer in lieu of the eligible policy.''. (2) Page 6, clause 6, after proposed sub-section 26AH (6) insert the following sub-section: '' ' (6A) Where- (a) sub-section (5) would, but for this sub-section, apply to an amount (in this sub-section referred to as the ''relevant amount'') received by a taxpayer by reason of the forfeiture, surrender or other termination of the whole or a part of an eligible policy; and (b) the Commissioner, having regard to- (i) the total amount of premiums paid under the eligible policy; (ii) the total amounts received by the taxpayer or by any other person under the eligible policy and the total amounts of bonuses included in the amounts so received; (iii) the amount of the surrender value of the eligible policy at the time when the forfeiture, surrender or other termination occurred; and (iv) such other matters as the Commissioner considers relevant, is of the opinion that it would be unreasonable for sub-section (5) to apply to the relevant amount or to a part of the relevant amount, sub-section (5) does not apply to the relevant amount, or to that part of the relevant amount, as the case may be.''. (3) Page 46, clause 25, leave out proposed section 160AAB, insert the following section: Rebate in respect of amounts assessable under section 26AH '' '160AAB. (1) In this section, ''eligible 26AH amount'', in relation to a year of income, means an amount included in assessable income under section 26AH in relation to an eligible policy within the meaning of that section issued by a life assurance company to which Division 8 applies in relation to the year of income, not being a life assurance company the whole of the income of which is exempt from tax. '(2) A taxpayer, not being a taxpayer in the capacity of trustee of a trust estate, is entitled in his assessment in respect of income of a year of income to a rebate of tax of an amount equal to 30% of any eligible 26AH amount included in his assessable income of the year of income. '(3) Where- (a) an amount is included under section 97, 98A or 100 in the assessable income of a year of income of a taxpayer being a beneficiary of a trust estate otherwise than in the capacity of trustee of another trust estate; and (b) the whole or a part of the amount so included (which whole or part is in this sub-section referred to as the ''rebatable amount'') is attributable to an eligible 26AH amount included in the assessable income of the year of income of the trust estate or of another trust estate, the taxpayer is entitled in his assessment in respect of income of the year of income to a rebate of tax of an amount equal to 30% of the rebatable amount. '(4) Were- (a) a taxpayer being the trustee of a trust estate is liable to be assessed and to pay tax in pursuance of section 98 in respect of a share of the net income of the trust estate of a year of income; and (b) the whole or a part of that share (which whole or part is in this sub- section referred to as the ''rebatable amount'') is attributable to an eligible 26AH amount included in the assessable income of the year of income of the trust estate or of another trust estate, the taxpayer is entitled in that assessment to a rebate of tax of an amount equal to 30% of the rebatable amount. '(5) Where- (a) a taxpayer being the trustee of a trust estate is liable to be assessed and to pay tax in pursuance of section 99 or 99A in respect of the whole or a part ( which whole or part is in this sub-section referred to as the ''relevant trust income'') of the net income of the trust estate of a year of income; and (b) the whole or a part of the relevant trust income (which whole or part is in this sub-section referred to as the ''rebatable amount'') is attributable to an eligible 26AH amount included in the assessable income of the year of income of the trust estate or of another trust estate, the taxpayer is entitled in that assessment to a rebate of tax of an amount equal to 30% of the rebatable amount. '(6) Where an eligible 26AH amount is included in the assessable income of a partnership of a year of income in the calculation of the net income or partnership loss of the partnership of the year of income, a partner in the partnership is entitled in his assessment in respect of income of the year of income to a rebate of tax of an amount equal to 30% of the amount by which the taxable income of the partner of the year of income exceeds the amount that could reasonably be expected to be that taxable income if the eligible 26AH amount had not been included in the assessable income of the partnership of the year of income. '(7) In the application of this section in relation to the year of income that commenced on 1 July 1982, references in this section to 30% shall be read as references to 30.67%.' ''. The three amendments are all of a minor nature and deal with the short term life insurance provisions of the Bill. By way of background, the amendment proposed by clause 6 of the Bill removes the income tax advantages available to life insurance policy holders in respect of short term insurance arrangements. The provision gives effect, subject to an extension of the taxable period to 10 years for policies issued after 7 December 1983, to measures announced by the previous government on 27 August 1982. In announcing these measures, the then Treasurer proposed that bonuses or other proceeds paid under short term life insurance policies would become subject to tax, but only to the extent to which they exceeded premiums paid. It has been drawn to the Government's attention that the Bill as introduced may not fully achieve that in the case of traditional life insurance policies terminated within the extended taxable period. Where a policyholder terminates a traditional policy at a loss he or she may have participated in profits, by way of bonuses, and under the Bill be taxable on those profits. Reflecting the variety of situations that may be encountered, the first amendment will overcome this unintended effect by providing that the Commissioner of Taxation may appropriately exclude from assessable income a part of a bonus which would otherwise fall to be taxed. The Commissioner is to have regard to such matters as total premiums paid on the policy, any amounts or bonuses previously received under the policy and the surrender value of the policy. In practice this will mean that bonuses will not be subject to tax under the new measures unless the total amount received by the holder or holders of a policy exceeds the premiums paid under the policy. The second amendment will ensure that the short term life insurance measures specifically deal with the case where a policy holder decides to discontinue premium payments and applies for the issue of a paid-up policy in lieu of the original policy. Where a policy is, in effect, converted to a paid-up policy, it is not intended that any amount should, on conversion, fall to be taxed under the new measures. The amendment treats the paid-up policy for all purposes, including the ascertainment of the 10-year taxable period should the replacement policy itself be terminated early, as a continuation of the original policy. The third amendment relates to clause 25 which provides for a rebate of tax at the standard rate in respect of bonuses paid by a taxable life assurance company and which are, by virtue of clause 6, to be included in assessable income. The Bill as introduced does not cater for the case where a trust beneficiary or a partner has an amount included in his or her income as a result of the inclusion of an amount subject to the new measures in the assessable income of the trust or partnership. The amendment I propose will ensure that beneficiaries and partners in these circumstances are, as was intended, entitled to the rebate. I commend the amendments to the Committee. As far as I know, there will be not be any opposition to the amendments. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(8.33) —The Opposition does not oppose the Government's amendments. It accepts the unintended effect of the original proposals that were before us and, for the reasons that have been outlined by Senator Walsh, we have no opposition to the amendments he has just moved. Amendments agreed to. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(8.34) —I refer to clause 10 which seeks to insert a new section 57AM, sub-section (22) of which states: . . . be manned to enable the ship to be operated in a safe and efficient manner while engaged in operations of that kind. Will the Minister expand on that statement and give some guidance? Will he explain how the manning strengths are computed? What formula does the Secretary to the Department use? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(8.35) —I do not have a copy of the replies which I tabled earlier today to your comments, Mr Chairman. I am not sure whether they covered that aspect. Off the top of my head I am not able to answer Senator MacGibbon's questions. I do not think that any of the officials from the Australian Taxation Office who are here are able to do so either. All I can do is ask Senator MacGibbon to bear with us and I will see what I can supply in writing subsequently. It is not a tax question so much as, I would think, a transport question. I will try to get an answer but I am afraid that I cannot give him one now. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(8.36) —I thank the Minister for his interest. The proposed new sub-section (23) deals with the variations that are possible to the manning strengths. What variations would be accepted by the Department? What variations are possible? Are they possible only on operational grounds advanced on behalf of the owner or are they possible on matters of non-co-operation from the unions? Are those grounds to satisfy the Secretary that a higher manning strength should be granted to a ship? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(8.36) —I can only respond in the same way as I responded to the previous question. I hope Senator MacGibbon will accept that. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(8.37) —I ask the Minister, in view of the fact that the Government has made much of its rhetoric on consultation, whether in relation to the taxing of short term non-superannuation life policies it consulted the insurance industry in line with assurances by the Government. Is it true that as a result of these actions in this area serious disturbances and inequities will develop within the Australian financial market as a result of these proposals? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(8.38) —I am informed that some general discussions were held on an informal basis but, as far as I am aware, nothing very specific was taken up on a formal basis on the question which Senator Watson has raised. If he likes, I am quite willing to put his question to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to see whether a more definitive response can be given later. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —I think the Treasurer said that he did not have the discussions because he had no confidence that they would remain confidential . Senator WALSH —I was not aware of that. I will see whether the Treasurer has anything to add. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(8.39) —Will the Minister answer the second part of the question on whether serious disturbances and inequities will develop within the Australian financial market as a result of these changes? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(8.39) —I will also refer that question to the Treasurer. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(8.40) —I rise not to indicate that we will be opposing any of these clauses but to express concern and to indicate that it has been suggested to us that we should oppose clause 25 because it creates further inequities for the friendly societies movement in Australia. Whilst this may not be exactly pertinent to the clause as it is written, I think it needs to be drawn to the attention of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that this provision once more gives an advantage to life assurance companies and creates a disadvantage for friendly societies. I think it is time we had some sort of assurance from the Government. This legislation is coming through subsequent to a promise that legislation would be introduced to support and allow the friendly societies of Australia to survive, and it is putting them at a further disadvantage. It is time the Government realised that it is reducing the ability of the friendly societies to compete and that it is giving an advantage to life assurance companies, which already are very advantageously positioned vis-a-vis friendly societies. All I seek from the Minister at the moment, as we are not planning to move any amendments to section 26AH of the Act, is an assurance that the Government will very shortly redress that balance. The reference is to section 160AAB. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(8.42) —I am advised that, when friendly societies are taxed, as was forecast in the statement of 18 May last year, it is intended that they should receive the same tax treatment as life offices are to receive under clause 25 of the Bill. Remainder of Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a third time. Debate resumed from 7 March, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. (Quorum formed) Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(8.44) —The Judiciary Amendment Bill which is before the Senate seeks to amend the Judiciary Act to provide a backup for Victorian legislation designed to enable in camera hearings to take place in relation to any charges which may be laid against the Australian Secret Intelligence Service agents who took part in the incident at the Sheraton Hotel. The effect of the Bill amending the Federal law is simply to provide that if a Victorian court makes an order a person who does not comply with it may be dealt with by the Federal Court. The Victorian legislation provides that the Attorney- General of the Commonwealth or the Attorney-General of Victoria may apply, if it is in the interests of national or international security, for an order that the whole or part of the proceedings may be held in a closed court in respect of any cases that may come before a Victorian court arising out of the ASIS incident. The ASIS incident has been the subject of a good deal of comment both inside and outside the Parliament and I do not propose to go over the ground again. Suffice it to say that the agents of security services are not above the law, and the law must take its course against such people if they are in breach of it . That is a principle which the Opposition has made perfectly clear and which I repeat tonight. Certainly there were some disquieting aspects of the ASIS operation, and it has been the subject of a report by Mr Justice Hope, which was tabled in this Parliament a few weeks ago. As one has come to expect from Mr Justice Hope, the report contained very rational and careful findings in relation to the incident and made some very useful recommendations. However, Mr Justice Hope obviously was concerned about the situation of the disclosure by the Commonwealth Government of the names of the ASIS agents. As I understand the position, some of the agents who took part in the exercise have been apprehended or summonsed and charges are to be or have been laid against them. The names of others who were associated with the exercise are not known to the Victorian Government but are known to the Commonwealth Government. Discussions have been going on between the respective governments about the disclosure of the names of those agents so that the Victorian Government presumably can make inquiries as to whether charges should be laid against those agents as well. On page 70 of Mr Justice Hope's report paragraph 6.6 states: Special problems arise in relation to the disclosure of the names of the persons involved in the Sheraton Hotel incident which are the subject of additional considerations. During the course of my inquiry the Department of Foreign Affairs provided me with a statement about the consequences for foreign relations and national security of disclosure of the names. These are summarised in Appendix VI. I might say that Appendix VI is a secret part of the report. Mr Justice Hope proceeds: I am satisfied by the material in that statement that the disclosure of the names would be likely to have the consequences claimed by the Department. In my opinion, these considerations are sufficient to warrant my recommending, as I do, that the names be not disclosed. In making this recommendation I am mindful, however, that the question of whether there are legitimate counterveiling considerations may come before the High Court for decision. I do not regard it as part of my function to attempt to resolve that issue. It is a fact that proceedings have been commenced in the High Court of Australia on behalf of these ASIS agents and an interim injunction has been made preventing the disclosure of their names. No doubt those proceedings will go ahead if the agents involved are sufficiently concerned about their rights to pursue them. As far as we are concerned, that is a matter for determination by the High Court. Their rights should be protected by whatever legal redress is available to them. However, apparently the Government has agreed that, as far as it is concerned, unless it is restrained permanently by the High Court from making the names available to the Victorian Court, it will do so. The Opposition expresses some concern about that decision. As I said, Mr Justice Hope has recommended that the names not be disclosed. Perhaps whether his recommendation extends simply to the names being made public or means that the names should remain confidential to the Commonwealth Government is somewhat ambiguous. Whichever interpretation is placed upon it, obviously Mr Justice Hope is very concerned about some of the national security implications of disclosure of the names. Also, as he said, he believes that both foreign relations and national security considerations are involved. What if the Commonwealth Government persists in its policy of accommodating the Victorian Government and making the names available? That may not necessarily be for the purpose of conducting a trial because presumably the Victorian Government's legal advisers have to consider whether there is sufficient evidence to charge these people. At all events, there is that likelihood of a trial and certainly the purpose of the Victorian Government pressing for the names is so that the agents can be charged for what the Victorian Government obviously strongly feels are breaches of Victorian law. As I said, this matter is still subject to proceedings in the High Court and if orders are made permanent in the High Court, that may frustrate the Commonwealth Government's intention. If the Commonwealth Government is determined that the names be made available, and it is free to make them available, then it is most desirable that any proceedings which result from that disclosure be in closed court. The Opposition supports the Bill to that extent. However, the original proposal of the Victorian Government in the legislation introduced in the Victorian Parliament and which is to be supported by corresponding amendments to the Judiciary Act in this Parliament was that there should be a power on the part of the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth or of a State to seek an order in any proceedings, in the interests of national or international security or the interests of the physical safety of the accused or a witness, to the effect that proceedings be held in closed court. Other consequential orders could be sought and made. The Opposition believes it is appropriate to legislate for the closing of a court or the holding of proceedings in camera if those criteria are satisfied. Legislation should not be passed by this Parliament in respect of one particular incident. That is our preferred course. We believe legislation should be passed in that form and not in the restricted form of the Bill now before us. Admittedly the Victorian legislation has been introduced-for all I know, it may well have been passed-in this restricted form despite the preferable form it took when first proposed. I believe this Parliament should not accommodate that restricted approach the Victorians have taken and should make that clear by moving a suitable amendment to the legislation before it. The Opposition certainly has some reservations about what the Government is planning to do in relation to this matter and has the firm conviction that if names are disclosed and there are proceedings in Victoria those proceedings should be held in camera in the interests of, as Mr Justice Hope puts it, foreign relations and national security. We support the principle espoused in this legislation but we do not think that it should be simply restricted to the ASIS incident. It should have general application. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(8.58) —Support by the Australian Democrats for the Judiciary Amendment Bill 1984-indeed, we do support it-in no way implies any support for or approval of the disgraceful and expensive events of late last year resulting from the Australian Secret Intelligence Service raid on the Sheraton Hotel. The most alarming disclosure from the point of view of the Australian public has been that concerning the cost of compensation and other costs associated with this unfortunate episode. While some statements from the Government have indicated that this sort of thing will never happen again, it is time we had something a little clearer from the Government on why and how it will not happen again. In other words, these statements have more or less expressed a pious, rather sanctimonious view that this sort of thing will not happen again in Australia but we are still waiting for concrete statements and decisions from the Government on how it proposes to control the Australian Secret Intelligence Service so that it will not carry out these actions. The Australian community is waiting for that kind of assurance from the Government. These sorts of things regularly happen in various countries. The Central Intelligence Agency in America went through a period when the most appalling situations regularly occurred. Each time that happened the government of the time said that it must never happen again. But, lo and behold, it did happen again. I am not at all satisified that the Government is taking sufficient control of the situation to ensure that the Australian community is not exposed to another Sheraton episode. The Australian Democrats are also concerned about the idea of limiting disclosure in court cases of any kind. Indeed, I have had feedback from the public that many citizens are similarly concerned. I say to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) that these citizens take a cynical and disillusioned view of the prospects of limitation in this case. In my experience and that of a considerable number of people with whom this has been discussed, including some people in the media who I suppose are normally cynical anyway, this is widely seen by the public as a kind of cover-up. The Attorney-General may have some difficulty in overcoming that impression. If he feels that it is important that it be overcome, he will have to make greater effort than he has made to date. On the whole, this is an honest and healthy response from the Australian public and the media. The most close and careful scrutiny should be applied to this episode . After all, secret trials have been part of the stock-in-trade of dictatorships and quasi-dictatorships throughout history. They are something that we should accept in this society only with the greatest of suspicion and with the utmost circumspection. As a result of these considerations the Democrats have thought hard and long about supporting this Bill. Quite early in its drafting we proposed some amendments that would at least limit the extent to which these trials were held in complete obscurity and secrecy. As a result of negotiations our amendments were included in the Bill as printed and in fact comprise the penultimate section on page 3 under the heading 'Reports' which reads: (1) Subject to sub-section (2) the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth shall, as soon as practicable after each 30 June, lay before each House of the Parliament a report setting out- (a) the number of proceedings in which, to his knowledge, orders referred to in sub-section 49 (1) were made during the year that ended on that date; and (b) particulars of those proceedings, including particulars of the judgments. (2) Sub-section (1) does not require the making of a report in terms that would be inconsistent with any order referred to in sub-section 49 (1). As things stand in the Bill, which has now been limited to the ASIS incident, this may not seem important. But we feel it is very important as a principle and as a point that may apply in future legislation of this kind. If, indeed, there is to be this sort of secret trial, at least the Attorney-General of the time must report to the Parliament that there has been a secret trial and what the consequences of it were. If we do not have that, we could have a situation in which secret trials proliferated in this country, just as they did in fascist countries and as they do in Soviet Russia, without anyone knowing about them. While I do not consider that to be the intention of the Government, it is very important when we are making legislation not to leave loopholes that could be exploited in the future. In this matter the Australian Democrats considered also those people who work for ASIS, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and our secret organisations. A completely secret situation could militate against them. Indeed, a series of trials could well have been held against a whole group of people without the people of this country every being aware of it. As the Bill stands now, it makes that impossible. We were also concerned at the scope of the original Bill which, no doubt unintentionally, would have permitted actions other than the Sheraton one, the ASIS one, to take place without public knowledge and in secret. I hasten to say that I do not know of any such cases and I do not suspect any. But, theoretically I suppose, it is possible that the Government has a whole row of such things ready to trundle up and we must at least guard against that possibility. The two-year period mentioned in clause 51, which stated that this part does not apply in relation to an order made later than 2 years after the commencement of the Criminal Proceedings Act 1984 of Victoria, would, if it had not been modified elsewhere, possibly have permitted the introduction of other cases of this kind that we may never have known about. This is not in airy-fairy land or just speculation. It has happened in other countries. Where these gaps occur in legislation it is only too possible for them to be exploited by perhaps opportunists in the bureaucracy when there is sufficient reason from their point of view to do so. However, the alteration to the Bill to limit its operations strictly, to quote page 2, to 'the incident that occurred at the Sherton Hotel in Melbourne on the night of 30 November 1983 involving the Australian Secret Intelligence Service', was done at the request of the Australian Democrats because we believed it most important that this should be a one-off operation and that it would be absolutely intolerable to the Australian community and the Australian people that any Bill of this kind which had a general application should pass any House of this Parliament. The moment that we do that we are with Hitler, with Mussolini and with Stalin. If we create any kind of legislation which would allow that kind of situation to occur more than once and not in any specific area, we would be going down a very dangerous path indeed. I understand, and I find it almost incredible, that the Liberal Party of Australia may indeed be contemplating some sort of amendment to remove this clause. I will be interested indeed in its reasons for doing so and for saying to the Australian community that it is prepared to bring forward an amendment which would indeed create a situation of secret trials in this country. Senator Durack —Grow up. Senator MASON —Senator Durack protests; perhaps I should not prejudge him. I beg his pardon and I hope that what I suspect is not true and that the Liberal Party is not intending to move an amendment of that kind. I will wait and see what happens in that regard. The Australian Democrats, like all reasonable people, regret the need in the world for secret intelligence operations. But we are not so naive as to believe that any country can unilaterally opt out of them. One of the facts of life is that this kind of operation appears to be necessary. It is, one might say, basically a cancer on international society for which we pay very dearly indeed and from which, if we take the balance internationally, we obtain very little. It harms and damages the world; let us face that. It is bitter war of attrition between those organisations which at great public expense carry out a kind of junior war against each other which does not really achieve anything except the negation of their own efforts. If we want that kind of world, so be it, but we have to recognise the facts about it. What a stupid, inconsequential, dangerous and expensive undertaking it is to the world. In this ASIS incident at the Sheraton Hotel we see how it can impact on the community at large with great expense, great trouble and great danger. The people who operate in this strange half-world of security apparently are trained to see themselves as above and beyond the law of the land. Any organisation that does that, for whatever reason, is doing something which is fundamentally damaging and dangerous to the society it is supposed to protect. Members of such organisations do it obviously, as this incident showed, with a total sense of irresponsibility, with no idea of their proper responsibilities to society and no idea that they have may have been placed there in a particularly sensitive and delicate role where certain responsibilities and obligations are required of them, or should be, by the Community. They are the first and most willing to laugh at and deride those responsibilities and make nothing of them. If they earn the contempt, dislike and scorn of society, as ASIS has in this matter, they richly deserve it. That lesson needs to be driven home again and again by the Government. If we are to have this sort of security organisation, for God's sake let us not have in it a group of juveniles, a group of non-grown up people, who believe they can go into a hotel and smash up its doors without anybody knowing about it and without its becoming a matter for government and the Press. How incredibly juvenile that was. We need an organisation which is capable of doing this delicate and sensitive work with intelligence. That is what the word ' intelligence' is supposed to mean. We have not seen much intelligence from the Australian Secret Intelligence Service in this episode. That organisation should mediate and reflect on the fact that intelligence is part of its name and make sure that in future it uses its intelligence in whatever it does. We have been given reasons for the anonymity of the defendants in this case, which we have accepted as good and sufficient. Obviously, I cannot mention them. Just as obviously we plainly cannot be absolutely sure, on our knowledge, that they are justified. However, our decision has been to accept those reasons and on that basis and on the basis of the Government's having accepted the change we proposed-I thank it for having done so-we support the Bill. I conclude by saying again to this House, to the Parliament and to the community: Do not trust these people. Do not trust this organisation. Regard it as something which, because of its very nature, requires the most constant and vigilant scrutiny by the community, the Attorney-General and the Parliament. I would have thought that the people engaged in this sort of security organisation would realise that in any decent and reasonable community they cannot have the wide open brief that they think they ought to have. They cannot be above and beyond the law and destroy and smash things up. They should accept that they operate within the most careful limits of scrutiny and supervision on the part of the Government. On that basis and on that basis only the Australian Democrats support this Bill. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(9.11) —This debate was proceeding on a responsible line until Senator Mason made his contribution. I inform Senator Mason, who is trying to interject, that the world is not a Sunday school. Senator Button —Now you are going to hear it from Senator MacGibbon. Senator MacGIBBON —Yes, it is a real world out there and I think Senator Gareth Evans has some insight into the realities of the world after the Combe affair. If honourable senators remember, I supported the Attorney in the way that he stood up to some intemperate and uneducated criticism that came from other people in this place. I inform Senator Mason that the world is not a Sunday school and I think that Senator Durack's comments about growing up are very relevant to the honourable senator's views on this subject. None of us like the covert operations that intelligence agencies get into but we are here as legislators and we have to assume the responsibility as legislators for their actions. I have not resiled from the fact that there are nasty people out there in the world who are not out to do us any good, and regrettably we have to compete with them in this way. I certainly cannot accept the views of Senator Mason about this organisation, describing its members as some sorts of cowboys operating utterly without reference to the laws or to decency. He says that we should not trust this organisation in any way at all. I do trust this organisation. I do not know what its operational directives are. I could make a guess at them. All I know is that when it has been investigated it has always had a favourable report, particularly from other international agencies in the field. I am of the view that I would trust its members, and I am rather proud of them from what I know. I certainly do not have the sneering view of them that Senator Mason has. The particular point of the Judiciary Amendment Bill 1984 that I have difficulty with concerns the Federal Government transferring the names of seven operators to the Victorian Government. Five of the operators were caught and their names are known to the Victorian Government, but apparently 12 were involved and those other seven are going to have their names given to the Victorian Government to be taken for a secret trial. I do not like secret trials . Whatever the blame or wherever it lies in this matter I do not know whether the Government bungled it, whether the Minister responsible bungled it through lack of control or whether there was bungling within the Department; and I do not think we will be permitted to know. This matter has had a pretty fair airing and I personally do not see why we have to take those people to trial. It is true that security organisations do not operate outside the law. They have to comply with the law, but the convention is that if they are caught breaking the law, and their training is for them not to break the law in their home country, they go to trial and nothing is said about it and the public does not know that a security body has been involved. I cannot say strongly enough how opposed I am to the Federal Government giving the names of those agents, who are not known, to any other government. This is not a personal criticism, let alone a political one, of the present Victorian Government. I would be opposed if the names were going to the Queensland Government, the Western Australian Government or the Tasmanian Government. I do not see how we can tolerate this with people whose lives are involved. They are the employees of the Commonwealth. They are entitled to the protection of their employer in this circumstance. I think there is a possibility, since they operate internationally, that their own lives and maybe the security of their families will be involved if their names are made public. I believe that the names would become public if they were tried before a court in a State, whatever the provisions of secrecy. I just do not see how one can guarantee 100 per cent security against the disclosure of their names, and if 100 per cent security cannot be guaranteed I do not want on my hands as a legislator the responsibility for the endangering of their lives. I have far more concern for the people I am responsible for than that. As Senator Durack said, the legal position is that they are, under their contracts, entitled to protection by the High Court of Australia, and they have already sought and been granted an interim injunction to prevent the disclosure of their names. I come back to this point: I believe there is a real risk to their lives if their names are given to the Victorian Government. After all, two judges of the High Court in New South Wales have been murdered in the last couple of years, for reasons we do not know. Senator Mason —Family Court. Senator MacGIBBON —I am sorry. I apologise. It was the Family Court of Australia . Senator Gareth Evans —Only one has been murdered, and one was blown up. Senator MacGIBBON —That is right. One's house was blown up. I am sorry. We have the recommendations of Mr Justice Hope, who is the highest authority in the country on security matters. He has an involvement going back over quite a few years in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation as well as the Australian Secret Intelligence Service and all security matters. He is a person whose reputation has not been attacked in any way for his judgment on these matters. Clauses 6 (6) and 6 (7) make it very clear that he believes the names of these men or women should not be disclosed. It is interesting that he makes the point that following representations from the Department of Foreign Affairs, as well as for reasons of national security, the disclosure of the names should not be made. I do not know; maybe there are nationals from another country involved. One might speculate on that. But I am prepared to accept the judgment of Mr Justice Hope on this. Those of us on this side of the chamber cannot say strongly enough how concerned we are at this proposed course of action by the Government. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.17) —in reply-Mr Acting Deputy President, this is a straightforward measure, the substance of which was sufficiently explained in the second reading speech and the justification for which has not been, except perhaps by Senator MacGibbon, seriously questioned in the course of this short second reading debate. The Australian Secret Intelligence Service-Sheraton Hotel Affair was indefensible and it has not been defended by the Government at any stage. We do believe it appropriate that criminal proceedings be initiated by the appropriate jurisdiction, the State of Victoria, against those who in fact committed or were reasonably believed to have committed criminal offences. The Government also believes that it is appropriate in a Federal system such as our own, where the principles of comity between the governments in that Federal system are supposed to apply, that where there is knowledge by one government in the system of the possible commission of criminal offences that knowledge should not be withheld by the government concerned and communication refused to another government in the system. I would have thought that Senator MacGibbon, the good federalist that he is, would have appreciated and accepted the general force of that principle and the pressure accordingly that I believe has been legitimately placed upon the Commonwealth by the State of Victoria to pass to it information relating to and relevant to the conduct of criminal proceedings against the persons believed to have committed offences. There were overwhelming reasons, the details of which it has not been possible to publicise fully or explain, why the names of the persons in question should not have become public as the result of the operation of that criminal process. There are reasons of the kind articulated by Senator MacGibbon why the Commonwealth has been enormously reluctant to communicate the names that were not in the possession of the Victorian Government to that Government in the absence of guarantees of confidentiality in relation to those names. Now we have a situation, however, in which the Victorian Government, as a result of consultations and inter-governmental discussions, has enacted, put in place, legislation to, I believe very effectively, guarantee confidentiality, both in terms of the operation of the court proceedings themselves such as may transpire in terms of the suppression of publication and the capacity to close the court, but also in respect of the court records to deny access for any purpose to anyone to those records. That legislation passed the Victorian Parliament in the last few days and received the royal assent this morning. This legislation is complementary legislation, enacted by the Commonwealth to apply nationwide and to ensure that there cannot be publication north of the Murray outside the boundaries of the State of Victoria and any other jurisdiction. The confidentiality will apply nationally and, to the extent that our writ runs, internationally. I regard that as a sufficient safeguard of the interests of those concerned and of Australia's interest in preserving national security so far as security-sensitive operations and information are concerned. The only matter that would appear to be in issue in this debate has been foreshadowed by Senator Durack and, I understand, will be the subject of a Committee stage amendment by him. It relates to the precise scope of the legislation, the matter in issue being whether the Bill will extend solely to proceedings arising out of the Sheraton affair on 30 November last year, or whether the confidentiality provisions are to be capable of general application in circumstances, whatever they may be, where a court seeks to make a confidentiality order based on considerations of national security or concern about the physical safety of parties to the proceedings or witnesses. The Government has taken the view quite strongly, and it has been supported by the Democrats, that the legislation ought to have a limited life. That is not contested by the Opposition, which agrees with the sunset clause. The Government also believes that the legislation should have a limited scope and not be capable of operation, except in relation to proceedings arising out of the Sheraton affair. The Government believes that this is a reasonable provision and reflects the quite exceptional character of the circumstances in this particular case. It is terribly important to maintain the principles of open courts and open justice in this country. It is only in the most exceptional circumstances that that principle should be modified in any way. The Sheraton affair, we believe, was such an exceptional circumstance. Quite how exceptional it is unfortunately cannot be explained in terms of the national security implications without putting at risk the very matters sought by this legislation to be protected. But the Government believes, after careful consideration, that this is an exceptional circumstance and as such demands exceptional protections to ensure that the principle of open administration of justice is not breached any more than is strictly necessary to secure the bringing to finality of such proceedings as may be made arising out of this case. I make the further point that this proposition I am advancing commended itself to the counterparts of Senator Durack and the Opposition in Victoria. There the reality was that the Opposition Liberals were unequivocal that they would not support any legislation of the kind here proposed, unless it was limited to the Sheraton episode. We have all heard about fissures in the Opposition; we have all heard of the inability of the Liberal Party in this country to get its collective act together. Here is living proof of that phenomenon at work. The Victorian Liberals and the national Liberals have been conspicuously unable to get their collective act together even in as straightforward and simple a piece of legislation as this. We have an example of the kind of division that has reduced the Liberal Party, I am afraid, to a condition of real ineffectuality around the nation because of an utter failure to appreciate the policy significance of what it is doing and to act in a consistent and coherent way. The truth of the matter is that a principle which commended itself to the Victorian Liberal Party and which has been accepted by the Victorian Government, and now by the Commonwealth Government, has shown itself to be utterly unacceptable to the Federal Opposition. In those circumstances one can only lament the inability of the Liberal Party to appreciate collectively as a national entity the basic principles that are here at stake. No doubt there will be more said about this at the Committee stage. Any further comments I might have to make on this particular issue will be reserved until then. I note the general support around the chamber for this measure. I appreciate that support and commend the Bill at the second reading stage to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.27) —I move: Page 2, clause 3, proposed section 46, definition of 'proceedings', line 5, leave out all words after 'proceedings' (second occurring). This is a very simple amendment which seeks to delete from the definition of ' proceedings' in clause 3 the specific reference to proceedings arising out of the Australian Security Intelligence Service incident at the Sheraton Hotel. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) was not in the chamber when I referred to this proposed amendment in my speech on the second reading. I hope to be spared more crocodile tears flowing from his eyes about this matter. The fact is that he himself in his second reading speech presented sound precedents for orders of this kind in legislation of both this country and the United Kingdom. The Minister quoted the United Kingdom Official Secrets Act. Senator Mason had a little more understanding of the nature of security, both international and national. He would know that some of the major treason trials in the United Kingdom in recent years-cases such as Blake-have been held in secret for the most elementary and obvious reasons which I am sure commend themselves to the Attorney-General. For example, there is the Commonwealth Crimes Act, of which, for the information of Senator Mason, I shall read section 85B: At any time before or during the hearing before a Federal court, a court exercising Federal jurisdiction or a court of a Territory of an application or other proceedings, whether in pursuance of this Act or otherwise, the Judge or Magistrate, or other person presiding or competent to preside over the proceedings, may, if satisfied that such a course is expedient in the interest of the defence of the Commonwealth- (a) order that some or all of the members of the public shall be excluded during the whole or a part of the hearing of the application or proceedings; or make other consequential orders. Those are similar to the proposals in the Victorian Bill. Senator Evans also mentioned provisions of the Federal Court of Australia Act. There is nothing in this proposal which is peculiar. Indeed, there are very sound precedents and very sound reasons for it. If we have secret organisations, in which I understand Senator Mason says he believes, regrettably there are occasions when the laws have to be modified to accommodate and preserve the secrecy of an organisation or of those who are employed by it and who, indeed, in many cases make quite considerable sacrifices in order to perform the public duty and service which membership of such organisations entails. People seem to get on their high horses about the membership of secret organisations. I do not include the Attorney-General in that category because he understands and supports the need for secrecy. However, some people in this chamber and outside it seem to make a profession these days of pouring scorn on those who devote their working lives, at some great sacrifice and risk on many occasions, to the performance of their public duties. If these people, as a result of their employment, find themselves in the public eye, as in this case, they should be protected. That protection should not apply only to this one particular incident. It may arise in other cases. This Bill has a sunset clause. Sunset clauses seem to be in fashion with other groups these days, and I do not object to that. If the Government wants to put in a sunset clause, so be it. Nevertheless, I reiterate my view that this is a perfectly sound principle. The Victorian legislation is limited quite specifically, as is the Crimes Act, to matters such as the defence of the Commonwealth, security interests, or the protection from physical harm of a person in a court or a witness. I would have thought that the protection of a person from physical harm was a very sound principle and may even have commended itself to the Australian Democrats, but apparently it does not. For all those reasons the Opposition has moved this amendment which, when all is said and done, only restores this Bill to the original form that was unveiled by the Government. Admittedly, it was not introduced into this chamber in that form, but the Victorian legislation had been introduced in that form and it was intended to introduce it in that form in this chamber. It may well be that the amendments were made because the Liberal members of the Victorian Parliament wanted it restricted. However, the fact is that the form we are now seeking to restore represents a perfectly justifiable and proper principle. It is the view of the Opposition that that principle should be affirmed, and that is the purpose of the amendment before the Chair. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(9.35) —The Australian Democrats will not support the amendment, as I mentioned in the second reading debate. We, among others, requested that this matter be put into the Bill. As Senator Durack pointed out, it was not there originally. We sought its inclusion and it would be very inconsistent of us now to support its removal. I seriously ask the Liberal and National parties to consider withdrawing this amendment before it has to come to a vote because I do not think it is in their interests to bring it up. I feel, as I said, that it is really suggesting-I am sure this is not intended by the Liberal Party-a not very savoury course of action which might have very difficult and dangerous implications for Australian society. I mean that quite seriously. It seems to the Australian Democrats that there is nothing elementary or obvious at all, to quote Senator Durack's words, about a treason trial being conducted in secret as an established principle. Such matters can be properly protected in individual cases where warranted, just as we are doing with this Bill. I suggest to Senator Durack that that is a much more proper way of doing it than to allow a complete blanket operation of this principle. I suggest to him that if we include in this Bill the provision he suggests, even though there is a sunset clause, it is likely to create a precedent for the future that is a dangerous and undesirable one. Senator Durack made the point, and I think he believes it quite sincerely, that it is for the protection of the operatives that there should be this kind of secrecy. I remind him that it is not just a matter of protection of those people who operate in this area. Were an unscrupulous government to come into office at some future time, those operatives could be treated completely unjustly. They could be arraigned and tried in secret with nobody knowing what was going on. They would not have the normal protection that ordinary members of the community have, and I would regard that as a very serious matter indeed. We all know that organisations, unhappily, are only too often imperfect. They depend very much on the individuals who operate them. Personal dislikes, animosities, feuds and a desire to score can take their part in this kind of organisation just as they do in any other human institution. Because of that, I think it is necessary for the people who work in the security organisations to have at least some degree of protection. The protection we seek, after all, is only that the Attorney-General report to this Parliament that there has been such a trial and what its operations are. There is no question of this Bill ever being amended to allow disclosure in any way of names and things of that kind. I suggest to the shadow Attorney-General that with those two considerations in mind it would be very responsible of the Committee not to proceed with the amendment. I would prefer to see it withdrawn, but if it is not withdrawn the Australian Democrats certainly will vote against it. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.38) —In order to demonstrate the poverty of this particular amendment moved by the Opposition, I think it is necessary for me to ask only two questions of the Committee. The first is this: If there is an elementary and obvious necessity, to quote Senator Durack, for criminal proceedings involving issues of security to be heard under the protection of comprehensive secrecy provisions such that these provisions ought to be enshrined in the law generally, rather than confined, as here, to the circumstances of this particular case, why on earth did not this elementary and obvious necessity commend itself to Senator Durack's Liberal Party colleagues in Victoria? The truth of the matter is, as I have said, that the Liberals in Victoria pressed with vigour and a great deal of passion for the confining of this legislation in the very way that it is confined in the Bill. The second question I ask is this: If there are, as Senator Durack says, sound precedents and sound reasons for having a secrecy provision of general application and not one, again, that is confined to the particular circumstances of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service in the Sheraton affair, why has the Opposition indicated its acceptance of a two-year sunset clause? There is just a manifest inconsistency about that approach. The reason for the sunset clause being in the first draft of the Bill, as Senator Durack well knows, was to ensure that the Bill would have a limited life and be available only for the duration of any criminal proceedings-committal, trial, appeal-that may result from the Sheraton affair. It was in order to confine the scope of the Bill in a chronological sense to the Sheraton affair that the sunset clause was originally put in there. If there is any merit, as Senator Durack says, in confidentiality or secrecy provisions of this kind having general application, surely there is merit in their having permanent application and surely there is an equally conspicuous lack of merit in the Parliament committing itself from the very outset to a two-year time limit on the scope of the provisions in question. The whole thing resolves itself into a bundle of dreadful inconsistencies of a kind which, I am afraid, have become all too familiar in the contributions of the Opposition to the debate in this place. I can understand the kind of points that Senator Durack is making. I can understand the argument that there may be for having principles of general application to be used in exceptional circumstances where national security issues are involved. But the nature of the amendment that has been moved by Senator Durack does not ensure that. It is, as I say, quite inconsistent with the stance taken by his own party in Victoria and quite inconsistent with the stance taken by the Opposition in relation to its support for the sunset provision in this Bill which will ensure that it lacks any permanency. For all those reasons and, in addition, for the very cogent reasons put by Senator Mason, I believe that the Senate ought to support the Bill in its original form and reject the amendment that has been moved. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.42) —Unfortunately, the contribution of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) to this stage of the debate was based simply on a series of debating points-nothing else. It does not even attempt to deal with the substance of the matter. Indeed, the Attorney-General could not explain the fact that originally his Bill was to have general application and was to contain a sunset clause. So, if any debating points are to be made, perhaps he ought to explain that situation. However, I do not think it is worth pursuing that aspect of this debate. The fact is that the Attorney, in his second reading speech, gave very sound reasons and precedents in other legislation, both in this country and in the United Kingdom, for powers to be given to closed courts. It is a power which is simply given to a court, in this case on the application of an Attorney-General of the Commonwealth or the State in question. The application has to be made out and justified to a court. Therefore, there is no reason to fear that there is going to be some wholesale onslaught on the general principle of open courts. Further, of course, the power is confined to situations where security or physical harm to a witness may be involved. The order can be made only following an application on those grounds by an Attorney and it can occur only if the court itself also accepts that argument. So it is a very, very closely confined power and there is ample precedent for it. The other point, which perhaps I did not make earlier, is that it is quite undesirable for parliaments to be passing ad hoc legislation of this kind. I think that we are going to have another example tomorrow of the time of this Parliament being taken up again by a Bill introduced by the Attorney to modify a Bill which we passed only a few weeks or months ago. This will be another ad hoc exercise by this Government. Senator Gareth Evans —You need not take much time; you can pass it on the nod, if you like. Senator DURACK —Well, we did not take much time because we co-operated. We may take a little more time on this occasion in order to reiterate the incompetence of the Government and its ad hockery in matters of this kind. It is wasting the time of the Parliament in what is virtually an Executive operation. That is not what laws should be about. They should be made for general application and we should not have the sort of ad hockery that this Government seems to be indulging in. It is wasting the time of this Parliament. Clearly the Government does not have any legislation to bring in. It is just floundering around, not really knowing what it should be doing in this Parliament. I do not think that it is worth proceeding with this debate, particularly in view of the attitude the Attorney has adopted towards it. I think it is probably better that we put the amendment to a vote and be done with it. Amendment negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Hamer) —I inform the Senate that the President has received the following message from the House of Representatives: Message No. 201 Mr President, The House of Representatives acquaints the Senate of the following Resolution which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day: That the House of Representatives, having considered Message No. 181 of the Senate relating to the proposed appointment of a Joint Select Committee to inquire into and report on certain matters relating to tapes and transcripts delivered by the Age newspaper to the Attorney-General on 1 February 1984, does not concur in the resolution of the Senate. H. A. JENKINS Speaker House of Representatives, Canberra, 27 March 1984 Debate resumed from 6 March, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(9.48) —The Shipping Registration Amendment Bill 1984 and the Protection of the Sea (Shipping Levy) Amendment Bill 1984 are allied Bills. The Opposition supports the passage of both Bills. The original legislation was introduced into the Parliament to overcome a historical situation. We were subject not to Australian shipping registration but to British legislation. This was one of the last vestiges of colonialism. It was not until 1982 that the registration of ships in this country was subject to Australian law. There now has been some experience with the legislation that was introduced by the previous Government. The net result is that a number of improvements are now being made to the legislation. We applied the introduction of the legislation to make more workable the Act which was intended to facilitate shipping registration in this country and the total operation of shipping law. I remember as an articled clerk having some problems with learning the special rules that existed in relation to the registration of ship mortgages because we were subject to British legislation and there were all sorts of special things that articled clerks had to be taught in relation to them. I am sure that everyone will be pleased that we have now reached the stage of decolonisation where we are able to have our own legislation. Among the principal changes that are now proposed is an increase in the number of Australian ships which are exempt from the requirement to register. These ships will still be able to register voluntarily but the requirements relating to commercial ships measuring 12 metres or more in length will be extended to those measuring 24 metres or more in length. That will mean the cost of registration will not be imposed upon the quite significant number of smaller commercial vessels operating in Australian waters. One important point to bear in mind is that pleasure craft are required to be registered before proceeding overseas. As someone with an interest in yachting and private sailing, I know of a number of people who have found, to their surprise, that registration was required for their boats. That has interfered with their plans for departure. The fact that registration is required does bear mention in this debate. If one is only going in one of the increasingly popular races from New South Wales or Queensland, usually from Sydney or Mooloolaba, to one of the south-west Pacific islands one should ensure that registration of one's boat has been effected. Another provision is the improvement of the system in relation to ship mortgages. As I mentioned, I found when I was an articled clerk that the registration of ship mortgages was slightly complex. It has been improved as a result of the new legislation, but it is important in financial terms in relation to the maritime industry that financiers should not find difficulty in making the arrangements necessary for the provision of finance. The facilitation of that is something which I would applaud. I have no doubt that these amendments will improve the degree of confidence with which financiers provide finance for shipping. Whilst it is usually no problem to the major shipping lines, it can sometimes be a problem for some of the smaller operations. I applaud the fact that the amendments are being made. Also included in the legislation is the provision relating to caveats. Caveats are well known in relation to titles to land. They are simply a beware notice indicating that someone has a claim and that before anybody conducts any transaction in relation to that land-in this case, in relation to a ship- inquiries should be made about the person who has lodged the caveat. Again that encourages confidence in relation to transactions with regard to ships and is an improvement which I believe will be of use. I have noticed that there are also to be changes to the tonnage length of ships as opposed to the overall length although, with regard to small ships, there is a definition of overall length and a new concept of tonnage length has been introduced and is determined in accordance with the shipping registration regulations which I trust will not provide complications for those who will deal with them. I take this opportunity to refer to the speech made in the House of Representatives by the honourable member for Hume, Mr Lusher, who is the Opposition's spokesman on transport matters. In the House of Representatives Hansard of 6 March 1984 from page 546 onwards Mr Lusher set out the Opposition's general position and discussed a number of matters including the shipping conferences and the need for competition. I can only say with my interest in industry and commerce, particularly in relation to Australian manufacturing industry, that nothing could be more important than ensuring that Australia is provided with time efficient and cost efficient shipping services for its imports and particularly for its exports. Growth in the manufacturing industry in this country will have to rely on exports. I believe that it is extremely important that we refer continually to the fact that the restoration of growth in the manufacturing industry will depend substantially upon the achievement of export opportunities. One thing that Australia has suffered from and suffered from severely is its reputation as an unreliable supplier. It is a reputation which we are now overcoming. We need to do everything we can to ensure that it is overcome in the long term. Therefore, steps which can be taken to make the shipping arrangements from Australia both cost and time efficient and competitive are to be applauded. I do not wish to hold up the Senate by repeating the other comments which have already been made. I refer honourable senators to the speech made by Mr Lusher at the place to which I referred and indicate that the Opposition supports the passage through the Senate of both Bills and will not be moving any amendments. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(9.56) —As has been indicated by Senator Peter Rae, the Shipping Registration Amendment Bill 1984 and the Protection of the Sea (Shipping Levy) Amendment Bill 1984 are essentially procedural Bills. They are important to the Government's program in terms of its original policy intentions in this field. The intent of the Bills has been described by Senator Peter Rae. I do not want to go into any great detail about the Bills because I think the purpose of the Bills has been adequately placed on the record both in the House of Representatives and here. In any case, the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, Senator Gietzelt, will close the debate and make any appropriate technical comments about the legislation. All I want to say is that I think the Government's achievements in the maritime field since it took office in March 1983 have been quite considerable. This legislation meshes in with what we have done until now and continues that progress. The legislation that we are debating does not need to be reviewed in great detail. Because of the comments made by Senator Peter Rae, I do not think I need to make a long speech about it and I choose to leave my remarks there. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(9.58) —The Government thanks the Senate, particularly the Opposition, for its support of the Shipping Registration Amendment Bill 1984 and the Protection of the Sea ( Shipping Levy) Amendment Bill 1984 which are currently before the Senate. It accepts the fact that the legislation will be a step forward in assisting in the registration, control and efficiency of our maritime industry, particularly as it relates to shipping in general. I think it is gratifying that we have been able to reach a position where the Parliament, after due consideration by the States and the Northern Territory and through consultations that the Minister has had with the appropriate authorities, is able to pass these two pieces of legislation which the Government concedes are important to our maritime industry . We accept that in the legislation we are not confronted with much controversy. Consequently, Senator Peter Rae was able to draw attention to some of the positive features, as well as some of the negative features, that were raised in debate in the other place. But it must surely be accepted and recognised that we are in these two pieces of legislation putting Australia in concert with the legislative requirements adopted by most other countries. We are a maritime country. We have a very large coastline and we therefore have a great number of ships capable of being registered. I am advised that we have 5,675 such ships in Australia. This covers, of course, not only commercial ships but also fishing vessels, yachts and government vessels. The purpose of the legislation is to bring in a system of registration in accordance with the international standards and, in particular, in the second piece of legislation, to provide for a cost recovery system, so that in fact the registration system which is proposed will be at no cost, in due time, to the taxpayers generally. So in recording the details and recognition of the need to have an efficient and effective type of system for all ships that operate within our waters the Government has in its regulations of 1983 indicated that over the next five years sufficient funds will be collected as a result of an increase in the levy of 20 per cent so that we will reach a position at the end of a five- year period of a full cost recovery. I think that is in accordance with the basic principles of industries as far as is possible and practicable standing on their own feet. I do not think anyone can argue that we have seen a big development in our shipping industry in the post-war years. For example, we have 2,891 yachts. That is a development that we certainly would not have seen in the 1930s. We have seen that happen in the post-war years. Obviously this is an avenue that requires registration because we see from time to time these yachts not only use our coastal waters but often set out for longer journeys. It is essential that we have a registry system that provides for those journeys. Senator Cook referred to the very impressive range of achievements that the Government has made in its first year of office in maritime transport generally. These include the ratification of a number of conventions and protocols, our activities on pollution and, of course, the ratification treaties dealing with the Safety of Life at Sea, known as SOLAS, and the establishment of a review system that will ultimately bring about a uniform shipping laws code throughout Australia. That has been the result of patient negotiation between the Federal Minister for Transport, Mr Morris, and his counterparts in all the States including the Northern Territory. I think we are moving towards an effective system and a register that will play its part not only in providing citizens with some indication of the use of ships in our transport system but also with information because, as we know, there are occasions when the lack of such information and registration places at risk ships and personnel who hitherto have not been sufficiently aware of their obligations in respect of Commonwealth legislation. Clearly, it is a Commonwealth matter, a national matter, which this legislation seeks to redress. I am thankful for the fact that the Senate is prepared to give its support to the Shipping Registration Amendment Bill 1984 as well as the complementary legislation, the Protection of the Sea (Shipping Levy) Amendment Bill 1984. The adoption of this legislation will, I believe, place the Government in a position to take control, not for control's sake but for the protection and efficiency of our maritime industry. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. Bills reported without amendment or request; report adopted. Motion (by Senator Gietzelt) proposed: That the Bills be now read a third time. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.07) —I do not wish to be taken as being churlish and I certainly do not wish this matter to take up further time but I take this opportunity to clarify something which may have been left in some doubt at the end of the speech of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) closing the second reading debate. The original very comprehensive legislation was introduced during the term of the previous Government in 1981 to take effect from Australia Day 1982. The amendments which we are now making by the protection of the Sea (Shipping Levy) Amendment Bill, as well as the Shipping Registration Amendment Bill carry forward-I applaud the Government for carrying this forward-what was started by Ralph Hunt as the Minister for Transport at the time. I think he deserves to be recorded in the Hansard record of this debate as having played a very major part in getting us moving forward and I compliment the present Government for taking us still further forward. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a third time. Motion (by Senator Gietzelt) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.10) —I refer tonight to an incident which occurred in Canberra on the morning of 12 March this year. A tragic fire occurred at the Manuka Village shopping centre at about 10 to nine. A number of questions remain unanswered in the wake of this tragic fire. It is a matter that ought to be referred to. I believe the people of Canberra are concerned about the number of questions and want to know the answers to them . In all, some 18 shops were destroyed. There was a death. One of the shopkeepers died on the footpath. It was suggested that he had had a heart attack while watching his own shop burn down. It is a tragic circumstance in that he left a widow and four young children. It was fortunate that a police officer, Constable Hawthorn, was passing at the time, in a private capacity. He went into the shopping centre and assisted those inside to get out. It seems that the roof of the building collapsed within about 10 minutes of the fire having started. One cannot help but wonder what might have occurred and what a tragedy could have followed if the fire had been at, say, 11 o'clock on a Saturday morning when there were a lot of people in the centre. One aspect of the matter that gives cause for concern and needs to be investigated is what has been reported to me as an electricity failure, or the electricity being turned off, which caused the automatic doors of the building to close and remain closed at that time, making exits difficult. I am told that there was only one other door through which people could get out. Obviously the actions of Constable Hawthorn assisted the few people who were in the building to get out before the roof collapsed, as I said, about 10 minutes after the fire started. There needs to be an inquiry as to whether that was the case, or what was the cause, in case anything of that nature should occur again. Perhaps the greatest problem involved was that the biggest and best fire truck was not available to go to the fire. Since July 1982 Canberra has had a fire unit which cost $200,000. It has an 18-metre extension ladder with a very powerful hose which would have been able, had it been there, to pour water on to the roof of the building, which perhaps would have significantly cut down on the loss which occurred. I think that we are entitled to ask what steps the Government is taking to ensure that this unit is available if such a tragedy should occur again and what steps are being taken to ensure that the Australian Capital Territory Fire Brigade is as well prepared as it possibly can be for an incident of this nature. There have been suggestions in the community that the water pressure available was not adequate. Stories abound as to what occurred about that. I guess the questions are: Was the water pressure adequate and, if not, why not; what steps are being taken to see that that is rectified or is capable of being rectified quite quickly? Again, if the water pressure was not adequate it would have been a problem for the new unit if it had been available. Originally when the fire unit came to Canberra it was suggested that there was some question about the vehicle's safety, although that is a little hard to believe. More recently we understand that the dispute was about the level of allowance to be paid for manning it. I believe we are entitled to say that this dispute must be resolved and that that unit must be available for the protection of buildings in this community, whatever age they might be. This building was only about two years old. Apparently the fire spread very quickly after it commenced and, as I have said, within about 10 minutes the roof collapsed. If the fire had occurred at about 2 o'clock in the morning when no one was around one may not have wondered at how quickly it occurred. But at the hour of the morning when it did occur, with people about who saw the smoke quite quickly, it seems strange indeed that the fire should have commenced and burnt out in that short period. It has been suggested that prior to the completion of the building the Australian Capital Territory Fire Brigade Commissioner made recommendations which were not complied with. I understand it is not being suggested that the building regulations themselves were not complied with, but perhaps it indicates that there needs to be a review of the building regulations to see that fire protection in a building such as this is quite adequate. One of the shopowners said to me: 'I was standing there crying. Part of me was going up with the building'. Many of those small shopkeepers lost a great deal more than will be covered by insurance. There is a suggestion that some of them were not adequately insured. That is a personal tragedy for them. But, even for those who had adequately insured themselves, a number of things which are lost in a fire cannot easily be replaced. There are not empty shops available in Canberra where they can go to set up business. It may well be that many of them will be out of business completely until this building is rebuilt and again available. That is a tragedy in personal and certainly in economic terms. There are some quite serious aspects of this fire which do need to be looked at most carefully. The community must be given an explanation. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(10.15) —I rise to pursue a matter that I raised in Question Time today that has been receiving considerable attention in the Press in Queensland in the last couple of weeks. It relates to the matter of redundancies created by Medicare. The treatment of former private health fund employees by the Health Insurance Commission is surely the most brutally cynical action yet by the Hawke Government. These unfortunate people took the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, at his word last year when he said that he had provided that they be given preferential employment by the Health Insurance Commission under Medicare. Now he is giving them the brush-off. At the peak of the furore in mid-1983 over the Commonwealth Government's decision to make Medibank the sole agent for Medicare, the Minister for Health found it expedient to make promises which are now proving to be as hollow as any the Hawke Government has ever given. In response to scores of letters that I received from private health fund employees I wrote to Dr Blewett last July asking him to reconsider certain parts of his policy. Mr President, in the interests of saving time, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the letter which shows in detail the points I made to Dr Blewett. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- 13 July 1983 My Dear Minister, I wish to make representations on behalf of employees of Private Health Insurance Companies concerning your Government's proposal to have Medibank act as the sole agent for the Medicare Health Scheme. I respectfully ask you to consider the following points: Your Government has stated that you do not wish to see redundancies created as a result of the introduction of Medicare. This appears to conflict with your statement that Medicare would operate with 1500 less employees. If this is so, a large number of private health fund employees will find themselves without jobs in the near future. If Medicare begins staff recruitment in August 1983, staff currently employed in private health funds will be disadvantaged in applying for Medicare positions , since their current employers will require their services until Medicare begins in February 1984. Is it possible that you may reconsider the position and allow private health funds to also act as agents for Medicare? A faster and improved customer service would be available. With the growing concern in the Australian community for the problem of unemployment I sincerely request that you give consideration to those presently employed by private health funds. I look forward to your response. Yours sincerely, KATHY MARTIN Senator for Queensland The Hon. N. Blewett, Minister for Health, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Senator MARTIN —In brief, I pointed out the conflict between his statements and those of the Hawke Government as a whole. The Government was claiming that it did not want redundancies. Dr Blewett was claiming that money would be saved by Medicare since 1,500 fewer employees would be required to administer health insurance. I also expressed concern that if the Health Insurance Commission recruited staff for Medicare as from August 1983 private health fund employees would be disadvantaged since the funds needed them until February 1984. The Minister made a lengthy reply. Again, Mr President, to save time I seek to have his reply incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- MINISTER FOR HEALTH Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T., 2600 Dear Senator Martin, I refer to your personal representations of 13 July 1983 on behalf of employees of private health insurance funds concerning the use of the private funds in the administration of Medicare. The decision by the Government to give Health Insurance Commission primary responsibility for the administration of Medicare was not taken lightly. It was the culmination of much detailed consideration and deliberation. In reaching the decision it did, the Government had regard to the fact that the Commission successfully administered the Medibank Scheme and being a national organisation administering Medibank Private, it has a wide network of branches and cash payments centres to provide an efficient service to the public. Although there will be some initial establishment costs, I believe that in the long term this arrangement will prove to be more economical than having a proliferation of agents. The Government is, of course, concerned with the potential loss of employment by health fund employees and has taken the following action to alleviate the position: * the Health Insurance Commission will be giving preference in employment to former health fund staff; * in recognition of the particular problems faced by regional based health funds, which provide significant local employment, the Commission has offered agency arrangements to a number of funds covering certain regional centres in which they operate; * State Health Ministers are being approached with the view to employment preference being given to redundant health fund staff, within their health care systems; * discussions have been held with health funds on their future role under Medicare including the question of diversifying their activities into other areas to increase employment opportunities. Furthermore, among other things, the membership and range of activities of Medibank Private will be limited so that private health funds will have an assured role to perform. These measures, combined with the normal turnover in fund staff, will minimise the net employment effect of Medicare. The Government is taking special steps to deal with the period, between October 1983 to March 1984, when the Medicare system is gearing up and needing staff, and, at the same time, the private health funds will still be running at full capacity. Any employees taken on by the Health Insurance Commission during that period who are not former private health fund employees will be on contract. The basis of the contract will allow for former private health fund employees to take over these jobs in the Commission once Medicare assumes the bulk of current health insurance business. Accordingly, if people want to move out of the private health funds in February or March 1984, they will be able to do so and take up employment with the Commission. Yours sincerely, Neal Blewett Minister for Health Senator K. J. Martin, Commonwealth Parliament Offices, 295 Ann Street Senator MARTIN —In his reply, Dr Blewett stated: the Health Insurance Commission will be giving preference in employment to former health fund staff; He further stated that anyone employed by Medicare between October 1983 and March 1984, who was not a former private health fund employee, would be on a contract which would allow private health fund employees to take over those jobs this year. In part his letter stated: Accordingly, if people want to move out of the private health funds in February or March 1984, they will be able to do so and take up employment with the Commission. Now, in the face of growing retrenchments by private health funds-more than 100 last week in Queensland alone-Dr Blewett has done an about turn. A spokesman is reported by a newspaper in Queensland as saying that there was no guarantee that any of the workers would receive jobs with Medicare. If Dr Blewett's statement of August 1983 to me was not a guarantee what on earth was it? Dr Blewett may have changed his mind, but he cannot deny his own words, as he is attempting to do. Retrenched workers in Brisbane have been given a strong indication that they have virtually no prospect of being employed by the Health Insurance Commission. I understand that those who were retrenched were given a copy of the letter that Dr Blewett sent to me. Immediately I received the letter from Dr Blewett, I sent a copy to all the people who had written to me. Those people took copies of that letter to the Health Insurance Commission to show the undertakings which the Minister had given in that letter. They were met with complete indifference at the Health Insurance Commission office in Brisbane. Dr Blewett's contracts for interim employees appear to have been a fiction. The interim appointees should have been told that their jobs were temporary. However , I am not aware that any of the retrenched private funds employees have been even interviewed, much less given any indication that they have any prospect of a job. The State Director of the Health Insurance Commission in Queensland is quoted as having said: 'We can't just sack our people'. I have sympathy for those people but the fact is that they should have been told when they were taken on that they were being given temporary jobs because the understanding the Minister had given to the employees of the health funds was that those jobs were to be on a contractual basis and were to be available come February or March. These people acted in good faith. They could have applied for Health Insurance Commission jobs last year but saw their then employers through to the end of the private funds' involvement in health insurance. They have learned that Dr Blewett's promises are not worth the paper they are written on. The Hawke Government's actions outside major cities have been particularly callous. Last August Dr Blewett said: . . . in recognition of the particular problems faced by regional based health funds, which provide significant local employment, the Commission has offered agency arrangements to a number of funds covering certain regional centres in which they operate. I wonder what happened to those agency arrangements? So far nearly 40 such employees have been retrenched in Queensland alone. In Cairns the only jobs offered by Medicare to private health fund people were part time jobs consisting of 10 hours work a week. Given Dr Blewett's track record on this subject alone, he should not be surprised if his undertakings on other subjects meet with great caution, if not outright rejection. Today I asked Senator Grimes, representing the Minister for Health, the following question: How many employees has the Health Insurance Commission recruited from the private health funds since August 1983? We must remember that he had said in his letter that any who applied from October on would be given preferential treatment. I also asked: What is the total figure of additional Health Insurance Commission employees since August 1983? Of course the difference ought to give us the number who should be on temporary contracts. The third question asked: How many of the non-private health fund employees were recruited on a temporary contract basis and how many on a permanent basis? There is every reason to expect that the difference between the numbers pertaining to the first two questions will not equal the number in the answer to the third question. Senator Grimes said he did not have the information but that he would have it by the end of the week. I would not have expected Senator Grimes to be able to give that information off the top of his head. I called his office at 9 o'clock this morning and said I was going to ask precisely these questions. I gave him notice, which is not unusual, because I hoped for an answer. Senator Grimes said he hoped to have the information by the end of the week. There is no criticism at all of Senator Grimes or his staff in what I am saying , but what I do say is that these matters have been an issue for two weeks. I know the Minister for Health has been asked for those figures for some time. If he gave the Health Insurance Commission the direction that he indicated he would in his letter to me, then it should have been followed up and we should not be having the problems we have at the moment. It is possible that the direction has been followed to varying extents. In any event, I would have thought that by now the Minister for Health would have inquired of the Health Insurance Commission, if he believes it has that instruction, as to whether or not it followed it and what has been the employment rate of former employees of private health funds by the Health Insurance Commission. The statement by Mr Dickson that the Commission cannot sack its own people to make way for these retrenched people indicates to me that that policy was not pursued. Those figures should have been available. Had the Minister for Health been doing his job and cared about the situation, he would have got those figures some time ago. I suspect that the answer will not be a pleasant one. I find intriguing the fact that apparently Dr Blewett's letter to me is the only publicly available piece of paper which sets out those statements. I did not provide it to anyone with the purpose of seeing it in the Press. The first I knew that it was in the possession of anyone other than those I had actually posted it to in response to their letters to me on the subject last year was when the Press contacted me and said that it had a copy of the letter. It is not a private and confidential letter; I suppose people were prepared to hand it around. Ever since then it has been a matter of some mystery to me as to why Dr Blewett's letter to me appears to be the only documentation to that effect. I do not believe I was the only Queensland senator who last year received scores of letters from residents of Queensland expressing concern about whether they would be retrenched as a consequence of Medicare. It is possible that individual members of the House of Representatives may have received no letters because they had nobody in that category in their electorates. But I cannot believe I was the only senator, and I find that particularly difficult to believe in view of the fact that I am an Opposition senator. People in the position we are discussing would write to the Opposition as a last resort. It is at least as likely that Government senators received as many letters as I did. I would like to know whether they wrote to Dr Blewett and expressed the concern of their constituencies. Government senators from Queensland ought to declare themselves on this and say whether they made representations and, if so, whether they got the same answer I got. If not, I would like to know why I received a different answer. If I did get the same answer, I would like to know why they are not doing something now about these employees. So far the only Government member to show a flicker of interest has been the honourable member for Petrie, Mr Deane Wells, who rather unfortunately urged former employees of these funds to present themselves at the Health Insurance Commission; he was sure they would be taken care of. They have not been. They have been met with complete indifference. They have not been rudely treated but they have been cold-shouldered. Then they have rung me and told me about it because they had a piece of paper in their hands with my name on it. One woman who rang my office had more than 30 years experience with the private health funds, and there are others who have had several years experience. The simple fact is that some of the employees retrenched were specialists in processing health fund claims, a very technical area in itself. The funds no longer need specialists in health claims because they are not allowed to handle health insurance. Obviously they are the very people who are most vulnerable, regardless of their experience. Indeed, they are the ones who probably would have given themselves the best chance of getting a government job. I look forward to the answer that Senator Grimes has undertaken to give. In the meantime, there are other questions to be answered, and pre-eminent amongst them is this: When Dr Blewett wrote that letter and gave those assurances, on which people acted in good faith last year, did he have any intention at all of making sure that the Health Insurance Commission carried them out? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.28) —Mr President, Senator Reid spoke of the fire which devastated a section of the Manuka shopping centre in the Australian Capital Territory just a few days ago. As someone who lost his family home in a fire in the middle of last year, I can assure her that I fully appreciate the devastation-physical, financial and emotional-that can be involved in a fire of the kind that destroyed the Manuka shopping centre. I take seriously, as the Government takes seriously, the points she raised about the operations of the fire service in this instance. I will refer her remarks to Senator Gietzelt in the hope that he can secure some appropriate response from the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) as soon as possible. Senator Martin, as she has said, has already made the matters she raised the subject of a question to Senator Grimes. I will refer her further comments on this significant question to Senator Grimes in the hope that he can secure a detailed response as early as possible from the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) . Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.29 p.m. The following papers were presented: Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act-Australian Broadcasting Corporation Service Rules. Australian War Memorial Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 39. Bankruptcy Act-Rules-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 23. Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act-Ordinances 1984-No. 1-Referendum (Self- determination). Commonwealth Banks Act-Appointment-S. E. Smith. Customs Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 35. Defence Act-Determinations-1984- No. 6-Loss on Sale of Motor Vehicle on Posting Overseas. No. 7-In Port Allowance and others. Defence Amendment Act-Interim Determinations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 38. Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 40. Export Control Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 31. Health Insurance Act- Principles formulated under sub-section 23 H (1), dated 25 January 1984. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 30. Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 36. Lands Acquisition Act- Land, etc., acquired for office accommodation, Glenorchy , Tasmania Statements (5) by the Minister describing land acquired by agreement under sub- section 7 (1) of the Act, for specified public purposes. Norfolk Island Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 33. Prices Surveillance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 37. Public Service Act- Appointment-Department of Health-J. Symonds. Determinations 1984-No. 4. Public Service Arbitration Act- Determinations by the Arbitrator, accompanied by statements regarding possible inconsistency with the law-1984- No. 1- Australian Government Lawyers Association and another. No. 2-Professional Officers Association, Australian Public Service. No. 3-Association of Draughting, Supervisory and Technical Employees. No. 4-Australian Workers' Union. No. 5-Australian Theatrical and Amusement Employees Association. No. 6-Royal Australian Nursing Federation. Nos 7 and 8-Amalgamated Metals Foundry and Shipwrights' Union and others. No. 9-Musicians' Union of Australia. No. 10-Professional Officers Association, Australian Public Service. No. 11-Professional Radio and Electronics Institute of Australasia.* No. 13-Royal Australian Nursing Federation. No. 14-Australian Theatrical and Amusement Employees Association. No. 15-Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union of Australia. No. 16-Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association. No. 17-Australian Broadcasting Commission Senior Officers' Association and another. No. 18-Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association and another.* Nos 19 to 21-Repatriation Department Medical Officers Association and others. No. 22-Royal Australian Nursing Federation. No. 23-Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers) No. 24-Professional Officers Association, Australian Public Service. No. 25-Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union of Australia. No. 26-Australian Broadcasting Commission Senior Officers' Association and another. No. 27-Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Australian Government Employment.* No. 28-Australian Journalists Association. No. 29-Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers).* No. 30-Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers). No. 31-Actors' and Announcers' Equity Association of Australia. No. 32-Professional Radio and Electronics Institute of Australasia. No. 33-Royal Australian Nursing Federation.* No. 34-Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union of Australia.* No. 35-Professional Officers' Association, Australian Public Service.* No. 36-Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers).* No. 37-Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers. No. 38-Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers). (* Not accompanied by statement). Remuneration Tribunals Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 32. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Ordinances 1984- No. 6-Trustee Company (Amendment). No. 7-Medical Services (Fees). Regulations 1984- No. 5-(Motor Omnibus Services Ordinance). No. 6-(Motor Traffic Ordinance). Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 34. Telecommunications Act-By-laws- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts) Amendment No. 42. Telecommunications (Community Calls) Amendment No. 33. Governor-General's Proclamations-Commencement of Acts: Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General were presented, notifying that His Excellency has proclaimed the following Acts to come into operation on the dates specified: Industrial Research and Development Incentives Amendment Act 1983-13 March 1984 (Gazette No. S 95, 9 March 1984) Prices Surveillance Act 1983-19 March 1984 (Gazette No. S 96, 9 March 1984). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 255) Senator Macklin asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) Is the Crown Law Office currently considering irregularities with regard to the election of office bearers of the Transport Workers' Union of Australia, Queensland branch during 1980. (2) When did it receive information with regard to any such irregularities. (3) Has any action been taken to date on legal action by the Commonwealth against any person or persons in regard to this matter; if not, is any action proposed; and if so, when. (4) Has the Attorney-General been informed of this matter. (5) Has any member of Parliament made representations to the Attorney-General to intervene in this matter with a view of delaying or preventing legal action by the Commonwealth with regard to the alleged irregularities. Senator Gareth Evans —The answers to the honourable senator's questions are as follows: (1) Allegations of irregularities with regard to the election referred to have been considered within my Department and by myself. (2) The documents containing the allegations were received by the Acting Deputy Crown Solicitor, Brisbane, under cover of a memorandum from the Australian Federal Police dated 22 June 1983. Earlier, on 7 April 1983, the Deputy Crown Solicitor's Office had received a telephone call from a prosecutor in the Queensland Crown Law Office seeking advice on federal legislation relevant to the case concerning the election then being conducted by the State. (3) and (4) I have decided that no proceedings should be instituted on the basis of the evidence made available to me. I published my reasons for this decision in a statement issued on 26 January 1984. (5) No. (Question No. 326) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 6 September 1983: (1) Is a Corporal A. J. Kingdom, who was wounded by a landmine in Vietnam in 1970 and who now has to wear calipers on both legs, not being granted the Defence Force Retirement Benefits invalidity pension to which he is entitled, if so, when will Corporal Kingdom receive the benefits to which he is entitled. (2) Will the Government make an exgratia payment for the tax penalty he will suffer because of the mistakes and delays of the bureaucracy. (3) Why has there been an unreasonable delay in correcting this obvious mistake . (4) Will the Minister for Defence take appropriate action towards the authorities involved so that such delays do not occur in the future. (5) Can the Minister give an assurance that the case of Mr Barry Roe, another Vietnam veteran in almost identical circumstances who was recently referred to the RDFWA, will not suffer the same bureaucratic shuffling and delay. (6) Will the Minister investigate a system of proper legal advice and assistance for servicemen upon discharge so that such situations do not arise in future. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following revised answer to the honourable senator's questions: (1) Mr Kingdom was discharged on 31 August 1971 having completed his period of National Service. Under the DFRB legislation no invalidity benefit can be paid unless the member is medically discharged. Mr Kingdom brought his situation to the attention of the Army office in February 1983. Army Office has now informed the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority that at the time Mr Kingdom was discharged, grounds existed on which he could have been retired on the grounds of invalidity. This opens the way for the Authority to now consider the grant of an invalidity benefit and the level of benefit. The matter will be considered by the Authority as quickly as possible. (2) Should Mr Kingdom qualify for an invalidity pension with considerable retrospectivity, my Department will examine the case for some form of compensation in recognition of any increase in the amount of tax payable by Mr Kingdom. (3) The Army had no cause to review the ex-member's reason for discharge and the error remained dormant until brought to attention in February this year. Investigation involved several directorates in the Army and the office of the DFRDB Authority. Regrettably, the cumulative effect of their actions has contributed to the delay in processing Mr Kingdom's inquiry. (4) Revised procedures have been implemented to ensure that such delays do not recur. (5) Mr Barry Edward Roe was discharged from the Army on 21 April 1972, the reason supplied to the office of the DFRD Benefits Authority being 'AMR 176 (1) (A) having requested his discharge', and was advised on 23 May 1972 that he was entitled to a refund of contributions and a gratuity. These entitlements were authorised for payment to him on the same date. No further correspondence or representations from or in relation to Mr Roe have been received. (6) No. Discharge procedures are designed to ensure that the rights and interests of members are protected. The procedures include a review by a senior medical officer of the Final Medical Board findings. No change to discharge procedures is considered necessary. (Question No. 360) Senator Childs asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 15 September 1983: (1) Is the Tasmanian iron ore pellet manufacturer, Savage River Mines, currently importing South African anthracite to be used in its iron ore pellet plant. (2) Did one of South Africa's worst mine disasters occur on 12 September 1983 where 63 miners were killed in an underground explosion from methane gas in an anthracite mine. (3) Do black coal miners receive 194 Rand per month in wages, which is 26 Rand below the South African poverty line. (4) Does the Australian coal industry find it difficult to compete on economic grounds with South Africa, in the light of South Africa's lower labour costs. (5) Is the Minister for Trade aware that on 14 September 1983, while visiting Australia, Mr Andrew Moletsane from the South African Congress of Trade Unions, urged Australia to ban South African anthracite on economic and moral grounds. (6) Will the Government investigate the import of South African anthracite to Australia to determine: (a) its effect on the Australian coal industry; and (b) if this practice implies support for the South African apartheid system. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's questions: (1) I refer the honourable senator to the reply given by the Minister for Resources and Energy in answer to Question No. 359 (Hansard, page 3815 of 14 December 1983). (2) A disaster at the Hlobane Colliery in Natal on 12 September caused the death of 66 miners; 63 were killed underground and 3 died as a result of injuries. (3) My Department has been informed that black underground workers in coal mines receive from 4 Rand per day-labourers-up to 20 Rand per day for a 26 day month based on experience, length of service, et cetera. In addition, single accommodation, food, clothing, medical and recreational facilities are provided. Operators of machinery, such as continuous cutters, are also entitled to a bonus of up to 150 Rand per month. The average wage for black coal miners for the third quarter of 1983 was 303 Rand per month; this, in most cases, excludes accommodation and other benefits provided to miners. The national average wage for black workers is 319 Rand per month. The household subsistence level for black workers, based on a family of six, varies between 264 Rand and 291 Rand depending on area. (4) Ability to compete depends upon a wide range of cost and other factors, of which actual wage rates represent only one element. The totality of labour costs depends upon wage rates, manning levels and productivity. These vary markedly from mine to mine in both South Africa and Australia but lower South African wage rates are offset by higher Australian productivity. South Africa is widely recognised as having the ability to quote some of the lowest prices in the international market, particularly for steaming coal, and South Africa is Australia's major competitor in a number of steaming coal markets. Buyers are, however, concerned with other factors, such as quality and long term reliability. Despite intense South African competition in recent times Australian coal exports in 1983 increased by more than 20 per cent with approximately half of the increase being steaming coal. (5) During a visit to Australia in September 1983 as a representative of the African National Congress and the South African Congress of Trade Unions, Mr Moletsane met with officers of my Department. He said the purpose of his visit was to seek information on trade links between Australia and South Africa, but he did not raise with those officers the specific question of imports of South African anthracite by Savage River Mines. (6) (a) I understand that Savage River Mines is currently actively investigating the suitability of Australian low volatile coals with a view to sourcing coal locally if it can meet technical requirements and be provided economically. (b) The import of goods from South Africa does not imply Australian Government support for the South African apartheid system. (Question No. 532) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 18 November 1983: (1) What new authorities, committees, bureaus, or other such groups: (a) have been established; or (b) are proposed, by or within this Department, since 5 March 1983. (2) How many additional staff: (a) have been, or are being appointed; or (b) are proposed to be recruited, as a result. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) Three new committees have been established within my portfolio which fall within the honourable senator's question. These are the National Airspace Users Advisory Council, the Regional Airspace Users Advisory Council and the Committee of Review of Civil Aviation Search and Rescue Arrangements. It is not expected that any additional staff will be employed as a result of the establishment of these committees. The Government has also announced that a study is being undertaken into the establishment of a national airports authority. The Government has not made a decision on whether to establish the Authority and it is therefore not possible to comment on staffing implications. In addition, a National Airports Consultative Council is being established to provide the Minister for Aviation with direct access to those people directly affected by airports. It is not anticipated that additional staff will be required to support this Council. (Question No. 537) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 18 November 1983: (1) What new authorities, committees, bureaus, or other such groups: (a) have been established; or (b) are proposed, by or within this Department, since 5 March 1983. (2) How many additional staff: (a) have been, or are being, appointed; or (b) are proposed to be recruited, as a result. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2)- New authorities, committees, bureaus or other groups Additional staff (1) (a) Established (1) (b) Proposed (2) (a) Appointed (2) (b) Proposed 1. Medicare Working Party on Fraud and Overservicing Nil Nil 2. Editorial Board for Bicentennial Bibliography of Australian Medicine Nil 2 3. Executive Editorial Board of the Australian Prescriber 1 Nil 4. Medical Services Committee of Inquiry (additional) Nil Nil 5. Acute Care Advisory Committee Nil 4 6. Commonwealth/State Co-ordinating Committee on Private Hospitals Accommodation Nil 1 7. Co-ordination Committee for Management of Commonwealth Employment Program- Mosquito Eradication Campaign Nil Nil 8. State Co-ordinating Committee on Medical Benefit Fraud Nil Nil 9. Part time Medical Services Committee of Inquiry (additional) Nil Nil 10. Technical Committee on Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging Nil Nil 11. Working Party on Amitrole Nil Nil 12. Toxicology Review Sub-committee Nil Nil 13. Working Party on Bio-degradable Disposable Napkins Nil Nil 14. Working Party on Standard for Formula Dietary Food Nil Nil 15. Working Party on Standard for Processing Aids Nil Nil 16. Working Party on Pesticides Legislation Nil Nil 17. Antibiotic Resistance Committee Nil Nil 18. Working Party on Standardisation of Laboratory Procedures Related to Arbovirus Diseases Nil Nil 19. National Institute of Environmental and Occupational Health Nil Not yet determined 20. Interdepartmental Working Group to Review Existing Legislation to Ensure the Rights of Non-Smokers to Breathe Air Unpolluted by Tobacco Smoke Nil Nil (Question No. 578) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice, on 8 December 1983: (1) What is the legal standing of the people presently camped on the lawns in front of Parliament House. (2) Are they transgressing any Australian Capital Territory Ordinances or Regulations; if so, what actions has the Government taken, or does it intend to take, to rectify the situation. (3) Will the Government allow holiday makers to camp on the banks of Lake Burley Griffin over the Christmas season if no ordinances are transgressed. (4) Will the facilities of Parliament House be made available to them. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories and Local Government has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) These raise questions of a legal nature and the Government does not provide legal advice. However, the Government is considering the matter with a view to ensuring the right of assembly on the lawns in front of Parliament House under certain conditions. (3) and (4) The questions are hypothetical and the matters raised will be considered if the need arises. (Question No. 590) Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications , upon notice, on 13 December 1983: (1) What provincial cities and towns have been designated as broadcasting centres for the second Australian Broadcasting Corporation rural radio network. (2) When will the second rural radio network commence operations in South Australia. (3) How many extra staff positions will be created at the designated broadcasting centre in South Australia. Senator John Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Locations of new studios and transmitters have not been finally determined and are subject to consultation between the ABC and my Department. (2) It is not yet possible to provide a precise date. The launching of the Australian satellite is a key factor in the development of the second rural network, which will then be phased in as studios and transmitters become available in each location. The details of planning for the network are being discussed by the ABC and my Department and it is hoped to have a Green Paper available for public comment later this year. (3) It is not possible to answer this question yet, as explained in (2). (Question No. 596) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 14 December 1983: Does the ANZUS Treaty still provide defence cover in countries that were under mandate to Australia and New Zealand when the Treaty was ratified, such as Western Samoa (New Zealand) and Papua New Guinea (Australia), now that such countries have achieved independence: if not, does the Government consider it advantageous to Australia's regional relations to advocate their inclusion in ANZUS. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The ANZUS Treaty applies to the metropolitan territory and the island territories under the jurisdiction of any of the three Treaty partners. It does not apply to former territories such as, in Australia's case, Papua New Guinea. Australia does not have a defence treaty with Papua New Guinea and to date neither Government has put forward proposals for such a treaty. The nature of the defence relationship between Australia and Papua New Guinea is spelt out in the 1977 joint statement by Prime Ministers which affirms the intention of both Governments 'to consult', at the request of either, about matters affecting their common security interests and about other aspects of their defence relationship'. When he visited Papua New Guinea in June 1983 the Minister for Defence reaffirmed these arrangements on behalf of the present Government and assured Papua New Guinea that the Government saw a need for the two countries to maintain and develop the existing close defence relationship. From my own contacts with South Pacific leaders, especially during the meeting of the South Pacific Forum in Canberra in August 1983, I am satisfied that Australian concern for the security and stability of all its South Pacific neighbours is well understood by these countries. Our concern has, moreover, been reflected in successive ANZUS Council communiques. The communique issued after the last ANZUS Council meeting, namely in Washington in July 1983 '. . noted that the security of the Pacific Island States is closely related to that of the ANZUS partners. In this context defence cooperation programs of the ANZUS partners are continuing to make a substantial practical contribution to regional security'. (Question No. 604) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 14 December 1983: (1) Why were the previous members of the Board of Treka Aboriginal Arts and Crafts dismissed and five new members subsequently appointed. (2) Why was there no consultation with the previous Board members before the decision was made. (3) Why is the Top End not represented on the new Board. (4) Will the Government ensure that a Top End representative is appointed. (5) Does the Government plan to transfer the shareholding and responsibility for the Treka Aboriginal Arts and Crafts company to the Aboriginal Development Commission as of 1 January 1984; if so, why. (6) Does the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs realise that the company directors strongly object to this move and, in the light of this, will the company be allowed to continue as is. (7) Will the Government ensure that the Company continues to receive financial assistance so that it can continue to operate past the New Year, when current funding arrangements end. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) No members of the Board of Treka Aboriginal Arts and Crafts Pty Limited have been dismissed. (3) and (4) No new Board has been elected. (5) Responsibility for funding an arts and crafts company will pass to the Aboriginal Development Commission from 1 July 1984. In the interim, $190,000 originally provided to the Australia Council for this purpose is to be transferred to the Aboriginal Development Commission. (6) and (7) Discussions with the Directors of Treka Aboriginal Arts and Crafts on the company's future operations and structure are continuing. (Question No. 609) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs , upon notice, on 15 December 1983: (1) Did the Australian Government indicate or undertake to the Hungarian Government in 1974 that it would be setting up an embassy in Budapest. (2) Did the Hungarian Government set up an embassy in Australia as a consequence of or since such an undertaking; if so, when was the embassy opened. (3) What action has been taken by the Australian Government after the 1974 undertaking. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) There was a clear understanding between the Hungarian and Australian Governments in 1974 that the Hungarian Department would open a resident embassy in Canberra and that Australian representation to Hungary would continue on a non-resident basis. (2) The Australian Government is not aware of the full background to the Hungarian Government's decision to open in 1975 a resident mission in Canberra. (3) Although successive Australian Governments have kept the question of opening a mission in Budapest under active review this has not proven possible in the light of other pressures on limited resources. The Australian Government has been grateful for the way in which the Hungarian authorities have facilitated the work of the Australian non-resident Ambassador, from Vienna, and his staff accredited to Hungary during their frequent visits to that country. (Question No. 637) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 16 December 1983: (1) Why did the Government not consult with the Northern Territory Government on the terms of reference for the land rights inquiry being conducted by Judge Toohey considering the resolution introduced in the House of Representatives on 8 December 1983 by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs regarding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. (2) Is the Government aware that this kind of unilateral action can only mean that efforts by the Northern Territory Government to improve relations between the Commonwealth and the Territory Governments will be further jeopardised. (3) Does the Government intend to improve its performance with regard to consultation with Territory and State Governments; if not, will the Federal Government accept responsibility for any further breakdown in Commonwealth/ Territory/State relations. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The terms of reference of the review by Mr Justice Toohey of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act did not go to the basic elements of the Act which were not at issue. They did, however, provide ample scope for attention to the administrative and procedural difficulties being experienced with the Act. They asked the Judge ''to make a general review'' of the Act and ''Recommend amendments to that Act and changes to any other legislation where appropriate'' having regard to the five principles which the Government sees as fundamental in relation to Aboriginal land rights; namely: Aboriginal land to be held under inalienable freehold title; protection of Aboriginal sites; Aboriginal control in relation to mining on aboriginal land; access to mining royalty equivalents; compensation for lost land to be negotiated. Following an approach to the Minister from the Northern Territory Chief Minister in July 1983, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs assured him that the terms of reference were cast very generally so that all detailed aspects of the legislation could be reviewed. There was no intention to limit the Northern Territory in bringing any problems it had encountered with the Act to the attention of the Judge. In reply to an invitation from Mr Justice Toohey, the Northern Territory Government subsequently made detailed written and oral submissions on matters of concern to it. That Government was not disadvantaged in any way by the conduct of the review. Further, the Australian Government will be consulting the Northern Territory Government, as well as other interested parties, in considering what action it will take in response to Mr Justice Toohey's report. Every reasonable effort will be made to accommodate the legitimate interests of the Northern Territory in this matter. (2) and (3) I refute the implications inherent in these questions. The Australian Government will continue to consult with the Northern Territory Government on matters affecting the Northern Territory. (Question No. 640) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice, on 16 December 1983: (1) Were people who were queuing on Thursday, 15 December 1983 at the Department of Territories and Local Government rates offices at Civic and Woden turned away when the offices closed at 4 p.m. (2) Were these long queues predictable given that the day was a public service payday, was the last day that instalment payments were due and given that the public is becoming increasingly aware that the Department of Territories and Local Government is enforcing its policy that, if instalment payments are not paid on time, the right to pay rates by instalments, rather than by lump sum, will be lost. (3) Are there boxes in the Civic, Woden and Belconnen rates offices where rate payments can simply be dropped without having to wait in queues to be served by the cashier. (4) Why did the Department of Territories and Local Government rates offices not stay open until the people standing in the queues were able to make their rate payments or why were those people standing in the queues not advised that it was not necessary to queue and that they could drop their payments in the boxes provided for just that purpose. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories and Local Government has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. At 4 p.m. a departmental officer in each office stood at the end of the queue and latecomers were turned away. Latecomers with cheques were offered the opportunity of leaving them with the officer for later receipting. (2) No. Similar circumstances have existed on previous due dates but delays such as those experienced on 15 December 1983 have not previously occurred. (3) Yes. Boxes are provided at these offices for ratepayers to leave cheque payments. The box at Civic is accessible after normal business hours. (4) Ratepayers standing in queues at 4 p.m. were not turned away. Woden office processed payments until approximately 4.40 p.m., Civic until 4.20 p.m. and Belconnen and Dickson until 4.30 p.m. In addition staff were utilised in each office to walk along queues advising ratepayers of the location of cheque boxes and taking cheques from ratepayers who were willing to have a receipt sent out to them at a later date. (Question No. 652) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 29 February 1984: (1) Have the United States of America and Australia signed an agreement under which Australia provides the United States with blanket permission for permitting the export of fuel containing Australian uranium. (2) Was this agreement signed after the Labor Government came to office in March 1983. (3) Does this agreement supersede the 1979 United States-Australia safeguards agreement which gave Australia the right of prior consent to exports by the United States to third parties. (4) Does this new agreement cover only natural and low enriched United States fuel with Australian uranium; if so, what is the situation with any other types of fuel exports. (5) What countries have received United States fuel containing Australian uranium. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. (2), (3) and (4) See my answer to Part (1) above. (5) Australian uranium has been exported to the United States for use by several United States utilities for electricity generation, subject to the 1979 Agreement between Australia and the United States of America concerning peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The United States also offers toll-processing services to some countries with which Australia has agreements concerning nuclear safeguards. Consequently some of the Australian uranium exported for end-use in Japan and EURATOM has been converted and/or low-enriched in the United States- during which time it was subject to the Australia-United States Safeguards Agreement referred to above-before being retransferred to these partner countries for electricity generation. On a similar basis Australian uranium for end-use in the Republic of Korea is currently being converted, low-enriched, and /or fuel fabricated in the United States, with the intention that it be retransferred to the Republic of Korea for electricity generation in due course. (Question No. 653) Senator Crowley asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 29 February 1984: Could the Special Minister of State advise on the number of men and the number of women in the following categories of Australia Day Honours Awards: (a) Companions of the Order of Australia; (b) Members of the Order of Australia; and (c) Medal of the Order of Australia. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: In the 1984 Australia Day Honours List (a) three men and no women were made Companions of the Order of Australia; (b) fifty-six men and sixteen women were made Members of the Order of Australia ; (c) eighty men and thirty-eight women were awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia. In addition thirty men and one woman were made Officers of the Order of Australia. The Council for the Order of Australia was established in 1975 to consider names and make recommendations independent of Government. The Council for the Order considers nominations and make recommendations for Australian honours direct to the Governor-General as the Chancellor of the Order. (Question No. 659) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs , upon notice, on 28 February 1984: (1) Is the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of recent trials of leaders of the Peace Association of Turkey. (2) Have 23 citizens been imprisoned for pursuing the interest and the cause of peace in that country. (3) Have some such citizens been sentenced to terms ranging between five and eight years for such activity. (4) Will the Government protest to the Government of Turkey at this attempt to quash the non-violent peace movement in that country. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Government is aware that trials of leaders of the Peace Association of Turkey have taken place. (2) The Government has received reports that 23 members of the Peace Association of Turkey have been imprisoned. (3) Some of those imprisoned have received sentences ranging from five to eight years. (4) The Australian Ambassador in Ankara was asked in February of this year to express to the Turkish authorities the concern that exists in Australia about the denial of human rights in Turkey, especially the denial of due process of law, torture and conviction on the grounds of political belief. The Ambassador has since made known our concern to the Turkish Acting President, the Prime Minister and to senior officials of the Turkish Foreign Ministry and has expressed our hopes that the newly elected Government's stated commitment to democracy will bring about a genuine improvement in the situation. (Question No. 664) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 29 February 1984: (1) Does the Federal Government intend Australia to remain a member of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation in the event of a United States pullout from that organisation. (2) Is the Government satisfied that UNESCO is carrying out its charter in a proper and impartial manner; if not, will the Government seek to influence a change in the day-to-day functioning of UNESCO; if so, will the Government seek to influence the United States to maintain its membership and support of that body. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Australia does not intend to withdraw from UNESCO. (2) The Government has expressed concern at some aspects of UNESCO's performance. These include the degree of politicisation of some debates, as well as certain inadequacies in the organisation's budget and administration which have detracted from its overall effectiveness. At the same time, Australia believes that UNESCO continues to play an important role in advancing international cooperation in the sciences, education, culture and communications . Such cooperation can benefit all member states, including Australia. The Government is therefore committed to playing an active role in seeking solutions to UNESCO's problems. It intends to work closely with fellow members from all geographical groupings to find practical ways in which improvements can be implemented. The Government is naturally concerned that the United States has given notification of intention to withdraw from UNESCO at the end of 1984, although it understands the reasons for this step. Such action would deprive UNESCO of a substantial intellectual and practical input into its programs and would mean the loss of a quarter of its financial contributions. The Government hopes that conditions can be created in which the United States may be able to reconsider its decision to withdraw. For its part, the Government will work actively to this end. (Question No. 700) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 7 March 1984: (1) Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware of the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works relating to the Australian Wheat Board accommodation at Ceres House, Melbourne, for Head Office and Victorian Branch. (2) Are the Australian Wheat Board's activities in relation to: (a) operations on the domestic and international money markets to fund the crop acquired from growers and to invest temporary surplus funds; and (b) operations on the wheat and financial futures markets, in accordance with the provisions of its statutory powers? (3) What are the details of the accommodation requirements that 'the accommodation should be of a standard appropriate to receive, negotiate with, and provide hospitality to delegations and visitors and to reflect Australia's position as a significant wheat trading nation'. (4) Why are 25 car parking spaces needed 'to provide discreet access for sensitive visiting delegations'. (5) Did the Wheat Board consider restructuring its staff and functions rather than Ceres House. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) (a) and (b) Yes, so far as I am aware. (3) and (4) Details of the accommodation, including materials and finishes, were provided as Appendix 1 of the report referred to in Question (1). The above report found that car parking within the premises was an important requirement both for AWB efficiency and for visiting delegations. In other words , the 25 spaces are required not solely for visiting delegations, but for the AWB's general needs. I should add that I have been kept fully informed by the Australian Wheat Board of its proposal to redevelop Ceres House. I have accepted the advice of the AWB that it requires additional and improved accommodation and that the redevelopment of Ceres House is the best of a number of options considered. I note that this view has been endorsed by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works following its public enquiry into the proposal. (5) The functions of the Australian Wheat Board are currently under complete re -examination because the wheat marketing and pricing arrangements expire on 30 September 1984. These functions were included in the open and wide ranging enquiry into the wheat industry by the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC). The IAC's report has been considered by myself and my State counterparts at the Australian Agricultural Council (AAC). The AAC has recommended only slight variations in the AWB's marketing and pricing functions for the next five year period. The Commonwealth Government has yet to take final decisions on the IAC's report and the AAC recommendations. Senator Gietzelt —Senator Kilgariff, in the adjournment debate of 28 February 1984 (Hansard page 64), raised the matter of an article which appeared in the Northern Territory News of 8 February 1984 concerning interim upgrading at Darwin Airport. The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The article appearing in the Northern Territory News on 8 February 1984 and attributed to a spokesman for the Commonwealth Aviation Minister is substantially incorrect. My Department is currently examining the possibility of providing some minor upgrading within the international arrivals area of the Darwin Airport as an interim measure pending the construction of the new terminal building. One possibly cost effective measure being examined is the provision of a conveyor belt for delivery of baggage to the international arrivals hall. Other matters receiving attention are options for improvement of air circulation, some re-painting within the Customs examination area and necessary electrical reticulation upgrading. The cost for these works would be approximately $170,000 and subject to Government approval, could commence early in the next financial year. Senator Gietzelt —On 2 December 1983 (Hansard, page 3232), Senator Robert Ray asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, a question without notice which sought the reasons for a $34m loss by Qantas Airways Ltd in the last financial year, and asked what steps Qantas proposed to take to rectify this matter. The Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's questions: Qantas has advised in relation to the particular questions: The loss by Qantas Airways Ltd in 1982-83 of $34m was caused by a deterioration in the international aviation environment which in turn was due to the world wide economic recession. Although the Company's costs were pruned to the extent realistically possible, the cost increases recorded nevertheless exceeded revenue growth. This was reflected in the reduction in the Company's revenue load factor, that is, the percentage of total aircraft capacity actually utilised by paying passengers, mail and freight forwarders, from 62.7 per cent in 1981-82 to 59.5 per cent in 1982-83. Many costs however are outside the control of the Company; for example, the increase in Qantas' fuel costs in 1982- 83 was $44m. Improvements have already been achieved in the Company's profitability during 1983-84, with increased revenue earning initiatives taken, and lower staff costs resulting from staff separations arranged in 1982-83.