Friday, 30 March 1984 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 9 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Nuclear Disarmament To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are concerned about foreign owned military bases on Australian territory and the entry into Australian waters and territory of foreign warships and aircraft carrying nuclear weaponry. And that the Australian Government should take an active and constructive role in the promotion of a nuclear-free world. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: (1) Promote the expression of Australian sovereignty by legislating to bring foreign military bases on Australian territory under the control of the Australian Government. (2) Make it compulsory that the disclosure of weaponry carried by foreign warships and aircraft be given in confidence to the Australian Government prior to a request for entry. And that foreign warships and aircraft that carry nuclear weaponry be banned from Australian waters and territories. (3) Legislate for the cessation of all uranium mining in Australia and its subsequent export. (4) Urge the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to pose to the Governments of the United States and the Soviet Union that both countries agree to immediately halt the testing, production and further deployment of all nuclear weapons, missiles and delivery systems in a way that can be checked and verified by both sides. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 497 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% 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 blatently discriminated against compared with people in the rest of Australia. Because of the dispute over the introduction of Medicare, Queensland public hospital bed charges are $120 per day compared with $80 per day in the other states. This is grossly unfair. As it was the Federal Government which decided to introduce Medicare, we believe it is their responsibility to take action allowing health funds' rates in Queensland to be kept at reasonable levels. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should use its influence with Government so as to avoid the discrimination (of $ 40 per day) against insured Queenslanders. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 849 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that every child in Australia is entitled to government financial support for their education whether they attend government schools or non-government schools. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that urgent consideration be given to a favourable decision for the continuation of Federal Government per capita grants payable in respect of all children in non-government schools at a rate calculated as a percentage of Government Standard Costs at a level not less than that prevailing in 1983. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume (from 10 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 decision which have reduced funding to wealthy private schools and which have broken the nexus between government and non-government school costs. 3. They endorse the Federal Government's opposition to the provision of a 'base grant' to all non-government schools. 4. They ask that the Federal Government create a general recurrent resource base which is adequate for government schools through the provision of increased recurrent funding. 5. They call upon the Federal Government to negotiate agreements with State/ Territory Governments which will ensure a planned program of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Childs (from seven citizens) and Robertson (from 11 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that ''The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State''. And whereas the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women would violate the above Article 23 (1). We humbly pray the Government to refrain from ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; believing that its implementation would result in: (1) Undue cost to the nation at this time. (2) ''The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels'' as described in Part 3 Article 10 (c), being a disruption of traditional parental roles, is likely to result in emotional disturbances of childhood. (3) The strong encouragements to mothers to join the workforce, with the provision of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in Article 11 of the convention is likely to result in maternal deprivation and psychological disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illnesses. (4) The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3 Article 10 (c) is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our Nation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Childs (from 19 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth their desire to stop the commercial exploitation of the kangaroo. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House re-apply the ban on the export of kangaroo products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 97 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action or legislation in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from nine citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the requirement that pensioners and health care cardholders fill in a complex declaration when presenting prescriptions is causing distress to beneficiaries and inefficiencies in the distribution of medicines by pharmacists . Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will immediately abolish the requirement that a declaration be completed by the pensioner and health care cardholder. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 42 citizens). Petitions received. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate note that March 1984 is the first anniversary of the Government 's failure to honour its promise to make a decision on the Review of the Developing Country Preference Scheme. Notice of Motion Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —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 alter the Constitution so as to ensure that the Members of the House of Representatives and of the Parliaments of the States are chosen directly and democratically by the people. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate is of the opinion that the Federal Government should honour the current arrangements for the funding of the Northern Territory, as set out under the memorandum of understanding, between the Federal and Northern Territory Government, and that they not be altered. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate is of the opinion that the Federal Government should review its decision not to allow uranium mining to proceed at the Koongarra and Jabiluka sites in the Northern Territory. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate is of the opinion that in future, all Federal Government decisions relating to the Northern Territory be made in consultation with the Northern Territory Government. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate is of the opinion that the Federal Government should move to ensure that the Northern Territory be given increased representation in the Federal Parliament under the new Federal electoral arrangements. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Ryan) read a first time. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(9.05) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill gives effect to the Government's announced decision to amend section 17 of the Health Insurance Act. This section was amended last year as part of the Medicare legislation package because of concern expressed by both Commonwealth and State governments about the lack of controls over rights of private practice in public hospitals. Briefly, section 17 provides that Medicare benefits are not payable in respect of a prescribed medical service rendered to private patients in or at a public hospital unless there is an agreement in writing between the medical practitioner and the public hospital. The agreement must conform to guidelines determined by the Commonwealth Minister for Health. This concern about lack of controls over private practice rights in public hospitals, especially in the area of diagnostic services, is well documented. The previous Government commissioned the Jamison inquiry into the efficiency and administration of hospitals. That report made the following recommendations: Recommendation 109: There be an urgent review by each of the employment authorities of rights of private practice in hospitals with a view to limiting its scope, consistent with the underlying intent of the contract between an individual patient and doctor. Recommendation 111: Steps be taken to phase out over a period of years the right of private practice for full time salaried specialists. Recommendation 112: Action be taken to improve the awareness of all medical practitioners of the medical value and cost of tests, not only for pathology but for all diagnostic services. Recommendation 113: Guidelines be issued by health authorities on the utilisation of radiology pathology and pharmacy services. These are strong recommendations from what is generally accepted as being a very conservative report. Their concern was obviously aroused by the evidence given by many organisations about excess utilisation of diagnostic services in hospitals. Let me quote what the Australian Association of surgeons told the Jamison inquiry: 'There are cases of patients tested to the point of exhaustion for reasons entirely unknown to their principal medical attendant. There is little doubt that many of these diagnostic testing procedures represent an unwarranted invasion of privacy inflicted on the patient and many of them cause unnecessary suffering and hardship. Their cost to the community is almost inestimable.' This type of statement which was made by several other conservative and respected organisations prompted the Jamison commission of inquiry to state in its report: 'The commission realises that patients would want their doctors to explore all available avenues in times of doubt. But the statements above must cause concern to patients, doctors, administrators and governments.' Unfortunately the matter was of no concern to the previous Government, who took no action in this area despite the strong recommendations and evidence of the inquiry that it had commissioned. This Government does not believe that questions such as the rapidly increasing cost of diagnostic services can be ignored. We are dedicated to the operation of an efficient, high standard health care system, and we intend to provide this through Medicare at a cost that is affordable to the Australian people. It was vital that at the same time as we introduced Medicare we introduced meaningful measures to restrain increases in health costs in some areas. Given the statement I have just quoted from the surgeons association, it is not difficult to see why it was decided that the area of diagnostic services was in need of immediate attention. Some medical specialists have viewed section 17 as a threat to their income and privileges, and as a result they have embarked on a course of industrial action. The Government has made every effort to be reasonable on this issue, as this Bill and the deferral of more controversial matters to the joint Government/ Australian Medical Association Penington inquiry clearly indicates. However, our overriding responsibility is to ensure that the $2,000m in Medicare benefits paid annually to medical practitioners in this country, is wisely and properly spent. For this reason we cannot and will not be deterred from the principal of section 17, or the fairness of the guidelines relating to schedule fee compliance that have already been introduced under the section. These guidelines , which were developed in consultation with State Governments, and after considerable discussion and compromise with the AMA, were gazetted on 29 February 1984. These guidelines are not in the form of a regulation and therefore, under the current legislation not subject to disallowance by the Parliament. The Government believed this was unnecessary because the circumstances of doctor's employment in public hospitals made it impossible for any government to use section 17 to impose unreasonable conditions. Firstly, in acting in this area any government would need the co-operation of a majority of the State governments, who would not act to endanger the standards of their own public hospital system. Secondly, the specialists who are at the forefront of this dispute are not salaried specialists, they are independent enterpreneurs who work in the public hospital system only part of the time. If a government were foolish enough to impose unreasonable guidelines under section 17, then these specialists would have an immediate recourse to withdraw to their already established private practices outside public hospitals. They obviously do not need the direct protection of law necessary for a salaried employee. Thirdly, and most obviously, it would not be in the interests of any government , especially a Labor Government, to introduce guidelines that prompted an exodus of specialists from the public hospital system, we are dependent on these people for the excellence of care that is currently provided in our public hospitals. Rights of private practice are an important element in attracting high quality medical staff to the public hospitals. This Government believes that while some of those private practice rights are in need of reform, that it would be counter -productive in the extreme to abolish them. The points I have just made were summarised in the Sydney Morning Herald's editorial of Saturday, 17 March 1984, as follows: 'What, exactly, is at issue in the two month old industrial dispute between the doctors and the Federal Government? Is it, as the doctors claim, the unfettered power given to the Federal Health Minister by section 17 of the Health Insurance Act? Hardly. Dr Blewett's power under section 17 is certainly no more and probably a great deal less than that of any other employer. In theory, he can do almost anything he likes. In practice, he is limited by both the doctors' industrial power and public opinion.' Now that is a realistic statement of the real position in the real world. However, the paranoia and unwarranted fear that the AMA and specialist groups have aroused in the medical profession, in the interests of furthering an industrial dispute over income and privileges, has meant that the Government now finds it necessary to formalise that real world situation into legislation. For that reason this Bill has been introduced as it meets the objections of principle put forward by the medical profession, and should lead to an end to the current industrial disruption before it seriously endangers patient welfare. Let me remind the Senate again of the facts about private practice rights in public hospitals. There are a variety of different schemes and arrangements under which salaried doctors exercise rights of private practice. There is lack of detailed knowledge about how such schemes operate, and how a substantial proportion of the funds available under those schemes are applied. It is a fact that receipt of Medicare benefits by salaried hospital specialists provides them with a source of income, over and above their salary determinations. This private practice income is generally accrued during the same working time in which they are employed by the public hospital. This is why it is nonsense for the AMA and the Opposition to object to the Commonwealth Government having a say in the conditions under which doctors are employed in public hospitals. Those agreements between hospitals and doctors directly effect the amount of Medicare benefits that the Commonwealth Government is liable to pay. State governments have no direct monetary interest in controlling the amount of private practice work undertaken in public hospitals, however, the four State Labor governments have accepted the reality of the problem and willingly cooperated in the development of guidelines under section 17. As I have already made clear, this Government has no intention of abolishing rights of private practice arrangements in public hospitals, despite the recommendation of the Jamison inquiry. Our intention is only to impose reasonable controls to ensure that those rights are not exploited. Our concerns have been greatest about rights of private practice as it relates to diagnostic services, pathology, radiology, radiotherapy, and nuclear medicine. In these areas, there is little if any direct doctor-patient contact, and the patient is usually unaware of the nature and extent of any tests being carried out. This is a high cost area of Medicare which provides substantial scope for generating additional revenue. There is also a significant technical content to these services as provided by the use of public hospital equipment and facilities. It is because these costly facilities are taxpayer funded that we are expecting a wider degree of public accountability from these diagnostic specialists. The Government has made no secret of the fact, from before the legislation passed by this Parliament in September last year, that Medicare benefits would be payable for these diagnostic services provided in public hospitals, only if the service was provided in accordance with an agreement between the doctor and the public hospital. Prior to that, the Government had commenced negotiations with the Australian Medical Association. The initial draft guidelines proposed that all agreements would require: (a) All accounts to be raised by the hospital on behalf of the doctor. (b) All charges to be at or below schedule fee. (c) All revenue received for diagnostic services rendered under private practice contracts for full time specialists in a particular hospital to be treated as one fund. (d) The fund to be applied in the following order: (1) Facility charges (recovery of costs) to the hospital in a form acceptable to the Commonwealth Minister. (2) Drawings by the doctor at a level determined by the State, up to 25 per cent of full time specialist salary. (3) Any residual to be applied following guidelines set by the State Ministers for Health. The purpose of those guidelines was to: (1) Standardise private practice rights for full time salaried staff. In most States, the 25 per cent limit already applied, except in New South Wales where some more generous arrangements apply in some cases. (2) Reduce incentives for visiting private practitioners to request and perform tests. In some areas where there is a shortage of salaried staff, visiting practitioners perform most, if not all, the radiological or pathology services. This means that the fee for services payment systems allows these practitioners to generate substantial income, in such circumstances, it was reasonable to introduce income restraints as they meant that necessary diagnostic services would be performed at a more reasonable cost to taxpayers. These guidelines were in no sense harsh by community standards since they did not have any effect until an income of about $62,500 per annum was reached. Because of the AMA's dissatisfaction with these arrangements, a further proposal, inter alia, was made on income levels. It was proposed that: For full time, salaried staff (i) Drawings by the doctor, up to 25% of the salary of a senior specialist. ( Allows about $12,500 pa from private practice on top of a salary of about $50, 000 pa) For visiting, private practitioners (i) Full drawings by the doctor, up to 125% of the salary of a senior specialist (about $62,500 pa) (ii) From 125% to 175% of the senior specialist salary (about $62,500 to $87, 500 pa), the doctor can draw 75% of the earnings above $62,500 pa and leave 25% in the fund. (iii) Above 175% of the senior specialist salary (about $87,500 pa), the doctor can draw 60% of the earnings above $87,500 pa and leave 40% in the fund. Any residual remaining in the fund to be applied for purposes such as education , equipment or other development activities under guidelines set by the State Health Minister. These more generous limits were also not acceptable to the AMA. On 11 January 1984, the Minister for Health met with representatives on the AMA about their objections. On 24 January, the Minister announced that the Government would defer implementation of the income restraint guidelines. He also announced that there would be a committee of inquiry into rights of private practice in public hospitals under the chairmanship of Professor David Penington , Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at Melbourne University. The Commonwealth and the AMA were each to nominate a member to constitute a committee of three. The Minister also announced that the introduction of the section 17 arrangements would be deferred from 1 February to 1 March to allow for further negotiation, and to allow a reasonable implementation period for doctors and State Health authorities. The Minister met with the AMA again on 9 February 1984. The AMA's attention then turned to the Minister's 'unfettered powers' under section 17 to alter their conditions. As indicated previously, it is not in any government's interests to introduce guidelines which change arrangements so significantly as to drive doctors out of the public hospital system. Therefore, in negotiations with the AMA in February, it was agreed that terms of reference for the Penington inquiry would include consultative procedures prior to variation of the guidelines, and appeal or review procedures in relation to these arrangements. The Minister also guaranteed that the guidelines would not be altered or extended until the report of the inquiry had been considered. The AMA's other objection was that the new national list of facility charges for the prescribed diagnostic items meant increases in those charges in some States for some services. Again, the Government agreed to refer the question of a national list of facility charges to the inquiry, and to allow the existing State facility charges to remain in force until the inquiry reported. The AMA's only concession in all these negotiations was to agree on 16 February to participate in the inquiry. Following this further meeting on 16 February, the Federal President of the AMA, Dr Thompson, publicly stated that the Government's concessions and the inquiry had provided a real basis for resolution of the dispute. However, the Government proposals were rejected by a meeting of the AMA and specialist groups on 22 February 1984. This situation necessitated joint action by the Ministers for Health in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, and Western Australia to ensure that: No practitioners providing diagnostic services would charge more than the schedule fee for services in public hospitals after 1 March 1984; No patient would be denied access to public hospital services and no diagnostician would be prevented from rendering services to his or her patients in a public hospital; and The medical benefit schedule fee would not be required to be included in agreements under section 17 where a State took action to ensure that the schedule fee was charged for diagnostic services through these limited price control measures. The guidelines which were introduced on 29 February were revised to ensure that the only significant requirements for the agreements between the hospital and the doctor was that charges raised be at or below the schedule fee. This is not a government fee: It is a fee set annually by an independent arbitrator after hearing argument from government, the AMA, and other interested parties. Despite all the concessions made, in an effort to reach a settlement, the AMA was still being intransient, so a meeting was held on 2 March with the Prime Minister present, at that meeting, the Prime Minister offered: (1) To give an undertaking in writing that during the period of the Penington committee inquiry, there will be no change of any sort in the guidelines as gazetted on 29 February 1984 or in the details of their application. (2) With respect to the recommendations of the Penington committee relating to appeal and review procedures, the government will advise the Penington committee that the government has no objection to recommendations providing for such procedures and will accept the recommendations of the inquiry on that matter. In return, the Government sought an assurance that the AMA would recommend to the members of the profession: (1) That they sign written agreements in accordance with current guidelines, with particular emphasis on the guidelines relating to charging at or below the schedule fee, where such arrangements do not already exist. (2) That there be no discrimination against Medicare-only patients in recognised hospitals. The Federal AMA agreed this was reasonable and took the Prime Minister's proposal to a further meeting of their State branches, and other medical organisations. This compromise offered by the Prime Minister was also rejected by that meeting. The A.M.A. and some specialist organisations have now rejected all attempts at a negotiated settlement, and embarked on a campaign of industrial action in an effort to have their total demands met. Because the Government had twice reached near agreement with the Federal A.M.A. on proposals to resolve the dispute, we believed it was necessary to have a round table conference with all the major groups concerned in the dispute. Several attempts to arrange a meeting between the Minister for Health and State Health Ministers with the Federal and State Branches of the A.M.A. and the college of radiologists have failed, because the medical profession has refused to attend. Senator Haines of the Australian Democrats put forward a constructive proposal which would give immediate substance to the Prime Minister's undertaking of 2 March to institute appeal provisions into section 17. The Government has adopted that proposal in this Bill, and there can now be no argument that the Minister's powers under section 17 are considerably fettered and restricted-both formally through legislation as well as in practical reality. The first amendment of section 17 inserts in it a new sub-section (1A) for the purpose of enabling the Minister, if he is satisfied that the laws of a State or Territory, or agreements or arrangements entered into under such laws, are such as will regulate the rendering of a prescribed professional service in a manner consistent with the guidelines, to sign an instrument exempting a medical practitioner from the requirement to enter into an agreement of the kind referred to. The second amendment adds sub-sections (5), (6), (7), and (8) at the end of section 17. These Provisions will enable the guidelines that have been made by he Minister under section 17, and any guidelines that the Minister makes in the future, to be disallowed in the Parliament in the same way as a Statutory Rule may be disallowed. By these measures, the two practical objectives of this Bill are achieved. They are: (1) To provide for Parliamentary scrutiny of the Minister for Health's power to make guidelines. This is the constructive proposal put forward by Senator Haines , and in practice it would mean that the Senate would have power to disallow any guidelines put forward by the Minister that it felt were unreasonable. This meets the major objection of principle put forward by the Medical profession. (2) to give the option of Medicare Benefits being payable either where there is an agreement in writing between the hospital and the doctor or where State legislation or regulation ensures that the guidelines are complied with. This amendment gives greater flexibility to allow Medicare benefits to be payable, and is designed to protect patients in what is essentially a dispute between Government and the medical profession. The Government believes these measures are appropriate because our objective has always been to ensure compliance with the schedule fee, and instituting other reasonable reforms to private practice rights in public hospitals-rather than to get signatures on pieces of paper. In addition, the cabinet has agreed in principle to regular arbitrated review of the schedule fee, and has authorised the Minister for Health to enter into negotiations with the A.M.A. to achieve this. This should dispel another piece of paranoia now abroad in the medical profession that having secured compliance with the schedule fee it would then allow the schedule fee to stagnate for some years. The speed with which the Government moved to secure an arbitrated interim fee increase once the wage pause was ended should also establish the bona fides of the Government in this matter. The comments of the Federal President of the A.M.A., Dr Thompson, that Parliamentary scrutiny is not sufficient because at some future time a Government may also have a majority in the Senate, have been noted. I would point out that such a situation could not occur in the time before the Penington inquiry reports. The Guarantee that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health gave on 2 March still stands. That is that the Government will implement whatever consultative and appeal mechanisms are recommended by the Penington inquiry. That remains a term of reference for the inquiry, and the A.M.A. and other medical groups will have ample opportunity to put forward any other consultative and appeal proposals they feel are desirable. The Government will not extend its guidelines beyond schedule fee compliance for diagnostic services during the period of the Penington inquiry. I believe that the A.M.A. and other medical groups should accept this Bill as substantially achieving their aims in relation to appeal rights under section 17 . It is obvious that any Federal Government would find it impossible to introduce unreasonable guidelines under section 17 because it would require the consent of both Houses of Federal Parliament, and also the agreement of State Parliaments to any complementary legislation or regulations made by State Government. The Federal Government has no intention of submitting to all the demands made by the A.M.A. We believe that schedule fee compliance by diagnostic specialists in public hospitals is fair and reasonable, and we will not be withdrawing that guideline, the Government has a responsibility to act in the public interest, and to ensure that taxpayers' money provided through the one per cent levy is properly spent. Nor will the Government abandon the principle of section 17 which is designed to ensure that the public hospital system is not exploited by private interests. The problem with resolving this dispute has been that while the Government has negotiated in good faith, and made several compromises in an effort to resolve it, the A.M.A. has offered nothing. They have not passed on the details of all these concessions to their membership, and this has served to create misunderstandings and inflame emotions in the profession generally. The current industrial strife should now cease. The introduction of this Bill is a positive step by the Government to seek a resolution of the dispute before the current industrial action which is causing inconvenience to patients escalates to a point where it could endanger patients. I hope that the majority of the medical profession will accept this public act of good faith by the Government, and cease the current industrial action in the best interests of their patients' welfare. This legislation will provide the immediate safeguards the profession has sought, and the Penington Inquiry provides a proper opportunity for them to raise any further concerns they may have. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Debate resumed from 8 March, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.09) —The Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill 1984 seeks to amend the Acts Interpretation Act. It is a Bill which I suppose most people and even some honourable senators would normally regard as a dry as dust legal subject, one of interest solely to a small number of lawyers. The Bill contains a number of proposed amendments which I suppose would come into that category. They indicate the preoccupation of lawyers in their most technical vein. I do not propose to deal with them except to say that the Opposition supports them. As I said, they cover the sort of subjects about which people cannot understand what interests lawyers. I do not intend to detain this chamber in discussing them at all. They are set out in the explanatory memorandums and are dealt with briefly in the second reading speech. However, this amendment to the Acts Interpretation Act is a somewhat notable exception to the usual rule on this subject because it contains a proposal which I believe is of very great significance not only in the approach to statutory interpretation, but also in virtually revolutionising the approach to the drafting of statutes. The proposal is that in interpreting statutes judges may have regard to extrinsic material as an aid in interpretation. The Bill sets out the various extrinsic matters which may be referred to. It is based upon a general proposition that the approach to the subject may include any material not forming part of an Act which is capable of assisting in the ascertainment of the meaning of the provision. However, the proposal does confine that approach in a very important way. That approach can be made only where there is need to confirm that the meaning of the provision is the ordinary meaning contained by the text, taking into account its context in the Act. Of course, the cardinal rule is that one must look at the whole Act and also the purpose or object underlying the Act. That part of the legislation refers to an earlier amendment to the Acts Interpretation Act which I introduced in 1981. It required the courts, in interpreting Acts of Parliament, to have regard to the purpose or object of the Act. The second restriction on the use of extrinsic material is that it can be resorted to to determine the meaning of the provision only when the provision is ambiguous or obscure or the ordinary meaning conveyed by the text of the provision, taking into account its context and purpose, is manifestly absurd or unreasonable. The proper role of the courts in interpreting statutes is a question of legal interest and concern and these have been rules of statutory interpretation for a long time. In the twentieth century there developed a very literal interpretation of statutes. I think this coincided with the retreat by the courts from any claim to a law-making role and the assertion by Parliament of a much greater activity in that law-making role. The two theories seemed to run together. However, in recent years it has become more and more obvious that the literal interpretation of statutes by the courts was an unnecessary and most unfortunate abdication by them of their historic role going back for hundreds of years, when the common law was largely developed by the initiative of judges. It became more and more apparent to parliamentarians, as I think it must be apparent to all of us in this chamber, that it was absurd to believe that Parliament could cope with law making on the scale and in the detail which has become the fashion. When I opened a symposium on this subject just before the change of government in 1983 I referred to the volume of legislation. I pointed to the then current volume of Acts for 1981 which had just been published. If honourable senators care to look at it they will see that it contains two very fat volumes of 1981 Acts, covering 182 Acts and 2828 pages. There is nothing unique about that; it just happened to be the latest development of this orgy of legislation. Since then the volumes for 1982 have been published. Again there are two volumes, containing 158 Acts and 2,298 pages. Over recent decades it has become impossible for the Parliament to legislate intelligently in that sort of detail. At the same time it has become more and more obvious that the courts now realise that they should not pursue the purely literal interpretation and that they ought to have more regard to the object and purpose of legislation. They should have a different approach, one which is now being referred to as the purposive approach. At the time I moved for the insertion of section 15AA into the Acts Interpretation Act in 1981, Australian courts were just tentatively starting to make greater use of that approach. It was the subject of a lot of controversy and still is. I do not deny that. But it is interesting to see the number of cases, particularly in the High Court of Australia and in the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, where this approach is now being adopted. I will not refer to particular cases, but there is a very noticeable change of approach. Whether the insertion of section 15AA has hastened that change or not is a matter for others to determine in the course of time. I think it has certainly given the courts an indication of what Parliament thinks. It was very gratifying that there was a bipartisan approach to this subject at the time. There was virtually a unanimous view in this Parliament that it was the right approach. I think that must have been of some significance for the judges. That approach was only one step. It is certainly necessary, if the courts are to adopt this wider, more flexible, approach, that they should not be bound, as they thought they were, to interpret a statute very strictly within the four corners of the statute itself. Another burning topic for many years has been what judges may look at extrinsic to the Act. This subject has certainly interested me for many years. Coupled with the introduction of the new approach in this amendment to the Acts Interpretation Act I instructed the Attorney-General's Department to embark on a consideration of this question. There was a very ready response, particularly from Mr Brazil who is now the Secretary to the Department but who was then a Deputy Secretary and from Mr Geoffrey Kolts, the First Parliamentary Counsel. They prepared a Green Paper, which was tabled in this Parliament, suggesting possible new approaches to the question of what extrinsic material may be considered. As a result of that Paper a symposium was held in early February 1983. It was promoted by the Attorney-General's Department. The symposium attracted enormous interest and support from the leading figures of the legal world in Australia. It was led by a very distinguished former law lord, Lord Wilberforce, who came to Australia for that purpose. The symposium was attended by no less than the Chief Justice and four other justices of the High Court, and many distinguished lawyers. At the end of the day Mr Justice Mason of the High Court acted as rapporteur for the symposium. He set out what he thought were its conclusions. Those conclusions were quoted in the statement of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) made on behalf of the Attorney-General which was incorporated in Hansard on 30 November last year. I will read the general conclusions as seen by Sir Anthony Mason: the law as it presently stands in relation to extrinsic aids is neither clear nor convincing, it was generally agreed that cautious use should be made of extrinsic materials and that their potential to assist was restricted to cases of ambiguity; there were perhaps some misgivings about the use of Hansard, and greater reservations about the use of the old style explanatory memorandum-- that is the one with which we are all familiar- and also the proposed specially prepared and approved explanatory memorandum- that was a major suggestion of the Green paper- which would impose an additional load on top of the heavy burden Parliamentarians and Parliamentary Counsel already carry; if, as the proposals in the Discussion Paper indicated, the new style memorandum was to be used only in association with some selected statutes, its scope would be very limited; there was a case, however, supported by the authors of the papers and by a number of commentators and speakers, for action by the Parliament giving the Courts a judicial discretion to look beyond the four corners of the Statute when it seems appropriate to do so; It is that conclusion, reported by Sir Anthony Mason and supported by Mr Justice Mason himself, which is the basis of the proposal in the Bill which is before us this morning. The Bill itself may go a little wider in the type of extrinsic material which may be looked at than was proposed by the people who attended the seminar. The most serious and concrete suggestion which was put to the seminar was one which to some extent I had floated-that perhaps Parliament should append a specially prepared explanatory memorandum to the Bill. The memorandum would then become physically a part of the Act and would be referred to by courts in interpreting the statute. For various reasons that suggestion did not find great favour at the seminar. Having thought about the matter and listened to what people have had to say about it over quite a period, I believe that the approach taken in this legislation is the course to be preferred. Certainly at present it is more favoured than the more specific proposal made in the Green Paper which I commissioned. Nevertheless, this matter is in a state of flux, a state of development. I hope that the suggestion for a specially prepared explanatory memorandum will be given a go in a statute to see how it works out. As I said, I believe this is all part of an ongoing experiment which will take some considerable time. It is very consistent with the whole development of our legal system. As I said when I opened the seminar last February: This Symposium is neither the beginning nor the end of the process of rethinking and reforming the principles of statutory interpretation, but it is a most important step in that process. Likewise, this legislation is neither the beginning nor the end of the process, but it certainly is another very important step in that development. It is pleasing to note that judges themselves are now openly referring to extrinsic material. But there is a certain hesitancy, one might say a coyness, on the part of judges in referring to this material, because in fact, under principles of statutory interpretation that have been laid down, they are not supposed to do so. As I said, they have been changing those rules, as they are entitled to do. This indication from Parliament is not mandatory; but it is an indication to them that they can be a little bolder than they have been in the past. I think that process will develop and should be encouraged by the Parliament. I come back to the context in which this whole subject should be considered. It should be considered in the context of the problem of reforming the law. That is very much an ongoing process. In recent decades the dominance of Parliament in that process has come to a stage where it can no longer cope with the problem. I would hope that there would be less legislation in the future and more legislation in a general form so that courts would be able to apply it case by case. There is no reason why we should not be able to rely on the judges to perform what has been an historic process by them in developing the common law over centuries. The next step probably is to persuade the parliamentary draftsmen that they do not need to dot every 'i' and cross every 't' in the legislation that they draft for our consideration. As I said, there is no way in the world that members of parliament can cope with legislation in that detail, understand it, or have more than a glimmer of understanding of the general process of it. This is a major problem facing not only judges, governments and parliamentary counsel, but also this chamber and the other place. We have to make up our minds about that subject as well. We should be promoting debate and consideration of it. I quote again from what I said in opening the seminar, for I adopt it. I do not think this morning I could better what I said on that occasion. Judges should become bolder in applying both the principles of the common law and guidelines laid down by the Parliament. Hopefully Parliament might be persuaded to give a greater role to the judges if it knew that they would accept the challenge. The importance of our present exercise-- this was said at a symposium but this is a current exercise- Is that, with a purposive approach and better aids to interpretation, Parliament may be encouraged to reduce the size and complexity of legislation. It could itself do a better job by concentrating on the major issues of reform and the principles to be followed rather than attempting to provide the detail as well. The Opposition supports the measure. I cannot express the various degrees of enthusiasm of various members of the Opposition, but I conclude by saying that I support it enthusiastically on a personal basis. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.29) —I suppose one of the growing dangers of democracy is the greater incidence of judge-made laws. This has been seen in recent cases, particularly the dams case where the judges rewrote the Constitution without the Parliament having made any recommendations for constitutional changes to the people, and in a manner which was beyond the normal conception of the Australian people of what the Constitution meant. Also, this could well be exhibited by the fact that so many pieces of legislation are being proposed in the broad spheres of social and community values. I instance the Sex Discrimination Bill and the proposed Human Rights Bill which are in such broad terms as to enable judge-made laws to be enforced on the people of Australia. Of course, these are non-elected judges. It is worse still to have the administration and interpretation of the law centred on non-elected non- judicial commissions such as the Human Rights Commission. We are dealing with the Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill 1984 which is an attempt to delineate the extrinsic aids which ought to be available to judges for the interpretation of the law. My speech will be brief. My view is that no such extrinsic aids or material should be used by the judges in the interpretation of the law unless in some way the material has received the approval of the elected representatives of the people, namely, the parliament which has enacted the law which is to be interpreted by the judge. To do otherwise, for us to suggest that other extrinsic material should be used, is simply to provide a judge with the opportunity of picking and choosing the arguments that best suit his or her preconceived ideas of what a parliament meant when it enacted the statute. Therefore, I consider that proposed new section 15AB is far too broad. Much less damage would be done if the exclusive list contained in proposed new section 15AB (2) were in fact to be the exhaustive list of extrinsic aids to be used by the judge in the interpretation- - Senator Hill —They are not all matters approved by the Parliament. Senator HARRADINE —No, I said much less damage; I was putting the ideal first. Of course they are not matters approved. In particular, there is mention of reports of royal commissions, the Law Reform Commission and so forth. I prefaced my remarks with the words that much less damage would be done if this exclusive list were in fact the exhaustive list. If we look at the whole of the proposed new section 15AB we see that it is open to the judge to pick and choose whatever he likes. Senator Gareth Evans —That understates the effect of paragraph 1, does it not, which is a big hurdle you have to jump over before you even get into it? Senator HARRADINE —The Attorney-General is a lawyer and I am not. His argument for this, as was stated somewhere in his second reading speech, is to attempt to streamline and to shorten the time involved in litigation. That is a worthy attempt. However, unless this legislation contains an exhaustive list how can a counsel, acting on behalf of a client, be sure that some material known only to the judge is going to be taken into account? That counsel would not have the opportunity of studying and presenting a viewpoint in respect of that material. I said that I would be brief for an extrinsic reason not associated with this debate. Senator Gareth Evans —I will give some aids to your interpretations in a moment. Senator HARRADINE —I should like to hear what the Attorney has to say, bearing in mind that whatever he says in amplification of his second reading speech and the explanatory memoranda may in fact be an extrinsic aid for a judge at a future time. Senator HILL(South Australia)(9.37) —I wish in this debate also to address proposed section 15AB of the Acts Interpretation Act, which deals with the use of extrinsic material in the interpretation of an Act of Parliament. I would describe this amendment as a significant reform. It might be said that really it is only legislatively prescribing what judges are already doing, but I think it is relevant to note that they are not all doing that. There is still considerable difference of opinion between judges as to the extent to which they should take into account extrinsic materials and, if so, what extrinsic materials. The position is now one of some uncertainty and I believe, therefore, it is opportune for the legislature to act. The alternatives appear to me to be to restrict legislatively the use of extrinsic materials or to indicate legislatively to the court which of such materials we-those who pass laws- believe judges should take into account in their interpretation. The Government has by this provision gone towards the more flexible approach. I think it is fair to say that that has been the trend. When I studied law some 20 years ago I understood that one applied a literal rule where the provision was clear and unambiguous and where it was ambiguous one applied the mischief rule, which had its history in a resolution of the barons of the exchequer as far back as 1584. The courts have tended over the last few decades to look more towards the purpose of the Parliament, and that is something that I believe we should applaud. It might be said that there should be rarely any difficulty, that we should pass laws in clear and precise terms and that the words should reflect the meaning we intend. However, I think the ever-increasing number of cases concerned with statutory interpretation suggests that such is not the case. There are several points to make in that regard. These matters may reflect the ever growing mass of legislation passed by this and other Parliaments in Australia. This point was emphasised by Senator Durack in his speech this morning. The mass and volume of legislation, regulations, rules, and so on, are becoming matters of real concern to the administration of justice and of major concern to those who have to administer and interpret the law and deal with it in their everyday affairs. It is a matter we must address. It has been said for a long time that that is the case. I remember seeing a Liberal Party advertisement that appeared in the year I was born, in 1946, to the effect that there was too much regulation in this country and that something should be done about it. The position has changed markedly since then towards a much greater volume of legislation and regulatory restriction. The present situation might reflect poor drafting. Certainly some Bills presented to this Parliament are not well drafted. I do not entirely find fault with the parliamentary draftsmen whose task in many ways is the most difficult of all those who play a role in the production, passing and interpretation of legislation. In part, it reflects the fact that there always seems to be a degree of urgency when Bills come before Parliament, often urgency that does not really exist. Many amendments in such circumstances are taken on the run. For a whole series of reasons, great pressure is constantly put on parliamentary draftsmen. Consequently, their work is not always to the standard that they themselves would desire. Nevertheless, after years of training in tax law, I still find incomprehensible some of the provisions in that field that are passed in this Parliament. That is also the view of practitioners in the tax field. One has only to take as an example the first bottom of the harbour legislation last year. It is a good example as it was one of the few Bills that was studied in depth by Parliament. When Parliament does so it finds that the drafting difficulty is obvious. The ever-increasing number of cases that go to the courts for statutory interpretation may well be a reflection of the fact that the Senate is not doing its job well enough. It can be fairly said that Parliament should not pass legislation that is not understood by parliamentarians. This raises the question whether the Senate committee system works well enough and whether Senate committees should have the role not only of examining matters of principle but also of drafting to ensure that what goes through Parliament is drafted in the best possible terms. I recently saw a cartoon that appeared in a paper entitled 'Statutory Interpretation: Extrinsic Aid' put down by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) last October. The cartoon appeared in 1955 and showed eight elderly, crusty-looking, bald-headed gentlemen, senators, in a Senate committee room, four smoking cigars. The chairman, no doubt the 1955 equivalent of Senator Tate, said in the cartoon: 'Must we concern ourselves with the meaning of the Bills we pass? I understand it is the duty of the Supreme Court to interpret them'. Of course, parliamentarians must concern themselves with the meaning of the legislation they pass. That is what this place is all about. It is a responsibility we must continually bear in mind. Therefore, we must not pass legislation we do not understand. Senator Haines —Are you trying to tell me that most people in this place read the legislation? Senator HILL —I was about to make that point, Senator Haines. Somebody asked me why so many amendments had been made to last year's Sex Discrimination Bill. I suggested the answer was that parliamentarians had read the Bill. I suspect a similar situation would occur if the same degree of attention were given to all legislation that passes through Parliament. Obviously individual parliamentarians will not have that time. However, the system can be developed whereby mechanisms can be used to assist parliamentarians in that regard. I mentioned a further development of the Senate committee system in that regard. My fourth point is that the increasing number of cases appearing before the court for statutory interpretation might also reflect a conscious decision by the Parliament to use general words. I think there has been a movement in that direction and it causes me some concern. If I correctly understood what Senator Durack said earlier, I disagree with it. It is certainly our responsibility to deal with matters of principle, but it is also our responsibility to deal with matters of detail. We should be reluctant to use general words when it is possible to be specific. I notice from the symposium that Mr Justice Murphy was one-- Senator Durack —What about section 92? Senator HILL —I suppose that is the most broad and general example of all. Perhaps it has led to many of the problems. Senator Haines —If every other part of the community can manage in English and doesn't have to use lawspeak, why can't pieces of legislation cover adequately their contents by using general language? Senator HILL —It depends, I suppose, on what is meant by general language. I think one of the much quoted examples relates to workmen's compensation legislation that provides financial support for those who are injured in accidents arising out of their employment. One might say that that is written in general language that people understand, but the interpretation of the courts has given it meanings that would never have been contemplated by any parliament. I am suggesting that we should therefore be cautious in using words, general language, that would enable the courts to interpret our meaning in many different ways. Senator Haines —Are you supporting the use of extrinsic aids? Senator HILL —I am supporting the use of extrinsic aids. The question I am addressing myself to is why there is an ever increasing volume of cases before the courts on questions of interpretation of what we enact in this place. Senator Haines —Too many lawyers? Senator HILL —I am suggesting that one of the reasons for that is the trend towards the use of general language, a trend which was applauded by Mr Justice Murphy in the symposium to which the former Attorney-General referred. I am one who does not agree with that. I believe that we should be clear and precise wherever possible. The fifth and final reason I think so many cases are appearing is that insufficient attention has been given to legislation because governments, whatever their colour, seem to regard the matters that they have before this place of great urgency when in most cases that urgency simply does not exist. In other words, matters should be given more careful attention. If we were allowed sufficient time I am sure that a better result would occur. Senator Crichton-Browne —As in the Judiciary Bill? Senator HILL —The Judiciary Amendment Bill yesterday was a classic example. There was no urgency in that. I am disappointed that the Senate was not prepared to allow its committee system to examine that Bill in greater detail. I am sure that the ultimate result would have been more beneficial to the people of Australia. Senator Haines —What happened to the Liberal's cry that governments are elected to govern and should not be interfered with by the Senate? Senator Kilgariff —Wasn't it bulldozed through by the Democrats? Senator HILL —I would have thought that was one case in which the Democrats would have supported a reference to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. I was particularly concerned with the argument that because lawyers have different views on what appeals should lie of right to the High Court there was no need to go to the Committee. I had a lot of trouble in understanding that argument, but it was put by the Democrats on that occasion . I am sure that the committee system would have produced a better result. There is need for action at this level to reduce the occasions of need for the courts to interpret our legislation. Nevertheless, we should address the way we want the court to carry out its interpreting function; in other words, the guidelines we give to the court. The trend of this legislation is towards saying: 'We want an interpretation consistent with the meaning we intended'. I believe that is good. This legislation has come at the end of a long reform process. I think it is important that credit be given where it is due. For the first three steps of that process credit must be given to the former Government and the former Attorney-General, Senator Durack. I refer to the reform of 1981, the effect of which was to confirm that in interpreting provisions regard should be had to the object and purpose underlying the Act in question. Then there was the policy discussion paper of the former Attorney-General that was put down in October 1982, which further developed the debate in a helpful and constructive way. There was then the very fine symposium on statutory interpretation held in Canberra on 5 February 1983. I commend to all honourable senators the document put out by that symposium. In fact, I commend it to all lawyers. It was obviously a most productive exercise. Of course, I commend also the current Attorney-General, who has come into office and is proceeding to implement so much of what has gone before in this reform process. Having decided that in certain circumstances we think the court should look at extrinsic aids to assist in determining the purpose and objective of the Parliament, the question is: What aids? Should they be unlimited or should they be specified? The Attorney-General has really backed both horses. He has made the list unlimited but has given guidelines, particularly as to those extrinsic aids that the court might consider. I support the notion of an unlimited list because it appears to me that it is impossible to say, short of the circumstances of a particular case, that one piece of information will be more helpful than another. I reflect very briefly on just a couple of difficulties. One that was mentioned in some depth in the symposium considerations is that of the explanatory memorandum, which of course is determined by the Parliament. We must be wary of a situation in which the court finds that it is having to interpret two documents. Nevertheless, I concede that on some occasions that explanatory memorandum which is before the legislators at the time they consider a Bill might nevertheless give some indication of what the Parliament intended and, therefore, in some circumstances it will be helpful. With regard to considerations of the Hansard, Lord Wilberforce was not in favour. He said: It seems to me quite reasonable to regard a report of a Commission, laid before Parliament as a whole, and drafted by experts, more favourably than uncoordinated speeches by individual legislators. No doubt on some occasions that might be so, but in my respectful opinion often the court might find the second reading speech of a Minister less helpful. Certainly on occasions I have found it less helpful and certainly on occasions commission reports can be particularly unhelpful, but there will be occasions when they are of assistance in the same way that there will be occasions when the Hansard clearly gives an indication as to the intention of the Parliament. Therefore, I believe that the court in such circumstances should be free to use it for that purpose. Senator Crichton-Browne —You wouldn't go past the second reading speech of the Minister though, would you? There are many cases in which the senators themselves put their interpretations and their confusion upon the intention. Senator HILL —Yes, I would go past the second reading speech. Laws are passed by the Parliament, not by the Government. Therefore, I would take into account what is said by senators and members of the House of Representatives in certain circumstances. Senator Crichton-Browne —But the vote is not necessarily a reflection of their views. Senator HILL —That is right, and at times there will be contradictory expressions. But what is being looked for are aids to interpretation. Obviously if there are a number of contradictory expressions, that will not be helpful aid . But in some circumstances I can imagine that it could be particulary helpful. I am suggesting that the court should be free to use such aids in circumstances that it finds helpful. I recognise the views expressed in yesterday's Australian , which I think we must reflect upon in this debate because they call for an answer. The article that appeared in that newspaper yesterday suggested great concern by the legal profession over these proposed amendments. It suggested that the Victorian Bar Association claims the move will create massive uncertainty in the law and have the effect of prolonging litigation due to extended argument over the meanings of words. It is said that one Queen's counsel, who was not named, was of the view that the provision would add to, rather than solve, ambiguity and obscurity in the normal wording of Acts. Such expressions must cause us to reflect upon what we are doing. Having considered the matter at length, I disagree with the views that were put in that newspaper report. I certainly agree that in the case of a legislative provision that is ambiguous or obscure, or where its results are absurd or unreasonable, the court should be able to refer to whatever extrinisic aids it wishes to give the meaning to it which Parliament intended. I therefore fail to see how, in the case of, say, ambiguous provisions, these provisions can create massive uncertainty in the law. The massive uncertainty has its root in the unclear, ambiguous, obscure or unreasonable wording of the legislation. So I can only suspect that, in relation to that part of the provision, those who offered the opinion which was expressed in yesterday's Australian have not read the constructive views that were put to the syposium to which I have referred, and have not given the matter the careful consideration that it deserves. I was more concerned with the first part of the provision, proposed section 15AB (1) (a), which legitimises the use of extrinsic aids to confirm that the meaning of the provision is the ordinary meaning conveyed by the text of the provision taking into account its context in the Act and the purpose or object underlying the Act. I had to ask myself why, if the ordinary meaning is apparent , it is necessary to refer to extrinsic aids to confirm the provision. On reading the symposium speeches I particularly noted the very wise words of Mr Charles Comans, QC, a former First Parliamentary Counsel, who reminded me, as appears at page 26 of the symposium report, that such a provision is of value, saying: Because you don't know whether the statute is clear until the court gives its judgment, and . . . you have two parties, each saying the statute is clear but both saying it means something different. That reminded me of the fact that in most cases concerning statutory interpretation counsel go to the court and each side says that the words are clear and unambiguous, but each says that in applying a common, sensible interpretation he comes to a totally different and contrary conclusion. That is why I have decided, on balance, that it is wise to include a provision that allows the court in some circumstances to take into account extrinsic evidence to confirm the meaning of the ordinary provison conveyed in the text. Senator Crichton-Browne —What will this Bill do to Barwick's interpretation of the taxation Act? What would have been in place then? Senator HILL —That is a very wide question, Senator Crichton-Browne. It should receive further detailed and careful attention. In conclusion, I believe that in the area of confirming the ordinary meaning there are some arguments to the contrary. It is a question of balance, and on balance I have come down in favour of the provisions of the Act. However, I refer to one part of the comments of a former senator, Mr Justice Murphy, to the symposium when, at page 40, he said: In our system, we should rely on extrinsic material as little as possible. It is common sense that those who have to use an enactment should be able, as far as possible, to find what they are supposed to do, or not do, from reading that enactment. I think in that case they are wise words. They should be the first approach to questions of statutory interpretation. They should be what we bear in mind when we pass legislation in this place. Nevertheless, that will be insufficient in some cases, we have to concede that. Therefore the need for this Act arises; the need to look to the way in which the court can best give the interpretation that we intended. Therefore I believe that the use of extrinsic aids can be helpful in some circumstances in reaching that conclusion. I therefore commend the Bill. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.01) —in reply-I thank the Senate for the broad bipartisan support which has been given to this measure, the Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill 1984, albeit not entirely without qualification in some instances, especially so far as Senator Harradine is concerned. Before saying just a few quick things about the centrepiece of the legislation, which is proposed new section 15AB dealing with extrinsic aids to the interpretation of statutes, might I for the record quickly correct a misleading statement that was contained in one point in the second reading speech. In relation to the provisions governing attainment of age-proposed new section 25E, which has nothing to do with the matters that have been engendering controversy in this debate-it was said by me in the second reading speech: A provision along these lines has already been included in the Superannuation Act 1976. By 'these lines' I was referring to a new provision to remove the rather mediaeval notion that a person attains a particular age at the first moment of the day immediately before the anniversary of his birth, rather than actually on his birthday. In fact that is wrong. The Superannuation Act does not contain a provision of that kind. The difficulty was that the obscurity of its drafting led my advisers to think that it did. I think the Superannuation Act is a classic example of the kind of legislation that needs all the help it can get when it comes to its interpretation by the courts or anyone else. Turning to the question of extrinsic aids, I am pleased to note that there has been a general recognition around the chamber that on many occasions courts need to look beyond the strict terms of legislation if they are in fact to be able to discover with any degree of confidence what the Act means, or more particularly, perhaps, what the begetters of the Act would have wanted it to mean had they been confronted with a particular set of circumstances in facing the later interpreter. There has been a general acceptance, it seems to me, of the validity and utility of setting out, as permissible aids to interpretation, the material that is listed in sub-section (2) of the proposed new section 15AB. I think there has been, however, insufficient attention given in the debate, particularly to those who are critical of the width of the range of material that would be now accessible, to the threshold hurdle requirement that is set out in sub-section ( 1) of the proposed new section 15AB, and also the further qualification that is contained in sub-section (3). I remind the Senate that the only circumstances in which the extrinsic material identified in sub-section (2) can properly be looked at by the courts, if sub- section (1) is to have any force, are twofold. There are only two such circumstances. The first is where consideration is designed: (a) to confirm that the meaning of the provision is the ordinary meaning conveyed by the text of the provision taking into account its context . . . and the purpose or object underlying the Act-- That is the first context in which one would look to extrinsic aids. The second context is in accordance with proposed section 15AB paragraph (1) (b): to determine the meaning of the provision when- (i) the provision is ambiguous or obscure; or (ii) the ordinary meaning conveyed by the text . . . leads to a result that is manifestly absurd or unreasonable. The significance of that threshold hurdle that has to be jumped before we get into the water of sub-clause (2) has perhaps been a little understated in the course of the debate, as I indicated by way of interjection on Senator Harradine . The other thing that perhaps has been understated is the further qualification in sub-clause (3), which says that in determining whether consideration should be given to the extrinsic material in accordance with the threshold requirements in sub-clause (1), or in considering the weight to be given to any such material , regard shall be had . . . to two other things: (a) the desirability of persons being able to rely on the ordinary meaning conveyed by the text of the provision taking into account its context . . . and the purpose or object underlying the Act; and (b) the need to avoid prolonging legal or other proceedings without compensating advantage. There is a real point to the notion that courts, and more particularly perhaps those advising clients, ought to be able to rely reasonably confidently on material readily to hand when they are interpreting legislation rather than necessarily in every instance having to go to a library-something which may be very difficult indeed for a practitioner in the bush or the outer suburbs. The force and utility of sub-clause (3) was well acknowledged by Lord Wilberforce, who has played such a prominent part in our deliberations here in developing this notion. I asked him to comment on the final draft of the Bill as it had emerged and, in a letter of 21 March, he said: Naturally, I am very pleased that you have been able to go so far along the path designated by the Symposium. That was a reference to the Symposium on Statutory Interpretation organised by Senator Durack and held here early last year. Lord Wilberforce went on: I like, particularly, subsection (3) of the new section 15AB. That is very high judicial endorsement indeed for the approach here adopted from one of the most respected jurists in the common law world. I believe that ought to be acknowledged. The final thing I have to say concerns the independence of the judiciary. I do not think any challenges to this legislative strategy based on that idea really have much foundation. As I said in my second reading speech, section 15AB does its job: . . . in a way that respects the independence of the judiciary. Judges are neither required to nor prohibited from looking at any materials. All that is happening here is that the Parliament is endeavouring to give a clear lead to the courts as to the way in which extrinsic materials can best be used-extrinsic materials which often feature in judicial interpretation at the moment-without, as I said, imposing undue burdens on the users of the legislation or the legal system generally. This is a very important measure; its significance ought to be in no way underestimated by the brevity of this debate. I commend it to the Senate and hope it will have a speedy passage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.09) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 6, clause 13, sub-clause (1), proposed paragraph 25B (1) (a), line 19, leave out ',in any industrial agreement', insert 'or any industrial agreement, in any other order (whether executive, judicial or otherwise)'. (2) Page 7, clause 13, sub-clause (1), proposed section 25D, line 7, after ' decision', insert ', whether the expression ''reasons'', ''grounds'' or any other expression is used,'. The purpose of the first of the technical amendments circulated, which relates to industrial agreements, is to bring the provision concerned into line with the corresponding provision in the Judiciary Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 relating to the Australian Government Solicitor. That amendment will remove any doubt that the provision concerned includes court orders. The second amendment is to make it clear that the provisions concerned extend to a legislative provision requiring a statement of the grounds for the decision to be furnished in the decision. They are purely technical matters, the subject of oversight in the early draft. I understand there is no controversy about them. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.10) —I raise a general question with the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) about future consideration of improving methods of statutory interpretation and of giving greater substance to the purpose of approach. On reflection I think we are better to take the approach of proposed section 15AB rather than the approach that I originally suggested of a specially prepared explanatory memorandum. I still believe that that approach could be of long term benefit and a solution to the problem. I was interested in Senator Hill's continuing concern about the nature of legislation and how far one can, in fact, go along the lines that I mentioned of general terms only. The idea of a specially prepared explanatory memorandum being adopted by the Parliament does satisfy the concerns of those members of parliament who wonder how far the courts will go without the confines of parliamentary approval and about the extent to which we ought to have general instead of specific terms. I think they are very reasonable concerns. It seems to me that an explanatory memorandum appended to a Bill and approved by the Parliament satisfies those two concerns. I would not like to see this particular step being regarded as the end of the road and I wonder what the Attorney- General has in mind. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.12) —I appreciate the force of Senator Durack's comments and I do so particularly against the background of knowing how much thought and consideration he has personally given this issue over the last few years. I treat anything he says in this area, if not always in some others, with a great deal of respect. In fact I am quite sympathetic to the idea of developing more extensive explanatory memorandums as the primary vehicle through which additional or supplementary material can be conveyed to the courts simply because, more than anything else, of the accessibility argument so far as legal advisers and others are concerned. There are examples of this kind of approach to the drafting of explanatory memorandums now in the pipeline. The best example I can think of is the explanatory memorandum we are now writing for the Australian Bill of Rights which may not see public light for some considerable time. It is an example of a very discursive explanatory memorandum designed to give a great deal of guidance to the courts as to what is intended by some rather innovative drafting. The explanatory memorandums as they are presently drafted are remarkably useless documents in the sense that they often merely repeat, very often in language just as obscure to the layman as the original legal text, stuff which is perfectly apparent from the face of the Bill rather than adding in any way to one's comprehension of it. Where I have reservations and where I think I disagree with Senator Durack at the moment, although I will certainly give it more thought, is in the idea of Parliament formally endorsing the explanatory memorandum. It seems to me that one then gets into an almost infinite regress situation where if Parliament is endorsing it, it will want to satisfy itself about every word in it and we will almost have the potential for Committee stage debates on the text of the explanatory memorandum. I am not sure that we have fully thought our way through the implications of that development. Certainly it is something I am happy to keep very much in the forefront of my mind as experience develops in relation to this particular legislation and I look forward to continuing constructive bipartisan consultations in doing so. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.15) —I thank the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). I am pleased that he is not looking at this as being the end of the road or the final solution. I suggest that he take the opportunity to experiment with a document of this kind in a Bill which is, perhaps, not too controversial but certainly one that we are likely to get before us this year and is not obviously being put off until after the next election to save the Government any embarrassment. Although the Bill of Rights might be a suitable vehicle, it will certainly be controversial. I am suggesting that the Attorney- General do this as an experiment in a pretty non-controversial area. We could put to the test the concern, which I agree is real, that Parliament will be diverted to the explanatory memorandum rather than to the Bill, and that there will be debate about that and so on. I think the whole matter ought to be put to the test in some experimental way at an early opportunity. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.17) —I will take that suggestion on board. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that the President has received letters from the Leader of the Government, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and the Leader of the Australian Democrats nominating Senators Bolkus, Crowley, Tate, Durack, Lewis and Chipp to be members of the Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge. Motion (by Senator Grimes)-by leave-agreed to: That Senators Bolkus, Chipp, Crowley, Durack, Lewis and Tate, having been duly nominated in accordance with the resolution of the Senate dated 28 March 1984, be appointed as members of the Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(10.18) —I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Attorney- General from making a statement on the content and authenticity of the 'National Times' article 'Australia's New Defence Strategy' published today, 30 March 1984 , and on the steps taken by the Government to keep the document secure; and as would prevent a debate on the issue. I move that motion in accordance with standing order 448. The National Times features what purports to be a leaked document from the Government on the Government's posture on defence. The article is shocking. I do not know to what extent it is accurate, but it is a shocking article for what it contains. Assuming that the article is true, one would have thought that the Australian Labor Party's ditching of its anti-uranium policy, among other policies, was enough hypocrisy and deceit from one government. What this document makes clear is that the past deceit is child's play compared with the activity going on behind the scenes at the moment. The Hawke Government, elected with an aura of hope and reform, is now acting out policies akin to the most rabid, right wing warmongers and sabre rattlers of the Reagan Administration. That is why I believe this matter to be so urgent as to come within the ambit of standing order 448. I will give some reasons why it is urgent. Allegedly, one aspect of the document is that Australia should be in a position to develop nuclear weapons as quickly as any of its neighbours that look like doing so. To quote from the alleged document, we should be able 'to ensure that the lead time for Australia could be matched to developments in other countries should the Government so decide'. That simply means, in the jargon of the defence strategists, that we have, or should have, the materials on the shelf to make nuclear weapons and that all we have to do is put them together, which is exactly the position that countries such as Israel seem to adopt. What allows this matter to come under the standing order 448 is a statement in the National Times-I agree that it is not supported by evidence-which states: The Government has fully supported the document, which is called the Strategic Basis of Australian Defence Policy. If I were a member of the Labor Party I would demand that a Caucus meeting be held at lunchtime today and I would ask how much of the article is true. Senator Crichton-Browne —Which faction? Senator CHIPP —I think each of the three factions would be vitally interested in the subject. In fact, we are not talking about some penny-ante issue; we are talking about the defence and the future of this country. The future of the planet is discussed in the paper. That is why it has become so urgent. I believe that the Senate has a right to know whether the Government endorses these outrageous propositions. The statement is made that the ANZUS treaty is not likely to be of use in a potentially troublesome situation such as a conflict with Indonesia. Is that the Government's view? The Senate needs to be told. It is stated that international issues should be seen in terms of United States-Soviet rivalry. Is that the Government's position? The paper claims that the Soviets have nuclear superiority over the United States of America which could lead to a dangerous lack of political will by the United States. Inherent in that view is the monstrous concept that we should encourage the United States to build more nuclear weapons. That is what that means. That is what those creatures in the Department of Defence and the Department of Foreign Affairs are planning and plotting in a secret document and that is what, allegedly, members of the Labor Government have embraced as their policy. They are encouraging the United States to build more nuclear weapons; otherwise the United States might lose the political will to fight the Soviets. Yet, this Government has pressed for disarmament initiatives. What hypocrisy! What absolute and total hypocrisy! At least the Liberal Government came out with its defence and foreign policies, much as I disagreed with them, and had the honesty to say: 'That is our policy, there it is'. But this mob, which has appointed an Ambassador for Disarmament, is, at the same time, encouraging the United States to build more nuclear weapons. I find that kind of hypocrisy mind-boggling. That is why I believed, as soon as this article in the National Times hit the deck, that it had to be debated in this place. I hope that the Government will agree to the suspension of Standing Orders so that we can debate the matter. I point out to the Government that it might find itself in an invidious position and that it might need a leader with 78 per cent popularity to get away with this. Assuming that the Opposition will support this motion, it will be carried. But because I did not have the foresight to have a contingent notice of motion placed on the Notice Paper, even if we win the vote the Government will refuse to debate the issue today. As far as I and, I hope, the Opposition are concerned , we will not be thwarted by technicalities such as that. I give notice to the Government that if that happens I will give notice today that I will do the same thing on Monday. The PRESIDENT —I ask the honourable senator to provide the Chair with a copy of his motion. Senator CHIPP —Yes, Mr President. I apologise for not doing so earlier, but we ran out of time this morning. The document in question allegedly states that ' United States bases in Australia are nuclear targets but the risks are worth it' . I believe the Senate and the people of Australia are entitled to know whether the Government embraces and accepts that attitude. The Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, who represents the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) in this place, gave me answers which were directly contrary to this question only a few months ago. It is always my practice with questions on foreign affairs to give the Attorney-General notice of the question. I do that so I can get a good answer from him, not one off the cuff. That gives him the opportunity, before Question Time, to seek the official attitude from the Department of Foreign Affairs. On several occasions I asked him whether Pine Gap, Nurrungar, Perth and other places were nuclear targets. The only answer I have received from the Department of Foreign Affairs is that only North West Cape is a nuclear target. Yet apparently this document says 'the United States bases in Australia are nuclear targets'. Then there is this most outrageous statement 'but the risks are worth it'. Which bases does the Government believe are nuclear targets? Do not the people of Western Australia and South Australia at least deserve to know whether bases in their States are regarded by the Government as nuclear targets? What sort of an open government do we have when it says: 'There are United States bases in Australia which are nuclear targets, but we are not going to tell the people who live in those States which bases we regard as nuclear targets'. The Government will not allow debate on this issue in the Parliament. Senator Gareth Evans —How do you know? Senator CHIPP —Because you told me so. Senator Gareth Evans —That was a different motion. You have not told me the terms of your new motion. Senator CHIPP —That was at a different time of day. Mr President, with your indulgence, so that we can end this humbug, I ask the Attorney-General whether he intends to agree to this motion. Senator Gareth Evans —Yes, because this is a different motion. I am happy to make a ministerial statement. You wanted a general debate on the whole thing which is premature. Senator CHIPP —The Attorney-General can snigger, as is his want. No doubt after this he will have a Press conference, as is his want. He seems to love having Press conferences at which he backgrounds journalists off the record. I showed him the motion half an hour ago and was told that the Government would oppose it . If the Government intends to accept it there is no point in my continuing with the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.29) —In light of the interjection from the Government indicating that it will support this motion , I will not speak at any length at this stage. I wish to acknowledge the inclusion by the Australian Democrats of the words which we requested and which expand the original motion. We sought the inclusion of the words 'and on the steps taken by the Government to keep the document secure'. This is a very significant matter, not merely because of the content of the document which has been published by the National Times. It is also a matter of very considerable significance because this is merely the latest in a series of leaks from the Government which go to the security of Australia. It is the Opposition's view that the Parliament should be concerned not merely about whether the document is accurate and whether it conflicts with the ostensible policy of the Government and of the Australian Labor Party; we also are deeply concerned that so significant a document apparently has been leaked in this way. We support the motion moved by the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Chipp. We look to the Government to make the speediest possible and the fullest possible disclosure to this Parliament on the matters on which information is sought in the motion. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.31) —As has been indicated, the Government will not oppose this motion despite the fact that we could, as the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Chipp, has said, prevent the suspension of the Standing Orders. I wish to make a couple of points . The first is that quite clearly the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, who represents the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) in this place, cannot make a detailed reply this morning on the steps taken by the Government to keep the document secure. I am sure that no one would reasonably expect him to do so. Of course, we will be taking steps to address that matter, but to expect Senator Evans to make a detailed reply on that is wrong. Secondly, I put it to Senator Chipp and others that it would not be possible to have a comprehensive debate on a subject of such importance which has really just come to light. Senator Evans intended to make a statement to this chamber. He will now make that statement as a result of the motion. I expect that the statement is as detailed as it can be now and any response should await proper detailed examination of the whole affair. As I say, the Government will not oppose the motion to suspend Standing Orders. Question resolved in the affirmative. Ministerial Statement Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.32) —The statement which I now make on behalf of the Government goes directly to the question of the content and authenticity of the National Times article and although short is as much as the Government proposes to say on the subject. As has been indicated, the statement will not address the steps taken by the Government to keep the document in issue secure, but I will certainly undertake to ensure that the Government gives consideration to some appropriate statement that can be made in due course on that subject matter. What I am able to say is this: The Government will neither confirm nor deny the accuracy of the purported extracts from the document 'Strategic Basis of Australian Defence Policy 1983' published in the National Times yesterday. To the extent that a document of that title was considered by Cabinet last year , it was simply endorsed by way of guidance for the purposes of review of defence planning and for the development of Australian defence policies. It is not a policy document but to the extent that any policy prescriptions were contained in it these were not specifically endorsed. Senator Chipp —Are they generally endorsed? Senator GARETH EVANS —Not generally endorsed except as a guidance for the purposes of review of defence planning and for the development of Australian defence policies. The National Times article is totally mischievous and misleading on the particular question of nuclear capability. I can state categorically that the Government has never made any decision to acquire or develop a nuclear capability, whether in the short, medium or long term, or in response to any particular contingency. Nor has the Cabinet or any Cabinet Committee even discussed the question. The commitment of the Australian Government, like its predecessors, to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is complete and unequivocal. That treaty creates a permanent and binding obligation on Australia not to develop or acquire nuclear weapons. We will not only honour that obligation, but support all efforts to strengthen its application. I present the following paper: Document entitled 'Strategic Basis of Australian Defence Policy 1983': Publication in National Times'-Ministerial Statement, 30 March 1983. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. We have been given, as the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) described it, a short statement, and that is a matter about which we might not complain, given the relatively short notice that the Attorney has had about this matter. But we certainly do complain about the statement of the Attorney-General that what he has said is as much as the Government proposes to say about this issue. I do not believe that the people of Australia, let alone the Parliament of Australia, are going to allow the Government to take the view that it can say as little as has just been said by the Attorney-General. This is a matter of very great seriousness which touches upon Australia's national security and some fundamental areas of policy which go to that national security. We might be excused for regarding this as something which one would almost forgive a government, if it were the sort of mistake that was made about a minor issue of policy, if it were something that did not go to such substantial issues . We might be less condemnatory if it were the first example of this sort of leak from this Government. But, of course, it is not the first example of this sort of leak from this Government. Although the Government, we understand, told the United States of America that Mr Toohey's sources had been closed off, it is quite clear that Mr Toohey does have access to documents of a sort that certainly should not be falling off the backs of trucks in the way that it is clear documents are falling off the backs of trucks. Senator Primmer —It happened under your Government. What are you talking about? Senator CHANEY —Let me remind the Senate, and in particular those honourable senators opposite who are now interjecting, that less than a year ago we had the first serious security leak from this Government, by Mr Young. Let me remind the Senate that complaints about what Mr Young did are not matters of opposition carping about this Government. They are matters that have been dealt with by a judicial inquiry, a royal commission established by this Government, which has made it quite clear that Mr Young was seriously at fault when, as a Minister of this Government, he breached the security requirements that were placed on him. Let me remind the Senate of what was said by the judge who was appointed by this Government to examine those matters. I refer to the report of the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies, specifically to the report on terms of reference (c) of December 1983. The judge said in that case: I am also of the view that the potential, rather than the actual, damage to the national security is what must be considered in determining impropriety. In respect of Mr Young he said: . . . there was, in my opinion, a real risk that significant damage could have resulted from the disclosures. Later, talking about the potential consequences of the loose lips of Mr Young, he said: In my opinion these potential consequences gave rise to a real danger of significant damage to national security. He said it was relevant to consider the circumstances, but that whilst Mr Young was simply helping an old friend, that did not 'in my opinion, diminish what I regard as the impropriety of the disclosures'. I quote from a little later in the same paragraph: I have concluded that, notwithstanding this short Ministerial experience, it should have been apparent to Mr Young that he should not make the disclosures. A little later in the report he said: . . . my conclusion is that the disclosures by Mr Young to Mr Walsh on 21 April 1983 were both unauthorised and improper. Although Mr Young is now back in the Ministry and apparently now has the full approbation of this Government, I remind the Senate that on the findings of Mr Justice Hope there was a very significant breach of the security requirements placed on a Minister of this Government. Now we are being told by the Attorney- General that the statement that he gave us is as much as the Government proposes to say, on a matter which goes to our relations with the United States, on a matter which goes to our defence policy, a matter that goes to our attitude to nuclear arms and to possible breaches of obligations under the Treaty on the Non -Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. That is not a tenable position for the Government to adopt. It has greater responsibilities than that. I suggest to the Government that it will be required by its own supporters and by the factions of the Left, Centre-Left and all the various groupings that make up the Government Party, to give some better explanations to the Caucus and to those factions than it has given to the Parliament today, and this Parliament is not going to be treated more cheaply than the Government will have to treat its own Caucus and its supporters. I give notice to the Government that we do not believe that the early and inadequate explanation which has been given by the Attorney-General is at all sufficient. In fact, the Attorney-General has followed the technique that he followed in respect of other issues that have been before this Parliament, with regard to the Age tapes. He said: 'Well, we do not authenticate this document'. He then went on to explain it in terms that make it quite clear that though the Government is not authenticating every word it is authenticating the fact that such a document exists, that such a document has been before the Cabinet, and most critically, that that document now represents the action plan on which officials of this Government are now required to work. What the Attorney-General said was that the document that had been considered had been 'endorsed by way of guidance'. That is precisely the sort of suggestion that is made by the National Times:That this is a document which will provide a guidance for the officials who work on behalf of this Government in the development and the conduct of policies that are fundamental to the interests of this country. We cannot accept as satisfactory the very brief explanation given by the Attorney-General. We sought, and the Australian Democrats agreed to include in their motion a reference to the fact that the Government should also advise us on the steps that have been taken to keep the document secure. As I have indicated already, this is not the first security breach by the Hawke Government.The fact is that the Hawke Government stands convicted by its own inquiry of a very significant breach of the requirements that are placed on the Government to defend national security. Now we are faced with some of what ought to be its most closely held documents being leaked to a national newspaper. I think the public is entitled to an explanation as to what security measures have been taken by the Government to try to protect this sort of material. We have had no explanation so far, but we do demand one. The Opposition has had as little time as the Attorney-General had to examine the matters that have surfaced over the past few hours. Of course the Attorney- General had the advantage of having access to the documents at the time they were considered in Perth, and so on. We would say that the release of these documents indicates that there has been a serious national security leak of a kind that is, if anything, more serious than the leak that gave rise to the earlier royal commission. It is a matter that goes to our relationships with our nearest neighbours and our most powerful allies. It is an absolute absurdity to think that a few paragraphs is sufficient government response. This is a document which has the potential to damage Australia's relationships with its ANZUS allies and with the countries to our near north. We would say that the actions of the Hawke Labor Government in foreign affairs have already damaged our relations internationally, and the fact that the document refers to the possible need for an independent nuclear deterrent is as good an example as one will get of the effects which Labor's foreign policy will have. We need to know the status of this document, though we have had some explanation of that from the Attorney-General; whether it has been endorsed by the Cabinet, as claimed by the National Times. It would appear to have been confirmed by the Attorney-General that it has been endorsed by way of guidance, and that it is in fact a relevant action document for senior public servants working for this Government. We need to know what action the Government is taking to investigate this very serious leak, and we need to know what action was taken before the leak occurred to prevent documents of this sort from being dealt with. It is quite clear many more copies of this document have been circulated than would be prudent. It would appear that the Government has been relatively cavalier in its handling of this material. This is further evidence of the Government's inability to keep secrets and shows its lack of proper concern for national security. I am sure that the Senate will wish to have another opportunity to debate this matter when the Attorney-General reports back with the further details which have been sought by this motion and on which he has undertaken to make inquiries . On behalf of the Opposition, I express our profound concern at this latest example of Government incompetence, incompetence in dealing with national security and incompetence on the part of the Minister for Defence of this country, demonstrated as recently as yesterday when he did not even reply to the serious matters raised in the House of Representatives in a debate on a matter of public importance. I profess our profound dissatisfaction with the level of explanation given so far and say that we will demand a far better accounting in the national interest in the very near future. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(10.46) -The statement which has just been made by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) is one of quite extraordinary importance and significance for two reasons. Perhaps even more significant than the revelations is the fact that the Minister's comments on them have added another dimension of significance and importance. While I agree with the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) that this matter must be the subject of further debate, it certainly does not need days, hours or weeks to make the decision that these matters are of grave importance to Australia. Indeed, this is something of a watershed in a view by the Government of this country on a matter of basic significance, perhaps a matter of life and death to the people of this country. The two reasons are these: The first, as mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, is that a document of the title mentioned was considered by Cabinet last year. It was simply endorsed by way of guidance for the purposes of review of defence planning and the development of Australian defence policies; it is not a question of options but of guidance. That is a matter of enormous significance. It was not an options document that was put forward, which would perhaps allow every parameter to be investigated; one might see that as a reasonable thing for defence planners to do. But that is not the case. We have been told categorically by the Minister that the document was endorsed by way of guidance for the purposes of review of defence planning which, of course, means all of our future conduct of defence, the materiel we intend to purchase and what we would do about nuclear weapons and about the development of Australia's defence policy. That is even more fundamental than the question of defence planning because, obviously, the policies are in association with and precede the planning. The second point of major significance when associated with that is that the Minister, in the first sentence of the statement, said: The Government will neither confirm nor deny the accuracy of the purported extract from the document 'Strategic Basis of Australian Defence Policy 1983' published in the National Times yesterday. The key point is that the Government will not deny the accuracy of that document . It has seen it in the National Times. It is fairly detailed. I have read it myself. It has the appearance of authenticity and I do not think it is the sort of thing that anybody could feasibly or reasonably forge. I cannot see why anybody would want to do so, even if it were forged-- Senator Gareth Evans —What about the Hitler diaries? Senator MASON —The Attorney-General mentions the Hitler diaries but I do not really believe that the degree of mischief exists in this society which would create a document of this detail. The point is that if indeed that had happened, surely the Government would have had time by now to have looked at it and to be in a position to confirm or deny these matters. Senator Peter Baume —They would not have hesitated; that is the point. Senator MASON —I do not think they would have hesitated in those circumstances. Was there a document of that title? I ask the Attorney-General to say now by way of interjection whether that document was a fraud. Are substantial parts of it genuine? That is all that is important. It is bad enough as it stands. That is the second point-I note that the Minister does not interject-of why this is such a serious situation. We are justified in raising this matter now as a matter of urgency. It is not a matter that will take weeks and months to look at. We have had reviews of defence before and statements about it from the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes). There has been no hint that any of this material was being considered. We have had all sorts of pious statements in all areas from the Labor Government-about the Government's view on a nuclear free zone, about Papua New Guinea, about not wanting the proliferation of nuclear weapons and all sorts of other things. Now we are told that, in spite of those things having been said , here is a document which virtually is the guidelines for the future of the defence of this country. We have had no indication from the Government that it is prepared to deny that. The implications of the document will send shock waves in many directions. Certainly that has been the effect so far on the Australian Democrats and I think it will be the effect on the public. I invite the Minister, as I raise these points from the National Times to deny them categorically. I ask the Attorney-General to do so by way of interjection. It is a good way of clearing up the matter. I start with the idea that we ought to be looking at nuclear weapons. In view of the fact that documents of broad scope such as these are likely to be leaked because so many departments and individuals handle them and because it has been the experience of this Government and the previous one that documents of this sort are leaked, I think it very strange that this idea that we should be able to make nuclear weapons as fast as our neighbours and that we should keep our technical options open to do it would even have been canvassed at a policy level . I find that extraordinary. The only reason I could see that the Government would take the risk of doing that, which after all must be a provocative statement to our neighbours now that it has emerged, would be that the Government takes it seriously. If it did not take it seriously, surely it would not be so naive and innocent as to leave a time bomb like that sitting in the middle of a document that had every likelihood of being leaked. What is the effect of that on our neighbours? That idea seems to us a completely unnecessary and mischievous statement. It could well make and probably already is making our neighbours feel that they might have an obligation to respond in a similar fashion. That is the terrible damage of that point. The effect could well be to create a mini-nuclear arms race in our region , with the most appalling consequences for the future. A government ought to understand what it should not say as much as what it should say. To have raised this matter at all in that area is a shocking thing and one which will be seen as shocking around the world. It is a shocking thing that we should come out with that sort of cynicism and say now-when we have no evidence whatsoever that any of our neighbours are interested in nuclear weapons; they do not even have nuclear power or anything else-that that is to be one of our options for the future. We are saying it now-not in five years or 10 years or when Indonesia or the Philippines has an enrichment plant or whatever; I am not saying that they will have but that at least might have given some cause for this statement. Among the shock waves that come from this statement is the implication that we will keep available the technical means. That is the only way one can construe the comment that we have to look at the lead times for developing nuclear weapons and be prepared to do what our neighbours may do. I would like to ask whether that is correct. I have heard no interjection from the Government yet to deny any of these matters I have raised. What then is happening to the centrifuge enrichment plant at Lucas Heights? We were told that it was to be closed down and would not go ahead. I cannot think of any other technical facility in Australia, certainly not one that anybody knows about or has even hinted at, which would be of some use in maintaining the means to make nuclear weapons. That experiment in centrifuge enrichment is the only one. The Government has made statements about it. But what is it really going to do? If indeed it is to close down the centrifuge experiment at Lucas Heights and does not want a bar of it, has it any other enrichment facilities anywhere or is it planning to have one somewhere? We cannot make nuclear weapons in this country or have the means to do so unless we have an enrichment facility. The Government must answer that question and pretty quickly. The documents are incredibly out of touch. I make the point, as it is important , that that whole mischievous question of raising the idea of nuclear weapons in Australia is apparently coupled, according to the document, with a proposal-this has been endorsed as a guideline-that Australia should oppose the proposition that the Pacific should be a nuclear free zone. Senator Grimes —You are absolutely irresponsible. Read his statement. You are a paranoid little twerp. Read the statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator MASON —The Minister's statement that I am a paranoid little twerp indicates the degree, I think, to which-- Senator Grimes —Read the statement instead of going on with that nonsense The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Grimes will withdraw that remark. Senator Grimes —Yes, certainly. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There are too many interjections from the two Ministers. By the way, Senator Mason, you must not incite interjections. Senator MASON —Mr Deputy President, I am really delighted at the Ministers' interjection which I think was that I am a paranoid little twerp. That is another matter; we can debate that some other time. But it does indicate, I think, that the Government is seriously concerned about this matter. The Acting Leader of the Government in this place has shown his hand. He has shown his anxiety. I do not take any particular delight in that. I merely say that we are trying to get to the bottom of this matter and establish the rationality of it. I ask the Attorney-General, who represents the Minister for Defence in this place: Will he deny that that document contains the statement that it could be an option-and this is guidance, after all-that we will campaign against the ideal that the Pacific be a nuclear free zone? I am waiting for the Minister's reply. Senator Grimes —Read the statement. Senator Gareth Evans —Read paragraph 3-- Senator MASON —I have asked both Ministers a direct question and they are not prepared to answer. Therefore, that is count two against the Ministers. Apparently that is part of the guidelines: the Ministers have not denied it. I accept the fact that that is probably so. If it is so, it is an absolute disgrace that the members of that Government in this place can get up on public platforms all over this country and make statements that they support those things and then come in here and say that what they have said is accepted and endorsed as guidance. What they say here is completely and totally contrary to what they say outside this place. The second point I would like to raise with the Acting Leader of the Government also touches on the subject of government irresponsibility. Here again, I would like the Minister to let me know whether this statement was accepted and endorsed. I refer to the claim that Australia, as part of the Southern Hemisphere, would be spared long term residual radiation in a general nuclear war. I am waiting again for some kind of comment on that from either Minister. Do they believe that? Is that part of the statement they expected as guidance? If that is so, it is a thoroughly discredited view. It is well enough known and it has been mentioned in the Senate a number of times that it was previously the view that any nuclear contamination would be held in the Northern Hemisphere. That is no longer an accepted view. It is a matter of urgent necessity and concern to inquire why we have a government which is so ill informed on such a critical matter to the people of this country. It is vitally important to us whether or not a nuclear war in the Northern Hemisphere would contaminate this part of the Southern Hemisphere. Of course, a number of authoritative statements have recently been made in virtually every major scientific magazine. Only last month I was reading Science , the magazine of the United States Society for the Advancement of Science, which pointed out that even if there were a relatively minor nuclear attack in the Northern Hemisphere the normal, climatic balance at the equator which prevents winds mixing through to the Southern Hemisphere would almost certainly be disturbed and that any contamination and radiation would very rapidly find its way into the Southern Hemisphere. We are kidding ourselves and the Government is kidding itself, if we think we can play with the nuclear time-bomb in the nuclear situation and think that the effects of a war in the Northern Hemisphere will be not felt here. Such thinking is just so much rubbish. There is an assumption in the document that in a war with Indonesia, Cocos ( Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island might go. I suppose that is not an unreasonable assumption if there were a sudden attack on us. But there is a further statement in the document that we would have to surrender parts of the Australian mainland for a time. I think this is a matter of the deepest possible concern. If the Government thinks that, I believe it is vital that we ensure as a matter of urgency that we have the forces to prevent such a situation. I think that it should be within our powers as a nation to achieve this. As has been discussed frequently in this Senate, we can defend this country if we have the will to do so and conduct our planning properly. If the strategic basis document is in fact true in its totality-it has been endorsed by Cabinet as a guideline-it highlights a most serious gap between the Government's view of the world and its defence response to it. That gap must urgently be repaired. We need weapons capable of ensuring that this country is never invaded. If the Government takes this view, it must endorse what I have just said. This means the acquisition of missile platforms. It means FA18 aircraft. It means missile ships in large numbers, possibly hydrofoils and other patrol-type vessels, which are capable of defending the northern part of this country and providing a missile capability which would warn any country that attempted to attack us that it would not be worth its while to try to send an invasion fleet. The only way sufficient numbers of men presumably could be put into this country by one of our neighbours that does not have particularly large or efficient air forces, is by sea. I think we should be working rapidly to do something about that. One could touch on many other areas. One could go into the concept of the nuclear winter. One could speak for hours on the whole nuclear issue and the way in which mischief has been done. One could speak again on the actual fact that this document has been leaked and the fact that it has been published. I think that all of these matters will come up again. However, for the moment those are the matters which I think concern the Australian Democrats most; they are some of the matters which led us to bring forward this debate today. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.01) —The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), who represents the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) in this place, made a very brief statement to the Senate this morning in relation to the very serious matter raised in an article in the National Times. That article dealt with a document allegedly adopted by the Government entitled 'Strategic Basis of Australian Defence Policy 1983'. The Attorney-General's statement was rather extraordinary for two reasons . First, it was extraordinary because of its brevity. It is a remarkable phenomenon for the Attorney-General to make a statement which is barely a page in length as we have all learned this from his general performance in this chamber. So this is obviously a matter of very considerable concern and sensitivity for the Government. It is quite understandable that the Government would not be in the position this morning under the circumstances to make a full statement. But it is quite clear from the statement that has been made that very serious matters arise. As I said, the statement is rather extraordinary not only for its brevity but also because of the self-contraditions within it. The Attorney-General commenced his statement by taking the high ground that the Government will neither confirm nor deny the accuracy of the document. In the next paragraph the Attorney says: To the extent that a document of that title was considered by Cabinet last year . . . Having not confirmed or denied it, he then goes on to say: it was simply endorsed by way of guidance for the purposes of review of defence planning and for the development of Australian defence policies. What could be a more firm decision than the endorsement of that document for the guidance of our defence policies? So we have the first paragraph neither confirming nor denying and the second paragraph clearly confirming that there is such a document and indicating pretty clearly what the document is about and what the decision was. Thirdly, the Attorney said: The National Times article is totally mischievous and misleading on the particular question of nuclear capability. So there we have another tack. Three different tacks have been taken in three paragraphs of this very brief document. My colleague and leader, Senator Chaney, has moved that the Senate take note of this document. Certainly, it is of the utmost importance that the Senate should do so. Senator Chaney, in speaking to the document, said that the Government should provide the Parliament with a very much more detailed explanation and statement relating to this whole matter. On further consideration, the Opposition believes the Senate should call on the Government to do that as a matter of urgency. Therefore, I foreshadow moving an amendment to the motion to add additional words to this effect: and calls upon the Government to make a full statement as a matter of urgency on the content of and decisions taken by the Government on the document known as 'The Strategic Basis of Australia's Defence Policy 1983' and the steps taken by the Government to keep the document secure. The Opposition understands that any statement made today by the Government could not be a full one. The point has already been made that the Government could not be expected to say now what steps were taken by the Government to keep the document secure. Nevertheless, the Government has the weekend ahead of it, and we expect a full statement on these lines to be made in Parliament, both in this chamber and in the other place, on Monday to allay the deep concern of senators and members and of the Australian people about such a vital subject as our defence policy, and the guidelines for defence planning and the development of Australian defence policies adopted by the Government. I therefore move: Add to the motion to take note of the statement the following words: and calls upon the Government to make a full statement as a matter of urgency on the content of and decisions taken by the Government on the document known as 'The Strategic Basis of Australia's Defence Policy 1983' and the steps taken by the Government to keep the document secure. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(11.06) —The National Times yesterday published a series of articles alleging that a document entitled 'The Strategic Basis of Australian Defence Policy' was prepared by a committee at the instruction of the Hawke Government and came before the Cabinet on 19 September. It went on further to say that the Hawke Government had fully endorsed the document. The committee purported to be a committee of three departments, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Treasury and the Department of Defence. Assuming that that is so, and that is the natural practice, then the committee was a very high level one. It would be expected to reflect the view of the Government and could be taken in terms of its report to have authority. In response to that, the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has said that a document with that title was considered by Cabinet last year. Therefore, we know that such a document was considered by Cabinet last year. He said, nevertheless, that he will neither confirm nor deny a specific subject matter in the National Times. He went on to say something of profound significance: . . . it was simply endorsed by way of guidance for the purposes of review of defence planning and for the development of Australian defence policies. It is significant that that was said in an unqualified way. There is nothing in that statement to suggest that any element of that document was rejected. Senator Gareth Evans —Read the next sentence, if you are looking for qualification. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —We have had in the last year from the Attorney-General a series of retreats that would make Napoleon's retreat from Moscow look like an amateur event. Senator Gareth Evans —Read the next sentence and the next two paragraphs. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Time after time, day after day, in a lost cause, all he can do is interject and abuse. Today he comes before us with the same technique. He is again doing a Wran. He wants to turn attention away from having any responsibility for the subject matter of the document as projected and suggests it might be unauthentic. One remembers the question of the tapes and the judge. He said they might be unauthentic, but that is not to say that some of the conversation matter might be right, the subject matter could have been edited and could have been varied. Senator Grimes —Wind it up, John. Keep it going. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Once again Senator Grimes is substituting larrikinism, at which he is an expert, for any kind of logical argument. It is as well that he retreats, as did Napoleon from Moscow. I make the important point that nowhere has it been suggested that any part of the document that went before Cabinet was rejected in any way. The presumption is that the document as a whole, whatever its contents, was accepted for a specific purpose. It is no good saying that it was not for some particular policy. It was endorsed by way of guidance for the purposes of review of defence planning and for the development of Australian defence policy. Nothing could be more specific than that that document, whatever it is, viewed by the Australian people is to be accepted as being the basis on which the Government is to proceed in its defence planning and its policy. The important thing to know is this: Is this the document? Are these specifics in it, which were endorsed for guidance, for the purpose of review or not? We had the experience with the tapes that day after day, week after week, we had to drag the Attorney-General screaming to the table, making admissions, contradicting himself the whole time, and finally, in a disgraceful attitude, being forced to admit that there was substance in what the public and the Opposition had been saying. If the Government does not face this matter squarely and with immediacy, day after day, week after week the Australian public will be taking this document seriatim, piece by piece, and demanding of the Government whether this was the substance adopted in terms of the statement today by way of guidance for the purpose of review of defence planning and the development of Australian defence policy. It must come out. It cannot be left like this. Are we to have the situation that all the external nations are to look at this and not know whether this is true or false, or are they to be told surreptitiously whether it is true or false? The fact is that this document makes some serious assertions. It takes some hypotheses which suggest that certain of our neighbours could be our enemies. That is not a very happy situation to have published-a diplomatic gaffe of immense consequence. I wonder therefore what the Attorney-General would say now to this question of ministerial responsibility. I remind him that on 2 December he made it very clear in this chamber, in response to a question by me, that a Minister must take the responsibility for the consequences of his actions. I refer in this case to one Minister, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). It is not just the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) who is involved. It is a Cabinet submission by a committee of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Treasury and the Department of Defence, and ministerial responsibility for this must be the Prime Minister's. Last year he did articulate this principle: . . . on no less an authority, as I invoked, of Mr Malcolm Fraser. Of course, it is a question of interpretation, in all the circumstances of a particular case, of what is a major blunder of real importance to Australia, and no doubt some anxious consideration will always be given-- Remember the word 'always'? It seemed to be a good idea at the time- . . . to the proper application of that criterion by Ministers concerned. I find it quite intolerable, however, that we should be subjected to hypocrisy . . . And so he went on. The situation is that he has made it clear that he accepts the principles laid down by Malcolm Fraser for ministerial responsibility. There has been a leak of major proportions. The public needs to know, for example, if there has been repetition of ministerial leaking. Unless a full revelation is to be made, are we to have another situation such as the one involving Mick Young and the breaches of security of the past? Has there been a conscious leaking in this regard? Can anyone now trust this Government at the security level? That is of enormous importance. It is not good enough for the Government simply to say that it will neither confirm nor deny. This document raises an intriguing challenge. It would be fair to say that many of the major assessments in this document represent the assessments and the policies put forward by the Fraser Government over the period of seven years and which were unequivocally rejected by the Labor Party. Point after point in this assessment were points that had been asserted by the Liberal Government and rejected by the Labor Party. Are we now to say that we are seeing a redemption of conscience by the Labor Party? Is it now admitting that the assessments that were made over the years, which it rejected publicly and vociferously, are now correct? Is that fascinating situation coming before us? I must say that not all the assertions made in the document would have been acceptable to a Liberal Government. For example, I puzzle completely over a statement dealing with nuclear proliferation which says: The spread of nuclear capabilities would not weaken the strategic predominance of the US and the USSR, and would have its effects primarily at the regional level. Those who view the world scene and see that smaller nations by their aggressive actions have been able to alter the course of the world's peaceful pursuits will scarcely accept that. This document, 'Strategic Basis of Australian Defence Policy', was in fact before the Cabinet. It was adopted in terms of guidance for its review of defence planning and its defence policies. The question now is this: Is the substance of these leaks as published in the National Times true or false? To that question the Government answers that it will neither confirm nor deny. The fact of the matter is that it is not a question of whether or not something illegally obtained by the Press should be rejected. Indeed, I remember that the Attorney-General, in a latter day redemption on his part, indicated that illegally obtained information can still be used in courts of law provided it can be supported. What is now needed is for this Government to come clean and simply tell the Australian public and the world outside whether this document, as printed, is correct or not. It is not good enough to leave it hanging in the air. The effect on our allies and on other nations in our region is very bad. We have exposed all sorts of hypotheses as to which countries are our friends and enemies. We have nakedly trailed our thinking in the international domain and we now need to face up to the situation and say whether this document is correct or not. There is no way that this Government can escape that. It ought to know from the Jackson tapes and others that simply fighting a rearguard action will do it no good. In the end everything will come out, point by point. For example, the Attorney withheld information on the Jackson tapes and said he had had only 20 minutes reading of them. In the end, the consequences were shown to the public to be of great significance; so in the end, point by point everything in these extracts will also be analysed. I make it abundantly clear that the extracts are of enormous significance. The fact that they have been leaked is one thing. That in itself is a reflection of an enormous kind on ministerial and Cabinet responsibility. Let the Government now look towards that question of ministerial responsibility. What Minister will take the blame for something that has gravely damaged Australia's credit in the world? Who will the Prime Minister put his finger on this time to take the blame ? I make the point that this is in fact profoundly a prime ministerial gaff of major consequence, whatever may be the role of the Minister for Defence in this. He, after all, is accident-prone enough to start with. What will happen to ministerial responsibility with respect to this matter? Will we have more and more leaks of top level security documents in this country? What will happen to satisfy the Australian people and the nations of the world of the truth or falsity of each of these things? The subject matter of this document covers virtually a review of all the key security matters of the free world and the Iron Curtain countries. It is necessary to look at each of these matters so that Australia and the world can know whether these views were put forward by a Cabinet committee and whether this was the viewpoint of the three major departments listed. It is of tremendous importance that we know the answer to that question. If the answer is no, the allegations need to be denied. Failing any specific analyses of these extracts step by step, the Australian people and people outside could competently infer that in fact that committee did come to these conclusions and write these views; those views having been written down, the document was presented to the Cabinet which adopted it for the purposes which we now understand to be as follows-'guidance for the purposes of review of defence planning and for the development of Australian defence policies'. It is significant that in the Attorney-General's statement there was no qualification of that. He did not say that the document contained a number of postulates, a number of assertions, which the Cabinet rejected. That was not said. The implication was that the document itself-- Senator Gareth Evans —The next sentence of paragraph 2: 'It is not a policy document . . . not specifically endorsed'. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —The Attorney-General interjects that it was not a policy document. Let me make it clear that I am referring to assertions made in it and not denied, because if the assertions were not denied they would properly be used as 'guidance for the purposes of review of defence planning and for the development of Australian defence policies'. It is not a question of specific policies but of whether the assertions and conclusions made paragraph by paragraph through the document were accepted or rejected. I repeat: It will not be good enough in the future for the Government, facing a running trial of questions, to say, 'Oh, on that one we did not accept it'. The Attorney has said today that the general conclusions in the document were accepted for guidance. He said that it was simply endorsed by way of guidance. What was simply endorsed ? The document contains a series of conclusions and assertions. They were endorsed by way of guidance for the purposes of review of defence planning and for the development of policies. It is no good saying that the policies were not accepted if, in fact, the assertions and conclusions which pre-empt the policies , from which the policies should emerge, have been accepted. This is a very grave situation. A document of a very serious character has been leaked. The previous leak by the Special Minister of State, Mr Young, was sufficient for a royal commission to be set up to look into it. This is of much more major importance. The consequence of the leak is far greater than the bar room or luncheon conversation of Mr Young on particular matters relating to a Russian diplomat. This touches all nations. It makes critical comments on a vast number of situations. First of all, what is to be done about ministerial responsibility? Who is to have this responsibility sheeted home? If nothing else , nobody can argue that a major leak has not occurred, and that leak has done great harm to Australia and its credit. Accepting that, and not needing to know one iota more of any information from the Government, a leak having occurred and it being of great gravity, what Minister is responsible and what is the Government going to do to enforce and to reinforce ministerial responsibility? Then, of course, there follows the step by step situation here. What is going to be done now to repair the damage that has been done on the international scene, damage that is of considerable significance? This is a very serious matter indeed. It gets to the heart of the whole Cabinet . It gets to the full responsibility of the Prime Minister himself, who is the person with primary responsibility for the whole issue. The strategic survey is not the responsibility of one Minister, it is a collective responsibility of the Cabinet under the Prime Minister. The documents are not Defence Department documents any longer, they are documents that come from a committee set up by Cabinet and the security of them is the responsibility of the Prime Minister. I will be looking at how the Government faces up to this question of ministerial responsibility and the very serious breach of that responsibility. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.27) —I find it very difficult to understand the responses of some of the Ministers during this debate. I do not know whether they expect senators not to be concerned about a document of this kind which has been published in a national newspaper. Presumably they cannot take that stance. The items which are raised surely must concern not only senators on this side, but Government senators also. True or false, they are directed at policy issues that are of the gravest concern to all members of this Parliament. Of course the Government has not been able-I do not criticise it for that-to present a full and comprehensive statement on the matter at this time, but let me refer to the statement which has been given. The first paragraph states: The Government will neither confirm nor deny the accuracy of the purported extracts . . . I suggest that has to be read to mean that the Government will neither confirm nor deny to this Parliament the accuracy of the extracts, because I am sure that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) has already communicated to other countries in our region the accuracy or otherwise of this document. If he has not, he should resign. The National Times article states: . . . the ANZUS Treaty is not likely to be of use in the potentially troublesome situation of a conflict with Indonesia. If the Foreign Minister has not been in discussions with the Foreign Minister of Indonesia he should resign. The Minister's statement is not true in that context . The situation is that the Minister and the Government will neither confirm nor deny to the Parliament of Australia what they are doing, but they will be talking to governments of other countries. So we are not to know-the Parliament in a democracy is not to know-from this Government the truth or otherwise of the purported extracts. I go further: I believe that that statement is purely a holding operation. We will find out. The Minister in the House, the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), knows that in time the Government will be forced to confirm or deny. So we assume that this is only a holding operation and that this Parliament in due course will find out what the governments in the rest of the world have already been told by our Foreign Minister. The second paragraph of the Attorney-General' s statement refers to a simple endorsement. We have a written notation-I do not know whether it is the Attorney's handwriting or the Foreign Minister's. Senator Gareth Evans —It is my secretary's, as dictated over the phone by-- Senator MACKLIN —As dictated by the Foreign Minister, fine. Senator Gareth Evans —Would you like to read the typewritten version? Senator MACKLIN —Yes. I would be happy to accept that. Senator Chipp —We are trying to establish whether you or Hayden wrote that. Senator Gareth Evans —It is a joint Government statement. I was speaking on behalf of the Government: The Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Defence and the rest of the Government. Senator MACKLIN —I thank the Minister. I simply remind honourable senators that in Question Time yesterday we had some very interesting definitions of policy from Senator Walsh. In fact most papers carried them today, I think simply because they were intrigued by the difference between a promise and a platform on a policy. We have never had that sort of didactic discussion before in this place. I presume that enunciation of what the differences between those are would apply to this. If it does, I suggest that in terms of paragraph two of the statement it is useless to know whether we are talking about a promise, a platform, a policy or whatever. The Government said that, insofar as it may exist, 'it was simply endorsed by way of guidance'. That is acceptable. Let us accept the Government and this document at face value. Let us accept that that is true, that 'it was simply endorsed by way of guidance for the purpose of review'. Why should we send valuable people down tracks of reviewing policy on these various items that appear in this document if we do not mean them to review policy according to this guidance? The people we are talking about are not being paid $15,000 a year; they are being paid $60,000 a year. Surely the Government cannot have it both ways. It must acknowledge either that it has endorsed this by way of guidance-presumably that is what this statement says-or that it has not. If it has, that is sufficient for the purpose of anybody in this chamber to be very concerned that we should have senior bureaucrats using this document for guidance on anything in the way of policy development. I come to the next paragraph which, I must admit, is the item of most immediate concern to me. I note that the Government has said: I can state categorically that the Government has never made any decision to acquire or develop a nuclear capability . . . I will accept that categorical statement, coming from the Government, but I point out that the actual quote in the National Times is this: . . . we should be able 'to ensure that the lead time for Australia could be matched to developments in other countries should the Government so decide'. That is completely compatible with the statement that the Government has made. I must admit that I am always concerned about the deviousness of some of the material and information we get in this place emanating from the Executive, be it the current Executive or the previous Executive. But this is certainly another case in point. There is no allegation, as far as I read it, in the National Times article that the Government has made any decision to acquire or develop a nuclear capacity. Therefore a categorical denial about it is perfectly acceptable. What the National Times article says is that we will give guidance to our policy formulators to ensure that the lead time for Australia is matched to developments in other countries should the Government so decide to make that policy decision. It has not said that such a decision has been made, so why deny it? There is no denial in the second paragraph of the Attorney-General's statement about whether guidance has been given concerning the lead time for Australia to have the technical capacity to engage in the type of thing to which Senator Mason referred, not the development of it or the acquisition of it in the short, medium or long term. There is no discussion of that in the article; it only raises the question of whether we are giving guidance to our people to make sure that our technical capacity is matched with that of other countries should this Government decide to have a nuclear capacity. That has not been denied. After all, if people in this place do not know what is going on in other countries, they should not be here. That is precisely the type of rationale that Israel employs; it tells the world that it does not have atomic weapons. It has the technical capacity to produce them. Surely that is the information this Parliament should be given and, if the Government wishes categorically to deny that, I wish it would stand up now and say so. I for one, and I believe many people in Australia, would be relieved if we could get that categorical denial from the Government. The fourth paragraph states: The committment of this Australian Government, like its predecessors, to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is complete and unequivocal. That has always been so in public. This Government has done more than other governments to pursue that line. It is publicly running one line-it has always held that out to the Parliament and to the people of Australia-but what is the line it is running with other governments? Senator Gareth Evans —Identical. Senator MACKLIN —Fine. If it is an identical line, at least we have a denial from the Government of part of this matter. As I said at the beginning, sooner or later we will get a denial or a confirmation of every one of these items. Now we have at least a denial of one item, that that ever occurred in that document. The Attorney-General, by way of interjection, has now gone on record as denying that item. I am pleased that that denial has been made. Senator Gareth Evans —Just as a matter of interest, which particular bit are you referring to? Senator MACKLIN —I just had a denial by way of interjection and now the Attorney -General asks me to which bit I was referring. Surely the argument I am making stands and that is that this document must concern every member of the Parliament. The statement that has been thrown together is full of holes. One might expect that bearing in mind the time frame with which the Government was presented. Nevertheless, we will have to have a denial of each of those items. The debate in this chamber might go away but the debate in the community will not. Today I express my concern as an individual and as a senator that if any government of Australia were pursuing some of the items reported in this article , I would be completely and utterly disgusted. If this Government is pursuing any of the things contained in the article, I believe that this Parliament ought to be informed at the appropriate time. It is a matter not simply for bureaucrats; in a democracy it is a matter for the Parliament. One hopes that in time-I can indicate here on behalf of the Australian Democrats that we will support Senator Durack's addition to the motion that the Senate take note of the paper-this House will seek a full and complete statement on this matter. I hope at that stage the Government will be able to come forward with a well considered statement which will put down the fears that undoubtedly have arisen. I appeal to the Ministers in the chamber by saying that these fears cannot be put down by invective, by abuse. They are fears which I am sure are shared not only by the members of my Party and me but also by many members of the Attorney-General's own Party. The electorate must be made aware that this Government has changed its position on so many of its promises/platforms/policies-I do not know which is which now. It has abandoned so many of the propositions with which it went to the electorate. For example, it came to power on a policy of phasing out uranium mining by opening up the largest uranium mine in the world. If that is a consistent policy operation, surely one could very well find that a government which is upholding the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty would find absolutely no difficulty in doing the exact opposite. That is precisely what this Government has done in so many areas. I appeal to the Government not to attack this debate on the basis of its being purely a matter of the Opposition versus the Government and go on the defensive but rather to look at the serious allegations, if that is all we want to term them as, that have appeared in a national newspaper and meet the debate so that the implications for Australia and our own people are made clear. It will not go away by utterly and categorically denying something which is not in the article. It will not go away by the Government's saying that it refuses to confirm or deny it when it is doing precisely that now with other governments. It will not go away by saying that this is not a policy document but merely a document for the guidance of policy development. If it is such a document, in many instances it should not be. At least the previous Government had the wherewithal to say- and Mr Fraser said it-that Australia would not develop nuclear weapons. If any guidance has been given to make sure not that we are going to develop nuclear weapons but that we will have the technical capacity to do so if the Government should so decide, let us know that; let this Parliament know what this country is committed to. Senator Gareth Evans —I just told you, in paragraph 3. Senator MACKLIN —The Attorney-General has not told me. Had he listened to what I have said he would know that I explained it very clearly. The allegation concerns ensuring that the lead time for Australia could be matched to developments in other countries should the Government so decide. Senator Chipp —Get up now, Attorney, and say you will never do it. Senator Gareth Evans —I have said it already, in paragraphs 3 and 4. Look at it; it refers to a 'permanent and binding obligation'; we will 'honour that obligation'. Read the statement. Senator MACKLIN —I have read the statement and have said that giving guidance to bureaucrats to ensure that the lead time for Australia could be 'matched to the developments in other countries' should the Government so decide is completely compatible with 'has not made any decision' because it has been said that no decision has been made. They are compatible. Senator Gareth Evans —Paragraph 4! You are profoundly disturbed. Senator MACKLIN —I raised paragraph 4 in the context of the other items and I got a denial from the Attorney-General. He then sought to withdraw that denial because, he said, he did not know to which paragraph I was referring. I went through paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4. I believe that what I have spelt out is true in terms of what the Attorney-General's statement says. It is no good the Attorney-General shaking his head; people not only in my party but also in his party and out in the electorate are concerned. They will not be satisfied with the statement. We must have confirmation that not only has the Government not made any decision to acquire and develop a nuclear capacity but also that it has not made a decision to ensure that the lead time-- Senator Gareth Evans —There is a complete and unequivocal commitment. Senator MACKLIN —If the Attorney-General now wishes to deny this statement by way of interjection, I would be pleased to accept that and sit down. I would be pleased to accept his denial that this Government has not given guidance for the purpose of review to ensure that the lead time for Australia could be matched to developments in other countries should the Government so decide. Senator Gareth Evans —No specific endorsement of any specific thing in that paper. Senator MACKLIN —Will the Minister deny what I have just said that no guidance has been given for the purpose of review-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Macklin, you must not incite opinions from the Attorney-General. Senator MACKLIN —Through the Chair, Mr Deputy President, I raise yet again the matter that I believe to be central to this issue: We have not had any denial from the Government that it has not done that. I waited for it and did not receive it. That is the crux of the concern being felt in the community today. I would be happy if the Government would now categorically deny it. However, the Government has refused to do so in this debate. Senator WITHERS(Western Australia)(11.47) —I rise to speak, but if some well known anti-nuclear, anti-uranium campaigner on the other side of the chamber such as Senator McIntosh or Senator Coleman would like to get up and defend the Government I would certainly yield. I have not noticed any great enthusiasm for that course of action. I do not want to play politics; I think that is a terrible thing to do. I thought that, this morning, I would give a little bit of fatherly advice to my friend, if not colleague, Senator Grimes: If the Government ever gets in the clag, for goodness sake, put up a competent Minister to haul it out. Next time somebody like Senator Button or Senator Grimes himself should handle something like this because it is a bit unfair, not so much to Senator Evans, but to the Senate to have him handle these sorts of matters. The statement that he put down on behalf of the Government-I suppose it could be called a confessional avoidance-at the very least is a very sloppy pleading. It is so sloppy that it certainly does not narrow the issues to what is before this high court of Parliament. I originally thought that this was typical of that sort of besotted exotic, erotic, tendentious trivia at which the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) is so magnificent. It is part and parcel of the way he writes. The article almost sounds like he thinks; say one thing one minute, and another thing the next. It is like him saying: 'If you don't like paragraph 1, 2, 3 and 4, then I will get paragraph 5, 6 and 7 for you'. I understand that this statement is not a result of his drafting, that it has come from somewhere else. Is that right, Senator? Are you the author? If it has come from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), it is a magnificent example of what Max Harris said in last week's Weekend Australian was Bob's baffle gab as saying something in the first two paragraphs and deny them in the third and fourth paragraphs. The Minister's statement does not say anything. The Government is both for this and for that and against nothing. Actually, it is a disgraceful statement because, whether Senator Evans likes it or not, the Government cannot say what it does in paragraph 2 of that document and then go on and, in all honesty, say what it says in paragraphs 3 and 4. What is interesting about the article in the National Times is something quite simple. None of us imagine that Brian Toohey would publish something which he knows is false. There is no way he would do that. He is a very experienced journalist. He may not be the most loved journalist by some members of the Parliament. Perhaps I should send him a cheerio and say: 'You are not the most loved, Brian, but you are generally respected as being pretty competent'. There is no way that Brian Toohey is going to publish something that he knows is false . He is not that stupid. Senator Gareth Evans —He has done it before. Senator WITHERS —Senator Evans said he has done it before. We will pass that message on to Brian Toohey; he has done it before according to Senator Evans. I do not think he could invent all this. Does it sound like some journalist's invention? Senator Chipp, who had a long career as a Minister, knows that it has all the hallmarks of something that has popped out of the bureaucracy. It has the style and the language. Brian Toohey would be the greatest plagiarist who ever existed if he could invent that sort of stuff! This is not an invented document. It has to have a lot of authenticity about it. Before one asks why it was leaked one should ask oneself the question: Who leaked it? I put to the Senate that there are only three categories of people who have the capacity to get their hands on it and who, therefore, could leak it . One would be a Minister, one would be a ministerial staffer and the third would be a member of the Public Service because I understand that this document was not put in the Press boxes prior to it going to Cabinet. It would have been very tightly held. Those honourable senators who have been members of the Cabinet or of the Cabinet Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee know how tightly held these things are. Senator Chipp —It would have the highest security classification. Senator WITHERS —That is right. I can only speak from my time in the Fraser Ministry, but the outer Ministry never saw these documents. In fact, the whole of the Cabinet never saw these documents. They went to the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee of Cabinet and were so strictly held that even staff members were not allowed to read them. They were terribly strictly held. All right, different governments have different ways of handling security matters. Perhaps when the statement is made next Monday we will have some explanation of the internal mechanisms used in handling documents of this capacity. As I said, only three groups of people, a minister, a staffer or a Public Servant would handle these sorts of documents. One can then ask the question: Why should a person out of one of those three categories leak it-let it fall off a truck? Why would a Liberal supporter, a right winger or a fascist as we on this side of the chamber are all termed, leak a document like that? That category of person, in the general jargon of the Left, would certainly want that sort of document adopted. They would not want it let out to embarrass the Government. They would be delighted that the Government had adopted such a document. Senator Chipp —Aren't you? Senator WITHERS —It does not fuss me at all. I am not a flat-earther or a Malthusian or a Luddite. These things do not fuss me. Senator Chipp —Go on. Senator WITHERS —The honourable senator should not entice me. Who would have leaked it? It had to be someone from the Left. I do not know about the gradations of the Left-whether there are centre Lefts or socialist Lefts. Somebody said there are centre left half backs and centre half forwards. I do not know whether they play rugby or Australian rules in the Labor Party; it is all very mixed up. I think a lot of them are playing a cricket match and they are nearly all out at silly point. It had to be somebody on the Left of Labor politics who leaked the document. It had to be someone within the three categories who was absolutely enraged at the double standards of the Hawke Government in saying one thing in public and doing another thing in private. That is why it was leaked to Brian Toohey. They felt it was such an outrageous betrayal of everything that the Labor Party has stood for in public that they had to put this matter on the public record to expose the double standards of the Hawke Government. That is why it was done. Anybody who knows anything about politics or human nature knows that is why it was done and that, therefore it was an authentic document. The Attorney-General can go on with all his sloppy pleading and the Prime Minister can go on with all of his baffle gab but they will not get away from that very simple issue. It is all there. Whoever put the ministerial statement together will have to do a lot better. It has been said here until we are sick of it, and I will sicken honourable senators a little bit more, that the Government cannot go on as it does in paragraph 2 by saying it was simply endorsed by way of guidance. For goodness sake, the people in the bureaucracy are not stupid. We are talking about people in the bureaucracy who are at the level to prepare this type of document. As Senator Macklin said, they are people on salaries of $50,000 a year plus. Unless it was quite a peculiar issue, public servants will not put something up which they know the Government will not accept under any circumstances. They know what the Government's policy is. They tend to put in things which they know the Government will accept. That is part of their duty. It is also part of the duty of the Public Service to put both views. One of the Australian Democrats-I think it was Senator Mason-said that it was not a paper of options, which is a normal Public Service document. In an initial stance one has options. I would have thought that there would be an options paper at the back of this document. These fellows were sent off after being told: 'No, we do not want those options; we want these options. Go and work us up another paper on those options'. That is the way governments of our persuasion tend to work. It may be that those on the right of you, Mr Deputy President, who are so besotted with exotica and trivia and all those other things that Senator Evans comes at, run a different type of government. So they came up with this paper. The other thing I want to know is whether this paper was accepted on the day after the news that Australia II had won the America's Cup. Was the Cabinet meeting held on that day? It would be very interesting if it was. What ought to be recycled now is the marvellous television stuff of the Prime Minister at the Royal Perth Yacht Club, full of hype. Remember? Champagne was flowing everywhere . That is a great way to go to a Cabinet meeting to consider a document about nuclear weapons. Was the whole Cabinet hyped up? I appeal to Dr Grimes: Is that the sort of mental state members of Cabinet ought to be in when they consider a paper of this ilk? I suggest to the Australian Democrats, who are somewhat puzzled about why the paper got through, that perhaps that is how it got through . They were all hyped up. I invite honourable senators to look at the television program again. If members of Cabinet are in that sort of psychological state they are likely to do anything. Are they likely to know the difference between policy and platforms and expediency and ideology and so on? Senator Chaney —Guidelines. Senator WITHERS —And guidelines. Perhaps the Cabinet is in that sort of hype every week. If it is it starts to explain some of the interesting decisions we are getting. We now have a socialist government which is beloved of business. It is one of those interesting chameleon operations one can come to. I see the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Grimes, looking at his watch, and I take the hint. I have no wish to bore him. If I continue much longer I will start to bore myself, and that would be tragic. I again plead with the Government, when it comes back with its statement on Monday, to get some competent people to put it together, to get a couple of competent pleaders, competent conveyancers, but stay away from those non-lawyers who masquerrade as lawyers in its Cabinet, like the doctor fellow in the other place who masquerades as a physician and surgeon. I ask the Government, when we come back on Monday, to explain all these matters to us in a simple, logical and concise way and in language which hangs together. If the Government needs paragraphs 5, 6 and 7, I ask it please to add them. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(11.59) —I speak in support of the amendment to the motion moved by Senator Durack and support the previous speakers on this side of the chamber. This is the latest in an extraordinary series of blunders and public displays of incompetence that we have seen from this Government. Two major questions arise out of the matter. The first concerns modus operandi. How does this Government work? Have we ever seen a more incompetent bunch on the Treasury bench? The second concerns the contents of the document in question. We have been privileged to have the briefest statement that has ever been made in the history of this Parliament by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). As Senator Withers so cogently pointed out, that statement is just nonsense. The second paragraph is inconsistent and irreconcilable with the third and fourth paragraphs and with any of the numerous interjections the Attorney-General has made. The statement that has been put down is nonsense. We need a clear, concise and precise statement of what the Government is up to. I turn to some of the points that are brought up by this document, the most confidential document in the country. What sort of security does the Cabinet run when a document such as this can float around the streets? What discrepancies and divergences does it illustrate between what the Government says on the platform, what it says in the chamber, what it says on television, and what it is actually doing in private? What is the gross discrepancy between what the Government is saying in public and what it is saying to its own people, its own Party supporters, its sycophants in the branches through the length and breadth of this country, the people who write the Australian Labor Party doctrine? What does it say about breaches of Cabinet solidarity? What does it say about the lack of will to defend the essential interests of this country and the abject cowardice that some of the paragraphs contain? What about the disastrous consequences for Australian foreign relations? Those are just a few of the points that come immediately to mind when one sees this document in the National Times, a document whose authenticity has not been challenged by one word that has been said in this chamber this morning. There is simply no more confidential document in the country than the document entitled 'Strategic Basis of Australian Defence Policy 1983'. Its publication destroys our security. It is a treasonable action. The document is the basis on which all our defensive posture is based, including our Defence Force structure and vital information for potential adversaries. It broadcasts our military appreciations of the region. It forecasts our decisions-what we will abjectly surrender and what we might defend. If this document is not safe, what document in the country is? How much damage has been done? How much vested interest is gained in the financial field if people are able to obtain Treasury documents? After all, if Mr Toohey, a journalist, can have direct access to this document, what will the professional agents of Soviet Russia and other countries around the world have? What access will the entrepreneurs from the business world and the drug runners of this country have to lesser documents? I now turn to the discrepancies between what the Government is saying here and what it is saying in public. It is no overstatement to say that this destroys the very moral basis on which this Government holds office. It destroys the basis on which the Government ran for election. How can people such as the Government Whip, Senator McIntosh, or Senator Tate, who was present earlier, live with this. They are probably the only two genuinely sincere anti-nuclear people in this chamber, and even if they are wrong I do not criticise their position at all. How can they live with a government which acts like this in private? I do not see any difficulty for the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, or Senator Gareth Evans and bikies such as them. They are just thundering down the highway behind the pinball wizard on his Harley-Davidson, following a signpost that says: 'Power at any price; principles not mentioned'. They have no difficulty living with it, but I do feel for Senator McIntosh and Senator Tate on this issue. We have raised the nuclear issue. I have a view that is different from that held by the Australian Democrats over nuclear armaments. I have never supported a nuclear posture for Australia, simply because it is too expensive and we have a far higher priority. When Australia has bought no new weapons for the Australian infantry for the last 20 years and when some soldiers are without boots, it is nonsense to suggest that Australia should be involved in the purchase of nuclear weapons. But I pose the question to this chamber: What would be the public debate in Australia if one of our near neighbours had a nuclear capacity? The debate in Australia would change dramatically from the hypothetical level on which it runs at the moment to one of a more realistic assessment of our defence needs. I do not know what would come out at the end. I see nothing wrong with the Government exploring a nuclear option. I think it is common sense and is a responsible action. But why does the Government not tell us this? Why does the Government not take the Churchillian doctrine, by which most of us on this side live, of trusting the people? After all, it has a leader who stands up to the rostrum every day and says 'Trust me', and then doublecrosses the public. Why do we not just apply that doctrine literally and tell the people the truth of the matter? After all, the public are adult enough to know what is going on. We come then to the business of breaches of Cabinet solidarity. We are all used to the factions in the Labor Party. As one Labor politician said to me: 'You never join the ALP, you join the faction first; the joining of the ALP is secondary to that'. We have seen the policy changes that have come from the various factions, and the inconsistencies; the way Mr Howe, on the extreme Left wing, administering defence support, speaks up in public and challenges statements that Cabinet has made. That is an intolerable situation. In US jargon , this ALP Federal Government is simply a floating crap game. It is a moving scene the whole time. No one knows what is going on in regard to policy. I would like to home in now on Senator Ryan who, of course, once more is not here. Senator Ryan is a member of Cabinet who has run very strongly on a public posture about all the bleeding heart pacifist issues, all the world peace movement things, and all the pro-communist front organisations she can shelter behind, trying to get votes. How can she be party to a document that looks at a nuclear capability for Australia? How are we to judge Senator Ryan? Is she dishonest, is she irresponsible, or is she just plain silly? Then I come to the business about the surrendering of the Cocos Islands, about which I spoke last night, and the craven cowardice that is displayed in this document about lack of will. I do not think any government in history in advance , even with the lack of any hypothetical threat, has ever offered to give up territory the way this Labor Government has. What does all the gung ho jingoism of the Prime Minsiter (Mr Hawke), with his rabid nationalism, stand for if the national interests of the country are not defended? Fancy giving up on the Cocos Islands, the key to the whole of the Indian Ocean. We have a record deficit in this country. The Cocos Islands are easy to defend and relatively cheap to defend. They would be very hard to take back if someone took them. It is a simple matter of priorities for this Government. Rather than spending money on social engineering and trying to mess up society, as it is keen to do, it would be better off putting some military hardware into the Cocos Islands, and then that dreadful option of cowardice which it wants to display would not be necessary. I do not have time to go into the effect on the alliances, on ANZUS and the Association of South East Asian Nations relationships and the dreadful business of naming Indonesia and making a public display of it, as this document does. What does that do? Does that reflect the anti-Timor prejudice within the Labor Party and the lack of realisation of what is going on in the real world? I dealt with that briefly last night and will not repeat what I said as time is getting short. This document proves the lack of responsibility and lack of competence of the Government. I do not think any condemnation is strong enough for this chamber to move against the Government. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(12.09) —If one good thing has come out of this debate-if that is what it can be called-it has been the exhumation of Senator Reg Withers. It was terrific to hear him speak again. I had forgotten what his voice was like. I shall take on board the points he made and see if we cannot improve things for him. He talked about hype and people performing in a situation of hype. I suppose it would be appropriate that he should be followed in the debate by Senator MacGibbon, the self-appointed expert on defence and foreign affairs in this Parliament, who gave us his usual performance and his extremist views full of all the hype and rhetoric that anyone would want to hear. This document, or alleged document, was published in the National Times. I received my copy this morning but, clearly, Senator Chipp received his copy fairly late. All that Senator Chipp and the Opposition wanted to do was to move a motion to suspend Standing Orders. The time scale and the urgency were such that the motion to suspend Standing Orders could not be even properly typed and was hurriedly completed in someone's handwriting. Senator Chipp —So was the Government's statement. Senator Evans's statement was in handwriting. Senator GRIMES —I am making the point that you and your colleagues are asking for an immediate, long and detailed account not only of the document that was published in the paper but the security of government documents. I put it to you that you have had your fun. Senator Chipp —We have acknowledged that you cannot produce this immediately. Senator GRIMES —You have made your point. Your colleague Senator Mason, no matter what Senator Macklin says, announced that this document represented the Government's view-that the Government wanted to produce nuclear weapons and all the rest-despite the clear and concise statement made by Senator Gareth Evans on that matter on behalf of the Government. Senator Sir John Carrick, in his usual manner, condemned everyone, right, left and centre. He read part only of paragraph 2. He ignored the second sentence as it did not suit him. I will not say anything more about Senator Sir John Carrick as my views on him are known in this place. My views on anyone who gets up here and talks about corruption and lack of probity are well known. Senator Peter Baume —Why do you not play the ball? Senator GRIMES —I played the ball. I sat here today and listened to Senator Sir John Carrick make a speech in which he dragged up everything that he believed had happened in the past year. He spoke about corruption not only in this Parliament but in New South Wales. I remind honourable senators, as I will always remind them, that he was a close confidant of one of the most corrupt Premiers that this country has ever had. For a long time he was secretary of a branch of a party which was responsible for the introduction of corruption in New South Wales. He has not denied that, and I doubt whether he will ever deny it. It is ill fitting for someone like that to get up and lecture this Parliament in the way he does. What we have said we will do. Senator Gareth Evans has made a ministerial statement. Certainly it had to be put together in a hurry but it is a clear statement, I believe, and it gives the basis of the document. It confirms in a clear and concise way our attitude to nuclear weapons and the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty. The Attorney-General has said that he and the Government will consider the second part of Senator Chipp's motion relating to the steps taken by the Government to keep the document secure-I agree that that must be of concern to all of us-and will do that as soon as possible. I think that the amendment is unnecessary. I do not know how 'a matter of urgency' is defined in that context. One could say that one wanted it this afternoon or next Monday. We accept that the numbers in this place are such that the amendment will be carried. Of course this is a serious matter, and the Government does treat it seriously and will continue to treat it seriously. We regard the matter of nuclear non-proliferation as serious. We will consider that in a serious way, as we have always done. That is why we made the clear and unequivocal statement today. I wish that everyone in the chamber treated it seriously. I accept Senator Withers's speech, made in the spirit that it was, but I do not accept speeches like that of Senator MacGibbon, who poured out a litany of abuse of the Government on the basis of a document that apparently he believes had been leaked to the National Times. I do not accept that that is a reasonable way to debate a serious matter like this. We heard the speech of Senator Sir John Carrick, who dragged up everything that has happened in this Parliament, New South Wales and everywhere else in the past 12 months. I do not accept that Senator Macklin's and Senator Mason's interpretation of that document as meaning that we are about to produce nuclear weapons or are interested in doing so, in the face of the clear and concise statement made by Senator Gareth Evans, is a sensible and rational way to debate this issue at this time. We have had almost three hours of debate on this and I dare say we will have more in view of the motion which has been moved and the amendment to that motion which has been moved by Senator Durack. I hope that over the weekend people will consider the seriousness of the situation. They should consider whether the Government is in fact taking a serious attitude on this in the clear statement it has made. We will take on board the second part of the motion by Senator Chipp and see in what way the security and methods of security of Government documents can be reasonably debated in this place, if they can be. One would not want to expose to the light of day all the methods of securing documents. I do not think that is wise and I do not think anyone, on reflection, would believe that that was wise. We oppose the amendment. We agreed to the motion to enable this debate to take place. We accept that the numbers are such that the amendment will get through and we will take it from there. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(12.16) —There has been considerable debate on the motion which I originally moved for the Senate to take note of the statement and on Senator Durack's amendment, which seeks to put into the motion the request which I made in my speech; that is, that we should have the delivery of a further statement from the Government and that the Government should also attend to the issue of the security which attached to this very important document. There is no need for us to take very much notice of the criticisms of Senator Grimes about the fact that the Opposition and the Australian Democrats have paid attention to this matter. This morning the Minister who has been most publicly involved, the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes), said on the AM program of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation: . . . the problem with that type of alleged security leak is that it does damage to our security operations and it can cause serious damage to relations with our neighbours. They are the words of the Minister for Defence. We are dealing with a matter which in his view can cause serious damage to relations with our neighbours and can do damage to our security operations. The debate was not assisted by the attempts made by Senator Grimes to smear Senator Sir John Carrick. They were not so much accusations as simply a running together of statements which could to a weak-minded person suggest accusations. I make it quite clear that Senator Sir John Carrick was, to the knowledge of us all, the General Secretary of the Liberal Party of Australia in New South Wales for many years. During that period he was undoubtedly a respected and close adviser to both Premiers and Prime Ministers. I simply say that I note that in the very careful choosing of words by Senator Grimes there was no hint of any allegation of corruption on the part of my colleague Senator Sir John Carrick; rather, there was mention of the possibility of corruption among others and, I would say, a classic attempt to promote guilt by association. I express nothing but contempt for that. It added nothing to the debate. When the Government responds, as I am sure it will, to the motion requesting a further statement, I ask the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) to address the doubts which arise as a result of the form of the written statement which he originally provided and from which he read. There are some significant amendments to the typed document from which he read and subsequent copies which have been circulated do not show those differences. It is important to note that the original typed statement at paragraph 2 read as follows: To the extent that a document of that title was considered by Cabinet last year , it was endorsed by way of guidance for the purposes of review of defence planning and for the development of Australian defence policies. That paragraph has been amended in handwriting, which does not appear to be the handwriting of the Attorney, to add the word 'simply' before the word 'endorsed' so that the expression of endorsement is in a sense written down. A further sentence has been added as follows: It is not a policy document but to the extent that any policy prescriptions were contained in it these were not specifically endorsed. It appears to me that that is simply an attempt to write down and obscure the fact that-- Senator Withers —Bob's bafflegab. Senator CHANEY —I welcome the interjection from my colleague Senator Withers. It is typical of the sort of very fudged language which is a hallmark of this Government, and of the Prime Minister in particular. The point is that the basic admission of the Government is that this was a document prepared for the purpose of guiding those reviewing our defence planning and the development of our defence policies. Therefore, the significance of the document should not be ignored. This is an extremely serious matter. It is a matter in which the Government has a great deal to answer for. We look forward to a very early response from the Government to the request which I am sure the Senate will make on the passage of the motion. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Senator Durack's amendment) be added. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 3 —— Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, D. S. Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Carrick, Sir John MacGibbon, D. J. Chaney, F. M. Macklin, M. J. Chipp, D. L. Martin, K. J. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Mason, C. V. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Rae, PeterDurack, P. D. Reid, M. E. Evans, Jack Scott, D. B. Haines, J. Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Jessop, D. S. Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Childs, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Coleman, R. N. Primmer, C. G. Colston, M. A. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F. Elstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A. Evans, Gareth Ryan, S. M. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Hearn, J. M. Zakharov, A. O. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Giles, P. J. Missen, A. J. Cook, P. F. S. Watson, J. O. W. Georges, G. Walters, M. S. Ray, RobertBoswell, R. L. D. Button, J. N. Messner, A. J. McClelland, Douglas Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales) —by leave-The Senate will know that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) in speaking about the defence papers, set out to heap personal invective upon me and to reflect upon my integrity. That is no new tactic. As a Minister of the previous Government and Leader of the Government in the Senate for some seven years I had to face up to the fact that Senator Grimes sat in here in an abusive fashion every day and, trying not to be heard by the Chair so that he would not be picked up, cast the same kind of abuse. Today the Minister said two main things. He said-and he did so from the coward' s castle of this Parliament-that the late Sir Robert Askin was the most corrupt Premier in Australia. Let the world judge the character and integrity and the corruption or otherwise of Senator Grimes on the fact that he says that of a dead man and of a family that has no way of responding. Let the Minister measure that against his own Party's performance in its branches in New South Wales and the New South Wales Parliament. I say simply to him, non-medically: Physician cure thyself of this. Sir Robert Askin was the Premier of New South Wales for 10 or 11 years and, by popular consent, gave good government to that State. Nobody has been able to lay a specific charge and make that charge stick. I know of no kind of corrupt behaviour by Sir Robert Askin. If there were such, it should be exposed. I was never associated with or had any knowledge of any such incident. Senator Grimes went on to say that I was the General Secretary of a Liberal Party that was corrupt. I can only say that I know of no such incident and certainly I was not associated with corruption. Since this matter has been going on for eight years, let me be more specific. As to my personal integrity, I invite Senator Grimes to refer-preferably outside this Parliament but here if he wants the protection-to any such incident or give any facts at all about any part of my post-war journey in public life. Let him do it and I will willingly make available all evidence regarding my own personal effects and my own financial arrangements and that of my family during the whole of the journey. I make that perfectly clear without qualification. No one can do more than that. If Senator Grimes wants to use this chamber in a larrikin way, as he does because he is the larrikin of this Parliament, let everyone judge him on his actions. I invite him to walk outside now and make any specific charges he likes to make about me. We should bear in mind that Senator Grimes said that during my time I have criticised the Australian Labor Party and alleged it has been guilty of misbehaviour. I have never at any time in this Parliament attacked the personal integrity of any member of this chamber. Senator Robertson —That is nonsense. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Never. Let the Opposition Whip, who says I have, go to Hansard. I have attacked the Labor Party generally on its behaviour. Senator Robertson —What about what you said about Whitlam. You were talking about personalities then. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Certainly I attacked the behaviour of the Whitlam Government as regards the Khemlani affair. Of course, it was an attack on integrity. Let me make it clear that the aim of all the interjections over the years has been to suggest by innuendo that somehow or other I have been engaged in some improper practices. I make the unqualified statement that that is emphatically false. I say that without any qualification at all. I make the offer that I will have examined any episode, any journey and any kind of incident in my life that he likes to put up. I will make available all my own documents. He can have, if he wants, continuous information from the Australian Taxation Office, banks or anywhere else. Rather than gaining a penny out of politics over the journey, I think those who know me know that I was the poorest paid official of a political party at that time. This was at my own choice because we were broke. Indeed, I gained nothing out of the journey directly or indirectly, nor did my family. That is a fair offer. I just hope that in future we will play the ball. I could have reminded Senator Grimes of the many incidents concerning his Party, such as the one that concerned the Marrickville branch. I have not done so. Rather, I hone in on the specifics. If Senator Grimes wants to make a personal attack, let him do so and let him be specific but, since we are supposed to be testing integrity, let us do that in public. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —by leave-I have waited some time for Senator Sir John Carrick to come in here and make the sort of statement he has just made. I find it a surprising statement in view of the fact that I have been in this House for almost 10 years and in that time I have heard Senator Sir John Carrick blackguard specifically Mr Whitlam, Mr Connor, Jim Cairns and I think Mr Clyde Cameron. I have heard him blackguard collectively every Labor senator in this place, accusing them of being part of a corrupt organisation, at times accusing them of being communist or friends of communists , and in fact at times accusing them of almost treasonable behaviour. I have complained about that repeatedly in this place and on many occasions I have said to Senator Sir John Carrick: 'You stop that behaviour, you stop abusing the Standing Orders in this place in the way you do and I and others will stop replying in kind'. It may not be a very edifying spectacle to see Senator Sir John Carrick on one side and me on the other carrying on the way we do. But it is quite unreasonable to expect people on the Labor benches to sit and listen day after day to the abuse we used to get from the then Leader of the Government and not reply. Senator Walters —You are intimidating. You are attempting intimidation by the way you carry on. Senator GRIMES —I have said to Senator Sir John Carrick on many occasions: 'If you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen. If you don't want to cop it back, don't do it in the first place'. I have always made that offer. Senator Lewis —All of you do it in a snide way under the table. You never get up and state it openly. Senator GRIMES —If ever there were an example of Satan condemning sin, it is you , Senator Lewis, who uses the same tactics as Senator Sir John Carrick. I am quite happy never to mention the gentleman's name again ever. I certainly will if we have to put up with the sanctimonious nonsense we get about Whitlam, Cairns and everybody else. Senator Walters —Have the courage to go outside and do it. Senator GRIMES —The difficulty is, and will continue to be, that if Senator Sir John Carrick wishes to get up and blackguard me and my colleagues in the way he has done in the past we will reply in kind. The answer is simple: If you do not like it, do not do it. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-It should be noted that the point raised by Senator Sir John Carrick has simply not been met. There is plenty of hard political debate in this place-and that should be the case. That debate goes to the integrity of the actions of government, to the wisdom of such actions and whether governments are competent and capable. Extremely hard words will be said in the course of those debates. I listened most carefully to what was said by Senator Sir John Carrick. He referred to personal accusation or accusations which went to his personal integrity and honesty, which is a totally different kettle of fish. I simply wish to say that the points made by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) totally ignored the challenge made by Senator Sir John Carrick. He made the position clear that he would meet any specific allegations and challenged Senator Grimes to say the sort of things he said sotto voce in this place outside the chamber or in a specific way. Senator Grimes referred to the often warm and, indeed, heated debate that takes place on matters of politics, policy and government in this place. I believe there is a clear distinction to be drawn that will not escape either senators or members of the public. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator RYAN —Since other persons are concerned about their sensibilities and their reputations being impugned by remarks made in this place, I wish to place on record my total rejection of the implication in the remarks of Senator MacGibbon concerning my involvement with and advocacy of the peace movement. I was in my office engaged on other business when I heard Senator MacGibbon's remark over the loud speaker. I have not had the opportunity to read those words , but it was clear to me that any person listening to him would have got the impression that my advocacy of peace and disarmament meant that I was also in some way an advocate of the communist cause. I am not prepared to have that said here or in any other place. I am not prepared to have the sincere and effective efforts of our Government to work nationally and internationally for the goal of world peace derided as some kind of pro-communist propaganda. I am not prepared to have all the genuine Australian men and women, who in increasing numbers are working hard in their various organisations for the objective of world peace, derided as either dupes of the communist cause or in some way or other supporters of the communist cause. I am certainly not prepared to have those imputations made about me here or anywhere else. In common with every other member of the Australian Labor Party, I am committed to working for peace. I am prepared to use my position as a Minister in the Cabinet to advance that cause in whatever way I can. Whenever I do so, I have the total support of the ALP and the Labor Government. I am unprepared to accept that the advocacy of world peace brings me into any kind of relationship with the Communist Party or any communist organisation. It is particularly appalling that Senator MacGibbon chose to make his remarks today, some 12 hours or so after we had in this place yesterday an edifying debate which was participated in by members of all parties on the subject of world peace and disarmament. Senator Sir John Carrick spoke most impressively in that debate on the desirability of everybody working towards that objective, as indeed did other senators on both sides of the House. It is a most counter-productive approach to take to such a serious topic, for whatever political benefit Senator MacGibbon imagines he can obtain. I imagine he has some far right constituency he is trying to impress with his performance. It is counter-productive to attempt to debate the serious discussions we have been having in this House about disarmament and to debate my commitment or that of anybody in the present Government, or indeed the commitment of any Australian citizen towards the most important objective of all, that of world peace and disarmament. Sitting suspended from 12.48 to 2 p.m. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —My question is directed to the Attorney-General in his dual capacity of Minister representing the Minister for Defence and Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Did the Cabinet consider the document entitled 'Strategic Basis of Australian Defence Policy 1983' at its meeting in Perth on 19 September last year? If so, to what degree did the Government endorse the document? How is it possible to endorse even in the most general way a paper which apparently canvasses a possibility said to be totally against Government policy, that is, the development of a nuclear weapons capacity for Australia? Senator GARETH EVANS —As Senator Sir John Carrick well knows, I made a statement on this subject this morning, and I do not propose to add to it. Senator ELSTOB —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and refers to workers compensation and occupational health and safety. Is the Minister aware that many workers are afraid to inform employers of work injuries or to take off necessary recuperation time for fear of not retaining their jobs? Can the Minister say whether these factors are being covered by the Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission's investigations? Does the Minister see the issue of workers compensation as a major issue to resolve before occupational health and safety policies can be truly workable? Senator BUTTON —Senator Elstob was kind enough to give me some notice of this question in view of the fact that it goes to details of the administration of the portfolio of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis , whom I represent in the Senate. The Minister is aware, and I am aware from my own experience, that in many parts of industry there is an under-reporting of work injuries and work hazards, particularly in times of severe unemployment such as we have experienced in the last few years. The Health and Safety Commission has been conducting public discussions in all States and the Territories and has received over 100 submissions which have highlighted a broad range of problems in the reporting of work injuries. It is too early yet to reach any conclusions about how those problems might be dealt with, but the primary responsibility for both workers compensation and occupational health and safety rests with the State and Territory governments. Some form of investigation in both these areas is currently being undertaken by these governments. The question is not so much one of whether workers compensation is an issue to resolve before occupational health and safety policies can be truly workable, but rather a question of occupational health and safety policies bringing about an effective reduction in occupational injury and ill health and, therefore, a corresponding reduction in workers compensation claims. The emphasis in occupational health and safety policies is firstly on prevention. Governments recognise the absolute impossibility of completely eliminating all occupational injury and ill health, so a second major emphasis has to be on rehabilitation. The Government's policies recognise that rehabilitation must encompass job retraining as well as financial support or compensation during the period in which a worker is unable to engage in employment as a result of occupational injury or ill health. I add to that answer that the greatly escalating costs of workers compensation premiums are a very big and significant add-on cost to the general costs of Australian industry. For that reason, the Government places a great deal of emphasis on reducing the number of injuries which might subsequently become compensable under workers compensation legislation. The issue of workers compensation costs to industry is a very big one which the Government has to address in a variety of ways. The initiative in respect of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission is an important way of addressing that very serious problem. Senator LEWIS —I refer the Attorney-General to the concept of ministerial responsibility as outlined by Mr Malcolm Fraser: It is certainly true that Ministers cannot be aware of everything that occurs in their departments. They ought to be aware of all the major matters and therefore can be clearly and directly responsible for them but if a major blunder occurred in a department, of real importance to Australia, and if the Minister were unaware of it, that Minister should accept responsibility for the mistakes of his Department and offer to resign. I remind the Attorney that he first embraced this approach in September 1982 and repeated his support for it on 2 December in the debate over the responsibilities of the Foreign Minister and the Minister for Defence regarding the Australian Secret Intelligence Service incident at the Sheraton Hotel. I ask the Attorney: Does he believe that the Minister for Defence should offer to resign over the leaking of the Government's 'Strategic Basis of Australian Defence Policy 1983'? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have seen in the past some merit in the Fraser approach to ministerial responsibility as expressed in that statement. I have expressed, however, my regret in the past, and I do so again today, that that statement was clearly never taken very seriously by Mr Fraser himself or by Ministers in his Government during their tenure in office. As a result, through disuse, it must be regarded as having lapsed into abeyance. In any event, even were the principle to have any continuing force or effect, I am clearly of the view that it has no application whatsoever in the present circumstances. Senator COLSTON —Will the Minister for Veterans' Affairs comment on a recent Press statement by Senator Macklin on the repatriation legislation review in which he claimed, amongst other things, that the onus of proof for determination of disability pension claims would be reversed and that dependants' pensions would be abolished? Are these claims correct? What is the objective of the review and when will the new legislation take effect? Senator GIETZELT —The review of repatriation legislation has been proceeding during 1983 and has as its objective the simplifying, rationalising and consolidating of the many Acts of Parliament that deal with repatriation and associated benefits for veterans who served in wars and in peacekeeping exercises. As well, there has been an administrative review council dealing with the legislation that handles the processes by which entitlements and benefits are made available to veterans. The consequences of those two studies that have been carried out over the past year or so have been designed not to take away benefits from any of the veterans concerned, not to either reduce or extend them , but rather to simplify the processes by which veterans can apply for such benefits. Of course, as with any rationalisation exercise, the review has necessarily entailed some minor policy changes, but no beneficiary will be affected as a result of the proposed legislation, which will ultimately be available for debate in the Parliament. I advise Senator Colston that preliminary discussions have been held with representatives of the veteran community-we as a government believe in consultation-regarding the content of the new legislation. Many ideas have been floated with the advisory committee that was established. On a confidential basis, copies of a draft Bill have been made available to the organisation. The advisory committee has been invited to respond, again on the basis of confidentiality. As a result of that interchange of ideas, changes have been made to the original proposals from the committee that has been looking at both the process of determining pensions as well as the review of the Repatriation Act. In the due process of time I will be making appropriate recommendations to Cabinet. I think it would be inappropriate for me at this stage to comment any more on that debate within Cabinet. I stress particularly to Senator Macklin that no veteran who is currently receiving benefits will be adversely affected by the review. I was therefore very disturbed to read the statements made by the spokesman for the Australian Democrats on this matter which created some confusion and some concern. They were completely and thoroughly unjustified. I had to repudiate the statements made by Senator Macklin. As he was quoting from documents which were given to the members of the advisory committee on a confidential basis, it seems to me that no good purpose would be served by having such a public debate about them at this stage. The Parliament will have the ultimate opportunity to look at the legislation. If it wants to amend it, the due processes will be available to those who do not believe that the Government's response to the legislation is adequate or otherwise. However, I make it very clear that the statements made by Senator Macklin were incorrect and created a great deal of mischief and concern. I regret that that has happened because the committee does not need to be put in a position where it believes benefits are being taken away from veterans when that is not the objective of the legislation. Senator MASON —My question is addressed to the Minister for Resources and Energy . How many nuclear reactors or nuclear technology facilities for research, civil or military purposes are operating in Australia? How many such facilities are in place but not operating? What are the specific functions of each of these facilities? Do any of these facilities produce fissile material that could be used or made suitable for use in nuclear weapons? If no such facilities exist in Australia does the Government have any plans or decisions to develop or establish facilities that could produce fissile material potentially suitable for nuclear weapons? Does the Government accept, endorse and expect to follow the Australian Labor Party platform on nuclear power? That platform states: Prohibit the establishment in Australia of nuclear power plants and all other stages of the nuclear fuel cycle. Senator WALSH —I am not sure how wide the extension of nuclear technology facilities may be. For example, work on uranium testing was being conducted at the Amdel laboratory in Adelaide. I think it is a matter of arbitrary decision whether that would be classified as a nuclear technology facility. There are two nuclear reactors at Lucas Heights-the HIFAR reactor and a very much smaller one. Before a definitive answer could be given I think the terms of the first three questions need to be tightened up. I was asked: 'How many nuclear technology facilities for research, civil or military purposes, are operating in Australia' , and 'Do any of these facilities produce fissile material.' My understanding-I will check this with people whose technological expertise is greater than mine- is that it is probably technically feasible, as fissile materials are in the cores that are coming out of the Lucas Heights reactor, but extremely difficult, to produce nuclear weapons from that. There are probably insufficient quantities in total to produce them anyway, but if they are accumulated for long enough I think it would be technically feasible but highly unlikely. The second last part of the question was: 'If no such facilities exist in Australia does the Government have any plans or decisions to develop or establish facilities', et cetera. The answer to that is unequivocally no. Senator Mason's final query contained a quotation from the Labor Party platform. I think I dealt with that question yesterday. There is general agreement that the present Labor Party platform is internally, if not inconsistent, certainly ambiguous and is capable of being interpreted in a variety of ways. Senator MASON —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. The Minister invited me, I think properly, to tighten up the second part of my question, and I shall do so. Specifically, what has happened to the experiments on centrifuge enrichments which were being carried out at Lucas Heights? Senator WALSH —The centrifuge enrichment program, which was under way at the time this Government came to power, has continued. There was a proposal to expand that centrifuge program and I think to increase by more than 100 per cent the funds which were devoted to it. That expansion program was cancelled by the Government but the existing level of activity was maintained and will continue, I think, for about another 12 months until that program is completed. Senator BOLKUS —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. What concessions has the Government offered in order to resolve the dispute with doctors over Medicare contracts for doctors working in public hospitals? Can he also say what has been the response of the Australian Medical Association to the Government's concessions? Senator GRIMES —As I am sure Senator Bolkus and others realise, and as has been recognised in the Press, there have been concessions from the word 'go' by the Minister for Health and this Government in endeavouring to settle the dispute. The Penington Committee of Inquiry into the Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals was established partly for this purpose. Dr Blewett has accepted the sensible suggestion of the Australian Democrats and Senator Haines to allow pro tem the Senate to oversee the contracts or the regulations brought forward in the application of section 17 of the Health Insurance Act. All the way along, the Minister for Health has endeavoured to come to a reasonable agreement with the doctors in these circumstances. The sticking point clearly is the reasonable request of the Government that doctors should charge the schedule fee when using publicly funded facilities in public hospitals. Some sections of the medical community talk about high principle and about the Minister having untrammelled powers over them through his capacity to set out the guidelines under which those contracts shall be drawn up. That has been demonstrated to be wrong. The fact that they did not back down when the Minister made his concessions demonstrated that the real sticking point is how much money they can get when they are using those public facilities to treat patients in public hospitals. I think it is disappointing that the medical profession, or some sections of it, continue to take that attitude. I am not the only one who thinks that. In fact the Adelaide News, which is certainly not a radical socialist paper under any circumstances, stated in an editorial on 29 March: . . . on any reasonable assessment of the dispute, it is obvious that the Federal Government has bent over backwards to accommodate the doctors. . . . For doctors then to take to the streets of Adelaide and other cities and to threaten a national strike is irresponsible and wrong. Hippocrates must be spinning in his grave. I think that just about sums up the situation. I hope that those responsible members of the medical profession who are disturbed at the escalation of the present dispute will prevail over their more radical colleagues. Senator DURACK —I refer the Attorney-General to an answer he gave to Senator Chaney on Tuesday of this week about the decision to defer the introduction of the Bill of Rights legislation promised by the Prime Minister in his policy speech last year, the early introduction of which has been foreshadowed on a number of occasions by the Attorney-General himself, variously at the end of last session, then at the beginning of this session and now, of course, down on the back burner apparently until after the next election. I draw the Attorney's attention particularly to his answer to Senator Chaney, when he said: The Bill of Rights . . . is very close to fruition, although I was hoping for more substantial consultations with . . . other relevant interested groups before actual introduction. I ask the Attorney: Is this work continuing and, if so, as soon as the Bill is completed will he make it available as an exposure draft just as he has done with other proposed legislation so that the widest community reaction and discussion can take place? If not, how can he justify Australians being kept in the dark as to this Government's intentions when they go to the polls at the early election promised by the Prime Minister? Senator GARETH EVANS —I think that might reasonably be regarded as a tendentious question. It would not appear to be motivated by any particular genuine search for truth; it would appear to show an intentional bias and it is clearly calculated to promote a particular viewpoint or cause. I make clear that proper usage demands, as the Concise Oxford Dictionary points out, that the word be used in a derogatory sense, and I do so now. It would appear that the National Times is as illiterate as it is amoral. Let me press on to the circumstances of this question. It is true, as I said the other day, that the Bill of Rights is very close to fruition in terms of its drafting, although it is certainly proposed that there be extensive consultations on a confidential basis with the States, the Law Council of Australia and certain other interested groups which may contribute something constructive to the final drafting of that legislation. As I also said the other day, I do not believe and the Government does not believe that it is appropriate for legislation to be introduced in isolation from the other parts of the total human rights package that we are preparing; namely, that package dealing in particular with the structuring of the Human Rights Commission and also amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act. On the current timetable, it looks as though those aspects of the legislation are unlikely to be ready until some considerable number of months hence. I will give consideration to the matter raised by Senator Durack, whether in a genuine search for truth or not, as to whether or not it is appropriate at an early stage to make available an exposure draft of the Bill. Senator DURACK —I have a supplementary question, Mr President. When did the Government decide that the Bill was to be in a package with other human rights legislation? How does the Attorney now relate that statement about a package to the very firm promises he made last year about an early introduction of the Bill of Rights? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government decided to have a package in December last year and I announced it at the time. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is addressed to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. Does the Government intend to take action to restore the right of the Australian National University Students Association to allocate its own funds, which affect its right of affiliation-a right which was removed by the previous Government? Senator RYAN —Yes, the Government does intend to restore to student organisations in the Australian Capital Territory the rights that they had prior to the changes made by the Fraser Government, including the right to determine like any other group in our society the way its funds will be spent. I am hoping that the Senate will have that legislation before it shortly. Senator LAJOVIC —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Is the Human Rights Commission planning to spend more than $1m advertising the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act? How does the Attorney-General justify such a massive campaign at a time when senior Ministers are warning of the need for restraint in Government spending to make room for tax cuts in the coming Budget? Senator GARETH EVANS —I hope that the Human Rights Commission is planning to spend about $1m on promoting the Sex Discrimination Act, although I am not in a position to confirm the accuracy of that figure. The justification for such expense at this time is that the Sex Discrimination Act is a fundamental piece of reforming legislation seen, properly, as being of supreme significance by half the Australian community-the women of Australia who for so long have been discriminated against by prejudiced males, some of whom are well represented in this chamber and are wholly insensitive to the aspirations of the women of this country in areas such as employment and occupation, housing, access to goods and services and all the other matters with which the Sex Discrimination Act deals. It is in that context that it is entirely appropriate, and the Government will go on believing it is entirely appropriate, to spend appropriate amounts of money on the advertising of the procedures and rights created under this Act. Senator CROWLEY —I address my question to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. Has the Minister seen the article in the Age of 7 March 1984 headed ' Too few students finish high school . . .' in which Professor Caro, Vice- Chancellor of Melbourne University, highlights the numbers of students not completing secondary education and the few going into tertiary institutions. Professor Caro said: The present Government has stated its intention to increase participation in education, but has not yet done anything very dramatic about it. Can the Minister put on record once again the reasons for the problems facing secondary and tertiary institutions, particularly the Fraser Government's contribution, or lack of it, to education and what this Government has done and is doing? Senator RYAN —I am aware of Professor Caro's view about the failure of our institutions to attract an adequate number of young people into higher education and training. I am pleased that people with positions of high credibility in the education debate, such as Professor Caro, are speaking out on this matter. I think it does help the community to understand the defective situation we inherited from the Fraser Administration. I am sure Professor Caro, like any responsible administrator in higher education, will agree that the problems we are now tackling are problems that we inherited from the previous Administration , which presided over seven years of funding cuts to higher education. Those funding cuts not only reduced the places available but also reduced the capacity of universities and colleges to develop appropriate courses, to maintain standards in some cases, to replace obsolete equipment and indeed to house the number of students seeking places. There was a dramatic, scandalous run-down in funds available for capital and equipment and also a very serious decline in the funds available for recurrent expenditure in higher education. Of course this run-down of higher education by the Fraser Administration is the main reason we are now seeing in more optimistic times an excess of demand for higher education places. However I cannot agree with the suggestion, if Professor Caro made it, that our Government is not acting to redress this situation. In our first Budget we provided $10m for an extra 3,000 places over and above what had been provided for the triennium by the previous Government. Those 3,000 places have been taken up very readily and I am particularly pleased to note that they have been taken up in areas where, in the past, access to higher education has been very difficult. They have been taken up by our newer universities and by our colleges of advanced education in outer metropolitan and regional areas. Access to higher education is not simply a matter of a place being available somewhere; it is a matter of places being available where people live or where they can easily travel to. This has happened under our participation program. Similarly our Cabinet, realising the urgency of the demand for places in higher education, by bringing forward about $14m worth of capital projects has facilitated the work of those institutions taking in extra students. I hope and expect that we will make a more significant contribution to providing more places and to providing for growth over the next triennium in our Budget deliberations. Obviously I cannot make any specific predictions now. It is important that the community realises that we have far too low a participation rate in higher education. It is important that university and college administrators realise this and be prepared publicly to debate the importance of the matter. I believe governments can act effectively only when there is community understanding and support for what we want to do. We want to regenerate higher education; we want to upgrade it; we want to improve the standards; we certainly want to upgrade research into it; and we want to increase access to it. In order to do all of those things we do need informed public debate so I welcome, in general, the contribution of distinguished administrators such as Professor Caro. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Did the Attorney-General have any discussions with a member of the High Court of Australia bench about the Combe-Ivanov affair in the period leading up to the announcement of the Hope Royal Commission on Australia' s Security and Intelligence Agencies? If so, did he seek any advice from the judge about national security matters? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have no recollection whatsoever of having ever had any such discussions. Senator SIBRAA —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Health been drawn to a report in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald in which the Opposition's spokesman on health, Mr Carlton, warned that the failure on the part of the Government to amend section 17 of the Health Insurance Act could see the current dispute with the doctors ending up in the High Court of Australia on the grounds that it contravenes section 51 of the Commonwealth Constitution? Can the Minister indicate what would be the likely cost to the public purse of such a move? What would be the likely success of such a move? Senator GRIMES —The last part of the question involved my giving a legal opinion. If the real lawyers in this place are not allowed to give legal opinions, bush lawyers like me should not either although, if Senator Withers is any guide, my opinions are likely to be as good as those of the rest of them. I saw the article in the Sydney Morning Herald in which Mr Carlton, apparently on behalf of the medical profession, threatened that the dispute over section 17 would end up in the High Court. I do not know on what basis he was speaking. One certainly has not heard that from the medical profession. The Minister for Health and the Government are determined to settle this dispute without any recourse to the High Court. We have set up the Penington Committee of Inquiry into Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals. The Minister has made concessions to the medical profession on many occasions so that this dispute can be settled. I do not know what the costs of such a disputation in the High Court would be, but judging from the cost of the Greek conspiracy case and others and given the fees sought by our leading Queen's Counsel, all I can say is heaven knows; the sky is probably the limit. However, whatever the cost and whatever the delays, the only people who would really suffer in the end would be the patients and particularly those patients who have no choice but to go to public hospitals. I hope the matter does not go to the High Court. I hope it is settled before then. Senator PETER RAE —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Were the pre-Budget quota controls on the clearance of cigarettes imposed earlier than usual last year? Is the Minister aware that there was an abnormally high-in fact, extremely so-level of clearance of cigarettes immediately prior to that unusually early imposition of those pre-Budget quota controls in late June last year? Has the Minister been asked to consider holding an inquiry into the possible leakage of his decision to impose pre-Budget quota controls earlier than usual last year? If so, what was his response to the request? If not, will he now consider holding such an inquiry? Senator BUTTON —I am aware that the pre-Budget quotas on tobacco products, potable spirits and beer were imposed earlier than usual last year. Senator Peter Rae can believe it or not-I am sure he will-but the purpose of that was to try to cut out the unnecessary speculation which normally occurs in the pre- Budget period. It was felt that if the quotas were applied earlier than usual the speculation process might be aborted. I am also aware that there was a very high clearance of tobacco products in the two days immediately prior to the announcement of the pre-Budget quotas. The total amount involved for the three tobacco companies was $4.3m above normal clearances. I should also point out that W. D. and H. O. Wills (Australia) Ltd alone, in the two or three days prior to the May 1983 economic statement being made, cleared approximately $6m worth of products in anticipation that the statement would contain quotas. In that sense it has to be set in some degree of context. My recollection of whether I was asked to consider whether there should be an investigation into this matter-I would certainly like the opportunity to refresh my memory on this-is that I was asked whether there should be an investigation and, in the course of discussions, decided that there should not be. The reason for that was that there were a very large number of departmental officers involved in the need-to-know process in my Department as well as in other departments. In those circumstances it was considered highly unlikely that the source of any leak, if there was one, could be identified. I certainly remember having a discussion about the matter in the course of which I tried to ascertain how many other departments, apart from the Department of Industry and Commerce, were in the need-to-know situation. There were several. In those circumstances I felt that such an inquiry would probably be unsuccessful in producing any result . Senator PETER RAE —I raise a supplementary question, Mr President. I was directing the question to the fact that there was an unusually early imposition. The May statement was anticipated. Therefore, the tobacco companies could anticipate a rise in the price of their products. That imposition of quota controls was applied at an unusually early date. The PRESIDENT —Senator Rae, are you asking a question? Senator PETER RAE —Yes. The question I wish to ask is: Is it not a notorious fact that a person is under suspicion in relation to this matter? Would not an inquiry help in identifying whether that is correct or otherwise? Will the Minister in replying now or later, after he has refreshed his memory, keep those two matters in mind? Senator BUTTON —I am aware that it was an unusually early imposition. I certainly was very conscious of that. As I said, it was done for a particular purpose. To my knowledge it is not a notorious fact that a particular person is under suspicion. Certainly at the time that I had some discussions about this question it was not suggested to me that any individual or identifiable group of individuals was under suspicion and notoriously so. In the light of the latter part of Senator Rae's question, I will certainly make further inquiries. Senator REYNOLDS —Did the Minister for Education see an article by Helen Trinca in today's Australian entitled 'Top uni students ''mostly wealth'' '? How does Professor John Western's research on the relatively privileged backgrounds of the majority of university students, especially in medicine and law, measure up to the Government's own information? What measures will the Government take to ensure that students from less privileged backgrounds are not excluded from Australian universities? Senator RYAN —Yes, I did read with great interest the newspaper report of Professor Western's research, because obviously it is of great concern to the Government that we introduce a measure of equity into the matter of access to higher education. I will seek to get a copy of Professor Western's survey so I can study it carefully. I am advised by the Tertiary Education Commission that the kinds of findings in Professor Western's research are reinforced by the information available to the Commission. The Commission advises me that if we were to divide university students in Australia into three groups we would find that of people in the high category, that is, the high socio-economic group, almost 20 per cent attend university compared with 9.1 per cent in the middle socio-economic group and 6.6 per cent in the low socio-economic category. The way to address that is not simply to request the universities to broaden access without making any changes. I think the way to address it is to look at the reasons why students from lower socio-economic backgrounds do not get to the point of academic performance where they can get into faculties such as medicine and law. If we are to do that we have to recognise that many of the schools serving the poorer communities have not had available to them adequate resources to prepare students adequately with that aptitude for universities. Senator Peter Baume —Do you think it all happens at schools? Senator RYAN —It is a complicated argument. I am not quite sure what the point of Senator Baume's interjection is. Quite clearly, some schools are better able to prepare talented students for entry into prestigious university faculties than other schools. It is certainly the case that students from poorer families, because of their family backgrounds, have further obstacles to achieve. Senator Walters —Hooray! Ha, ha, ha! Senator RYAN —It is quite apparent that socio-economic standing and ability are not always positively correlated. There are many examples of that in this place. Our Government is seriously concerned, to put it simply, that students from a poorer background or students who attend schools in poorer areas have many obstacles in their way to enter faculties such as medicine and law. We realise that the solution to this is not simple. We realise that it involves improving the educational standards in the schools that these students attend. I accept, and I believe the Government accepts, that it will mean providing a higher level of income support for students from poorer families so they are able to complete their secondary schooling. It will probably mean a higher level of support for tertiary students because many students from poorer backgrounds have the qualifications to pursue a high level tertiary degree but cannot afford to do so . It is a complex matter of disadvantage that we are addressing. We are addressing it both through our improvements in schools programs, our increases for student allowances and also in our discussions and debates with the university sector so that they can look at their selection criteria to ensure that they are not using irrelevant selection criteria but are using criteria that have to do with student ability and aptitude and not socio-economic status. Senator WALTERS —Has the Attorney-General seen a legal opinion that canvasses the Government's decision to categorise hospitals for the purpose of funding under the Medicare scheme? If so, does it raise doubts about the legality of placing hospitals into these categories? Is the opinion still under study by the Government or has it been dismissed? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have no recollection of having seen such an opinion. It may be that it is under study by my Department, but I am not in a position to advise the Senate either way at this stage. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. In the 1983 Budget the Government announced that it would allocate $100,000 for the retrospective payment of repatriation moneys to former Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander veterans and their dependants who were underpaid benefits from 1943 to 1962. Can the Minister advise whether the administrative machinery to make these payments is complete? If so, how many claims for moneys have been received, how many claims have been paid and how many claims are outstanding? Senator GIETZELT —For some years the Torres Strait Islanders and a number of Aborigines in the northern part of Australia have been pressing a claim upon the Commonwealth Government in respect of the underpayment of benefits as a result of their war service during World War II regarding both payment as servicemen and payments by the former Repatriation Department. A search of the records has established to my satisfaction that there had been underpayment in respect of both those who served in the war and those who were eligible for benefits from my Department. As Senator Childs suggested, the Government made a commitment in the Budget that it would seek to redress those underpayments which arose largely as a result of the discriminatory policies which were pursued in those years as far as Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders were concerned. However, I must admit that there has been a long delay in being able to establish, to our satisfaction, the rights of some of those persons who were underpaid by both the Department of Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. However, the administrative arrangements have been completed. We have had consultations with the Department of Defence, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the National Aboriginal Conference. So far only eight applications have been dealt with by my Department. I want to make the point clear that the question of underpayment in respect to their actual Army service rests with the Department of Defence. I cannot speak for that Department. In respect of my Department, only eight applications have been received, one of which we found, to our satisfaction, did not quality for benefits from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The matter that Senator Childs raised has brought to my mind the essential matter of communication and further examination will be made regarding communication with the Torres Strait Islanders. I undertake that we will step up our activities in this area, because clearly the amount of money that we set aside in the Budget would indicate that a great number of people who are eligible have not come forward to make claims upon the Department. Senator CHANEY —I refer the Minister for Resources and Energy to his statement in response to a question yesterday that he was personally satisfied that the nuclear waste disposal problem had been satisfactorily resolved. I ask the Minister: Firstly, what technological advances of waste disposal have led him to that conclusion; secondly, does he rest his judgment on the synroc research or the vitrification processes which are now in use in France and which will shortly be used in the United Kingdom; and, thirdly, since the synroc principle has been known for some years and was advanced and supported by the Fraser Government and the vitrification processes of long standing, why is it that the Minister and his Australian Labor Party colleagues vociferously asserted throughout their years in opposition that no satisfactory waste disposal policy was in existence? Senator WALSH —Senator Grimes suggested that I should tell Senator Chaney that there is a secret method of disposal which I am not allowed to disclose. I will not do that because I do not need to resort to that sort of subterfuge or evasion. It may well be that the vitrification and synroc processes are satisfactory. If Senator Chaney wants to know the thing that impressed me most of all, it was the visit to the Swedish experimental installation at Stripa. The proposal-although not at Stripa-is that copper cannisters containing the unreprocessed rods, the cooled rods as they have come out of the reactor, are packed in bentonite clay very tightly and disposed of in granite. There are elements of judgment involved in this. They are subjective judgments. I was satisfied that that method would be satisfactory and also that the Swedes have the technical expertise and a sense of social responsibility to do it properly. Perhaps I should have made the distinction yesterday that the existence of technology does not necessarily guarantee that in all cases that technology will be used, or used responsibly and competently. There may well be questions about whether all countries, even with the existence of technology, will take adequate precautions with waste disposal. That is one of the matters that the Government is having investigated within the terms of reference of the Slatyer inquiry. Following the report of that inquiry, it is expected that at least the Government's decisions on the conditions under which uranium would be supplied and to whom can be made against a better informed background. Senator JONES —My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. Has the Minister been approached by the Shire Clerk of Murweh Shire Council based in Charleville, Queensland, applying for the establishment of a Department of Social Security office in Charleville to cater for the increasing number of social security beneficiaries who live in Murweh Shire and the surrounding shires of Tambo, Quilpie, Paroo, Bulloo, Booringa, Bungil and the town of Roma, since the present Social Security office that caters for the south-west region is located in Toowoomba, 700 kilometres to the east? Will the Minister advise whether the establishment of such an office is being considered for Charleville, as the proposal would enhance the effectiveness of the operations of the Department of Social Security throughout the west and the vast areas of south- west Queensland? Senator GRIMES —I have been approached by the Shire Council in the Charleville region, and by the shire councils of almost every region in Queensland, Western Australia, New South Wales and South Australia about the establishment of Social Security offices in their areas. For some years the Department of Social Security has been expanding the regional offices for the reasons Senator Jones mentioned, to ensure that people have access to those offices and do not have the problems that are faced when the offices are so far apart and so far away from the various districts. Continuous evaluation is done of the various applications. The Shire Council at Charleville having written to me and applied to the Department, Charleville is certainly one of those regions that is being evaluated at the moment. How quickly we will be able to expand the existing system of regional offices depends on budgetary considerations. Whether Charleville has a high priority depends on which other areas are being considered. I shall seek out what is happening in that regard and provide Senator Jones with the information. Senator MESSNER —My question also is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. I refer to the concern in Western Australia about the future of the program of aids for disabled people. Is it a fact that the scheme has overrun its $700,000 budget in that State by some $250,000 and as a consequence the scheme may be discontinued for the rest of the financial year? Has this problem been occasioned by the review of programs for the handicapped presently being undertaken by the Government? Will the Minister give an assurance that every effort will be made to avoid unnecessary distress to the disabled? Finally, is this program under threat in any of the other States or Territories? Senator GRIMES —The program of aids for the disabled is the responsibility of my colleague Dr Blewett, the Minister for Health. Although funded by the Federal Government, the distribution of funds for the program is done through the State governments and through the relevant State departments. It is certainly my understanding that funds in Western Australia, and I understand in some other States, have been expended earlier this year, despite the fact that the State governments received a considerable increase in funds for the scheme this year. I do not understand Senator Messner's reference to the review of the handicapped persons programs. I cannot quite see how that is associated with the expenditure of this amount of funds in such a quick time this year. Certainly my colleague Dr Blewett has been approached by various State governments, including the Western Australian Government, about the lack of funds in this area. It is disappointing to us that the aids for disabled people program should have been overspent so quickly by the State governments, which have responsibility for ensuring that it is a year-long program. I shall check with Dr Blewett to see where he is at with these negotiations and obtain an answer as soon as possible for the honourable senator. Senator MAGUIRE —My question also is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. Are there any discernible trends in the number of unemployment benefits paid in Australia? Do these reflect general economic trends? What has been the national change in the number of unemployment benefits paid since January? Have there been any significantly different trends in unemployment benefits paid since January in the various States and Territories? Senator GRIMES —There has been a trend in the number of unemployment benefits paid this year. That trend has been downward. In the eight weeks ended 23 March last there was a fall of 41,208 in the number of unemployment beneficiaries in Australia. That represents a decrease of 6.1 per cent. For the same period last year there was an increase of 0.4 per cent, or 2,240. Across the States, the largest percentage declines over the past eight weeks have been in Victoria and South Australia. In Victoria there has been a decline of 8.6 per cent and in South Australia 9.3 per cent. These declines in the number of beneficiaries are consistent with the revised estimate of unemployment beneficiaries this year, which is now 620,000 and can be found in the forward estimates document. That is a considerable decrease from the average of 680,000 which was estimated in the Budget documents. A continuation of the current trend indicates that over the next week or so the absolute number of unemployment beneficiaries will be below the number at the equivalent time last year. That is a welcome trend. The figures are pleasing, encouraging and hopeful. They are a further indication that economic recovery is occurring in Australia as a result of the Government's policies. I hope the trend continues, and we are confident that it will, so that we will continue to have for the rest of the year a decrease in the number of unemployment beneficiaries, which will be of benefit to the community generally and to the Budget in particular. Senator BOSWELL —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Is it a fact that approximately two years ago a safe was seized from the home of Mr Craig Grainger Trimbole, son of Robert Trimbole, during a raid by Federal police under section 10 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act? Is it a fact that an order by a New South Wales judge, sitting in a Federal jurisdiction, was issued, preventing the safe from being opened? Is the safe still being held by the New South Wales Supreme Court? If so, will the Attorney-General advise the Senate why the safe was seized by the police? What were the police seeking? What assistance can be provided to the police to enable them to gain access to material required by them to bring criminals to justice? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have no knowledge whatever of the matters to which Senator Boswell refers. I will see what information can be provided to him, presumably by the Special Minister of State. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. No doubt the Minister is aware of previous questions I have asked regarding the re-establishment of the professional employment offices within the Commonwealth Employment Service. I ask the Minister whether any changes have been made recently that will enable the Commonwealth Employment Service to operate more effectively as a job placement agency for unemployed professional people. Senator BUTTON —I am aware of Senator Foreman's interest in this matter. He has pursued it over a period of 12 months at Question Time. The Government has instituted or reinstituted the professional employment service within the framework of the Commonwealth Employment Service. That introduction took place between 3 January and 14 March this year in all State capital cities and in Canberra. The demand for the service will be kept under observation and a review conducted, at the expiration of six months from 14 March, when the last PES facility was opened in one of the capital cities, of the needs, increased demand or whatever. The Government recognises a need for this important service. I suppose Senator Foreman will be disposed to ask me a question on about 14 September as to the progress being made by the service and the demand for it. Senator Chipp —If he doesn't, you will remind him, won't you? Senator BUTTON —I will not remind him. I was making the point, before Senator Chipp came into the chamber, that Senator Foreman has been very diligent about this matter over a long period. He needs no reminding from Senator Chipp, me or anybody else. I have no doubt that in six months time he will pursue the matter further. In the middle of last year the Government was very conscious of the absence of the service. The trial period of six months will give an opportunity to assess how it should be developed and the progress that can be made with it in the future. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —Mr President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator MACKLIN —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt), in answer to a question from Senator Colston during Question Time, said that I, as the Australian Democrats spokesperson on veterans' affairs, had unnecessarily raised concern in the veteran community. As the Minister will be aware, I was responding to a concern which presumably was expressed to his office, as it was to mine, about the review currently taking place. In answer to a question on the radio program PM on the day on which I released my Press statement I said: My purpose in saying something at this stage while not waiting for the legislation is in the hope that we can derail it even before it gets into Parliament quite frankly because if those types of thing appear it would be enormously disturbing to many, many people. Those people had already expressed the concern to me. I was hoping to dampen the concern, not unnecessarily raise it. Questions without Notice Questions without Notice Proposed Resource Rent Tax Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —In a supplementary question this afternoon Senator Durack questioned the pedigree of my statement that the Government's intention had been to introduce an Australian Bill of Rights as part of a total package of human rights legislation. In reply, I said that the decision was made last December and that I had issued a statement at that time. I am afraid I have to acknowledge that I misled the Senate as to the date on which the Government decision and my statement were made. In fact it was not in December but some weeks earlier on 25 October. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the full text of that statement. Leave granted. The document read as follows- 25 October 1983 147/83 MAJOR HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION PLANNED Cabinet has authorised me to proceed with a package of major human rights legislation, the centrepiece of which will be a national Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is likely to be introduced into the Parliament late this Session and will lie on the table for a period sufficient to allow full public discussion before beind debated. The human rights package, which was part of Labor's pre-election policy and has been the subject of active planning for the past 6 months, will include three main elements; an Australian Bill of Rights, which will act as an inspirational and educative charter providing general guarantees of basic rights and freedoms, and be accompanied by provisions for administrative and limited judicial enforcement; amendments to the structure, role, jurisdiction and enforcement powers of the Human Rights Commission, together with machinery amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and the proposed Sex Discrimination Act to strengthen and integrate those provisions into a comprehensive scheme; and amendment of the substantive provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act. The Bill of Rights will be based on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), ratified by Australia in 1980, which requires the Government to respect and to ensure to all individuals the rights recognised in the Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. The Bill will deal with such basic rights as the rights to freedom of expression, conscience, religion and assembly, and rights relating to the protection of privacy and with respect to the criminal process. It will provide a yardstick against which restrictions of these rights by both written laws and government action can be measured. One of the main aims of the Bill of Rights will be to make everyone in this country aware of just what the fundamental rights and freedoms in a democratic society are, and to remind people that rights and freedoms which they regard as precious to themselves are possessed in equal measure by all others. However, legislative guarantees, apart from their value as declaratory and educative mechanisms, are of little value unless they can be given practical expression. Complaints about breaches of rights will be able to be investigated by a strengthened Human Rights Commission, and in addition the Bill will provide for limited judicial enforcement. So far as enforcement by the courts is concerned, the intention at this stage is that the guarantees in the Bill of Rights should operate as ''rules of construction''. This would mean that they could be called in aid by any person in the course of any criminal, civil or tribunal proceeding in which the application of some other statutory provision or a common law rule is involved, but could not be relied upon directly to found an action for an injunction, variation of contract, damages or such like. A Task Force on Human Rights, involving departmental officers and external consultants, has been established to assist in the preparation of the Bill of Rights and the other elements of the package. So far as the review of the Racial Discrimination Act is concerned, the Task Force has placed advertisements in the major metropolitan dailies and the ethnic press calling for submissions from the public and special interest groups. Major issues for consideration here include: how best to deal with race-hatred propaganda; the best way to apply and enforce anti-discrimination measures; the relationship between the Racial Discrimination Act and the Aboriginal land rights legislation. I believe that all Governments in Australia have a role to play in protecting human rights and am aiming at establishing, in consultation with the States, a set of legislative and administrative arrangements by which that responsibility can be shared. Whilst it is important for the Commonwealth to be the standard bearer in human rights matters, the Government's policy is that Federal measures should not infringe upon constructive developments which have been taking place in some States in the human rights field and which are consistent with our international obligations. Co-operative enforcement arrangements between the Human Rights Commission and State human rights and anti-discrimination bodies will continue to be developed and strengthened, with the aim ultimately of providing ''one stop shopping'' for complaints under both Commonwealth and State law. Federal legislation is, however, required not only to implement our international obligations but because in such an area as individual rights and freedoms the Commonwealth's responsibility is also a trust. It would be completely unacceptable for the basic rights of some Australians to be protected while others are left vulnerable. When the Bill of Rights is introduced it will lie on the table to enable further consultation with the States and for community discussion and comment to take place. The Governments present intention is for all three elements in the proposed legislative package to be debated together in the Autumn 1984 Parliamentary Session. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —Senator Haines asked yesterday about the Sunshine Association of Australia. I have now received from Mr Uren, the Minister for Territories and Local Government, and from my Department further material that may be of assistance in this matter. Mr Uren's attention was drawn to this Association in August 1983 and he has had subsequent discussions with Mr Gordon Walsh of the House of Assembly who originally raised it with him. The Minister has been in contact with the relevant Queensland department concerning the Queensland branch of the Association. Following the statement by the Queensland Attorney-General, Mr Neville Harper, on 28 March, two days ago, refusing registration, Mr Uren is having the matter investigated, as was reported in yesterday's Canberra Times. The Sunshine Association of Australia (A.C.T. Branch Inc.) was incorporated in the Australian Capital Territory on 7 April 1983 under the Associations Incorporation Ordinance administered by the Corporate Affairs Commission which is within the Attorney-General's Department. The Association has complied with such controls under that Ordinance as now exist, namely: It has lodged notification of its public officer; it has lodged its balance sheet to June 1983, although qualified by the auditor concerning the verification of the amount of donations received; and it has lodged its rules. As I said yesterday, the ordinance is under review to determine whether in fact it imposes sufficient controls and restraints on organisations of this kind. I further advise the honourable senator that the Sunshine Association of the Australian Capital Territory applied for a community development fund grant in 1983-84 but no grant was approved. Mr Uren's investigation is continuing, including on the question of whether separate provisions for registration of charities, such as exist in a number of States, should be established in the Australian Capital Territory. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —On 27 March Senator Martin asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, three questions. The first was: How many employees has the Health Insurance Commission recruited from the private health funds since August 1983? The second was: What is the total number of additional Health Insurance Commission employees since 1983? The third question was: How many of the former private health fund employees were recruited on a temporary contract basis and how many on a permanent basis? The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) has provided the following anwsers. The answer to the first question is that 1,073 have been recruited from the private health funds, 834 full time staff and 239 part time staff. The answer to the second question is 2,582, comprising 1,565 full time staff and 1, 017 part time staff. The answer to the third question is 1,073 staff. In summary, the Commission has taken on 1,073 ex-fund staff so far and estimates that it will take on another 123. There is scope for taking on substantial additional numbers of ex-fund staff through the process of terminating the employment of short term staff. Of course, such an approach carries substantial risks for efficiency in Medicare processing, since it involves laying off trained, satisfactory staff and recruiting untrained fund staff whose level of competence is unknown at this stage. Many ex-fund staff may not be attracted by the part time employment opportunities available in the Commission. The extent of co-operation received from funds in resolving staff surplus problems has varied from State to State. The following comments focus on the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia in Queensland which recently issued redundancy notices to more than 80 staff, apparently without warning. The Commission held initial discussions with MBF in mid-November 1983 when it was hoped that a reasonable level of co-operation would occur. The attitude of MBF changed and for a time it declined to discuss the subject further. The Commission was unaware of the recent retrenchment action by MBF until staff who had received redundancy notices contacted the Commission in Queensland. The Medical Benefits Fund subsequently provided the Commission with lists of staff. Recent discussions with MBF management have been an improvement on the indifference shown since November 1983. The Commission is currently holding applications from only 50 of those given retrenchment notices and expects that it will be able to assist with job offers to about 36 of these subject, of course, to their suitability. The positions involved will almost certainly be part time only, that is, involving on average about four hours per day each. Progress to full time employment in due course would depend upon the availability of vacancies and the ability of the new recruits to compete with the claims of other part time staff for the transfer to full time duty. The lack of co-operation exhibited in Queensland and repeated in New South Wales is in marked contrast to the co-operative and helpful attitude shown in South Australia and Western Australia where the Commission and the funds have worked objectively to minimise the staffing problems associated with the introduction of Medicare. Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendment made by the Senate to this Bill. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Chaney proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The urgent need for the Government to abandon its resource rent tax proposal to end the damaging uncertainty being inflicted on Australia's resource development . I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.10) —The Opposition has brought forward the matter of public importance, which reads: The urgent need for the Government to abandon its resource rent tax proposal to end the damaging uncertainty being inflicted on Australia's resource development . We bring it forward even though there is but a limited opportunity for us to deal with matters of public importance on Friday sittings. The maximum time allowed for discussion is one hour and accordingly there will be only a very limited debate. But we believe that this is a matter of very great importance to Australia. It is a matter which properly should be the subject of some discussion and we would wish the Opposition's view to be quite clear. I suppose that one of the notable, and indeed one of the worst, features of the period of the Whitlam Government in the mid-1970s was virtually the end of oil exploration in Australia. That occurred because of a combination of circumstances, but we would say that the Whitlam Government had a very significant role to play in it. We do not want to see the same thing happen in Australia during this period of Labor Government. For that reason we think it is important that the Government should move to clarify its stance on this very contentious issue. This is not an issue where concern is limited to a partisan opposition. A great deal of concern has been expressed on behalf of the industry which is involved. Of course, it is very easy for the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh), in debate at least to brush off that objection as being one of self- interest. But I remind the Senate that it is not just the Liberals, it is not just the National Party of Australia, it is not just the industry which has expressed its doubts about the resource rent tax. When the Premier of my State of Western Australia, the Hon. Brian Burke, was in the United States of America he made it quite clear that he had reservations about what his colleagues in Canberra were doing. I am sure that many honourable senators, and certainly many members of the public, would have seen reports of a dinner or luncheon at which Mr Burke spoke and answered questions. I quote what Mr Burke said in New York about a month ago, on 29 February, in response to a question about resource rent tax. My quite frank view is that the tax is unlikely to be imposed as from 1 July. Although the announcement of its application has been made, I am sure that it is with much less joy that the National Government embraces the concept than it embraced it from the Opposition Benches. I think that comment is as good an illustration as the Senate could ask, and indeed as the Minister could ask, of the sorts of reservations which go beyond the reservations of self-interest and partisan politics. I put very seriously to the Minister in this debate that the Government would serve the national interest better if it ended the damaging and continuing speculation which has taken place about this tax and if it made the position quite clear. It is not a matter to be left until Budget time. We have an undertaking by the Government that a new tax will be introduced to run from 1 July. There is obviously deep concern about this decision. It is obvious that it is already affecting investment decisions. It is in the national interest that the uncertainty should be brought to an end. We bring this matter before the Senate again in the real hope that the Government will be able to see its way clear to abandon a course of action which is obviously erroneous. We hope that the Government will see the error of its ways and that it will respond to the doubts which have been expressed so broadly about what it is advocating. The Minister has plenty of precedent for this. He is not going to be a lonely figure in the Government if he reconsiders what may have been an unwise proposition. The Minister who sits next to him, the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, has had to reconsider the assets test proposal that he has been carrying forward from the last Budget. The Treasurer ( Mr Keating) who the Minister for Resources and Energy represents in this place, has had to make some statements about capital gains tax which indicate that there have been shifts in the direction of the Australian Labor Party. Certainly , whilst it may be a matter that is under examination, it is not a matter which is under examination for the next Budget. With respect to uranium policy, the Minister himself has, I think, performed a real public service in bringing forward suggestions for change in the policy area which he himself has described, I think in fairly critical terms, as confusing as it is at present worded. His colleague just across the avenue, the Attorney-General, Senator Evans, has within the last week told us that the Government has reconsidered bringing forward the Human Rights Bill at this stage . Certainly it is not going to bring it forward in a fettered pre-election atmosphere. Of course that same colleague, Senator Evans, has within the last year given us the on-again off-again constitutional proposals. I mention those because I believe that the Government has shown quite extraordinary flexibility in areas where there is clear political opposition. I believe that most of the things that I have mentioned have been put aside, not because of the strength of argument which has been put to the Government but because of the possible electoral consequences. I do not for a moment dismiss the possibility of straight intellectual application to the problem in terms of trying to improve the Government's approach in some of those areas, but there is a common denominator in those areas of shifts of policy: They represent some electoral threat to a government which is particularly open to persuasion where it sees the possibility of some shake to its present rather substantial majority as far as public opinion polls are concerned. Perhaps that is why resource rent tax is a particularly difficult issue. I suppose that in the case of that tax the affected constituency in the short term is a much narrower one. It does not control a lot of votes. It is simply an industry which has a vital role in the longer term in trying to ensure that Australia has the maximum achievable continuing self-sufficiency in oil. I ask the Minister not to be too coloured in his judgments by the fact that in this case he is not dealing with a mass of taxpayers who might wreak electoral vengeance on the Government. We all know that is not the case. What we have here is an industry which is made up of a relatively limited number of companies. These companies do not necessarily automatically give rise to a feeling of warmth out there among the voters, because of course they are seen as being large and powerful companies. But I say with great seriousness to the Minister and to the Government, that those companies which are searching for oil and which over the last six or seven years have been successful in improving Australia's long term oil self-sufficiency prospects do in fact represent a most important constituency, not in voting terms but in terms of the long term welfare of every person in this country. Given the debate which has gone back and forth, given the lack perhaps of electoral pressure on the Government in this area, I can only ask the Minister to apply his intellect to the serious problems which have been raised and to the very real prospect that what he and the Government are doing will in fact damage the oil search in Australia and do something to reproduce the sort of difficulties which occurred under Mr Whitlam and which I am sure the Minister does not wish to see repeated. The recent weeks have seen a very active campaign against the resource rent tax by the industry most directly affected. I wish to emphasise in this debate that the Opposition's stance on this matter is not a stance which follows that extensive public campaign by the industry. We made our stance very clear. We have questioned the Government about its development of this proposal. From as early as May last year we have raised the issues of difficulty. I am sure this matter was raised before that. However, I know it has been raised since the last election when this subject came within my area of responsibility. We have raised questions about the difficulties we see facing the Government in this matter. But as it became more and more apparent that the Government was not going to match its theory with a practical working model we firmed up our opposition and on 27 February I announced, on behalf of the Opposition, that we wished the Government to withdraw its proposal for a resource rent tax on oil and gas. I think that the Government, again, should stop and think about the very public campaign which has been waged by the industry. Senator Walsh should not be so quick to brush it off as being simply a campaign of self-interest. I remind the Minister for Resources and Energy and the Government that, in the main, business has been very responsive to attempts by the Government to involve business in dialogue with the Government. I believe that business in general has shown in public a broadly co-operative attitude to the Government. I say that in no critical sense. I believe that all Australians should treat the Government of Australia as the Government, but do not believe it is open to the Minister or any other member of the Government to suggest that business interests have set themselves against the present Government. Indeed, I ask the Government to think about the many pressures on business to conform with the Government's wishes and to remain quiescent and acquiescent when the Government is making moves. The Government has many opportunities to improve the lot of business or to worsen it . In the main, there is a wish to remain on good terms with the government of the day. The fact that the companies through the agency of their organisation, the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association, have undertaken this campaign should underline to the Government how seriously in practical terms industry sees this Government proposal. This unique response by an industry body to a government proposal during the life of the present Government underlines the fact that there is a deep concern that the Government is about to make a substantial error that will be of long term damage to industry and in the long term against the public interest. I also make clear to the Government that the Opposition has a growing concern at the effects of what the Government proposes and at the Government's apparent indecision. I say 'indecision' because of the rumours flying around about the fact that the Government may not proceed on this matter-the sorts of rumours which have been commented on publicly by Premier Burke in New York. The indications are that in some sections of the industry there is already a reluctance to invest, there is already a sense of uncertainty and foreboding about what the future holds, and that decisions are being delayed. I am sure that the Minister, who has a large department of state at his disposal, has available to him intelligence that is as good as or better than that which is available to the Opposition. Perhaps he receives more filtered messages than are coming through to the Opposition. I assure him that the messages I am receiving show a level of uncertainty which is already affecting investment decisions. If the Opposition's conviction that the Government's proposal is damaging not just in theory but also in current fact is correct, the Opposition believes it is important that the Government should act as soon as possible to put to rest the fears in the industry. One of the fundamental concerns of the Opposition-a concern which has been expressed by the industry-is that the maximum self-sufficiency for Australia must be maintained. I do not want to quibble with the Minister or engage in a silly, theoretical debate about maximums. I am sure the Minister and the public know what I mean. Australia must maintain the highest practical level of oil self-sufficiency. Therefore, it should gear its policies in such a way as to take that proper objective into account. The reasons for concern about Australia 's self-sufficiency were well expanded on by the Minister for Resources and Energy in a recent speech in Sydney, on 27 March this year. I refer the Senate to page 5 of the typescript of that speech. The Minister's words tend to underline the non-partisan nature of the concern expressed by the Opposition in this debate. The Minister in that speech made clear that the current trends in industry in reduction of energy usage: . . . may lead some to believe that we can now take a more relaxed approach to energy policy, particularly in the petroleum sector. Such complacency holds dangers: in particular any relaxation now could reverse many of the hard won achievements of recent years. There remains considerable uncertainty about oil prices and supply. Much will depend upon the effects on the world and Australian oil markets of economic recovery. In addition, the possibility of a further oil crisis arising from the Middle East situation should not be dismissed. The war between Iran and Iraq has the potential to disrupt seriously the world and Australian oil markets. The Minister went on in more detail, and I do not have time in this debate to quote him fully. I merely embrace many of his arguments in that speech which illustrated for that audience the need to pursue self-sufficiency in oil in Australia and a high level of exploration to achieve that objective. I believe that the Minister has indicated in that and in other speeches that he shares our fundamental approach. The danger is that he will ignore that fundamental and simply pursue the revenue objectives of the Government in the next Budget, and make decisions that are inimical to that objective. I go along with the Minister in his Sydney speech when he said: I stress that good reason exists for maintaining the development of policies that encourage the continuing exploration and development of Australian oil. I go along with the Minister in that passage. I do not go along with him in his present stance that the introduction of a resource rent tax in the terms he now proposes will not damage that objective. The debate is continually distracted by red herrings. I suggest that the Minister is not guiltless in that regard. I would like to clear from this debate any concern that he might have that there are other factors affecting the oil search other than government policy on taxation. I agree with the proposition that a decline in real oil prices and in usage will affect the incentive to search for oil. Of course it will. The fact of the matter is that, as the Minister recognised in that speech, a combination of factors will affect the oil search. The Minister said in that speech on the subject of oil: The rate at which it will be discovered and the degree to which it will be recovered are functions of price and technology as well as government taxation and other policies. That is self-evidently correct, but the important matter of which I would remind the Minister is that government cannot affect many of those factors. It cannot affect the geology or the world price in any sensible way, and in many respects it cannot affect usage. But it will have the sole influence on the other factor involving taxation policies. If it is true, as I think it is, that other conditions at the moment are against the improvement of oil search in Australia, and if the decline in real prices and usage are against the incentive to search for oil, then for heaven's sake government policies should not buttress those negative factors but contest and oppose them. My speaking time in this debate is almost at an end, and I wish to make only two more points in the remainder of my remarks. First, I again remind the Senate that the oil industry along with the resource industry generally faces many problems. In many respects Australia is not competitive with the rest of the world. We are not productive in our labour force, our costs are high, and there are many reasons why industrialists and investors are discouraged from pursuing development projects in this country. I do not need to remind the Government of the case put so well and so forcibly by Mr James Strong of the Australian Mining Industry Council in a speech during the last week. From the point of view of the general health of the resource industry, clearly this is not the time for the Government to be doing things that are negative and against the interests of those resource industries. But most of all, I remind the Minister of how far he has removed himself from the theoretical objectives that he was pursuing originally. The broad canvas he sketched out originally, that we should pursue profit-based taxes that would overtake the plethora of other taxes and charges and produce an economically rational single line of taxation-I know I oversimplify the argument but it is at the heart of the proposition the Minister was trying to sell-no longer sits with the practical model that he is proposing. The Minister is now proposing a quite limited resource rent tax on a limited sector of the resource industries, the off-shore oil and gas industries. That will produce its own distortions in relation to on-shore and off-shore exploration. The Minister has gone away from the idea of setting a threshold on the basis of a wonderfully theoretical assessment of the level of return that is required to attract investment to a situation where he has set himself and the Government revenue targets that will dictate the sorts of figures that will have to be applied. I submit that the Minister has lost the theoretical justification for what he is seeking to do. He should follow another course and quickly put this matter to rest. He should indicate that the Government will not proceed with the resource rent tax. The Minister should let the Government pursue its revenue requirements, whatever they are, with a more rational approach rather than seek to destroy an industry that is so important to Australia's continuing welfare. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(3.30) —I state at the outset that the Australian Democrats support the concept of a resource rent tax. It is part of our policy. It will not be thrown out because there is an election looming. I believe that it is helpful for honourable senators and political parties going into an election to know the stance of the Australian Democrats, in the same way as we indicated that we support such things as a capital gains tax and do not go soft on those issues just because an election is looming. I think the Government is in a dilemma about whether to consult or not consult on this issue, because it is damned if it does and damned if it does not. Consultation results in such things as the assets test fiasco which was pilloried around the country by people who in many cases did not even understand what was being proposed. Such things as the Medicare-type confrontations result from public consultation as does the conflict within the Government's own ranks that we have seen recently over uranium. Of course, this Government and any Government which consults with the community before it puts down its final legislation is bound to draw flak. On the other hand, it has distinct advantages. It achieves a degree of consensus before the legislation hits this Parliament. It also gives to senators and members and indication of public reaction, the public feeling on the issues. I think that that gives all parties outside and inside the Parliament an opportunity to contribute a lot more intelligently. It has one other very valuable by-product; that is, that it allows the Government to review and to adjust its approach to the planned legislation. But, of course, this means that the Government can not only review and adjust, but also in the lead-up to an election it can go soft on some of these issues, as we have seen with capital gains and wealth taxes. It is interesting that it is not going soft on resource rent taxes; perhaps that is because there are no votes coming from the international oil comapnies in the next election. I believe that the changes to resources taxes are inevitable. I think every political party sees it as an inevitability of the evolving tax system. As we have a declining proportion of old oil it has to change. But I also believe, and I agree with the Opposition, that it needs to be changed quickly. We need to give tax certainty for the future. That applies to the good economic health not only of the oil companies, but also of the Australian economy. I believe that all will benefit from a decision in principle being announced in the near future , certainly not just broad guidelines, but a decision which puts some meat on the bones and which gives the oil companies the opportunity to plan ahead for the many years for which they are obliged to plan ahead because of the nature of the industry that they are in. I am a little nonplussed as to why we have this matter of public importance before us today. A number of important issues are far more vital than this. On 2 March we debated a matter of public importance also put down by the Leader of the Opposition in this House, which read: The continuing uncertainty being created by the Government's proposal to introduce a resource rent tax. Today's matter is only mildly modified. It reads: The urgent need for the Government to abandon its resource rent tax proposal to end the damaging uncertainty being inflicted on Australia's resource development . One wonders why this matter has been repeated. Is it a lack of awareness by the Opposition of other major issues, or is it a need to demonstrate to oil companies its ongoing support? Is it in opposition to the Government's public debate method in such major matters as taxation? Having posed that rhetorical question, I think we also need to ask why there should be a resource rental tax. As it is our policy to support such a concept, I will briefly go over the benefits that the Australian Democrats see coming from a resource rent tax. First, there are no taxes before profits are made. In the exploration business that is absolutely vital. It encourages a proliferation of explorers, large and small, and it also encourages exploration of marginal areas because of the fact that there is no tax during the exploration period. Thus exploring companies go in knowing exactly what the risk is. One of the advantages that will flow from having a resource rent tax is that the future tax policy of this Government and, once established, of future governments will be firm; it will be recognised throughout the world as a stable tax policy for explorers. That will result in an attraction to explorers to come to this country because stability above all else appeals to oil companies and oil explorers. The very thought of nationalisation of discovered oil is anathema to oil explorers. Australia does not have such a policy in prospect from any of the major political parties. With a resource rent tax policy, it would have a policy which would last for decades. I do not think that anybody is arguing that there should not be some tax on Australian resources so that Australians can share the proceeds and the benefits that flow from the discoveries of oil and other minerals. Most oil producing nations have a resource rent tax or something similar unless they have nationalised their oil industries. I am sure that the Liberal and National Parties are not suggesting that there be no tax on oil. But it is interesting that in the two debates that we have had on these similar matters of public importance an alternative suggestion has not been proposed. As we come out of the old oil-new oil syndrome obviously we have to have an alternative. I find it rather depressing that all the Opposition can do is knock the proposal which is being advanced by the Democrats and by the Government without putting forward an alternative. It is interesting also that the Opposition, particularly the Liberal Party, had dabbled with a resource rent tax since 1977 when it announced it was examining that possibility. One wonders whether it might still be hidden somewhere in its policy or its policy in prospect. I think we also need to ask why the oil majors are opposing this resource rent tax. We even need to ask whether they are opposing the resource rent tax or whether they are simply jockeying themselves into a bargaining position. They may be taking a leaf out of the book of the Australian Medical Association and putting themselves into a position of holding their hands out for something pretty good at the start, better down the track, and, they hope, the best of all possible worlds at the end of the track. The strategy they are adopting seems to follow that particular path. I stress in particular the strategy of putting up straw men and knocking them over. Across my desk and across the desks of all honourable senators have come in the last few days a couple of quite interesting documents, one from the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association Ltd and the other from a major oil exploration company, Esso. The difficulty that I have with each of these documents is this: Not only are they putting up straw men; their whole case is built on a fallacy. They start with the proposition that a resource rent tax would, of itself, automatically increase the tax burden on the oil exploration companies. That does not necessarily apply to all oil companies. It may increase the Government's tax revenue but it does not follow that it will increase the tax burden on all of the oil companies. In fact, if it does have the effect, as we saw in Bass Strait when there was a change in oil policy, of increasing it on some who can afford it but reducing it on other potential and existing explorers, that may be to Australia's benefit and to the benefit of the industry itself. To start with that fallacious foundation and build the case on that is, I believe, less than honest. The Esso document uses the same foundation stone of increased taxation. It expresses it in these terms: Australia's oil self-sufficiency will be lower with an RRT- There is the threat of decreased exploration. I repeat: Australia's oil self-sufficiency will be lower with an RRT and increased taxation- as a concomitant of that, I interject- leading to more oil imports, less government revenue, less jobs and leaving the country vulnerable to the uncertainties of supplies from the Middle East. Now that does not follow. There is a lack of logic in that argument. There may well be, as a result of a change in the tax pattern, a substantial increase in oil exploration in this country. There may well be a move towards much more marginal areas of oil exploration, which at this moment may not be worth tapping under the old tax regime. The second point made by Esso is this: Australia's oil prospectivity is close to the lowest in the world and an RRT and increased taxation will reduce exploration, especially the high-cost, high- risk offshore oil search for the major discoveries Australia needs. That completely ignores the big benefit of exploring in and around this nation and that is the stability of government and the potential stability of government policy with a resource rent tax. The third point states: RRT has major theoretical problems because it ignores the basic fact that the prospect of high rewards is the driving force of exploration psychology. High tax added to high risk is the wrong policy for Australia's oil indpendence. I ask the question: What high tax? I have not seen a tax rate quoted. What rate of tax is contemplated? Until that is known it is not honest to propose that this high tax is going to be imposed and will add to the high risk for oil exploration. I believe that the Government's approach is respectable. I believe that the issuing of a discussion paper to the public at large, the invitation to the industry to comment on that discussion paper, the issuing of a second paper which will give a lot more substance to the concept, and then accepting criticism, comment and suggestions on that second paper, I hope before bringing in the legislation in the near future, is a respectable approach to the introduction of such new legislation, such a new approach to taxation in this country. I believe that the Government does not warrant criticism for having the debate in the community. I think it could be encouraged to get on with the job now, to indicate very quickly to the industry and to the world at large what the new policy will be. I believe government and industry now should sit down at the round table and resolve any outstanding issues with this new resource rent tax and implement it will before the commencement of the next financial year. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(3.45) —After 12 months in opposition the Liberal Party is giving the Government gratuitous advice on how to govern, which I suppose is something Oppositions normally do. So recently after the previous Government, the present Opposition, was so thoroughly discredited, it does take a fair amount of cheek to be giving gratuitous advice to the new Government on how to run the country, particularly when one looks at the record that was left behind by the last Government and inherited by this one. There was a declining real gross domestic product, an actual shrinkage of the economy, an increase in its last twelve months in office of a quarter of a million in the number of people unemployed, an 11.5 per cent inflation rate and rising, record interest rates and a prospective $10 billion deficit. Firstly, I will comment briefly on what Senator Jack Evans said. He put many of the arguments for a resource rent tax, and I do not propose to reiterate them. He also criticised the Opposition for putting forward a motion that the Government should abandon its resource rent tax proposal, but he did not make clear whether the Opposition is also saying that any alternative form of tax should also be abandoned. I would certainly welcome some indication from the Opposition as to whether its view is that there should be no tax at all, other than those which exist, or that there should be some tax at some rate other than a resource rent tax. I think Senator Evans very properly criticised the Opposition for that. In spite of that, there is a good deal of common ground between the Government, the Opposition and the Australian Democrats. It does not make political or economic sense for any government consciously to adopt a policy that would lead to a major reduction in oil exploration effort, particularly when our practical self-sufficiency cannot be guaranteed for a very long period. Senator Chaney suggested that the Goverment was pushing on with this proposal because the oil companies are seen to be politically vulnerable. That is because oil companies per se, or their general managers and directors, do not have many votes in total. I think he is probably right in that political assessment, especially if a government should choose to attack oil companies in emotional or even xenophobic terms. I think it is recognised, even by Senator Chaney, that the Government has not criticised or attacked oil companies in that way. We have endeavoured to conduct this debate on a rational basis and we will continue to do so. Senator Chaney clearly assumes that the introduction of a resource rent tax will necessarily cause exploration to decline relative to what it would have been without the introducion of a resource rent tax. He seems to have reached that conclusion regardless of the rate at which a resource rent tax would apply and regardless of the extent of any exploration subsidy or offset. Really, a responsible judgment as to whether a different tax regime will cause exploration to go up or down cannot be made until figures are known on rates, thresholds and the degree of offset subsidy. I think the Opposition would have had more credibility if it had criticised the Government, as Senator Evans did, albeit in a rather mild way, for not having actually produced those hard figures , at this stage, three months before the proposed commencement date. That type of criticism would have had some credibility, but the Opposition chose instead to call upon the Government to abandon the rent tax policy, without making it clear whether it proposed some alternative tax or whether it proposed no tax at all. Senator Chaney made the point that practical self-sufficiency in oil is an important objective, and I agree. It does not necessarily follow that it is an objective which should be pursued at any cost or exclusive of any other objective. For example, if maximising our known oil reserves and our rate of oil production were the only economic objectives of a government-this applied to the previous Government, too-a government would abolish the existing ad valorem royalty which applies to new oil discoveries. It might even consider abolishing corporate tax on companies involved in oil exploration or alternatively consider some form of exploration subsidy with or without the existence of a resources rent tax. So this matter has to be seen in perspective. Even the last Government did not pursue the goal-I would have been amazed if it had-of maximising exploration effort and, hopefully, discovery rates exclusive of all other goals. Senator Chaney mentioned the industry campaign. It ought to be noted that that is not a campaign against a resources rent tax per se; it is a campaign against any tax on new oil other than that which already exists-that is, the ad valorem royalty-be it on-shore or off-shore, and the exposure, with a one-year delay, of oil producers to corporate taxation. The Australian Petroleum Exploration Association campaign is directed against any form of tax, not simply a resources rent tax. We must bear in mind when comparing a rent tax with an alternative tax that the industry is not monolithic. At least five actual or significant potential producers have told the Government, sometimes in public and sometimes in private, that they favour a rent tax as against an alternative tax which would yield comparable amounts of revenue. The whole industry has a common interest-if it looks only at the industry interest-in trying to minimise the tax that government imposes upon it. However, the whole industry does not have a common interest in opposing a particular type of tax. A particular type of tax, be it a rent tax, the existing levy or a variant of that, will affect different companies in different ways. It is not surprising that specific companies react to proposals for levies as an alternative to a rent tax or vice versa in accordance with what they perceive to be their interest. They may not necessarily be the interests of the entire industry or of all the companies involved in the industry, let alone of the economy and society as a whole. Senator Chaney quoted from a speech that I made three days ago. I make no comment on that except to say that it related to a broader reference than simply maximising oil production. It appeared in the context of the substitution of different types of fuel for oil and also greater efficiency in the use of oil and other fuels. He claimed that I had moved a long way from the original proposal. I certainly do not think that is entirely valid because it has been recognised by me from the outset that in most areas the States have primary control in the application of the principle of rent taxation and it could not be achieved without State co-operation. He also quoted a statement by the West Australian Premier in New York a couple of weeks ago. Mr Burke does not have current information on the stage this Government has reached and so is not well placed to make such a comment. He was entitled to give his opinion but it was not a well-informed opinion. Senator Mason made a point that I had intended to make in any case. I guarantee that the tax regime we are proposing, once installed, will not be overturned by a subsequent Liberal government. I would hope that a subsequent Liberal government will not tamper with the rates either. I do not believe that, once a rent tax system is in operation, a subsequent Liberal government will overturn it. In the five minutes that remain to me, I will comment briefly on a couple of more technical aspects. As I have stated from the beginning, a rent tax applied to Bass Strait oil would necessarily, because of the imperative of Government revenues, have to be applied at a quite high rate and at a rate which yielded revenue at least equal to that which would have been yielded by the existing excise. Revenue neutrality in the first year under a rent tax or, alternatively, an excise system is maintained on projected production levels for a number of years but in about five years hence ceases to be revenue neutral because under the existing excise system fields would be declining through the progressive schedule that applies to the present excise whereas a rent tax would, barring only negative cash flows, continue to apply at a constant rate. In the Bass Strait situation and with the existing projected levels of production, revenue neutrality in the short term does not guarantee or even provide revenue neutrality in the longer term. The Government has proposed all along that coincidentally with the introduction of a rent tax the existing ad valorem royalty be abolished and that an exploration offset, more recently in the form of a subsidy, be offered. I want to comment on both of those things. I am a little surprised that at least so far industry reaction indicates that the industry places little importance on the provision of an exploration subsidy. That is demonstrated particularly in the published comments of Esso Australia Ltd, but by no means only Esso, and perhaps to a lesser extent from the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. I am surprised by that reaction because it does influence quite significantly the numerical model which the industry uses to develop its exploration programs. However, given that at least to this stage the industry reaction to an exploration subsidy seems to have been close to indifferent, it may well be worth putting to the industry a proposition that the alternatives would be a rent tax at a lower rate without an exploration subsidy or a rent tax at a higher rate with an exploration subsidy. The Government is currently considering that. In regard to the simultaneous abolition of the existing ad valorem royalty, it ought to be noted-I know this is known by industry but it is probably not appreciated by the general public-that in assessing the impact of a rent tax or a rent tax rate, an adjustment should be made for the abolition of the royalty. Depending on the particular production costs in various fields, that notional RRT rate should be adjusted downwards by at least 12 1/2 per cent and perhaps by as much as 20 per cent to gauge the real impact of such a tax compared to the existing arrangements. Senator Chaney —That is 20 per cent of the rate or by 20 per cent? Senator WALSH —It would be 20 per cent of the rate. I do not have time to explain all the reasons. As I said, it depends on the actual production costs within a particular field, the degree to which the payment of RRT as against an excise is delayed and a number of other factors. The bare minimum figure is 12 1 /2 per cent; it might rise later. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The discussion is concluded. Motion (by Senator Walsh) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(4.00) —On Tuesday this week I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health in the Senate, Senator Grimes, a question relating to the employment of private health fund employees by the Health Insurance Commission. Today, after Question Time, Senator Grimes provided an answer. As he gave the answer to the third question I realised something was wrong and I checked Tuesday's Hansard. I had not previously checked Tuesday's Hansard because I had written out the question and it is not my practice to check Hansard when I have given it something in writing. Unfortunately Hansard apparently had some problems with my writing, as indeed I do on occasions. My third question appears in Hansard as follows: How many of the now private health fund employees were recruited on a temporary contract basis and how many on a permanent basis? The question should read: 'How many of the non-private health fund employees were recruited on a temporary contract basis and how many on a permanent basis?' I think that makes rather a difference to the question. It shows that the answer that I received to the third question today is irrelevant. I have pointed this out to Senator Grimes, who has undertaken to get an answer to what the third question should have been. I raise it now simply to get the Hansard record straight. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.03) —In view of the extra few minutes that we have available, I raise a matter which has been brought to my notice by a constitutent concerning an approach by the Australian Bureau of Statistics to her, as a citizen, in relation to the household expenditure survey being conducted. I inform the Minister at the table, the Minister for Veteran's Affairs (Senator Gietzelt), that I have had several inquiries from constituents in the last few weeks about different aspects of the work of the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The first approach made to me was by an elderly patient, who was concerned about the impending visit of a collector. She was worried about admitting anyone to her home. It was possible to approach the Bureau, to get complete co-operation and to overcome that problem. The Bureau was able to offer me, through very helpful officers in Sydney, methods to overcome that problem. I am grateful for that. A constituent from the south coast who contacted me recently had another concern. She said that what is required of her in relation to this household expenditure survey is that, for a period of, I think, a fortnight, she is required to record all expenditures and also to answer a number of other questions about her financial commitments and obligations. She has two objections. One is a practical objection. Trying to cope with her financial obligations, she has two jobs. She and her husband simply do not have the time to carry out what she said is several hours of work each week to fill in the information required. Secondly she is concerned that her privacy is being invaded by some of the questions. For example, there are queries about the ways in which she has financed the purchase of her home and to whom she owes money. She believes that the question of to whom she owes money is a matter between her and the person from whom she has borrowed and is not a matter involving government. I hope that a reasonable approach can be worked out for the information to be gathered with the least concern being caused to the person. Unfortunately, she has tried to approach officers who have made contact with her through the Bureau of Statistics and has been told she must carry out what is required and that a sanction of $100 fine a day is what awaits her if she does not do what is required. It seems to me that we are in a bit of a dilemma. We need the information for purposes of national information gathering and for certain planning activities-I do not deny that, nor does she. We require the co-operation of citizens otherwise we cannot get the information. But there is an element in her complaint with which I have sympathy. She has personal problems in relation to her commitments of time. She does not have time to spend on herself. She does not know how she will find the time to fill in the forms. Also, she has very real concerns about the invasion of privacy in gathering some of the information required. I ask the Minister: Is it possible to approach the Bureau? I would act as an honest broker to try to make some contact with the person, but I really believe there is a way through this that would fall far short of having to invoke the penalty provisions of the Australian Bureau of Statistics Act in relation to this lady that would enable all sides to make an accommodation which would meet the needs of all concerned. I hope that we can find a resolution to this problem. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(4.07) —Senator Baume has raised a very important matter which, there is no doubt, requires some refinement. As he said, we need the information. It is important for government to have that information, as it is important for government to have the information obtained from the census when it comes around every few years. The difficulty of course is having working in the field people who appreciate the difficulties of individual households, as there are and individuals within households who may not be able to provide the information freely and fairly, without feeling thatthey are under duress, under threat of penalties and so on. I feel, as I am sure the Government would feel, that that situation ought not to arise. There is no intention to invade the privacy of individuals. Nevertheless, if we do not have the co-operation of individuals the survey loses a great deal of its purpose. We need universal information, but we need it to be given freely and consciously. If it is not provided in that way, clearly the survey will not produce the accurate results that we are looking for. I will certainly bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate Minister. I think the persons conducting the survey on behalf of the Commonwealth need to do so with a great deal of tact and understanding. If there is resistance, perhaps more time should be provided and more tolerance shown. To that extent I think the honourable senator has done the Government a service in bringing this matter to the attention of the Government. Whilst we rely upon a wide range of people to assist us in the collection of this information, we also need to rely upon the co-operation of citizens. That co-operation should be freely given. The value of their co-operation should be pointed out to them. A breakdown in communication is possibly a factor in the matter raised by Senator Baume. This matter probably comes under the jurisdiction of the Special Minister of State (Mr Young). I am not sure whether that is so; I am talking off the top of my head. Certainly the appropriate Minister will have Senator Baume's remarks drawn to his attention. I think we probably need to advise the persons working in the field to show tact and understanding in the way in which they deal with citizens so that the information will be forthcoming. It is vital information for government so that it can ascertain community needs and plan its future legislative programs in a way that is fair and equitable. I undertake to see that this matter is brought to the attention of the appropriate Minister. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 4.09 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 489) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 8 November 1983: (1) What is the anticipated timetable for the introduction of FM radio in Cairns and Mount Isa. (2) Will the Minister for Communications give an outline of the planning progress in regard to extending radio services by developing the second network in far north Queensland Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Australian Broadcasting Corporation FM radio service proposed for Cairns is being planned this year and should be operational during 1985-86. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation FM radio service proposed for Mount Isa will become operational later this year. (2) Preliminary work towards the second regional radio network has begun, but considerable detailed planning concerning frequency assignments, programing philosophy and facilities at national transmitting stations still needs to be done. The Government has authorised formation of a VHF task force which will concentrate upon the frequency planning problems and intends during this year to publish a Green Paper setting out its intentions regarding the second Australian Broadcasting Corporation regional radio network. Members of the public and interested parties will have the opportunity to comment on the preliminary planning before plans are finalised. (Question No. 518) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 29 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 Walsh —The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) There are only three committees which have been established since 5 March 1983 in which the Department participates, namely: (a) the Joint Department of Trade/Department of Transport Task Force on Shipping (b) State Advisory Committees on Australia/Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Trade (c) Australia/Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Working Group on Trade in Machinery and Equipment. (2) Three staff have been appointed to undertake new trade development activities in relation to Eastern Europe including the servicing of bodies (b) and (c). (Question No. 701) 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 article in the Australian Agricultural Reporter, volume 1, No. 3, in relation to the fishing industry in Tasmania and the granting of a fishing licence to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. (2) Is the Government considering granting a licence to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to fish waters off Tasmania. (3) Have talks taken place between the Department of Primary Industry and the Tasmanian Government on this issue. (4) What is the current state of development of this issue. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. The article contains a number of inaccuracies. (2) No. (3) The Commonwealth Government has not conducted any negotiations with Soviet interests for the exploitation of fisheries in the Australian fishing zone. Preliminary approaches have been put to the Commonwealth Government by two Australian firms regarding joint arrangements involving Soviet vessels operating in the Australian fishing zone. As is usual with fishing venture proposals the current, published, scientific assessment of our marine resources has been made available to and discussed with representatives of the respective firms and the Soviet Government. The Tasmanian Government and other relevant State Governments have been kept fully informed of these matters at all times. No foreign fishing in the Australian fishing zone will be countenanced where this would be detrimental to Australia's interests. The facts of the matter are set out in my press releases of 30 November, 5 December and 7 December 1983. (4) There have been no further developments in this matter since the issue of these press releases. (Question No. 713) Senator Coleman asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 8 March 1984: Has the Government given any consideration to include thorium, a nuclear fuel, in safeguards arrangements. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Monazite exported from Australia contains small quantities of thorium. Exports of monazite are currently taking place for the extraction of rare earths and, in some cases, thorium for non-nuclear industrial uses. Under existing arrangements , monazite exports are subject to approval by the Minister for Trade on a shipment-by-shipment basis to countries which have given assurances as to the non-nuclear end-use of the thorium contained in the monazite. The question of export of thorium or ores containing thorium (for example monazite) for nuclear end-use has not arisen to date. The Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC) Inquiry is currently examining a number of issues relating to Australia's role in the nuclear fuel cycle, including safeguards issues. In considering ASTEC's report the Government will be looking at the adequacy of the current arrangements relating to thorium. Senator Walsh —On 8 September 1983 (Hansard, page 528) Senator Macklin asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice: I refer the Minister representing the Treasurer to the fact that Australian wine is exempt from sales tax. Is the Minister aware that the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation has decided that wine produced from Australian tropical fruits is not exempt from sales tax? Can the Minister give any reason for such a decision? Will the Government support an amendment to the Sales Tax Act when it next comes before the Senate so that Australian tropical fruit wine can be placed on a par with grape wine. The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Commissioner of Taxation has advised that Australian wine is exempt from sales tax under sub-item 36 (4) in the First Schedule to the Sales Tax ( Exemptions and Classifications) Act. The term 'wine' is not defined in the sales tax law but the exemption has been interpreted by the Taxation Office for many years as applying only to wine derived from the fermented juice of grapes. Various beverages made from other fruits are often referred to as wine but prefixed by the name of the variety of fruit, for example tropical fruit wine, pear wine (commonly known as perry), apricot wine, blackberry wine and so on. Some varieties are not made from fruit, for example, honey wine (usually referred to as mead) and rice wine (known as saki). These beverages are taxable at the general rate of 20 per cent. (2) An amendment of the law would be necessary to exempt tropical fruit wines from sales tax. The Government is not able to give the assurance of support for such an amendment that is sought in the question. However, the matter will be reviewed in the context of the 1984-85 Budget deliberations.