Monday, 4 June 1984 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I inform the Senate that the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Trade and Acting Foreign Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) left Australia yesterday to visit China for further discussions on the iron and steel co-operation initiative and to open the inaugural Australia-China business forum. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is Acting Minister for Trade until Mr Bowen returns. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is Acting Foreign Minister until Mr Hayden returns. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Regulations and Ordinances: Availability of Publications and Video Materials To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That Regulations and an Ordinance now before the Parliament amend the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs (Cinematographic Films) Regulations and supersede the A.C.T. Objectionable Publications Ordinance in such a manner as to be harmful to society by removing from existing Commonwealth law- the power to prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography (e.g. X- rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; the power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications, including those associated with blasphemy; the power to require imported video tapes/discs for non-commercial use to be registered by the Film Censorship Board. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should disallow the new Regulations and Ordinance and ensure: that the Attorney-General enforce existing laws; that Censors more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes; that further measures to be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; and that, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Archer (from 23 citizens), Jack Evans (from 16 citizens), Harradine (from 162 citizens), Kilgariff (from nine citizens) and Walters (from 483 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. the Hawke Labor Government's retirement income policies are piece-meal, inconsistent and make no provision to encourage people to save towards their retirements; and 2. the Government's proposed assets test legislation is iniquitous and, if enacted, its effects would be discriminatory. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, urges the Government to: 1. scrap its proposed assets test legislation; 2. either institute a broad inquiry into Australia's retirement income and taxation systems or await the outcome of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare's work on this matter; and 3. following the report of such a wide inquiry, institute a retirement income policy which is fair and equitable, that encourages self-provision and which will be non-discriminatory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Messner (from 69 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1. The Watsonia Army Barracks contains electronic communication facilities, operated by Australian and American personnel, that gives the United States the ability to pin-point Soviet nuclear submarines, hidden in the oceans. 2. This would make it possible for U.S. killer-submarines to destroy all Soviet nuclear submarines, while the U.S. nuclear submarines launch their missiles in a 'first strike' attack. This makes Watsonia a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Watsonia would have a disastrous effect on Melbourne. 3. The 'joint U.S.-Australian' bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They also add a new menace to the nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should close the 'Joint Australian-U.S.' electronic communications facilities in the Watsonia Army Barracks. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Chipp (from 90 citizens) and Primmer (from 56 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 all members of the Women's Services 1939-45 War qualify as 'Australian Soldier' under the Defence Service Homes Act for Loans because on voluntarily joining the Australian Forces they took the oath to resist His Majesty's enemies making themselves available for combat duty in War Zones, and according to Acts and Regulations of the Period the Military women had enlisted for service anywhere, some Naval women to sail in any waters, with all servicewomen available for service in Papua New Guinea. As those members of the Royal Australian Navy, the Australian Imperial Force and the Royal Australian Air Force of 1939-45 War who were not sent to War Zones are granted loans, refusal to grant eligibility to all Ex-servicewomen of 1939- 45 War is unjust and unfair. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you amend the Defence Service Homes Act by repealing Sub-section 4 (2A) (b) (c) (d) of the Principal Act as amended by No. 137 of 1978, and grant eligibility to all members of the Women's Royal Australian Naval Service, the Australian Women's Army Service, the Women's Auxiliary Australian Airforce, the Australian Army Medical Women's Service, and the Voluntary Aid Detachment of 1939-45 War. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 21 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned teachers and students working and studying in TAFE colleges throughout Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We assert that TAFE, with over 1 million students, requires greatly improved resources if it is to continue to train Australia's skilled workforce effectively. 2. We call upon the Commonwealth Government to provide greatly increased funds to ensure that TAFE is accessible to all Australians, unlike the present time when thousands of people are turned away from TAFE colleges each year. 3. We urge the Commonwealth Government to equip TAFE workshops with the advanced technology used in modern Australian industries, and to expand TAFE's capital works program so that sufficient quality accommodation is available for TAFE teachers and students. 4. We ask that the Commonwealth Government greatly increase TAFE's recurrent expenditure, so that TAFE can respond quickly and flexibly to industry, Government and community demands. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 359 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that we believe that there are unresolved economic, social biological, genetic, environmental, technical and ethical problems associated with the mining of uranium and the development of nuclear power, in particular: (a) to the proven contribution of the nuclear power industry to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the increased risk of nuclear war; and (b) the absence of procedures for the storage and disposal of radioactive wastes to ensure that any danger posed by such wastes to human life and the environment is eliminated. Your petitioners most humbly pray that: (1) No new Uranium mines be commenced; (2) No new contracts for the sale of Uranium be approved; (3) Uranium mines presently in production cease with the fulfilment of current contracts; (4) No new Uranium is supplied to countries making or testing nuclear weapons. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Giles (from 21 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That governments have a responsibility to maintain standards acceptable to society's wishes. 2. It cannot be guaranteed that X rated video material will not be viewed by children. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should: Not adopt the X Classification for Films and Video Tapes, nor Category 2 for Printed Material. Further, that tighter restrictions be applied to R rated Films and Video Tapes and Category 1 Printed Material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 55 citizens). Petitions received. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate condemns the Government for its persecution of the elderly, invalids, widows, supporting parents, service pensioners and their families for the intrusion into their affairs by assets test inspectors from the Social Security Department both whilst they are well in their home, sick or infirm in old age homes and by investigations of their estates even after death. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the Federal Government's desire to deliberately destroy the cadet corps by scrapping funds as from 1 July 1984; (b) notes the Federal Government's ability to undermine the cadet corps which play an essential role in developing leadership qualities, character building and fellowship, as well as fostering national pride; and (c) condemns the Federal Government's contempt of opinion surveys in which the community indicated a 76 per cent support for cadet training for boys and a 56 per cent support for cadet training for girls. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate is of the opinion that in view of the fact that the proposed assets test will cost the Australian taxpayer an additional $30m in the first year the test should be dropped. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate condemns the Hawke socialist Government for its negligence and inability to maintain, in a time of falling commodity prices and massive internal Budget deficits, Australia's share of the market in our traditional overseas markets, and for an indolent disregard of the need to find compensatory markets for our rural and mining exports. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate condemns the Hawke socialist Government for bringing in a superannuation tax that now can be shown to be partly retrospective in nature, and the Senate congratulates the Airline Pilots Association for spearheading the attack against the superannuation tax, which will not apply only to pilots but to a great many other people as well. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate I incorporate the list in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research-Annual Report 1982 -83-Pursuant to Section 39 (3) of the ACIAR Act 1982. 2. Petroleum Products Pricing Authority-Final Report 1983-84-Pursuant to Section 48 of the Prices Surveillance Act 1983. 3. Australian Agricultural Council-resolutions- 118th Meeting held in Perth-6 February 1984. 4. Operations of the Registered Medical Benefits and Hospital Benefits Organizations-Annual Report 1982-83. 5. Future Relationship between the Government and Qantas Airways-and supporting papers-Text of a statement by the Minister for Aviation made in the House of Representatives on 31 May 1984. 6. Commonwealth Schools Commission-Report on Computer Education-Together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs relating to the report. 7. Canberra College of Advanced Education-Report of Council 1983 Part 1- Pursuant to Section 30 of the CCAE Act 1967-Together with the text of statement by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs relating to the report. 8. Curriculum Development Centre-Annual Report 1982-83-Pursuant to Section 40 of the CDC Act 1975-Together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs relating to the report. 9. Non-Government Schools (Loans Guarantee) Scheme-Annual Report 1983-Pursuant to Section 12 of the Non-Government Schools (Loans Guarantee) Act 1977-Together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs relating to the report. 10. Simultaneous Dissolution of the Senate and the House of Representatives 4 February 1983-Documents. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. I refer to Friday's announcement of the revised assets test and its reliance upon self-declaration of the value of assets, in particular household and personal effects. Will these declarations be subject to checking on either a random or systematic basis? If not, how can the Government be sure that cheating is not occurring? If it is subject to check, how many officers, and which departments, will be involved? Are penalties to be attached to the declarations to cover non- compliance or false returns? If so, what are they to be? Finally, how will pensioners who mistakenly incorrectly fill out such declarations be affected? Senator GRIMES —Yes, the new assets test does depend to a certain extent on self- declaration by pensioners. This Government, unlike Senator Messner, quite clearly believes the vast majority of pensioners and people in this country are, in fact, honest. Yes, there will be penalties for non-compliance. They are the same penalties which exist in the Social Security Act now. We will be introducing no new penalties. They are the same sorts of penalties which have existed in the Social Security Act since it and its predecessor, the Social Services Act, came into existence. Yes the method will be based largely on self- declaration. I ask Senator Messner to look at the papers and the statement which were produced on Friday. It will involve a value of $10,000 being put on the ordinary contents of a house. The vast majority of people with fewer assets in a house than that will not be close to the assets test limits and, therefore, will not be bothered by that factor at all. We have no intention of sending inspectors into houses to count people's personal effects, sheets, furniture, wedding rings or whatever. Valuations of property, where necessary and I point out that mostly it will be-- Senator Walters —How do you know it is necessary? Senator GRIMES —We can tell if it is necessary if someone, like Senator Walters, owned a block of land in Sandy Bay and put in a value of $2,000 on it. We might just check up on that. Such valuations will be done by valuers from the Australian Taxation Office. From memory the number that will be needed initially will be 80. Senator MESSNER —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The Minister did not address himself at all to the point about the pensioners who mistakenly and incorrectly fill out such forms. Senator GRIMES —Pensioners who mistakenly incorrectly fill out the forms- pensioners of all types and members of parliament of all types frequently mistakenly incorrectly fill out forms-will, of course, not be penalised, as they are not now; nor should they be. Senator JONES —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Health been drawn to Press reports that claim that the Federal Government has reduced funding to the national trachoma and eye health program? Can the Minister comment on the claims made in the reports that general funding for this program is to be reduced? Is there any truth in the claim that there will be a reduction in the $700,000 needed for the program? Senator GRIMES —Yes, my attention has been drawn to the claim that the Government has reduced funding on the national trachoma and eye health program. In fact a statement was put out by Mr J. Porter, who, as many honourable senators would be interested to know, is Opposition shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. His claims were quite misleading, despite the fact that on 30 April 1984 he was advised that the revised estimate for 1983-84 was $700,000. The appropriation for the national trachoma and eye health program in 1982-83 was $1.08m, not $1. 8m, as was claimed by Mr Porter. Against this, there was an expenditure, largely during the term of the previous Government, which amounted to $530,000. As at 30 April expenditure against the current appropriation for 1983-84 exceeded $539, 000. The reasons why the original appropriation will not be fully expended in 1983- 84 can be attributed to delays in developing alternative management arrangements for the NTEHP, consequent upon the withdrawal of the Royal Australian College of Ophthalmologists from this function, with effect from 31 December 1983, and varying Aboriginal approaches to this matter about which Senator Jones and other honourable senators from the north of Australia would know. Mr Porter's statement was incorrect, deliberately misleading and, I believe, demonstrably so to any fair-minded person who reads the estimates. Senator Chaney —I take a point of order. It is quite out of order for the Minister to say that Mr Porter was deliberately misleading. The Minister may wish to say that the statement was incorrect or inaccurate, but he is casting a reflection on a man who, I am sure, would not deliberately mislead anyone. The PRESIDENT —Under standing order 418, I ask the Minister to withdraw that statement. Senator GRIMES —Mr President, I will certainly withdraw, for peace. But if we are going to go on like this we will not be able to say anything. The PRESIDENT —Order! It has been constantly determined under standing order 418 that such terminology is a reflection on a member. Senator GRIMES —I withdraw. Senator ARCHER —My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Social Security, refers to the revised assets test and the exemptions in relation to pensioners owning farms. Is the area of curtilage or attached acreage to the home which will be exempted under the Government's proposal still to be subject to determination by valuers from the Australian Taxation Office? On what basis will such determinations be made and what criteria will be applied? Senator GRIMES —At the moment it is our intention that, where necessary, the area of curtilage will be determined by valuers. Decisions on the area of curtilage will depend on all sorts of factors in local areas, such as the size of the properties, the minimum size of subdivisions, and the nature of the farms. Any decisions will be subject to appeal, and this was not the case when the previous assets test applied in 1976. Farmers will have several means of approaching any problems they may have. We have always recognised that there was a special case for farmers. They will be able to use the appeals procedure. They will be able to use the hardship procedures. The few who may decide to do so will be able to take a lien out on their estate. I believe there is general recognition in the farming community that this Government recognises the special problems created for farmers by any such test. We will continue to recognise that and ensure that we do not cause any hardship in that area. Senator ROBERTSON —Can the Minister for Veterans' Affairs explain to the Senate how he arrived at the figure he gave in his answer to Senator Chaney's question without notice on 1 June when he said that 'anything up to about 5 per cent of the service pensioners will be affected by the assets test'? Senator GIETZELT —The answer I gave to Senator Chaney represents an estimate, and I believe it is a fairly accurate estimate, of the number of persons who will either have their pension reduced or lost entirely, depending upon whether they exceed the limits established in subsequent legislation. Outside the family home there are $100,000 in assets for a couple and $70,000 for a single person. That largely would be an estimate based upon the 350,000 persons who draw the service pension; that is, the veterans and in most cases their spouses. Whilst the figure that has been referred to in the Senate represents an estimate, we believe it will be fairly precisely met in the first year of operation, bearing in mind that it can rise subsequently because it is estimated that at least another 100,000 persons will come into the system in the next two or three years . Senator CHIPP —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs a question which concerns the disastrous result of the Austcare appeal in Queensland at the weekend when only $8,000 was raised out of an expected target of over $250,000. Does not Austcare help hungry and diseased people, mainly children, in overseas countries? Is it true that the reasons given to doorknock collectors for the low response indicated an anti-refugee feeling? Is the Minister aware that some person with a weird sense of morality returned an envelope containing three bullets with a note that said: 'This will fix three of them'? Because of this result, has the Minister any knowledge that Mr Michael Hodgman and others, who encouraged an anti-refugee feeling- Honourable senators interjecting- Senator CHIPP —If anyone wants to identify with Mr Hodgman, let him or her stand up. Some Opposition senators having stood- The PRESIDENT —Order! The House will come to order! Senator Chipp, I ask you to direct your question to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration without making any other comments. Senator CHIPP —For those who cannot see, only about one-third of the Opposition stood up. I repeat that part which I had said before I was interrupted. Because of this shocking result, has the Minister any knowledge that Mr Hodgman and others, who encouraged an anti-refugee feeling a few weeks ago- Senator Walters —Mr President, I raise a point of order. The honourable senator is using language denigrating a member in the other place, and I ask him to withdraw. The PRESIDENT —He has committed no breach of standing order 418 at present. Senator Missen —Mr President, I raise a point of order. As I understand it, questions are meant to deal with government administration. As much as we would like to see Mr Hodgman as part of government administration, that is something of the future. I ask that Senator Chipp confine himself to government administration and not ask that type of question. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator has not completed his question yet, and until he has I am unable to rule on that point of order. Senator CHIPP —I am asking the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs a question concerning the disastrous result of the doorknock appeal for Austcare in Queensland at the weekend. Because of this result has the Minister any knowledge that Mr Michael Hodgman and others, who encouraged an anti-refugee feeling a few weeks ago, are pleased with this response? Can the Minister give any other reason why such an appalling anti- Christian feeling should manifest itself in such a community? Senator Chaney —I take a point of order. Mr President, that question is most unfortunate. It is clearly completely out of order. I have heard Ministers of this Government refuse to give indications of their own opinions on matters. We now have a Minister being asked about the views of members of the Opposition. Senator Grimes —No, he has not. Senator Chaney —He is being asked whether a member of the Opposition is pleased about something. Quite frankly, Mr President, that turns this Question Time into an absolute farce. There can be no question of whether or not the state of mind, particularly of a member of the Opposition, can be known to a Minister. It certainly cannot be said to be a matter of his administration. I would ask you, in the interests of this Senate and the interests of Question Time having some point, to rule the question out of order. The PRESIDENT —The section of the question as to whether or not Mr Hodgman or anyone else is pleased with certain policies is completely out of order. I rule that section of the question out of order. So far as the rest of the question is concerned, I ask the Minister to relate it to his ministerial responsibility. Senator MacGibbon —I take a point of order. Mr President, under standing order 418, Senator Chipp has imputed improper and incorrect motives to Mr Hodgman. I ask you to debar the question on those grounds. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator GRIMES —Yes, I have noticed reports in the paper of the disastrous result of Austcare's refugee appeal which was conducted in Queensland on the weekend. While those results are disappointing, and I share Senator Chipp's disappointment in this respect, I would hope that we do not try to read too much into them, despite the comments of various collectors in that report. I hope that we would not interpret public response to one particular appeal for refugees as being a recognition of a waning of public support for refugees in this country, but it certainly must cause great worry to us all. I, like everyone else in this place, am disappointed at Mr Hodgman's attitude towards refugees, particularly in light of the fact- Senator Chaney —I take a point of order. Mr President, it is a matter of absolute record that the refugee program has had the support of the coalition at all times, both in government and in opposition. There has been nothing in the matters raised about the immigration program which has raised any challenge to that. Therefore, the Minister is entering into political debate which is not factually based. I would ask you to rule him out of order, sit him down or insist that he answer the question within his own portfolio responsibilites. The PRESIDENT —I ask the Minister not to get into those areas of the question that I had previously ruled out of order. Senator GRIMES —I am glad that Senator Chaney, representing the Opposition-and this is relevant to this question-says that the Opposition supports the refugee program, which, after all, has brought over half a million refugees to this country. There must be many hundreds of thousands of ex-refugees and descendants of refugees in this country. I note also that in response to Senator Chipp's request Senator Chaney did not rise but six members did, including Senator Lajovic, which I think is an extraordinary set of circumstances. Senator Chaney —I take a point of order. Mr President, the only reason I should rise in response to an invitation from Senator Chipp of the sort he issued would be to take a point of order. Perhaps I was at fault in not doing so at the time. This Question Time is again reduced to a farce if any individual senator can demand that honourable senators jump through hoops to indicate some particular view. Again, I suggest that the Minister is totally out of order in his response . I, for one, have no intention of having my attitudes indicated by whether or not I accept some invitation from Senator Chipp. Senator GRIMES —That means you should do so now. I point out-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Chaney has taken a point of order. I pointed out at the time that Senator Chipp invited certain people to stand that he was completely out of order and I ask the Minister to ignore that section of Senator Chipp's question. Senator GRIMES —I have no direct knowledge that the campaign waged in this Parliament a couple of weeks ago had the direct effect on the result of the collection in Queensland. I remind Senator Chipp that a similar campaign has been conducted by the Premier of Queensland for a much longer time. It is most disappointing in a country such as this, which has been so generous to refugees since the Second World War, that we should be having the sort of debate we are having-- Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order, Mr President. I take it that the meaning of the Minister's words is that the Premier of Queensland has waged a campaign against refugees. That is offensive to the Premier of Queensland; I believe it should be withdrawn. Senator Boswell —It is untrue. Senator Chaney —Of course it is untrue. The PRESIDENT —I suggest that the Minister confine his answer to that portion of the question asked by Senator Chipp that I ruled was in order. I request there be no general debate on the subject generally but that an answer be given to Senator Chipp's question. Senator GRIMES —As I said, I have no knowledge of any such direct effect. I would hope that if there is any such connection there will be sufficient publicity from both sides of this Parliament to counter any such effect in the future, and I hope that any appeals like this in the future are successful. I will ask the Minister for Immigration whether he has any further information of any such direct effects. I will give the answer to the honourable senator. Senator Chaney —I would like the Minister to table the paper from which he quoted. The PRESIDENT —The Minister has indicated that he is prepared to table the paper . Senator COOK —My question is addressed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I refer the Minister to comments that he made last Thursday, namely, that he expected to be able to table today both Dr Symonds's chronology of the British atomic tests program in Australia and the report of Professor Kerr's expert committee on the fallout consequences of those tests. I ask the Minister: Can he now advise the Senate more definitely of the likely timing of the tabling of those reports? Senator WALSH —There are no problems about tabling the report of Professor Kerr's committee, but I do not propose to do so today because I want to table the two reports together. I had stated earlier my intention to table both the reports today, but that would not be appropriate because some material which had been intended for inclusion in Dr Symonds's chronological summary has been derived from classified British documents which Australian officials were given access to earlier this year. The United Kingdom has objected to the inclusion of some of that material. Negotiations are continuing. The material in question is not the type which has any relevance to the health or safety of Australians, be they service personnel, civilian personnel or Aborigines who were in the area at the time. Senator SCOTT —My question is addressed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and it has some relevance to an earlier question today from Senator Robertson. I refer to the weekend Press reports of his statement that some 5,000 service pensioners would be affected by the revised assets test. Does the Minister recall telling the Senate on Friday that 5 per cent of service pensioners will be affected by the test? As the Minister mentioned in his second reading speech last week that there are 369,700 service pensioners, would not such a percentage represent not 5,000 but some 18,500? How does the Minister reconcile the two figures? Senator GIETZELT —As I indicated in reply to two previous questions on this matter, the figure was anything up to 5 per cent, which means it is only an estimate, and as the Government only finalised its decision on this matter on Friday it is possible that that figure may be exceeded. It will not be possible to make a precise estimate of whether the figures will be 16,000, 17,000 or 18, 000 until such time as the legislation is passed and until such time as we have the information and find out how many people will be caught in having assets above the limit under the proposed legislation. That is assuming, of course, that the legislation is passed by the Senate, which we hope it will be. In respect of the other figure that has been suggested, that is my personal estimation of the number of people who would lose their pensions. It was in that context of somewhere between 2 1/2 per cent and 3 per cent of the actual 200,000 veterans who are service pensioners that I made the estimate when I was asked the question about the number of people who would be affected. That is distinctly different from the figure of 350,000-odd service pension recipients to which Senator Scott referred. Senator McINTOSH —Can the Minister representing the Treasurer advise the Senate whether the Government is satisfied that its newly announced policy on the taxation of superannuation lump sums has settled the legitimate needs of employees with particular needs? Can the Minister say whether there are any circumstances under which this settlement might be disrupted? Senator WALSH —I am satisfied that the Government has taken account of the legitimate cases which have been put to it. While we are satisfied, recent reports indicate that some groups are still dissatisfied. Senator McIntosh asked whether, under any circumstances, disruptions could occur because of that. I think it is possible that that could happen. The Australian Federation of Air Pilots is one group which is continuing to complain. A few days ago I heard that it was threatening industrial action. I might add that the people concerned are highly paid and highly superannuated members of a highly protected industry and that one of the major firms in that industry was rescued last year from insolvency by a substantial cash transfusion from general taxpayers via the Government. I think something that ought to be borne in mind is that these people are not operating in the free market situation. That is something that would interest Senator Rae, among others. In relation to the question of disruption, I was amazed to hear Senator Townley , when giving a notice of motion this afternoon, inciting an airline strike and advocating industrial lawlessness, that is, the use of industrial muscle in an attempt to overturn decisions made by lawfully elected governments. I find it amazing and irresponsible that a member of the Liberal Party could adopt those tactics. I find it doubly amazing and irresponsible that a Tasmanian member of the Liberal Party, who purports to represent Tasmanians in this place, could incite industrial lawlessness in the way that Senator Townley did today. Let Tasmanians take note of this: Nobody will suffer as much from an airline strike, if there is one, as the Tasmanians whom Senator Townley purports to represent. If Senator Townley's incitement to industrial lawlessness and transport anarchy succeeds, I hope that if the electors of Tasmania have no air transport services they will take it out on him the next time there is an election. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania) —I claim to have been misrepresented. It is quite obvious from what the Minister for Resources and Energy said about me that he did not listen when I was giving the notice of motion. I suggest that he go away and read the notice of motion and then come back to the Senate and apologise after Question Time. Senator HAMER —I ask the Minister for Social Security: When will recruiting of staff to handle the new assets test commence? Can the Minister give an assurance that such recruitment will not commence before the passage of the legislation because that could result in waste, as did the $11m of taxpayers' money expended already on the first discredited and now abandoned version of the assets test? Senator GRIMES —I have no knowledge of the exact date when recruitment of staff will start. Already some staff have been recruited by the Department, as have some staff who were recruited to the Department on loan to other departments for the previous assets test. It is normal practice in our system of government, as it was normal practice for the previous Government, that in anticipation of legislation like this passing-I have no indication that it will not pass-the recruitment of staff occurs. I will get the exact details about when such staff may be recruited and get the information to the honourable senator. Senator CROWLEY —Has the Attorney- General seen the advertising material prepared as part of the campaign promoting marriage counselling organisations and funded by his Department? Is he aware that the publicity given this campaign both on television and in the Press, particularly in the Sydney Morning Herald and the Adelaide Advertiser last week, has led to some expressions of disquiet about the contents of the publicity material? Will the Minister elaborate on the campaign, say when it will be launched and state its general purpose and the contents of the advertising material? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have seen a number of Press references and heard some representations on the subject of the proposed advertising campaign on marriage counselling. I stress that it is not a government campaign as such, but it has been funded to the tune of $100,000 by the Government following representations made over many years by the 22 marriage counselling organisations which in respect of their ordinary activities are funded by the Government to the extent of $3.8m per annum. It was a matter of great disappointment to those organisations that they could not get a bean out of the previous Government for an advertising campaign of the kind they are now about to run. The present Government feels proud that it has been able to help those organisations in this way to promote a campaign with worthy objectives indeed. Those objectives are to draw to the attention of persons in the community other than the articulate middle class, who are perfectly able to help themselves in relation to helping organisations of this kind, the existence of these organisations which perform a most worthwhile job in helping to patch up shaky relationships and helping couples and their children avoid the kind of acute emotional trauma, not to mention the financial strain that is associated with the marriage breakup. Anything this campaign does to draw attention to those helping organisations will be greeted warmly by all honourable senators and indeed by all members of the community. I am a little disappointed that there has been some feeling, based on the summary of pictures and things which have appeared so far, that there is some sexist quality about the advertising campaign put together on behalf of the committee of marriage counselling organisations that are running the campaign. I am not sure that is an appropriate reaction to the material. The material I have seen graphically depicts a situation in which a mother has custody of a child, who is holding out his hand towards a father walking off to the left of the picture. Although that kind of material might in some circles be thought to be an approach to the marriage relationship which is sex biased in some way, it is clearly designed to point out, in a graphic and moving way, some of the implications in terms of shattered human relationships that are involved in marriage breakdowns. I am not sure whether it might not be possible to present that imagery in a way that did not give rise to concern on the part of some women and women's organisations, but that is a matter for the marriage counselling organisations. I am sure they have taken to heart the expressions of concern which they have already received. I am assured that the campaign is intended to be utterly value neutral as between men and women and certainly not in any way intended to suggest that a greater degree of blame for marriage breakdown is attributable to one side of the relationship than another. Indeed, any such suggestion would be counter-productive in this kind of campaign. The theme of the campaign is that those concerned should take advantage of the available advice before it is too late. That is a message which, if the marriage counselling organisations succeed in communicating it, will be worthwhile indeed . Senator CHANEY —I address a question to the Minister for Resources and Energy in view of the widespread concern at the imposition of an extra tax of 45 per cent on off-shore oil as a resource rent tax on profits above a threshold of the long term bond rate of 10 per cent. The concern arises from the high risk of off- shore oil exploration and the importance to Australia of maintaining a high level of self-sufficiency. Will the Government reconsider its proposals and withdraw them? If it will not withdraw its proposals for a resource rent tax, will it reconsider both the threshold and the rate, both of which pose real disincentives for further off-shore oil exploration? Senator WALSH —No, the Government will not withdraw the proposal. A Cabinet submission is currently being prepared. I cannot be sure whether a final decision will be made next week or the week after. Senator Chaney will get the details then. I know that Senator Chaney has been highly critical of this proposition. Not all of the industry has been critical of it. Some quite significant sections of the industry have been supportive. We all know what Senator Chaney would do. In a speech to the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association in Hobart on 10 April this year he said that his assessment of the case was that the Government was desperate for additional revenue and had decided to impose a resources rent tax. He said: In that theoretical situation- I interpolate that as being the perceived need of the Government for extra revenue- the method I would favour would be some additional excise on fuel products generally, with the second best option being a levy on new oil. I am grateful to Senate Chaney for having put on the record what a Liberal Government in which he was the Minister for Resources and Energy or its equivalent would do. He would not impose any rent tax or attempt to tax away any of the economic rent contained in Australian off-shore petroleum resources. He would jack up the price of petrol to the motorists. He would let big multinational oil companies keep a disproportionate share of the income that they gained from these fields while simultaneously jacking up the price of petrol for motorists. I hope that the electorate also is equally clear about what a Liberal Government with Senator Chaney as the Minister for Resources and Energy would do. In the same speech to APEA, Senator Chaney said that if an arrangement such as this was in place a subsequent Liberal Government-should there ever be one; heaven forbid-would not necessarily reverse that arrangement. The very next day his leader, pro tem, who was addressing the National Press Club was asked a question as to whether a Liberal government would abolish a resources rent tax and a levy on new oil. After consulting with the discredited former Treasurer who, as we all know, is an expert on matters numerical, although not necessarily forthcoming to the electorate about his findings on matters numerical, Mr Peacock said: 'Yes, yes'. That meant that a Liberal government would abolish an excise on new oil and any rent tax which the Labor Government would put in place . From that response we can get some idea as to what a future Liberal Government -should there ever be one-would do. It would abolish two probably quite significant sources of revenue and quite justifiable levels of taxation on Australian natural resources and slug the motorist an extra $500m to a billion dollars a year through increased petrol taxes. I am glad that has all been put on the record very clearly by Senator Chaney and Mr Peacock. As I said earlier, I expect the final details and the final decision to be made by Cabinet either next week or the week after. I ask Senator Chaney to be patient until that decision is made. Senator CHANEY —Since the Minister has seen fit to quote partially what I have had to say, I ask him a supplementary question. Does he agree that the need for additional taxes on the part of his Government arises from the fact that the rate of growth of government expenditure in real terms under Mr Hawke in his first year in government is four times as high as the average rate of growth of government expenditure under Mr Fraser? Senator WALSH —This Government has yet to complete one full fiscal year. It inherited, as we all know, a desperate financial situation from its predecessor, an impending Budget deficit of almost $10 billion. The discredited former Treasurer and the discredited former Prime Minister were telling the public only the week before the election that the impending deficit was $6 billion when in fact it was $10 billion. Therefore, this Government had a tremendous financial problem with which to deal. However, so far as the petroleum rent tax proposal is concerned, there is no possibility even under the most optimistic assessment that that could yield any government revenue for about three years. Thus the revenue yield from that tax in the immediate future is not one that is relevant. Senator ELSTOB —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. It refers to the recent report released by the Australian Medical Association which has highlighted disturbing trends in the area of teenage health. As the findings of this report were well highlighted some three years ago in the Department of Health report 'Health Needs of Adolescents', can the Minister advise whether the present Government has any specific plans to address substantially the health needs of young people? Senator GRIMES —I am afraid I am not aware of the specific report mentioned by Senator Elstob. I do remember a newspaper article referring to the New South Wales Branch of the Australian Medical Association having put out such a report but I do not personally recall its findings. I will seek the details from the Minister for Health and get Senator Elstob a complete answer. Senator JESSOP —Does the Minister for Resources and Energy recall statements made by Senator Mason in a Press release on 13 July 1983 which were re-stated at a peace rally in Adelaide recently by Dr Bill Caldicott and again by this person on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program Pressure Point on 17 May 1984 ? Is it a fact, as has been claimed, that spent fuel resulting from nuclear power generation in Finland based on uranium supplied by Australia has been reprocessed for the extraction of plutonium in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? I ask the Minister whether he is aware that Senator Mason said in his Press release: It has been clearly shown that Australian-mined uranium eventually winds up in Soviet and American nuclear arms and that the best way Australia can stop this madness is to immediately stop the mining, milling and export of Australian uranium. Australia already has contracts to supply uranium to other countries until 1996. These contracts include one with Finland on the basis of reprocessing our uranium in the USSR. I ask the Minister, in view of the unremitting nature of these statements: Firstly, which countries, if any, have reprocessed spent fuel originating from Australian uranium; secondly, under the requirements of article 7 of the agreement with Finland, has any written consent been given to that country to reprocess spent reactor fuel uranium originating from Australia; and, finally, if written consent has not been given what action is being taken by the Australian Government if in fact reprocessing is taking place? Senator WALSH —There were a large number of subsidiary matters in that question. I am not sure I can deal with all of them, but if I neglect to deal with some now I will get Senator Jessop an answer in writing at a later time. Firstly, I do not recall the statement made by Senator Mason in July last year, nor am I aware of it having been repeated by Dr Bill Caldicott on a couple of occasions recently. As to the question of whether Australian uranium has ever been reprocessed for the production of nuclear weapons, the answer to that is probably yes; that is, uranium supplied from Rum Jungle in the Northern Territory was, as I recall it, explicitly supplied to the United Kingdom for the production of plutonium and ultimately nuclear weapons. Certainly, as far as I am aware, no uranium supplied in recent times has been used for that purpose. The accountancy checks which operate would quickly detect the misuse for weapons purposes of any uranium supplied from Australia. It might be worth mentioning here-I will be brief-that if anybody were considering misusing Australian uranium supplied for use in a power reactor for the production of weapons it would be necessary for technical reasons to operate that reactor in a manner which was grossly inefficient in terms of the production of electricity, and also in a manner which would be quickly detected if it were so misused or misoperated. There are very fundamental technical reasons for that; that is, that plutonium 239, which is not the most fissile isotope of plutonium but is the isotope which is used in the production of plutonium bombs, is produced by the common uranium isotope 238 capturing an additional neutron. When fuel rods are left in a power reactor for a long period , the uranium 238, the common uranium in the fuel rods, becomes heavily contaminated by higher elements or isotopes of plutonium 240 and 241. Plutonium 240 is fissile but so unstable that it is unsuitable for the production of weapons or for inclusion in weapons in substantial quantities. Plutonium 241 is not fissile. If there are significant or substantial concentrations of plutonium 241 in plutonium 239 it is not technically possible to produce an efficient weapon from it. That is a very important technical point which is not disputed by anyone who knows anything about the subject, which has relevance to this debate and which ought to be more widely known. Some people, and I am talking about people who are technically competent to do so, will dispute whether it is even technically feasible to produce an explosive device from plutonium extracted from fuel rods irradiated in a power reactor operated for the optimum production of electricity. It is disputed whether it can be done at all. It is beyond dispute that an efficient atomic nuclear weapon cannot be made from that grade of plutonium. Senator SIBRAA —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is it a fact that Australia has recently been elected to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights? Is this election an indication that this Government's international human rights policies are receiving widespread international support? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is the case that Australia was elected on 23 May to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights for a three year term from 1985 to 1987. That 43-member body is the principal multilateral forum for consideration of human rights questions. The widespread support for Australia's election, which was by no means automatic and not a manifestation of some kind of international principle of Buggins' turn, reflects international recognition of the Government's commitment, as Senator Sibraa has said, to promoting human rights as an integral part of its foreign policy. It is worth saying a little more about this. Under both public and confidential procedures the Commission assesses situations of gross violation of human rights in countries as diverse as El Salvador, Chile, Iran, Southern Africa, Cambodia and Afghanistan. Moreover , unique procedures have been developed for addressing violations such as arbitrary or summary executions and disappearances. The Commission is also exploring new fields, such as the relationship between human rights and science and technology, the rights of indigenous populations and international protection for human rights activists. The Commission has also played a central role in drafting international legal instruments. For example, after several years of negotiations the Commission at its most recent session adopted a draft convention against torture which will be considered by the United Nations General Assembly later this year. The Government believes that the constructive and energetic approach to the work of the Commission will not only further Australia's international human rights objectives but also have an important role to play, notwithstanding the Opposition's approach to these matters, in strengthening human rights safeguards within Australia. Senator COLLARD —My question is to the Minister for Resources and Energy. What consultation took place between the departments of Resources and Energy and Aboriginal Affairs on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage ( Interim Protection) Bill 1984 prior to its discussion in Cabinet? Was the Department of Resources and Energy advised that more time would be given to discuss aspects of the proposed legislation? Does the Minister believe his Department has had sufficient time to consider the legislation and that there has been adequate consultation with the mining industry? Finally, has the Department of Resources and Energy made representations to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to have sections of the Bill amended? Senator WALSH —Senator Collard asked what consultation has taken place between the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Department of Resources and Energy. As is customary with submissions in which more than one department has a relevant interest, the submission was circulated to my Department, among others, and a co-ordinating comment was made on it, as I recall. However, I am not going to go into the details, nor should I, which Senator Collard has asked for because I regard the matter as background departmental work preparatory to the making of a Cabinet decision. Senator REYNOLDS —Is the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs aware that there has been a considerable time delay in implementing the Commonwealth School Commission's special education committee's recommendation on grants to provide funds to assist schools to develop mainstreaming programs to integrate disabled children into regular schools? Can the Minister investigate the procedures adopted to ensure that there is no further frustration for schools seeking vital continuity in their programs? In particular, will the Minister report on accusations that Queensland's funds allocated for this purpose may have been invested on the short term money market while the State and Federal authorities argued about certain aspects of the program? Senator RYAN —I am aware that there have been delays in the approval and payment of integration and other special education grants to non-government schools in Queensland, primarily because the funding allocations to various non-government elements of the special education program have not been finalised by agreement between the Commonwealth Schools Commission and the Queensland Department of Education. Funds for integration activities in regular non-government schools and grants to non-government special schools are made available under the Schools Commission's special education recurrent grants program. In Queensland the majority of these funds are claimed by the State Department of Education, as it meets the full operating costs of non-government special schools. An amount of funds, however, is reserved to provide assistance with special education initiatives, including integration, by regular non-government schools. This amount requires agreement between the Queensland Education Department and the Schools Commission. It is this need for negotiation that has caused delay. I expect that the approval and payment of grants will be finalised by the Schools Commission within four weeks. In addition, I am advised that the Queensland Department of Education and the Commission are planning to develop an agreed set of principles for the allocation of funds to the various non- government elements of the special education program so that delays will be avoided in future. I have no knowledge of the suggestion which Senator Reynolds made towards the end of her question that the money available for these programs has been invested by the Queensland Government on the short term money market. I will have to investigate that matter and inform Senator Reynolds accordingly. Senator KILGARIFF —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. What is the cost to the Australian taxpayer of the visit of Ms Petra Kelly to Australia? Has she been using the facilities provided by the Government 's hospitality to intervene in Australia's domestic affairs, particularly in regard to Aboriginal attitudes to the joint defence facility at Pine Gap? Was she accompanied by an officer of the Department of Foreign Affairs when she led a demonstration to the gates of that base? Senator BUTTON —I will direct that question to the Prime Minister and obtain an answer as soon as possible. Senator ZAKHAROV —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs read the recent article in the Age newspaper headed 'Birth customs lead to hospital problems'? Can he inform the Senate how the national program entitled 'Language of Childbirth' will help to overcome the problems experienced by many migrant women during pregnancy? Senator GRIMES —The article to which Senator Zakharov referred, which was published, I believe, in today's Age, referred to research conducted by the New South Wales Adult Migration Education Service which showed that non-English speaking women rarely, if ever, had any real information about hospital procedure because they had never received such information. They had very little information on the physiology of birth or mother care. Furthermore, the research showed that non-English speaking women had many problems in communicating with hospital staff their feelings and concerns and had great difficulty in asking questions about the situation they were in. One solution to this problem, we suggest, is the language of childbirth program which can be used in the ante-natal clinics and the post-natal clinics in a hospital. It comprises audio visual aids with recorded dialogues and accompanying slides. It has a student work book. It has dialogue strips, language exercises and information segments, cassette tapes and bilingual booklets containing important words and information segments. These are aimed to assist women to understand the sorts of instructions they get in hospital, to ask and answer questions, to state their preferences about various things, to express pain, worry and concern, to seek clarification on what is happening, to understand commonly used medical terms and also to understand some of the idiomatic speech which is used in hospitals, particularly in relation to pregnancy. The important aspect of the program is that it has been based on actual recorded conversations between pregnant women and medical staff. The program is funded by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and is currently being distributed in each State and Territory by the respective adult migration education services. It certainly should be one step in being instrumental in breaking down the communication barriers which exist between all types of migrant women and hospital staff during this very important phase in these women 's lives. I hope, and the Minister hopes, that such a program will go a long way towards overcoming the many difficulties that migrant women face in such circumstances. Senator MISSEN —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs to my letter of 23 May 1984 to the Acting Foreign Minister, Mr Lionel Bowen, in which I made serious allegations about the actions of the Department of Foreign Affairs and the advice apparently given by the Australian Government to the Papua New Guinea Government about the threatened forcible return of Melanesian refugees to Indonesia. I also refer to my speech on the adjournment on 31 May concerning these matters and other serious charges. I ask the Attorney -General: Firstly, why has no reply been received on these urgent human rights issues? Secondly, when will he reply? Thirdly, having been forewarned, why did he leave the Senate on 31 May while I was speaking on these matters, and why did he not reply to my allegations at that time? Senator GARETH EVANS —The primary reason why no reply has been received on the major matters raised by Senator Missen is that, in case Senator Missen has not been reading the papers or watching television recently, the Minister for Foreign Affairs is overseas, and it is not desired that a response be given on matters of potentially enormous sensitivity without involvement at the ministerial level rather than the representative level. I am sure, were Senator Missen ever to get within a bull's roar of being in government, he would understand the point that I am making. As to why I did not hear the whole of his speech the other night, the short answer is that I had other urgent things on my plate, as is again often the case with Ministers, and I cannot expect Senator Missen to appreciate this. His speech was being carefully noted. It was responded to with such information as I was able to give the duty Minister, Senator Ryan. I assure him that his words have not fallen on deaf or unappreciative ears. Beyond that, there is very little more that I can say except that the sensitivity and the importance of the issues that Senator Missen has been concerned to bring to our attention are fully acknowledged. I will make sure that I personally raise the matter with the Minister for Foreign Affairs as soon as he is back in the country. Senator MISSEN —I ask a supplementary question. I can quite understand the Attorney-General or the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs wanting to wait for the Foreign Minister to return, but if by waiting for the Minister's return some 6,000 refugees will be sent across the border and perhaps slaughtered or badly treated, would not that possiblity be a matter of more importance than the mere convenience of having a Minister in the country? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have nothing further to add to my previous reply. Senator COLSTON —My question to the Minister representing the Minister for Territories and Local Government relates to the tourist industry in the national capital, which depends not only on air and road transport but also on rail. Could the Minister advise what progress has been made in implementing the Government's tourism policy with respect to the upgrading of rail services to the Australian Capital Territory? Senator GIETZELT —The question of tourism is a very important matter for the Australian Capital Territory and is one that has been very much activated since this Government came to power. Rail services to and from Canberra have been a matter of continuing concern to the Government. We do not necessarily have to look at tourism only from the point of view of aircraft. The Australian Labor Party's tourism policy clearly expresses the view that there should be an upgrading of rail services into the Australian Capital Territory. To that extent consultations have begun with the New South Wales Government. I understand that on 17 January this year the Prime Minister wrote to the New South Wales Premier proposing negotiations between the Commonwealth and State Ministers-that is, between Mr Uren who is the Minister for Local Government and Territories, Mr Morris and the relevant Minister in New South Wales, who at that stage was Mr Cox-with a view to improving the rail services. Of course there has been an election in New South Wales since then and Mr Unsworth is now the Minister for Transport. Negotiations in this matter have had to be recommenced as a result of the change in the ministerial position in New South Wales. These negotiations will encompass both the possible transfer of the Australian Capital Territory railway to the State Rail Authority of New South Wales and measures to ensure adequate rail services to Canberra. Depending upon the recommencement of those negotiations it is the Commonwealth Government's hope that there will be an improvement in the rail services in and out of Canberra. Senator JACK EVANS —My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security . Under the new assets test legislation and the proposed lump sum superannuation legislation, will people drawing annuities be disadvantaged either through having the capital proportion of their annuity made taxable or through having this capital proportion of the annuity regarded as income, which would reduce their social welfare payments? Senator GRIMES —As Senator Evans will remember, under the previous assets test legislation people in this situation were given a choice because, first of all, we did not want to disadvantage people, and secondly, as Senator Evans would also know, we wanted to encourage people to provide for their retirement by investing in annuities which could be rolled over into weekly payments rather than taken as lump sums. As the existing assets test proposals are somewhat different, although not that different to the previous legislation, that matter is under immediate consideration. I will let the honourable senator know as soon as we have made a decision about that. Senator GRIMES —Earlier in Question Time Senator Elstob asked me about a report from the Australian Medical Association on the health problems of young people. That report was highlighted in the Department of Health's report 'Health Needs of Adolescents'. He asked what action the Government would take about the health problems of young people. The Minister for Health has given me the following response: The AMA report highlights the health problems of young people and reinforces the finding of the Department's earlier report. The Government has undertaken a number of initiatives on youth health: For instance, the engagement of research consultants to investigate the health problems of unemployed youth-the consultants' report is expected to be available shortly; sponsorship of a communication workshop which is aimed to help overcome the serious communication gap between young people and health service providers; a grant of $2,000 to the AMA for production of a booklet 'Student Body' and a grant of $65,100 to the Wayside Chapel, Sydney, for a network of health education centres; and approval by the National Health and Medical Research Council for $50,000 for a pilot study on a national dietary study of Australian school children. The Government is concerned about the number of unwanted pregnancies among adolescents, and through the family planning program is supporting the activities of family planning associations which are paying increasing attention to the needs of adolescents in this area. The Department is also co-operating with the Office of Youth Affairs and the Youth Affairs Council of Australia in developing a comprehensive health policy for young people in Australia. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —I seek leave to make a brief statement in relation to a certain question asked of me in the debate on coastal surveillance in the Senate on 10 May. Leave granted. Senator GIETZELT —Senator Peter Rae asked me on 10 May 1984 to refer the proceedings of the debate on the report of the Review of Australia's Peace Time Coastal Surveillance and Protection Arrangements to the Minister for Transport ( Mr Peter Morris) with a request that a reply be given to the Senate on matters raised. The Minister for Transport has provided a reply to the honourable senator's question. If it pleases the Senate, I seek leave to incorporate the reply in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Why was the contract for aerial surveillance of the Great Barrier Reef taken from AireSearch Pty Ltd? Answer-The contract was not taken from AireSearch Pty Ltd. The contract that company held expired on 30 April 1984 after having been extended on several occasions. Why was the contract awarded to Skywest Airlines Pty Ltd without tenders being called and no specifications being given? Answer-Skywest Airlines Pty Ltd (and the firm it subsequently acquired, H. C. Sleigh Aviation Ltd) won the three-year contract it holds with the Commonwealth in open competitive bidding. It won that contract in 1982. The resources from Skywest available to the Government were redeployed under the terms of the contract, taking into account the Department of Health assessment of the reduced level of coverage required for littoral surveillance. The contract provided for redeployment and other variations required by the Commonwealth. Considerable additional detailed information has been provided by the Department of Transport to officers of the Department of Special Minister of State in response to questions asked by members of Senate Estimates Committee E. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —by leave-During Question Time in response to an unfounded and inaccurate retort from Senator Chipp, I stood to support the Opposition shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr Hodgman. However, I wish to make it perfectly clear that I reject the imputation placed on that support by Senator Chipp. Indeed, I am proud of the record of the Liberal Party in relation to refugees and our immigration program. But I totally deplore the intemperate outburst by Senator Chipp that Mr Hodgman encouraged an anti-refugee attitude in Australia-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Watson, you sought leave and received permission to make a personal explanation. You cannot digress on the behaviour of others in making your personal explanation. You must stick to your personal explanation. Senator WATSON —Mr Deputy President, action to disallow that section of the question was to be commended. The Senate of late has been subject all too frequently-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Watson, you did not listen to what I said. You must make a personal explanation of how you have been personally affected. A general debate is not permissible under Standing Orders. Senator WATSON —I believe that in this debate Senator Chipp has mischievously-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Watson, this is totally out of order. You cannot continue to pursue this line. You may make a personal explanation but you cannot debate the behaviour of Senator Chipp. Senator WATSON —I believe that my position in this debate has been misconstrued by Senator Chipp and I wish to state that I deplore the action that he took. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(3.13) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I am a great supporter of the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research and of the interests behind the projects undertaken by this organisation. Contrary to so many departments, organisations and bureaus of various sorts the Centre is in fact trying to help the developing countries in areas where they need help most. The aim of the Centre is to try to make a greater number of Third World countries more independent. I believe that this is a very worthwhile aim. I notice that the report states: ACIAR's approach thus far has been to help solve problems while at the same time improving the research capacity of collaborating institutions in both Australia and developing countries. Its ultimate objective is to improve the stability and productivity of the agricultural sector in developing countries and thus to contribute to their economic development and the well-being of their people. I think this is a very worthwhile objective. I think we would agree that the Centre has undertaken very worthwhile projects. The report lists four projects, one of which is referred to as the venerable pigeon pea project. The venerable pigeon pea is something that has been in existence for about the last 4,000 years and is still very much a staple diet for a whole lot of people and will grow in all sorts of very inhospitable climates. The extension of its production is very worthwhile. In the plant area, the identification and elimination of viruses is most important. Much work is being done now by Australian scientists in conjunction with scientists of other countries to try to eliminate problems in this area. Another area of study is the recycling of waste and the investigation into how to reduce post-harvest losses. On that subject, it is most unfortunate that in many countries which suffer great food shortages so much food is produced which by waste, poor handling or vermin never gets to feed the people for whom it is intended. Australia is now working in the ACIAR with a view to assisting developing countries to cope with these problems. I do hope that the organisation will remain in a debureaucratised form and I hope that we will be able to ensure that it does not get into the hands of just government departments. I believe that the Committee, in the form that it is now determined, is particularly good and I believe that under the chairmanship of Sir John Crawford it will be maintained in a commonsense way for the benefit of the people it was intended to serve and in the manner it was originally set up. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.16) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This is the final report of the Petroleum Products Pricing Authority which was replaced because the Government instituted a prices surveillance authority following the National Economic Summit Conference of April 1983. I wish to use the occasion of our receiving this report to again draw the Government's attention to the very real difficulties that are being imposed on industry by the system of petroleum products pricing which applies. Perhaps I could correct that by saying it is not so much a system but systems. We have a duality of price control in petroleum products which is inefficient and which is certainly having undesirable effects which need urgent attention from the Government. This is a matter which the Government has under consideration and I urge it to adopt a fairer and more rational approach to this important area. The fundamental difficulties which arise have occurred because of the politics of pricing. Earlier today we heard Senator Walsh in full flight criticising some comments of mine on the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association and saying that I am an advocate of more expensive petrol for the motorist. That is a nice political point to make. But when State governments enter into this area of price control of petroleum products and for political purposes impose further restrictions on price over and above the restrictions that are imposed by the Commonwealth Government, the oil companies are put in a most difficult situation . Recently I have looked at some of the submissions from the oil companies to the Government, which are now public. They point out very clearly that we have here an industry where there is a great deal of competition between suppliers and price surveillance is less necessary-if it is ever necessary-because of that great competition. The industry is suffering a very severe profit squeeze. Many petroleum distributors have been announcing substantial losses and some are going out of business. There is a rationalisation going on and the number of distributors is decreasing. I believe we are getting to the point of diminishing returns and as a matter of urgency the Government needs to examine this area and come up with an answer that will be commercially reasonable. I am aware that the Government is likely to say that any questioning of the petroleum pricing arrangements is an attack on the consumer and is a desire to see the consumer knocked to the detriment of the oil companies. That is a very silly approach in a circumstance where clearly many of the oil companies are losing money and where the number of people in the field available to service the customer is declining. It is interesting to see from one of the submissions that between January 1980 and March 1984 one company's general cost component was increased by 1.9c per litre. That is, the cost allowable to the company was increased by 1.9c per litre. During the same time government charges increased by 17c per litre. We have a situation where there is a very fine profit margin for companies; where there is a very competitive market, which means there is price competition, and all honourable senators would be familiar with the kind of price competition that exists at different times in different cities; and where the market is being very severely and improperly restricted by the Government to the ultimate detriment of consumers. I have requested the Government to examine this area. Given that it has undertaken an examination, I request it to examine the matter speedily and to move away from a situation in which there are competitive price fixing mechanisms at both the State and Commonwealth level. That is wasteful. It leads to simply playing politics with the industry in a way which I think is now beginning to bite and which is probably affecting employment in the industry, with some facilities being closed down and some companies going out of business in Australia. I really believe that we have reached the stage where the arrangements are so clearly counter-productive as to be in urgent need of review . I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(3.22) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The 118th meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council did not provide great amounts of good news for the rural community. The agenda comprised 38 different items, 12 related to marketing and seven related to disease and conservation measures. There are enormous stresses on the traditional agricultural pursuits of Australia at present. Now, more than ever, we have a situation in which the prices that we obtain are determined on the world markets while the costs are determined by Australian social conditions, and the two things just do not match . Australia has an enormous food production capacity. However, it is the distribution that is the problem. More than half of the total time taken at the Agricultural Council was spent in discussing that matter. It is not that there are not people who need food, but that the food needers of the world do not have the money to pay for it. That is an appalling situation at a time like this. Australia has a tremendous cost disadavantage. Not only are our social conditions necessitating payment of higher wages, but also the hours we work, the systems that we use, the transport costs and so on are absolutely exorbitant by world standards, to say nothing of the fact that we have regrettably developed a reputation overseas as being pretty unrealiable in our deliveries. The problems we suffer are not only with the European Economic Community or because of our closer economic relations with New Zealand. As I look down the agenda items I see that the discussions centres around dried vine fruits, canned deciduous fruits, horticultural crops, livestock, meat, dairying, eggs, tobacco and cotton-and the Council did not get on to subjects such as sugar, apples and so on. Australia has a capacity to produce considerably more food than it is now producing. However, that capacity is being stifled by the unrealistic costs of production which are totally outside the jurisdiction and capacity of the production sector to deal with. I have come to the conclusion that the Australian agricultural industry is certainly not healthy in the long term. There is considerably more choice in the market place now than there has been previously. More countries are producing agricultural surpluses and more political actions are being taken to see that these surpluses get on the market at prices which are more competitive than Australia's, because we do not support the export prices of our products. All our products are subject to domestic cost pressure. That has to be overcome before we will be able to do better. Present and future Australian governments will have to determine what their attitude is to the position of the exporting industries in relation to domestic industries. While I am satisfied that produce that is grown, bred or made in Australia for the Australian market is able to contend with Australian costs, what goes on to the world market certainly is not . One has only to consider that in industries such as the building industry, in health, education or government operation, there is no international competition and cost does not matter. They are all free of competition and that fact goes a long way towards seeing that they eliminate those industries that do have to face competition. I trust that this will be one of the matters that will be dealt with at the next meeting of the Agricultural Council. I wish that Council the best of luck, but I cannot see the 119th meeting producing more good news than did the 118th meeting. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.26) —I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. I wish to make a few comments on the statement made by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) and the Government's response to the report of the Commonwealth Schools Commission on the working party on computer education. It is clear from the Government's response that the Commonwealth commitment to computer education is cosmetic, inadequate and less than was promised by the Australian Labor Party before it came to power. They are three serious charges, but are borne out by an examination of the responses of the Minister to the various recommendations brought down by the working party. First, the Government has promised only $18m for computer education over a triennium. This is only part of what the Government promised the Australian people. The losers will be children throughout Australia. Children will suffer because this Government, having promised the bait, failed to deliver when the time came. It is only part of what the Government promised, it is only a third of what we promised, and only a quarter of what the Commonwealth Schools Commission recommended was necessary to give Australian children an adequate computer education. Although what the Liberal Party and the National Party promised is a little less than recommended by the Commonwealth Schools Commission, it is much closer. The allocation of $18m will not do the job. The Government's response tabled by the Minister bears that out. I refer honourable senators to the response to recommendation (29). That recommendation the Commonwealth Schools Commission asks as a matter of urgency to establish certain mechanisms. It describes three things it has to do relating to the development of softwear and coursewear; it allows for the marketing of such softwear, and assessment of its use. I emphasise that those are recommended as a matter of urgency. The recommendation was endorsed by the Commonwealth Schools Commission in the report that the Senate is now considering. But the Government's response to this recommendation of urgency is to accept the recommendation, provided that the Schools Commission can find the money somewhere else. The Government has made it clear that it will not put up any cash to allow the children of Australia access to softwear for computer education. The words of the Government response are as follows: Accepted, subject to funds being available from existing sources and advice from the Curriculum Development Centre. That is another way of saying 'We think it is a good idea, but there is no money for it'. What is likely to happen is that the Government will close the door on the development of softwear and coursewear which are essential to any kind of effective computer program. Second, I draw attention to recommendation (4) of the working party, which I submit is a sound and sensible recommendation. In effect, that recommendation says that there is a need to ensure that both primary school children and secondry school children throughout Australia should have access to and the benefit of computer education. The Government's response and the Minister's statement make it quite clear that the Government intends to concentrate on secondary school children at present; that is an inadequate response and a direct consequence of the failure to put up the resouces to make computer education properly available. We have been concerned throughout that this Government has been just playing with computer education and made a cosmetic response, inadequate in amount. Not only that, if the Goverment has a commitment to the needs of Australian children in all schools, the distribution of money between various school systems, between government and non-government systems, is clearly inequitable, as is the distribution of the money between secondary and primary schools. It means that a generation of primary school children who could have expected access to computer education will not receive it under this totally inadequate response by a government which does not really care, but just indulges in rhetoric. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(3.32) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I wish to refer to two parts of the report, those dealt with on pages 2 and 6. In the five minutes allocated to me to speak to this report it is not possible to go further than that or to deal with either matter in detail. One matter is that the Canberra College of Advanced Education Council was advised earlier this year that Dr Sam Richardson will retire later this year. On another occasion I will take the opportunity to speak about the contribution of Dr Richardson as the founding Principal of the College. Without the vision and leadership of Dr Richardson I do not think that the college would have achieved the status it has today, that of a college of national esteem. Many parts of the report establish the influence that Dr Richardson has had. I point to the relevance of the courses as seen in surveys as to the number of graduate students who have obtained employment; the college's overseas contacts; the work it does for government; the fact that it is now being used as a model for Australia in the assessment and training of handicapped people; and the many other areas one could go into. The college is used to a large extent by the Commonwealth Public Service for the development of special courses for departments. Many of its near 6,000 students are part time students. Some students are from the Australian Capital Territory, but a very high proportion are students who have come to this college from other parts of Australia. In a sense, that brings me to the second point that I wish to raise, that is, the report of the Task Force on Implementation of ACT Self Government. The report refers to the future of the CCAE, which now reports to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, and the Australian National University. With respect to the Australian National University, paragraph 12.20 of the report says: The Australian National University under its Act has dual functions. It has a national role in relation to 'post graduate research and study, both generally and in relation to subjects of national importance to Australia' which is performed through its Institute of Advanced Studies. It also has a local role. The Faculties of the University have a similar role as a State university. The majority of ANU students come from the ACT and surrounding region. I am not suggesting that the ANU should be included in self-government proposals . I recognise that in other States the colleges of advanced education and the universities are similarly administered. That is why I wonder why it is that the Task Force has come to the view that the CCAE should be part of the self- government of the ACT and the ANU should not. In the chapter headed 'Functions to be Transferred' it is said that the CCAE is: . . . responsible for the provision of education and training in departments such as science and technology, art, administration, commerce and other fields of knowledge or the application of knowledge and in particular education training appropriate to professional and other groups requiring advanced education; it is solely an ACT function. I wonder, if the Task Force really went into the role of the ANU and what it does, how it could have come to that conclusion. In many respects, apart from the Institute of Advanced Studies at the ANU, the same things could be said about the college and the ANU. What I am really saying with respect to the future of the CCAE is that I understand that the college was not consulted by the Task Force. How is it that this conclusion could have been reached? I think it is a matter that needs to be reviewed to find out what is best for the college. Can we be assured that the national status that it had acquired will be continued, or is it to be reduced to merely an ACT institution? If that is the case, the college will not be able to fulfil the functions that it now performs. From a funding point of view it is, of course, very important indeed. It is an area of the Task Force report that needs to be examined again and examined most closely and thoroughly. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.35) —I support my colleague Senator Margaret Reid, senator for the Australian Capital Territory, on the motion she has moved to take note of the annual report of the Canberra College of Advanced Education. I had cause here last week to draw attention to a problem which had occurred on campus at the CCAE last year and which we raised during the Estimates committee hearings. The problem was that a student had complained that his or her assessment had been on grounds other than academic merit, that some other influence had come to bear. I just placed on record my appreciation of the answer we received from the Canberra College of Advanced Education. It acknowledged and admitted that a complaint had been made and that the student had complained in these terms. It advised that it had resolved the complaint. I must compliment the college on its openness on the measures it has taken to try to ensure that student assessments on this campus-as, I hope, is the case on every other campus throughout Australia-will be on the grounds of academic merit alone. I can think of nothing more serious than that anything should occur in our tertiary institutions to affect that kind of assessment. On page 6 of the report there is mention of the impending retirement of Dr Sam Richardson. It is a matter of slight regret that the tabling statement of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) made no mention of the retirement of this remarkable man. I hope that it indicates no lack of appreciation by the Minister of the contributions Dr Richardson has made. Senator Reid has already referred to Dr Sam Richardson, but I would like to add my words to hers. I was for a while Minister for Education and had occasion to work with Dr Richardson as I did with other directors of colleges and with vice- chancellors. Dr Richardson stands out as one of the great administrators on campuses in Australia. He is one of the great principals and his retirement from the CCAE will, in fact, be an event of great significance for that organisation. Dr Parfitt, who replaces him, will have an awesome task. I wish the new principal well. The principal, Dr Sam Richardson, who will be retiring, is a man of vision, skill, foresight, great leadership and dignity. His contribution to this college is one that will be long remembered. I assure Dr Richardson that he will take with him the good wishes of many people who have been Ministers for Education, of many who have worked with him on the college and of many who have worked with him within the Commonwealth bureaucracy. I hope that the college will take appropriate steps to ensure that the work he has done is duly honoured and duly recognised. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.39) —If nobody else is about to move that these papers be taken note of, I will. I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. The documents that we have before us are indeed historical documents. We should note the documents because only a fool ignores the lessons of history. The documents detail the correspondence between the then Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, and the Governor-General in which the then Prime Minister sought a double dissolution of the Houses of Parliament. They set out the reasons advanced by the then Prime Minister for a double dissolution of Parliament. Can anyone listening to this debate remember the grounds for the double dissolution? I guarantee that very few people listening to the debate would remember the grounds for the double dissolution. They are set out in these documents. The then Prime Minister said to the Governor-General that the Senate had rejected or failed to pass 13 Bills. Those Bills are enumerated. Do honourable senators remember them? They were the sales tax Bills Nos 1A to 9A and four other Bills-the Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill, the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill, the Australian National University (Amendment Bill) and the Social Services Amendment Bill. Were they matters of great import to the electorate at the time of the last election, in 1983? Of course not. I doubt whether they were even mentioned during the run-up to the election but they triggered the section 57 requirement so as to enable the then Prime Minister to call a premature election. The then Prime Minister then made this statement on 3 February 1983, as contained on page 41 of these documents: Clearly there is a need for the Government, in the critical period we face, to have decisive control over both Houses of Parliament. Not only did he not achieve that but also he lost his majority in the House of Representatives. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! The time for consideration of reports has expired. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria) —by leave-I table the Hansard record of the proceedings of Estimates Committee A. Senator PRIMMER(Victoria) —I table additional information received by Estimates Committee C and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gietzelt) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of all or several of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of all or several of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. First Readings Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(3.44) —I move: That the Bills be now read a first time. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. 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 Gietzelt) read a first time. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(3.46) —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- Following the handing down of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission's decision in the April 1984 National Wage Case, the Remuneration Tribunal has issued reports and determinations in respect of offices within its jurisdiction. On 5 April the Tribunal recommended, and determined, for offices within its jurisdiction, salary increases of 4.1 per cent and increases in expenses of office allowances, electorate allowances and other allowances apart from travelling allowances of around 15 per cent. The Government takes the view that national wage case decisions should be applied consistently, and supports the Tribunal's decision to increase salaries by the recent 4.1 per cent national wage increase. The increase of approximately 15 per cent in allowances, however, is not supported by the Government. It considers that it would be appropriate to limit the increase to that which would flow from the two national wage case decisions which have been handed down since the end of the salaries and wages pause-that is, about 8.6 per cent. Details of the Tribunal's findings are contained in its reports and determinations of April 1984 which have been presented to the parliament. The purpose of this Bill is to vary the rates of expenses of office allowance and electorate allowance determined by the Tribunal; to implement the Tribunal's recommendations with respect to the salaries of the judiciary and the offices of President and Member of the Inter-state Commission, while providing an 8.6 per cent increase in expenses of office allowance; and to increase the maximum annual sum payable for the salaries of Ministers of State. Part III prescribes rates of expenses of office allowance, electorate allowance and other allowances apart from travelling allowance in accordance with the Government's decision to modify the tribunal's determinations. The cost of the 8 .6 per cent increase in allowances will be of the order of $84,000 in 1983-84 and $340,000 in a full year. The constitution provides that the remuneration of members of the judiciary and the president and members of the inter-state commission shall be such as the parliament may fix. Part II of the Bill amends the schedule to the remuneration and allowances act to implement the increased rates of salary contained in the tribunal's reports numbers 2 and 3, and to increase expenses of office allowances by 8.6 per cent. Clause 15 of the Bill amends the Inter-state Commission Act 1975 so that the rates of remuneration for the president and members of the commission may be included in the remuneration and allowances act and amended by the parliament in the same way as those for judicial officeholders are amended. Clause 15 also passes on to the President and members an increase based on the tribunal's recommendations accepted by the Government in November 1983. The additional cost of salary increases for these officeholders is of the order of $70,000 for 1983-84 and $270,000 in a full year. The cost of increases in expenses of office allowance is of the order of $9,000 for 1983-84 and $33,000 for a full year. Section 66 of the constitution prescribes, subject to the parliament otherwise providing, a maximum annual sum for the payment of salaries of ministers. Part IV of the Bill amends the ministers of state act to increase the annual sum from $590,000 to $610,000, to cover the 4.1 per cent salary increase recommended by the tribunal in report number 1 of 1984. The date of effect for these amendments is the date recommended by the tribunal , that is, the first pay period commencing on or after 6 April 1984. The Bill also makes a number of amendments to the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973. The most significant of these is an amendment to require the tribunal when making future reports and determinations, to have regard to the principles of wage fixation established by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on 23 September 1983, and to national wage case decisions handed down by the commission from time to time. An amendment is also proposed to enable the tribunal to determine that the remuneration of public officeholders should move automatically with the remuneration of an office determined by some other Commonwealth tribunal or authority. This would allow the tribunal to determine, for example, that the remuneration of the less senior public officeholder group move automatically with its counterparts in the second and third divisions of the Australian Public Service. On two occasions in the past, these salaries have moved out of alignment. Finally, two minor amendments are proposed. The first of these removes the tribunal's power to inquire into, and report on, the remuneration of judges of the supreme court of the Northern Territory. Executive authority in respect of the administration of the court was transferred to the Northern Territory Government in 1979. That Government has now advised that its own remuneration tribunal, established in 1981, has been asked to report to the administrator on the remuneration of judges of the Supreme Court. The second amendment is one to bring the provisions relating to membership of the tribunal into line with other statutory bodies, by providing that a member holds office for a period which does not exceed five years. Further information on the clauses of the Bill is contained in the explanatory memorandum which is being circulated to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(3.48) —by leave-I move: That the terms of reference of the Committee on Volatile Substance Fumes as contained in the resolution of the Senate of 10 May 1984 be varied as follows: (1) Paragraph (8), leave out 'and any sub-committee'. (2) Paragraph (9), leave out the paragraph. (3) Paragraph (12), leave out '5 June 1984', insert '1 June 1985'. Briefly, the first two variations are to remove provisions for the establishment of sub-committees. As there are only four members of the Committee it is considered there will not be any need for sub-committees. The third variation will give the Committee up to one year to report. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to copyright. Bill presented, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(3.49) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. It is a long second reading speech and I seek to read only the first three pages of my speech to explain what I am doing and thereafter I will seek leave for incorporation. The purpose of the Bill which I am introducing today is to amend the Copyright Act 1968 to protect computer software as a literary work and to clarify the nature and scope of that protection. These measures were foreshadowed in a joint Press statement which I issued with the Minister for Industry and Commerce ( Senator Button) and the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) on 15 May 1984. We announced then that the Government had decided that the state of uncertainty regarding the legal protection of computer software should not be allowed to continue beyond the current sittings of Parliament and that legislation was being prepared to clarify the protection of software under the Copyright Act. The Government has decided that the legislation should proceed, notwithstanding the decision of 29 May 1984 by the Full Federal Court of Australia relating to copyright protection for computer software. I shall say more about this decision shortly. I shall outline, for the benefit of honourable senators, the background to the need for these amendments and their main features. A detailed description of the provisions of the Bill is contained in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated to honourable senators for information. It should be noted that this explanatory memorandum was, in fact, prepared before the Full Federal Court decision. Background On 7 December 1983, Mr Justice Beaumont of the Federal Court held in the Apple Computer v Computer Edge case that certain categories of computer software were not protected as literary works under the Copyright Act. An appeal was lodged against that decision and there was therefore uncertainty regarding the correct legal position. This situation created significant problems for the Australian software industry and on 21 December 1983 I announced jointly with my abovementioned colleagues that the Government would undertake such legislative action as was necessary to ensure that software was adequately protected. The decision of the Full Federal Court, to which I have already referred, reversed by a majority of 2:1 the decision at first instance of Mr Justice Beaumont. On the face of it, therefore, the Full Federal Court has ruled that computer software is subject to the Copyright Act. We have been advised that an appeal to the High Court of Australia has been lodged. The dissenting judgment related to the important issue of whether object code is subject to copyright protection. Although the majority decision provides in its clear terms substantial protection for software, it seems clear that a degree of uncertainty would remain at least for a time. There was considerable discussion by the Federal Court of the concept of a computer program; however, the Bill will introduce a comprehensive definition. All three judges held that source code was protected as an original literary work. However, two of the judges did not decide whether object code was of itself protected as a literary work, whilst the third found that it was not so protected. The majority did hold that object code was protected as an adaptation of source code. The Bill will include computer programs in the category of literary works, whether originally created in source or object form and whether on paper or in a computer readable form. It will expressly treat as 'adaptations' programs derived by translation for one language to another-for example, by a process of 'compilation' of source code into object code. Other matters included in the Bill not dealt with in the judgments include the removal of the requirement for visible form in respect of tables and compilations in the definition of ' literary work' and certain changes in the definition of 'infringing copy'. The Bill would also introduce two important new provisions-firstly, to strengthen the offence provisions of the Act relating to advertising the supply of infringing copies of computer programs and, secondly, to include a presumption that a 'back-up' copy of a program may be made without infringing copyright. The purpose of the Bill I am now introducing is to remove that uncertainty and to enable the continued development of the software industry against the background of copyright protection provided expressly by the Copyright Act. I should emphasise, however, that this Bill will operate as a short term measure to enable a full review to be conducted of the long term policy. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the remainder of the speech. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- Public Consultation Our announcement of 21 December 1984 recognised that the decision had broad implications for intellectual and industrial property in Australia. My Department had already consulted with industry regarding international developments on the legal status of computer software, computerised data banks and computer-created works and some issues had been raised in the current review of audiovisual copyright laws. Officers had also participated in studies of these matters at the international level. Regarding legislative protection of software, a major issue to be resolved in the long term is whether a copyright style of protection is to be preferred or a form of protection more analogous to patents. International consensus on that issue still seems some way off. It is also necessary to ensure that proposed solutions were consistent with existing copyright, patent and design laws and with Australia's obligations under the relevant international conventions. We stressed that legislative action would be taken in the short term if necessary. A first step might be amendment of the Copyright Act to confer copyright protection on computer software. Interested parties would be consulted . In early January my Department wrote to interest groups, including industry and user representatives, inviting them to make submissions on the manner in which the Copyright Act might be amended to provide protection in the short term. To facilitate consideration of the issues a short options paper set out two possible alternatives, namely the inclusion of computer software in the category of copyright literary works or creation of a special new category of copyright computer software. The paper mentioned some of the arguments for and against these options. Almost one hundred organisations and individuals responded and copies of these submissions were made available for public inspection at Patent office libraries in the capital cities. Further, a National Symposium on Legal Protection of Computer Software was held on 15-16 March 1984 in Canberra to consider both domestic and international policies for Australia and also to cover other computer-related copyright issues , such as the protection to be accorded to works stored in, or created with the aid of, computers. Although intended primarily to promote consideration of long term policy, the Government made it clear that it would take into account the views expressed at the Symposium when considering short term measures. The Symposium was attended by over 200 persons including computer industry representatives, educators, librarians, academics, lawyers, patent attorneys, and representatives of professional societies, consumer groups, the Press and several Government departments. Proceedings included statements by industry and user representatives, papers and possible legal solutions and forum discussion led by a panel of experts. Independently of these formal processes, I have also received many submissions from interested persons and organisations. These have been carefully considered. Finally, in April, at the invitation of the Government, the World Intellectual Property Organisation convened in Canberra a working group to consider technical questions related to the legal protection of computer software. Officers participating in that meeting had the fortunate opportunity to bring themselves fully up to date with technical and legal developments around the world. At a public seminar within that meeting, experts from four leading industrialised countries (Japan, USA, Britain and Germany) spoke of developments in their countries. Honourable senators will thus appreciate that, notwithstanding the urgency of the situation and the short-term nature of the present legislative proposals, there has been extensive consultation with affected interests. The proposals in this Bill take into account all of these consultations and discussions. The Nature of Copyright The laws relating to intellectual and industrial property-that is, the copyright, patent, trade marks and designs laws-have as their purpose the legal protection of creations and inventions from unauthorised use so that the creators and inventors will be able to profit by having for a time certain exclusive rights. This is seen as being in the overall interest of the public as we would not have the benefit of inventions or creations, or the industries upon which they are based, without the incentive of the certain economic return which the legal protection permits. Of course, details of the protection mechanism depend on the subject matter itself and on the legal system within which it is provided. However, most countries have for many decades reached a similar result by one route or another and there is a broad measure of international consensus on intellectual and industrial property laws. The form of intellectual property with which we are concerned here-copyright- has had a legislative basis since the Statute of Anne of 1709. Unlike patents, which evolved to encourage the publication of novel inventions in return for a broad monopoly for a certain period, copyright was directed towards encouraging creativity by giving a limited monopoly which protected an author's investment of skill and labour against unauthorised copying, performance, and other specified uses of his work. The monoply was less absolute than for patents- reflecting the lower standard of originality required-since it did not protect against independent development. In other words it protected not ideas but only their expression in particular forms. Thus, in the particular case of computer software, copyright protection would not prevent third parties independently developing their own software based on a particularly successful idea, such as spreadsheet calculating for financial management. Initially concerned with the rights of printing and publishing books, copyright was soon extended to other literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works. Further, with technical development of new ways of using works, the basic rights were extended and copyright was also applied to new forms of creation such as sound recordings, films and broadcasts. Past extensions were seen merely as new applications of the established public policy underlying legal protections conferred on the products of intellectual endeavour. That extension may not have been needed initially because copyright was a generic right but, sooner or later, in each case legislative provisions specifically directed to the new technology were necessary. Balancing of Interests Of course, this policy has always been tempered by a balancing consideration- that there was little point in encouraging creativity if its results were not readily available for use. The copyright monopoly might be limited in the public interest. Thus existing copyright laws contain a variety of exemptions, statutory licences and other mechanisms to ensure availability of protected materials to certain classes of user. In practice, the relative economic importance of the different rights comprising a copyright depends very much on the nature of the protected material and on the technology available for its exploitation. Thus, in achieving an optimum balance between the interests of creators and users of copyright materials, it is necessary to have regard to technological factors. This is the reason for my Department's review of audiovisual copyright laws which was initiated because it appeared that the 1968 legislation was no longer adequate to meet new technological uses of copyright materials. Of course, such a review involving extensive consultation requires a substantial period of time. While appropriate where ''fine tuning'' is required, this may not be appropriate where protection of an entire industry such as the computer software industry may be at stake. The Importance of Computer Software in Australia We are all aware of the rapidity with which computer technology has spread. First used for complex research projects, computers rapidly found applications in commerce and government and are now entering the education, entertainment and domestic spheres. The availability of software well suited to the requirements of organisations or individuals is critical to the efficient functioning of their computer systems. It follows that the efficiency and competitiveness of Australian industry and commerce are in part dependent upon the availability of appropriate computer systems. Australia can best ensure this by fostering a strong capability for systems development. This capability needs to be able effectively to integrate locally developed (as well as imported) hardware and software to provide systems best suited to our requirements and which have the potential to be marketed overseas. A strong local software industry is an integral part of this capability. We are fortunate to have such an industry. Indeed the Australian computer software industry is internationally competitive and there are a growing number of organisations in this country whose main activities are software research and development. The industry is important in its own right and is capable of making a valuable contribution to the Government's industrial development objectives. Need for Protection From the consultations it was clear that the absence of legal protection and continued uncertainty as to the state of the law would jeopardise the local software industry and that it was urgently necessary for there to be some legal protection. Computer software is, of its nature, at once expensive and time consuming to develop but cheap and easy to exactly duplicate. This is the situation copyright protection is designed to meet and it was not surprising that most computer interests urged immediate copyright protection. A large number of submissions were also received from educational and research interests. These largely acknowledge that some protection of software is necessary, both as a matter of justice and to ensure its continued creation. However, those interests wanted to participate in consultations to determine appropriate provision to facilitate education and research. Teachers were also anxious that provision be made for the use of electronic means of storing, retrieving and transmitting copyright works for educational purposes. There were also submissions, particularly from consumer groups, which argued that there should be no legislative protection for computer software. As I said when opening the National Symposium, the onus lay heavily upon those so contending to demonstrate why software should be treated differently from other technological developments. The Government has concluded that that onus was not met, at least in relation to the need for short term protection while the long term position is examined. Submissions in favour of protection differed as to whether this should be achieved simply by including computer software in the category of literary works or by the definition of a new copyright subject matter with its own set of exclusive rights. In inviting comment, the Government pointed out that if legislative protection were to be accorded it might be necessary to think in terms both of short-term and long-term legislative action. It has concluded that what is required is a measure which provides immediate protection, without prejudice to development of the most appropriate long-term solution. Short-term measures must be capable of rapid and simple implementation . In all the circumstances the Government has decided that the best solution is amendment of the definition of 'literary work' in the Copyright Act to cover computer software, together with clarification of the nature and scope of the protection conferred, having regard to the distinctive nature of software. To have created a new category of copyright subject matter would be a substantial change in the law which could prejudice the long-term consideration of the issue of protection. The adopted solution will preserve what was believed by many to be the status quo before the first Apple decision, namely that software was protected as literary work. Copyright protection will stimulate innovation and further growth of Australia' s software industry and, to the extent international copyright conventions apply , ensure protection for exported software. Protection also has important consequences for users. There are risks of a withdrawal or limitation on the availability of imported software in the absence of copyright protection. Such a limitation would seriously jeopardise the viability of most local computer manufacturers since many obtain their systems' software under licence from overseas' suppliers. The majority of software packages used throughout manufacturing, mining and commerce are imported under licence, and limitations on the availability of such packages would be a major setback to productivity and to modernisation of Australian industries. Although some micro-computer software could be available on a 'pirated' basis, the bulk of systems and applications software packages are not available through this route. Provisions of the Bill Let me now describe briefly the main provisions of the Bill and outline their significance. Not surprisingly, important additions and changes are made in the definitions in section 10 of the Act. The most fundamental is a change to the definition of 'literary work' to include a computer program. Computer programs will therefore be subject to copyright in the same way as other literary works and the copyright owner will have the exclusive rights to authorise reproduction, adaptation, and various other uses of his program. The term 'computer program' is also defined in some detail. Without going into all aspects, let me just mention that the definition is intended to make it clear that abstract ideas or procedures for solving problems are not protected but only particular expressions of them. The program may be written in any language, code or notation and may include related information. It may be expressed in a high level language intelligible to humans, such as FORTRAN, COBOL, ALGOL or BASIC. Equally, it may be expressed in a lower level or machine language such as is obtained after compilation or assembly and as may be directly suited to the operation of a computer. The definition of 'computer program' also makes clear that a program may require conversion to a different material form before it can be used to operate a computer. A simple example would be transferring a handwritten program onto magnetic disk. The concept of a computer is impliedly defined as a device having digital information processing capabilities which can perform more than one function. This is intended to cover not only computers in the conventional sense but also devices which have some programmed computing ability, such as computerised ignition systems or computerised telecommunications switching networks. One of the important rights in literary works is the right of adaptation, which includes translation. Although computer scientists speak of translation of a program from one computer language to another, this may not presently be taken by courts to be translation in the sense in which it appears in the present Copyright Act where it arguably refers to translation between human languages. The definition of adaptation in relation to a computer program is intended to make clear that it covers translation between computer languages of different levels such as happens when a program is being compiled or assembled. The are also changes to the definition of 'infringing copy'. These have two purposes. The first is to make clear that the term applies to a reproduction of an adaptation of a work in the same way as it applies to a reproduction of the work itself. The second is intended to remove a technical drafting anomaly which could have the apparent result that an imported copy of a work might be an infringing copy even though it was imported with the permission of the copyright owner. As earlier mentioned, the fundamental right of copyright is to copy or reproduce the work. The present Act makes it clear in many cases that reproduction goes beyond mere copying and includes such techniques as audio or video tape recording and microfilming. However, following the decision of Beaumont J in the Apple case, doubts had been expressed as to whether ' reproduction' using modern technologies such as digital magnetic tape or disk, bubble memories, or integrated circuits would be covered by the present Act. The new definition of 'material form' is intended to put this beyond doubt. The definition of material form is also relevant to the 'making' of works which the Act states occurs when a work is first reduced to writing or some other material form. It will now be clear that work can be made by, for example, direct keying of words into a computer memory. I note that there have been assertions that recognition of copyright in relation to computerised data bases would mean a restriction of access to information. This is incorrect for three reasons. First, copyright law does not and never has protected information as such. As mentioned earlier, it only protects particular expressions of information and there is nothing to prevent independent development of the same or similar creations. Second, it is already clear that computerised access is destined to be a most important means of using works. Were authors not to be able to control this means of access, their possibility of obtaining reward for their labours would be severely diminished. Third, storing literary and other works in computers is by no means a simple and cheap process. Persons will not be encouraged to invest in setting up extensive computerised data systems if they cannot recover that investment. The amended definition of literary work so far as tables and compilations are concerned is intended to meet this problem. Proposed section 43A is a new provision to provide a presumption that the owner of a legitimate copy of a computer program is entitled to make a back-up copy for use if the original copy is lost, destroyed or rendered unusable. It is well known among computer users that it is very easy to erase accidentally or inadvertently or otherwise make useless a machine-readable copy of a program. Most users therefore make a back-up copy as a safeguard and this practice is recognised and accepted by many software producers. The provision will make it clear that the practice is legitimate save only that a software producer may negative the presumption by a clear notice to a purchaser who will be able to take that factor into account before deciding whether to buy the program. This provision will, in particular, meet the main requirement stated by education interests to be a problem in the short term. One of the features of computer technology is that a copy of a program is normally every bit as good as the original. A pirate copy may sell for only a few per cent of the normal price of a legitimate copy. The incentive to piracy is thus extraordinarily great. Further, it is feasible and convenient to transmit programs by telecommunications links. The present anti-piracy provision in section 132 of the Copyright Act only applies to dealings with infringing copies. It would not appear to cover provision of pirate copies by transmission of programs to persons who would record them. The proposed amendment to section 132 would broaden its application to make it clear that a transmission of a program for recording is to be regarded as distribution of a copy of the program . This would then be an offence if the other requirements of the section, particularly that the resulting copy be an infringing copy and that the distributor knew this, were met. Any large scale operation of supply of infringing copies is likely to depend for publicity on advertising. Accordingly, a new section 133A would make it an offence to advertise or publish advertisements for supply of infringing copies and ''supply'' would again be deemed to include transmission of programs which when received and recorded would result in creation of infringing copies. Clause 7 of the Bill covers application and transitional matters. It is proposed that existing computer programs should become subject to copyright. However, it is made clear that where copyright so subsists only by virtue of the amendments nothing done before their commencement is to be considered an infringement, nothing so done is an offence, and no copy made before commencement is an infringing copy. I stress these provisions because I have seen some quite irresponsible and alarmist assertions that the Government planned legislation which would make existing unauthorised copies of programs or computers subject to seizure or destruction. As a matter of policy, the Government considers in this situation that it would be quite wrong to subject articles to seizure of destruction which were made when there was genuine uncertainty as to the law. This statement applies of course in respect of this Bill, not in respect of any judicial determination of existing law. General Comments There are three other matters on which I would briefly comment. It has been asserted that a consequence of having copyright protection for computer programs is that virtually all of the royalties will go abroad. I am not aware of any firm basis for this assertion. Certainly, some royalties will go to other countries and these will reflect deliberate decisions to buy foreign software. Presumably, the royalties will reflect the value of the software to purchasers. The statement also ignores the potential flow into Australia of royalties from foreign purchases of Australian programs. Second, there have been suggestions that public funding would be preferable to copyright as a means of securing a supply of software. This is properly an issue for long-term policy consideration but at this point I would simply note that copyright protection is certainly not incompatible with public funding and that the Commonwealth already funds much software development directly or though research and education grants. Beyond that I doubt that many users would think that Government officials could better anticipate their needs than could they themselves or entrepreneurs at large. In addition, there is of course a limit to the extent to which users of computer software should be entitled to benefit from access to public funding at the inevitable expense of other applications of these funds. Third, it has been suggested that education will suffer more than any other sector from copyright protection of software. I simply note that existing provisions facilitating use of printed materials for education and reference purposes will apply to printed copies of the programs and that the exisiting fair dealing provisions will apply to all forms of software. As mentioned earlier, the new 'back-up copy provision' will give insurance against a common practical problem for educators and other users-damage to working copies of programs. Finally, I note that at the National Symposium representatives of education institutions pointed out that they were not only users of software but also producers and thus had an interest in an appropriate system of protection. Review of Long Term Policy As earlier stated, this Bill is concerned only to ensure some legal protection of software in the short term. It must be clearly understood that the Government will now proceed as a matter of high priority to a consideration of policy for the long term through an appropriate form of enquiry. It might well be that the nature of the protection of software will be substantially altered as a consequence of implementation of that policy. Without wishing to pre-empt that review I wish to note here four important matters to be taken into account. The first concerns international developments. Because of the highly international nature of intellectual property laws, Australia would probably not wish to adopt a system of protection which was out of accord with international consensus as to the appropriate form for protection. To do so might leave Australia in a position where its software products were inadequately protected in other countries, thus limiting export opportunities. However, as international agreement on the best form of protection is far from settled, Australia can seek to influence the nature of any eventual consensus. Second, the Government is well aware of, and shares the concern of, educators and researchers that, whatever laws may eventually be adopted to protect software, those laws should encourage, not inhibit, the use of new technologies for education and research. Third, the Government does not blindly accept that detailed copyright principles appropriate to encouragement of the fine arts are necessarily also appropriate to industrial production. This has long been recognised in the area of design copyright where registration is required and limitations are placed on the nature and duration of the rights. In such mundane areas as the manufacture of spare parts, anticompetitive practices based on copyright in drawings have emerged which are causing some concern. The possibility of industrial monopoly abuse also underlies the existing statutory copyright licence for manufacture of recordings of musical works. Of course there are several possible measures which might be adopted to meet abuses of monopolies. One is a short term of protection: indeed the recent Canadian White Paper on reform of copyright law proposes a five year term for protection of object code. Another is compulsory licencing-also familiar in the patents area and recently suggested by the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry as a means of dealing with monopolistic practices in relation to computer software. Yet another is trade practices legislation-which would readily be applied to attempts to 'bundle' software and hardware packages or to onerous conditions regarding third party maintenance, spare parts supply or connection of compatible equipment. Others could be envisaged but, hopefully, with a healthy, competitive and innovative industry, such problems will not emerge. The fourth, and most important, matter concerns consultation. As I have emphasised earlier, copyright law involves a careful balance between interests. Such a law is most likely to be successful if it is broadly accepted by those whom it most affects. The Government therefore welcomes the expressed desires of the various creator and user interests to cooperate in the formulation of Australia's long-term policies for legal protection of-and access to-computer software. We are presently considering in what way that policy can best be reviewed and look forward to the active cooperation of all interests. Financial Impact Statement The Bill is concerned with confirming hitherto largely accepted private legal rights. The Commonwealth will only be affected in the same way as other copyright owners and users. There will be no direct gain or loss of Commonwealth revenues and no administrative responsibilities will be created or abolished. The Bill will therefore have no identifiable impact of Government revenues. I commend the Copyright Amendment Bill 1984 to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Consideration resumed from 1 June. GROUP E Department of the Special Minister of State Proposed expenditure, $12,905,000. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(3.54) —In the Committee of the Whole on 1 June 1984 I was asked a series of questions by Senator Durack and Senator MacGibbon. To assist them in their understanding of the coastal surveillance contracts it may be pertinent if I make the following points orally as well as tabling for their information formal answers to some of the questions , which I now do. Additional information has been supplied to the Senate Estimates Committee in respect of the coastal surveillance arrangements, the technical aspects of the radar to be used on the surveillance flights and the manner in which the existing contracts with Skywest Airlines Pty Ltd were able to be varied. Many of the points raised were answered on 1 June but to bring them all together it may be helpful to include in Hansard a general statement on the whole matter, which I do now. The contracts with AireSearch Surveys Pty Ltd and Northern Territory Aerial Work expired on 30 April 1984. The contracts with Skywest are current until March 1986. Under the terms of the latter contracts, the tender documents having been tabled on 1 June 1984, the geographical areas of surveillance can be varied as well as general terms and conditions. The Commonwealth is contractually obligated to Skywest until March 1986 within the terms of the contract. It was possible, because of the variation of the needs of user departments, to vary the Skywest contract to cover the geographical areas previously covered by AireSearch Surveys Pty Ltd and Northern Territory Aerial Work. The variation could be effected within the scope of the Commonwealth's existing contractual obligations to Skywest. Following the report by the Hon. Kim Beazley, Minister for Aviation and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, it was decided to vary the Skywest contract so that it covered the surveillance of the Great Barrier Reef, previously undertaken by AireSearch. In this respect the Shrike Commander to be flown on that task was to be fitted with a side-looking airborne radar, or SLAR for short. The cost of leasing the SLAR was to be met by the Commonwealth under the contractual arrangements. It was decided that this fitment, together with the forward looking radar with mapping mode which is fitted to the Shrike, was a cost-effective means of carrying out the surveillance task. The terms of the tender documents required by that aircraft to be used by tenderers be fitted with weather radar with a mapping mode capable of determining a 20 metre craft at 20 nautical miles. The original contracts did not contain clauses which gave to the successful tenderer exclusive rights to a particular geographical area. It was open to the Commonwealth within the terms of the contracts to require the contractors to redeploy aircraft to any geographical area. Contracts were drawn up on the basis of a successful tenderer having a certain number of aircraft available at predetermined locations. The Skywest contracts before variation were based on standing charges for a total of 14 aircraft in Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland , with a separate charge being levied in respect of actual flying hours. Although there was an indication of the number of hours a contractor was expected to fly, there was no guarantee of payment for a minimum number of flying hours. Payment was based solely on the actual hours flown. The question of profitability of Skywest operations was not a factor in determining whether there would be a variation of the contracts held by Skywest as the Government is committed to the standing charges in any case because the profit margin is built into the standing charges, not the flying charges. It was decided not to call for new tenders on expiration of the NTAW and AireSearch contracts because there are 14 aircraft available to the Government until March 1986 under Skywest contracts. These can undertake the whole of the revised task. Much has been said about the comparable merits of the Nomad fitted with Litton radar and the Shrike Commander fitted with SLAR. The Shrike fitted with SLAR costs approximately two-thirds of the cost of the Litton-fitted Nomad. The SLAR was assessed as an effective radar surveillance tool on the basis of published information on its years of use in other countries fitted to small commercial aircraft including Shrike Commanders. The combination of Shrike with its forward -looking weather radar and ground mapping mode together with SLAR was judged to be effective and less costly for Great Barrier Reef operations than the Litton- fitted Nomad Searchmaster. The SLAR fitted to the Shrike is being evaluated over the next six months. This method follows that which was employed in evaluating the Litton radar when the Nomads fitted with it were first brought into operation. The costs of the two systems vary considerably. The annual cost for the Litton- fitted Nomad Searchmaster, based on charter rates for the operation during 1983- 84, is $1,339,500. The Shrike Commander with SLAR has an estimated annual cost of $750,000. Contract charges are divided into two parts: Standing charges relating to the provision of aircraft and hourly flying charges related to their operation. Charges include components covering capital cost of equipment of about $500,000 for Litton and a maintenance charge for it of about $100,000 per annum. The SLAR has been fitted to a Shrike Commander under a leasing arrangement between Ericsson, the manufacturer, and Skywest. The annual leasing charge for the equipment including maintenance is about $96,000. Had the SLAR been purchased the capital cost would have been $200,000 with an estimated maintenance charge running at about one-fifth of the maintenance charge for the Litton. I am happy to make that statement, the text of which I have only one copy of, available to the two honourable senators with an interest in this matter. Hopefully that will answer such outstanding questions as it is possible for the Department to answer at this stage. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.59) —After about four bites at the cherry to try to find out what the situation was with regard to this matter the statement that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has just read, or should I say gabbled at great speed, seems to have the potential of answering most of the questions, but I have not been able to absorb it from the way in which and the time in which he read it. I think it might be helpful if we postpone the consideration of this item of the Estimates-we still have another section to deal with-so that I can have a look at the statement now. I wanted to ask further questions and make some comment. In the light of this statement it may well be that most of the questions I still have to ask-even, as I said, after about four bites of the cherry-will have been answered. I suggest that the Attorney-General postpone the consideration of this Department. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.01) —I am happy to meet Senator Durack's convenience in that respect. I move: That consideration of the estimates for the Department of the Special Minister of State be postponed. Question resolved in the affirmative. Department of Foreign Affairs Proposed expenditure, $9,235,000. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(4.02) —At the hearing of Estimates Committee E on 3 May I raised the question of the operation and sale, or non-sale as the case turned out to be, of the business enterprise known as P.T. Indomilk, in which the Australian dairy industry, through the Australian Dairy Corporation, had a 50 per cent interest. Subsequently I asked five questions. They did not go into the Hansard at the time; they were transmitted to the Department. I seek leave to incorporate the questions and the answers into Hansard. Leave granted. The questions and answers read as follows- Australian Senate Canberra, A.C.T. 4 May 1984 To: Mr M. G. D. Williams, Acting First Assistant Secretary, Management and Foreign Services Division From: Senator K. W. Sibraa, Chairman, Senate Estimates Committee E. RE: FOREIGN AFFAIRS ESTIMATES To follow up questions of Senator Archer relative to P. T. Indomilk and the operation of the company in Indonesia, may the Committee be advised as follows: 1. Was the Ambassador given specific directions from the Federal Government as to the retention or disposal of the Australian interest; 2. Did that include a preference as to who may have been the more or less acceptable purchaser? 3. Did the Ambassador (or any other officer of Foreign Affairs) have any discussion directly with the Indonesian Government or other Indonesian interests ? 4. Over what period have negotiations been in progress? 5. Have the discussions been regarded as satisfactory by Foreign Affairs? Department of Foreign Affairs Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 23 May 1984 Senator K. W. Sibraa, Chairman, Senate Estimates Committee E, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Senator Sibraa, I refer to your letter of 4 May 1984 following up on questions put by Senator Archer relevant to P. T. Indomilk and its operations in Indonesia. As you may be aware, the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations has recently conducted hearings into the proposed sale of the Australian interest in P. T. Indomilk. In the context of that Inquiry Mr Hayden wrote to Senator John Coates, Chairman of the Standing Committee. Mr Hayden requested the Committee to consider certain information and documents at 'in camera' sessions because of the sensitivity of that information and these documents. I am constrained in the answer I may give to the five questions you have put on behalf of Senator Archer by the course of action adopted by Mr Hayden and the fact that the Standing Committee acceded to his request. Nevertheless, I can provide the following information: Question 1. No, the Australian Embassy in Jakarta has never been given specific direction by the Federal Government as to the retention or disposal of the Australian interest in P. T. Indomilk; Question 2. No. See my answer to question 1; Question 3. The Australian Embassy in the normal course of its business in Jakarta has had contact with the Indonesia authorities on the matter. The primary purpose of these discussions was to ascertain any Indonesian Government requirements which might affect the disposal of P. T. Indomilk; Question 4. Discussion between the Australian and Indonesian Governments connected with the sale of P. T. Indomilk has taken place in the course of normal diplomatic exchanges. These contacts followed advice from the Australian Dairy Corporation to Foreign Affairs Officers of the unsolicited offer of September 1981 by the Indonesian company, P. T. Kebun Bunga to buy the Australian interest in P. T. Indomilk. Negotiations with Indonesian interests relating to the proposed sale have been the responsibility of the Australian Dairy Corporation. Question 5. So far as the Department of Foreign Affairs is concerned all discussions it has had with Indonesian authorities have been amicable. The present Australian government, soon after coming to office, ordered a review of events relating to the proposed sale and as a result Mr Hayden during a visit to Indonesia in early 1984 requested the Indonesian Government to make public its policy on a sale. The Indonesian Government, to our knowledge, has not yet done so. Yours sincerely, M. G. D. WILLIAMS A/g First Assistant Secretary Management and Foreign Services Division Senator ARCHER —The questions I asked were produced with a view to determining whether the Department of Foreign Affairs had been involved in any way in negotiations with the Indonesian Government or Indonesian interests which may have affected in any way the outcome of negotiations between the Australian Dairy Corporation and a purchaser at the time. Having asked fairly specific questions and put them in writing I received equally specific answers which I doubt answer the questions which I raised in total, although they may well cover the word by word questions that I asked. Regrettably, it will be necessary for me to go through these questions again. I asked: Was the Ambassador given specific directions from the Federal Government as to the retention or disposal of the Australian interest; The answer I received was: No, the Australian Embassy in Jakarta has never been given specific directions . . . The answer used my exact words. What I really wanted to know was whether there had been any discussions whereby there was some involvement between the Australian Government and the Indonesian Government or other representatives which may have had at some time some effect on the negotiations that were in force. There is a lot of difference between answering what I asked as specific directions and saying: 'Did anything transpire which may have affected the ultimate result?' That is really what it is all about. I also asked whether the ambassador had had any discussions directly with the Indonesian Government. The reply I received was: The Australian Embassy in the normal course of its business in Jakarta has had contact with the Indonesian authorities on the matter. That does not tell me whether they were, in fact, in the position of discussing some messages that had come from Australia with the Indonesians or whether they were transmitting messages from the Indonesians to the Australian Government through the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Australian Dairy Corporation or the Department of Primary Industry. The answers that I received by way of letter were carefully worded. One answer stated: So far as the Department of Foreign Affairs is concerned all discussions it has had with Indonesian authorities have been amicable. The Department said that it had received no specific instructions. I regret that we have reached the stage where that information does not fit in with other information that is now floating about. The first question I asked on 3 May was answered by Mr Henderson in the following terms: . . . I know the Ambassador in Jakarta was very much involved in discussion within the Embassy on the handling of that issue. From the answers that I received it would appear that the position was very oblique in every way. During the consideration of the Department of Primary Industry by the Committee of the Whole a few days ago I read to the Minister for Recources and Energy, Senator Walsh, a statement that was made by the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, on 18 October 1982 in which he said: Mr Nixon's actions in advising the ADC not to proceed with the sale of the half -share in P.T. Indomilk to P.T.K.B. was ill advised. It was not up to Mr Nixon to intervene in a commercial transation. We have Mr Henderson saying that yes, there was considerable intervention; we have a report that Mr Kerin gave some time ago saying yes, it was unwise and ill advised of the then Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Nixon, to be involved, and then we have Senator Walsh who, as he explained at great length, was considerably involved in the issue in 1982, saying: I believe it was acknowledged by Mr Nixon that he had in fact intervened in the sense that he had asked or directed the Australian Dairy Corporation not to proceed with the sale. Further, he went on to say: Mr Nixon was criticised at the time by Mr Kerin-quite properly in my view-for having intervened in that way. There we have the first of the information coming from Mr Henderson; the second from Mr Kerin, the present Minister for Primary Industry; and, thirdly, Senator Walsh who was actively engaged in this enterprise at the time in 1982 and who still represents the Minister for Primary Industry in this chamber. Yet the report that I received from the Department of Foreign Affairs indicates that the Department really had nothing to do with the matter at all. At this stage I would like to be told whether the Department had anything to do with it or whether it had nothing to do with it. I wish to know whether the Department's actions might have affected the negotiations that were currently going on or whether it could be taken that such negotiations may have influenced things in any way whatsoever. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.09) —Senator Archer is dealing with a difficult, complex and sensitive matter. It is very difficult for someone representing another Minister in this place to pick up and respond to these sorts of questions. As I am advised, the role that was essentially played by the Australian Government and its representatives in Jakarta was that of seeking to ascertain what the attitude of the Indonesian Government was to the disposal of P.T. Indomilk. In that sense, the Government's representatives, the diplomats, were acting as a conduit for decision makers in Australia rather than playing an active plenipotential part in any actual negotiations. As I recall from my days on the Senate standing committee which dealt with this matter, it has a legal dimension as well as an economic dimension-certainly it has a government or political dimension in terms of the capacity of goverments to influence the course of events-which necessitates some government to government involvement to try to get a fix on just what the attitude of the Indonesian Government was. If the honourable senator is looking for any single expression to characterise the nature of the role played by our representatives abroad, that would seem to be it. If the honourable senator has any more precise questions which he feels have not been sufficiently articulated in his earlier questions or not sufficiently answered either in writing or by me now, with the best will in the world, I am afraid all I can really invite him to do is to put those more precise questions on notice and we will endeavour to help him as best we can. Beyond that, I really cannot say any more. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(4.10) —It is difficult because, as the Minister is aware, present negotiations are being affected by whether there was some government involvement or whether the wishes of the Australian Government and/or the Indonesian Government were taken into account in what would otherwise be a commercial transaction. The dairy industry, in a report it produced for its benefit, made no bones about the fact that it had an offer of $US10m for its share. In the report the industry said: The offer was extremely attractive from two points of view. The report went on to say that it was negotiations and discussions on the part of the Australian Government which determined that that deal would not go ahead. That was a $10m deal, for which heads of agreement had been completed and a deposit was paid and is still being held. The dairy industry was certainly given to believe that that was not the deal that the Australian Government, either directly or indirectly from the point of view of the Indonesian Government, wanted to see put into place. All I really need to know is whether in fact any expression of opinion was sought or given as to whether there was a preference as to the purchaser of the Australian half share in PT Indomilk, whether this was transmitted by the Indonesians and whether it was sought by the Australians. I really believe that somewhere along the line somebody must know whether any impression has been given of some wish or desire on the part of either party. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.12) —I am afraid I am simply not in a position to give further and better particulars on those matters. The best I can do is undertake to take those questions on notice and give the honourable senator a reply. I think he will appreciate that he has had a number of opportunities to put the question in precisely those terms. I do not think-at least, not to my knowledge-he has done so, in the context of a particular transaction, until just now. It is a little difficult, under those circumstances , to anticipate fully the nature of the honourable senator's concern. But we will endeavour to meet it as best we can and hope that he will accept it on that basis. I am sure there will be plenty of other opportunities, other than those provided under these estimates, to pursue the matters in which the honourable senator has an interest. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.13) —Certain information was given regarding the VIP aircraft and their cost to the taxpayer. Could the Attorney-General tell me how many VIP aircraft we have? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.13) —Could the honourable senator clarify the question? It is causing some difficulty. We cannot work out how on earth, when dealing with the Department of Foreign Affairs, we are expected to know about the honourable senator's question, or is this a question on defence? Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.14) —No. This refers to the Department of Foreign Affairs, because of the Department's use of the VIP aircraft. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.14) —The Department of Foreign Affairs has chartered aircraft from the Royal Australian Air Force on occasion, but now no longer does so. The answer to the question as to how many aircraft are within the use and control, if you like, of the Department of Foreign Affairs at the moment, is none. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.15) —Let us clarify it then, because I have information here to the effect that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, used the VIP aircraft and it cost about half a million dollars, and that the Minister for Trade, Mr Lionel Bowen, has also used the aircraft at a cost to the tune of almost the same amount, on overseas trips for foreign affairs commitments. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.15) —That may be so, but that is ordinary ministerial travel and use. It does not involve any departmental chartering as such. I think the charters the honourable senator may have in mind were those that were peculiarly related to the South-East Asian situation and the necessity to move personnel around from place to place, from Butterworth to Indonesia and elsewhere, for which purpose an aircraft was on occasion made available on a charter basis. The particular matters to which Senator Walters refers, I believe, relate more appropriately not to the Foreign Affairs appropriations but to the use of the VIP aircraft generally. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.16) —I do not mind where we bring it up. If the Minister prefers me to bring it up under the Defence vote, I will do so. I thought it was most appropriate to do so now because we are dealing with the Department of Foreign Affairs. If the Minister prefers, I will bring it up under the Defence vote. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.16) —I am sure Senator Walters will appreciate that although I may be an oracle on most matters, in the absence of departmental officers it is quite impossible for me to answer specific questions. The Department of Defence personnel no doubt will be here in due course to help me out. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Colston) —It is preferable to bring that subject up under the appropriate vote. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Defence Proposed expenditure, $112,495,000. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(4.17) —I wish to ask one question which I would not expect to be answered now but which may be able to be answered in the future. It arises from a question I asked at the hearing on the estimates of the Department of Administrative Services concerning the printing of DNEP handbooks and FFG training manuals in September 1983. The answer, which I will not read out in detail, indicated that the information would be available from the Department of Defence and was not available from the Department of Administrative Services. What was the quote for the printing given by the Government Printing Office and what was paid to the Government Printing Office? What were the quotes obtained from other printers for this work? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.17) —I am glad that Senator Reid would not expect an answer on the spot, but I will take the question on notice and will ensure that she gets an answer as soon as possible. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.18) —On 3 May, if the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) recalls, I reminded him that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) in a second reading speech indicated that the one per cent Medicare levy would be itemised separately on account. I asked the Minister whether the Medicare levy was shown on servicemen's pay slips. I refer to the servicemen whose wives receive salaries. Could the Minister tell me whether he has been able to find out the information, because it was promised? I have not yet received any information. As far as I am aware, the one per cent Medicare levy has not been separately itemised; it certainly has not been itemised on my pay cheque. The Minister for Health made it very clear in his second reading speech that the levy would be itemised separately on all pay sheets. As far as I am aware this has not been done on any public servants' pay slips. Perhaps the Attorney- General could fill in that answer for me. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.19) —A response was given to Senator Walters and the Committee on 23 May. It may be found in annexe T of a document that was circulated, containing departmental responses. If Senator Walters does not have direct access to that document, I will read the relevant quote. Senator Walters —I have access to that document. The Attorney-General may do what he wants to, then I will explain. Senator GARETH EVANS —The honourable senator asked about a response to a question she asked in the course of the Estimates Commitee hearings and this is the response, whether one appreciates its terms or not, that the Department has offered. It will show that the matter was not ignored. Senator Walters —To save time perhaps the Attorney will find at the bottom of page 222-- The CHAIRMAN —Senator Walters-- Senator Walters —I am trying to expedite the matter, Mr Chairman. You please yourself. The CHAIRMAN —Yes, I will please myself. Senator Walters, I am trying to expedite matters as well. I would appreciate it if you did not interrupt the Attorney, who was in fact speaking when you rose to speak. Now I call Senator Walters. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.21) — Thank you, Mr Chairman. At the bottom of page 222 in the Hansard the Attorney will find, following the rather odd answer I got , that the Army thought it might identify the one per cent levy separately, the Navy thought it did not and the Air Force thought it did not. He said: I will draw the matter to the attention of the Minister, as will a cast of thousands of officers here, and will ensure that Senator Walters gets an answer. I have not received that answer. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.22) —Senator Walters did get an answer as to what the practice is within the Defence establishment, and that answer is in my hand and has been circulated to her Committee. She might not like the fact that service pay slips do not show a separate amount for the Medicare levy, which does seem to be the conclusion to be derived from this, notwithstanding the perception of some officers present at that meeting although there are certain forms of endorsement for those service members who are exempt from paying it, which is so shown as the answer indicates. I indicated that I would raise the matter with the Minister. That has been done through Public Service officer channels and as a result of Senator Walters's questioning. I think it is a matter for Senator Walters to pursue it with the Minister by normal and appropriate political means. To the extent that she is doing that now , I will take on board what she is saying and communicate her further concerns in this matter to the Minister. That is as much as I think any of us can honestly do on this occasion. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.23) —I think the confusion has arisen because I did not get the answer. I am not a member of that Committee, as the Attorney knows. He may well have circulated it to the Committee Chairman, but the Committee Chairman did not circulate it to me, so I have not yet received that answer, but he has now given it to me. Senator Gareth Evans —I tried to read the thing out and you said you did not want it. You said you already had it. Senator WALTERS —I was referring to the answer I got at the time of the Estimates. I thought that that was what the Attorney was referring to. Senator Gareth Evans —From the moment I stood up I was trying to read into the record the further answer that has been circulated to the Committee, and which does meet Senator Walters's point. I do not want to waste any further time by reading it now if Senator Walters is happy to look at the document when it is circulated to her now, which I undertake to do. Senator WALTERS —Can the Minister tell me why the one per cent levy is not shown separately on the pay slip, as indicated by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) at the time of his second reading speech, when he said that it would be itemised separately. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.25) —I am told the Medicare levy is not identified separately in the tax schedules, and as a matter of formal authority the Defence paymasters are not authorised to put anything else on pay slips other than that which is the subject of some authorisation. It sounds as though some further steps have to be taken-whether by way of regulation or otherwise, I am not sure-to enable such a step to be taken. I will draw Senator Walters's remarks-as I said I would-to the relevant Minister in order that he can determine whether he wants to take that particular step. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.26) —I will be very brief because I have now asked three separate Ministers the same question and I have not received the courtesy of a reply from any of them. I sincerely hope I will receive one from the Attorney. Perhaps I could ask a question on the VIP jet aircraft. Could the Minister tell me how many more VIP jets the Government has bought since it has been in office? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.26) —We do not think there are any more, but that is a matter which will need to be checked. One would hope that a senior officer would carry around this information, as Ministers and members of parliament do. I am not in a position to give that answer off the cuff. We will be back in a few minutes. If the honourable senator could indicate what her other questions are in relation to VIP aircraft, we will endeavour to get on the end of the phone, get the answers quickly and read them into the record. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.27) —It is the first time that I am aware of that a Minister for Foreign Affairs and, indeed, a Deputy Prime Minister have used VIP jets to travel abroad. Is this going to continue to be the practice of the Government? Senator Gareth Evans —Are there any more questions? Senator WALTERS —Does the Attorney want to answer all of them together? Senator Gareth Evans —That is a policy question the honourable senator is essentially raising, and I suppose it will have to be referred to the relevant Ministers. But to the extent that the honourable senator has any more factual questions to be raised, can we have them now before my officers disappear from my side and rush to the phone? Senator Harradine —Were there half a dozen 707s or only one? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.28) —The short answer is that the VIP aircraft will be used if it is cost effective to use them rather than to travel commercial, and that presumably depends on the size of the delegation that is appropriate to accompany the particular Minister, the nature of the trip in question and matters of that kind. I am sure the standing costs that are associated with maintaining the official aircraft fleet and the additional marginal costs that are involved in using them in the way that is here involved, as compared with the actual cost of commercial flights, are closely taken into account. If the honourable senator wants any further and better particulars on that sort of question, I am afraid I will have to take that question on notice and give her that at a later time. If she has any short, quick, factual points, it might be possible to give her short, quick answers within a matter of moments . Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.29) —I doubt whether it will be cost effective because the fifth trip with Mr Hayden cost nearly half a million dollars just for the use of the VIP aircraft. I expect that perhaps some reason would be given other than the cost effectiveness. That is all I am interested in. I would be most grateful if the Attorney could get me the following information: How many additional VIP aircraft have been bought and is it going to be the practice of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of this Government to use VIP jets while they are travelling overseas? Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(4.29) —I can remember raising this matter of VIP jets when the 707 aircraft were bought by the previous Government. It was one of the things that I objected to very strongly. I object now to the use to which Senator Walters has drawn attention. I remember quite clearly that when the aircraft were bought it was said that the Prime Minister would use them on his overseas trips because he did not want to cause trouble to the people travelling in the commercial aircraft-mainly those with Qantas Airways Limited-as well as the extra security risks that it said then were caused by having the Prime Minister on commercial aircraft. I ask the Minister: Why has there been a change in this attitude? Did the Government make any statement about it? Where does it intend to draw the line? We all know that Ministers go overseas quite regularly. Are they going to start using VIP aircraft? Adding to what Senator Walters asked , I think the type of aircraft that have been bought as VIP aircraft is very important. Perhaps we should have a breakdown of the percentage of use for VIP purposes, training purposes and for use within the Defence Force. It seems to me that, like so many other things, when a government gets a piece of equipment such as a 707, it cannot keep its hands off it and gradually its use is extended. I imagined that eventually these very expensive aircraft-which in normal configuration carry about 150 or so passengers-would be used around Australia, when they were originally bought as I understood it, by the Prime Minister to make trips around the world, when the defence forces were not using them. We now have a situation which quite rightly has been drawn to the attention of the Committee by Senator Walters concerning the use of this aircraft by Mr Hayden. I think this is a very important matter. Perhaps if the Attorney-General cannot reply now he could make a statement to the Senate before the Senate rises at the end of next week about why this attitude has changed. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.30) —I will certainly undertake to get a further answer than the one I am capable of providing as to the underlying policy. I mentioned the cost-effectiveness factor. Undoubtedly there are other factors involved such as security and, no doubt associated with that, the kind of inconvenience to other commercial passengers that might be involved in security measures being taken on commercial flights of the kind that are appropriate for senior level major ministerial travel in areas of great sensitivity. No doubt there may be other considerations that come into play from time to time on a major overseas trip such as the appropriateness of the country being seen to be represented, as it were, by aircraft flying the livery of the country in question. I am not sure what the current policy considerations are. It needs to be appreciated that once one has actually purchased aircraft and has them lying on the ground no doubt considerations as to cost-effectiveness and justification for use are likely to be rather different from those which one would apply in making the original decision as to whether to purchase them. It should not be assumed that exactly the same criteria are relevant in each case. But these are matters which I think it would be appropriate for the relevant Ministers to comment upon. I will treat that as a question on notice and answer it in the normal way that questions on notice are answered, that being perhaps the best way of ensuring that an answer is received expeditiously. Whether we can do that by the end of next week, as Senator Townley requests, I am not sure. I should imagine there would be enormous difficulties in doing that. While I am filibustering in this way I am waiting for information to arrive about any new purchases. A Defence officer rang unprompted by my office, being fascinated by this exchange on the air, to tell us that the actual numbers of VIP aeroplanes in the fleet at the moment are three Mysteres, two Hawker Siddely 748s and two BAC111s. There are two 707s as special purpose aircraft on top of that. They are not part of the VIP aircraft fleet as such. We do not believe that there have been any purchases while we have been in government. However, if Senator Walters will wait, I will inject the answer to that into the consideration of the next estimates. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(4.32) —I can understand that the Attorney-General may not know exactly whether any more aircraft have been bought. But I find it rather surprising that we cannot get any exact information. Senator Harradine —Have half a dozen 747s been bought or what? Senator TOWNLEY —It is my thought, Mr Temporary Chairman-and perhaps I am speaking just to give the officer time to find out too- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Colston) —Well, I hope not. Senator TOWNLEY —Just a moment, Mr Temporary Chairman. It is my feeling that two more 707s have been bought. Maybe they have been bought and are being exclusively used for defence purposes. But if that is so can we have that information while we are dealing with these estimates? It may not be exactly appropriate to consider this under these estimates but this might be a suitable time to clear the matter. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.33) —I am not quite sure how long it will take to get the answer. However, the former Government was criticised when Mr Fraser used a 707 aircraft for VIP purposes. I would have thought that the Attorney- General would be well aware of exactly what was happening, who was using these aircraft and everything else. He now tells us that it is cost-effective to use these aircraft because now we have bought them they should not be lying idle. All sorts of extraordinary situations are developing. Perhaps the officer has the information now. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.34) —No more VIP aircraft have been purchased. There have been two more special purpose 707s bought. They were the subject, as I recall, of answers to questions in this place during the last year. They are not part of the VIP fleet as such. They are used for defence purposes-for in-flight refuelling and things of that kind. They are capable of a passenger configuration too in appropriate circumstances. The occasions on which they are used overseas involve less than 15 per cent of total flying hours. Mr Hayden used special purpose aircraft in the Middle East just as Mr Anthony did as Deputy Prime Minister. The Committee has the information in respect of aircraft associated with VIP flights. There is no mystery about this. Might I suggest that it a is bit difficult being expected to deal with questions of this kind in the Committee of the Whole . These are quintessentially ones that have traditionally been regarded as appropriate to ask the Estimates committees as such with this occasion here being used, quite properly, to pursue questions which are not the subject of answers that have been promised or something of that kind at the committee hearings. If we are going to turn these occasions into a full dress rerun of committee hearings it involves a full dress presence of officers who are capable of answering questions on the whole range of matters of detail that might come up in relation to a particular department. I acknowledge that Senator Walters and Senator Townley have a political point to make. Well, they have made it. Can I suggest we now move on to the other matters, given the enormously pressing work load confronting this chamber. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(4.36) —I think I should make just one point before we leave this matter. I do not want to pursue it at any great length, but as Mr Anthony's trip to the Middle East has been mentioned it should be pointed out that on that occasion he took a much smaller aircraft than the 707 that I believe Mr Hayden is travelling in. I do not think that we have yet had satisfactorily pointed out to us where the line will be drawn as to which Ministers will be able to use 707 aircraft. I would again point out to the Attorney-General that surely we can have that statement by the end of next week. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.37) —I have undertaken to give an answer to Senator Townley and Senator Walters who have both raised the same point. The answer will be given as best we can, as soon as we can. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(4.38) —I would like to make a brief comment on the two 707 aircraft. Of course, some little while ago in the days of the Fraser Government there was much ranting and roaring in regard to the purchase of 707 aircraft which supposedly were always claimed to be part of the VIP fleet. But, of course, over the years they have been used in many ways by the Royal Australian Air Force, including the transport of troops and refugees. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —That is why they were bought. Senator KILGARIFF —That is why they were bought. Over the years they have been extremely useful aircraft for the previous Government and for the present Government. The two 707 aircraft, which were purchased some year or two years ago from Qantas Airways Ltd for use by the Royal Australian Air Force, have proved very beneficial for the RAAF in the performance of its very many duties, including the transport of refugees and troops which I mentioned a moment ago. Eventually, of course, these two aircraft will have a tanker configuration. Australia will then have the ability to increase the range of aircraft such as the FA18s in operations off our north coast. As a result these new aircraft, and of course the present aircraft, will be able to play a much more valuable role. The Americans, of course, have the ability to refuel B52 aircraft which operate out of Darwin in the Indian Ocean by using KC135s. This allows them to keep aircraft aloft for anything up to 30 or 32 hours. These two 707s, purchased by the previous Government and being used now, are proving very beneficial to the RAAF and will have even more important roles in the future when they become tankers. In our consideration of the estimates in Group B I did begin to discuss briefly Department of Defence housing and that was not the appropriate time to do so. The appropriate time is now and I will be brief. I made complaints about housing at the Royal Australian Air Force base in Darwin in the second reading debate on the Appropriation Bills, when I went into this matter fully. The situation as I understand it now is that the departments of Defence, Housing and Construction and Administrative Services have been giving formal evidence on Defence housing to the Joint Committee on Public Works. So it is not my intention to intrude into that area now that it has been taken up officially. I hope that out of that will come an appreciation of the enormous task ahead in bringing Defence housing up to scratch. It requires an enormous amount of money to bring about the balance I spoke about in the appropriation debate. Today, very quickly I wish to refer again to the RAAF base because it is in a most difficult situation. I have been there as a member of Federal parliamentary committees and I have received representations there. Of course, with the other senator for the Territory, I am responsible for the base. The other day I was out at the RAAF base after receiving a request to go there. The present situation is that 80 to 90 houses on the RAAF base are in very bad condition. They were badly damaged in Cyclone Tracey and no cyclone debris limitation work has been carried out for a number of years. In one case the only work that was done was that the main bedroom was sealed and the other bedrooms were given only partitions to separate them from other rooms. This means there is no privacy at all. With the partitions there is nothing at the top or the bottom, therefore it is impossible for families living in such accommodation to entertain without disturbing their children. They have been told that there is no money available for repairs. The roof leaks, the house has been through two wet seasons now and it has suffered badly. Sewerage pipes have burst. Families have been told that only minor repairs-fix-it jobs-can be carried out, and that no major maintenance can be carried out because no funds are available. It has been suggested that there will be no funds if Tindal is to go ahead. I have referred to that once before and pointed out that we must have a balance. Very minimal work has been carried out in debris limitation. I stress the importance of this work, because all houses in the Darwin area are now cyclone- proof except the Defence houses and those are mainly at the aerodrome. If we have a cyclone in the next wet not only will the women, children and RAAF personnel be in danger of their lives, but people in the neighbouring area will also be endangered. Much of the damage in Cyclone Tracey was caused by airborne debris which also killed many people. The authority must do something to normalise the situation. They cannot expect there to be two laws, one applying to the townspeople, who have had their houses cyclone-proofed, and one applying to Defence personnel who find that the cyclone regulations are being ignored in respect of their homes. I realise the problems in making money go around, but I can only suggest to the authorities that they should lease more houses and allow the personnel from the Darwin RAAF base to go into these leased houses. Then the houses on the RAAF base could be brought up to scratch. The problems with houses on the base include leaking roofs, poor water pressure, leaking sewerage pipes and holes in the floor. I have seen houses on the base that are half ant eaten and it is impossible to live in them. There is also a problem with sewerage blocks, leaks and breakages in the base area and this makes the area very open to disease. As everyone knows, in the tropics one must be extremely careful. If open sewage floods on to the ground, it can result in typhoid. The matter is extremely serious. I appreciate the problems that the authority has, but it cannot take such a narrow viewpoint that in developing Defence facilities in other areas it fails to recognise its responsibilities here. I suggest the authority does something about it very quickly and I ask it to do so before the next wet. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.46) —The points that the honourable senator has made have been taken on board. It is a familiar problem in the Northern Territory and it has plagued successive governments. One of the difficulties, as Senator Kilgariff undoubtedly will be aware, is the precise assessment of longer term needs, given the move to Tindal and also the return of people from Butterworth. It is not just a matter of pouring money into the maintenance and upgrading of houses about whose long term use there is no argument. It is a question of working out the best allocation of scarce resources to housing needs generally. Undoubtedly, there is room for improvement -I think that has been acknowledged by all governments. It is a question of finding money in the overall budget constraints in order to make that possible. I will draw Senator Kilgariff's remarks to the attention of the Minister. His officers are here and will do the same. I acknowledge that this is an acutely experienced problem that demands appropriate attention. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Defence Support Proposed expenditure, $17,358,000. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of the Special Minister of State Proposed expenditure, $12,905,000. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.48) —As I said earlier this afternoon, we have already had four bites of this cherry to try to find out the arrangements into which the Government had entered with contractors for coastal surveillance, the nature of the variations and why the tenders had not been called for contracts covering areas which had expired and so on. This was raised at Estimates committees on 3 May. Questions were asked then because this had been a subject of questioning in the Senate and there had been a certain amount of confusion as to the department responsible. Senator Boswell asked a question about this, it was passed around and finally the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) on behalf of the Special Minister of State, accepted responsibility. That was due to the fact that this matter, which had previously been administered by the Department of Transport, had been taken over by the Australian Federal Police, which comes under the responsibility of the Special Minister of State (Mr Young). That was why the matter was raised in the estimates for the Special Minister of State. No specific item was raised, admittedly, but it was accepted then that that came under the general items of administration-salaries and so on-and that was an appropriate time to raise it. Despite the background to this, the questions that have been asked and the concern that has been expressed by people about the way this has been done, incredibly no adequate answers could be given by officers at the hearing of the Estimates Committee on 3 May. Consideration of those estimates was adjourned for one reason or another. We came back to them again on 9 May. Further questions were asked then and quite inadequate answers were given or no answers could be given. It was then stated that detailed answers would be provided before the Estimates committees reported. In fact further answers were provided to that Estimates Committee but still a great number of questions were left unanswered. We got some very strange answers, I might say, in those matters that were provided by the Chief Executive Officer on behalf of the Commissioner of Police dated 28 May. There were statements such as: Because the Government is still contractually committed to Skywest until 31 March 1986 it was not a practical proposition to recall tenders. I do not know what 'recall tenders' means. The point is that the contracts for surveillance had expired on 31 March 1984, I think it was, or earlier and tenders should have been called for the areas covered by those contracts. What that means heaven only knows. It was then stated: There is no unfair advantage to this contractor. Nobody has suggested that there was an unfair advantage to Skywest Airlines Pty Ltd. The concern was that it may be unfair to other people who could be interested in tendering for areas. Anyway, there were still a number of unanswered questions, the details of which emerged in the questions that were asked last Friday which was 1 June. These matters were first raised on 3 May and there was still an inability to answer questions. When I called for the tabling of the contracts which would have made the whole thing, I would have thought, a little bit clearer, the Attorney-General tabled the tender schedule and specifications for charter aircraft tasks which is simply the tender documents. It is not, in any shape or form, the contracts. I would have thought that the Attorney-General, after two years experience at the Bar of which he is so proud, would have known the difference between the tender documents and the actual contracts. Senator Gareth Evans —You weren't listening. I said there was an exchange of letters embodying those terms. Senator DURACK —The actual material on which the contract has been spelt out has not been tabled. That has still not been provided to us. What we got from the Attorney-General today was, firstly, an answer to some of the specific questions that I and Senator MacGibbon asked which edged us a little closer to the whole truth in this matter. That also contained some strange statements. For instance, the first response to me contains the following statement: The call for tenders for additional contracts could only result in significant additional costs estimated in the order of $2m in a full year. To call for tenders for additional contracts would cost $2m. That is an amazing statement. Perhaps the totality of it gives us a little more enlightenment, but not much. The Attorney-General-I commend him for doing so- obtained a four-page statement. I complained about the speed with which he read it. I have now had the opportunity of reading it. At long last, at what would be the fifth bite of the cherry, I suppose, we have some reasonable glimmer of what the facts are except that we have not got the documents from which we can check the statement. Having had all this trouble in obtaining the facts, it certainly does not give me much confidence to be relying on the statement made this afternoon by the Attorney- General without our having the original documents against which we can check the statements. There are certainly some further questions that I fear arise out of the answers . The answer does not deal with the contract in relation to the Darwin approaches. As I understand it, that contract was held by another company known as Northern Territory Aerial Work. Apparently Skywest has now taken over the area covered by that contract. Under the tender documents, that contract is clearly a very important one covering over 280 nautical miles of the approaches to Darwin. It was specified as an off-shore task. Two aircraft are required for the contract. It very specifically requires radar which is available on the Nomad Searchmaster. I presume that Skywest has now also covered that aspect. The tender document states: . . . it was decided to vary the Skywest contract so that it covered the surveillance of the Great Barrier Reef, previously undertaken by Airesearch. The document also reveals that there was not just one Skywest contract but there were several Skywest contracts. The statement at the bottom of page 2 states: The Skywest contracts before variation were based on standing charges for a total of 14 aircraft in Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland . Apparently Skywest had a total of 14 aircraft which were available over the whole of this area. The variation of the contract is not so major as I understood. That is very helpful, I think, in getting a proper understanding of just what the arrangement was and the background in which it was varied. I agree that, under the terms of the tender, variations can be made. However, I point out to the Attorney-General that the Commonwealth can seek variations provided that any such variations are subject to such conditions as shall be mutually agreed between the parties and, failing agreement, can be determined by arbitration. In fact, variations of new contracts need to be subject to mutual agreement. Therefore, that is not really the same as we were told was the position. We were told that the Commonwealth could only extend the contract to observe a number of conditions. Presumably, there are documents in existence which would indicate these new mutual arrangements. The situation has been most unsatisfactory from beginning to end of this examination. The position is still not totally satisfactory, but a reasonable effort at explanation has been made by the Attorney-General in his statement to the Committee this afternoon. If that statement had been made earlier, at least at the second bite at the cherry on 9 May, or, at worst, in the answers given to the Estimates Committee on 28 May, we might have been able to shorten this examination considerably. The question still remains whether the Audit Act has been complied with in that no tenders were called for this extension or variation of the Skywest contract. Perhaps that is a legal matter on which one should ponder but not speculate on in this chamber. Some of the answers that have been given as to why tenders were not called for have been very cavalier and, to my mind, quite unsatisfactory. I hope that there will be a better performance from this Department in future at Estimates committees. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(5.01) —I thank the Attorney-General for tabling this brief statement on the contract with Skywest Airlines Pty Ltd. It implifies and expands on the very sparse information we had before. There are a couple of points on which I should like the Attorney-General to enlarge. He said that the contract with Skywest is in two parts. First, there is a standing charge for 14 aircraft, plus a charge for flying hours. He added that the standing charge for 14 aircraft have a component that includes the profit to the operator. It follows from that that the flying hours must be done at cost. Would the Minister expand on the formula accepted by the Department of the Special Minister of State for the cost of operation? It is literally the direct operating charges of those aircraft, the cost of fuel, the cost of oil and the cost of engine hours flown as a fraction of the overhaul cost of that engine? Does the formula contain a component for the operator when compiling flying hours to replace components in those aircraft on the grounds that they are worn? Do the taxpayer and the Commonwealth have any defence against the contractor progressively upgrading the mechanical status of his aircraft and charging that against the Commonwealth? Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(5.03) —Senator MacGibbon and I, as Queensland senators, naturally are particularly concerned about surveillance aspects pertaining to the coverage of the Great Barrier Reef. I feel that we are quite justified in asking a number of questions. Everybody in Queensland was happy with the AireSearch Pty Ltd surveillance; it saved lives, it apprehended clam poachers. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority was very happy with it, as it made clear in its annual report. There was effective surveillance ability as well as an effective search program that could scan 360-degree targets. The system could operate at night and had a 150-nautical-mile radius. I am concerned that the Government has been sold a pup. It has taken away an effective radar surveillance with which everybody was happy, has flown in the face of public opinion and put in something that nobody knows anything about. What saving has the Government made on this? Could the Minister give us an accurate figure in that respect? We now have a radar with no capacity whatever for rescue or night flying. This is a matter which the Government has not considered. What price does the Government put on a professional fisherman's life? I have a Press release on this matter and I shall be kind to the Minister and read only the relevant part: Fishermen's lives could be lost if the Federal Government went ahead with its proposal to scrap Australia's most successful civilian surveillance aircraft, the Great Barrier Reef Nomad. The Chairman of the Qld Commercial Fishermen's Organisation, Mr Dale Bryan, said the Government was playing with his members' lives by downgrading surveillance of the reef. 'A lot of fishermen, particularly those in North Queensland, owe their lives to that aircraft and crew over the past three years', he said. 'In just a matter of a few months last year the aircraft directly led to the saving of four fishermen in two incidents in Barrier Reef waters'. I am sure the Minister would agree that the new radar which he has accepted has none of this capacity. I would like the Minister to give some explanation to the people who work in the commercial fishing industry and the people who go out on the reef for pleasure. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.06) —I apologise for the difficulties which apparently have been felt by Senator Durack and other honourable senators opposite in obtaining information to their satisfaction on this matter. I congratulate them, however, on their perseverence and endurance. Indeed, if they keep this up, they will be a good, professional opposition and worthy of playing that role for a good many years to come. The difficulty which the Government, and the Department of the Special Minister of State in particular, experienced in dealing with these very detailed questions which have been pressed on this matter is that the Estimates Committee hearings came at a time when the Department of the Special Minister of State was just assuming responsibility for this role from the Department of Transport. It was one of these situations in which not all of the information was in the hands of the people with the responsibility for answering immediately to Parliament about it. Indeed, that situation continues to some extent. Senator Durack made reference to the actual contract documents constituted, I understand, by exchange of correspondence after the original tender document, which basically incorporated by reference the key elements in that tender document. Those documents, I understand, are still in the possession of the Department of Transport, rather than the Special Minister of State. That makes it difficult to produce them instantaneously but, if Senator Durack is wanting to pursue the matter, I have no doubt that, subject to conditions of commercial confidentiality and security so far as it bears upon questions as to flying patterns, and so on, further information can be made available. There is no reason in principle why it should not, and there has been no desire to stop it. As to the effectiveness of the particular surveillance that is proposed for North Queensland, I am not sure that Senator Boswell was in the chamber when I read the statement from the Department explaining, as we understood it, the different capacities of the respective radar systems and also the costs respectively attributable to those different systems. It is not the Government's or the Department's belief that there is anything ineffective from the point of view of rescue operations about the particular aircraft that Skywest Airlines Pty Ltd will be flying. It is possible for reasonable men, reasonable women or reasonable aviators to differ about the comparative effectiveness. It is possible for reasonable people to disagree about the way in which one trades off perhaps variations in operational effectiveness against cost savings. All I can say in that respect is that the Government does not believe there has been any downgrading of effective capacity, particularly insofar as search and rescue operations are concerned, and several aircraft would be used in any search and rescue alarm that is raised. Obviously it is only if the Litton- fitted aircraft were in the vicinity of a boat in distress that it would be any use in that respect. It is dependent on a whole variety of contingencies. When all the matters are balanced out, we do not believe that we have done anything, as a government, to abandon our responsibilities. As I have said, it is possible for people to disagree about these things, and it is with that in mind that the operational effectiveness of this new system will be very closely evaluated over the six-month period to which I referred in the departmental statement. Certainly this is not a matter on which the Government regards the decisions as having been foreclosed for all time. We will keep monitoring and reviewing what is occurring and take very closely into account the sorts of noises which have been made by the Queensland senators, particularly here today, and, hopefully, produce a situation which is both cost-effective so far as the taxpayers' purse is concerned and also meets the other objectives which have been so well articulated by Senator MacGibbon, Senator Boswell and others in this place. In Senator MacGibbon's particular question, he raised the reasonable point that if the profits are built into the standing component rather than the flying hours that would appear to presume that there is no profit component, that it is just a direct cost recovery so far as flying hours are concerned. I am told that flying charges are at an agreed rate designed to cover attributable costs associated with flying. That indeed is so. It may be that some further and better particulars can be provided on that point, but so far as the officers here are aware, that is their understanding of the situation and it is as I described it in the statement. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(5.11) —Following on from that answer, I point out that on page 4 of the Minister's statement tabled this afternoon a comparison is made between the cost of the Litton Searchmaster and the Shrike Commander. Two different words are used there. Charter rates are talked about for the operation of the Nomad Searchmaster as against contract charges for the Shrike Commander. To me that implies a difference on the basis of comparison. Is that a real assumption? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.12) —The advisers around me are shaking their heads on the basis that there is no magical distinction intended in that terminology. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(5.12) —I seek amplification on that point. If we charter something we charter it for a finite period, whereas if we are on a contract the period of operation is implied to be considerably longer. We might charter for an hour, a day or a week, whereas if we contract we are implying that we are taking it for a year or, in the case of the Skywest contract, three years. Obviously we get a much better rate on the longer term than we do on the shorter one. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.13) —All I can say is that I am advised by my officers that the terms 'charter rates' and 'contract charges' were being used synonymously or interchangeably. There was not any variation of any particularly sophisticated kind intended to be conveyed by the different language that was there employed. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(5.14) —The final point to be made in the light of the Minister's statement this afternoon is that there would appear to be a very significant downgrading in the radar capability of the aircraft. If the Commonwealth is prepared to accept that, that is one thing. The basic rule of life is that we get what we pay for. The radar systems that are used in the Shrike Commander are apparently, on all the evidence we have, considerably inferior to Litton radar. I remind honourable senators that there are substantiated cases of fishermen who are alive today because their bodies were found because of the discrimination, the very fine sensitivity of the Litton set . We have no indication in any of the papers that have been tabled that the SLAR Ericsson radar is in any way comparable to the Litton with respect to its sensitivity, that is, its ability to find small targets. The proposition outlined in the statement this afternoon that the weather radar in the nose of the aircraft has the ability to find a 20 metre craft at 20 nautical miles is indicative of a very insensitive set which is what we would expect. Weather radar in a Shrike Commander is an old type of radar. It has a very small antenna and all it is looking for is precipitation in rain clouds. It has a ground mapping mode, but that is so crude that it will find only a coastline when flying across it, or the like. Its discrimination of a 20 metre craft, which is roughly about 70 feet long, at a distance of 20 miles is something that, given good weather, one would detect with a visual technique probably at 50 or 60 miles at the operating altitudes of 2,000 or 3,000 feet at which this aircraft operates. The importance of this weather radar is that it is probably the only indication of what is ahead of the aircraft and what is going to pass underneath it. The sideways looking radar is only scanning either side of the track of the aircraft, which in many senses is less important than knowing what is ahead of and underneath the aircraft. Most importantly, this requirement to be able to find a 20 metre craft at 20 nautical miles is meaningless without a definition of the sea state in which it is found. The assumption I would make is that this large ship would be found at that range in flat, calm conditions. I doubt very much that in rough seas or cyclonic weather the performance would be anywhere near that. Without a statement on the sea state at which that detection is based, it is meaningless. From my experience of weather radars, I feel that Ericsson radar would be virtually useless in a sea surveillance role in bad weather. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.16) —All I can really say in response to all that is that a variety of technical matters have been raised by Senator MacGibbon that I am not really equipped to answer, nor, I suspect, are the officers here, although there is one point I will advance in a moment which may assist at least Senator Boswell if not Senator MacGibbon on this matter. All I can say is that these matters will be closely monitored and evaluated during the operational effectiveness evaluation of these aircraft over the next six months. If the picture proves to be as desolate or as unhappy as Senator MacGibbon has painted it, no doubt appropriate conclusions will be drawn. There is rather more optimism-- Senator Boswell —It is a damned expensive mistake, a $96,000 mistake. Senator GARETH EVANS —We do not believe so. I make no concessions in that respect. There is one remaining technical point that, with all due trepidation due to my ignorance in these matters, I will raise in the hope that it does not generate another storm of protest by unhappy technocrats in our midst. I am told that references to a 150-mile radar radius are really quite immaterial in the context of coastal surveillance because the aircraft will fly between 1,000 and 1,500 feet; a horizon at 1,000 feet, I am told, is approximately 35 miles, I am not sure how many kilometres. That height of operation is well within the capabilities of SLAR, although I do not know what that last sentence means in that context. The point is, as I understand it, that radar horizon is the same as visual horizon. Over the horizon radar is only used with land based hook-ups and all the rest of it, which do not exist in this part of the world. In that context, as long as we have something effective within those sorts of horizon ranges, we are doing pretty well. Whether it is effective within those sorts of horizon ranges is the point that I took Senator MacGibbon to be making. I can only repeat on behalf of the Department and the Minister that these are matters that will be taken closely into account. They have not been ignored, they have not been overlooked; they have just been weighed in the balance against other policy considerations and a judgment made in good faith. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(5.19) —Had the Minister been in the chamber last Thursday when I spoke on this matter on a notice of motion he would have realised that I explained the importance of a relatively short range radar in these circumstances. It is a little bit mischievous for one of his officers to try to obfuscate the issue by suggesting that anyone on this side talked about a 150 nautical mile radar horizon. We are talking about a low altitude search from about 1,500 to 2,000 feet so that we can go down without a great time or fuel penalty and investigate any targets we find. That means we need a low strength signal on our radar sets. We do not need a powerful radar. We need a sophisticated signal processing unit which implies a computer on board with a highly developed software program so that we can analyse the returns because land radar has a different maritime application. With a maritime application, depending on the weather, we get variable background returns. If we have rough seas we get a lot of clutter coming back. The sophistication of the software program gives the picture and enables one to find small targets. By operating with a very cheap set like this Ericsson one discrimination is degraded. When we go to the business of the weather radar we have virtually no capability of signal processing to filter out the cluttered returns from an angry sea state to find in the water things such as bodies and small dinghies. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.20) —I have one more question to ask under Group E, concerning the Department of the Special Minister of State. I have received some answers to replies to questions I asked on 3 May and 9 May dealing with advertising, public relations, surveys and whatever. I think the Attorney will recollect them. On pages 3 and 4 of the replies, to questions relating to public opinion surveys, reference is made to one survey on the attitudes of young people towards government programs and policies and public understanding of the policy on the funding of schools. I asked whether the results of that survey, or any survey, will be made available. Another survey was described as ' Initial and follow up research into awareness and understanding of Tasmanian public of Commonwealth offers of assistance following the High Court decision on the Gordon below Franklin Dam'. In respect of both those surveys I raised the question of their being tabled or made public. The answer obtained from the Department simply says, on page 4: Release of the final reports when available and any questionaires used in these surveys will be subject to decision by the Minister and the ministerial committee for whom they were conducted. I seek an assurance from the Attorney that the results of these no doubt very important surveys, ones in which there will be considerable public interest, will be made public as soon as possible. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.22) —As I understand it we have not yet received the survey report as it bears upon youth attitudes. The matter will be considered when it is received. I cannot imagine any grounds for withholding disclosure under the freedom of information legislation that Senator Durack and I have invested so much passion in developing over the years. There may conceivably be some aspect of the particular report that raises questions of commercial confidentiality of something of that kind on which the Government would wish to make some reservations but I can assure Senator Durack that we will enter into the spirit of the occasion and share such knowledge as we can with the Australian public, particularly given the obviously intense interest that the Opposition has had in this matter. I know Senator Ryan has indicated something of that kind insofar as the material might concern her own portfolio. I think she said as much in this chamber during the Estimates committee hearings . No doubt to the extent that the material bears upon other ministerial portfolios it will be a matter for those Ministers. I do not want in anything I say to suggest that there are likely to be any particular difficulties in this matter. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.23) —What about the other survey? It is described as 'Initial and follow up research into awareness and understanding of Tasmanian public of Commonwealth offers of assistance following the High Court decisions on the Gordon below Franklin dam'. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.24) —I gather the report is not yet available in its final form but there is some material in the hands of the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) and I will draw that question immediately to his attention and see what his response is. Beyond that I cannot give a firm answer. Again, I imagine similar considerations will apply. Proposed expenditure agreed to. GROUP F Department of Veterans' Affairs Proposed expenditure, $30,097,000. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Transport Proposed expenditure, $13,032,000. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Aviation Proposed expenditure, $12,153,000. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(5.25) —I am not sure that we should even be discussing the estimates for the Department of Aviation because during the inquiry of Estimates Committee F many questions were asked of the Department, answers to which just have not been supplied to members of the Committee or to members of the Senate. I did hear that the answers were sent to the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) and were found wanting, and so were returned to the Department to be rewritten. I am not able to confirm or deny that. It certainly adds to what Senator Chaney said in this place a couple of days ago, that it seems some departments are treating these Estimates examinations with contempt. Maybe they have been encouraged to do that by the Government. It seems that answers to a lot of questions asked during deliberations of the Committee that should have been in this place at least 10 days ago are still not here. Maybe it is that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) has some to table now but even if he does, answers from committees should have been here for us to look at and examine-judging from experience with other Estimates committee hearings-way before this time. I will stop and maybe we can decide whether we should go ahead with consideration of the estimates of this Department at all. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(5.27) —As Chairman of Estimates Committee F, to which Senator Townley referred, might I say a mass of questions were given on notice by one or two members of the Opposition and if my recollection is correct a mass of answers have been received. I take it they are now part of the record. It seems that Senator Townley, not being a member of the Committee, is not aware of that. Senator Townley —Yes, I am. Senator GEORGES —I do not recall his being there; he may have been absent at the time. Senator Townley —You might have been asleep at the time. Senator GEORGES —I doubt that I would have been had I been in the chair; that would have been the honourable senator's privilege. All I know is that questions were asked on notice and the answers to those questions were received. If there was further reference of those questions back to the Department of Aviation it was done without my knowledge. I would have thought that if the answers to the questions were not satisfactory the honourable senator would raise them here. I am suggesting to Senator Townley that he ought to be more specific. Obviously he is just casting a wide net hoping he will come up with something. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(5.28) —The Minister may have some information about these matters that we are awaiting, but I inform the Committee that I made inquiries of the secretary of the Estimates Committee as recently as a few hours ago. I also made inquiries, and he subsequently asked the Department, during last week and nothing was forthcoming. I still say that it could well be that those replies got to the desk of the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) and he was not prepared to have the Committee have them. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(5.29) —Mr Chairman, the only advice I can give to the Committee at this stage is contained in a letter from the Minister for Aviation, the Hon. Kim Beazley, saying: Some delays have been experienced in my Department in assembling all the information sought by the members of Senate Estimates Committee 'F'. Consequently a response is yet to be provided. However, preparation of the answers is at an advanced stage and it is expected that a response will be provided during the course of this week. It has to be appreciated that a considerable amount of information was required and the Department is working under some pressure to provide the sorts of responses that will satisfy the needs and wishes of members of the Committee. That is not always as easy as it might appear. Consequently, we are in the invidious position of not being able to give the detailed answers that have been requested by the Committee. It is not the desire of the Minister, the Government or the Committee to fail to respond. But we are not in a position at 4 June to be able to provide the essential answers to some of the questions that have been raised. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(5.30) —Perhaps you, Mr Chairman, can give me some direction about which way the chamber should now go. Are we to sit here and pass the estimates about which questions were asked in Committee meetings several weeks ago and to which we have not yet been supplied with answers. I believe that they have been given to the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley), found not to his liking and returned to the Department of Aviation for re-examination. Perhaps you, Mr Chairman, could give us some direction as to whether we should continue or what we should do. The CHAIRMAN —I think you are asking me to do more than my position allows. I am in the hands of the Committee on this. I understand there have been precedents for information being provided after the estimates have been passed. It is up to the Committee to decide whether to pass the estimates. Senator TOWNLEY —I find it unsatisfactory not to have that information. Maybe we will have to find other ways of bringing the information to the notice of the chamber if it is not here now. I impress upon the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) that I would like it as soon as possible. Whilst I am on my feet I do not want to go into the whole matter of the aircraft that crashed in Bass Strait, because that really is not something entirely suitable for this Committee, but I wish to ask the Minister if his officers can give some advice as to whether there have been any alterations to the regulations, or whether there are any proposed alterations to the legislation, regarding the use of single engine helicopters over water and other matters that may have made it possible to have saved the lives of at least one of the two people in the aircraft that went down in Bass Strait on 17 July last year. I am sure the Minister will be aware of the things that the coroner reported during the last week or two, as reported in the Launceston Examiner of 15, 16 and 24 May. I am sure he will know that there was a deal of criticism about the delay experienced in getting a helicopter over to the place where the gentleman was seen in the water with his life jacket on. Those of us who live south of the main island of Australia, although some of us think that Tasmania is the main island, will recognise just how cold the water is in Bass Strait in the middle of July. Speed therefore becomes essential. There have been discussions before in the Senate on this matter. I do not want to go over it all but I suggest to the Department that it would be an idea to have some kind of aircraft ready and waiting for such a circumstance to happen. Many aircraft fly across Bass Strait, some of them single engined, and many of them go down the route from Wilsons Promontory to Flinders Island. I think I said when this matter was before the chamber previously that I do not think it would be too much to ask one of the pilots who work for the Department to be on call during weekends, which is the time when most of these flights take place. I suggested also that that should be done without any extra requirement for pay because, in these days of beepers, the pilots could be easily contacted within a reasonable range of the aircraft that was to be used for the dropping of a raft or whatever. I am particularly worried about what might happen if a larger aircraft were to fall into Bass Strait. In the incident to which I am referring it was said that one of the problems was that the officer was operating under pressure. The Launceston Examiner of Tuesday 15 May states: The deficiencies in performances which occurred were the result of working under pressure. I think that some of the people who are likely to be in this kind of situation or directing a search should perhaps be trained a little better than they have been. But I particularly want to know whether there is any thought of changing the regulations so that single engined aircraft can go out to sea in a time of emergency. What has to be done to get that approval? Can we not speed up this whole process of getting an aircraft over the area where there might be not one or two people in the water but perhaps 10 or 20? Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(5.35) —The Department of Aviation currently is carrying out a departmental inquiry specifically for the purpose of search and rescue arrangements. The honourable senator has raised a matter about which he is obviously concerned. Indeed the Government and the Department are concerned about this. I am advised that that report is close to being finalised but not available at this time when the estimates are being considered by the Senate. All I can say is that the Government shares the honourable senator's concern that it is a matter that requires some investigation and determination so that we have satisfactory arrangements in hand that will enable problems that have occurred in the past to be avoided. I give the honourable senator an assurance that, before the Senate rises, it is probable that we will have that report to hand. When it is available it will certainly be made available to the Senate. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(5.36) —Under the estimates for the Department of Aviation I would like to comment on an hysterical statement made last week by the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) about meteorological services for aircraft operations. It was a statement which got him in the headlines in most papers. In the Sydney Morning Herald the headline on the front page stated: 'Lives at stake because of old valves: Jones'. Just because there are old valves in the weather radars in Australia does not mean that they do not work. It may be that new equipment works much more reliably, with less effort and has a whole lot of other advantages. But just because something is old it does not follow that it is inadequate. But, as I said in this chamber last year, Mr Jones knows everything but understands nothing. He is very good at regurgitating material. But when he alarms air travellers of Australia with a highly irresponsible statement, I cannot let it pass without comment. In answering a dorothy dix question from one of the Labor members in the House of Representatives, Mr Jones said: We now have a very serious situation which will threaten not only the security but also the lives of airplane travellers at some future date. He then quoted a memorandum from an officer from his Department, which in part stated: . . . a Jumbo jet crash in an unforecast line squall, the implications will be serious indeed. That is just simply nonsense. No one in Australia, particularly those of us who fly, would suggest that the meteorological services are as adequate as they might be. They have not had the money put into them, along with a whole range of other government services which have been constrained by the demands of a whole variety of things. Be that as it may, the services are adequate. But the particular point made about a Jumbo jet flying into an undetected line squall is absolute nonsense. All passenger aircraft in Australia are compelled by law to carry weather radar. The detection capability of significant changes of weather is built into the aircraft. That operates in parallel with the ground detection and forecasting services. Furthermore, both by day and by night there are the visual signs, in most cases, of a line squall. The statement by the Minister is highly irresponsible. It can only alarm air travellers in Australia. The statement is entirely without foundation. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(5.40) —Since I spoke previously I have been able to refer to the Clerk of Estimates Committee F. I owe Senator Townley an apology. Some questions of the Department of Aviation have not been answered. Of the mass of questions that were asked at the Committee hearing only a small number remain to be answered. As Chairman of the Committee I suggest to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) that unless those answers are before the Senate before it gets up next week, or in sufficient time for the Committee of the Whole to consider the answers to those questions in some way, I would have no option but to recall the Estimates Committee and the Department. There appears to be no excuse for those half a dozen answers not to be before the Committee at this time. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(5.41) —We will seek to accommodate the views of Estimates Committee F and its Chairman. It is certainly not the intention to fail to respond to legitimate questions about the estimates. I will personally undertake to see that the matter is raised with the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) so that we will have a response before the Senate rises for the winter recess. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(5.41) —I wish to ask the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) whether he can help me on a couple of matters. On behalf of the people in the bayside areas of Brisbane, who are experiencing some difficulty with low flying aircraft from the Brisbane runway-the Eagle Farm runway-I ask: Is 3,000 feet still the minimum required height for commercial aircraft on arrival and departure patterns for Eagle Farm? Do departmental officers monitor these flight patterns? Can the Minister say what action, if any , has been taken by the departmental officers to see that flight approach and departure patterns divert aircraft away from Brisbane's bayside suburbs? I can tell the Minister from personal experience that the planes flying over these areas at a very low height are causing many problems to people in those areas. It puts their television sets on the blink and causes much concern. It would involve only a small deviation for aircraft to fly out over the bay to rectify the problem. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(5.42) —I think Senator Boswell will appreciate that I only represent the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) in this place. I will certainly take the question on notice and see whether we cannot get a reply for the honourable senator by tomorrow. Senator Bolswell-I ask the Minister whether he has-- Senator GIETZELT —There is no officer here who can answer such a technical question. We are dealing with estimates and they relate only to income and expenditure items. Matters of a technical nature require a technical answer from the officers concerned. I will undertake to get the information for the honourable senator by Question Time tomorrow. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(5.43) —I ask the Minister: What extra cost would be involved in having the planes fly out on a different flight path over the bay? Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Administrative Services Proposed expenditure, $13,374,000. Rent (Defence) Proposed expenditure, $61,000. Rent (Defence Support) Proposed expenditure, $75,000. Proposed expenditures agreed to. Department of Territories and Local Government Proposed expenditure, $6,085,000. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without requests but with resolutions; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 5 April, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Consideration resumed from 5 April, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Consideration resumed from 31 May, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a first time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(5.50) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follow- I present the Supply Bill (No. 1) 1984-85. This Bill, together with its companion Bills, Supply Bill (No. 2) 1984-85 and Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1984-85, seeks interim appropriations for the services of the Government for the period 1 July 1984 to 30 November 1984, by which date it is expected that the equivalent Appropriation Bills, which will form part of the Budget for 1984-85, will have been enacted. Supply Bill (No. 1) seeks appropriations totalling some $6,609.3m for the ordinary annual services of the Government. This is $868.0m, or about 15.1 per cent, greater than the equivalent amounts provided in the Supply Act (No. 1) 1983-84. A large part of the increase reflects staffing approvals and salary and other cost increases including the effects of the national wage case decision handed down on 4 April 1984. The increase also includes: $200m under the Department of Defence reflecting higher progress payments on the FA18 tactical fighter and the P3C Orion reconnaissance aircraft; and $43m under the Department of Health for the ongoing administrative costs of Medicare benefits payments. I wish to emphasis that this Bill does not anticipate decisions yet to be taken in the 1984-85 Budget context. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate. Consideration resumed from 8 May, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Consideration resumed from 8 May, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Consideration resumed from 8 May, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(5.54) —During the second reading debate on the Audit Amendment Bill, criticism was made of the Government 's proposal to appoint Mr John Monaghan as Auditor-General. This criticism was made specifically by Senator Watson, who referred to the fact that Mr Monaghan was an economist and not an accountant. While it is true Mr Monaghan does not have formal accounting qualifications, he has had considerable relevant experience as a Division head in the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Finance, as a deputy secretary in the Department of Resources and Energy and as a commissioner on the Public Service Board. All this experience has given him a wide understanding of government and of Public Service processes. He is also widely respected in the Service and in the accountancy profession. Moreover, the role of the Auditor-General these days is not a simple bookkeeping function as it once certainly used to be. It extends to looking at the efficiency with which programs are run. Experience such as Mr Monaghan's is exactly right, given such developments as have happened in the Public Service in recent years, and for that reason we reject the criticism made by Senator Watson. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(5.55) —I take this opportunity to support the remarks of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) concerning the appointment of the new Auditor-General. As Chairman of the Public Accounts committee, my Committee has a responsibility to this Parliament given to it in some measure by the activities of the Auditor-General and I expect that Mr Monaghan will bring to his duties the same application as did the previous Auditor-General, Mr Brigden. I take this opportunity to express the Committee's appreciation of the work of Mr Brigden as Auditor-General and the extraordinary capacity which he brought to bear, a capacity which considerably increased the work load of the Public Accounts Committee, but with just cause. On behalf of the Committee I take this opportunity to wish Mr Brigden well and to commend him for the manner in which he examined the accounts on behalf of the people of Australia, and the manner in which he extended the authority of the Parliament not only to departments but also to the various statutory authorities . If Mr Brigden caused some anxiety to some of his previous colleagues, I think that anxiety was well justified because he examined the estimates and criticised the actions of various authorities, both statutory and departmental, with considerable, shall we say, expertise and understanding. We will miss Mr Brigden. That is not to say that we have any cause for concern about the new appointment, as was expressed in the Senate. Mr Brigden's ethical position was one which should be an example to all Auditors-General who follow him. I do not doubt that these views are shared by many members of the Senate and in particular by members of the Public Accounts Committee. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(5.57) —I rise briefly to be associated with the remarks of Senator Georges with regard to the retired Auditor-General, Mr Brigden. He had an outstanding career in the Public Service and it was fitting that it ended with such distinction with his term as Auditor- General. I think I speak on behalf of all the Opposition senators when I wish him well in his term of retirement. I equally would like to wish well the new appointee to the position of Auditor-General. As Senator Grimes has said it is a position requiring a number of skills and experience and one which I am sure the Parliament hopes will be undertaken by Mr Monaghan with the distinction of his predecessors. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee and as a member of the Parliament I look forward to working with him. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a third time. [COGNATE BILL: NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1983] Debate resumed from 9 May, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —Mr Deputy President, I think it was agreed that it was desirable to have a cognate debate covering both this Bill and the National Crime Authority (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1983. Senator Durack —Yes. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Collard) —As there is no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(6.00) —The Senate is considering one of the most important matters that have come before it in recent times; namely, the Government's Bill to establish what it calls the National Crime Authority, a body which is to be created by this Parliament to tackle the grave problem of organised crime and official corruption in Australia. I think it is a rather sad reflection on the performance of this Government over the last 12 months that it is necessary for the Senate to debate this matter at all. About two years ago the Fraser Government, of which I was then Attorney-General, was given the responsibility of considering as a matter of urgency the need for a National Crimes Commission. During the middle months of 1982 a great deal of work was put into establishing a National Crimes Commission. Towards the end of 1982 this Parliament passed a Bill for an Act to establish a National Crimes Commission. That major initiative of the Fraser Government was taken because of the great volume of evidence that had come to hand over a period up till 1982-and as a result of royal commissions that had been held, particularly those of Mr Justice Williams into drug trafficking, of Mr Costigan on the activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and of Mr Justice Stewart into the Clark syndicate and related matters. In addition to those inquiries there were the reports of joint task forces, which were also a major initiative of the Fraser Government in combating the menace of organised crime and corruption in this country. The weight of evidence provided by those investigations and reports which I have mentioned made it quite clear that two years ago there was a real threat to our way of life in the shape of organised crime. It was organised crime on a national basis, not having regard to the traditional methods of law enforcement in this country based on the State police forces and the Australian Federal Police, with their limited role to play, and naturally not having regard to State boundaries or Federal or State jurisdictions or laws. It maximised its activities on a national basis, maximised profits and maximised to the hilt the diversified nature of criminal investigation and law enforcement in Australia. It has never been suggested by the present Opposition-when we were in government or since-that there should be any wholesale supplanting of the traditional criminal laws and system of administration of criminal justice in this country, or of police investigations. They have proved to be adequate, and will continue to be adequate for the great run of criminal activity and the enforcement of criminal laws. But what they did not take into account-this was quite clear when we began this investigation two years ago-was that we were faced with a new problem. Mr Redlich, the Special Prosecutor, made a major contribution to this debate when he said: What is required is a national response to a national issue. A robust, independent national Authority, unfettered by jurisdictional or bureaucratic constraints must be created. That statement was made by Mr Redlich some time after the period I am speaking about, two years ago, when the Fraser Government with me as Attorney-General, launched this study and development of a National Crimes Commission. As I said, this Parliament accepted the proposal put to it, albeit with some amendments, by the Fraser Government. As a result of the passage of that legislation through this Parliament it became an Act and a chairman designate in the person of Sir Edward Williams-a Justice of the Supreme Court of Queensland and a man who had himself been chairman of an important royal commission into drug trafficking in Australia-was selected. He had not been formally appointed, nor had the Act been proclaimed, when the Fraser Government lost office on 5 March 1983. We had there , over one year ago, an adequate and effective instrument to make a national response to a national problem, as Mr Redlich would call it. The personnel had already been selected and had started work on setting up the Crimes Commission. That was the situation when the present Government took office and the present Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) assumed responsibility for the national menace of organised crime. We know the pathetic history of this Government and its Attorney-General during the next 12 months or more. We have before us a Bill which is quite inadequate for the intended purpose. In fact it is a Bill which can be seen to satisfy only the response that the Attorney-General gave when interviewed on the Sunday program on 16 October last year when Mr Richard Farmer asked him about his proposals for a crime authority. This was when all the backing and filling was going on between seminars and Caucus committees and when other delays were occurring. Mr Farmer asked the Attorney-General: 'Do you expect that you will end up with an authority?' Senator Gareth Evans said: 'I think we will end with something'. That sums up the pathetic response of this Government to the menace of organised crime. When this Bill, the National Crime Authority Bill-which is a classic example of the pathetic response of this Government-was introduced at long last into the Parliament in November last year I moved that it be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for inquiry and report as to whether the Bill fulfilled effectively the objective of investigating organised crime and official corruption. I am pleased that the Senate supported that reference. Before it was prepared to debate the Bills it very wisely referred them to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. On 1 May this year, in accordance with the requirements of the reference to it, the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs reported on the Bill to the Senate. The Senate Committee worked under great pressure during the months from November to the end of May, bearing in mind that this period took in the Christmas period and the holiday season. I congratulate the Committee on the quality of the magnificent work that it did as well as the speed with which it carried out its task. The Committee entirely confirmed the fears and concerns that I and the Opposition expressed in relation to the Government's Bill. I will just briefly refer to its conclusions. The Chairman of the Committee, Senator Tate, on 1 May made the following statement: The Committee has concluded generally that the Bills which were presented to the Senate had grave defects or omissions. Fundamental change is required to the legislative framework upon which the Authority is to operate. Later on, he said: The general concern of the Committee has been to free the Authority as much as possible from undue dependence on Governments for the initiation or direction of its activities. I think that was a very damning comment of an all party committee which was chaired by Senator Tate, a Labor senator from Tasmania. This was the judgment of the Senate Committee on this Bill. As I have said, this Bill is a product of backing and filling by the Attorney-General and the Hawke Government over many months last year. They struggled amongst themselves before coming up with some response at all to the problem despite the fact that they inherited a perfectly good National Crimes Commission with distinguished and effective personnel in the shape of the chairman. This body would have been operating over 12 months ago had they followed what had been done by the Fraser Government and, indeed, by this Parliament. So we are now faced with considering the Bill in the light of that report of the Senate Committee. The Government has considered the report of the Senate Committee. The Committee made 49 recommendations for changes to the legislation of which the Government has agreed to 31 either wholly or without significant change. The Government says that it will support eight more with modifications. However, it has rejected outright 10 of those recommendations. That is really the major problem with the Government's response. Although statistically the Government's offer to adopt 39 out of 41 recommendations might look quite impressive, the fact of the matter is that the Government's response has to be judged by the importance of the Committee's recommendations which the Government had not decided to accept. Specifically, it has rejected important recommendations of the Committee in regard to veto powers that the committee of Ministers are going to have over the activities of the Authority in relation purely to breaches of Federal law which have nothing to do with the States at all. It has rejected recommendations about an inadequate definition of what are relevant offences that the Authority can investigate. It has also rejected recommendations which were designed to limit further political manipulation of the Authority in relation to directions which it may be given by the Attorney-General. Without going into detail at this stage, the position is that the Government's response to the Committee's report is totally inadequate. It is in line and consistent only with the wishy washy weak-kneed attitude which this Government has adopted towards this national problem that requires a national response of a firm character. However, the Opposition has come to the conclusion on giving consideration to the Bill and the Senate Committee report, that in fact the legislation needs to be strengthened even further than the Senate Committee itself has recommended. I will mention some of the amendments that the Opposition proposes to move in order to make the Authority an effective body. The Opposition has given very close regard to what Senator Missen said in his dissenting report. Senator Missen said: Unless the deficiencies of the present Bill are remedied, it would be better not to create a crime authority which would only deceive the public expectation. That is very serious comment by a senator who has studied this matter very closely. The Opposition has given due weight to that view as well. We have, of course, on many occasions spoken about what we regard to be the problem and the response to it. We believe that the only effective national response to the problem of organised crime is the creation of a new body by this Parliament which can act independently, firmly and fearlessly with the necessary resources which can be provided only by the Federal Government. It is because of that requirement that we see the enormity of the problem and the necessity for such a firm response. We are not just disappointed with the Government's response; we are very deeply concerned about it. Such a body, of course, must also be absolutely free of political control and interference. When we judge the Government's response in the shape of this Bill by those standards we can only conclude that what the Government proposes in its response is a weak, bureaucratic and cumbersome body which could be subject to gross political interference and manipulation. I have already given notice of some 40 amendments to the Bill, all of which are designed to improve and strengthen it in some shape or form. Of course, we see some of those amendments as being very vital to the ultimate judgment which Senator Missen has posed. We have to face the question: Will this Authority do more harm than good if it goes through unamended, as the Government has proposed? We believe that some of our amendments are absolutely vital on the question of that judgment which we will have to make during the Committee stage. We will, of course, support the second reading of this Bill because we are very much in favour of the principle of such a body. However, as I have said, we have made our own judgments about the inadequacy of this Bill. Our own judgments have now been thoroughly confirmed by the judgment of the Senate Committee. We are much impressed by almost all of the recommendations of that Committee. I, and other senators on this side of the chamber including, I am sure, Senator Chipp on behalf of the Australian Democrats, will be moving amendments which we believe are vital for the future success of this important operation which is to be established to fight organised crime. The Opposition has drawn up some 40 amendments and I do not propose to go through them in this second reading debate. However I will outline the principal amendments. First there is an amendment which will enable the National Crime Authority to act on its own initiative in the investigation of purely Federal offences, exercising the full coercive powers that it is given, without any reference from any government, State or Federal. This is the only really effective way to eradicate the potential for political manipulation of such an authority. That was a major feature of the National Crimes Commission proposed by the Fraser Government and accepted by this Parliament less than two years ago . Secondly, we propose to widen the definition of offences which may be investigated so that these will be confined in general terms in the way the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs suggested in its report. The Senate Committee referred to the need for a better definition of ' relevant offence': It would be better if the definition of 'relevant offence' were redrafted so as to require the National Crime Authority to direct its activities to offences which appear to be connected with one another, involve several offenders, substantial planning and organisation and the use of sophisticated methods and techniques. The Authority should be required to then give particular consideration to types of offences similar to those defined as 'relevant offences'. These should be set out in an illustrative, not exhaustive manner. That is a very important proposal in the Opposition's opinion because if the legislation confines, hog ties the Authority to specific offences, the sort of people it will be investigating will use all the resources they have at their disposal-Queen's Counsel and challenge after challenge through the legal system. Defining it in that way would be a golden opportunity for these people to frustrate and destroy the investigative powers of the Authority. I have already mentioned the third matter that we wish to see, and that is the removal of the veto that can be exercised by the Committee of Federal and State Ministers upon reference to the Authority of a purely Federal question by the Federal Attorney-General. We believe that this is an incredible limitation upon the ability of the Authority to act in the investigation of Federal crime. It has no place in legislation of this kind. It has nothing whatever to do with preserving the Federal system or anything else because the Federa Attorney- General of this Parliament cannot insist upon investigations being made into a breach of a purely State law. That must always be a matter for the State itself or the State Attorney-General to determine unless the State itself gives to the Authority that broad authority in respect of its own laws. The fact that this Parliament would tie down the Federal Attorney-General of the day not to be able to give a reference to the Authority in respect of a possible breach of Federal law is, I believe, quite untenable. Senator Missen —Abandonment of constitutional responsibility. Senator DURACK —It is an abandonment of responsibility by the Government. We would also want amendments to remove the present limitations of the Bill which permit references to the Authority only if ordinary police methods of investigation are not likely to be effective. This again could lead to endless and fruitless arguments and delay before action can be taken. We want to see amendments to do away with the extraordinary new proposal of the Government which requires that only police officers can interview suspects outside formal hearings of the Authority. This seems to me to severely contain the work of the Authority and its officials. We would want to ensure that the Attorney-General could not give directions in any particular case, which is another major recommendation of the Senate Committee. Of course if an Attorney-General can give directions in a particular case that is a potential for political interference. We also believe that the number of members of the Authority should be expanded from three to five to enable two highly skilled and competent people to be appointed in the field of investigation and criminal activity. They should have a knowledge of methods of investigation of criminal activity. These should be in addition to the nominees of the State Attorneys-General and police Ministers. As the Authority is presently proposed it would have three members, only the Chairman being appointed by the Federal Government, the other two being nominees of the State Attorneys and police Ministers. We believe it is a very good feature of the Bill that it is giving a position on the Authority to nominees of the States, but we believe that it is necessary for the Authority to have additional independent experts on it. We believe that there should be amendments to prevent the withdrawal of a reference unless approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. We believe there should be, as the Senate Committee recommends, a minimum of two members of the Authority present at any formal hearings. We oppose the provisions in the Bill for a judicial audit of the Authority or for the Commonwealth Ombudsman to be able to investigate complaints. There again, we accept the views of the Senate Committee, the reason being that by using these powers the people who will be investigated by the Authority could frustrate its work. However, we do believe there should be an external means of reviewing the work of the Authority and we propose an amendment for a joint committee of this Parliament to monitor and review the performance of the Authority. We believe that if those amendments are agreed to we will have a very valuable, powerful and effective means of fighting the menace of organised crime and official corruption in this country. We support the Bill at this stage in the hope that at the Committee stage honourable senators will support at least the major amendments that we propose and which we think are necessary. We hope that in that event, despite the delays and backing and filling of this Government, and its weak response to the problems faced, the Bill which emerges from the Senate will be effective in meeting the major challenge of organised crime and will be an instrument of which this Parliament can feel proud. Sitting suspended from 6.28 to 8 p.m. Senator HILL(South Australia)(8.00) —The Senate tonight is debating a most important piece of legislation to be set up for this country a National Crime Authority. The subject is becoming very familiar, particularly to those of us who contributed to the debates last year that resulted in the former Government' s Bill being passed to set up a National Crimes Commission which, of course, did not come into being after the change of government. It is familiar to those of us who participated in the present Government's mini-summit on organised crime in this country also held last year. Of course, it is also familiar to those of us who contributed to the consideration of this Government's proposed National Crime Authority by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. I have spoken twice on this subject in the last few months in the Senate. I spoke to the motion to refer the Government's National Crime Authority Bill to the Committee to which I have just referred. I saw in the Government's Bill what appeared to be a number of significant deficiencies. I thought the proper course of action was for it to be referred to the Committee. That course of action was adopted by the Senate. I contributed to the Committee's consideration of the matter and when the report was put down a few weeks ago I spoke to that report. On that occasion I attempted to explain to the Senate how the Committee took the Government's Bill and from that Bill attempted to find a proper balance, in the Committee's judgment, between a body which had the potential to be effective, on the one hand, but with a minimum loss of traditional personal liberties and protections and with minimum further invasion of personal privacy on the other hand. As I said, I indicated to the Senate on the last occasion why I believed that the Senate Committee found that correct balance. The Government took the Committee's report back to the inter-governmental committee of Ministers and then put down, in the recent past, a report of its consideration of the Senate Committee's report. I admit that, at first blush, I was disappointed with the Government's response. It appeared to me that a number of major deficiences identified by the Senate Committee had failed to be adopted by the Government in its report. However, on that occasion, I did not have the opportunity to speak. What has now happened is that we have a whole series of Government amendments to consider. We are therefore debating the second reading of the National Crime Authority Bill in light of numerous Government amendments which we know will be put in the Committee stage. In that light, tonight I want to go back again to the same questions of balance. The questions that the Senate Committee addressed on looking at the Government's former Bill are now the same questions which must be addressed on the basis of the Government's Bill together with the whole series of amendments that it proposes to put to the Committee of the whole. Those questions are: Does the Authority, if it is set up on that basis, have the potential to be effective? Secondly, if we decide that it does have that potential, does it result in a loss of traditional civil liberties and common law protections any more than is absolutely necessary? Associated with that question is whether it impinges upon the privacy of the individual also any more than is absolutely necessary. The first aspect in the balancing process which I wish to address is the question of the potential of this Authority to be effective. I think three steps have been found to be necessary in the course of development of the debate in determining whether or not such an authority has the potential to be effective. The first that we have learnt from the experience of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union is that, to be effective, the Authority must have sufficient access to information. I think, the real experience of Mr Costigan has been the importance of following what has become known as the money trail. Organised crime is all about the making of money. If it is possible to trace and follow those funds, it is possible from that, to develop an identity of organised crime that is responsible for the production of illicit gains. The first question we have to ask ourselves is: Will this Authority have sufficient access to information? The second question is whether it will have the ability to extract from that information intelligence; by that I mean information that is relevant in this context in isolating the structure of the organised criminal activity. So Mr Costigan again, to use that example, gathers a great mass of information. However, only a portion of that information becomes relevant for further consideration. That is referred to by Mr Costigan and those who develop such systems as the necessary intelligence. The third question is: After one has got to the stage of building the intelligence that will indicate the structure of the organised criminal activities, can that information or that intelligence be used in a way so as to build a case for the prosecution either through a civil action or through a criminal action. I think that another of the experiences that we have learnt from Special Prosecutors Redlich and Gyles and from the experiences of other royal commissioners has been that simply to gain the intelligence is insufficient. The intelligence must be in a form that is capable of being admitted as evidence in a subsequent court if we are going to achieve our goal of retarding organised crime in this country. The second of those questions, the one relating to the extracting of intelligence from the mass of information, is not really a question for debate tonight. It is really a question of resources and a question of building up proper systems and adequate personnel to do the necessary job. What I think is of critical importance, however, in this debate, is to look at the first question and the third question, that is, the question of access to information and the question of gaining evidence and intelligence in evidentiary form to see whether the body has not only the power to do that but also to see at what cost if the body is given that power. One thing I certainly do not want to see come out of the exercise is simply to replace one evil in Australia with another. I wish to look, firstly at the capacity of this body as envisaged to gain sufficient information. A number of matters that the Government has agreed are largely matters that have arisen out of the Committee's report I think are particularly worth noting. First, we should be aware that the Government has agreed that a natural person may be compelled to produce his business records. A natural person may not be able to claim privilege against self-incrimination in order to avoid the production of business records. This is a significant extension of normal access to information. (Quorum formed) This is an important subject and it is worthwhile that more honourable senators, particularly Government senators, are now present to participate in this debate. As I was saying, this body will have access to business records in a way which has not been envisaged before. It will not be possible for a natural person to claim privilege in the production of business records. Furthermore, such business records may be utilised in subsequent prosecution or become admissible in a civil cases. The Government agreed to make it clear that this body can carry out investigations without a specific term of reference. The Committee thought this was particularly important in the initial stages of gathering information, and it may be particularly important in the commission or authority, no matter what it is called, going to an intergovernmental committee to seek a reference. That body would not be able to do so efficiently unless it had a capacity to gather information of its own motion in the first instance. This was unclear in the Bill in the first instance and has now been made clear. In deciding whether the body will have sufficient ability to gather information necessary to do the job, it is important to note that the Government has agreed to amend the Bill to empower the Authority to require the transfer to it of information held by any other Commonwealth agency. Through all the royal commissions, through the evidence given to Costigan, and also in relation to the McCabe-Lafranchi report the message comes through loud and clear that it is not easy to get information from government departments. In some instances there is good reason. The Bill now makes clear that departments will be obliged to produce that information to the Authority and that will become particularly important. That is subject to one reservation from the point of view of public intest privilege, which does not concern me. It is also subject to reservations in relation to tax-an issue that causes me some concern. On the subject of tax, the Authority will have greater powers than might otherwise be imagined. In the redrafting form it will have power in exercising its ordinary functions and powers to receive from the Commissioner of Taxation information relevant to taxation or tax-related offences. From my personal point of view I would have gone further. I believe that it should not be so limited to taxation and tax-related offenes. Nevertheless, the present consensus appears to be that that is taking the matter far enough. Certainly it goes much further than some would have imagined. The Government has accepted the recommendation that the Authority should be empowered to enter into arranements with State instrumentalities to gather information. That is important for obvious reasons. Organised crime is not limited by State boundaries. State instrumentalities may well have information that is necesary to build the intelligence which, in turn, is necessary to identify the web of organised crime involved. The Authority will also have power to enter into arrangements with private bodies or persons to gather information. That, too, is important. The Government has accepted that the privilege against self-incrimination should be recognised only if claimed by natural persons. It will have wide power to gain evidence from corporations, particularly evidence of business dealings of a corporation that will enable the Authority to follow the money trail. There has been some doubt as a matter of law whether this has been possible in the past. That issue has now been clarified. A notice to produce procedure has been provided, which will greatly facilitate the obtaining of information from documents. The procedure envisaged in the past has been somewhat cumbersome. Certainly that applies to the procedure which Costigan had to employ to conduct the affairs of his commission. The procedure will be simplified and should make for more efficient gaining of information. The body will be able to compel incriminatory testimony and the production of personal records on the granting of a use derivative use indemnity. This will allow for the further building of basic information and also for the testing of that information. Most honourable senators will now be aware of the basic procedure of calling peripheral witnesses and, if necessary, giving them a limited indemnity in order to build a case about the major parties involved in organised crime. The Committee advised a more flexible system of warrants, and I am pleased to see that suggestion has been adopted. On what the Government has agreed, the authority has power to go a long way towards making it an efficient information-gathering mechanism. I do not say it has gone a sufficient way. In fact, I want to run through a number of failings which in my view still exists in the information gathering mechanism, some of which I hope can be amended in Committee. The first relates to relevant offence. The definition of relevant offence becomes critical from the start of the exercise because it will limit the capacity of the intergovernmental committee in giving references. The Government definition of relevant offence is, in the opinion of the Committee, too restrictive when it attempts to identify a particular crime. We believe that it will simply provide a way out. For example, the Committee raised the subject of arson. I have grave doubts whether arson, which the Committee was advised is utilised by organised crime in this country, is adequately covered by the definition. Similarly, it is questionable whether SP bookmaking, which provides much of the cash flow to organised crime in this country, is sufficiently encompassed in the definition. The Committee did not object to the listing of crimes, but said that they should be listed in an illustrative way rather than in an exhaustive way. I believe that definition needs improvement, and I trust that it will be improved at the Committee stage. I have already briefly mentioned the subject of taxation. I would have liked to see the Bill go further in this area. I have said that in an ordinary stage of investigation it should not be limited simply to tax breaches, but also at the further stage when the body has been given a specific reference, information from the Commissioner of Taxation may only be used as intelligence and not in civil actions and criminal prosecutions as evidence. I know this attitude has been accepted in our system for a long time, but it is becoming somewhat illogical that much personal information held by government departments will be made available to be used in evidence, but not tax records. The traditional argument has been that if one does not so provide, the criminal will not give honest information in his tax return. I regard that argument as naive. An organised criminal is no more likely to give honest information in his tax return than he is in relation to his other business and personal dealings. I was disappointed that the recommendation of the Committee to allow a judicial officer to issue an order to arrest a person who appears to be leaving Australia to avoid giving evidence was not accepted by the Government. The Committee has good information put to it by royal commissioners that this had occurred to the detriment of the gaining of information. I submit that the procedure providing simply for seizure of passports is insufficient. Criminals of this status seem to have little difficulty in finding other passports. Therefore, with these reservations I believe the authority has been given reasonable power to gather information. To that extent it has been given the capacity for the potential to be effective. If the authority has sufficient information and can turn it into relevant intelligence, one asks whether it has now the capacity to build sufficient evidence that is admissible and can be used in a court against an organised criminal who has been identified. In that regard I acknowledge that it has been agreed by the Government that this Authority shall have power to set up task forces which will no doubt be particularly helpful at the investigatory stage. That evidence was put before the Committee. It appears to be beyond dispute. I note that a corporation will not be able to claim self-incrimination privilege. That will facilitate the gathering of admissible evidence, not simply basic information. An individual will not be able to claim the privilege of self-incrimination in relation to business records. That will not only facilitate gathering of information but also the building of a case comprising admissible evidence. I note also that evidence obtained after the granting of an indemnity will be able to be used for civil proceedings. That is an important advance in that the Authority will be able to gain evidence that is capable of being utilised in a court. For those and a number of other reasons which I do not have time to go into tonight it appears to me that not only will the Authority have the potential to get information, it will also have the potential to build a case from that information. That leads to a balancing of considerations. Has it gained that potential at a cost that is too great; that is, is the cost too great in the loss of common law protections that have been built up over hundreds of years and in the invasion of privacy? In that regard I note first that the use of coercive powers, which concerns us all, will be limited to investigation under a term of reference. It is the advice of the Committee that a government should be forced to make a decision, to make a stand, before this body assumes particular coercive powers. I believe that is wise and I support it. Secondly, it will not be able to conduct public inquisitions. This has concerned me in the past. I am pleased that the Committee came down on the side that public inquisitions, the short-cuts that we see in some of the American crimes commissions, will not become part of the system within Australia. I think that will be important from the point of view of protecting basic civil liberties. Thirdly, as I mentioned before, a natural person will not have to answer incriminating questions without an indemnity. The Committee recommended a use derivative use indemnity; in other words, it said that the indemnity should relate to what is immediately said and that information gained information derived from what is said. The Committee therefore said that there is a point in giving indemnity only if we give an effective indemnity. That is being taken up by the Government. I think that is a safeguard that is worth particular notice in this balancing procedure. Fourthly, the streamlined procedure to a judge that was recommended to the Committee in the event of alleged abuse has been adopted. There was good evidence put to the Committee as to the value of that practice. I am pleased that that is there; it is another safeguard that is worth noting. Also, a person charged with an offence will be able to refuse to answer or produce documents. I think that would have been obvious. It was covered in the Royal Commissions Act but it was not in the original Bill. Therefore, whereas there will certainly be some loss of traditional protections in the form of coercive powers, which has to be of concern to us, and there certainly will be some further invasion of privacy, particularly in relation to public records, business records and the like, it nevertheless appears to me that there have been restraints and that the balance, bearing in mind the extent of the evil of organised crime that has been found, is reasonable. There are two further major reservations that I wish to mention. I trust there will be amendments to the Bill at the Committee stage. Both go beyond the subjects that I have been covering and relate to the role of the intergovernmental committee and its responsibility to give references. The first was mentioned by Senator Durack before dinner. it is the States' insistence on retaining a veto over purely Commonwealth references. I believe that for this body to be effective there must be co-operation between the States and the Commonwealth. There must be co-operation from the State police forces. As I have said, organised crime does not stop at State boundaries. We know from what we have been told that matters such as SP bookmaking, which are State offences, are used to fund the importation of narcotics, which is a Commonwealth offence. Thus having a co-operative scheme is important if this body is to be effective. Nevertheless, to take that to the extent of saying that the States should have a veto over a Commonwealth reference on breaches of purely Commonwealth laws is an abdication of responsibility in which I believe the Commonwealth should not engage. I cannot see that from a State point of view it is really anything more than pigheadedness. It is impossible to imagine any circumstance in which a State could reasonably say that it would not want a Commonwealth investigation to take place into a breach of Commonwealth law. If it is purely pigheadedness I trust that that provision will be amended in the Senate and that upon reconsideration the States will accept that the provision does not go to the core of co-operative federalism which is necessary for this body to work effectively. I am pleased that the States, we are told, recognise the need for complementary legislation to support the coercive powers that have been given to them by Commonwealth law. I think that is a positive sign. I hope that positive attitude from the States will continue after this Bill has been amended, as I trust it will be, so that the Commonwealth will have power to give its own references. The second matter that causes me particular concern is that the intergovernmental committee will not be able to give a reference unless it is satisfied that the matter cannot be handled by police using traditional methods. Again, I am not suggesting any malicious intent on the part of the police forces , but it is not surprising that a police force will want to argue that it is able to carry out a law enforcement function within its State or within the Commonwealth. It happened in the case of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. That is worth remembering. The Victorian police force stated in all honesty that it believed that was a matter that was under control. New methodology showed, in fact, that a whole massive crime network was below the surface and had not been identified. Decisions like that, made in all innocence, could hinder the efficient operation of this body. I hope that that will not be the case. How can this problem be overcome? The Committee gave the lead when it said that certainly the intergovernmental committee should take into account whether the matter can be handled by police forces using traditional methods but the decision should not be dictated by that consideration and certainly the onus should not be placed in the other direction. I hope that that provision will be amended at the Committee stage. I will move an amendment at that stage to that effect. I think it is worth mentioning when one is touching upon the subject of the attitude of police forces that there appears to have been a change of attitude in recent years. The Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union is now getting good support from all police forces. We understand, for example, with regard to the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence that State police forces now feel more confident and are contributing information. Evidence that was put before the Senate Committee appeared to indicate that the fear by police forces of this body usurping their functions has lessened over the years. Most police forces now accept that there is a function that a new body with new powers can fulfil in meeting the evil of organised crime which simply has not been met adequately in this country. Therefore, in conclusion, I say that I believe that the Bill and the Government 's amendments have gone a long way towards producing a body that has the potential to be effective. I would argue that the legislation has not gone sufficiently far and I have mentioned some of the areas in which I trust the Bill will be amended at the Committee stage. Senator Durack before dinner mentioned some other provisions that I believe also require amendment. With those amendments, I believe that the body to be formed will have the potential to be effective. Certainly it will be at a cost to civil liberties and personal privacy but, on balance, bearing in mind the extent of organised crime with which we are all now familiar the community will be prepared to suffer that cost . Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(8.30) —I rise to discuss the National Crime Authority Bill 1983 and its consequent Bill. I am afraid I do not do it with the same sunny optimism that my colleague Senator Hill does because I believe that this Bill as it stands, and as the Government proposes to put it forward, could be a disastrous experience for the Australian people, a betrayal of what they expect of this Parliament. Whether the legislation will be better than that depends very much on what this Senate does. I do not need to go to the question of organised crime and the extent to which it is a menace in this community. That is accepted; that evidence was clear before the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs and has been clear before a number of royal commissions over recent years. It is clear from the decisions and recommendations of judges of great eminence who recognise the great and growing power which sophisticated and organised crime has and the damage it is doing in the community, both by its refusal to allow people to go about their ordinary ways and ordinary businesses and because of corruption in administrative circles . A number of people have talked about the protection of civil liberties and how a national crimes commission-which is what I would like to think we will call it ; I am glad this Bill does not call it a 'commission' because this is a shadow of a commission-would interfere with civil liberties. However, I would like to think that such a body would protect the liberties of the people. Indeed, I put it to this chamber that the real privileges of the people and the civil liberties which we have, are the liberties to go about our daily lives, to know that we are not corrupted or enforced to take particular actions and are not intimidated in our business affairs, and to know also that our government organisation and the judiciary are not corrupted. We know there is some corruption in the magistry already; how far away is it from higher judicial areas. We know there is corruption; we only have to read newspapers and records of crime investigations to see to what extent there has already been corruption within administration in this country. Therefore, that is the major civil liberty in this country. In regard to the other civil rights which we are designing to protect, in some respects we may have to forgo some privileges in the interests of the basic civil liberties of this country. We may have to give to some men who we hope will be men of quality and ability opportunities to investigate and to fight organised crime in such a way that they have to have adequate powers and not be limited to the extent that they are ineffective in that fight. Senator Gareth Evans —They might be women. Senator MISSEN —Yes, and women. If we have five members or commissioners I hope that we will have the opportunity to have women as well as men. There is no reason why this legislation should be sexist in any way. There are two things by which this Bill-and I take the Bill to include the amendments that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) now puts forward- should be tested, and I want to look briefly at them. One is the National Crimes Commission Bill of 1982-the Durack Bill-which now, if I may use the expression which comes out of the tapes, is coming up 'smelling like roses'. After the investigation we have done as a Senate committee we see that the provisions in that Durack Bill are sound. There is absolutely no reason why that Bill should not have been proclaimed by the incoming Hawke Government and it is a dereliction of duty that it has not done so. If it wanted to amend it later it could have done so. One significant point in regard to that legislation is evident when we look at the report of Sir Edward Williams. Honourable senators will remember that he was appointed by the previous Government to head this commission. He went all around the country to investigate the matter and saw all kinds of people, and he said that there was no reason why the commission should not come into operation. I invite honourable senators to look at the long letter which he wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on 22 December 1983 in which he set out the results of his investigations. Of course he was sent packing; he was sent back to continue his judicial work and was not required to go on with the organisation of this commission and bring it into operation. But it is clear from the contents of his report that it was practical and operational and should have been brought into force. This Government has a lot to answer for not doing so. Secondly, we can test this present Bill by the experience in the last three to four years of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, a commission which has used new methods of tracing and unveiling the organised crime figures of this country. It has a very good record and the present Government agrees with that; it has constantly said that. Even Mick Young said it the other day in the other House. There is no doubt that that Commission has exposed, by the use of modern computerised methods, a great deal that would not otherwise have come to light. It is important above all things that we carry on that good work, and when the Costigan Commission comes to an end-and of course it operates under a rather restrictive reference at present-it will be replaced by a commission, or authority if you like, which has at least equal powers, which at least can be as competent, and which can expand its operations over those very areas of organised crime that the Costigan Commission has not been able to tackle because they do not relate in any way to the painters and dockers. So it is very important to test this Bill. This was evidence brought before the Committee; evidence which I regret to say was substantially ignored by the majority report. The evidence was such that the commission as it stands in this legislation could not possibly continue the work of the Costigan Commission. One should realise what people thought about the previous Bill. I want to read to the Senate remarks made by Senator Chipp who, I am afraid, seems to have lost a lot of interest in the fight against organised crime. Senator Chipp —That is an absolute lie. Senator MISSEN —That is my impression and I am very sorry to see that. The PRESIDENT —Senator Chipp, you will withdraw that remark. Senator Chipp —I have no intention of withdrawing. If a man tells a lie about you in this place you should have the right to say so. The PRESIDENT —Order! You are not allowed to put it in those terms in this chamber. You will withdraw the remark. Senator Chipp —In deference to you, Mr President, and in utter contempt of Senator Missen, I withdraw the remark. Senator MISSEN —Mr President, I proceed to quote from what Senator Chipp said on 17 November 1983. I hope he will stick to what he said and support firmly these things, but this is not evident in the way he has accepted recommendations of the Senate Committee. He said: In fact all Australian Democrats are in favour of an effective national crimes commission and we all voted for it, for a model that maybe had some shortcomings , but a model which I thought was first class-the so-called Fraser-Durack model. If we are accused of holding up legislation to fight organised crime I simply say to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) that he has a Bill right at this moment that has been passed by both Houses of the Parliament and all it needs to implement that particular Crime Authority is to get in a car and go out to Yarralumla. I like that sort of expression. I felt, at that stage, that Senator Chipp was showing a realistic attitude of what was needed here. Even at that time Senator Gareth Evans recognised certain things about the Bill when he gave general support to it, although it is true he voted against the third reading of the Bill because some of his amendments were not carried. To recall what he said, he made it clear that he did not believe in the necessity of having joint responsibility. He did not want joint responsibility to more than one parliament . Of course this Bill is absolutely loaded with joint responsibility. It is a responsibility to an amorphous committee of Ministers who are given all this power- Senator Gareth Evans —Nonsense, you have not read the Bill. Senator MISSEN —Of course I have read the Bill. You are being a silly ass, Senator, in saying that. I have read it many times. It is a fact that this Bill divides responsibility. It will divide and conquer, and the conquerors of course will be the organised crime experts of this community. Let me remind the Senate too that when this Bill was sent to the Committee I found great clarity in Senator Chipp's expression of what was wrong with the Bill. On 16 November 1983 Senator Chipp said that: . . . all the Australian Democrats were in favour of a crimes authority with teeth . . . He said: We already lent our support to the 1982 Crimes Commission Bill which was passed by both Houses but was not proclaimed. Although we sympathise with the Government's difficulties-clearly it lacks the co-operation of State governments and this became apparent during the crimes commission conference-it does not advance the fight against organised crime to pass a Bill with fatal flaws which will make it a toothless tiger. That is excellent stuff and it is right. Nor should we do it at this time. He then went on to say, what were his major objections. We must test whether he sticks to these objections in the debate on this Bill. He said: Under the provisions of the present Bill: the authority may not initiate inquiries, but may investigate only if a matter has been referred to it by the ministerial committee. I hope we are going to stand firm on that and see that there is the power of initiation by this authority to open up its own inquiries. He continued: . . . a reference may be stopped by a State if the matter concerned is an offence against the law of that State; i.e., a right of veto. References may be made only for offences carrying a penalty of three years imprisonment or more ( excludes many offences). Of course it does. It excludes many offences that a number of the State Ministers do not want examined by this Commission. He then went on to say: . . . references may not be made unless the Committee is satisfied that ' ordinary police methods of investigation . . . are not likely to be effective'. That is what the Government has rejected. He then said: . . . while it is necessary for the authority to be able to order private hearings and to prohibit publication where this is necessary (an appeal should be available from the authority's decision) it also removes the defence of 'fair and accurate reporting' for any material published from a hearing, including a public hearing-this removes the factor of public pressure which has led to many inquiries. I remind him of those statements. I think that is a matter that we should be very concerned with. He concludes by saying: Accordingly we believe that a Senate standing committee should be available to examine the provisions of the Bill to determine how best to achieve the stated objectives of the Bill and to recommend improvements. At that time Senator Evans was very critical of this Bill being sent to a Senate committee, as honourable senators may well recall. What did he say on 17 November 1983? He is reported as follows in the Sydney Morning Herald: Senator Evans said last night that the committee was a 'nonsense exercise' which was unlikely to come up with any acceptable proposals to strengthen the Bill. It's a cheap political point-scoring, cheap obstruction that I am afraid is becoming all too familiar', he said. Well, he has had to eat those words, has he not? When the Committee came down with the report, a report which was good on analysis but, regrettably, rather weak on solutions, he said: . . . it would appear that the general thrust of the report is not likely to cause the Government any particular difficulty. There are, however, a number of matters of detail which the Government and the parliamentary party will certainly need to consider closely. I will soon come to the fact that he had a big change of heart a week or so after that. At least he found that the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee, led by his own colleague, was doing something quite sensible and reasonable, but at first he said it was a nonsensical exercise as we have heard. As I have said, the report has been brought down. The report also contains a minority report which I issued. Honourable senators will remember how Senator Evans sneered when he concluded that I was alone in this. He sees now from the forty amendments which are before the Chair which the Opposition is moving that I am no longer in any way alone. He will see that those amendments have been accepted and have been put forward by the Opposition. They cover practically all the matters I raised as major objections to the Bill as it stood. Without going into great detail about them, the 40 amendments of which Senator Durack has given notice would make this Bill into one of which we could be proud, one which could be effective and one which would achieve the objectives we seek. Since then, of course, the Government has come down with a number of other alterations. It is very interesting that within two hours of the report being tabled, Senator Evans was able to say that he could see no objection to it. But after he had been to the meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, after he had got the advice from the right wing of the Labor Party in New South Wales, after he had got the advice and the demands of the New South Wales Attorney-General, Mr Landa, and the Attorneys-General at their meeting- Senator Gareth Evans —I ended up accepting 39 out of 49. You withdraw that. Senator MISSEN —The Attorney-General makes anyone suspicious, when he starts talking about numbers. He has rejected major objections of vital importance to this Bill. I have done an analysis of the alterations which the Government has made-the acceptances of the Committee's recommendations, the major rejections, the minor rejections, the new provisions which it has brought in and the ' modifications' of the Senate Committee recommendations. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the analysis which I have prepared. Leave granted. The document read as follows- SUMMARY OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY LEGISLATION (THE PRINCIPAL BILL AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL BILL) EFFECTED BY THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S ANNOUNCEMENT AND THE AMENDMENTS NOW PROPOSED BY HIM TO THE BILLS The Attorney-General's response to the Senate Committee Report indicates, in his terms, 31 acceptances of recommendations, 8 accepted with ''modification'' and 10 totally rejected. Naturally, the Government has totally ignored the 8 major objections which I have made to the legislation in my Minority Report. Recommendation No. 32-Acceptances include (1) the denial of the right of the new Authority to call any public evidence (new Clause 21 (9) and (11)) Recommendation No. 25-(2) the acceptance of the wide open ''use derivative use' ' indemnity proposed by the Senate Committee (new Clause 25 (5) and (7)). I would suggest that both these acceptances greatly prejudice the effectiveness of the proposed Authority. Major Rejections Recommendation No. 15-(1) Commonwealth references. The approval by the inter- governmental Committee of such references is still required. (new Clause 11 (a)) Recommendation No. 17-(2) Withdrawal of Commonwealth references. The Senate Committee recommended affirmative action by both Houses of Parliament if the Commonwealth Attorney-General proposed to withdraw a reference. This is rejected and the only requirement is that the withdrawal be placed in the Gazette and tabled in the Parliament (new Clause 11 (4)) Recommendation No. 36-(3) Sittings to be conducted by at least two members of the Authority (this was rejected by the Government and I agree with the soundness of that rejection). Recommendation No. 37 and 38-(4) Recommendation that both judicial audit and the Ombudsman's involvement in the Authority's affairs be deleted. Both these possible obstructions of the Authority's activities are insisted on by the Government (see Clauses 47 and 44) Recommendation No. 49-(5) Renaming of the Authority as the Australian Crime Commission has been rejected (Clause 1) Less Significant Rejections Recommendation No. 19-(6) The Senate Committee recommendation was that the inter-governmental Committee should take into account whether ordinary police methods of investigation were likely to be effective but it was not to be a requirement. The Government has rejected this and insists upon the inter- governmental Committee being satisfied (Clause 9 (2)) Recommendation No. 20 (a) and (b)-(7) Recommendation for a limited right to electronic voting by the inter-governmental Committee and also a requirement that the delegation of powers of the inter-governmental Committee should be to a Minister only. Both these recommendations, firstly to assist in urgent cases and secondly to ensure that it does not become a bureaucratic body, are rejected by the Government. Recommendation No. 31-(8) Proposed power of arrest by order of a judicial officer, where there are reasonable grounds for believing a person is about to leave Australia to avoid giving evidence to the Authority, has been rejected ( Clause 20). Modifications of Senate Recommendations Recommendation No. 25-(1) The proposed indemnity to be given to witnesses claiming protection against self-incrimination was a ''use derivative-use'' indemnity but, while the Government has accepted this extraordinarily wide indemnity, it has rejected the proposal that the Authority make determinations on the abrogation of the privilege. (Clause 25 (5) and (7)) Recommendation No. 2-(2) The definition of ''relevant offence'' has been retained and the requirement that the functions of the Authority are limited to crimes involving a maximum of three years imprisonment, is insisted on (thus the Government's claim that this is accepted with modification is untrue). (See Clause 4 (h)-Definition of relevant offence.) Recommendation No. 21 (b)-(3) The fact that references are rejected by the inter-governmental Committee can only be included in the Annual Report if the inter-governmental Committee is satisfied to that effect (Clause 48 (4) A) Recommendation No. 30 (b)-(4) The seizure of other material obtained on warrant where that material would assist law enforcement agencies, has been rejected ( Clause 18 (1)). Recommendation No. 42 (a) and (b)-(5) The proposal denying ministerial directions in relation to particular cases, and also in respect to guidelines- the Senate Committee recommendation is rejected and it can only be done if the inter-governmental Committee unanimously agrees (16 (1A), (2) and (3)) Recommendation No. 29-(6) The provisions in the Consequential Bill relating to tax information are very limited and do not comply with the Senate Committee proposal and are limited both as to the obtaining of information, particularly in respect to ordinary investigations, and also limited as to the passing on of such material to prosecuting authorities. (See the amendments to Clause 16 of the Income Tax Assessment Act contained in this Bill). There are two other important matters in connection with the major Bill which require attention. (1) There is a new provision (Clause 10 (2) and Clause 10 (a) (i) A and B and 10 (a) (ii) A and B). This is a prohibition against the Authority or its officers interviewing persons if they are suspected of having committed an offence. It is also a restriction on the officers of the Australian Federal Police and State Police. It makes the work of the Authority inoperable. (2) There are problems in connection with the granting of State references to the Authority that were received in advice by the Senate Committee but not acted on by it. I have referred to them in my Minority Report Chapter 4 (n) page 126. There are Constitutional difficulties that arise if the States do not adopt mirror legislation providing precisely the same powers to the Authority when it is dealing with State references. As was pointed out to us, there is a real possibility of constitutional difficulty arising where States give different powers to the Authority and it is acting on a mixed reference. It may then hear some evidence which it has not got power to hear in connection with certain of the States. This matter must be taken up. ALAN MISSEN Senator for Victoria 22nd May 1984 Senator MISSEN —I thank the Senate. I hope that honourable senators will look closely at that because they will see that in fact there are many vital-- Senator Chipp —We are bound to. I have to be restrained from getting at it. Senator MISSEN —I ask Senator Chipp please to be restrained because there is a long debate ahead of him and he wants to keep his calm. I want to look for a moment at why the change in the Government attitude was needed. Why was it that the Government, which found no problem at first with these recommendations, very quickly after had a meeting with the Attorneys- General and found that a great deal of change was needed. Last week in the National Times there was an article headed 'Operation Evans Runs out of Steam'. I do not agree with that at all. I think he has been steamrolled, which is a different thing altogether. I am sure that deep down he has the same views. Senator Chipp —That's a clever pun. They are rolling thick and fast now. Senator MISSEN —I thank Senator Chipp. Praise from him is something. We know, do we not, that the right wing-of which Senator Evans is a member-in New South Wales has done this. It is not the civil libertarians in his party; it is those clever, pragmatic men of New South Wales who have so often rolled him in the last year of two. They have rolled his consititional changes and removed for temporary purposes anyway his human rights proposals. They have taken so much out of the legislative program for the time being and have rolled him entirely on this. We know that in the meeting of Attorneys-General, which was held a few days after this report came down, it was actually Mr Landa, the New South Wales Attorney-General, who did all the talking. I wonder why. He was the one who was demanding, pushing and shoving. He was the one-- Senator Gareth Evans —Were you there? Senator MISSEN —I was not there, Senator, no. Senator Gareth Evans —You are remarkably ill-informed. Senator MISSEN —That is what I am told. If I am wrong, Senator Evans can tell us so. I understand that the Victorian Attorney-General did not turn up on that day . He came the next day. It was New South Wales, Mr Landa, who did all this. Some of these amendments, particularly the one that has crept in and that I will say something about later-the one that denies to the crimes authority any right to interview people-are extraordinary. Proposed new section 10 A (4) states that no member of the Authority nor a member of the staff is able to find out what evidence is going to be given. They have to throw it into the Commission and see what they get. What royal commission in the history of this country has been under such restrictions? Where do we find in the Evans documents a description of where that provision came from and why it is in there? There is no description at all because that is a Landa creation. It is to ensure that this authority will be unable to get off the ground. That is a very interesting and significant change. It has resulted from the pressure of the right wing and the Government backers. It has come from the pressure also of Mr Kerry Packer who has been running around the country with great determination to get this feeble Bill through and to get rid of the Costigan Royal Commission. Senator Gareth Evans —You will say anything under the cover of privilege. You will say anything that comes into your sordid little mind. Senator MISSEN —Let us talk about what the Attorney-General has said. Apparently he disputes this in some way. As he knows, last Wednesday I asked a series of questions of the Attorney-General about the influence-- Senator Gareth Evans —And you got an answer straight away. Senator MISSEN —I did not get it right away. I got some of it and some the following day. My question asked whether Mr Kerry Packer, as I am sure is the fact, had exercised pressure on the Government. It is certainly so with regard to the Opposition members and senators; he has been exercising pressure on them. Is the Attorney-General telling me he is not exercising pressure on Government members and senators to ensure that the Bill stays as weak as it is at the moment and is passed quickly and that Costigan passses into history and cannot complete his present inquiries? That is so. Senator Chipp —Are you prepared to say that outside the door? Senator MISSEN —The honourable senator will not stop me from saying things that need to be said in this debate, no matter what he may want. I refer to the Attorney-General's answer to me on that occasion. This will go down in the record whether I am shouted down or not. The Attorney-General said that he had not had any representations, either directly or indirectly, from Mr Kerry Packer ; nor had Mr Mick Young. Senator Durack —Nor had any other Minister. Senator MISSEN —He could not tell me. He thought the other Ministers had not. He proceeded to say that they had not been approached. We all know the people who have been going round making representations like mad- Mr Malcolm Turnbull, the counsel for Kerry Packer. He has been in touch with many people. Senator Tate —To whom? Senator MISSEN —The honourable senator does not know him? Senator Tate —I said 'To whom?' Senator MISSEN —To many people, including honourable senators in this place. Some of them have acknowledged it to me. What does the man call himself? It is not the injudicious bystander; he is the 'Officious Bystander' of the Bulletin- the man whom I replied to this week. This man has been doing a lot of inquiring. In Canberra Mr Richard Farmer, who is well known as a representative of the Australian Labor Party and a supporter of that Party, has been making strong representations. I go back to the answer which the Attorney-General gave me. Senator Durack —Who has Mr Farmer been speaking to? Senator MISSEN —That would be interesting to find out. That is unfinished business, Senator. We will have to find out who, among the Government, that was. Many people have had a lot to do with the Government. The day after this answer was given by the Attorney-General he put in, at the end of Question Time, an answer to the rest of my question in relation to the other-- Senator Gareth Evans —Senile paranoia. Senator MISSEN —The Attorney-General is unhappy about this, is he not? He was very downtrodden on the day I asked the question. Later he gave me an answer. Unfortunately, the Age newspaper, which has been very acute in this matter, mistook his answer and said that no Federal Government Minister had been approached by the media proprietor, Mr Kerry Packer, over the National Crime Authority legislation or the Costigan royal commission. I have not noticed him actually correcting that answer, because that was a mistake. Let us look at the answer he made. This might be another Evans mistake. I do not put it down as that. I think it was a deliberate obfuscation of the Senate when he said: Yesterday Senator Missen asked a question about the National Crime Authority and certain representations which he believed may have been made. In answering him I undertook to ask of my ministerial colleagues whether they were aware of any direct or indirect representations made by Mr Kerry Packer in relation to the National Crime Authority legislation. There was no reference to the removal of the Costigan inquiry. He said: I have asked that question of all of my ministerial colleagues, except Mr Hayden who of course is overseas and has been for most of the period in question . In each case the answer to me has been no. Does the Attorney now suggest to me that that was just a slip of the tongue in that he did not mention the other part of the question? No, he has not answered that at all. Senator Gareth Evans —Say that outside the Parliament. Senator MISSEN —The Attorney can come into the Parliament and answer the whole of the question and not part of the question. I am interested in the Attorney's raving reaction, which is not to be unexpected. Let me say this: It is, of course, the desire of people who are backing the right wing of the Labor Party. It is time the people on the left wing of the Labor Party and those in the centre left realised that they have been taken for a ride and that they are being besmirched by the desire of people in the New South Wales right wing to whom the Attorney owes allegiance and must obey. They are the people who must be obeyed. We must realise that members of the left wing and the centre left of the Labor Party are being taken down by those people. They have a desire to stop Mr Costigan from completing his inquiry. They desire a weak Bill. It is very interesting that in New South Wales the State Government introduced a Bill of its own called the Special Commissions of Inquiry Bill 1983. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Senator Missen, I must interrupt you. There were some interjections from my right which were clearly in breach of standing order 418. I have not brought attention to them because to do so would be to have them inserted in Hansard which would serve no purpose. I remind those on my right of standing order 418. Senator MISSEN —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I am not very worried by that. Senator Gareth Evans —Mr Acting Deputy President-- Senator Durack —Don't waste his time. Sit down. Senator Gareth Evans —I am perfectly happy to give him an extension of time for however long he wants to continue this raving lunacy. I raise a point of order. This sort of gross misrepresentation that is persisting from Senator Missen deserves the kind of response that it has been getting. To the extent that Senator Missen has acknowledged the interjections I take it, Mr Acting Deputy President, that your ruling does not mean there is any suggestion of those interjections being removed from the Hansard. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The point I have made is that interjections were made which were clearly in breach of standing order 418. I presume they are not in the Hansard because they were not responded to. I do not want them to go into the Hansard because I do not think that any purpose would be served in having them in. There is no point of order. Senator Gareth Evans —I take a further point of order. Mr Acting Deputy President, I draw your attention to the standing order which prohibits honourable members and senators casting reflections and aspersions on other members of this place. To suggest that members are on the receiving end of some kind of bribery, corruption, intimidation, duress or whatever and are gearing their legislative reactions to such duress, intimidation or corruption is one of the grosser infringements of that standing order that I can recall. I regard it as offensive. I seek a withdrawal in general terms of those imputations. If the honourable senator will not make such a withdrawal I request from the Chair direction which will ensure that those sorts of imputations are not repeated as this debate proceeds. Senator MISSEN —Mr Acting Deputy President, I have made no such allegation. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I have been listening carefully. I will protect the rights of honourable senators. Senator MISSEN —I was referring to the fact that at the same time as the New South Wales right wing is endeavouring to nobble this Bill, it is going ahead with a special commissions of inquiry Bill, something to which they committed themselves during the last State election. Senator Sibraa —Why did they do that? Senator MISSEN —Because it would turn the heat away from them at the time of the election which was getting very difficult. It is very interesting that they are objecting to the very things here that are contained in the New South Wales Bill . The New South Wales legislation allows the commissioner to sit in public. People are required to give answers. They do not have the right to refuse and to take objection. There is power which compels them to do certain things. The fact that those provisions are contained in the New South Wales Bill means that their attitude is absolutely inconsistent with the line which they are taking and the line which has been enforced by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. Senator Sibraa —This was put-up or shut-up legislation and they shut up. Senator MISSEN —It was shut-up legislation, was it? It is shut-up legislation all right. Senator Sibraa —That is why Greiner never went on with it. Senator MISSEN —I think the honourable senator is right. The desire is really to get at the people who are making investigations and shut them up in New South Wales rather than find out whether the allegations are true. That is another debate for a different parliament at a different time. What I want to say is that what we are dealing with now is government changes to this legislation which will leave the legislation fatally flawed if they go through. I hope that all honourable senators have read the excellent articles which the Age newspaper produced last week under headings such as 'Crime Our watchdog has no teeth' and 'Why National Crime Authority is doomed'. Senator Gareth Evans —You will tell us about their authorship, I take it, Senator? Senator MISSEN —Senator Evans will want to turn it into a personal matter because he does not want to debate the argument. The arguments in those impeccable articles are the highest examples of the Age, as one of our finest newspapers, doing its public duty. The Attorney-General had a miserable reply. I suggest that honourable senators read his miserable reply in which he endeavoured to defend things such as the three years clause, that there has to be a crime for which a penalty of three years imprisonment applies. It was desired by Mr Landa that that provision not apply to SP bookmaking in New South Wales, because it never called for a penalty of three years. That provision, as well as other things, would ensure that that would not come about. The Attorney- General defends that by saying: 'If it is connected with another crime for which a penalty of more than three years imprisonment applies, we can deal with it'. If we have not got that crime it is bad luck. It is a desire to cut down the area of investigation by the Crime Authority. It will be successful unless people in this chamber, including the Australian Democrats, stand up firmly on this and other matters. The Sydney Morning Herald has pointed out that this Bill will satisfy no one. When one looks at the amendments which the Attorney-General wants to put in the Bill one will see that it is not a matter of accident but one of design that the Authority is hedged around with all kinds of restrictions such as the enormously creaky business of an inter-governmental committee which will have plenty of advance warning. It might as well be advertised in the daily newspapers that there will be an investigation. It will never get off the ground if it has to go through that procedure. I seek a short extension in accordance with the Attorney -General's- Senator Chipp —I move an extension of time for Senator Missen of four minutes. Senator Gareth Evans —Lest it be thought there is any disposition on the part of the Government to deny Senator Missen time through the points of order that I took, I would be happy to second that motion. Extension of time granted. Senator MISSEN —I thank the Senate, and I will be very brief. I believe that the hedging around of this authority by the obstruction of the all powerful intergovernmental committee and the creation of a judicial audit to interfere- incompetent as Costigan and others pointed out it would be-as well as the Ombudsman's meddling, would be disastrous. He could ask any questions and disclose any secret information and it would be disastrous. What is more, as I raise in this document that I have incorporated, there is the possibility of constitutional challenge because of the different powers which might be given to this Commission by different States on different references, and there are indeed in this Bill all kinds of opportunities for obstruction of the Commission . I regret that we are not taking up this point, that we are not insisting on some right of public hearing so that an authority can also have an opportunity of appealing to the public over and above the Government's. Of course the Age editorial of this week makes that point very clear. There are, indeed, a great number of problems in regard to this authority. If we in the Opposition succeed in getting most of our 40 amendments through, public hearings would not matter. If we fail in that I believe we will need to have more than the joint committee, which is a desirable thing, to investigate and find out what is going wrong and why it is not working so we can tell the Australian people. I repeat what I said in the Bulletin this week, that the things that are still wrong with this Bill and which need to be amended are: The quite inadequate definition of the authority's powers and functions. The excessive powers of a cumbersome and 'leaking' inter-governmental committee , to deny coercive powers of inquiry to the authority and to veto many of its investigations. An absurd division between 'ordinary' powers of investigation and 'special' powers-only available after the authority gets a specific reference. The totally unsatisfactory way of appointing most authority members which would result in poor appointments and maximum strife. The refusal to create a Joint Parliamentary Committee to monitor carefully the work of the authority (as recommended by Frank Costigan, QC). I believe that unless we can repair this Bill, unless we can carry most of these amendments-I plead with the Democrats to stick with the fact that we have to have a strong authority here-we would do better not to have this one. We would do better to throw it out. I hope that if we do not succeed we will throw out this Bill. If we do not I hope we and the people will fight it at the end of this year, which will probably be the time of an election, and that this will be an issue on which the people of Australia will realise that they are being betrayed by this Government and that this betrayal deserves nothing but defeat. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(9.04) —I will make my few remarks on the National Crime Authority Bill 1983 without reference to the contemptible speech just made by Senator Missen and the contemptible allegations that he makes about certain people under parliamentary privilege, including me. To allege that I have lost interest in organised crime in this country is one of the most untruthful, damaging and contemptible allegations ever made in this place. Senator Watson —What about your statement about Professor Slatyer the other day- intemperate to say the least. You would not have said that out of the chamber. Senator CHIPP —The honourable senator can take his Tasmanian squeak somewhere else and squeak in some convenient toilet of this place because it would be more appropriate there than in this chamber of the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! Senator CHIPP —I will make a deal with Senator Watson of Tasmania. He can have his Tasmanian squeak now for 30 seconds provided he remains silent for the rest of my speech. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! You have the call, Senator Chipp. Senator CHIPP —I also need your protection from idiots such as that. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Chipp, I think you should withdraw the word 'idiots'. Senator CHIPP —If he wants to identify himself, that is not my responsibility, but in deference to your admonition, I withdraw. We are dealing with a very serious matter. We are dealing with a proposition that, according to Mr Frank Costigan QC, who in public evidence before a special Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, which heard evidence on this, this is an industry that is now earning profits-profits, not turnover-of $5,000m per year. That is the magnitude of the problem the Senate is discussing tonight. To make cheap political points, as Senator Missen has done, of something so important, deserves the Senate's contempt. I remind the Senate that it was essentially an Australian Democrat initiative that established the reference of this Bill to the Senate Committee. Let me go back to the history of this matter. I have nothing but general praise for what I refer to as the Fraser-Durack model of the National Crimes Commission , brought down in the latter months of the Fraser administration. It was ambitious, it was courageous and it was something worthy of support. There were some of us, including several members of the Liberal Party, who had some misgivings about some of its more draconian measures which intruded into civil liberties. But it was an act of political courage that attempted to do something about the creature that is infiltrating our society, namely, organised crime, which is now of the dimensions which Mr Costigen identified. Then there was a change of government. That National Crimes Commission Bill, I remind the Senate, was passed by both Houses of Parliament. It could be law today if the Hawke Government had sought royal assent and proclaimed it. In its wisdom, or lack of wisdom, it did not. Instead, it brought down an alternative Bill, the National Crime Authority Bill, which-if I sought agreement with any of Senator Missen's speech, I would agree with this-was a pathetic document. It was a document that was clearly a production of something that classicly comes out of a Labor government, namely consultation with the National Executive, with the National Conference and the power brokers in the Australian Labor Party. In this regard I have some sympathy with Senator Gareth Evans, the Attorney-General, who began the exercise with a genuine and sincere wish to bring down before the Senate an instrument to combat organised crime-I am sure that is still his wish-and who found himself frustrated by the Labor Party machine, by the Tammany Hall tactics of the national presidents and the State Ministers of the Labor Party. Therefore we readily, with alacrity, moved for the reference of that pathetic document-the National Crime Authority Bill-to the special Senate committee. Might I say, as I said on the production of the report, that it has been an exciting parliamentary experience for me, as a member of that Committee, to be associated with it, with its work, with the way in which all members without exception-Liberal, Labor and Democrat-were prepared to try to meet consensus on hearing evidence. It was an exciting experience because party differences were buried in the sense of trying to find a document that would in fact fight organised crime, hence the Committee's report, which both the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) and the shadow Attorney-General have commended. I feel very proud to be associated with that report. Since the production of that report, with the exception of Senator Missen, there have been intense negotiations between the three political parties represented in this Parliament. I pay a great tribute to Senator Durack, the shadow Attorney-General, and his staff. I pay an equally great tribute to the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, and his staff as well as my staff for the way in which they have discussed the strengths and weaknesses of the Bill and the recommendations of the Senate Committee. If Senator Walters wants to say, as she so often does to score points, that a deal has been done, she is probably right. A deal has been done. A deal has been done in most cases between the Australian Democrats and the Liberals, in some other cases between the Liberals and the Australian Labor Party and in other cases between the three of us outside this chamber because on something as complex as this where very fine points of law and practice have to be examined it is impossible because of the parliamentary procedure as laid down by Standing Orders and the discipline of the party system to make decisions in this chamber on the run. Therefore, intense negotiations have been taking place sincerely with barriers down, behind closed doors. I think my two colleagues and I believe that the best consensus can be produced in this way. None of us will be totally happy. Senator Durack will be wanting to go further on some things but he will not be able to. Senator Durack —And I will be moving amendments too. Senator CHIPP —Of course the honourable senator will. They will be met with the vote of the Committee. I will be moving some amendments as well which will be contrary to those moved by Senator Durack and they will also be met-- Senator Missen —We will argue them all. Senator CHIPP —Some of our amendments no doubt will please Senator Missen, possibly more than the amendments moved by his own Party. Senator Missen —They could not be better than my own Party's amendments. Senator CHIPP —Well, that is a classical objective remark. I answer the interjection simply to have it recorded in Hansard so that the value of Senator Missen's contributions can be read by readers of Hansard. In general terms, except where the Liberal approach is contrary to the recommendation of report-and I concede that this is where Senator Missen and I would disagree-for clothing the National Crimes Authority with coercive powers from the very start of its investigations, the Democrats would generally be in support of the philosophy and the thrust of the Liberal Party amendments. As I said, we believe that some of our amendments are better than the Liberal Party amendments, but that is a question of judgment. But in general terms we would go along with those amendments. To explain to probably a very bored listening audience what coercive powers at the beginning of investigations are, let me indicate the philosophical difference. Everybody in this chamber recognises that the nation has a problem in that profits from organised crime are of the order of $5 billion a year. Senator Georges —That is not quite accepted. It is accepted there is a problem. The extent of it is not properly measured. Senator CHIPP —I accept that interjection. But let us assume we have a problem. I can make the remarkable observation that never in my 24 years membership of the national Parliament have I known there to be a serious accusation of corruption against any Federal Minister. Most of the Ministers in that time have been Liberal, as a matter of history, but at times there have been Labor Ministers. But not once has there been an accusation of corruption against a Federal Minister in the Federal Parliament. I think that is a record of which we should be very proud. I think we ought to look at it with some wonderment because the same cannot be said about State parliaments. Certainly the same cannot be said about local government. There are certain places in Australia where corruption has been rampant, and known to be rampant, among State and local government politicians. But that is not the case in the Federal Parliament . That is in the past, though, and that is why we cannot look at this Bill, which is a watershed in the fight against organised crime, as being insignificant. There is that contemptible cliche that every person has his price. I do not believe that; I do not accept that. But what I do accept is that if any crook, criminal or organised criminal identity approached any person of this Senate, no matter of what party, and said 'Here is a $50,000 bribe; do this favour for us', not one person in this Senate would not turn that person over to the Australian Federal Police or report it to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, for the matter to be dealt with by the Senate. It makes a person proud to be able to say that. But what if the bribe was $250,000 per year for 10 years? Would there be the same unanimity of rejection of that kind of money? I do not know. I would like to think there would be. But history has shown us that that is not the story in the United States of America. As we have asked before, is there any reason to believe that the pattern of events that has taken place in that society which is similar politically, constitutionally and socially would not happen here? There is the danger. This is the question we have to ask ourselves. That amount of money, the $250,000 bribe per year for 10 years, is petty cash when measured against the estimated profits that organised crime is making in Australia. Therefore, this Bill has to be looked at as a whole document instead of being treated as a means of scoring cheap political dirty little points against individuals or political parties. I can sympathise with the view that the Liberal Party is putting. That we need a National Crime Authority is beyond question. There is total support for that. But when we establish a Crime Authority we immediately take one step or two steps forward and then before we go to the third step we say: 'Let us look at that other thing we hold precious in our community, particularly if we are members of the Liberal Party; namely, civil liberties'. Should we clothe that body with coercive powers from day one? The Authority may say: 'We have established a target. The target is John Smith. He is a businessman. There is nothing known against him. He just makes lots of money. But he is the target'. Then, from day one we use coercive powers. This is what the Liberal Party is saying. It is a respectable view, but it is one that I believe ought to be looked at with great care. What do we mean by 'coercive powers'? We need to remember that although members of the Authority are assisted by computers they are human beings who make human decisions and are subject to human fallibility. They make a judgment that a certain person is a target. If they have coercive powers from day one, they are entitled to visit John Smith's bank and say: 'We want details of all the bank accounts, all the past transactions and all the past, present and future debts of John Smith'. What happens to John Smith at the bank? That bank has suddenly lost interest-and with good reason-in extending or even preserving John Smith's overdraft. He may well be a successful, up-and-coming businessman but suddenly the bank withdraws his credit because the word gets around that he is under investigation, and any bank in its right mind would withdraw the credit of a person who is known to be under investigation by a national crime commission. These are serious matters. Therefore, while I was tempted to go down the same track as the Liberals, on reflection I believe that we should insist that the Authority prove a prima facie case before it can go to the filter, the intergovernmental committee, and say: 'We have this much on the target, John Smith; in order to develop and produce a case we need coercive powers. We need powers to summon him, command and confiscate documents, raid his office and whatever.' If we give coercive powers to a body right from day one, the kind of people who are at risk are not only suspected criminals but a lot of innocents as well. In Australian society that attracts people who love to knock the successful person this would also allow the dobbers-in a glorious opportunity to report certain things anonymously to the National Crime Authority and cause innocent people all sorts of embarrassment. Therefore, while respecting the Liberal amendment that this Authority should have coercive powers from day one, we have agreed that there should be-as the Committee did unanimously with the exception of Senator Missen, he was the only one-- Senator Missen —I'm proud of that. Senator CHIPP —The honourable senator may well be and he has good reason to be proud of it. But seven of the eight members of the Committee agreed with the approach of the Government and the Australian Democrats. The point of view of the Liberals is respectable, but we disagree with it. With that exception, the Democrats generally agree with the thrust of the Liberal Party amendments, or the Liberal Party will agree with the thrust of the Democrats' amendments. Just for the record and in conclusion, I give some idea of the amendments that we will be moving. I issued a Press release four days ago. I am sorry that Senator Missen has not received a copy of it, but it was issued on 1 June. Our amendments will be designed to increase the range of relevant offences by adding some which have been omitted, including the harbouring of criminals, armament dealings and company fraud. They will provide that further activities could be added by regulation to ensure that a proposed investigation could not be stymied too easily by an appeal against the Authority's jurisdiction. We do not accept the exclusion of offences arising out of a dispute between employer and employee , as at present formulated. We believe that unions will welcome the Authority's access responsibly used, particularly where organised crime has spread its tentacles into owning and managing ostensibly legitimate businesses. We will move an amendment to ensure that genuine employer-employee disputes only are excluded. I remind honourable senators that this Bill was initiated in the Senate. Honourable senators have said time and again that politics is the art of the possible. Can anyone expect the Labor Party to accept a Bill on a national crime authority which gives an authority total access to inquire into any dispute between an employer and an employee? If we insisted on that, the fate of such a Bill would be that the Caucus would throw it out and we would finish up with absolutely nothing. On the other hand, I do not think honourable senators could countenance for one moment the idea of the Builders Labourers Federation being hired by some organised criminal activity-and I regard that as entirely possible in this country-or, as evidence has already shown, the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union being hired by unknown financiers to organise the distribution of heroin in this country, which has been palpably demonstrated, and the Authority being precluded from inquiring into a dispute between the painters and dockers and an employer, where it is indicated that something other than a genuine industrial dispute has been signalled. If it is a genuine industrial dispute I would accept what I believe to be the intent of Senator Georges' remarks. We shall seek to eliminate the potentially restraining effect of the three-year penalty bench mark by enabling the Authority to investigate offences carrying less than three years gaol if it suspects that such an offence is linked with another major offence. We believe that this course is a rational alternative to the Opposition's intention to remove any restrictions on the Authority's jurisdiction and the Government's attempt to hamper the Authority by drawing it too narrowly. We will remove the need to have a proposed Commonwealth reference approved by the IGC, but see no need to extend it also to State references as the Opposition seeks to do. While we praise the intention of the Opposition, we wonder whether that proposal is anything more than window dressing. We will also ensure that an investigation can be stopped only by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. We will also move, as recommended by the Committee, that the IGC must consider whether a matter could be investigated more effectively by a law enforcement agency; in other words, to take into account whether State police forces could investigate something, rather than having a situation where a State government consults its commissioner of police and asks him whether he can handle a matter. If the State commissioner says 'Yes we can fix that' then the State can veto a reference to the Committee. We think that that is intolerable. The only thing which should happen is that the IGC should consider or take into account, to use the Committee's words, 'whether a matter can be more effectively investigated by a law enforcement agency'. I remind the Senate that one of the most efficient, admirable and honest police forces in Australia, the Victorian Police Force, under a magnificent Chief Commissioner, Mr Mick Miller, was asked by the then State Government whether it could handle an inquiry into the painters and dockers. That police force quite honestly and with total conviction said that it could handle the matter. It said it knew that the Painters and Dockers Union was full of criminals who had served gaol sentences and that it was into murder, extortion and drug running, but the force still said it believed that it could handle the matter. Senator Georges —Did it actually say that? Senator CHIPP —Yes. That is an honest reply from a police force. History has shown what happened, and the Costigan Commission has uncovered a litle more action on behalf of the painters and dockers than originally thought. Yet that claim was made quite sincerely. Senator Georges —I think that somebody else discovered crime in a big way and the painters and dockers were just petty. Senator CHIPP —There is a lot I admire about Senator Georges but I wish he would not turn truth and fact to one side when making judgments. Senator Georges would have us believe that the painters and dockers would be the ideal organisers of the Sunday School picnic that I am about to organise. It is quite absurd. The Democrats consider that it is too restrictive to organise a reference only when the IGC is satisfied that policy methods are inadequate. We will move that an item may be seized during a search authorised by warrant and also passed on to another agency if it is relevant evidence for other investigations. Organised crime will never be brought to its knees unless the enormous profits and the accumulated wealth are attacked. The Mr Bigs laugh if one of their minor executives is caught and gaoled and, in most cases, they make sure he or she does not talk. They will take notice if they start losing what motivates them and that is money or assets. To make this possible, we are moving an amendment which will enable the Authority to seek a court order to prevent assets being moved out of Australia. It can be obtained only when the court is satified that a person is likely to be charged as a result of evidence assembled by the Authority and that that person is likely to remove assets from Australia. Again a judgment has to be made. Does one infringe civil liberties? The Mareva injunction stops criminals saying: 'I will cop a couple of years gaol sentence but I will ship $2m to a bank account in Geneva and live the rest of my life in luxury'. Surely that brings justice to no one. Hardened criminals have rarely been stopped from leaving Australia by withdrawal of their passports. Our amendment will enable the authorities to seek a warrant for an arrest if the Federal Court of Australia is satisfied that a person is likely to leave Australia even though that person has been ordered to give up his or her passport. Finally, we are moving an amendment to do away with the judicial audit as recommended by the Committee. That would be an impossible task to carry out unless the judge concerned were to sit in on every hearing of the Authority. Instead, we are moving for the establishment of a parliamentary joint committee to monitor and review the performance of the Authority and to recommend any necessary changes. We believe that such nonpartisan oversight is essential to exclude any suggestion of political bias and to enable adjustments to the functions and procedures to be made to ensure that the Authority is an effective instrument with teeth to fight organised crime. We believe that the Authority needs a watchdog. We do not believe a judicial audit can do it because to do it effectively, if one reads the terms of the original Bill, would require the services of a judge and an enormous staff all the time. I personally doubt the value of an ombudsman because the wealthy criminals can easily get the ombudsman to harass continuously the activities of the Authority. The Authority should have a parliamentary watchdog, a committee made up of ordinary men and women who happen to be members of parliament. The Authority should be responsible to it for either one of two things, namely, if the Authority offends civil liberties some one can complain to it and have that complaint heard or, if someone complains to the Authority about criminal activity and is of the belief that that criminal activity has not been properly investigated by the Authority it can go to the parliamentary committee. The fact that the Authority will know someone is watching it will be an advantage. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(9.33) —The Senate has before it the National Crime Authority Bill 1983. To understand the Bill it is important to know its background and circumstances. Some 16 months ago, immediately prior to the advent of the Hawke Labor Government, the National Crimes Commission Bill was passed by both Houses of Parliament. That Bill was ready for proclamation. However, the Fraser Government had gone further. It had nominated the first chairman of that commission, a very distinguished Queensland jurist, Mr Justice Edward Williams. Mr Justice Williams has had, apart from his very eminent legal background, experience in investigation into criminal matters. In March last year everything was ready to implement the setting up and immediate activation of a National Crimes Commission. The urgency was patent. There had been some five or six major royal commissions into crime in Australia. The names of those commissions are well known. There was the Moffit Royal Commission on Alleged Organised Crime in Registered Clubs in New South Wales, the Woodward Royal Commission into Drug Trafficking, the Williams Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs, the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking and the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. All are household names. Every Australian who takes an interest in public affairs knows that the pattern of those royal commissions was the revelation that, in Australia, there is now major organised criminal activity of very large proportions. If we had not appreciated that from others, certainly we would have appreciated if from the Costigan Royal Commission. Mr Costigan did Australia a very good service in his revelations, not only about the painters and dockers but also in the wider sphere. Indeed, he said of the Painters and Dockers Union that it was not a trade union in the ordinary sense at all, but a gang of criminals organised for criminal purposes to recruit criminals to pursue criminal acts. Senator Georges —That is nonsense. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Senator Georges said it is nonsense. I am paraphrasing the report of the Costigan Royal Commission. Senator Georges —It is still nonsense. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Senator Georges may, if he wants to interrupt, challenge the very framework. He knows that there have been 35 murders inside the Painters and Dockers Union. Only three of the murderers have been brought to book. He knows that just about all the crimes in the calendar are known to the police force to have been committed by the painters and dockers. I am not being diverted from this. I simply say that because the Moffitt, the Woodward, the Williams, the Stewart and the Costigan royal commissions all revealed that pattern the Fraser Government set up a National Crimes Commission. It was ready, under an eminent jurist, to begin operation. The important thing to understand is that the Hawke Labor Government came into office and set aside that legislation. It refused to implement it. For five months it did nothing at all. For five long months in the face of assertions by a series of royal commissions that there was the most devastating organised criminal activity in Australia, of all kinds, extending into every fabric of the Australian community, such as the professions, the law and politics, the Hawke Labor Government did nothing. On 28 and 29 July last year, the Hawke Government sprang into action and had a public conference. I commend, at any stage, a public inquiry. However, it wasted five months. I think Senator Chipp will agree with me that those were precious months. That inquiry simply gave a cross-section of understanding that was known to the Fraser Government, Senator Chipp and his colleagues well before that. It was not necessary to get that information from that conference to act. However, another four months went by until November when the National Crimes Authority Bill 1983 emerged. Nine months was wasted in doing nothing. The real question the public has to understand is why those months were wasted. Of course, a clear picture emerged when the Bill was brought into Parliament. It emerged that, instead of the Fraser Government's Bill which had teeth, which was capable of initiative in pursuing issues, the Bill, rather than pursuing the criminal, did nothing and in fact blocked any activities. To the Senate's amazement, as we examined each of the implications of the Bill, it became clear that it was full of the gravest imperfections. The Senate, having looked at the Bill, referred it to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs and asked the Committee to look at the Bill and to take evidence to see whether it could be effective. That Committee acted swiftly and thoroughly. It brought down a report, a copy of which I have in my hand. That report said that the Bill was ineffectual and contained the gravest of defects. The report is an all-party committee report; it involves the various political parties in this Senate. The report itself says that the legislation was found to be quite incapable of doing what it purported to do. The report brought forward 49 recommendations-an extraordinary reflection on the Bill. Let us examine the Bill which is now before us, with some foreshadowed government amendments and many foreshadowed by the Opposition and the Democrats. That Bill deliberately emasculated Commonwealth powers. We must ask ourselves why would a government deliberately insert in a piece of legislation an emasculation of its powers and an abdication of its responsibilities. I do not believe the people of Australia would believe this, but I state it and I will read the clause in a moment. As we know, the Commonwealth has grave responsibilities and great powers under the Constitution. This Parliament exists to see that those responsibilities and powers are implemented. It is an abdication of responsibility and power if a government seeks to emasculate those powers. The Government has great responsibilities in terms of drugs, currency and all those tax matters that cut across borders and are strictly its responsibility. But what did it do? It set up an inter-governmental committee of the Commonwealth and the States. This is what it said. Senator Gareth Evans —You hypocrite. You federalist hypocrite. Listen to you now . Do you know what you are saying? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I want to give the opportunity to the Attorney-General to speak. Senator Chaney —On a point of order. I ask for the interjection to be withdrawn. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Collard) —Senator Evans, you are asked to withdraw your statement. Senator Gareth Evans —It has never been the practice in this place to regard the word 'hypocrite' as other than a legitimate description of propositions advanced by the other side. I would be extremely surprised to find that it is unparliamentary. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —It has been asked to be withdrawn and has been withdrawn on previous occasions. I ask you from the Chair to withdraw it. Senator Gareth Evans —If there is some precedent for its being thought to be unparliamentary, I accept your ruling and withdraw it. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I did not ask for a withdrawal because I believe that the community deserves to know the kind of blustering behaviour that this Attorney-General has been putting on day by day in this Senate. It is only when they realise the bluster, the bravado, the absolutely abusive and insulting language of this Attorney-General that they will appreciate what I am now about to say. I was told I was a hypocrite because I am about to reveal to the Senate and to the people of Australia the fact that the Hawke Labor Government and its Attorney-General deliberately set out to make it impossible of their own accord to act upon a matter that is purely a Commonwealth matter. The report of the Standing Committee of this Senate says exactly what I am now saying. The Attorney-General is the only person in step in the regiment. So great is his ego that he can concede that, and in fact he can concede nothing else. His narcissism completely consumes him. Let us examine the Bill he has set up. The Bill contains these words: The Minister may, with the approval of the Inter-Governmental Committee, by notice in writing to the Authority, refer a matter relating to a relevant criminal activity to the Authority for investigation in so far as the relevant offence is, or the relevant offences are or include, an offence or offences against a law of the Commonwealth or of a Territory. In fact, if there is a Commonwealth offence, he has to go and ask the intergovernmental committee 'Please may I pursue this matter', a matter which is entirely a Commonwealth responsibility, nothing to do with the States at all. In fact, it is a matter the Attorney-General is absolutely bound to follow because that is his duty under the Constitution and under law. So that there could be an obstruction in the way, a road block was put in the way of pursuing Commonwealth matters. One has to ask oneself why would anybody do that. Senator Gareth Evans —You fraud. Neither Tasmania nor Queensland supported it. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —In case the community does not know, the Attorney- General says: 'You fraud'. That is a remarkable statement from the senior law officer of this country, a remarkable statement from a man who knows that the Senate Standing Committee found that what he had brought forward was a completely ineffectual blocking device. So let him interject. Every time he does so, I intend to expose to the public the kind of bluster and bravado the Attorney-General has. Let me go one step further, and perhaps the Attorney- General will say 'You fraud' again. So that there could not be the ordinary pursuit of those kinds of offences that the world over is necessary for the pursuit of organised crime-and I refer to the pursuit of prostitution, gambling, currency violation, tax offences, all those kinds of offences which in Europe, in the United Kingdom, in the United States of America are the offences of pursuit-what did he do? He said that a relevant offence-that is, an offence that can be used under this legislation-shall be an offence the maximum punishment for which is imprisonment for a period of not less than three years. Any offence for which there is a maximum penalty of less than three years cannot be a relevant offence. Senator Gareth Evans —Except insofar as it is incidental to it. Accept that interjection. It makes nonsense of your argument, you blustering fraud. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Let me say to the people who are listening outside that this Attorney-General is attempting to shout down a speech because he knows that a Senate Standing Committee and the public in general have found him out on all scores and we will not be shouted down. He can use all the abusive language he likes, as he does every day, but the point will be made. The Senate Standing Committee has made the point that this relevant offence would have denied the ordinary pursuit. As Mr Costigan says, how one pursues an offence of organised crime is to pursue the trail of money. He says: The first thing to remember is that the organisation of crime is directed towards the accumulation of money and with it power. The possession of the power that flows with great wealth is to some people an important matter in itself but this is secondary to the primary aim of accumulating money. Two conclusions flow from this fact. The first is that the most successful method of identifying and ultimately convicting major organised criminals is to follow the money trail. If anybody knows this, he will remember that Al Capone, the most notorious American criminal, was caught on a tax offence. He was pursued on a tax offence. Everybody knows that if somebody is wandering into this world of organised crime , he must pursue prostitution, gambling, currency violation, tax offences and all these elements, wherever the big money is. What has happened is that this is to be denied. But Mr Costigan said something else on that matter in relation to which I was told 'You fraud' when I pointed out that the States had the right of veto. Mr Costigan said: Organised crime thrives on corruption: Any proper investigation of its activities will inevitably find evidence of corruption. If a State Government or the Federal Government has the right to forbid a particular line of investigation then the independence and integrity of the commission is destroyed . That clause of the proposed Bill that I read out destroys the integrity of the Commission. Does the Attorney now say that Mr Costigan is wrong? One by one clauses constituting the very fabric of the Bill have been made unworkable. Nobody could have done it except deliberately. How could anybody have done it except deliberately? Senator Gareth Evans —Except that they had a regard for Federal-State co- operation and a regard for civil liberties, both of which you have ignored. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I hope that the Senate and the community heard that. Does every exercise of Commonwealth power under the Constitution, in which the Commonwealth power is absolute, mean that one has to go to the States and say: ' Please, it is my absolute power, but I must ask you first?' The nonsense of this situation is in that proposition. We are talking not about powers that the States-- Senator Gareth Evans —You know as well as I do that Commonwealth power is only exclusive in certain very narrow areas. You can only live with co-operation. It is hypocrisy and it is nonsense. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Let the Attorney shout, but the people will understand the neurosis that haunts the Attorney-General. Senator Durack —This is the man who is talking about State rights? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Yes, this is the man who is now talking about Federal- State powers and who took to the High Court the Tasmanian dam issue and cited an international treaty to break down Federal-State rights. Senator Gareth Evans —You fraud and you hypocrite. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I am delighted that the Attorney should call out all the time. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Collard) —Order! Senator Evans, I ask you to withdraw. Senator Gareth Evans —In deference to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, again I will withdraw, but this constant barrage of nonsense is more than anyone can possibly tolerate from a man who is supposedly committed to the principles of Federal-State co-operation in those areas, whereas in a practical matter the Commonwealth simply cannot act alone. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Lest anyone should have any doubts about my validity on Federal-State affairs, I point out that I was the Minister responsible for Federal affairs who instituted the very fabric of Federal affairs which the Labor Party, including Senator Evans, in opposition opposed tooth and nail. Let the Attorney not mouth the words of Federalism when a former leader of the Labor Party, Mr Whitlam, said that the right thing for members of State parliaments to do was to destroy State parliaments. The Labor Party set out in its constitution to destroy State parliaments. Let there be no diversion on this. The Bill proposed something else. It proposed that it would allow political intervention by the Attorney-General to decide whether something should go on or not. What a strange situation it is when a so-called independent quasi-judicial body is set up under a Bill which allows the Attorney-General to intervene and prevent it from doing certain things. No wonder that the Senate Standing Committee found against the Attorney-General on 49 scores. Lest all this bluster of the Attorney-General be misunderstood, both the Standing Committee and the Opposition, including the Democrats, will move that there be an amendment to remove the veto which can be exercised by the committee of Federal and State Ministers upon the reference to the Authority of a purely Federal question. In other words, we will say that a national crimes commission shall have absolute authority to pursue those things that are totally Federal powers. Let there be no doubt about that. The Opposition will also amend the meaning of a relevant offence so that the commission can pursue those offences which will take it down the money trail to organised crime. The Attorney, having fought against the setting up of this Standing Committee and saying that it was nonsense, has said that the Government will accept some 31 of the 49 recommendations. But in fact he rejected the key recommendations. As this Bill now stands the State veto remains. It represents an abrogation of the Commonwealth. The provision is put in to form a road block against the Commonwealth doing anything. It cannot be there for any other reason. All those who gave evidence to the Committee pointed out that this was so and that the Authority would have no teeth and no ability at all. Let us take this step by step. This extraordinary piece of legislation in fact does not give any real initiative to the Authority. It must in fact go with a begging bowl to the Government and to the Attorney-General. Quite clearly the Opposition intends to move to enable the Authority to act on its own initiative in the investigation of purely Federal offences, so that it can exercise its full coercive powers without any reference from the Government. As Senator Durack has said, this will eradicate the potential for political manipulation so prominent in the present Bill. It is amazing that we need to take away the Government's power to manipulate. Where is the corruption in this situation? We will widen the definition of offences so that in fact the Commission can follow the money trail. We will remove the State veto. We will remove the present limitation in the Bill which permits references to the Authority only if ordinary police methods of investigation are not likely to be effective. What a mess that provision is. It could lead to endless arguments and delays before any action could be taken. We will do away with the amazing new proposal of the Government which requires that only police officers may interview suspects outside formal hearings of the Authority. Why would the Government put that provision in the legislation unless it wanted to obstruct, to delay or to prevent? We will say that the Authority should not comprise three people of whom two are nominees of the States. We will add two more so that there will be five people on that body, and two independent and expert minds, apart from the other three, can be brought to bear so that there is the widest possible understanding. We will amend the Bill to prevent the withdrawal of references by the Government unless approved by both Houses of Parliament. It is an extraordinary situation that the Authority can proceed with an investigation and without anybody saying no the Government can step in and stop it. Honourable senators should ask themselves why a Government would want to do this. It can only be to put road blocks along the way. Senator Durack —Why do they want to stop Costigan? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —That is an extraordinarily good question and indeed one that the Government has failed to answer. It has never given an explanation on this. We will make it mandatory that there be a minimum of two members of the Authority present at hearings. We will remove the right of the Ombudsman to investigate complaints against the Authority and the requirement for a judicial audit because the Chairman of the Authority, one hopes, will be a judge. One hopes that it will be Sir Edward Williams, an eminent man. If it is a judge there will be a judicial approach. We will establish a joint committee of the Parliament to monitor and review the performance of the Authority. If we consider what has happened we see, first, that the Hawke Labor Government could have implemented 15 months ago a national crimes commission which on all expert advice would have had the powers, the authority and the right construction to get on with the job. It could in the last 15 months have intervened in major crime activity in this country. It could have been well on its way to crime busting in this country. One has to ask why the Government wanted five months to have a little conference in this chamber. Why did it wait four months after that and then, after those nine months, why did it bring down a Bill in which it had deliberately written in road blocks at every clause to make it unworkable? Why did it do that? One has to say that it is no good for the Government to get up and say that it did this because it believes in civil liberties. I wonder at this, because there are some old fashioned civil liberties. John Stuart Mill had a better understanding of civil liberties than the Attorney- General. He did not look at the civil liberties of only the criminal and the potential criminal, he did not try to safeguard the liberties of such people only; he understood that the parliament had a right and an obligation to protect the liberties of all and so to restrict the liberties of the few in the interests of all. They are not my words; they are the words of a man named John Stuart Mill who understood civil liberties far better than anyone here. Shakespeare comes to my mind: Mark you this, Bassanio, The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. We can hear this when members of the Government talk about civil liberties. They can cite scripture for their purpose but all they are doing in this Bill is protecting the liberty of the criminal against the liberty and freedom of the majority. We have to ask ourselves all the time why this is so. It is not a question of civil liberties. We were supposed to have a human rights Bill; we were told in a speech by the Attorney-General that it would be tabled in the two Houses for open discussion but not now. It will be hidden until after the election. Senator Missen —That is politics. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Yes, that is politics. What we have is a mouthing of words, empty rhetoric, but when action is introduced in the form of the Bill on the table we find the very reverse. The other side of the moon to civil liberties is first of all a delay of unconscionable length. There is no reason at all why a national crimes commission should not be busy in its activities. There is no reason at all other than that the Government decided that that would not be so. There is no reason at all why the Bill which came before us should not have had any teeth. One by one its incisors, the bite of the Bill, were taken out. What an ugly idea the veto of the States is. Does anyone in the community not understand that this Attorney-General has sought to say that even though the Constitution has clothed him with the authority to carry out Commonwealth responsibilities in law he will not do so if one of the States says to him that he must not? That is the way we pursue criminality in this country! All I can say is thank God for the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs; thank God for a Fraser government that knew what was right and thank God for an Opposition that has put forward amendments which if accepted will make this a real piece of machinery to pursue criminality in this country in an effective way. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(10.03) —I should apologise at the outset for presuming not to have the rhetoric to match any of the previous speakers. It is clear from what a number of speakers have said that the National Crime Authority Bill, since its inception-we may even go back to the Bill of the previous Government-has undergone any number of deliberations, debates, committees of further inquiry and many further discussions over the whole range of differences of opinion that pertained, and clearly from this evening's debate still pertain. However, exhortations in this place actually to conduct the debate, all the while abusing other parties for their views, serve only to cloud the issues and achieve exactly the opposite. All of us would claim to be committed to some sort of crime authority because we are all now well aware of the extent of organised crime in this country. Perhaps the greatest contribution of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union has been to alert the Australian community not only to the presence of organised crime but also to the magnitude of that organised crime in this country. Unlike Senator Chipp, I will not even attempt to put an estimate on its size in dollar terms but it is clear that it is huge. I suppose again we can thank the Costigan Commission for that information. However, many of us, and I am one, are quite clear that the National Crime Authority to be established-that is, to go into existence permanently-ought not have the wide powers of a royal commission no matter how tempting that might be from time to time. It is precisely to balance the need of the community to be protected from organised crime against the need to preserve the civil liberties of the people of the community that this Bill has been drawn as it has. In passing, I recall that Senator Chipp suggested that the Liberal Opposition and presumably the Australian Democrats have a commitment to civil liberties. He did not list at that stage the Australian Labor Party, and at this period of history the Labor Government. I simply say for the record that the Labor Party has ever had a commitment to civil liberties and our current Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has a long history of support for civil liberties. It may well be argued that the range of civil liberties that the Labor Party protects is more extensive because the Labor Party has always spoken for the little people, the poor people, working people and, I am glad to say, for women. I agree with Senator Chipp that party political points ought not to be the substance of this debate; the debate should rather be about how the balance between civil liberties and fighting organised crime can best be achieved. It would seem to me that many of the substantive matters have been agreed to; for example, that there be coercive powers available to the Authority but only where a reference has been given, that all the hearings of the Authority be in private but that where the Authority wishes to draw some major problem of crime- for example, the bottom of the harbour scheme-to the attention of the public the Authority can convene a public hearing to make such knowledge available. However , the many points of agreement seem to be lost or passed over in concentrating on the points of difference and there has been a fair amount of slanging about those points in the chamber this evening. I might say the slang has by and large come from the Opposition. I have spoken previously of my support for the retention of a judicial audit. I heard Senator Chipp comment that the judicial audit would require a judge to sit in on all the hearings of the Authority, and so it would be unworkable. I ask Senator Chipp, if he opposes that and suggests the establishment of a joint parliamentary committee, does he suggest that that committee would have to sit in on all the hearings of the National Crime Authority? If not, would he please explain in what way such a joint parliamentary committee would be able to overview the behaviour of the Crime Authority when a judicial audit cannot? He suggests it is unworkable but he does not explain to me, or at least not to my satisfaction, how a parliamentary committee will achieve what a judicial audit cannot. I am not at all clear how Senator Chipp sees that difference and I argue that the joint parliamentary committee is an unnecessary layer of supervisory powers, claimed by Senator Chipp to be necessary to keep the National Crime Authority honest. It is very important that quite clear guidelines be established about watch-dog responsibilities for such a crime authority. Of course we are giving this Crime Authority remarkable powers, unlike those of any other crime authority in this country, and it is important that some kind of ongoing review function be established to make sure that that Authority is responsible in its behaviour, but I do not see how the judicial audit, for all its limitations, would be better replaced by a joint parliamentary committee. In fact, I think the ordinary parliamentary processes of review of reports would have, under the legislation proposed, both the annual report of the National Crime Authority and the judicial audit to examine, whereas if the judicial audit measure is amended to be out of the Bill altogether the parliamentary committee, as I understand it , would have only the annual report of the Authority to review. From time to time, too, people have opposed the presence of the Ombudsman's role in the Bill. I must say, as I have said before, that I support that. I seem to be a minority voice in this area. The arguments for the Ombudsman and the judicial audit mostly focus on their dealing with the protection of the civil liberties of people who could claim to be under attack or who have been attacked in the course of National Crime Authority hearings. I think both of those functions are of critical importance and must be provided for in the Bill. I believe they are. However, the judicial audit has another function, and that is of general review or overview of the activities of the Authority in regard to the sorts of reference it accepts, how far it pursues those references, its general investigative role and even of such mundane things as how much money it has spent and how it will account for those sorts of things. It seems to me that the judicial audit, for all that it is a problematical authority, still seems to deal with the proposal of overview of the whole Crime Authority satisfactorily and certainly sufficient to justify not establishing a joint parliamentary committee to do so. One of the points that Senator Sir John Carrick raised, and which I would like to take up, is the point in the proposed amendments with regard to withdrawal of references. It is argued that the withdrawal of references has to be approved by both Houses of the Parliament before such a reference can be withdrawn. The argument mounted by the Opposition focuses on the fact that if that is not the case the Attorney-General or any Minister could, I suppose, lean on the Authority and ask it to withdraw a reference. But the understanding of the Opposition seems always to suggest only the idea of corruption or covering up of crime. It is important that the Senate be reminded again of the evidence of Mr Justice Nicholson before the Senate committee of inquiry. He said that he found it most salutary, useful and constructive when he went seeking a second extension of the reference of his inquiry that he was denied that reference. He said it was appropriate and responsible that that should happen. There are times when a reference could be pursued well beyond what could be called reasonable bounds. Not all proposals to withdraw references would be part of governmental corruption or anything approaching that. Sometimes references would want to be withdrawn because they had long served their purpose or were in fact moving into territories for which the reference was not appropriate, or in fact creating other difficulty. I urge Senator Sir John Carrick to appreciate that there are other than mischievous reasons for some of the proposals in some of the sections of this Bill. I also point out to him that he claimed quite often that everyone knows. 'Everyone knows' seems to me to be as weighty as referring to nine out of ten dentists. I suggest that everyone does not know, and that that is not a massively significant way to argue. Finally, I wish to raise a point about the clear dispute about whether or not the States should have some say in references, particularly with regard to references applying to Commonwealth legislation only. Much has been said of that . Most of the arguments seems to be shaped, as far as I understand it. It may be the benefit of youth, if not innocence, that I do not presume that everytime anyone opposes things the reason is that corruption is rampant and everyone is about to be exposed as being bad or evil. It seems to me that the Attorney- General has given evidence into the Senate that he took the recommendations of the Senate committee of inquiry to a meeting of the Attorneys-General of all States and after much discussion they all agreed-that is every one of them, not only the Attorneys-General of Labor State governments, but those of Queensland and Tasmania too-that the best outcome would would be achieved with a reciprocal responsibility between States and the Federal Government. That is a matter of shaping the legislation so as to achieve the optimal with a view to perhaps maximal outcome rather than creating unnecessary division before the Authority even gets under way. I must be advised by what the Attorney-General reports to the Senate on that matter. Certainly I was one of the people in the Senate committee of inquiry who argued that it would be reasonable for the Federal Government to be able to provide a reference for Federal legislation. But, if the advice the Attorney- General gives me is that the State Attorneys-General would be persuaded more, and their co-operation is of course clearly critical in this whole debate and the establishment of this Authority, I think I must pay regard to what he reports back from such a meeting. I do not wish to take up the Senate's time much more at this stage but I hope that the debate in the Committee stage establishes more light and less heat and that the amendments as proposed by the Government are accepted. I commend them to the Senate. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(10.15) —There is no doubt that a National Crime Authority is necessary in Australia. It ought to be a co-ordinating authority to come to grips with major crime in Australia that has become increasingly evident over recent years. As I read it, this Authority is supposed to replace royal commissions which have been found so necessary in recent times. I am worried about the way in which the Government has gone about this. Insufficient consultation has been undertaken with the States-- Senator Gareth Evans —Insufficient! It has been going on for years. Senator JESSOP —Well, I think so. Two weeks ago the police Ministers met in Melbourne, which honourable senators may recall. I do not know whether the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has had any feedback from that. But I have. I took the trouble to inquire whether this measure was discussed at that police Ministers conference and the feedback that I had was that they did not find the legislation, plus the amendments, objectionable or defective. But the consensus view, which is apparently the in word at the moment, was that the legislation was generally ineffective and a waste of time. The National Crime Authority Bill that we are dealing with will not be able to combat organised crime. The legislation is being put forward by the Federal Labor Government as a token gesture. The Attorney-General shakes his head. Senator Gareth Evans —I am shaking my head at the quality of your report. Senator JESSOP —Well, I have had-- Senator Gareth Evans —The information given to me is that that is wildly inaccurate. Senator JESSOP —The Attorney-General says that that is wildly inaccurate. He is on record as making statements like that. He should be very careful about talking about wild statements. This happens to come from a reliable source. As I said initially, the legislation, according to the police Ministers, is generally ineffective and a waste of time. However, that is not to say that the States will not co-operate to the best of their ability. But the point I want to make is that if there are any real deficiencies with respect to dealing with major crime it is in the training of police to combat organised crime. I suggest that this Crime Authority will be just a waste of time in the way that we are spending money at present. It is probably more appropriate to spend more money, or the equivalent amount of money, on improving the present police force training program. If the Attorney-General would like to consider that, it may be a better way to go about dealing with the problem. I think that the States-- Senator Gareth Evans —Where have you been for the last decade, Senator? Senator JESSOP —Of course, we have an enlightened Attorney-General at present. But I believe that the State authorities will co-operate with this Bill, albeit unsatisfactory, ineffective and so on. But I believe that the States share the view that organised crime cannot exist without crooked lawyers and crooked accountants and that any attempt to fight organised crime must realise that fact . Senator Peter Rae —And cross-eyed optometrists. Senator JESSOP —My colleague and friend Senator Peter Rae said something about cross-eyed optometrists. Optometrists endeavour to ensure that lawyers in Parliament are long-sighted and have no problem with the extrinsic muscles of the eye. We do our best. I suggest that the Attorney-General consult me about this because sometimes I think that his vision is not as far-sighted as he would like to think it is. Senator Peter Rae —Dark glasses would be the best thing you could do for him. Senator JESSOP —I think that the term 'rose coloured glasses' would be better applied to the Attorney-General. He needs rose coloured glasses to look at the future of the present Government of Australia. With respect to the Crime Authority with which we are dealing, I note that the Age of Monday, 4 June wrote an interesting article, part of which stated: Despite warnings by the Williams Royal Commission in the 1970s, the Queensland coast still appears to be wide open to drug smuggling. That, too, should be a matter of deep public concern. The revelations of the cocaine syndicate's existence once again demonstrate the need for a National Crime Authority with truly effective investigatory powers, and with a capacity to target organisations like the Queensland-based one. Because the Government's crime authority bill enshrines the right of State veto, where breaches of State laws are concerned, it could be that in this particular case the authority, as proposed, would find its hands tied. As we have said before, the National Crime Authority, if it is to be effective, must have coercive powers. It must also have the power to carry out its investigations without inhibition. The Attorney-General should take some note of that and have regard to the comments that flow from the police Ministers conference in Melbourne two weeks ago. I think it is very important to have an FBI sort of system-if one can call it that-in Australia. I recall that some years ago the then Attorney-General, Senator Greenwood, expressed this view. It is important to have some co- ordinated surveillance and crime authority throughout this country to deal with drug pushing, drug introduction to Australia and the activities of major criminals throughout Australia. I support such a concept. As far as I and many of the State authorities are concerned, this Bill seems to be generally ineffective and it needs to be re-examined. I suggest to the Attorney-General, in the light of experience, that amendments may well have to be made to the National Crime Authority Bill, which we are discussing at the moment, in the future. I earnestly suggest to him that he consult very carefully with State authorities to ensure that the words in the editorial of the Age on Monday 4 June, which I think were carefully worded, have been taken notice of. With those words, I commend the Attorney-General's attention to what I have said about the need to consult with the States in these matters. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(10.24) —The Senate is debating the Bill which will establish the National Crime Authority. That brings into play the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on the National Crime Authority Bill 1983. The Senate will be aware that in 1982 the Fraser Government introduced legislation to establish a national crimes commission. I remind the Senate that that legislation passed both Houses of Parliament. By the time of the election it was ready to be proclaimed. I understand that the proposed chairman of the authority had been selected by the government of the day and the authority was all ready to be put into action. Then the election occurred, and we now have the National Crime Authority Bill to replace the national crimes commission legislation because this Government never proclaimed the national crimes commission legislation. It is very interesting to recall the debate which took place in 1982 on the national crimes commission legislation. At that stage the Senate had to put up with the present Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, and the present Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, alleging that the Fraser Government was weak and that the national crimes commission was an entity which had no strength, no teeth, and would not be able to chase the crooks of this nation. They made all sorts of outrageous allegations. We heard words such as ' lies' and 'crooks' called out across the chamber. Ministers were accused of being crooks. The then Attorney-General, Senator Durack, was under enormous pressure from Senator Evans about the national crimes commission not having any teeth, not being worthwhile and not being a body that would be able to do anything to attack the people concerned. That national crimes commission was pushed aside by this Government. What did we get in its place? We got a weak, inoffensive puppy-not even a kitten which might have some claws, but a weak, inoffensive straw body with no teeth. Senator Evans introduced a pathetic animal . Where is the result of all his speeches about what he intended to do and the crooks whom he would attack? All that he keeps talking about in this chamber is trying to get the States to go along with the National Crime Authority. His major criticism of the Fraser legislation now is purely and simply that the States would not co-operate with a national crimes commission. Senator Gareth Evans —And its utter indifference to civil liberties. Senator LEWIS —Senator Evans does not know what civil liberties are all about. Let us look at the legislation which he has proposed. He does not understand what civil liberties mean. He is quite prepared to make academic speeches about civil liberties, but where are his civil liberties when he comes into this place and introduces legislation? Where are civil liberties when he deals with fellows such as Combe and Ivanov? Senator Evans does not know the practical meaning of civil liberties. He does not understand what they are all about. Senator Peter Rae —And you were the fellow the Attorney verballed. Senator LEWIS —That is right. He went and interviewed a judge. The chief Crown law officer of the nation acted in the role of a prosecutor by interviewing a judge about material that was placed before him. Senator Evans does not know the first thing about civil liberties except in making academic speeches in this place about the subject at which he is very good. Quite a lot of ably used words pour forth from him like a waterfall. When the words come to the paper and the practical application of civil liberties one finds that he does not know the first thing about them. The Senate had placed before it legislation to establish a National Crime Authority which would have enabled the crooks of this country to get away with some of the most terrible things that they are getting away with in this country . Legislation was brought before this chamber by the Government which was the weakest legislation one would ever see. It would have enabled the crooks of this nation to hide what they were getting up to. They would have been able to hide behind some sort of national crime authority, limited by all the veto powers that were introduced to prevent it from making the investigations that it ought to be making and which the national Parliament has heard, in speech after speech from people on both sides of the chamber, it ought to be doing. The legislation introduced into the chamber was a non-entity. As I said, it was a little puppy dog that one would want to scratch behind the ear but certainly one would not get hurt by. Senator Peter Rae —Friends of the Mafia. Senator LEWIS —Senator Rae makes allegations along those lines. I do not want to suggest that they are friends of anyone. Why does this Government not do something about attacking crime in this country? I suggest to the Senate that something has really gone wrong with Senator Evans and his Government since they came into office. Somehow they have been got at by people whose desire is to stop this legislation having any teeth. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.30) —I wish to speak briefly about two matters which I do not regard as being of great political difference but rather as matters which I would like to put on record. I did let the office of the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) know that I was going to raise them tonight. I see Senator Ryan is here, having known I was going to raise some not particularly controversial matters but matters which I do hope will be answered by the relevant Minister in due course. The first matter is one which may seem relatively insignificant but which I think is quite important. It relates to the way in which this Government is developing. There is apparently evolving within the bureaucracy, particularly within the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Department of Trade, not just a competition but a distrust, an extraordinary distrust. I refer to the answer given to question on notice No. 1123 in the House of Representatives, which was asked by Mr Ruddock, which concerns the consultants employed by the Department of Industry and Commerce. It refers to the very significant employment of people from the Australian National University, an institution which I believe to be one of the finest in Australia and one of the finest institutions in the world. In no way do I criticise its choice as consultant. The point I wish to make is that when a department of government seeks from the Australian National University statistics relating to trade, which the Department of Trade of this Government and of the people of Australia is paying very significant amounts of money to obtain and provide, I believe that some explanation is required as to why the Department of Industry and Commerce did not trust the Department of Trade to provide the information, and why it sought to obtain independent consultants who are, I agree, excellent consultants. Why should the Department of Industry and Commerce not trust the Department of Trade to provide the information? I am advised that the Department of Industry and Commerce used to have almost 100 per cent of its statistical work done by the Department of Trade. It appears that this situation has deteriorated over recent months. I am not sure whether it is something to do with the Ministers, the departments or the nature and structure of the Government. But I believe that the people of Australia, and certainly the members of the Senate, are entitled to have some statement from the Minister as to why this apparent change has taken place. The situation appears to be particularly wasteful in view of the comprehensive collection of trade data which the Department of Trade has. If it is just one of those regrettable situations where Ministers do not get on together, perhaps because of something to do with who supported whom in the leadership challenge, or something or other, I am sorry that it may be costing the taxpayers money. I believe that the Senate is entitled to some explanation as to exactly what is happening, as to why we find ourselves with this situation. Notwithstanding the fact that I inquired this afternoon as to whether the Minister for Industry and Commerce would be available for the adjournment debate tonight to respond to the matters which I raise and was informed that he would be, I find he is not. In no way do I find Senator Ryan an unsatisfactory substitute. In fact I must say I find her a welcome alternative. The next matter I wish to raise concerns the standard of imported life jackets. I have received representations from a company called Driclad Leisure Industries Pty Ltd, which is the manufacturer of life jackets and buoyancy vests in Australia. Driclad provides garments which are in accordance with the requirements of the Standards Association of Australia. However large numbers of buoyancy garments are being imported from the United States of America and these do not meet the Association's requirements, so I am told. Specifically, the garments do not conform to the relevant Standards Association's specifications and do not operate under the Standards Association's scheme of supervision and control. They do not meet Australian metric requirements and do not utilise the 'care labelling' requirements of clothing required by government. I have to say that as somebody who has, in the middle of a gale, been thrown out of the cockpit of a boat and wondered whether the harness which I was wearing was going to hold or not-and that was the difference between whether I lived or died-I feel with some sensitivity that the standards about these matters ought to be reasonably strictly enforced. When I received a letter, amongst many hundreds of letters that I receive, about various matters, being shadow Minister for Industry and Commerce, I thought this matter was one what ought to be raised in the Senate because water sports are probably one of the fastest growing sports in Australia. Many people buy believing that what they are buying is suitable for the purpose for which they are acquiring it. One can have a horrible time before one finds out that the gear is safe. If it is not, one could wind up dead . I believe this is just as important as the emergency position indicating radio beacons that were introduced into Australia. They were very simple items which could make all the difference to search and rescue in Australia, a relatively cheap piece of radio equipment which, when switched on, could indicate a position which could be picked up on an emergency radio and on which any searching aircraft or other radio equipped vessel could home in. The one that was recommended for use by one of the major yachting associations of Australia, the one that was sold most to yachtsmen, has now been found to be totally inadequate. One wonders whether the Department of the Special Minister of State may not have made as many checks as it ought to have before it gave the approval for those, after many years of refusal or equivocation as to the introduction of EPIRB into Australia. I mention that in passing. In addition I thank the Senate for the opportunity to speak. I raise the matters, not by way of controversy but by way of interest. I hope the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) will ensure that the Minister for Industry and Commerce will be in a position in due course to respond to the matters that I have raised. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(10.39) —Senator Rae did indeed notify the office of the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) of his intention to raise certain matters on the adjournment debate tonight. I must apologise on behalf of Senator Button that the explanation Senator Rae was seeking with respect to the change in the gathering of data for the Department of Industry and Commerce from the Department of Trade to the use of independent consultants of the Australian National University is not available this evening. I was pleased to note that Senator Peter Rae during the course of his remarks expressed no criticism of the consultants from the Australian National University who are being employed. Indeed, he took the opportunity to say some very favourable things about the Australian National University and I was pleased to hear that. Unfortunately, Senator Rae's quest for an explanation on this matter must wait a little longer but Senator Button has undertaken to provide him with an explanation as soon as possible. With regard to the other matter raised by Senator Rae-that of reliable standards for life jackets-I can only endorse what he says, that equipment which is purchased and used by people ought to be able to perform the function for which it is purchased. I was very relieved to hear that in his own case Senator Rae was, in the event, able to rely on his life jacket. We have evidence of that in Senator Rae's presence here tonight and for that, of course, we are all grateful. However, this is a most serious matter. Water sports, particularly ocean sailing, are growing in popularity and there are times when not only Senator Rae but also other sailors need the protection of such equipment in a life and death situation. So I am sure that not only Senator Button, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, but also Mr Barry Cohen, the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, who is in charge of consumer affairs matters, will be most concerned to hear the claims that some of this equipment which is being imported from the United States of America is not of an adequate standard. I am sure that they will wish to rectify that situation. In that matter too, I undertake to ensure that Senator Rae will receive information at the earliest possible opportunity. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.41 p.m. The following paper was presented: GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S PROCLAMATION-COMMENCEMENT OF ACT: A Proclamation by His Excellency the Governor-General was presented, notifying that His Excellency had proclaimed the following sections and sub-section of an Act to come into operation on the date specified: Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act (No. 2) 1983-Sections 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14 and 16, sub-section 22 (3) and sections 39, 40, 41 and 43-1 June 1984 (Gazette No. S201, 1 June 1984) The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 738) Senator Elstob asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 27 March 1984: (1) What is the present rate of unemployment amongst Aboriginals. (2) How many community youth support scheme-CYSS-projects have Aboriginal participation. (3) What projects are they and how many staff persons are employed in each case . (4) How much funding is granted to these projects. Senator Button —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Australian Bureau of Statistics is unable to provide information on current rates of Aboriginal unemployment because the size of samples used in its monthly labour force surveys prevents disaggregation of statistically valid data on the Aboriginal labour force. However, calculations based on 1981 Census data and the most recent Commonwealth Employment Service statistics on numbers of Aboriginals registered and awaiting placement in employment, indicate a current Aboriginal unemployment rate of around 50 per cent. (2) Detailed statistics are not collected on Aboriginal participation in community youth support scheme projects. However, at least 43 CYSS projects operate in areas with relatively high Aboriginal populations and provide services to young Aboriginals. (3) and (4) The 43 CYSS projects referred to in (2) above, together with details of their staffing and current levels of funding are listed in the following table: Number of staff Current Full Part level of Name of project time time funding New South Wales $ Bourke 2 . . 65,000 Brewarrina 2 . . 65,000 Coonamble 2 . . 65,000 Forster 3 . . 65,000 Goodooga 1 1 40,000 Inverell 2 2 66,330 Kempsey 2 2 90, 000 Moree 2 . . 65,000 Narooma 1 2 65,000 Narromine 2 . . 65,000 Tamworth 3 . . 90,000 Taree 3 . . 68,310 Toronto (Newcastle) 2 . . 65,000 Victoria Bairnsdale 1 2 65,000 Ballarat 3 . . 127,820 Echuca 3 . . 90,000 Morwell 3 . . 90,000 Swan Hill 2 . . 65,000 Queensland Burdekin 2 . . 40,000 Cairns 2 . . 65,000 Griffith (Buranda) 2 . . 71,900 Herbert (Townsville) 2 . . 65,000 Inala 2 . . 68,900 Innisfail 2 . . 65,000 Mackay 3 . . 90,000 Mt Isa 2 . . 65,000 Upper Ross (Townsville) 2 . . 40,000 Woodridge (Springwood) 2 . . 65,000 Western Australia Carnarvon 2 . . 65,000 Centre-care (Perth) 2 . . 67,980 Cockburn 2 . . 40,000 Fremantle 2 . . 65,000 Geraldton 2 . . 65,000 Kwinana 1 . . 40,700 Mandurah 1 1 44,220 Rockingham 2 . . 65,000 South Australia Ceduna 2 . . 40,000 Murray Bridge 1 . . 40,260 Port Adelaide 2 . . 65,000 Port Lincoln 2 . . 65,000 Northern Territory Alice Springs 1 . . 65,000 Darwin 2 . . 65,000 Tennant Creek 1 . . 40,000 (Question No. 766) Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 28 March 1984: (1) Have studies been conducted into standardisation of the railway line from Gladstone to Wilmington in South Australia; if so, what are the results of such studies. (2) Is one option under examination, the standardisation of only that part of the railway from Gladstone to Booleroo Centre. (3) Does the option in (2) offer a higher economic return than standardisation of the entire railway. (4) What annual freight and grain tonnages would be required to proceed with standardising the whole railway to Wilmington or to standardise only that section to Booleroo Centre. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) to (4) I am advised that the Gladstone to Wilmington railway line is currently the subject of a community service obligation study by the Australian National Railways Commission. One aspect of the study is the consideration of alternatives such as the standardisation of gauge to Booleroo Centre and to Wilmington. The determination of relative economic returns and freight level forecasts are also a part of the study. (Question No. 767) Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 28 March 1984: (1) What services are currently operated on the Adelaide to Peterborough broad gauge railway via Burra. (2) Is it proposed to terminate freight services to and from Adelaide at Hallett. (3) Is it proposed to terminate passenger services at Burra; if so, why. (4) Has a study been conducted into the feasibility of converting the railway to standard gauge; if so, what are the findings of the study. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Current Adelaide-Peterborough line timetable: Local services-Departs Adelaide 5.50 p.m. Sunday, Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. Departs Peterborough 7.05 a.m. Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday . All Indian Pacific connections have been transferred to Port Pirie: Freight Services: Train 5710 departs Burra at 12.10 p.m. Thursday and arrives Mile End 5.45 p.m. Thursday. Train 4785 departs Mile End at 6.00 p.m. Wednesday and arrives Burra 1.00 a.m. Thursday. Additional services would be mounted if there was a demand. (2) and (3) I am advised Australian National-AN-has no plans at present to terminate freight services at Hallett or passenger services at Burra. Future consideration would depend upon the demand for and impact on AN's finances of these services. (4) A study has not been conducted to convert the Adelaide/Burra line to standard gauge. (Question No. 818) Senator Crichton-Browne asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 1 May 1984: (1) What has been the total amount of Commonwealth funding allocated to the Kimberley Land Council over the last five years. (2) What specific purpose has each amount of funding been allocated. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Total Commonwealth funding allocated to the Kimberley Land Council over the last five years is $156,432. (2) The source and nature of the Commonwealth funding provided comprises: Department of Aboriginal Affairs; $138,500 allocated in 1983-84 for the purchase of a building and operational costs. Department of Employment and Industrial Relations; varying amounts totalling $ 17,932 allocated between 1980-81 and 1983-84 for the employment of Aboriginals under the training for Aboriginal program and work experience scheme. Senator Walsh —On 3 May 1984 (Hansard, page 1555) Senator Maguire asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice concerning whether the Government was investigating the feasibility of changing the timetable for taxation payments as a means of smoothing out liquidity flows and thereby reducing side effects on interest rates. The Treasurer has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question: The seasonal patterns of the Government's outlays and receipts are such that the Budget is usually in surplus over the June quarter. This largely reflects the collection of certain important revenues including the payment of the bulk of provisional tax by individuals and the largest quarterly instalment of company tax. The concentration of these payments to the Government during the June quarter normally results in the so-called 'seasonal run-down' of liquidity. This seasonal tightening of liquidity tends to be reflected primarily in short term interest rate movements. Short term interest rates tend to be higher around the seasonal rundown period than at other times and on occasion this seasonal pattern can complicate the interpretation of underlying financial conditions. Smoothing of the seasonal pattern of disbursements and receipts of the Government would reduce the seasonal fluctuations arising from the Government's accounts and would assist in reducing short term interest rate volatility. The Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System examined this issue. The principal recommendations in relation to the timing of Commonwealth tax collections were that there be a review of the arrangements for collecting provisional tax with a view to early introduction of a system of instalment payments, and that arrangements for the collection of other taxes should be reviewed. The Government currently has this matter under consideration.