Tuesday, 5 June 1984 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Consumer Electronic Equipment To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petitioners of the Electrical Trades Union of New South Wales respectfully showeth that there is grave concern at the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission in respect of certain electronics equipment and components (particularly in the colour television industry) and the effect these recommendations will have on employment in this industry if accepted. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will take action to protect the employment and technological expertise of this industry. Such action should be that of a global quota system maintaining the present 95 per cent of the market to Australian manufacturers and an increase in the local content factor to at least 55 per cent on large screen (20" and above) colour televisions. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 1,314 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That Regulations and an Ordinance before the Parliament amend the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs (Cinematograph and Films) Regulations and supersede the ACT 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 videos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board before release from Customs. 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 the Censors more appropriately reflect reasonable and responsible community attitudes; That further measures be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; That, because of the importance of this issue to the whole community a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Archer (from 36 citizens), Chaney (from 12 citizens), Mason (from 64 citizens) and Robertson (from 17 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 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 communication 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 63 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth government 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognises that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection , storage and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving ' property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm; ( ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programs; (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices; (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals and (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 31 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 358 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action or legislation in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume (from 36 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 Government's retirement income policies are piecemeal, 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, urge 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 59 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully believing that: There is demonstrated evidence of a need for child care facilities by staff, users, and potential users of the National Library of Australia and surrounding buildings in Parkes, ACT; There are at present no such existing facilities; Provision has already been made for inclusion of the facilities in planned extensions to the Library, Humbly petition that your honourable House reverse the decision by the Minister of Home Affairs and Environment disallowing provision for child care facilities in the extensions to the National Library of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Mason (from 14 citizens). Petitions received. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: 1. That, unless otherwise ordered- (a) The Senate meet on Wednesday, 6 June 1984, as follows: 10.00 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2.00 p.m.- 6.30 p.m. 8.00 p.m.-10.30 p.m. (b) The sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at 10.30 p.m. on that day. 2. That, unless otherwise ordered- (a) The days and hours of meeting of the Senate for the remainder of the present period of sittings be- Tuesday, 12 June 1984- 2.00 p.m.- 6.30 p.m. 8.00 p.m.-10.30 p.m. Wednesday, 13 June 1984- 10.00 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2.00 p.m.- 6.30 p.m. 8.00 p.m.-10.30 p.m. Thursday, 14 June 1984- 10.00 a.m.- 6.30 p.m. 8.00 p.m.-10.30 p.m. Friday, 15 June 1984- 9.00 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2.00 p.m.- 4.15 p.m. (b) The sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at the terminating time each day; and (c) The sessional orders relating to the conduct of business which apply for week one under the Sessional Orders apply for the sitting week commencing 12 June 1984. 3. That, unless otherwise ordered, Government Business take precedence of General Business for the remainder of the present period of sittings. 4. That, unless otherwise ordered, the sessional order relating to the consideration of Committee Reports on Wednesdays be suspended for the remainder of the present period of sittings. Notice of Motion Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to provide assistance and encouragement for the employees of corporations to acquire ownership of the corporations and operate the corporations on behalf of the employees, and for purposes connected therewith. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Australian Political Exchange Committee-1st annual report. 2. National Common Police Services-annual report 1982-83. 3. Report on operation of the scheme to compensate persons affected by the Government sanctions imposed against USSR and Iran-together with the text of a statement made in the House of Representatives on 4 June by the Minister for Finance relating to the report. 4. Commonwealth Schools Commission annual report 1983-Pursuant to section 17A of the CSC Act 1973-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs relating to the report. 5. Proposals for the construction of formal seating at the Australian National Gallery amphitheatre-pursuant to section 5 of the Parliament act 1974. 6. Proposals for the construction of a two-storey prefabricated modular building in the House of Representatives-pursuant to Section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974. 7. The report of the Expert Committee of the Review of Data on Atmospheric Fallout Arising from British Nuclear Tests in Australia (Kerr report). 8. The indoctrinee force-A note on the radiation levels experienced by its members in the Buffalo Series tests conducted in 1956 at One Tree and Marcoo on the Maralinga Range, South Australia. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —I also seek leave to have the text of the statement relating to items 7 and 8-the documents on the British nuclear tests at Maralinga-incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- I foreshadowed in the Senate on 31 May 1984 my intention to table certain documents relating to British nuclear tests in Australia. Yesterday I informed the Senate that tabling of one of those documents had been delayed because of British concerns about classified information. I expect to be able to table that document before the Senate rises for the winter recess. The documents just tabled are: 1. Report of the Expert Committee of the Review of Data on Atmospheric Fallout Arising from British Nuclear Tests in Australia; 2. The Indoctrinee Force: A Note on Radiation Levels Experienced by its Members in the Buffalo Series Tests conducted in 1956 at One Tree and Marcoo on the Maralinga Range, S.A. The Government will be giving urgent attention to the conclusions and recommendations of the Atmospheric Fallout Committee Report. The document on the Indoctrinee Force is a British document dated 3 April 1984. Over recent weeks there has been a number of media reports concerning this Force of British, Australian and New Zealand officers who experienced the effects of two of the weapons tests in South Australia at close range. This document has been tabled to ensure that its full contents are publicly available, rather than have the public rely on somewhat selective reports that have appeared in the media. The document sets out the British view that the radiation exposure levels of those involved were well within the prescribed limits. My Department has certain information on the Australian involvement relating both to the personnel involved and their individual radiation exposure levels. Such information is of a similar character to personal medical records and I am not in a position to table the information on individuals without their approval. Consequently, when the records of the Australian personnel involved (about 100) have been collated I will make them public after deleting any references which could identify the individuals. My Department is comparing this material with that in the British document with a view to ascertaining if there are any inconsistencies between the aggregate figures and the records held on individuals. Senator TOWNLEY —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Is it a fact, as reported in at least one newspaper today that, under the revised assets test, pensioners who lose a partner will have only six weeks to rearrange their affairs before being subjected to the single assets test threshold? Was this period to be six pension instalments or twelve weeks under the original assets test proposal? Did the Government's panel of review-the Gruen Panel of Review of Proposed Incomes and Assets Test-recommend a 12-month period of grace for pensioners who lost their spouses? How has the Government reached that decision? Can an assurance be given that the short period will not disadvantage widows or widowers? Finally, after the election, are all those who receive money from the Government by way of unemployment benefit, sickness benefit and family allowances to be subjected to an assets test and the same kind of intrusion that pensioners will be subjected to? Senator GRIMES —No, it is not accurate as was reported, as Senator Townley said, in at least one newspaper today that six weeks after the loss of a spouse a pensioner will be subjected to an assets test. I do not know how that reporter came to such an interpretation, but that is a matter for him or her to answer, I suppose. Certainly, when one partner of a married pensioner couple dies, the pension entitlement of the surviving spouse is reassessed. Under the existing income test provisions there is no immediate reduction in pension when the pensioner spouse dies. Instead, the spouse receives, as I am sure Senator Townley knows, 12 weeks of payments, that is, six pension payments. For that six weeks he or she receives the equivalent of two pensions that would have been paid if the spouse had not died. Professor Gruen recommended that the assets test exemption that is applicable to the married couple should continue to be applied to the surviving spouse for 12 months. However, that was in the context of the Panel's preferred option under which the pensioner's home was not exempted as it is under our option and under Professor Gruen's third option. The Government's approach to this is that, certainly, there should be no reduction in the period of 12 weeks which applies now. We are, certainly, and have been, as I have already stated, considering whether that period should be longer; it certainly would not be shorter. On the surface, there would not appear to be strong arguments as to why the approach adopted under the assets test should be different from that used for the income test. Certainly, we are open to suggestions in that matter. The period of six weeks mentioned in the newspaper this morning is not correct. I believe the newspaper should correct that. In relation to the second part of Senator Townley's question, there is absolutely no intention nor has there ever been any intention to introduce an assets test on the short term benefits about which he was talking. There is no intention to do so on family allowances. Senator GILES —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Treasurer been drawn to the national accounts figures released today? Is the Government satisfied with the performance of the Australian economy revealed by these figures? Senator WALSH —I am not sure that the Government is entirely satisfied because it would like the figures to be even better. The figures which came out in the national accounts today are certainly the best economic news that Australia has had for a very long time. They show that the non-farm product, leaving right out of consideration the effects of the drought both during and since, in the last quarter has gone up by almost 2 1/2 per cent. If that rate were sustained, the annual figure would be more than 10 per cent. In the three quarters from June last year to March this year non-farm product has gone up by 7.4 per cent, again showing an annual rate of 10 per cent. So the rate of growth in the last three quarters has been remarkably consistent. The total gross domestic product, which includes farm product, increased by 2.3 per cent between the December quarter and the March quarter. This means that the total GDP, which includes the changes in the farm sector, has risen by more than 9 per cent in the nine months since June 1983. That growth rate gives the Government a good deal of pleasure and it is, I am sure, appreciated by the population at large. It stands out in marked contrast to the situation which we inherited. In the last year in which the Fraser Government's economic policies reigned there were three consecutive quarters in which product not only failed to increase but actually declined. Growth rates were negative for three consecutive quarters and for the year as a whole. Between June 1982 and June 1983 total output actually fell by about 2 per cent. That was the only time in more than 20 years that any Australian Government had presided over an entire year in which output actually fell. That fall in output was associated with the highest levels of unemployment which had been known since the Great Depression of the 1930s, with inflation roaring away at above 10 per cent and rising, and unemployment also rising above 10 per cent, accompanied by the highest interest rates which had ever been known. It is interesting to observe in this morning's Age the fact that now that Mr Fraser is out of government he has a policy. It was described in the Age this morning as a policy without a party, in contrast to the Sinclair-Peacock Opposition which comprises parties without a policy. It is a pity that Mr Fraser did not devise policies when he was in government instead of after he lost government. It is an even greater pity that the present Sinclair-Peacock Opposition has not been able to devise any policies in opposition. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I pass over his quaint notion that the non-farm sector is not related to changes in the farm sector. Has the Minister seen the Treasurer's Press release issued today in which he claims that the 2.4 per cent increase in non- farm product in the March quarter reflects strong growth in housing, private sector investment, stocks and the public sector? Is it a fact that, contrary to the Treasurer's statement, public sector spending, which is paid for by taxpayers, and a huge borrowing program made up 1.9 per cent or the great bulk of the quarterly gross domestic product rise, while private sector consumption growth was halved to 0.4 per cent and private sector capital spending growth was slashed from 5.1 per cent to 0.4 per cent? Senator WALSH —I am very glad that the Leader of the Opposition has seen fit to draw attention to the question of capital investment. The dismal Jeremiahs of the Opposition, or the jealous Jeremiahs, perhaps, have stood back aghast over most of the last 12 months watching the highest growth rates ever recorded by the Australian economy, I believe-certainly the highest growth rates recorded for more than a decade-under a Labor Government in marked contrast to what was happening when they were in government. The jealous Jeremiahs of the Sinclair- Peacock Opposition have continually pointed to the fact that, although there was a high rate of economic growth, there was no increase in private sector capital investment, which they said, with some justification, ultimately would have to happen if the economic recovery and the fall in unemployment rates were to be sustained. That displayed perhaps some wishful thinking, or possibly ignorance of the pattern of recessions and recovery of the past. In the early stages of a recovery private sector capital investment does not normally respond, firstly because the very fact that there has been a recession- negative growth such as we saw under the Fraser-Howard Government-means that very considerable spare capacity is already in existence and the increases in demand which come initially are more likely to be met from that existing spare capacity than from additional investment. A secondary factor which is probably equally important was that stocks held by business continued to run down right up to December 1983. In the most recent quarter that run down in stocks held has been reversed and stocks have increased to some extent. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I asked the Minister a question about public sector spending. I asked whether public sector spending made up the great bulk of the quarterly GDP rise. The Minister seems to be totally unable to address himself to that question. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. The Minister can answer the question in any way he so chooses. The Minister might take note of the point of order raised by the Leader of the Opposition and afford him with a reply on that aspect. Senator WALSH —As I recall the Leader of the Opposition's question, he referred to private sector capital investment, which has been the main point of the answer which I have been giving. On that question of private sector capital investment, the most recent statistics show that the seasonally adjusted private capital investment figure for the March quarter is 7 per cent higher than the figure for the December quarter, and that, if the expectations derived from business surveys for the June quarter of 1984 are realised, that will be some 10 per cent higher in seasonally adjusted terms than it was during the March quarter. So there has been an increase in private sector capital investment of 7 per cent recorded for the March quarter, seasonally adjusted, and an anticipated further increase of 10 per cent, seasonally adjusted, for the June quarter. That is a quite satisfactory figure and the sort of figure which the Government anticipated would occur at a later stage. The first question which I think the Leader of the Opposition asked was whether I had seen the Treasurer's Press statement. The answer is no, I have not yet seen it. Senator PRIMMER —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to the disastrous unemployment situation inherited by this Government as a result of the economic policies of its predecessor. I ask the Minister: Have the Labor Government's economic policies made any impression on the unemployment situation in Australia? Senator WALSH —Yes, this is some extremely good news. Senator Primmer asked whether as a result of the election of the Labor Government there had been any improvement in the disastrous unemployment situation which this Government had inherited from the discredited former regime. The answer is that the strong growth in employment which has been apparent for the last six to nine months has been maintained in the most recent figures. Indeed, for March the number of people in employment increased by 70,000, bringing the total increase in the number employed since the trough of April 1983 to just above 210,000. That is a remarkable increase in the level of people employed for an 11-month period and, I add, goes more than 40 per cent of the way to achieving the target which the Government had set for itself prior to the election of increasing the number of people in employment by 500,000 over a three-year period. The number of people who are unemployed fell by less than the increase in employment. Since March 1983 the number of people unemployed has fallen by 68, 000 and the unemployment rate has gone down from 10.4 per cent to 9.5 per cent. The rate of unemployment and the number of people unemployed would have fallen by considerably more had not the participation rate risen by 0.6 per cent, two- thirds of a per cent, over that same period. That increase in the participation rate means that because there is substantial economic growth under way, people's expectations of getting a job are better than they were before and people who would not previously have registered as looking for employment have returned to the work force and either registered for employment or actually succeeded in getting a job. If that factor had been discounted from the figures, or corrected for that, the rate of unemployment would have fallen by 2 per cent over the 12- month period instead of the one per cent by which it actually did fall. Senator Peter Baume —Mr President, I ask that the document from which the honourable senator quoted be tabled. The PRESIDENT —Did the Minister quote from a document that he will table? The Minister has tabled the document. Senator JACK EVANS —I address my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Given the recent liquidity crisis experienced by the Continental Illinois Bank in the United States of America and the continuing uncertainty surrounding major United States of America and European banks which are faced with the prospect of some Third World debtor nations defaulting on repayments of loans which could easily exceed $100 billion, is the Government still giving serious consideration to the recommendation of the Martin Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System to allow some four to six foreign banks to operate in Australia? Is the Government aware that one of the United States banks allegedly under a cloud last week, Manufacturers Hanover Ltd, is currently negotiating with some Australian building societies with a view to making a bid to gain entry into Australia as a bank? What precautions could the Government take in order to ensure that the banks admitted to operate in Australia are not vulnerable in the event of a massive default by a series of debtor nations, given that these banks are unlikely to divulge detailed or accurate data concerning their foreign loans? Does the Minister believe that the security currently enjoyed by depositors in Australian banks should be sacrificed in order to achieve the possible benefits of greater competition from foreign banks ? Senator WALSH —Senator Evans has drawn attention to a very serious international economic problem. Senator Gareth Evans —Senator Jack Evans. Senator WALSH —So that there is no confusion about the matter, I have been requested to say that it was Senator Jack Evans. He has asked whether, if a number of international banks should get into trouble, should become insolvent, there would be any potential threat to foreign banks operating in Australia. I have not discussed this question with the Treasurer for some time so any answer I give now will have to be taken as conditional in regard to both verification and the possibility that the Treasurer may feel like adding to it. My understanding of the proposal that the Treasurer and the Government were considering is that if foreign banks were allowed to operate in a broader sphere than they currently operate-of course a number of foreign banks already operate in Australia as merchant banks-and can operate in the same way as trading banks do, they will be required to observe the same sorts of prudential requirements as the existing trading banks do. So if that is correct, I think the answer to Senator Evans's question is that, even if banks operating in Australia ran into financial troubles in their operations in other countries, sufficient checks and safeguards would be built into the Australian system to ensure that Australians who had funds deposited with those banks would not have them placed at risk. As I said, I will check the matter with the Treasurer to see whether he has anything either to clarify what I have said or to add to it. Senator ROBERT RAY —I direct my question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to Press reports quoting Mr L. Carmichael, Assistant National Secretary of the Amalgamated Metals Foundry and Shipwrights Union, in which he is critical of the Government's approach to establishing infrastructure for the Australian Manufacturing Council. Can the Minister indicate what progress has been made in this matter? Senator BUTTON —Certainly my attention has been drawn to the comments which have been made by Mr Carmichael. I am very well aware of them. I have had the opportunity of discussing these matters, if that is the appropriate word, with Mr Carmichael over some time. The Manufacturing Council was established and had its first meeting in March of this year. The process leading up to the establishment of the Manufacturing Council was a long consultative one with various bodies, including the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Confederation of Australian Industry, the Business Council of Australia and so on, which required agreement on the terms of reference and the functions of the Manufacturing Council. That took some time. There were delays but they were contributed to by all parties involved. In October last year I wrote to the various organisations which nominate members of the Manufacturing Council seeking their nominations. It was not until February 1984 that I got the final answers to those requests from the various nominating bodies, including the CAI, the Business Council and the ACTU. There was concern about the delays occasioned by that process but I think it is better that such a council be established on the basis of clear consultative arrangements beforehand rather than act in haste and repent at leisure. I regret that some delays have occurred in the appointment of the secretariat to the Manufacturing Council-largely because of the responses received to advertisements and the decision of the selection panel that the applicants were not necessarily appropriate for various positions and, secondly, because of the mystical ways in which the Public Service acts to perform the task of making appointments to various bodies. That matter is being pursued very quickly now and I think it will be resolved in the next few weeks. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security. It refers to the question raised by Senator Messner yesterday about pensioners' self-declaration of household and personal assets under the new assets test. I ask the Minister: Will self-declarations be applied to other personal assets such as savings accounts, shares and other investments? Further, can the Minister advise whether the Government will announce other details, such as the deprivation conditions and hardship provisions, prior to the introduction of the legislation? Senator GRIMES —Senator Messner yesterday asked about the method of operating self-declaration. Under the present income test, as Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle will know, pensioners are asked, for instance, how much money they have in savings accounts and banks. It is necessary only at times to check up on the validity of those statements. The same thing will apply in the self- declaration method to be used with the assets test. People will be asked for a valuation of various assets. It will be only under certain spot conditions, when people give answers which are apparently incongruous or out of proportion-for instance, details relating to the market value of land situated in a particular area-that such valuations will be made. The declarations and the forms on which they will have to be made will be available before the assets test is introduced . The Department, as the honourable senator will be aware, had been working on form design, et cetera, before it was decided the original test would not be proceeded with. That work will proceed now. I certainly have no intention of introducing such forms or declarations without some consideration or without seeking the opinion of those who are likely to be affected, or their organisations. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I refer to representations I have received from local governments in South Australia about the 30 per cent required sponsor contribution for grants under the community employment program. Can the Minister inform the Senate whether the Government has made any decision to change the sponsor contribution guidelines for 1984-85 under this important employment creation program? Senator BUTTON —Changes to the community employment program guidelines were approved by Cabinet on Monday this week. As has been said earlier on other occasions in this chamber, the Government is strongly committed to the principle of marshalling job creation resources at all levels of government and community to maximise the assistance available for the unemployed under the community employment program. However, the Government has been concerned for some time about the difficulties experienced by some areas of local government and the community in meeting the current requirement for a minimum sponsor contribution of 30 per cent of total project costs under the community employment program. There is also concern about the inequities and inconsistencies in the assessment of exemptions from this contribution in different States and between different sponsors. Accordingly, on Monday a decision was made regarding the local government community components of the program. The minimum sponsor contribution will be reduced from 30 per cent to 20 per cent. Local government sponsors will not be entitled to exemption from this level of contribution although this provision will still be available to community groups. It is the intention that there should be also a more consistent and realistic approach to the use of non-cash sponsor contributions up to a limit of 10 per cent of total project costs for local government and community projects. This will provide more flexibility in the nature of conditions, especially for local government. To maintain the employment objectives of the program under these new arrangements sponsors in the local government community sectors will be obliged to ensure that 65 per cent of the Commonwealth grant received is devoted to the direct wage costs of a target group. All these changes will be applicable as from 1 July 1984. The Government is confident that these new arrangements will provide greater consistency and equity across Australia and will allow a more realistic basis for the continued participation in the program by the local government community sectors. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I refer to the recently announced guidelines for the approval of new nursing home beds. Is it true that no new nursing home beds have been approved since the election of the Hawke Government 15 months ago? Does the Minister agree with remarks made by a voluntary organisation administrator that the new guidelines are grossly obstructive and make it virtually impossible to obtain any new approvals? Finally, what provision, if any, has been made under the new guidelines to make beds available for sick and elderly people thrown out of hospitals under the 35-day rule? Senator GRIMES —No, I have not seen the reports to which Senator Messner referred , although I have had some correspondence from one organisation. The aim of the Government's policy in the area of aged care is to ensure that, first of all, there is adequate and appropriate accommodation for aged people who need it- accommodation of all types; nursing homes, hostels and independent units-and, secondly, there is provision for adequate community care services so that people can remain in their own homes, which is largely where they want to stay. The second thing I will say is that surveys done over the last seven or eight years have repeatedly shown that anything up to 25 to 35 per cent of people who are in a nursing home should not be there and would not be there if, firstly, they had been properly assessed; secondly, they had had proper treatment and proper home care services available; and, thirdly, if other more independent forms of accommodation were available. Senator Messner should realise that over the last 20 years or more it has been the view of most people who are knowledgeable in this area that there has been an unnecessary concentration on nursing home beds as distinct from the more independent type of accommodation made available for the aged. When we came into government we decided to do something about this situation. The first thing we had to do was not only take a careful global look at the relative numbers of nursing home and hostel beds, et cetera, throughout the community, but also look at the unnecessary concentrations which, as many people here would know, existed in the more affluent suburbs. There was a great absence of nursing home beds in lower socio-economic groups in the western suburbs of Sydney, et cetera. We then proceeded and we are continuing to develop a more co- ordinated policy which will concentrate on providing community care services, which we hope, with the assistance and the co-operation of the States, will provide more hostel beds by the provision of what we consider is a more fair hostel bed subsidy system. We also looked at the distribution of nursing home beds in the community. If Senator Messner is talking about approvals in principle given by the Minister for Health in the last 12 months, I think the number is not quite nil, but there have not been many. I think some two or three nursing homes have been given approval in principle by him while we are reassessing the whole situation. But I remind Senator Messner that there is a large backlog of nursing home approvals in principle which have been given in recent years and for which funding will have to be found in future years. Approval in principle does not in itself give a guarantee of funding, it just gives approval by the Minister for Health or the Department of Health, and in most cases the State Department of Health, for a particular nursing home. The fact that no more new approvals in principle have been given does not mean that this Government will not fund nursing homes. Of course we will, and I am considering at the moment the capital funding of nursing homes which have been given approval in principle in past years. We want a more rational system. We do not want a great tail of not only approvals in principle but also approvals for funding which were given many years back but which have never been taken up because the organisations have not had the capacity to raise the funds or to build. The answer is that we are developing a rational system of aged persons accommodation, and we will continue to do so. To suggest, as Senator Messner does, that there will be no more approvals under the new guidelines which provide for a limited number of nursing home beds per capita-something which the previous Government took into consideration-to provide for proper standards of nursing home beds is not true. I think that will be demonstrated to be untrue by the number of applications which will come in in the near future. Senator MESSNER —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The Minister did not in his reply address the last part of my question which referred to those people who have been missing out on beds and who have been thrown out on to the streets as a result of the Government's Medicare program. Secondly, does he now confirm that the Minister in the House of Representatives, Dr Blewett, lied yesterday in saying that the Government- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator knows that the word is unparliamentary, and I ask him to withdraw it. Senator MESSNER —I withdraw, but I replace it with the words he 'untruthfully said' yesterday in the House of Representatives that 2,132 beds had been approved by the Labor Government since coming to power. Senator GRIMES —I have not read Dr Blewett's answer, but I will. I have no doubt that Senator Messner is referring to different figures to those that I have talked about. We have certainly funded many nursing home beds. Senator Messner's suggestion that hordes of pensioners are being thrown out of hospitals as a result of the Medicare program is plainly and clearly untrue. It is emotional nonsense. If we had had a rational policy in recent years of developing proper accommodation of all types-independent hostel types, semi-independent and nursing home accommodation-we would not be in the position we are in now, with too many people in nursing homes who should not be there but who are because there is nowhere else to go, too many people in acute stay hospital beds who should be in nursing homes or hostels, and people unable to stay in their own homes because inadequate community services are available for them. That is the situation we have to correct. That is the situation which has arisen as a result of conservative governments for all but three of the last 30 years in this country. I certainly am not going to listen to Senator Messner accusing Dr Blewett after 14 months of government of being the cause of any difficulties in this area when it was his Government that was in power for all that time. Senator ZAKHAROV —Is the Attorney-General aware of articles in today's Press referring to contempt proceedings in the Family Court of Australia in Melbourne against a witness for refusing to divulge the whereabouts of a party to an action? Is he further aware of the suppression of that witness's name by virtue of the operation of section 121 of the Family Law Act and the adverse Press comment that the suppression has caused? Is it Government policy that a person be able to be punished for contempt without his or her identity ever becoming known? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am aware of articles in this morning's Press concerning contempt proceedings in the Family Court of Australia in Melbourne against a witness for refusing to divulge the whereabouts of a party to the main action. I am also aware from Press reports, but not otherwise, of the judge's comment in that matter that publication of the name of the witness in question was prohibited by virtue of section 121 of the Act. I am also very much aware of the adverse Press comment that that has generated, particularly in the front page article in this morning's Australian. I think I should emphasise at the outset the policy of section 121 of the Act which was the subject of, I think, cross-party support, and that is that Family Court proceedings are a private and personal matter and it remains the view, generally shared, that that privacy should be respected. I do not think anybody wants a return to the salacious vulgarity of divorce reporting of pre-Family Law Act days. As against that, section 121, as it was amended last year, recognises the competing need in the public interest for some degree of publication or publicity about the operations of the Family Court to enable informed comment and criticism. Accordingly, the present language of section 121 contains not an absolute or general prohibition but rather one that is confined to prohibiting the publication of any account of proceedings in the Family Court which identifies a party to the proceedings, a person related to a party or a witness to those proceedings. Obviously, in many cases publication of a witness's name will itself identify the parties in the proceedings and, hence, the rationale for that prohibition. Logically, that prohibition must extend to the identification of a person who is charged or who is in the process of being punished for contempt for refusal to answer questions or in some other way disobeying the Court order. However, it should also be said that the publication prohibition section provides as one of the exceptions that a report may be published pursuant to a direction of the Court. It may be that that option is open and has been, or will be, considered by the judge in this case. That is a matter for him. I understand the circumstances in which the Family Court has in fact waived the prohibition on publication and allowed it to take place pursuant to that exception to section 121-where, for example, a child abduction issue is involved , where there has been an earlier order for publication and, therefore, further publication cannot possibly prejudice anybody. It might also be the case, I venture to suggest, that it would be appropriate to allow publication where the identification of a witness would not of itself identify the parties to the proceedings. There are a number of delicate and difficult issues wrapped up here insofar as they involve the question of contempt of court law generally and its particular application in the Family Law Act and its inter-relationship with the prohibition on publication. That matter will be looked at by the Australian Law Reform Commission in the course of its contempt reference. Senator Chaney —I take a point of order. Mr President, I just draw your attention to the length of the answer that is being delivered by the Attorney. It is a matter of some interest but we are getting really a ministerial statement in an answer to a question. Senator GARETH EVANS —I appreciate that Senator Chaney has no concern whatsoever for the freedom of the Press and the complex policy issues that are involved in matters of this kind. Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order, Mr President. I was one who opposed this provision in the recent debate on the Family Law Act. I do wish the Attorney-General would get his facts right just for once. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. While I cannot direct Ministers on the way in which they answer questions, I would ask them to keep in mind that brevity is reasonable in these circumstances in view of the fact that so many questions are required on both sides of the House. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Chaney's views on the Family Law Act or on anything else are of no interest to me. Senator Archer —Or anybody else's views on anything. Senator GARETH EVANS —Particularly not the honourable senator's, with the utmost respect. I make one further point on this issue which raises important matters of principle. No proceedings under the Family Law Act for unauthorised publication can be commenced except with the written consent of the Attorney- General. My policy to date has been to regard this as a measure of last resort, and to proceed by way of a warning letter wherever possible rather than by using the draconian sanctions that are otherwise available. Senator BOSWELL —My question is addressed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. I refer the Minister to the statement she made at the Brisbane Women's Information Centre on 9 April when she stated that a Green Paper on affirmative action would be released in the next couple of weeks. What is the delay? What further difficulties-- Government senators-Ha, ha! Senator BOSWELL —I will continue my question anyhow because it has a message. Has she been asked by her leader to bury this unpopular piece of legislation or can all Australians hopefully expect that the Government has seen the error of its ways on affirmative action and that it will send affirmative action to the wastepaper basket where it belongs. Senator RYAN —I am very pleased to see that Senator Boswell has taken such a close interest in this historic and unique social reform. No doubt he will be as delighted as all other senators and most people in the community to hear that the statement will be tabled this afternoon by the Prime Minister and simultaneously by me. If Senator Boswell would like to wait until the end of Question Time he can hear for himself in great detail how this unique and historic social reform will work. He will also be delighted to learn during that statement that it is a policy that has bipartisan support. Senator COATES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Territories and Local Government. In view of the fact that today is World Environment Day 1984, I ask him what progress is being made towards a national parks system to protect Australia's fragile alpine areas in and around the Australian Capital Territory. Senator GIETZELT —I think it is well recognised that the Australian Government has a very deep commitment to protecting the national environment. Therefore it is singularly appropriate that, on World Environment Day, the Minister for Territories and Local Government, Mr Uren, has chosen to take advantage of the date to make an announcement about establishing a major national park in the Australian Capital Territory to be known as the Namadgi national park. I understand that the size of that park will be 94,000 hectares comprising the present Gudgenby nature reserve and a large part of the Cotter River valley. Those of us who have used this area recognise its unique character. This represents a significant extension of the existing system of reserves in the Australian Capital Territory, and I am advised that the Minister's decision means that approximately half of the Australian Capital Territory will now be part of that natural area. Namadgi will be a particularly valuable resource as it will adjoin the existing and planned alpine parks in New South Wales, that is, Kosciusko and the Scabby Range-I found that an unusual description-and the proposed Bimberi nature reserve. This will mean that the Government will be well on its way towards establishing a continuous system of national parks encompassing virtually all of Australia's ecologically fragile mainland alpine areas, located in the area between the Australian Capital Territory and Victoria. The Government's decision means that Namadgi will comprise areas of great natural beauty as well as important ecological features and interesting wildlife species, many of which have been declared rare and endangered. Therefore the Minister's decision indicates the Government's acceptance of the importance of World Environment Day 1984. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. In view of the fact that constitutional reform was very much the boiler room of Operation Evans before it ran out of steam-and I refer to the Prime Minister's announcement on 12 April that a referendum for simultaneous elections will be held in conjunction with the next election-will the Attorney-General now confirm that such a referendum will be held in conjunction with the next election? Will he say what other question, if any, will be put to the people at the same time? Will the Budget contain proposals to fund only one side of the question or questions-an attempt, of course, which the Senate defeated at the end of last year? Senator GARETH EVANS —I expect to be in a position to answer the first part of that question some time next week. I expect to be in the position to answer the second part of the question depending on how the Senate reacts to the machinery Bill which is before the Parliament today. Senator BOLKUS —My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, concerns Aboriginal education. Is the Minister aware of the extremely high drop-out rate of Aboriginal students in tertiary institutions in Australia? Is this drop-out rate as high as 80 per cent in some tertiary institutions? Is the Government taking any action in an attempt to redress the problem? Senator RYAN —Yes, I am aware that there is a very high drop-out rate by Aboriginals attempting to get a tertiary education. That has been an ongoing problem. I am also aware that there is a delegation of Aboriginal educationists from New South Wales in Canberra today. I will be meeting with them shortly to discuss particular problems being experienced in New South Wales institutions. The Government has taken a number of steps already. We will be taking more steps after our meeting with the delegation to assist Aboriginal people seeking to undertake tertiary education. One of the first steps our Government took was to appoint, for the first time, to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, an Aboriginal member, Ms Pat O'Shane, who is the Secretary of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in New South Wales. We implemented a scheme in the 1983-84 Budget whereby 100 special teacher training scholarships were provided to mature age Aboriginal students, with a higher level of allowances in recognition of their family and other responsibilities. This was a first step of our commitment to increasing the number of Aboriginal teachers in schools by 1,000 by 1990. Of course, that is directly related not only to those students getting tertiary education but also to the basic problem which underlies some of the problems which Aboriginal students have in higher education, that is, the problems which they experience in secondary schooling. Because of the very small number of trained Aboriginal teachers, because of the inadequate training of teachers generally to deal with Aboriginal students, because of the total absence in many schools of Aboriginal studies or any proper recognition of Aboriginal culture and, of course, because of the poverty that characterises many Aboriginal families throughout Australia, there is a very serious drop-out rate in secondary education. Obviously that flows on to the problems that are experienced by Aboriginal students in higher education. Our special program to increase the number of Aboriginal teachers should start to have effect at both tertiary and secondary level. We also increased the level of allowances paid to secondary and to tertiary students in our first Budget and provided ongoing support for the enclave programs. These are programs whereby groups of Aboriginal students in tertiary institutions are given special assistance and support and theoretically they are enabled to deal better with the pressures of higher education in a group situation. It has been a successful program, generally speaking, and one which the government wishes to support. Also, in providing an extra 3,000 places for higher education in 1984, we pointed to the desirability of Aboriginal students receiving special consideration in terms of those extra 3,000 places. I understand that that will be so. Also of both short term and long term assistance in this matter has been the upgrading of the National Aboriginal Education Committee, which is the body accepted by the Government as our major policy adviser on all educational matters-tertiary, secondary, adult and early childhood education and so on. We have increased staff and resources, and the NAEC, under the chairmanship of Paul Hughes, is making a substantial contribution to policy formulation by the Government. The NAEC has recently completed a special report on Aboriginals and tertiary education, which has formed part of the Tertiary Education Commission's advice to the Government for the next triennium. Finally, volume 1 of the Tertiary Education Commission report, which was recently tabled in this House, sets out an extensive and thorough discussion of ways in which Aboriginals seeking tertiary education can be assisted. These outcomes can be improved and those detailed and informed recommendations are under consideration by the Government at this time. As Senator Baume, who is now seeking to interject to disguise the poor record on this subject of the Government of which he was a part, is aware, the decision by the present Government for the next year will be revealed when I issue the guidelines for the Commission in July. Senator PETER BAUME —I draw the attention of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs to a newspaper report of a call by the Federation of Parents and Citizens Associations for the removal of Dr Peter Tannock, Chairman of the Commonwealth Schools Commission, a call made by Mrs Shirly Berg. I shall quote part of the Mercury report as the Minister does not seem to be aware of it. It reads: We believe that if Professor Tannock cannot work within the Act, then the Federal Government should look to his removal. That is a quotation of Mrs Berg's words. Without inviting comment on the call, I ask the Minister: Will she express her full confidence in Dr Peter Tannock as Chairman of the Commonwealth Schools Commission? Will she put an end to any rumours that there are moves, or that there is any intention, either to undermine his authority or to remove him before his allotted term ends? Senator RYAN —I was not aware of that call by the Federation of Parents and Citizens Associations as quoted by Senator Baume, but I am happy to confirm my confidence in the Chairman of the Commonwealth Schools Commission, Peter Tannock , and to report that I have had the most constructive working relationship with Dr Tannock and with the Commission generally. I would add that attacks on individual members of the Commission from different sectors seem to be an ongoing feature in public education debates. Members of the Opposition expressed a great deal of criticism and complaint when I made certain appointments to the Commission. I think in some cases those criticisms have disappeared entirely. Generally speaking, it seems to me that the education community and those who take an interest in education policy are, by and large, pleased with the efforts of the Commission. Certainly there have been criticisms of individual recommendations in the report but, overall, I am happy to say that I believe the Commission collectively, under the chairmanship of Peter Tannock, is working extremely well and constructively in a difficult and complicated area. Senator RICHARDSON —Has the Minister for Social Security seen reports suggesting that the Leader of the National Party of Australia, Mr Sinclair, and its spokesman on primary industry, Mr McVeigh, have been claiming that farmers with mortgages or other debts on their farms will not have these debts taken into account in assessments for the assets test? What is the truth of this claim? Senator GRIMES —I believe Mr Sinclair and Mr McVeigh are handling the truth in the usual manner in which they handle the truth-- Senator Walsh —He has as much respect for the truth as he has for other people's money. Senator GRIMES —And that is, very carelessly. I had better not repeat what Senator Walsh said or I might be in diabolical trouble. Senator Peter Baume —I take a point of order. Does Senator Grimes's comment bring the remark by Senator Walsh into the Hansard record? If it does, I ask that it be withdrawn. The PRESIDENT —Order! I did not hear what comment Senator Walsh made. But if he made a comment that is regarded as unparliamentary, I ask him to withdraw it. Senator Walsh —Mr President, I said that he had as much respect for the truth as he has for other people's money, and I withdraw it. The PRESIDENT —I ask the honourable senator to withdraw that remark. Senator Walsh —I did, Mr President. Senator GRIMES —You are not very bright, Peter; you are really not very bright. The simple fact of the matter-- Senator Walters —You were not too bright either. Senator GRIMES —I am worried about Senator Walters, Mr President. If she keeps making noises like that she will lay an egg. Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order, Mr President. I am trying to remember what standing order, if any, there is which prevents unending rudeness in this place. I ask you to call the Ministers to order and tell them to get on with the job. The PRESIDENT —I have asked the Minister to respond to the question directed to him by Senator Richardson. Time is running out and we want other questions asked . Senator GRIMES —I will continue to answer the question, but I remind Senator Chaney that I was answering an interjection. The market value of farm properties under the assets test, less the home and the curtilage if the farmer is living on the property, will be considered net of any debts outstanding, be they mortgages or other debts, and they will then be treated as an asset for the purposes of the test. To suggest, as did Mr Sinclair and Mr McVeigh, having read the statement of the Prime Minister, that mortgages and debts will be ignored and that assets will be considered at their total market value without taking those into consideration, is quite simply wrong, deliberately misleading and deliberately designed to worry people who may be affected in that situation. Those suggestions should be treated for what they are-blatant scaremongering and fearmongering by two individuals who have no other arguments against the test and who are just resorting to the usual fear tactics of the conservatives. Senator CHANEY —I address a question to the Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister representing the Minister for Trade. I ask whether he is aware of a telex sent by coal industry unions to the Japanese steel mills threatening disruption of exports and including the following paragraph: This committee condemns the bastardry of those Australian coal producers whose refusal to abide by Federal Government parameters in price talks not only threatens even more mine jobs, but is tantamount to treason in selling out the Government, mineworkers, the coal industry and Australia. Was the Government aware of this inflammatory message from the unions to one of our most important coal buyers? If the Government was aware of it, did it immediately dissociate itself and Australia in general from the contents of the message? If it was not aware of it, what does this say about its special relationship with the unions? Does the Minister agree that such Actions by a trade union can only damage Australia's trading relationships? Will the Government now dissociate itself publicly from this telexed message of the coal unions? Senator WALSH —I am not sure when the alleged telex was sent. Senator Chaney —Some time in May. Senator WALSH —Senator Chaney tells me it was some time in May. I certainly was not aware of it. I do not know whether the Minister for Trade was aware of it at the time. As he is now out of the country, I will not be able to find that out for some time. If Senator Chaney has quoted fairly from the telex and not quoted unduly out of context, it certainly seems that the language is strong, to say the least. But I will have a look at that telex. When the Minister for Trade returns I will also ask him to look at it and see whether we will make a statement about it then. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I am somewhat surprised that the Minister has not seen the telex because it was published in full in a newspaper. Certainly, I saw it some time before that. If I provide the Minister with a copy of the telex, will he provide a considered reply to the questions I have asked about a matter which is of very great significance to a major Australian export industry? Senator WALSH —I apologise if I should have seen the telex and I did not. I am expected to look at quite a lot of papers. The Miners Federation has over- reacted on at least three occasions in my opinion in the last 12 months in circumstances roughly comparable to those to which Senator Chaney referred. I have in the past contacted officials of the Miners Federation and given them my view on that. Senator CROWLEY —Can the Minister for Resources and Energy affirm the accuracy of the reports in newspapers today claiming that the Minister cannot table the Symonds report into the history of British nuclear tests and the Kerr report into radiation fallout on Australian cities together, because some material which had been intended for inclusion in Dr Symonds's chronological summary had been derived from classified British documents given to Australian officials earlier this year and the United Kingdom has objected to the inclusion of some of that material? If so, can he say what effect this delay in tabling of the Symonds report may have on the possible establishment of a full inquiry into the Maralinga tests, fallout, health effects and land effects? Senator WALSH —The last part of Senator Crowley's question asks what effect on the possible establishment of an inquiry will the delay in the release of the Symonds report have. The answer to that is none, because the relevant sections of the Symonds report, as I said yesterday, are not relevant to health and safety matters but to other matters. The report by Professor Kerr and his committee has already been tabled, I am told, by Senator Grimes. I thought I was to do it at the end of Question Time but apparently it was done earlier. For reasons which will become obvious to those who read that report, the Government must seriously consider a wider and deeper inquiry, although I think the type is a matter which needs to be thought about in some detail and for some time before a decision is made. I do not personally favour a royal commission approach because of, among other things, the present experience of the Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam. It has not completed its task. It has been sitting for a very long time and has entailed very substantial expense. However, I give this assurance to Senator Crowley, Mr O'Neil, the honourable member for Grey, and other South Australians who have approached me on this matter: The Government is determined to retrieve and publish all the information that it can, with that one exception given before of classified material supplied by the United Kingdom Government. It is our duty to do that, and if we did less we would be shirking our duty. It is a pity past governments did not have the same sense of duty. Indeed, it is a pity that the previous Government and the previous Minister, Senator Sir John Carrick, had not finalised this issue and put it to bed once and for all the last time it arose, in 1978 and 1979. The whole story, when one looks at it in detail, is rather sordid and the major villain in that sordid story is without doubt the then Prime Minister in the early 1950s, the lickspittle Empire loyalist who regarded Australia as a colonial vassal of the British crown. I refer of course to Sir Robert Menzies, the twentieth century satrap who invited the British to pollute Australia with nuclear fallout, the pseudo patriot who cravenly surrendered Australian sovereignty to a declining imperial power. If I remember Mark Anthony correctly, he said at Caesar's funeral: The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones. I am not sure whether the second line of that quotation-I trust it is an accurate quotation-could be applied to Sir Robert Menzies but I am certain that the first line can be. There is probably no better example of the legacy of the evil that lives after the death of those who perpetrate it than the after- effects of the atomic weapons and other tests which were conducted in Australia. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yesterday Senator Missen sought responses from the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hawke) on the Papua New Guinea-Indonesian border situation. I undertook to produce further and more detailed answers as soon as possible. I have spoken to the Minister and I now have the following answer to read into the record: I am aware that Senator Missen has asked a number of questions concerning the death of Mr Arnold Ap in Irian Jaya and the repatriation of Irianese border crossers from Papua New Guinea to Indonesia. Senator Missen's question without notice on 4 April 1984 concerning Mr Ap was subsequently answered in reply by the Minister for Foreign Affairs which Senator Missen read into Hansard on 9 May 1984, at page 1871. The questions raised by Senator Missen concerning the case of Mr Ap in the adjournment debate of 9 May were answered in a reply from the Minister for Foreign Affairs incorporated in Hansard on 31 May 1984, at page 2316. Those replies made clear the Government's concern over recent developments and the representations which were made on behalf of Mr Ap and the other persons detained for alleged pro-OPM sympathies. Concerning Senator Missen's letter to the Minister for Trade, Mr Bowen, on 23 May 1984, I understand that a reply is being prepared and will be available shortly. As regards the allegation that the Australian Government has advised the Papua New Guinea Government against giving assistance to the OPM and to send border crossers back to Irian Jaya, I can assure the Senate that no such advice has been offered by this Government. More generally on the question of Irianese border crossings the Government is aware of continuing crossings into Papua New Guinea from the Indonesian province of Irian Jaya. Best estimates put the total number of crossers into Papua New Guinea at around 8,000. The Government has been monitoring developments along the border and has noted recent comments by authorities in both countries to the effect that most of the border crossers will return to Irian Jaya in the near future. This follows agreement to their return between the Foreign Ministers of the two countries at their April meeting in Jakarta and Indonesian assurances that their safety would be guaranteed provided they were not involved in acts violating Indonesian law. We have noted assurances to Parliament by Papua New Guinea's Foreign Minister, Mr Namaliu, that those who have a well founded fear of persecution because of their involvement in dissident activities in Indonesia should be allowed to stay in Papua New Guinea for the time being. The Government believes that the border problem is one for the two countries themselves to resolve and views the understandings that have been reached between them as a helpful contribution towards resolving the problem. In the Australian Government's view it is necessary that the solution to the problem of border crossers should take full account of the important humanitarian considerations that are involved. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yesterday Senator Kilgariff asked Senator Button a question concerning Ms Petra Kelly's visit to Australia. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer: Ms Kelly was invited to Australia by the organisers of the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science Congress held recently in Canberra. At the suggestion of the Congress organisers and Senator Coleman, she was invited to stay on as a guest of the Minister for Foreign Affairs for a period after the Congress, in order to permit her to gain a broader understanding of Australia than would have been possible had her visit been confined to Canberra. It was not unexpected that she should express controversial views during her visit. An officer of the Department of Foreign Affairs was assigned to accompany Ms Kelly throughout her visit. This is a customary courtesy for such visitors. As her escort officer, the officer in question accompanied Ms Kelly to Pine Gap but did not, of course, participate in or associate herself with the demonstration, which was a purely personal initiative on Ms Kelly's part. Final costs of Ms Kelly's visit are not yet available. The Department of Foreign Affairs share of the costs for Ms Kelly and her fellow Bundestag member Gerd Bastian is estimated at $8,000. Senator GIETZELT —Yesterday in debate in Committee on Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1983-84 Senator Boswell asked me a number of questions relating to flights over Brisbane. I undertook to get replies to these questions by Question Time today. As the Department has now supplied me with a response to Senator Boswell's questions, I seek leave of the Senate to have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- QUESTIONS CONCERNING BRISBANE AIRPORT 1. Is 3000 feet still the minimum required height for commercial aircraft on arrival and departure patterns? Answer-Commercial aircraft arriving and departing from Brisbane Airport normally descend or climb respectively to their cruising level without stopping at any one level. Aircraft are occasionally held at a level in order to separate them from other aircraft, however this level varies with circumstances. When aircraft are conducting instrument approaches they may hold at and start their approach from 3000 feet. 2. Do Departmental officers monitor these patterns? Answer-The flight paths and the levels flown by aircraft are allocated to them by Departmental officers, who also monitor the aircraft on radar. 3. Can the Minister say what action, if any, has been taken by Departmental officers to see that approach and departure patterns are directed away from Brisbane bayside suburbs? Answer-The Department has introduced noise abatement procedures at Brisbane in order to minimise annoyance to the residents around the airport including ensuring that aircraft take off towards, and land from, the direction of Moreton Bay as much as possible. This is done to avoid the more populated areas to the south-west of the airport. The flight paths of aircraft flying over the Moreton Bay area are continually monitored and changes are made when considered justified. Special attention is paid to night-time flights when more restrictive flight paths may be used. 4. What extra cost, if any, would be involved in having aircraft fly over a different flight path over the Bay. Answer-There are two costs to be considered, firstly the economic cost of an aircraft having to fly an extra distance. Secondly there would be an additional traffic complexity involved. The exact costs cannot be known until exact details of suburbs to be avoided, or the flight paths, are known. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(3.14) -For the information of honourable senators I present the Government Policy Discussion Paper on Affirmative Action for Women and seek leave to make a statement. Leave granted. Senator RYAN —With this release of its policy discussion paper on affirmative action in employment, the Government has moved to implement one of its major commitments to raising the status of women in Australian society. This is a commitment on which many in our community expect fearless, clear and effective leadership from the Government. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said in the Boyer lectures: . . . in the area of the status of women, . . . the formal process of accepting their equality as human beings has not been matched by the hard political and administrative decisions necessary to give effect to that acceptance. The Australian Labor Government is determined to rectify this situation by making those decisions. The Government has already taken such major steps as the enactment of sex discrimination legislation, the appointment of more than 90 women to Government boards and authorities and, now, the introduction of an affirmative action program. We are committed to the development of policies which will give women the opportunity to participate fully in employment. We are committed to policies to ensure that women are given the opportunity to improve their labour market prospects, to compete for a wider range of jobs and to be able to apply on an equal footing with men for those jobs that are available. The approach we now propose should ensure that women are no longer excluded from many occupations and concentrated at the bottom of the labour market. Women should now assume the place of their choice in our society. I should emphasise that this, we appreciate and recognise, will see many choosing a traditional role in the home. Affirmative action of the kind now proposed by the Government is a means of improving women's position in the work force by ensuring that discriminatory practices or traditions are reviewed and removed. We aim to see that women are enabled to compete equally with men for jobs at all levels. Our approach is not one which relies on the experience of other countries. We have explicitly rejected the American model with its system of court-imposed employment quotas. Rather we have developed a set of proposals which are appropriate for the Australian environment. They are the product of our unique industrial relations and business practice traditions. Put quite simply, equal employment opportunity is our objective, and affirmative action is the way to achieve it. We must shake ourselves from the inertia and complacency which for too long has characterised Australian policy on matters such as this. What the Prime Minister said in the Boyer lectures in 1979 remains true today, namely: We luxuriate in the comfortable assertion that women enjoy equality. We have salved our consciences by eliminating the more obvious discriminations like unequal rates or pay for work of equal value. But we have not eliminated the inheritance of the millenia that women are lesser beings, an inheritance which still manifests itself in a whole range of prejudice and other forms of discrimination. We are, as a society, more aware of this dichotomy, between principle and practice, but the very awareness is a source of guilt and conflict between women and women, between women and men, and within women and men themselves. I see it as crucial that we confront this dichotomy head on. It is not enough simply to say that there should be equal employment opportunities for women or that all employers should treat men and women equally. What we need is concerted action-affirmative action-to ensure its achievement. Special measures and programs are needed to ensure that women acquire the skills, experience and training to compete on an equal basis with men for jobs and for promotions. Such special measures include making it explicit in job advertisements that women and girls can apply companies advising their employees that all positions are open to women, companies analysing their work force to identify areas where women are not employed and designing strategies to attract them to these areas, and companies consulting with female employees on their perceptions of where barriers to full equality of opportunity might exist. Some companies will already have adopted such measures. These are, after all, what many would see as being integral to good management practice. Successful companies will not ignore the talents and skills of all their employees. Such practices should become the rule rather than the exception. Women are now 37 per cent of the Australian work force. Two and a half million women, 60 per cent of them married, are in the work force. The economy and standards of living we know today would collapse if women were to withdraw to their pre-war rate of labour market participation. Women today do not have the same diversity of occupational choices available to men. Sixty-four per cent of women workers are employed in only three occupational groups-clerical; sales; and service, sport and recreation. Women in these occupations work largely as stenographers, typists, sales assistants, waitresses and cleaners. Women are under-represented in administrative, executive and managerial positions, in agricultural work and in the transport and communication occupations. They are notably under-represented in the trades, production process and labouring occupational groupings. Even within occupations where women predominate, men tend to have the higher level, decision-making positions. Indeed, among Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, Australia has the highest level of occupational segregation of women and one of the highest levels of industrial segregation. There is no evidence of this segregation diminishing. Rather, as the Prime Minister observed in the 1979 lectures: The range of employment readily open to women is restricted because of discrimination built into our educations system and the attitudes of some employers and trade unions. There is still the unstated but operative assumption that women are not entitled to equal opportunity because their place is, or ultimately should be, in the home. In the final analysis, what we have to recognise is that, while there is an inevitable imbalance in circumstances where a significant number of women chose not to enter the work force, there is still a gross lack of proportion. We have a situation where women comprise half the population and yet still occupy so few positions of authority in government, business, trade unions, and other organisations of significance within the community. The Government's affirmative action proposals aim to redress this situation. We aim to open up a greater and more satisfying range of job opportunities for women. The union movement has a very important role to play in securing these objectives. The Australian Council of Trade Unions Congress decision to hold a seminar for all affiliates should help see the unions make their essential contribution. But it is the co-operation of Australian employers which will be absolutely vital for the long term success of an affirmative action program. In this regard the Government has sought and received the co-operation of many Australian companies and of the higher education institutions. This co-operation augurs well for the prospects of the approach we are now proposing and we are particularly grateful to all those concerned for their co-operation. Following the Prime Minister's invitation, the following companies and tertiary institutions have agreed to join a pilot program establishing affirmative action for women in employment: Australian Mutual Provident Society, Ansett Transport Industries Ltd, ANZ Banking Group Ltd, Boral Ltd, Borg-Warner (Australia) Ltd, The Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd, G. J. Coles and Co . Ltd, Argyle Diamond Mines Pty Ltd and Sulphide Corporation Pty Ltd, divisions of CRA Ltd, CSR Ltd, Dunlop Olympic Ltd, Esso Australia Ltd, John Fairfax & Sons Ltd, Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd, Grace Bros Department Stores, IBM Australia Ltd, ICI Australia Ltd, Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd, Reckitt & Colman Australia Ltd, Santos Ltd, Simpson Ltd, Southern Pacific Hotel Corporation Ltd, Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd, Unilever Australia Ltd, Westpac Banking Corporation, Woolworths Ltd, Wormald International Ltd, J. B. Youngs Ltd, The Australian National University, Griffith University and the South Australian College of Advanced Education. The pilot program is a unique and historic challenge. The participation by such a representative cross section of our business and education communities gives me confidence not only of the likely success of the program, but also of the seminal influence it will have on community attitudes in this vital area. Between them, the participants in the pilot program employ almost a quarter of a million Australians. Sixteen of the 28 companies which are participating in the program are listed by Business Review Weekly as being amongst Australia's top 150 companies in terms of their market capitalisation. Six of the participating companies are amongst Australia's top ten companies. Quite deliberately, however , the pilot program is not confined to such companies; it necessarily encompasses a wide range of sectors and regions and a variety of company sizes. On this basis the demonstration effect of the pilot program should be both considerable and, above all, credible. I am very confident that the practical attainment of improved employment opportunities for women through the pilot program will dispel any lingering misapprehensions about the appropriateness of affirmative action as a strategy for improving women's job opportunities. A special Affirmative Action Resource Unit has been established in the Office of the Status of Women to assist participants in the pilot program. It will help employers design affirmative action programs and will provide advice when problems arise. It will also assist employers in monitoring the progress of their programs. In this regard I should like to pay tribute to the clarity and sensitivity of approach adopted by many in Australian business and industry to the challenge involved in mounting affirmative action programs. This is reflected, for example , in the attitude of the Confederation of Australian Industry which has acknowledged that: Industry, as a part of society, cannot escape the fact that it has a role to play . . . In the main, real and positive advances will only be made in this area through co-ordinated and co-operative action by industry, the trade union movement and governments . . . Affirmative action programmes carried out on ( this) basis have the full support of CAI. The Business Council of Australia, to which most of the companies participating in the pilot program belong, is also holding a series of working sessions throughout the year for participating companies. This initiative is a practical approach which should be of particular value to all the companies concerned. That so many in business are both receptive to the purpose of affirmative action and prepared to give it practical effect in their own enterprises, gives me real confidence that we have found a most effective means of securing real progress in this vitally important area. The paper before us defines affirmative action as a systematic means, determined by employers in consultation with employees and unions, of achieving equal employment opportunity for women. It is not a means of generating increased employment-other policies are directed to this end. Affirmative action is aimed at promoting improved job choice for women in the work force. In this regard the Government strongly believes that all jobs should be awarded on merit . We reject the use of employment quotas for women or any disadvantaged group. What is needed is a self-determined, industry-specific approach. Such an approach would be one which would adopt goals or targets rather than binding, operational quotas. Affirmative action programs will only achieve long term benefits, for women and the economy, if they are regarded as employment policies designed to improve the skill, efficiency and mobility of the work force. They should be designed to redress discrimination where it occurs within organisations, to identify obstacles to women's employment or promotion and to take systematic steps to remove these. Affirmative action does not threaten the jobs of men. Rather, it ensures equitable treatment for individual employees and urges employers to make optimal use of all skills and talents available both inside and outside the organisation. We cannot afford the situation any longer where women remain concentrated at the bottom on the labour market; where women continue to receive a disproportionately low share of wages and salaries; and where their access to non-traditional occupations will not improve. Only if we utilise all available skills and resources will we have any hope of enhancing, indeed maintaining, our relative standard of living. Australia needs to establish a more efficient, more productive and, ultimately, more competitive industrial base. Our labour market, industrial relations and education policies should contribute to the process. A labour force which is low -skilled, immobile and occupationally stultified will only impede our progress. The affirmative action proposals now before the Senate will have an important place in achieving the necessary conditions for progress. They are part of a wider effort by the Government to improve the educational, training and employment prospects for women and girls. We are giving particular attention to the achievement of equal access to jobs for women and men under the community employment program job creation scheme; we have introduced special rebates under the Commonwealth rebate for apprentice full-time training scheme for employers who take on female apprentices in trades other than hairdressing; we have commenced information campaigns to encourage young women to train for non-traditional occupations; we have also introduced the participation and equity program and the computer education program within the educational system, both of which should be of particular assistance to girls in their later quest for jobs. While each employer is now being asked to design affirmative action programs suitable for the conditions and traditions of the industry concerned, most affirmative action programs should, nevertheless, have certain common features. These include: The appointment within each organisation of a senior executive responsible for the implementation of the program; an analysis of its work force to identify areas where women are concentrated or under-represented; a review of the organisation's employment policies and practices; the formulation of specific goals or targets to remedy any shortcomings disclosed by this analysis and review; and an evaluation and monitoring component to enable the organisation to assess whether it is making demonstrable progress towards equal employment opportunity for women. There is nothing particularly difficult or costly about any of these steps. I urge all employers to consider the benefits involved most carefully. The Government proposes that legislation should ultimately be introduced covering the introduction of affirmative action programs for women employees in private sector organisations with more than 100 employees. Such legislation needs to be carefully evolved for the Australian context. It needs to be implemented in a way which is not disruptive to business and the other organisations it will affect. It should also be such as not to prejudice women's long term employment prospects. In order to make sure that affirmative action legislation achieves these goals and has broad business, union and community support, the Government proposes to follow the successful consultation mechanism developed to consider the legislation for the Prices Surveillance Authority. With this in mind, I am also pleased to announce today that a working party is to be established to advise the Government on the most appropriate form of legislation in respect of affirmative action. This working party will be a direct and formal link between the Government and the parties affected by the affirmative action proposals. It will be kept informed of progress of the pilot program and will draw on its experience in framing the options for legislation. I shall be chairing the working party in my capacity as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) will also participate in the working party, as will representatives of the ACTU, the Business Council of Australia, the Confederation of Australian Industry, the Australian Vice-Chancellor's Committee, the Australian Committee of Directors and Principals of Colleges of Advanced Education and women's organisations. The Prime Minister and I welcome the indication we have received from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) of the Opposition's support for the Government's proposals on affirmative action. I thank the Opposition for this expression of support. In the circumstances the Government is happy to respond positively to the suggestion that the shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Ian Macphee, should also be a member of the working party. The Government hopes that all large employers, not only those taking part in the pilot programs, will start to move towards adopting affirmative action programs for their women employees prior to the report of the Working Party. I am most heartened by the interest shown already by a number of organisations, educational institutions and statutory authorities and applaud them for their initiative in this important area. The Government will, or cause, also provide as much assistance as possible to these organisations through the Affirmative Action Resource Unit. The Government, it will be appreciated, is not applying one standard to the private sector and another to its own employees in the public sector. The Public Service Reform Bill, introduced into the House on 10 May 1984 by John Dawkins as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Public Service Matters, contains provisions requiring Commonwealth Departments to introduce affirmative action programs for women and disadvantaged minority groups. This legislation will also apply to Commonwealth statutory authorities on a case-by-case basis. I would hope the example set by the Government will provide an incentive for many others to follow suit. The proposals in this paper have been widely discussed between the Government, business and unions. I repeat how grateful our Government is for the very substantial support we have already received from these quarters. This demonstrates, I believe, that all parties affected by the Government's proposals will see them as realistic and practical, and in their interests to implement. For far too long, women have been denied their right to compete on equal terms with men for jobs or to have reasonable prospects within those jobs. The Government's objective is to redress this situation so that women's position and status in the labour market markedly improves. We are, in this important area, I believe, on the threshold of a major transformation of the place of women in our society. Australia will be a better and more prosperous place for it. I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(3.34) —There has been speculation for a very long time about the nature of the Government's affirmative action program. A good deal of that speculation has been reported in the Press and during the debate on the Sex Discrimination Bill I seem to remember there was some speculation too. The paper that was presented today was not properly anticipated by anyone. As the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women (Senator Ryan) has indicated, the Opposition supports the affirmative action program outlined by her today. The Opposition has been committed to equal opportunity for women for a very long time. I briefly remind the Senate that when we were in government we initiated and carried out many equal opportunity programs in relation to the appointment of women to government boards. Probably the best known of these was the appointment of Dame Leonie Kramer as Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. It was also the Fraser Government that initiated the National Women's Advisory Council which did much valuable work. The Government has indicated that it will abolish the National Women's Advisory Council and will set up a different consultative council. I think it is appropriate in the context of debate on this affirmative action statement to pay tribute to the National Women's Advisory Council for the very worthwhile work it did in the research area. Much of the Council's research forms the basis for the report that is before us today. The Council was not the only source of contribution. One of the great difficulties in the debate on the status of women in Australian society in recent years has been access to useful information on that subject, and particularly on women in the work force in Australia. I note that volume 2 contains a great deal of that sort of information which will be very useful to the Parliament and the public in general. We have been committed for a long time to equal opportunity for all Australians . I quote briefly from the document 'The Way Ahead' which was published 10 years ago. It is worth reminding people what our policy has been all that time. There have been occasions-and I am not suggesting that the Minister has done this-when there has been some misrepresentation of the position of the Liberal and National parties on this subject. The document said 10 years ago, and this holds true of our attitude today: The Liberal and Country Parties are dedicated to the pursuit of social freedom and the maximisation of equality of opportunity and status for men and women in the Australian community. Any form of arbitrary discrimination of social, economic, legal and educational nature is inconsistent with the philosophy of the Liberal and Country Parties. I should interpose here that in these days one reads 'National Party' for ' Country Party'. The document continued: Where such discrimination is seen to exist, it is the policy of the Parties to strive concertedly for its elimination. Certain differences in status continue to exist between the roles of men and women in Australian society. These exist in both institutional and attitudinal terms. Where these differences are seen to arise from unfair discrimination or inequality of opportunity, a Liberal and Country Party Government is pledged to work actively for their elimination. I referred very briefly a few moments ago to some of the things that we did in government that were in line with this statement. The document continued: A Liberal and Country Party Government will promote, as a basic responsibility, those conditions in society that will enable all individuals to achieve their full potential. We hope that the affirmative action policy outlined today is such a condition. The document continued: One of the most important developments in the latter half of the twentieth century has been the major reassessment of the role of women. The advancement of technology, the greater availability of education and the continuing decline in the number of children per family has greatly reduced the demands on women to fill a totally domestic role. Therefore the options and opportunities available to women today exceed those of their counterparts in past generations. Throughout the twentieth century women in western society have been granted greater legal, political and social status. There still remain areas in community life, however, where women have not yet achieved full equality with men. It is towards the eradication of these pockets of discrimination that the main thrust of a Liberal and Country Party Government's policy for women will be directed. That is the reason we support the statement made today. The document continued. Government, employers, trade union and education institutions are not fully attuned to the changing social attitudes and relationships in modern society. The Liberal and Country Parties believe it is not sufficient to rely on slow evolutionary change to achieve full social justice for women. Rather, the Parties are committed to the active advancement of women's rights in the context of a broad and integrated women's policy. Nobody would deny that the last decade in Australia has seen very substantial change in the role and status of women and in attitudes towards women and their role in Australian society. I refer briefly to the statement just given by the Minister to outline what is a persistent, hard-core and difficult area. I refer to page 3 of the statement where the Minister said: Women today do not have the same diversity of occupational choices available to men. Sixty-four per cent of women workers are employed in only three occupational groups-clerical, sales and service, sport and recreation. Women in these occupations work largely as stenographers, typists, sales assistants, waitresses and cleaners. Women are under-represented in administrative, executive and managerial positions, in agricultural work and in the transport and communications occupations. They are notably under-represented in trades, production process and labouring occupational groupings. Even within occupations where women predominate, men tend to have the higher- level, decision-making positions. I think this is an indictment. The document continued: Indeed, among Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, Australia has the highest level of occupational segregation of women and one of the highest levels of industrial segregation. We welcome the co-operative approach that the Government has initiated in this affirmative action program and we support it. I think it is very clear that this affirmative action program requires the full support of trade unions and business. The Government must be gratified by the response of the corporations which were invited to participate in the pilot program. Perhaps, it is a credit to the men who run those corporations-it is men who run them-that they have been so prompt and willing to participate in this very valuable experiment. Mind you, those corporations will receive some benefit from this. One of the benefits they will get is that ambitious women will be attracted to apply for jobs with them. All employers like ambitious employees because they are productive, work hard and are innovative, if they have the talents at all. I believe that those who volunteer their corporations for this experiment will see the rewards. It is my hope that others will see the rewards that flow to those who have participated. It should be emphasised that the statement applies to women in the work force. There is nothing in the statement that takes women out of the home and puts them into the work force. It is for women who are in the work force and it holds promises for women who will be in the work force at some time in the future. A number of bogies have been raised in relation to affirmative action. I have encountered a lot of questions about this in the community since the passage of the Sex Discrimination Act which the Opposition supported in principle. It is important that the message be made very clear that this affirmative action program does not discriminate against men. The policy discussion paper tabled by the Minister states: . . . men may expect to face stiffer competition for jobs. This is not discrimination. It is also important that this program does not involve quotas. I believe that most women do not want quotas, that is, preferential treatment over men of equal skills in employment. In my opinion quotas would cause hardship and resentment towards women in the work force. The whole principle of equality that so many women have been striving for and working for for a very long time now is to prove that, given an equal opportunity, they can be as good as their male counterparts and it is not preference that women have been seeking. We welcome the fact that there is no suggestion of quotas. There are some other areas that perhaps Commonwealth and State governments should look at. Senator Ryan referred to some of the actions of government. It is interesting that, in the Public Service Reform Bill which is now in the Senate, there are some innovative measures which will be of particular interest to women such as permanent part time work. However, the matter of access to training and education to overcome a backlog situation that we have in our community which is, I believe, the source of that information in relation to our poor position as against other OECD countries is one that government should look at very closely. I believe that there are many women in the community who are intelligent and who would like to develop skills but who, because they were educated at a time when that was not encouraged, do not have and find great difficulty in obtaining access to that training now. I urge governments to look at what institutional impediments there are to equal opportunity for women and to take their own form of affirmative action of the kind outlined here today. Finally, I want to make a brief comment on the possibility of legislation being introduced for affirmative action. The Opposition would prefer that there was not legislation. However, we will wait and see what comes out of the position. As the Minister indicated, the Government has decided that the shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations who is also our shadow Minister on the Status of Women, the Hon. Ian Macphee, will be a member of the working party monitoring the implementation of the affirmative action program outlined today. That working party will also report and comment to government on the subject of the potential legislation. In accepting that appointment to the working party, which I think was a very good one, Mr Macphee did not commit himself to the objectives of legislating on the subject. Of course, he will be free to make up his own mind and to report as he believes is appropriate. The Opposition will be reserving its position on the matter. As I said at the beginning our feeling is that we would prefer that legislation was not necessary. I said some time ago that it is salutary that the position of women in Australia has changed as much and an amount of progress has been made in the last decade. For that I think tribute should be paid to many Australian men. I hope that the experiment that has been outlined to us today is successful. That in itself will be a great encouragement to other employers to voluntarily look at the possibility of the benefits of affirmative action programs for their businesses and for their employees. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.45) —It is evident from the statement and from volume 1 and volume 2 of the policy discussion papers on Affirmative Action For Women that a number of people have been giving the very important matters a great deal of consideration. In the very short time that the paper has been available to us I can only state that there appears to be some attempt to obtain consensus and consensus appears to have been achieved in some key areas. However , despite that, I believe that the affirmative action paper does not address the major employment-related problem facing women in this country today. It does not address the key issue of choice facing women in this country today. What is the major area of concern related to work facing women in Australia today? The answer to that is massive unemployment. The paper does nothing to address that problem. The real problem of employment is shouldered, very heavily , by those who are not equipped to face the crisis-that is to say, teenage girls between the ages of 15 years and 19 years. One in every three of those girls in my State is unemployed. This paper does nothing to help them. Almost every family is experiencing the tragedy of unemployment amongst those teenage girls. This paper does nothing to address that major problem. In fact, it could well be said that the combination of the sex discrimination legislation and affirmative action could make things worse for those teenage girls because all employers who are listed in the paper cannot, under pain of penalty, prefer an unmarried teenage girl for employment to a very well-off married woman. I do not wish to detract from the positive elements in the document. I am only concerned that the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women (Senator Ryan) has left the chamber and is not present to hear the official response of the Opposition given by Senator Martin, nor the responses of other senators. All wisdom does not repose in the Government, in the Opposition or in me but, in my view, it is important to the integrity of the parliamentary system that if a Minister comes into the chamber and presents a major or even a minor paper on behalf of the Government, that Minister should not walk out of the chamber and ignore the debate that must inevitably ensue. The second question that is not properly addressed in this document is the other major issue facing women in Australia; namely, the true freedom of choice of occupation. I agree that it is in that area where there should be some affirmative action. I remind the Senate that in the area of paid occupation I have been involved for many years in struggling against discrimination. I have been struggling on behalf of women to ensure that they have equal pay and equal opportunities. To the extent that this assists in that objective, I applaud the document, but it is inadequate if it seeks to address the very real issue of true freedom of choice for women to choose the type of occupation they desire- the type of socially creative work, if I may use the words of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in the John Curtin Memorial Lecture in Perth in September last year. If it is attempting to address that issue, it fails miserably. I quote from page 2 of the document which has been placed before the Senate by Senator Ryan. It reads: The approach we now propose should ensure that women are no longer excluded from many occupations and concentrated at the bottom of the labour market. Women should now assume the place of their choice in our society. I should emphasise that this, we appreciate and recognise, will see many choosing a traditional role in the home. Where in this document is the affirmative action required to ensure that that freedom of choice is available to those women who choose that role? In that respect I observe with concern and with not a little trepidation the comment made on page 21 of volume 1 of the policy discussion paper, which reads: Social security and taxation policies and their effect in combination, can also affect women's decisions to participate in the paid labour force. The Australian taxation system, while based on the individual unit for income tax assessment purposes, continues to assume a secondary economic role for women in its allowance of a rebate for dependent spouses and its tolerance of family-based partnerships used to split incomes, and hence minimise tax liability. Some argue that both measures are potential or actual disincentives for women seeking to return to the paid work force. I suspect that the Prime Minister was not aware of those two paragraphs in the document because they are non sequiturs. I ask the question of Senator Ryan, and I should like to hear an answer from her at some stage, as to why those words are there. Is it some gratuitous comment or a softening up process for the Budget-perhaps not this Budget but the one after? If it is, those who seek to undermine the tax rebate will be ultimately undermining the wages and prices accord. I put it to the Senate that this issue of freedom of choice-to quote the words of the document that 'women should now assume the place of their choice in society'-is a fundamental issue indeed which this document does not address. There are a couple of other considerations. The Minister says in the statement that the Government has already taken such major steps as the enactment of the sex discrimination legislation and the appointment of more than 90 women to government boards and authorities, and now the introduction of an affirmative action program. I should like to know how many of those 90 appointees are women who have chosen to assume the place of their choice in our society-that is to say, the choice of being at a particular stage a full time mother. It would be interesting to see whether there is some affirmative action required in governmental appointments in respect of that question. I also note that the document, at the bottom of page 3, quotes from Mr Hawke's observations in the 1979 Boyer lectures: There is still the unstated but operative assumption that women are not entitled to equal opportunity because their place is, or ultimately should be, in the home. In my view that is not a proper assumption because it does not bear any resemblance to the factual situation. This sort of paper appears to assume that the women now in the work force will stay there until they are aged 60 and the women at home will stay there until they are aged 60. That is not the situation at all. Women may comprise 37 per cent of the Australian work force at present. That is the snapshot situation at the moment. But in two years time a number of those women who are currently in the paid work force will be full time homemakers and some of the full time homemakers will be members of the work force. They will be the same women. It is important that whether they are in paid or unpaid occupations they are not second class citizens. Whether they are in paid occupations or in unpaid occupations they are the same women and they should not be treated as second class citizens. Sad to say, because of the taxation system and the inadequacy of family support systems, those who have decided to opt at this stage for full time homemaker situations are at a very real disadvantage. A number of studies have been made on this which I commend to the Senate and to the Minister. Again I say that one should not carp about this particular document. There are positive features to it. I notice that a good deal of consideration has been given to certain alternatives. One at least of those alternatives has, in the words of the Minister, 'been explicitly rejected'. That is to say, the American model with its system of court imposed employment quotas has been explicitly rejected by the Government. I again indicate, as did Senator Martin, that the Government on page 8 of this statement says: The Government proposes that legislation should ultimately be introduced covering the introduction of affirmative action programs for women employees in private sector organisations with more than 100 employees. I trust that there would be a consensus approach to that particular question if that is required. I certainly would like to be involved in that discussion process if it were at all possible, although I do not make any more claim than any other senator or member of the House of Representatives to consultation in that regard. Another aspect is on that same page where the Minister talks about the working party which she will be chairing as the Minister representing the Prime Minister . That working party will include a number of other Ministers. It will also include the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Business Council of Australia, the Confederation of Australian Industry, the Australian Vice- Chancellors Committee, the Australian Committee of Directors, principals of colleges of advanced education and women's organisations. I hope that the Minister adopts a more rational line when considering which women's organisations should be appointed to that working party. I feel that she has been less than gracious, even less than just, to some women's organisations which have proposed intelligent and realistic proposals in respect of this matter and a number of other matters relating to women's issues. Last week I quoted from a submission sent to me and I assume to other honourable senators-I have talked to a number of honourable senators who received a copy-from the Women's Action Alliance. I was most interested in the document. It was a well researched, thoughtful document. We need to have that attitude of goodwill, thoughtfulness, respect for other views and, most importantly, the common good of this society at heart in these matters of great national importance. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.06) —I certainly welcome the discussion paper entitled 'Affirmative Action for Women' put down before us at long last. Over a period of nearly 12 months we have had a situation in which the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) has promised that it was coming, and I am delighted to see that it has now come. It is a true discussion paper. Indeed, it has very little to do with doing a great deal about affirmative action and, as such, I certainly welcome it. I think that is indeed what the discussion paper should be all about. It sets out to put before the public whether it needs affirmative action. A working party has been set up which over a period can come up with something which it sees as necessary, if it sees it as necessary, to put into legislation. No time limit has been put on that working party to make its decision. It could go on for quite a considerable time, as I believe it should. The only other thing the document does is set out a number of companies that have agreed to enter a pilot project. Again, I think this is the way to go about affirmative action. As has already been indicated by Senator Martin, the Liberal Party of Australia, as far as I am aware, has always put forward equal opportunity in its Party machinery as well as in its platform. It did so long before it ever entered the heads of Australian Labor Party members to do so. It has been part of our history and one which Senator Martin put very well. This paper, of course, is a very different paper from that Senator Ryan put down as a private member's Bill when she was in Opposition. It is also a very different paper from that which, in the first flush of having her portfolio, she told her radical feminist followers she would issue. It is a very different paper again from that which she intimated at that time. I understand that. We had such a debacle with her Sex Discrimination Bill that I do not doubt for one moment that Caucus saw fit to take it out of her hands and to make it a very different paper from that which the Minister had promised us all. Women in Australia need real choices; they do not need to have pressures put upon them with respect to what they should want to do. In the interests of Australia they should make their own choices in line with their responsibilities for the building of Australia. When those pressures are taken off women we will see for the first time real choices. We have been told by the Minister, and told regularly, that women are at the bottom of the work force. We are never told of the percentage of women who see their jobs just as jobs to earn them income. They want to do part time work to fit in with their family responsibilities. A certain percentage of women do not want jobs as careers but just to earn income; nothing else at all. They do not want to have to take responsibilities home with them at night; they have the responsibilities of their families and they want to fit in with those family responsibilities because they make their families their number one priority and they want part time work that will bring in income to supplement that. Of course the other group of women should have complete free choice as to the jobs they want as careers, and they should be able to accomplish that desire and follow those careers through with no discrimination at all. This is where we have to get away from the figures that Senator Ryan keeps citing. She says that women are at the bottom of the work force, that they take jobs that hold no responsibility and that they take only part time jobs. That is a very unfair way of putting it and I think it gives the wrong impression altogether. Women should be able to accomplish what they want to, and if they want part time jobs and jobs that do not bear much responsibility, they should be able to have them without criticism. As I say, the women who want careers should also be able to follow those careers for the reasons that they so choose. As I said, this is a very different paper from the original paper that the Minister put out. No quotas are specified, as there were in the original paper, and it was refreshing at least to hear the Minister say that she believes that the best person should get the job. I found that refreshing because the only way that women will feel that they have true equality is if they compete with men on a completely equal basis and the best person gets the job, not when they get the job through affirmative action because they happen to be women. On page 2 of the statement Senator Ryan stated: I should emphasis that this, we appreciate and recognise, will see many choose a traditional role in the home. That is the only sentence that refers to the traditional role in the home. Senator Harradine —What does the 'this' refer to? It says: I should emphasise that this . . . Senator WALTERS —That women should not assume the place of their choice in our society. Senator Harradine —What are they talking about? Senator WALTERS —I have no idea. I believe that women who really want to choose the traditional role in their homes are not encouraged to do that by this affirmative action paper. Women who choose to go into the work force certainly are encouraged to do so but nothing in the paper encourages women who choose the traditional role in the home to undertake that role. One sentence and one sentence only refers to that very large group of women. There is nothing else at all. It is put in only as a platitude. Senator Crichton-Browne —That document is compatible with the United Nations convention which was trying to remove women from the traditional role. Senator WALTERS —This paper certainly does not encourage it in any way, as I see it. I must admit that I have not had time to read 'Affirmative Action for Women Volume No. 1'. Senator Harradine pointed out these words: The Australian taxation system, while based on the individual unit for income tax assessment purposes, continues to assume a secondary economic role for women in its allowance of a rebate for dependent spouses and its tolerance of family- based partnerships used to split incomes, and hence minimise taxation liability. I read some time ago that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and Senator Ryan had a committee look at the taxation system and how it affects women. I thought: 'You beaut; don't tell me they are really going to have a look at how taxation affects women?' Of course I was mistaken in that they are looking at it in only a very narrow field and obviously they are looking to see whether that dependent spouse rebate should exist. The words 'continues to assume a secondary economic role for women in its allowance of a rebate for dependent spouses' attempt to be derogatory of the role that women play in the home. They cannot be read in any other way. It is not derogatory to women in any way at all to have in existence a dependent spouse rebate. Indeed, the Liberal Party of Australia-as you would remember, Mr Deputy Speaker-was moving towards an increase in the dependent spouse rebate in recognition of the fact that the tax situation should be fair. At the moment it is anything but fair. For a two-income family the original tax- free area is permitted twice-for the husband's income and for the wife's income. But a single income family with the same income as that two-income family is permitted only the one tax free area. We increased the dependent spouse rebate well above the inflation rate and that eventually made that situation more equitable. There was still a fair way to to. However, the paper put out by the Prime Minister and Senator Ryan obviously has had no thought of increasing the dependent spouse rebate to equalise the taxation system. Indeed, they are obviously hinting that being a dependent spouse is a rather derogatory role for women. It seems to me that that area certainly needs clarifying. Page 3 of the report quotes the Prime Minister in 1979-I gather in his Boyer lectures-as saying: There is still the unstated but operative assumption that women are not entitled to equal opportunity because their place is, or ultimately should, be in the home. That is ludicrous. He said that in 1979 but women have not been seen in that role for many years-at least not by the Liberal Party-and if that reflects a recognition by the Labor Party of that role, I am very surprised. I did not realise that the present Prime Minister still saw in 1979 that there was an operative assumption that the women's place was in the kitchen. It is archaic. Senator Harradine —It was probably aimed at you. Senator WALTERS —It probably was but it is archaic and is a view that has not been taken by the Liberal Party for many decades. It was very pleasing to see how many companies have joined the voluntary group willing to act in the pilot project. I believe that they too hope, like the Liberal Party-Senator Martin mentioned this-that legislation will not be necessary and that by their agreement to participate in that pilot project they will be able to avoid the necessity for legislation to be introduced. Once legislation is introduced, once we revert to quotas, once we do away with the idea of the best qualified person being given the job, that is a very bad thing for women in the work force and certainly would cause a backlash against us. At page 8 we have the list of people who will participate in that working party. I was pleased to see that Senator Ryan included Mr Macphee in that group because he is not included in the group listed on my paper. The paper also mentions women's organisations. I would like to conclude by asking the Minister-she is not here for me to put this question to her so I ask the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, who is in the chamber, to ask her-whether she has overcome the problems she had with women's organisations which did not see eye to eye with her or did not agree with her. Does she now intend to include them in the working party so that they can put a broader concept to her than just her narrow view, or does she still intend to ask only those women's organisations which agree solely with her way of thinking to participate in that working party? On a previous occasion when I asked a question of why she did not include, for instance, Women's Action Alliance, she told me very clearly that she included only the women's organisations which were co-operative with her. I believe that was an appalling answer to a question that I rightly put. If the Minister is not prepared to include organisations that have a broader concept of women's issues than she has, we hold no hope for the working party ever being able to come up with an across-the-board decision on what, if indeed anything, should be in the legislation. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motion (by Senator Chaney) agreed to: That, pursuant to contingent notice of motion, so much of the sessional order relating to the consideration of Government papers be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion relating to the order in which the papers are called on by the President. Motion Motion (by Senator Chaney) agreed to: That the consideration of papers be in the following order: Papers Nos 7, 3 and 4 and then as they appear on the list. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.24) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I will explain to the Senate that the reason the Opposition sought to vary the order was to ensure that those papers which we thought required comment today were heard in that order. I thank the Senate for its co-operation. The Government has today tabled an important if interim report, the report of the Expert Committee on the Review of Data on Atmospheric Fallout Arising from British Nuclear Tests in Australia, entitled the Kerr report. The report is one which has been prepared in a very brief time at the request of the Government, only 16 days having been allowed. It is not surprising, therefore, given the complexity of the subject raised, that the recommendation should be for a further inquiry. I wish to make it clear in this preliminary response to this report that the Opposition takes a stand which is consistent with the stance which has been taken over a long period when issues have been raised relating to tests at Maralinga and elsewhere; namely, that there should be the fullest possible disclosure of any facts which give rise to concern in the Australian community. I draw the attention of the Senate to the record of the previous Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Sir John Carrick, who initiated a number of actions which ensured very detailed follow-up of matters which were raised during his period of responsibility. The Committee has now recommended that the Government should hold a public inquiry to determine how the conduct and consequences of the British nuclear tests affected the health and well-being of Australians, with emphasis on those Australians who served at nuclear test sites and related facilities and on those , mainly Aborigines, who lived in the region of the tests. The report makes a series of other recommendations and the Opposition at this stage can see no reason why it should not support the recommendations of the Kerr Committee. However, given the high degree of criticism contained in this interim report of previous actions, I wish to make a number of very quick comments. For a start, I wish to point out to the Senate that, as the Committee acknowledges, it is dealing with issues with the benefit of hindsight. At page 33, the Committee states, looking at the situation from a 1984 perspective: . . . taking into account the ethos prevailing 30 years ago and the state of technological development during those times, the Committee does not wish to give the impression that it found evidence of widescale incompetence, negligence and disregard for human health and safety. In a number of passages, it goes on to make the point that it is dealing with the matter with the benefit of hindsight and that it recognises that technology has advanced considerably in the period since the tests were conducted. It also goes on to say at paragraph 82: Although the Committee had reservations about the use of collective dose- estimates and preferred the critical group concept it concluded that there was negligible hazard from long-range fallout on the Australian population. Also at paragraph 84, after reviewing evidence from the retrospective epidemiological studies, it states: No significant associations could be upheld. That is, no significant associations between participation in the nuclear tests and illness or causes of deaths. Later in the report, dealing with the vexed question of plutonium, which was dealt with in minor trials, it states that data on all aspects of the minor trials are sparse but the Committee is aware of earlier surveys and it supports the need for additional work being done. I want to point out that in a 1979 report, to which Professor Kerr was a party, the same matters were examined by the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council. I refer to Parliamentary Paper No. 120 of 1979 which points out: The presence of small low-level fields of external gamma radiation presents little hazard because it is reasonable to suppose people would not wish to stay long periods at such unattractive spots as the former ground zeros, and only minor restrictions are necessary for safety. The same can be said for the risks associated with the plutonium-contaminated areas, but in the case of those areas it would be advisable to ensure that any prolonged dust-raising activity was prevented in occupied areas. I draw attention to that because Professor Kerr was a party to inquiries about some of the issues which have now been put to further inquiry under him and he is in a sense on the public record about conclusions to which he was a party in 1979. In the very limited time available, I simply wish to say that the Opposition believes that there should be the fullest and most open examination of any issues which are raised. The only caution I would utter is that sometimes we are inclined to examine matters with the wisdom of hindsight and to forget that we have the aid of hindsight as against the knowledge which was available at the time. I draw attention to the record over recent years of the then Government's, the Fraser Government's, attempts to deal with all allegations that were raised in a thorough and fair way. I note that the report of AIRAC of 1983 might be subjected to severe criticism, but I believe that is a matter which will warrant much closer and detailed examination in the future. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(4.30) —The Expert Committee on the Review of Data on Atmospheric Fallout Arising from British Tests in Australia, the Kerr Committee, was given 16 days to study and report on very comprehensive terms of reference. Incidentally, those 16 days included four days over weekends . When one looks at the terms of reference it becomes abundantly clear that the only action of such a committee could be to recommend a further comprehensive inquiry. A simple reading of the terms of reference indicates that they are very comprehensive and very detailed, requiring weeks, even months, of thorough study , enormous searches of documents and scientific data and, therefore, the purpose at the very start was negated. I say that not in any criticism of the Government setting up the inquiry. Like the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, I welcome any balanced, expert and comprehensive inquiry. Every piece of information that we can get about that period will be of value in the future. That has been the policy of Liberal governments in the past, certainly during my time in the ministry. I suggest that one should reserve judgment on any criticisms that one might find running through the report. In fairness, no committee could really reach valid criticisms on any aspects except ones which say that there is more to discover and more to investigate. I draw attention to the fact that whilst the criticisms themselves relate to report No. 9 of the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council, the Committee went out of its way to say that its criticism was directed only towards AIRAC document No. 9 and not towards AIRAC, the scientific capabilities of whose members it holds in high regard. This Government and preceding governments are indebted to the various members of AIRAC in the past who have been people with very high scientific qualifications and who have done their job well. Senator Chaney has referred to AIRAC report No. 9 and to the previous 1979 reports of AIRAC. There was an overlap of nine identical members of AIRAC between the reports of 1979 and the report of 1983. It is true that Professor Kerr was a member of AIRAC in 1979 but not in 1983. It is equally true that much of the data that was surveyed in 1979 and the conclusions reached was data common to 1983. It is equally true, as Senator Chaney has said, that as the years go by and as more scientific knowledge is acquired, the approach to particular problems widens. I have said that in whatever direction one could pursue this matter, be it through trying to get 15,000 Australians, through the living or through the records of those who are dead, to speak, be it through documentation, dosimeters, defence and movement records or by way of analysis of scientific data, one should try to expose every piece of information that one can. I trust that any inquiry will be undertaken by a highly expert and balanced committee and that it will be comprehensive and detailed. Only then can it add to the storehouse of our knowledge. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(4.35) —The Australian Democrats agree with much of what Senator Sir John Carrick has said. There should be a further inquiry into this matter and it should take as much time as is necessary to cover the material that is available, including material which might not have been covered previously. I was pleased to see that on page 16 of the report of the Expert Committee on the Review of Data on Atmospheric Fallout Arising from British Nuclear Tests in Australia, the Kerr Committee, the Committee confirmed a matter which I raised a fortnight ago concerning work which went on between the 1956 and 1957 tests. The Committee says: There was a planned intrusion into a contaminated area to facilitate construction for the Antler series in March 1957. That was the incident to which I have referred and on which I have had reports. If one looks carefully at the maps of the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council one will see that the preparations for the Antler series of tests were carried out on the Maralinga firing range at distances of not more than a kilometre from areas where one kilotonne bombs had been exploded in the previous Buffalo tests as late as November 1956. There has been no hedging by the Kerr Committee in saying that this was a contaminated area, although I would say that that was one of the great understatements of the century. If one gets within one kilometre of an area in which a nuclear weapon has been exploded only months before and carries out extensive earthworks by using jackhammers, bulldozers and things of that kind, one will certainly be in a contaminated area. If there were no other reason for a further inquiry that statement by the Kerr Committee in its report would certainly be it. The Committee had only 16 days in which to report. It was a pity that it was given such a short period in which to report, although I gather that may well have been done so that it could report to this session of Parliament. The Committee concedes on page 17: The Committee was in no position to carefully interpret such claims, but believes that in some instances, and assuming that identifications of the circumstances can be made, sufficient data are available to provide reasonable estimates and hence risk. The Committee does a fairly good hatchet job on the survey of the Department of Health entitled 'Health of Atomic Test Personnel'. I am looking at page 20 of the report. The Committee concludes: . . . the study cannot be regarded as providing definitive information on the relationship between participation in the nuclear test and current health status . Paragraph 41, which also appears on page 20-this is of interest to me in relation to the earlier incident I mentioned regarding the working parties whereby quite an extensive number, perhaps up to 400 people, on my information, were sent in to work in contaminated areas after the Buffalo tests, in preparation for the Antler tests-states: An excess of cancer was found among the nuclear participants but interpreted as not being related to radiation exposure. This is agent orange all over again. One can say that it is unfortunate and regrettable that there should be a higher cancer rate among these people but one cannot prove that it was connected with the tests. I believe that is a view that any future inquiry will have to look at very carefully, because I think it can be carried too far. Page 21 of the report states: The Committee was informed that many individual accounts of illness or death ascribed to radiation from the British nuclear tests were lodged in government departments. The Committee does not say much more about that. I would like to know whether all of those were correlated and brought together. A dozen or so people, possibly more, have been in touch with me. Those people will also be referring to a further inquiry for precisely the same reasons. I note, as Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, did, that the Committee does not wish to give the impression that it found evidence of wide scale incompetence, negligence and disregard for human health and safeguards. I do not think anybody feels that. I definitely think that the view of nuclear radiation and the view of what is contaminating and dangerous is probably different now from the view that existed in 1956 and 1957. This factor itself makes some further inquiry necessary. The Committee does not like AIRAC report No. 9. The report states: The Committee found many examples of this obfuscating use of language especially in those parts of AIRAC 9 which dealt with matters of political and public sensitivity. There are also significant omissions of highly relevant data . The Committee concluded that AIRAC 9 could not be regarded as an authoritative scientific account nor as an informative public record of important aspects of the British nuclear tests. I trust that any future inquiry will take those words to heart. I would certainly like to see the inquiry into that issue expanded on. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(4.41) —I also agree that for the Kerr Committee , the Expert Committee on the Review of Data on Atmospheric Fallout arising from British Nuclear Tests in Australia, to present its report in 16 days is a formidable task and it can only be relatively narrow and relatively shallow in its thrust. I note the criticism of the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council report No. 9, which was presented to the Parliament in January last year . I read that with some interest and was concerned that some of the epidemiological evidence indicated to me that it was not sufficiently sound to enable positive conclusions to be made. I realise that something like 15,000 personnel participated in those tests over a period of some 12 years. I know that safeguards were laid down for personnel working in that environment. Recommendations on certain protective clothing and other protective measures were made at the time by the authorities. As I think Senator Chaney pointed out, technology has improved considerably since those days. The knowledge that was available at that time was certainly nowhere near what it is today. Having regard to that, the report quite properly states that the Committee does not wish to give the impression that it found evidence of wide-scale incompetence, negligence and disregard of human health and safety. Recognising the climatic conditions in that part of Australia, where in the summer it is extremely hot and the temperature can go up to 150 degrees fahrenheit or more, the human element must also be given some consideration. It would not be surprising to me if some of those personnel chose not to use the protective clothing that was provided for them, simply because it was too hot to wear it and it chafed them. Naturally, discomfort of that kind would encourage them to remove that clothing. This is a very real problem in those areas. I recall one occasion when I was involved with an eye safety program at Broken Hill. I surveyed all the stokes within which miners had to work. They were very trying and hazardous conditions, as well as being very hot. I found great difficulty in persuading the people to wear their protective glasses under those conditions, simply because of the resulting discomfort that they experienced. I think that is a point that ought to be borne in mind. The report is also to a degree disparaging of the report that was put forward by Dr Donovan and his colleagues entitled: 'Health of atomic test personnel'. I think that the report, as I have read it, could be improved. This would perhaps support our contention that a full public inquiry ought to be carried out. The Committee also recommends: The Government develop and maintain a single national repository for all documentation on the British nuclear tests including relevant material currently held in the United Kingdom and with the exception of data on health aspects. It also recommends: The Government commission a comprehensive and authoritative public account of the consequences of the British nuclear tests to complement Dr Symond's forthcoming History of the British Nuclear Tests. That is going to be a little difficult because, as Senator Walsh quite properly said yesterday during Question Time, there are some classified matters relating to that. I suggest that those recommendations are worthy of following. Perhaps also included in this repository ought to be documentation dealing with radiation throughout Australia-the various levels that were experienced at Kakadu and other places. It would be a very useful series of documents for people to keep to learn more about this important subject. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(4.45) —I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. I use this opportunity to note the outcome of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics-Iran compensation scheme, which was set up by the former Government and which related to the sanctions imposed against the USSR and Iran. I was interested to read the report titled 'Report on the operation of the Scheme to Compensate Persons Affected by the Government Sanctions Imposed Against the USSR and Iran' that was presented by the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) and his accompanying statement. I noted that some 83 claims have been submitted since 1980, and that 20 of those were subsequently withdrawn. The figures showed that there were 63 settled claims, at a cost of about $9.5m. There was a subsequent repayment of $0.8m. The outcome of the scheme leads me to comment on some of the remarks that were made by the Minister for Finance with regard to specific compensation schemes that are set up by the Government, for whatever purpose. I note that the Minister used the opportunity to make the statement that he felt he should bring to public notice both certain deficiencies in specific compensation schemes and a factual report on the operation of this particular one. It is clear from the Minister's comments that he does not favour specific compensation schemes. It is of interest that over the years very few specific compensation schemes have been set up by the Commonwealth Government. The one in 1967 on revaluation made no actual payments. The structural adjustment assistance scheme was set up in 1973 by the Whitlam Government. Some $60m was paid under that scheme to individuals, and a further $7m to firms, following the 25 per cent across the board tariff cut that was instigated in that year by the Whitlam Government. Just a handful of schemes have been involved over the years. As the Minister for Finance said at the time that this scheme was set up, it is extraordinarily difficult to set out compensation guidelines and then see that there is equity, fairness and consistency in the way in which those guidelines are administered. With regard to the Government's compensation to those who were affected by the decision relating to the Olympic Games, the USSR and Iran, this scheme caused the Department of Finance great difficulty in making sure that the compensation was administered in accordance with guidelines which had been very carefully drawn. It will be remembered that the guidelines were to compensate for unrecouped expenditure, which entailed consultation with other departments and decisions between Ministers and departments with regard to claims that could be supported under the guidelines that were devised. In the case of this scheme, the report from the Minister for Finance notes that about half the money had gone to three companies which had made claims as a result of the decision regarding the Olympic Games-the Seven Network Pty Ltd, Australasian Training Aids Pty Ltd and the Royal Agricultural Society. They suffered larger unrecouped expenditure than any other claimants. Indeed, some of the claims were for very small amounts. That led the Department to contrast the administrative costs with the benefits that were actually gained by those who were successful in their claims. I think that governments should look at the experience of this scheme and note the difficulties and the costs of administration. I certainly welcome the general statement made by the Minister with regard to specific compensation schemes. I hope that as we take government decisions that may adversely affect individuals we do not immediately seek to apply some specific compensation scheme that may relate to the problem that arises as a result of such a decision . I welcome the report of the Minister. I certainly discount some of the remarks that he has made with regard to the decision itself. But I commend the report for what it has said about specific compensation schemes, the cost of administration of them and the difficulty that there is in seeing that there is compliance, equity and fairness in the guidelines which are sometimes very hard to draw when one is looking at the effects that are occasioned by individuals in a variety of ways. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.51) —I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. Today in the Senate I asked a question of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) concerning a very mischievous Press report which called for the removal of the Chairman of the Commonwealth Schools Commission. I am grateful to the Minister for having expressed her confidence in Dr Peter Tannock and in the job he is doing as Chairman of the Commission whose report we are examining at present. But we cannot leave the matter there. Recently in the Sydney Morning Herald Mr Luis Garcia wrote an article entitled 'Split in advice on State aid worries Ryan '. This article contains some very trenchant and almost unprecedented criticisms of the Commonwealth Schools Commission by a Minister for Education. We raised this matter by way of question a little while ago and obtained no satisfactory reassurances from the Minister in relation to the matters which were raised in this article, some of which were alleged to be direct quotations from what is described as an extensive interview with the Minister. The article says that Senator Ryan 'has expressed serious concern about the quality of the advice she has received from the Commonwealth Schools Commission'. If that is her view, she owes it to the Parliament to come in here and make that criticism so that we can defend the Schools Commission against it. The article contains some words in quotations which are alleged to be the Minister's own words. The article states: 'It does raise some questions about the structure of the commission-- about the structure of the Schools Commission-- they are not questions the Government can address in a short term, obviously it is a longer-term consideration.' This is a most sinister leaked piece of information in which a Minister of State is signalling that it is her intention to interfere with the structure of the Commission in the longer term. That can lead us only to the conclusion that somewhere there is an agenda to dissolve the present structure of the Commission and to restructure it with people who might be ideologically friendly to the Government. Of course, it is a suggestion that may lead to the stacking of the Commission. Some of the criticisms which the Minister makes in the article-and, again, some of her comments are shown in inverted commas-are in fact totally unfair. The article reports her as saying: 'Where the report is not very helpful is that it puts up three options for the funding of government schools which suggests that the commission could not collectively determine the best way to go,' The Commission was required by its guidelines, by the instructions it received, by the brief, to present options. That was its job. It was not asked to present a view. It was asked to present options and that is what it did. It presented options for the Government to consider and decide on. If Mr Garcia has reported Senator Ryan accurately, and the words that are in inverted commas are alleged to be direct quotations, in fact she has done the Commonwealth Schools Commission and the commissioners a grave disservice. If it is her view that they are not performing satisfactorily, that is not a view shared by this side even though we disagree with some of the minority reports. It is a view which is very unfair. I think the Minister owes it to the Schools Commission to make a statement and express her confidence in her commissioners. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MARTIN(Queensland) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, I present the report relating to the following proposed work: Construction of accommodation for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation ( Stage 1), Hobart Ordered that the report be printed. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) 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. Bills (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a first time. Second Readings Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.00) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- PUBLIC SERVICE REFORM BILL 1984 On 28 September 1983 the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters announced that the Government intended to reform the Australian Public Service along the lines of the proposals it had presented to the Australian people prior to the March election and set down in the Platform Document ''Labor and Quality of Government''. Since that time the Government has been involved in a process of extensive policy development, consultation and discussion in order to produce this significant and far-reaching legislation. In reaching its decisions the Government has drawn substantially on the findings and recommendations of the 1976 Coombs Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration, the 1982 Reid Review of Commonwealth Administration and the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee of Public Accounts in 1982, then chaired by the Honourable Member for Bradfield, on the selection and development of senior managers. Unfortunately little had been done to implement these reports. Many of the deficiencies that were identified were not remedied and as a consequence the problems have worsened. Morale and quality of administration have suffered and the delivery of programs has been affected. Throughout the western democratic world many countries have addressed this problem and are concerned to reform their administration: to achieve better value for all Government expenditure, and to ensure that the administration is responsive to democratic direction and to the changing requirements of the community it serves. Although Australian political processes have expanded and changed, administrative and budgetary processes, the essence of efficient and effective government, have not. It is no coincidence that most of the Western democratic nations are now engaged, not just in developing policy to cope with the world- wide recession but also in efforts to modernise and improve their administrations and to apply modern techniques to their program and personnel management. All OECD countries are confronting a situation in which the need for a very disciplined approach to the tasks of government has greatly increased. All acknowledge that this greater discipline needs to be applied both in respect of the total size of the public sector and, just as importantly, to the efficiency in, and delivery of, public sector programs. All have come to the conclusions, that quality of administration is as much a public policy issue as are the programs being administered. Clearly therefore, reform of our administration is not a case of change for change's sake. The proposals can reasonably be categorised as the pursuit of the objectives of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. They involve changes at both Ministerial and Departmental level in decision-making processes and resources management. The Government's intentions in this area were announced some eight months ago. Since that time, as part of our desire to ensure that all those affected had the opportunity to consider our proposals and consult with the Government the following actions have taken place. The Government's intentions were announced in the discussion paper, ''Reforming the Australian Public Service''. The proposals were elaborated and discussed at meetings sponsored by the Royal Australian Institute of Public Administration in Canberra and Melbourne, at the ANU Conference on 'New Developments in Public Sector Management' and various Public Service Board meetings and training courses. Extensive consultations have taken place between the Government, the ACTU and its affiliated public sector unions and the Second Division Officers' Association. I am pleased to be able to say that the response to our proposals has been overwhelmingly favourable. The essential message of the comments that have been made is that the reforms are sensible, balanced and long overdue. Of course, not all of those who have commented on the Government's policy paper have agreed with every word of it-that could not be expected with such comprehensive reforms-and, as a result of the consultations, the Government has made a number of changes to the decisions it announced in December. Indeed, following discussions after the Bills were introduced, the Government had itself agreed to a number of further minor changes, including amendments moved in another place by the Opposition. As a result, after many months of work we have been able to introduce the Public Service Reform Bill, and the associated Bills providing for the creation of a new and independent Merit Protection and Review Agency for Australian Government employees and new employment arrangements for the staff of Ministers and other Senators and Members. These represent the most comprehensive and thorough going legislative review of the Australian Public Service at least since the passage of the present Public Service Act in 1922 and will ultimately result in the development of a modern, efficient, responsive and accountable Australian Public Service. In developing its proposals the Government has had a number of general objectives: First, there is the need for Ministers to supervise more closely the management of their departments and for departments to be more responsive and accountable to their Ministers. Second, new arrangements need to be made for senior management in the Public Service to ensure a fully productive relationship between it and Governments, and to enable senior managers in the Service to realise their full potential. Third, processes of resource allocation need to be improved by a closer involvement of Ministers and a greater co-ordination of financial and staffing resource decisions, coupled with better opportunities for the review of programs and their administration. Fourth, there is a need for more explicit legislative support for more enlightened personnel policies and practices especially equal employment opportunity and industrial democracy, and for more appropriate arrangements to be made for the independent handling of staff grievances and appeals. These will form the basis of a more equitable administration. The Bills now before the Senate have been developed to meet these objectives and to establish a legislative framework for the continuing reform of the Australian Public Service. The Senate will recall that in 1982 Parliament passed the Public Service Acts Amendment Act. The main provisions of this Act related to the abolition of the so called Divisional structure in the Public Service and the institution of a system of promotion based solely on merit. Because of the Government's intention to further amend the Public Service Act and other Commonwealth employment legislation, and for other reasons, only parts of this Act have been proclaimed. The Public Service Reform Bill does not affect substantively the 1982 Act, although it is necessary to amend some of its provisions to accommodate the changes that are now proposed. The need to amend these provisions and the need to ensure flexibility in implementing the reforms accounts, in large measure, for the complexity of the Public Service Reform Bill. To assist the Senate a background paper summarising the Government's reform policies has been made available to all Senators. I turn now to the major provisions of the Bills. Secretaries of Departments The Public Service Act will be amended to clarify the traditional understanding of the relationship between Ministers and Secretaries of departments in relation to their responsibilities for the administration of departments. Except where specific powers are vested in a Secretary by statute, legislation will now make it clear that a Secretary's responsibility for the general working of a department is subject to the Minister's powers under the Constitution. Under current arrangements, Secretaries of departments (currently designated in the Public Service Act as 'Permanent Heads') are appointed under provisions introduced by the Fraser Government in 1976. These provisions create two classes of officers at this level according to whether the name of the appointee is included on a list of candidates prepared for the Prime Minister by officials. The provisions are gratuitous and they place an inappropriate power in the hands of the public servants involved. The Public Service Reform Bill provides therefore that the Governor-General should appoint, transfer and unattach Secretaries of departments in accordance with a recommendation of the Prime Minister, after the Prime Minister has obtained a report from the Chairman of the Public Service Board. The Bill now before the Senate includes an amendment moved by the Opposition in another place requiring the Chairman of the Public Service Board to consult with the relevant Minister before a report is made to the Prime Minister. The legislation is similar in intent to that prevailing from 1922 to 1976, but stronger, to the extent that it requires, rather than merely allows for, a report from the Chairman of the Public Service Board. An option will also be provided for Secretaries of departments to be appointed for fixed periods if that should suit the convenience of an appointee and the Government. The Government intends to place a legislative obligation on the Public Service Board to attempt to secure the redeployment of unattached Secretaries of departments, with the Board being able to determine that the officer should continue to be treated as a Secretary for the purpose of pay, allowances and associated conditions of service. If it becomes apparent that suitable redeployment is not likely the Board will be required to place the officer at the most senior level in the Senior Executive Service. In these circumstances officers will be able to retain superannuation entitlements at the Secretary of department salary rate as that is updated from time to time. Provisions will also be made to allow Secretaries of departments to be retired with their consent, from the Service, with appropriate benefits being determined by the Public Service Board in each case. After a Secretary of a department has been in a position for five years the Chairman of the Public Service Board will raise with the officer and the Minister the possibility of another placement and report to the Prime Minister as appropriate. To facilitate the policy of rotation of Secretaries of departments the Government will continue the practice of maintaining the salary and status of a Secretary when they are moved to another position that may have a lower salary determined for it by the Remuneration Tribunal. The Senior Executive Service The Reform Bill will reshape the existing Second Division of the Public Service into a more unified and cohesive group to be called the Senior Executive Service (SES), in which arrangements for staff selection, development, mobility, promotion and tenure will be designed specifically to meet the requirements at senior levels. The Australian Public Service is unusual in the extent to which it relies on its officers making their own careers, both in seeking advancement and in obtaining the training and development to equip them for senior management positions. While preserving the strengths of the existing systems, the Government wants to see a greater degree of management leadership in the development and placement of senior staff. It also wants the Service at senior levels to be more open, mobile and competitive. The following provisions are accordingly provided in the Reform Bill: All SES vacancies will be open for application from persons outside the Public Service, as well as from serving officials. An option will be available for appointments to be for a fixed period. All promotions into and within the SES will be made by the Public Service Board on the recommendation of a Secretary of a department. The Board will only be empowered not to accept a recommendation of a Secretary of a department in limited circumstances-where it believes, in the interests of the Service, that an officer should be transferred into the position, where the person recommended is unsuitable, where proper procedures have not been followed or where a wider search is desirable. There will be no appeals against promotions in the SES. The Public Service Board will be empowered to transfer an officer from one department to another. In exercising this power the Board will be most thorough and meticulous in its consultations with the officers affected and their departments. When selecting persons for positions in the SES, greater reliance will be placed on policy advising, general management and professional skills. Less emphasis will be given to experience relevant to specific duties. In other words , a persons's ability to perform at a level will be an important recognised element in selection. New provisions will be included in the Public Service Act for the handling of surplus and unsatisfactory staff in the SES in place of the existing legislative provisions in the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act. As it will be normal management practice for staff who are not performing satisfactorily or who become surplus to be moved to another job as part of a staff mobility program, the new legislation will only be needed from the point where it becomes clear that they cannot be satisfactorily redeployed at their existing level. A right of appeal will only be provided against a decision to reduce an officer to a lower level or to retire an officer from the Service. These measures enhance the ability of Secretaries of departments and the Public Service Board to see that senior staff are deployed in the best possible way. The Board, in particular, will take a much more prominent and active role to see that the interests of the Service generally are fully taken into account in the disposition of senior staff. For this purpose it will establish a Senior Executive Staffing Unit to assist the Board and Secretaries of departments in the selection, development and placement of senior staff. A committee of Secretaries of departments will also be set up to advise the Board on the whole range of senior staffing matters. The Board will be represented in all staff selections in the SES, and will develop programs of staff development and mobility, co-ordinate the introduction of staff appraisal and establish a Temporary Assignment Pool of staff who can be used for short term tasks or to meet urgent needs. The Government believes that these new arrangements provide the best possible balance between the requirements of Service-wide management of senior staff, the needs of individual departments and the interests of the staff themselves. Not surprisingly, the staff organisations have expressed misgivings about the abolition of appeals against promotions in the SES. The Government understands their concern but does not share it. Already the number of successful appeals against provisional promotions in the Second Division is extremely small-five over the last five years. The new arrangements will be more objective and thoroughgoing and final decisions will be made by the Board, the authority which now decides appeals against provisional promotions. There will be adequate protection of the rights and interests of staff through arrangements for staff appraisal, the direct participation of the Board in promotion decisions, the establishment in the Board's Office of a Senior Executive Advisor to counsel staff, and the right of staff to approach a new authority-a Merit Protection and Review Agency where discrimination or other improper practice is alleged. The Government is conscious that some staff may be concerned about the effect on their career expectations of the decision to advertise all positions as open to competition from outside the Service. Given the ability and professionalism of the staff of the Service however any outsiders will need to be very good to win a position. I am sure that public servants do not fear or resent fair competition with outsiders, and the Government sees its decision to allow outside applications for all senior positions as a tribute to the open mindedness and robustness of the career service. Staff for Ministers and other Members of Parliament The Government believes that Ministers should have assistance in key projects from able people who share the Government's values and objectives or which can bring to Government relevant specialised or technically advanced skills. Governments have in the past engaged consultants to assist Ministers either by the use of simple contract arrangements or by the use of the temporary employment provisions of the Public Service Act. To that extent the Government's intentions are not new. There are, however, legal concerns about contract arrangements of this kind, while the use of the Public Service Act could be seen as an inappropriate vehicle for the appointment of consultants. To overcome these problems, the Members of Parliament (Staff) Bill makes provisions for Ministers to be able to engage a limited number of consultants for work on nominated projects or reviews directly for a Minister, or on duties agreed between the Minister and the Secretary of the department and under the Secretary's supervision and direction. The Prime Minister will approve all such engagements on a recommendation from a Minister that in each case will be accompanied by a report from a merit panel whose composition has been approved by the Prime Minister, and which would include a nominee of the Secretary of the department where the consultant is to work under the Secretary's supervision and direction. Engagements will be for periods up to three years, but will be able to be terminated by Ministers at any time. The number of Ministerial Consultants at any one time will be small; it is not possible to be more precise than that. Some will be engaged for only short periods or part-time. In some cases the consultancy may be taken up by a firm. But the Government wants it to be quite clear that the legislation will not be used for contracting out significant areas of work now performed by the Public Service, nor will consultants working in departments exercise delegated powers. The Government has accepted an Opposition amendment moved in another place that will require Governments to table each year a statement setting out the names of all consultants during that year, the period of their engagements and the tasks performed. By providing for the possibility of consultants working in departments the Government's proposal avoids the potential for divisiveness inherent in any substantial expansion in the numbers of advisers working in Ministers' offices. The scope it provides for combining the talents of career officials with the special skills of other competent individuals and organisations will strengthen the policy development capacity of Governments. I might add that the provisions are consistent with some of the recommendations in the recent Liberal Party Committee of Review (the so-called Valder Report), but they are not as radical or potentially disruptive as other proposals in that report. Provisions of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Bill will also empower Ministers and other Senators or Members to engage their own personal staff. As Honourable Senators will be aware these staff are now engaged under the temporary employment provisions of the Public Service Act and decisions about the engagement of these staff must formally be taken by officials in the Department of the Special Minister of State. This is quite unsatisfactory. The terms and conditions of employment for these staff will henceforth be determined by the Prime Minister, and before the legislation comes into effect the Government will, after proper consultations, decide upon more satisfactory conditions of employment for these staff. The numbers and levels of these staff will continue to be decided by the Government on the recommendation of the Remuneration Tribunal. These staff will have the same access to arbitration as other Commonwealth employees. Officers of the Public Service who are engaged by Ministers or other Senators or Members will have access to a special tripartite committee to determine the level at which they may be re-integrated into the Service upon the completion of their engagements. The Public Service Reform Bill provides for the amendment of the Governor- General Act so that provisions similar to those for the personal staff of Ministers and Senators and Members can be provided to regulate the employment of the staff of the Governor-General. The Integration of Financial and Staffing Decisions The staff ceilings systems of previous Governments were highly centralised. Not all Ministers or departments were necessarily or usually involved in the final negotiation or determination of ceiling limits. As a result decisions were often arbitrary and frequently not properly co-ordinated with financial decisions taken in the course of the preparation of the Budget. The Government has already taken steps to see that Ministers and departments are more fully involved in the determination of staff numbers. The Government now wishes to go further to integrate staffing and other resource negotiations in the normal estimates and new policy proposals processes of the budget and, at the same time, to provide departments with greater flexibility in the use of their staff resources. The Public Service Reform Bill contains provisions enabling Secretaries of departments to create, abolish and classify positions and determine their duties . These decisions were previously taken by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Public Service Board, after the Board had received a report from the Secretary of the department. Under the new provisions the Board will be responsible for the design of occupational groups and the determination of related pay rates. It will prepare classification standards and guidelines, and will have a power to audit and, if necessary, require departments to reclassify positions. The Department of Finance will advise the Government on and administer human resource budgets, which will provide a framework for managing staff numbers and the expenditure on staffing. The provisions are a significant devolution of power from the Public Service Board to departments. They require an organisational separation of controls over the numbers and levels of positions from other aspects of personnel management still within the responsibility of the Board. This decision has not been lightly taken and obviously it is not without its costs. The Government believes however that these are outweighed by the compensating benefits of flexibility for departmental management and the closer integration of financial and staffing decisions. From the Board's point of view it should facilitate the development of more satisfactory relations with departments where in the past these have been adversely affected by the tension that can result from disputes over numbers and levels of positions and will enable the Board to concentrate better on the many personnel management reforms provided in these Bills. Personnel Policies and Practices The legislative backing to modern personnel policies and practices in the Public Service is not adequate. It is not explicit and it does not provide sufficient guidance and support to those who have to develop and administer the policies or those who are affected by them. It does not, for example, give sufficient recognition to the principles of equal employment opportunity and merit in selection, recruitment or career advancement, or the importance of precluding unjustified discrimination, or to the rights of staff to participate in decisions affecting them at work. Indeed, in some respects, the personnel policies and practices developed by departments and the Public Service Board in the last ten of fifteen years have outgrown the legislative provisions in the Public Service Act. The Government now wishes to provide a more up to date framework for the further development of these policies and practices. Firstly, a clear statement of merit principles will be included in the Public Service Act as a basis for developing and administering personnel policies. While the Act already makes it clear that entry to the Public Service is to be by open competition and that promotion is to be on the basis of relative efficiency, these criteria will now be made more explicit and comprehensive. Second, a positive obligation will be placed upon departments to develop and implement equal employment opportunity programs for disadvantaged groups. The Public Service Board will promulgate guidelines for the development of these programs and will monitor them. To facilitate the application of the Government' s equal employment opportunity policies outside the Public Service Act area, it is intended that these provisions will be capable of being applied by regulation to authorities not staffed under that Act. The Government is firmly committed to policies of equal employment opportunity that will complement and strengthen the merit principles by removing those barriers which disadvantage some groups in competition for jobs, and, where necessary, include special measures to bring about the greater employment of groups under-represented in the Public Service. Third, and associated with its equal employment opportunity policies, the Public Service Reform Bill contains provisions for the introduction of permanent part-time work, with superannuation, in the Public Service. The Government is acutely aware of union sensitivity on the question of permanent part-time work. Therefore, staff organisations will be consulted fully, and provisions are included in the Bill that would prevent the compulsory transfer of an officer from a full-time to a part-time position with consequent reductions in pay and conditions, or vice versa. The Government does not see these legislative provisions leading to the wholesale conversion of positions from full-time to part-time. Nor can it be seen in other areas of employment as a precedent for reductions in hours and pay and conditions of employment. Permanent part-time work will not be a right, but it will provide more satisfactory and flexible employment arrangements where the interests of staff and departments can be matched. Fourth, as with equal employment opportunity, the legislation will require departments to develop, maintain and implement industrial democracy action plans to be monitored by the Public Service Board. These provisions will also be capable of being applied, by regulation to statutory authorities not covered by the Public Service Act, but in these cases the monitoring role of the Public Service Board will be confined to those authorities where it is required by legislation to approve an authority's determination of terms and conditions of employment. Arrangements for other statutory authorities are yet to be determined. The Public Service Board and departments will, of course, be required to consult with staff organisations in the development and application of these plans. The plans are important because a more participative approach to management will not only improve decision making, but will enrich the working lives of the men and women in government employment. Fifth, consistent with its policies on industrial democracy, the Public Service Reform Bill provides for joint selection committees, that is committees including a staff organisation representative, for use in choosing people for promotion. Appropriately this concept was developed through the Joint Council some years ago. Unfortunately it was not implemented at that time. The use of these committees, which will be dependent on the agreement of the relevant staff organisation, will speed up the filling of vacant positions and provide an opportunity for participation in an area of very significant interest to staff. Finally, so that the implementation of the Government's personnel policies can be monitored, the Public Service Board will be empowered to require reports on personnel policies and practices from departments and authorities covered by the Public Service Act, and to take follow up action in each case. Merit Protection and Review Agency The Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Bill provides for the establishment of a Merit Protection and Review Agency for Australian Government employees. The Bill will not provide further avenues of appeal and grievance for staff, but it will allow for appeals and grievances to be considered independent of departmental management and the Public Service Board. The current powers of the statutory tribunals under the Public Service Act and the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act will be retained but the Merit Protection and Review Agency will take over responsibility for the operation of these tribunals . The Agency will have an additional determinative power in relation to discipline appeal matters involving dismissals where the final decision is now made by the Public Service Board. The Agency will also be responsible for review and investigation of personnel decisions and actions which are the subject of grievances. The Agency will be empowered to review certain specified decisions where appeals may now be made against departmental decisions to the Public Service Board, for example in relation to the deferral of increments or decisions not to grant certain types of leave. In relation to general grievance matters the legislation provides a framework for the Agency to investigate grievances lodged by officers and employees. For Public Service Act staff, the regulations will continue to provide for officers and employees to take up grievance matters initially with the Secretary of the department. Where a grievance is not resolved in this way, it may be referred to the Agency and will be investigated by the Agency's own investigation staff who will also be empowered to counsel and conciliate. Therefore, the Agency will have powers to investigate, recommend a course of action to a Department or to the Public Service Board and in specified circumstances reach conclusions on questions of fact and confirm, vary or set aside a decision. The legislation provides a framework for the extension of the Agency's jurisdiction to other authorities staffed outside the Public Service Act should it be so decided. This will only be done after full consultation with the authorities concerned and relevant staff organisations. The Government believes that all statutory authorities not covered by the Public Service Act should adopt modern disciplinary codes. It also believes that , unless more appropriate mechanisms are in place, authorities should be covered by the new Agency for disciplinary appeals. This issue is at present being pursued with authorities and staff organisations. The Agency will be staffed under the Public Service Act with the Director of the Agency having the powers of a Secretary of a department. The members of the Agency will consist of a full-time Director responsible for the day-to-day running of the Agency and up to four other members, with a maximum of two of these being full-time. In appointing members to the board of the Agency the Government would expect that one member at least would have substantial management experience and also that appropriately skilled people from disadvantaged groups would be considered. One member will be selected after consultations between the Government and the ACTU. The Government will take care to ensure that members of the Agency have a status and reputation appropriate to their duties. There will be a need for close co-operation between the Agency and the Public Service Board, and also between the Agency and the Human Rights Commission on discrimination matters. Australian Government employees will not be precluded from making application to the Commission in relation to such complaints as it can deal with. Aspects of Remuneration The Government is aware that in recent years there has been a considerable erosion in senior Public Service remuneration compared to that in the private sector. Public Service remuneration at these levels has never matched those of the private sector, but the widening gap will only make more difficult the recruitment of talented people from the private sector, even for short periods. In present circumstances there is little that can be done about this; but so far as legislation is concerned there are two changes proposed. First, all fixed term appointees as Secretaries of departments and to the Senior Executive Service, ministerial consultants and ministerial and electorate staff who are not already members of the Commonwealth Superannuation scheme will be given an option to join the scheme or to be covered by an endowment superannuation policy providing for benefits on completion or termination. Second, the Public Service Reform Bill provides for an amendment of the Remuneration Tribunals Act to allow the Tribunal to review the salaries of the various groups within its jurisdiction at different times. Other Matters The Public Service Reform Bill contains provisions on a number of other matters not canvassed in the policy information paper issued last December. Some of these are of a more technical nature; others are more substantive. First, the British subject requirement for appointment to the Public Service is to be removed and replaced with an Australian citizenship requirement with a power being provided for the appointing authorities to waive the requirement where this is desirable. Where waiver occurs other than in individual cases the details will be tabled in Parliament and notified in the Gazette. The legislation of various statutory authorities where citizenship requirements exist will also be amended to bring them into line with the requirement in the Public Service Act or to remove the legislative provision all together in some cases. Second, an opportunity is being taken to remove doubt about whether offences for personation at examinations cover various tests conducted by the Public Service Board for entry to the Public Service. The penalties for offences are also being updated. Third, a provision is included in the Public Service Reform Bill for the voluntary unattachment of staff from their positions; the written consent of the officer will be required in each case. This will not only provide a clear head of power for a long-standing and necessary practice but will also simplify some of the existing provisions relating to unattached officers. Financial Impact Statement It is difficult to be precise about the costs and savings of the measures included in these Bills. Much will depend upon the manner in which legislation is implemented and the measures that are necessary to give it full effect. The main costs are expected in the following areas. First, new programs for the placement, development, mobility and appraisal of staff of the Senior Executive Service will require additional resources, particularly in the Public Service Board, including through the creation of a Senior Executive Staffing Unit which will perform the work associated with the Board's important new responsibilities in the senior staffing area and also in departments. Second, the requirements for departments to prepare and implement equal employment opportunity and industrial democracy plans, which reflect the priority the Government attaches to proper and modern personnel policies and practices in the Public Service, will add to costs in departments and the Public Service Board. Third, the engagement of ministerial consultants may give rise to some net addition to costs. It should be noted however, that consultants of the kind envisaged by the legislation have been used by governments in the past. Fourth, the Department of Finance will also require some extra staff for the responsibilities it is to have in relation to numbers of staff. Against this however there will be an equivalent reduction in the numbers of staff in the Public Service Board previously working on staff numbers controls. Fifth, the creation of the Merit Protection and Review Agency will also involve additional staff and accommodation costs. It should be noted, however, that some of the staff for this Agency, including the Chairman of the various statutory appeal committees, will transfer from the Public Service Board. There will also be some staff development costs associated with the various changes. When more detailed and precise estimates of costs are calculated they will be made available to the Parliament in the usual way. The Government is confident that the costs of the reforms in these Bills will pay significant returns in terms of the more efficient and economic functioning of the Australian Public Service. In conclusion, may I say that the Australian people have a right to expect that the public services they support with their taxes and rely upon for the administration of government policies and programs are the best that can be provided. The staff of the Public Service should be able to expect that their work will be satisfying and provide challenges and opportunities for career advancement within a modern personnel system that adequately protects their rights. If government is to serve the people efficiently, effectively and equitably then it must ensure that the public sector operates in such a way as to attract the best people to work for it, acknowledge the interests of the community and be prepared to be accountable to the community and its elected representatives. The public sector has a major and continuing role in the development of our nation and if this is to take place effectively then the Australian Public Service must be a modern and efficient body. Other areas of activity remain to be examined and reformed to ensure the vital role the public sector has to play in the lives of all Australians. I have much pleasure in introducing these Bills which provide further evidence of the Hawke Government's intentions to take important and landmark decisions that are necessary prerequisites for a better and more successful nation. MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (STAFF) BILL 1984 In my speech introducing the Public Service Reform Bill I outlined the Government's intentions to provide for the engagement of ministerial consultants and the employment of personal staff by Senators and Members. This Bill will introduce the necessary legislative provisions to give effect to these arrangements. I commend this Bill to the Senate. MERIT PROTECTION (AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES) BILL 1984 In my speech introducing the Public Service Reform Bill I outlined the purpose of this Bill. The Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Bill will introduce the necessary legislative provision to give effect to the Government's policy on this aspect of the reform proposals. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Bill returned from the House of Representatives with an amendment. Ordered that the House of Representatives amendment be considered in Committee of the Whole on the next day of sitting. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —I inform the Senate that the President has received letters from the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate nominating Senators Coleman, Kilgariff, Robertson, and Walters to be members of the Select Committee on Volatile Substance Fumes. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans)-by leave-agreed to: That Senators Coleman, Kilgariff, Robertson and Walters, having been duly nominated in accordance with the Resolution of the Senate dated 10 May 1984, be appointed as members of the Select Committee on Volatile Substance Fumes. [COGNATE BILL: NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1983] Debate resumed from 4 June, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(5.03) —The National Crime Authority Bill was being debated last night and I am continuing that debate. Last night I pointed out that the Fraser Government had introduced the National Crimes Commission. That legislation was passed by Parliament but was not proclaimed by this Government. At the time when the Fraser Government introduced that legislation, it was subjected to attacks from the then Opposition, now in government. It was alleged that the Fraser Government was trying to hide crooks. We heard Senator Walsh, in particular, frequently screaming across the chamber that we were crooks ourselves. Altogether there was much vilification of the Fraser Government and the then Attorney-General, Senator Durack, about that legislation. Now, with hindsight, it is clear that the proposed National Crimes Commission was strongly based, having powers which this Government is not prepared to include in its legislation. This Government and the present Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) have come up with a whimper-a feeble, powerless sook of a thing, able to be diverted from its proper role by far too many people and far too many devices. The legislation, as originally introduced into this place by the Attorney- General, was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs which, notwithstanding the majority of Government members on that Committee, came up with grave criticisms. The Committee pointed out how weak the legislation was and made 49 recommendations, of which about 40 were absolutely crucial if the Authority were to have some teeth to deal with so-called organised crime. That was a majority decision of which all the Government members and two of the Opposition members were part. If the Government had implemented the proposals of that Senate Committee, the Authority would have had adequate teeth to perform its role. The Committee proposals have been gutted by the Attorney-General, despite his gobbledegook-as it turned out to be-in response to the report. The Attorney- General said that the report was particularly helpful and constructive, and that the Government, the police Ministers and Attorneys-General had decided to accept in very large part the Committee's recommendations. It appeared at that stage that the Government would accept sufficient of the recommendations to give the Authority some teeth. In fact, that was all typical of the Attorney-General who seems to speak what I would call 'newspeak in wonderland'. He is a sort of Alice in Oceania if I can combine two books. Instead of accepting in very large part the Committee's recommendations, he has gutted its proposals and once again the Senate is confronted with a gutless creature, similar to the one previously introduced by this Government, although in slightly different form. The Government seems to think that by changing the form of the proposals in some way or other, it can sneak through an authority which can be frustrated by the people involved in the sort of crime that should be attacked by such an authority. When I talk to some people, especially around the Parliament, they express concern about small people who might be harmed by such an authority. Let me assure honourable senators that the Crime Authority should not and would not be aimed at small people around this nation who might have a bet with the local SP bookmaker or perhaps avoid some taxation. Not at all. The evidence that Mr Costigan gave to the Committee showed that there are about 2,000 real crooks in this country and they are involved in every possible means and device to take from the nation moneys illegally obtained. They use everything they can think of -tax avoidance schemes, strong man stuff, standover tactics and drugs and they are involved in anything and everything they can possibly dream up. They spend their entire working lives, if they can be called such, involving themselves in crooked schemes to take money out of the community in very large lumps. Let me look for example at the Queensland cocaine ring as part of my explanation of the need for a strong Crime Authority. Recently the Age newspaper in Melbourne published a number of articles on the alarming growth of the cocaine trade in Queensland. I am in no way criticising State or Federal police involved in this matter. I am certain that they are dedicated policemen who in many ways have been frustrated by the expertise and the finance of crooks. I am also not really critical of governments which perhaps have been unable to provide the finance necessary or to see the need until recent times as a result of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking. I understand that the Federal and State police have, for a number of years, been watching as planes and ships have brought shipments of cocaine into Australia. These shipments have been landed in little towns and on beaches in Queensland, at places such as 1770 Beach, Agnes Waters, Bustard Head and Double Bay Island. I understand that in these areas there have been shipping and air movements of a regular and suspicious nature and these have been checked on for a number of years by Federal and State police. Apparently there are people living in those areas with a great deal of income and no obvious signs of how they came by it. Some of them, apparently, spend their time as good environmentalists. They own or have owned yachts and planes but they do not or did not appear to fish for a living or sail or fly as part of a normal recreation pattern. The belief is that, from the north, people take packages down the coast to Noosa where, in several restaurants and night spots, some of which close for an hour or two only to reopen later in the light, large quantities of cocaine are moved. We are talking about one of the worst drugs in the world-cocaine. The cocaine trail flows south to Brisbane and then to Sydney. The cocaine trail is international, with contacts and suppliers in Latin America, the United States of America, Asia and Great Britain. It is well financed with millions of dollars available for the purchase of drugs and for the boats and planes needed to convey them. It is well organised. The main Noosa-centred coke ring has up to 50 people in it, ranging from Sydney-based managers and financiers to local petty criminals. The Queensland group has contacts at every level of society. I hope it did not have any contact with the New South Wales Premier, who recently had a holiday there and who, apparently, did not enjoy it from what I read in one of the newspapers. I am not suggesting that he did have any contact. I know nothing at all about it. Anyone could have a holiday in Noosa. Senator Chipp —What is the source of this? It is very interesting. Senator LEWIS —I do not propose to disclose my source at this stage. I may in due course. The gathering and distribution of cocaine involve criminals from every eastern mainland State. Victoria supplies the muscle-in some cases, hard men like the one who was sent up to Noosa to make sure that the town was 'kept quiet'. Senator Chipp, I am quoting from evidence given by a policeman to the Costigan Royal Commission in open session. This crime ring involves people who are dangerous and willing to murder. I believe that the deaths of Terrance and Susan Basham in August 1982 were an offshoot of the dealings of the Queensland cocaine ring. Basham apparently fell out with some of the hard men in the Queensland syndicate and he was murdered for it. This syndicate used the painters and dockers to do their hard work, men like the chief suspect in the murders of Chuck Bennet, Ferret Nelson and Ian Carrol in Victoria; and men like Mad Dog Cox, escapee and killer, who was a recent visitor to towns in northern Queensland. They include well-known and long time criminals with extensive histories in the drug trade. At least three of the principals in the Queensland rings are named in Volume 2 of the Woodward Royal Commission into Drug Trafficking. The men learned their trade importing heroin and growing marihuana. Now they have shifted their operations to cocaine and they are hard to catch. The present police operations against these people have been difficult. There has been a lack of manpower and a lack of finance. For example, there has not been the money to pay police expenses. They can easily evade the police by going into the high price international standard restaurants where they do their deals . The police do not get the expenses to follow them in. Police do not have the resources to keep up with these people as they move at high speed off the coast and along the coast. Though several police forces have been involved in different States, there has been a constant problem of co-ordinating resources and information. This is an international and three-State operation. To combat these criminals requires a sophisticated and effective structure. There is a need for an authority to combat these criminal activities, an organisation with technological skills and the capacity to strike swiftly and effectively at this major crime syndicate. It is clear that, until the State and Federal police enlisted the help of the Costigan and Stewart royal commissions, they were facing an uphill battle. The royal commissioners, with their wide-ranging powers and ability to use computer technology, have been of enormous assistance in extending police knowledge of the operations and dimensions of the crime ring that they are up against. There have been a few successes in the fight against cocaine. I refer to the recent conviction of one Fernandini in Sydney who was given eight years gaol on cocaine trafficking charges. A ring of this size and the history of the police fight against it demonstrate why it is so important to establish a strong National Crime Authority. What are we faced with in this Government's present proposals? Those who support the proposals need to ask themselves-I refer not only to all members of the Government but, in particular, to the Government members of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, which looked at the Government's proposals and not at these amendments-will the termination of the Costigan inquiry and the Stewart inquiry and the establishment of the National Crime Authority result in a disruption to the struggle against the cocaine trade ? Will the National Crime Authority be able to follow on where Costigan and Stewart have led? Will these crooks, with their enormous illegally gained funds, be able to interfere in the proposed National Crime Authority's action? These matters should be of grave concern to the people of this nation. I can only speculate about the motives of those who want a weakened Crime Authority and those who want the Costigan royal commission, in particular, terminated forthwith. My colleague from Victoria, Senator Missen, indicated the sorts of motives that he thinks may be behind the desire to wind up the Costigan royal commission. We know that the right wing of the New South Wales Labor Party has been a key agent in attempts to weaken the Crime Authority. The price of this politicking-that is what it is, sheer politicking-will be the weakening of the struggle against one of the biggest criminal operations in this country which I have just outlined to the Senate. These people, in effect, are giving encouragement and support to those criminals to continue in their deadly trade. In effect, the international crimes syndicates will say that the risks of detection are low and the profits are enormously high. That is why we ask Government senators and Australian Democrat senators to have a look at the Government's proposals. The Government is opening up the opportunities to chop off the National Crime Authority from taking the steps which are necessary to deal with crime syndicates such as I have outlined. We are not talking about small people. We are not talking about the protection of the ordinary citizen. These are crooks with millions and millions of dollars to spend to avoid conviction and detection and to delay investigation and refer matters to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman will not know that he is dealing with a crook and will not be able to recognise a crook because these crooks have so much money they will be able to persuade decent, influential, substantial people in the community that there is merit in their claim. Recommendations will be made and senators and members of the other place will be lobbied on behalf of what would appear to be reasonable and decent citizens to stop something or other or alter the legislation. All of this is like Soviet misinformation. It is all planned to deceive and to achieve a particular end. At the present moment there appears to be, for some reason or another, a plan to bring an end to the current inquiries in which Mr Costigan is involved. As a result, people all around the country, from different States as far apart as Tasmania and Queensland, are making representations in relation to the Costigan inquiry and in relation to this current National Crime Authority. Why? Clearly they appear to be referring to States rights. However, on analysis, one wonders what the purpose of the lobbying is. I ask the Senate to listen carefully to the suggestions being put by Senator Durack on behalf of the Opposition and to consider carefully our amendments that will give the Authority the teeth that it needs to deal with the problems of this nation. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(5.20) —Mr Deputy President- Senator Gareth Evans —Why do you not put your name on the list and conform with arrangements? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Why do you not learn to read? My name is on the list- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Crichton-Browne has the call. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) should apologise, not just wave his hand. We are debating the National Crime Authority Bill 1983 and the National Crime Authority (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1983. This is the third attempt, as I recall, by the Federal Parliament to place legislation of this nature permanently on the statute book-the first attempt having been made by the previous Government but, with the change of government, it was not proclaimed. The original National Crimes Commission Bill, as it was described, flowed from the revelation of various royal commissions, task forces and investigatory bodies, not the least being the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union as to the level, depth and width of organised crime and corruption within Australia. It has only been in recent years that the magnitude of this crime and corruption taking place in Australia, almost as a part of Australian life, has begun to become apparent to the community at large and in many respects to law enforcement officers. There is little doubt that with the increasing sophistication with which crime is being carried out, it is necessary for law enforcement agencies charged with investigating these crimes to be given the best possible environment in which to operate. The Crime Authority as envisaged under this legislation, as was the case with the previous legislation, will have certain powers which are not available to other agencies or jurisdictions. It will, no doubt as a result of the funds proposed to be allocated to it, be able to attract the very best personnel with the requisite expertise to deal with sophisticated crime and it will also, presumably, have access to the best equipment to enable detailed intelligence gathering and analysis of the type used in the Costigan Royal Commission. Ironically, one of the real fundamental differences between the Bill now before the House and that introduced by the previous Liberal Government is that this Bill has been prepared in consultation with the States and, presumably, with the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and the Police Ministers' Council. It involves the various State agencies in its operation and creates a legal framework which allows them to introduce complementary legislation to give them the same teeth and effect. Although there has been and is considerable debate about the virtues of any one of the members of the inter-governmental committee having the power of veto over a reference-a matter to which I shall address myself shortly-the truth of the matter is, I believe, that no such authority will fulfil its potential if it does not have the goodwill and active support of the various States. As I recall, I was the only senator in this chamber, at least on this side of the House, to vote against the previous Government's legislation, not because I opposed the concept of a crimes commission or authority, but rather because I believed it would not be effective and was to be imposed on States against their will. Again, it will be argued that many areas of crime fall within Commonwealth jurisdiction. I believe that the truth, by and large, is to be found elsewhere. For instance, it will be argued that drug trafficking falls within the Commonwealth jurisdiction and in terms of illegal importation and foreign currency transactions that may be so. However, the greater area of responsibility for drug related offences falls within the jurisdiction of the States. No doubt the importation of drugs will be grounds for Commonwealth involvement, and quite properly so, but without the experience, expertise and assistance of State government agencies, the Authority will be deficient in its ability properly to grapple with the ever-growing drug trade. I do not underestimate the vital role the Commonwealth has to play in dealing with organised crime, nor do I underestimate the areas of responsibility which fall within the parameters of its terms of reference. I commend the Government at least in one respect-namely, on the way in which it has involved the States in the National Crime Authority. It may be that the Attorney-General has been forced to construct the inter-governmental committee in the way that he has as a result of pressure from State Labor Governments. I suspect that is the truth rather than that he is a born-again States righter. I must say it does seem a remarkable change of heart coming from our centralist Attorney-General who frequently calls for the abolition of State governments. Though I do not question his motives, I find them raising themselves in my own mind. I turn to the provisions of the Bill, and particularly to the power of veto contained in clause 11. The Opposition has moved an amendment to that provision which is intended to remove the power of veto by the Inter-Governmental Committee of a reference which has been proposed by the Commonwealth Attorney- General. One can set down an excellent argument against a State being able to veto a reference which relates to an offence or offences against a law of the Commonwealth or of a Territory, and that argument has already been presented in a clear, persuasive and articulate fashion by other honourable senators on this side of the chamber. For my part, I have to say that I do not feel as intensely about that clause as do some of my colleagues, because in practice I do not believe that a reference submitted by the Commonwealth relating to Federal laws will in any circumstances be likely to be vetoed by a State. In the event that a reference is in the circumstances vetoed, the State or States so vetoing the reference will have to justify that action in a practical way to the Commonwealth Parliament and to the Australian people. Given the dynamics of politics, if it is perceived by a State government of one political persuasion that a State government of another political party is seeking to veto a reference, one can be sure that the motives of that State government or that Attorney-General will be carefully and fully scrutinised. I am sure that the checks and balances of the composition of the Committee will maintain its integrity. Senator Gareth Evans —Exactly. I am glad you spoke. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I did not want to be too unkind at the outset, but I knew that the Attorney-General would be receptive to some of my comments. One weakness of Australia-wide crime detection in areas to which the Authority will be expected to address itself has been lack of co-operation and goodwill between law enforcement agencies of the States and Commonwealth. It should be remembered that the Authority has power under its general terms to investigate matters of its own initiative and the veto would apply only to the special coercive powers. However, on balance, for the reasons set out by the Opposition, I am prepared to support the amendment. When legislation of this nature is contemplated, the Parliament ought quite properly to take great care to ensure that the historic and intrinsic rights and freedoms which a democracy such as ours provides are not trampled under foot either for short term political expediency or in the name only of law and order. This legislation sets up a unique authority with powers which, by any measure, suspend the traditional civil liberties of our citizens. There will always in these cases be the need to balance very carefully the rights of the whole community with the competing interests of bringing to justice those in the community who steal government revenue, who peddle misery and death through drugs, who commission murder and wreak havoc and destruction upon our society through their cold and calculating pursuit of every conceivable type of organised crime and corruption. We have to recognise that the purpose of this legislation is to protect society while protecting the civil liberties of persons. To ignore or disregard the fact that there are competing considerations is to suspend liberty and freedom without appropriate safeguards. The National Crime Authority Bill, of necessity, intrudes into some of these traditional areas of freedom and liberty. For it to be an effective weapon against crime and corruption, of necessity, it has to do so. Under its special powers of investigation it is invested with authority to demand of individuals their business documents, to obtain personal details from government agencies and to obtain through a judicial warrant personal taxation records. Unless that information falls within the definition of personal documents, which excludes taxation records, there can be no claim of self- incrimination. Of course, the definition of a business document is so wide as to include almost every document short, perhaps, of the personal diary of a man or woman. Invariably the transactions will be of such a nature that the documents will fall within the category of business documents. They will include documents relating to family trusts and documents connected with private family companies. They are likely to be the same documents as those which might normally be considered personal documents. Thus there is a great capacity for the Authority, to use the expression which seems to be attracting some repetition in this Parliament, to pursue the money trail, to pursue the paper trail. Of course, ultimately the oral evidence in many respects will be only confirmation of that trail. The real capacity of the Costigan Royal Commission is following the money and paper trail. Its great revelations have not come from oral evidence. As I have said, the fact that these coercive powers can be used only in the case of a term of reference and under special investigation to some extent is a safeguard against their abuse. I am tempted to the view that they should not be extended. A further safeguard is that in the case of oral testimony by natural persons the privilege against self-incrimination should be recognised. Where the discretion to abrogate the privilege and compel the giving of evidence is to be used it is to be accompanied by the grant to the witness of a derivative use indemnity in the case of the use of such evidence in criminal proceedings against him; but that indemnity does not extend to civil proceedings. It seems to me that that is a matter that has been ignored by most who have contributed to the debate so far. A further safeguard-- Senator Missen —Everybody knows that, though. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —If they know it, why do they not say so, because perhaps it belittles in some respects and dilutes the arguments they are putting forward. A further safeguard against the risk of damaging or destroying the safety, reputation or fair trial of an individual is that the hearing shall take place in private. That is a proposition that I strongly support. In the event that criminal prosecutions are to be instigated against individuals as a result of the inquiries of the Crime Authority the hearings, in the normal course of events, will be public. In my view that is the proper time for the allegations and the evidence against people to be made fully public. To have hearings of the Crime Authority made public would run the very grave risk of unfairly destroying people's reputations. These days, in this community just the publication of the names of those appearing before the Authority would have the potential to damage reputations. Further, as I think the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs pointed out, it is possible that people appearing before the Authority could find their lives in danger. In the event that their evidence is made public there will be a temptation for them to depart from the truth. They may well be anxious about the possibility that those from whom they fear danger will know what they have said and they may be tempted to say what their criminal chiefs want to hear. Proposed new clause 25A provides an appeal mechanism for a person or body claiming to be entitled to refuse to furnish information or to produce a document or thing that he or it is required to furnish or produce. That is another safeguard. The clause makes provision for the person or body to appeal to the Federal Court against the decision by the Authority, with further appeal provisions under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. A further safeguard to protect the rights of citizens is that, for the purposes of the Ombudsman Act, the Authority shall be deemed to be a prescribed authority. Again , the application of that Act has considerable virtue. However, my concern is, given the enormous financial resources of those who are likely to be involved in the type of crime towards which this legislation is directed, whether that Act will be used by these people to frustrate the proper functioning of the Crime Authority. I have a great deal more faith in the application of a judicial audit conducted by a judge of the Federal Court or a State or Territory Supreme Court. While presumably the Chairman of the Authority will be a judge, it is not mandatory under the proposed Act. Even if it were to be the case, I believe, given the wide and unique powers of the Authority, such a judicial review has very considerable virtue. Senator Missen —There is not much of the Government's view that you don't hold on this, is there? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I have only 30 minutes to deal with this subject. Quite frankly, I am putting down what I believe to be the important parts of my deliberations rather than seeking to score political points. I think this is a subject vital to the community as a whole. It is important that the facts be presented as they are interpreted by each individual senator. It has now been proposed by way of an amendment that there be a joint parliamentary committee to examine the activities and functioning of the Authority from time to time. Given the modus operandi, the method of collecting intelligence and analysing it, I wonder whether a committee of the Parliament would ever really be able to fulfil a proper audit and make a proper determination as to whether the functions of the Authority have been conducted in a proper fashion and in a way that preserves the rights, responsibilities and integrity of all the individuals involved. Senator Missen —You don't even support the Opposition on that. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —With respect, Senator Missen will just have to wait to see how I vote. I am prepared to put forward arguments for and against. I think points of view ought to be put forward on both sides and weighed on balance. A determination can then ultimately be made. I listened to Senator Missen's speech with a great deal of interest, hoping that I might be persuaded to some of his points of view. I think when he sees my voting pattern he will be in some way pleased that I bothered to listen to what he had to say. Returning to the question of whether a judge should act as chairman of the Authority, I believe that the qualifications set out in the Bill for the Chairman of the Authority are not satisfactory. I do not subscribe to the principle of having members of the judiciary heading authorities of this nature. As I have said many times before, nor do I subscribe to the theory of having members of the judiciary heading royal commissions. I believe it runs the risk of debasing the integrity of their office and also allows the judiciary to be used for political purposes. We have seen that in recent times. However, I do not believe that appointment of a person who has been enrolled as a legal practitioner for not less than five years only will, as this Bill provides, necessarily ensure a chairman of demonstrable skill, experience and wisdom. I have a further concern that, as clause 21 (2) tells us, at a hearing the Authority may be constituted by one or more members or acting members. Again, given the discretionary powers of the Authority, particularly at hearings, I believe that for continuity, uniformity and safety it is desirable that at any given hearing there should be at least two, and preferably three, members sitting. There are a number of other matters which give me concern and although those I list are not exhaustive I believe that justice needs not only to be done , but to be seen to be done. I believe it is not desirable, to quote clause 46 ( 1), that: The Authority shall keep the Minister informed of the general conduct of its operations-- including the performance of its functions-- and, if the Minister requests the Authority to furnish to him information concerning a specific matter relating to its operations-- that is, in the performance of its general functions-- in respect of a reference or references made to the Authority under section 11, shall comply with the request. To me that is blatantly improper. No doubt it will be argued by the Attorney- General that it is intended to vest the responsibility for the activities of the Authority with the Minister. However, it could very easily be claimed by others that it amounts to political interference and it could be viewed by some as the government of the day seeking to look after its own. The Authority's activities are intended to be confidential and in my view they should remain so. A similar provision is contained in sub-section (3) in respect of a Minister of the Crown of a State. I take the same exception to that. While sub-section 6 provides that the Authority shall not furnish to the Inter-Governmental Committee any matter the disclosure of which to members of the public could prejudice the safety or reputation of persons, it does not preclude the providing of information which may be used perhaps by a corrupt official to tip off an offender who is under close investigation. To me there seems to be no justification whatsoever for that provision and it may well be that it puts the lives of those giving evidence and those likely to be indicted gravely at risk. Whenever in the name of law and order the Parliament takes from members of the community their rights as free citizens, when we strip away proper protection from abuse, the excesses of zealous officials, and remove what have been the fundamental principles of justice, we must ensure that every possible check and balance is set in place to safeguard against improper use of these powers. As I say, dealing with the type of crime and corruption that this legislation is designed to control and fight requires special powers under special circumstances. The Crime Authority will be an enormously powerful body and in pursuit of the evils of which it seeks to rid the community we must with diligence and vigilance maintain a proper and responsible long term view as to the balance of individual rights and Government responsibilities. In conclusion, I refer to one other matter. I recall that a section in the Bill says that inquiries can take place only if it is determined that they are not inquiries that can be properly dealt with by normal police investigation methods . The Government has been very silent on the matter of upgrading the quality of Commonwealth police. I will touch on State police as well but of course that is a State responsibility, although perhaps it ought to be embraced in the comments that I make. I do not suggest for a moment that the vast majority of policemen and policewomen are not loyal, dedicated, competent and hard working. However, if the various forces and agencies are to compete with the skills of those operating sophisticated schemes of criminal intent, there must be in police forces both men and women of commensurate capacity and skills. The criminal elements involved in these crimes have access to first class lawyers, first class accountants and first class advisers generally. I believe that the police forces ought to be seeking to attract people into their ranks with comparable qualifications. This can be achieved only if there is a greater emphasis upon qualification rather than seniority. It is true not only of State police forces but also the Commonwealth force that promotion rests very much upon seniority and not on particular qualifications. If the various police forces are to attract highly qualified people, I suspect that they will have to allow in at commissioned officer level those who are entering a police force for the first time. Of course they must be provided with commensurate salaries. As I say, this Bill suggests that matters should be referred to the Authority only if the normal police procedures are inadequate. Of course they are inadequate, by and large, and they will continue to be inadequate in terms of dealing with the problems that are intended to be addressed by the Authority until such time as their structure is changed. That is very much a matter for the States but it is a Commonwealth responsibility as well. I hope that in due course attention is given to that area and I am sure that the success of combating organised crime and corruption will take on a whole new aspect and the Authority's functions will be much more effective. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.45) —in reply-I thank honourable senators for their contributions to this debate on the National Crime Authority Bill and the National Crime Authority (Consequential Amendments) Bill which, with two or three exceptions, have been constructive and forthright even if the Government has not always agreed with the points of view expressed. The second reading debate on this occasion has been relatively short but it does follow a long series of debates in this place in recent months in which the issues have been thoroughly canvassed. I refer in particular to the debate on the motion on 17 November last year to refer these Bills to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, the debate on 1 May and again on 2 May when the Committee's report was presented and then the further substantial debate we had when the ministerial response to that Senate Committee report was tabled on 10 May. That parliamentary consideration follows, moreover, something like 18 months of earlier debate inside and outside the Parliament, first on the Fraser Government's National Crimes Commission Bill, then on the Government's Green Paper, and then in association with the Senate Committee's reporting process. That debate has been so extensive and the Government's position is now so well known as a result of it that I do not believe it is necessary for me to speak at length on this occasion, not least since I have had an opportunity, albeit to a somewhat limited extent, to express some reaction to criticisms that have been made of the Bill and of the Government's reaction to the Senate Committee report in a major article in the Age on 28 May, supplemented by a further short piece in that paper on the following day, 29 May. The basic point I have sought to convey in all my contributions to this debate both inside and outside Parliament, and a point which I believe has been totally overlooked by those who have either criticised the terms of this Bill on their face or who have seen sinister motives in aspects of its construction, is that the Bill is directed to securing not just one objective but in fact three closely inter-related objectives. Of course it is designed to create an effective machinery to deal with those kinds of organised crime which have hitherto proved to be beyond the capacity of conventional law enforcement methods to cope with, a state of affairs that has been amply documented in a series of royal commission activities and reports over the last decade. But that is not the end of the matter. A second objective has always been to create a machinery which at the same time respected fundamental rights and liberties, always necessarily at risk when bodies are created exercising coercive investigative powers. The third objective we have had in all of this is to create a machinery which, while satisfying the first two objectives, also is such as to guarantee, or at least create the possibility of, genuine State co- operation with the Commonwealth. Most of the argument has concerned the efforts in this Bill to create procedures and structures which reflect that third objective-State co-operation with the Commonwealth. I make it absolutely clear to the extent that it has not been made clear already that that objective does not stand alone. It is very closely related to the first objective I mentioned; that is, the effectiveness of the National Crime Authority itself. Despite the kinds of assertions that were so crudely made by Senator Sir John Carrick in the debate yesterday-that the Commonwealth had all the powers it needed to act in the areas of organised crime, that all the big issues of organised crime fell effectively within the Commonwealth's constitutional capacity to control without any reference to the States and without any need in any way to rely upon the States-the reality is otherwise. It is the case that although a great many significant organised crime offences are within the Commonwealth domain, and although it is appropriate for the Commonwealth to exercise leadership in this respect, by no means all the kinds of offences one associates with organised and sophisticated crime are Commonwealth offences. A great many of them are in the area of the States. Senator Crichton-Browne —Many of them are interrelated. Senator GARETH EVANS —Moreover, those that are within the States cannot be dealt with, even with the best will in the world, by a purely Commonwealth authority. If the Commonwealth authority is to operate in relation to those State offences, which as Senator Crichton-Browne has said are very often interrelated in practice with the commission of Commonwealth offences, it is crucially necessary for the Commonwealth authority to be clothed with the formal authority from the States which would make it possible for that Commonwealth body to do its proper investigative job. Moreover, even to the extent that the offence in question, which might be sought to be pursued, is a purely Commonwealth offence with no concurrent State offences in sight, all the evidence and all the experience of the last decade or more in endeavouring to cope with organised crime in its various manifestations has been that the Federal investigation and enforcement authorities operate with at least one hand tied behind their backs unless they can do so with the active co-operation of State law enforcement authorities-co- operation by way of information exchange, actual on the ground operational police activity and information supplied from State agencies, perhaps corporate affairs commissions or bodies of this kind, without whose co-operation the offences in question, even though they be purely Commonwealth in character, simply cannot be tracked through. It has been the experience that co-operation must exist. It may be that that co -operation can be secured and achieved for a body which is wholly Commonwealth in its orientation, as was the Fraser Government's National Crimes Commission model. But the experience of the State reaction to that particular model was such as to suggest otherwise. Certainly, all the experience that I have accumulated in my very close involvement with this issue over many months makes me believe that that co-operation would be grudging and limited, at best, unless the State authorities in question had a real confidence in the particular institution that was being created. That confidence, of course, can best be ensured by a formal involvement in the decision-making process. I do not believe that that proposition has been advanced by the States with any dishonesty, with any cynicism or on the basis that they have been got at in some way by organised criminal interests. I do not believe that any suggestion of that kind-very overt suggestions of that kind have been made in particular by Senator Missen and, less crudely perhaps, by other participants in this debate-has any foundation. To suggest otherwise is to suggest not only that all the Labor States are somehow acting in concert in this respect, but also that somehow a conspiracy is running in which the Queensland Government, with its notorious opposition to almost anything that Labor States ever do about anything, is an active party, and the Government in Tasmania an equally active party. The evidence shrieks out to the contrary. There is a legitimate State interest involved here. I believe Senator Crichton- Browne has acknowledged that. It is not cynicism. It is not on the basis of any double standard or shift of position that I record that simple fact for the Senate to try collectively to absorb. It is the case that in order to secure State co-operation the States have made it clear that they want if humanly possible to have a role in all the decision making activities of the intergovernmental committee, including the decision making associated with conferring or granting a Commonwealth request for a reference to operate in the area of Commonwealth law. Senator Crichton-Browne very accurately articulated the position when he in effect said that this is really just a formal requirement because it is impossible to imagine in practice that, should the Commonwealth seek a reference, a majority of the States would somehow gang up and mobilise resources to resist it. The dynamics, the political atmosphere in which that would occur, the leakage that would occur from the debates that would take place would, I believe, as a practical matter make that impossible. So it is essentially something that is really in the nature of a symbolic commitment by the Commonwealth to the principles of co-operation that are involved here. It simply does not justify the kind of reaction that that particular aspect of the Bill has received in this debate. Moving more specifically now to the question of the effectiveness of the Authority, there is no substance to the argument that a toothless pussycat or whatever is being created by this legislation as proposed to be amended. The whole point of creating a national crime authority is that it should in appropriate circumstances and appropriate cases be able to exercise the kind of coercive powers which are not available, and properly not available, to the ordinary police forces of this country. It should have the power to subpoena witnesses, to demand answers from those witnesses, to require the production of documents, to issue search warrants on appropriate application to a court, to seize relevant materials pursuant to those search warrants and to seek judicial orders for the withdrawal of passports in appropriate cases, should that be necessary for the pursuit of the investigation in question. All these are major coercive powers not available-God forbid that they ever should be available-to the police forces of this country. They are extreme measures and are taken in response to the extreme provocation represented by organised crime in this country. They are special measures. They demand very careful thought before they are ever vested in anybody and they demand the package and the network of constraints on their exercise that are built into this legislation. But in all the emphasis on the constraints and on the checks, the balances and safeguards, let it not be forgotten that this is legislation with a sharp end, with a series of sharp points at its end which will operate very effectively indeed if the letter of the law is observed-the law that creates the powers and determines the circumstances in which they can be exercised. In addition to the basic network of powers in the original Bill, a number of other measures are proposed to be adopted by the Commonwealth in response to the Senate Committee's report, all of which again are designed to improve the effectiveness of the Authority. Thus it is that we will move amendments designed to give the Authority the capacity to recommend the granting to it of references, not just to wait upon participating governments to get around to it. We will recommend the adoption of an amendment much more specifically to state the general functions of the Authority in that zone of activity before it is given a formal reference, and to make clear that we want it to exercise a wide ranging investigative function in that particular area. We want to clarify and in some respects extend the Authority's capacity to arrange for and co-ordinate joint task forces explicit in the original Bill but now much more explicit and much more detailed and likely as a result to be much more effective following the Senate Committee's recommendations in this respect. It is proposed that the Authority be given access to information held by Commonwealth agencies, notwithstanding the statutory secrecy provisions, subject to a few limited exclusions, which might otherwise apply, clarifying and extending as a result the capacity of the Authority to get information which is necessary to its effective operation. We have clarified again, or propose to clarify, the reach of the self-incrimination provisions so as to ensure that it will not be an excuse for failure to produce anything which can properly be described as business records. Furthermore, we will make quite explicit provision, both here and in the consequential amendments, for transfer of all material held by the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union to the Authority, about which there was some doubt in the way in which the legislation was originally formulated. So , in a whole variety of respects-I will not go into further detail at this stage ; there is plenty of time for that in the Committee debate-the Government has indicated clearly and unequivocally its commitment to effective legislation in this area. In this respect I want to rebut particularly the claim that was made by Senator Jessop in his contribution to the debate that it was the view of the State Police Ministers, meeting as he said in conference a few weeks ago, that the proposed Authority was generally ineffective and a waste of time. When challenged by me by way of interjection to justify what I thought yesterday to be an extraordinary and unjustified assertion, he repeated that suggestion. I have taken the opportunity since yesterday to check what was my understanding of the Police Ministers' reaction to this legislation and, more particularly, the deliberations of the Police Ministers at their meeting, the Police Ministers' Council, in Melbourne on 25 May. What I have been advised-I have no reason whatsoever to doubt the accuracy of this; it can, of course, be checked by anyone who wants to do so-is that discussion by Ministers at that Council meeting in relation to the National Crime Authority was very brief. No more than three or four minutes were spent on it at that meeting. That is hardly surprising as all the Ministers had been present in Canberra just a few days earlier to work out with the Commonwealth an appropriate joint response to the Senate Committee report. Discussion in that very brief three or four minutes centred on the question of appointments to the Authority and the establishment of an advisory committee of police commissioners. There was no discussion, I am told, critical or otherwise, of the Authority itself or of the present legislation. To the extent that any resolution was adopted by the Council on this occasion, it was as follows: . . . that it looks forward to the designation of a Chairman for the National Crime Authority (NCA) by the Commonwealth so that Police Ministers are able to give consideration to the nomination of a Member; and that on appointment of a Chairman of the NCA he be notified that a committee comprising the Commissioners of Police will be made available in an advisory role. Senator Chipp —Have you received a nomination yet? Senator GARETH EVANS —No, not from the Police Ministers. In fact, they have indicated that they are awaiting the determination of a chairman, a matter which will, of course, not be the subject of consideration or decision by the Government until this legislation has been passed. I think that deserves to be put on the record in those terms because it is yet another wild and unfounded allegation of the kind that have peppered this whole debate. There have been allegations about matters of fact, inclination, intention and motivation. All of those allegations are equally unsound. The civil liberties question has been systematically ignored by contributors to this debate from the other side of the chamber. Understandably, with the possible exception of Senator Crichton-Browne, who is-- Senator Crichton-Browne —Don't qualify it. Senator GARETH EVANS —It was so unusual for Senator Crichton-Browne that I tended to overlook it. The mainstream Opposition spokesman indicated unequivocal support for the Opposition's position. There was a total neglect of the balancing that was and has been necessarily involved in the Commonwealth's approach to this, the balancing considerations that were urged upon the Commonwealth not only by members of the parliamentary Australian Labor Party and the Government itself, myself included, but also balancing considerations which were very vigorously urged upon us at the meeting held in this chamber in the middle of last year. Senator Chipp —And by the Senate Committee. Senator GARETH EVANS —And indeed by the Senate Committee. I think that point needs to be very fully appreciated, in particular in the way in which the Senate Committee emphasised the necessity for privacy and the absence of that glaring spotlight of publicity in the Authority's conduct of its investigations, not in order that it could get up to sordid and devious activity away from the gaze of public accountability, but in order that individual reputations were not put at risk during what is, after all, simply an investigative stage when actual charges have not been formulated and have certainly not been determined. Equally , the Senate Committee was very concerned to ensure a proper network of safeguards so far as the self-incrimination point was concerned and in a number of other ways to undermine but to reinforce the very legitimate concern which the Government has always felt in this area. We will be responding in a number of further ways to the Senate Committee's recommendations. We did not by any means accept all of the Senate Committee's recommendations because we believed some of them went too far on the civil liberties front. The recommendation to do away with both judicial audit and the Ombudsman's checks and balances, we believe, would remove important safeguards. We will be debating the detail of those later. We think that at least one of those mechanisms is highly appropriate to retain. The Government has taken the view that access to tax records should not be open-ended but should require a judicial warrant except for the purposes of investigation of tax related offences where the Commissioner of Taxation may well appropriately follow past practice and hand over such material. Equally, in relation to search and seizure , while we certainly take the fairly robust view that the Authority ought to be able, on satisfying a court, to get a warrant for a reasonably wide ranging use of that power, certainly there should be nothing in the nature of an open go in such matters of the kind that the Opposition has been keen apparently to insert in the legislation. With those quibbles and qualifications apart-again, we will have an opportunity to debate the particular matters in detail-we have broadly accepted the thrust of the Senate Committee's report and have sought to maintain broadly the thrust of the original legislation, which was not one-sided legislation concentrating wholly on the coercive powers and wholly on the effectiveness side of the equation, but which was, as it always has been, a balanced exercise in which we are trying to communicate a modicum of concern and respect for individuals not at the price of the body's effectiveness but in a way which ensures the credibility and integrity of that body's operation. It is in respect of the civil liberties aspect of this debate that I come finally, and very gratefully in many ways, to Senator Missen's contribution. It has to be said that his only noteworthy contribution to the debate was his claim that the Government was acting in accordance with representations from Mr Kerry Packer. That was, as I said by way of interjection yesterday, a gross misrepresentation, coloured of course by some really contemptible innuendo. I do not often use that expression in this place, as Senator Chipp has really in many ways made it his own, but I cannot think of a better description of Senator Missen's contribution on this occasion. I answered Senator Missen in terms of the basic substance of his allegation in the Senate last week. I regret to say that yesterday-I am sorry that he is not present in the chamber to hear this-he accused me of lying in my answer to him, or if not lying, at least dissimulating . I repeat, as I told the Senate last week, that I put the substance of his questions to me in this chamber to members of the Cabinet, around the Cabinet table. I received a response which I reported to the Senate. After putting that question I then, in respect of those Ministers who were not present at the Cabinet meeting on that occasion, contacted each one individually and put again the basic substance of Senator Missen's questions to me with answers, which again I have recorded in my response to this chamber. To complete the process I spoke to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, when he turned up this morning fresh from his travels and put exactly the same question to him. I received exactly the same response. I want to make it absolutely clear that there was no verbal shuffling in any way in which I reported those responses to the Senate. I conveyed the substance of Senator Missen's question in all its aspects to the Ministers, to whom I have referred to and in reporting that Ministerial response to the Senate there was no question of selective reporting or dissimulation on my part. I reject utterly-I do so quite explicitly-the substance and the letter of Senator Missen's allegations. The Government and I have made decisions with respect to the Crime Authority- again I say so quite explicitly and directly-not on the basis of what may or may not have been perceived to be in the interests of any individual or organisation in this country but rather on the basis of our perception, my perception, of what was in the public interest in this matter. My concern, in establishing a Crime Authority, as I have made clear from the very outset, has been certainly with creating an effective authority, but also one which satisfies those other two interrelated objectives of preserving our civil liberties and guaranteeing or ensuring the co-operation of the States. I have been embarked, it seems now, almost full time since March 1983-since the very first day we came into office, since long before Mr Kerry Packer's name ever arose in the context of any allegation-on the kind of task of trying to find the right solutions for a permanent on-going body to replace the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union which has narrow terms of reference and a structure and personnel which are not geared to a long- term continuation of its role. I draw that state of affairs, which must be acknowledged to be true by Senator Missen as by any other honourable senator in this place, to the attention of the Senate in order that my bona fides, and that of the Government in pursuing this matter, can be fully appreciated, not just on my say so now in June 1984, but in terms of my whole record of commitment to getting this thing right, going all the way back to our first day in government. I hesitate in some ways to say this, but I believe it needs to be said given the fierceness and the lowness of Senator Missen's attack in this place last night: I believe it is a sad measure of what Senator Missen has been reduced to in recent times, that those who were applauding him and supporting him in his contribution to this debate and in the substance of his attack upon me and upon the Government, were that very gang of senators-Senator Withers, Senator Sir John Carrick, Senator Jessop, Senator Archer, Senator Townley and all the rest- whose views on most issues over the years have been regarded, and regarded quite properly, by Senator Missen as totally anathema. Now it seems he finds himself out in front of the cave with all the rest of the Opposition neanderthals, thumping his clubs and grunting in unison with the rest of them. It is a sad and sorry sight, and for none of us more so than those who hitherto had the highest regard, if not always for Senator Missen's political judgment, at least for his sincerity, at least for his integrity and at least for his genuine libertarian convictions. Mr Acting Deputy President, we are confronting a long or certainly very complex Committee stage debate. There will be ample opportunity, as I have said on several occasions, to canvass the particular issues that are still left to be resolved so far as the content of this legislation is concerned. I do not seek to anticipate this debate. This Bill is the product of a very long process of consultation, debate and discussion and of a very genuine attempt on the part of the Government to balance all these interrelated objectives that I have mentioned. I commend this Bill to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.14) —What would on the face of it be a rather extraordinary approach to this legislation, given the vast number of amendments we are dealing with, does, I believe, make sense, given the approach that has been worked out as between the Government, the Opposition and the Australian Democrats for this Bill to be taken as a whole. I want to thank publicly Senator Durack and his staff for their contribution to securing some rationality in our approach to this debate. The particular procedure that we are about to adopt owes most of its implementation to Senator Durack's co-operation, and I am grateful to him. What is proposed, Mr Chairman, as will be evident from the document that has been circulated around the chamber, is that we deal with 13 separate issues on which there is some evident contention as between the various parties in the chamber, and that we group the various amendments that deal with each of those issues-even though the amendments jump around all over the text of the Bill- together and debate them together. Moreover, it is proposed that so far as humanly possible, we debate the parent amendment in each group each time and leave for subsequent filling in the merely consequential matters. At the end of this process there will still be some 20 odd amendments, which do not appear to be the subject of any particular contention and which are largely miscellaneous small matters of one kind or another. At the end of the process I would propose that I move, on behalf of the Government, that particular batch of miscellaneous matters. On that process, the first matter which I believe we come to is the definition of 'relevant offence'. The CHAIRMAN —Is it acceptable to the Committee that we handle the Bill in that way? There being no objection, that is the way I will proceed. Clause 4 (Officers to observe secrecy). Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.15) —I move: Page 3, clause 4, sub-clause (1), lines 27 to 40, leave out the definition of ' relevant offence', insert the following definition: ' ''relevant offence'' means an offence- (a) that involves 2 or more offenders and substantial planning and organisation; (b) that involves, or is of a kind that ordinarily involves, the use of sophisticated methods and techniques; (c) that is committed, or is of a kind that is ordinarily committed, in conjunction with other offences of a like kind; and (d) that involves theft, fraud, tax evasion, currency violations, illegal drug dealings, illegal gambling, obtaining financial benefit by vice engaged in by others, extortion, violence or bribery or curruption of, or by, an officer of the Commonwealth, an officer of a State or an officer of a Territory or that involves matters of the same general nature as one or more of the foregoing,but- (e) does not include an offence that arises out of a genuine dispute as to matters pertaining to the relations of employers or employees; (f) does not include an offence the time for the commencement of a prosecution for which has expired; and (g) does not include an offence that is not punishable by imprisonment or is punishable by imprisonment for a period of less than 3 years, unless the offence is committed in connection with, or as part of, a course of activity involving the commission of an offence or offences punishable by imprisonment by life or for not less than 3 years;'. This amendment is largely a replica of the provision as it appears in the original National Crime Authority Bill but notably with an amendment to sub- clause (g). I understand this will be the subject of various amendments, some of which are acceptable and some of which, although groaning, the Government can live with. I think it is perhaps better if I wait until those amendments are moved before indicating the nature of the Government's attitude to this clause. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(6.16) —As I understand it, we are all agreed that the words should be left out. Senator Gareth Evans —Let us dispose of that. Senator DURACK —We can dispose of that and then we will have a clean sheet. The CHAIRMAN —Yes, that would be a neat way of doing it. The question is: That the words proposed to be left out, be left out. Question resolved in the affirmative. The CHAIRMAN —The question now is: That the words proposed to be inserted by the Attorney-General's amendment, be inserted. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(6.17) —I would have thought it would be preferable if the Committee had before it the alternative amendments. My amendment No. (1) provides for the widest definition of 'relevant offence'. I believe the amendment of the Australian Democrats would probably be a second choice. As far as the Opposition is concerned, if the definition proposed by me is not carried, the Democrats' amendment would be preferably to the Government's . I suggest we vote first on my proposed definition of 'relevant offence'. Is that agreeable? The CHAIRMAN —Order! That would be the way it would automatically be done, Senator Durack. If you would move your amendment to the Attorney-General's amendment, that will be dealt with first. Senator DURACK —I move: Definition of 'relevant offence', leave out all words after ' ''relevant offence'' means an offence-', insert: '(a) that involves, or is of a kind that ordinarily involves, two or more offenders and substantial planning and organisation; (b) that involves, or is of a kind that ordinarily involves, the use of sophisticated methods and techniques; and (c) that is committed, or is of a kind that is ordinarily committed, in conjunction with other offences of a like kind, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes such offences that involve theft, fraud, tax evasion, currency violations, illegal drug dealings, illegal gambling, obtaining financial benefit by vice engaged in by others, extortion, violence, or bribery or corruption of or by an officer of the Commonwealth, an officer of a State or an officer of a Territory, or that involves matters of the same general nature as one or more of the foregoing;'. The object of this amendment is to give effect to the criticisms that I have been making on behalf of the Opposition to the definition of 'relevant offence', which is contained in the Bill. This is a long standing criticism of mine. The object of my amendment is to limit, in an illustrative way, the role of the National Crime Authority. I have no concern about the Authority running off and chasing hares which have nothing whatever to do with its functions. Its functions are stated fairly clearly. No matter how well resourced it may be, I cannot imagine that the Authority would want to get into areas which, in its opinion, may be outside the areas that it should be interested in, namely organised crime and official corruption. As I said, no matter how well resourced it is, it is unlikely to be totally adequate for the type of investigation that it would be justified in making. It will have to set priorities. Therefore, I do not have any real concern about the likelihood of the Authority getting outside what we all consider to be its proper role. I have the concern that the Government's definition in the original Bill-I still retain this concern in respect of the Government's proposed amendment of that provision-would simply hog-tie the Authority in, I think, a very serious way in the sense that people who will be the subject of investigation will make all the running they can out of restrictions of this kind and challenge the Authority at every step it takes. We have already seen this happening over and over again. People will have the means to challenge at every step and end up running to the highest court in the country in order to stop and stymie the Authority's work. As I have said, I believe the amendment which I have moved is also in accordance with the views of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, and that Committee criticised the provisions in the Bill. It particularly referred to the limitation that offences would have to carry a penalty of more than three years imprisonment. The Committee also suggested that the type of offences be listed in an illustrative rather than a definitive or exhaustive way. The object of my amendment is to give effect to those very wise recommendations of the Senate Committee. As I said, the Government amendment does not satisfy either of those requirements of the Senate Committee and that is the reason we are opposed to it and are suggesting an alternative. I also believe the Australian Democrats amendment is deficient but perhaps I should wait until Senator Chipp speaks, as no doubt he will, and gives the reasons for his amendment. We can perhaps then discuss this matter at a later stage of the Committee debate. The other matter that is of particular concern to the Opposition is the limitation on the definition of 'relevant offence', which excludes 'genuine industrial disputes'. That is, it is proposed that genuine industrial disputes be exempt from the definition of 'relevant offence'. The relevant provision reads as follows: 'relevant offence' means an offence- . . . (d) that does not arise out of a genuine industrial dispute as to matters pertaining to the relations of employers and employees; I believe that this could be a major problem for the Authority. Of course, the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union looked into the affairs of an industrial union which turned out to be a cover for major criminal activity. That may well be an exception. However, it is clear also from the evidence of other commissions that have operated in this area that there may well be a mixing of industrial activity and organised crime. I think it would be almost impossible for the Authority actually to make exclusions from what may be well and truly an appropriate inquiry by the Authority if it then had to determine whether some of these matters arose out of a genuine industrial dispute. That is a very general and vague sort of consideration. I believe that such a provision would be a great limitation on the role of the Authority. It is not suggested that the Authority will be seeking out genuine industrial disputes for the purpose of interfering in industrial activities. It is simply a matter of when it is investigating what it thinks may be organised crime or official corruption it should not then have to ask itself: 'Is there some genuine industrial dispute mixed up in some way with these activities?'. If in fact it did come to that conclusion its investigations would be rendered impossible. So the Opposition believes that is a very serious limitation of the function of the Authority. Of course, the Committee will observe that the amendment that I have moved does not make any particular limitation of that kind in relation to the definition of 'relevant offence'. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.27) —The Government opposes the Opposition amendment. The definition of 'relevant offence' is crucial in defining the outside limits to the jurisdiction of the National Crime Authority- the sorts of things that it can investigate and conduct references in relation to. To that extent it is very important that those outside boundaries should mean something and that what they should mean should broadly coincide with the general community understanding of what is involved in organised and sophisticated crime. The effect of Senator Durack's amendment would be to apply three criteria only to the definition of 'relevant offence'. Firstly, it would have to involve, or be of a kind that ordinarily involved, two or more offenders and substantial planning and organisation. Secondly, it would have to involve, or be of a kind that ordinarily involved, the use of sophisticated methods and techniques. Thirdly, it would have to be an offence that is committed, or is of a kind that is ordinarily committed, in conjunction with other offences of a like kind. The further reference in the definition to theft, illegal drug dealings, gambling and all the rest would become, as indeed the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs recommended, merely indicative and would have no substantial force whatever in confining what it was that the Authority might do. When one thinks about it, those three criteria, without some force being attached to the description of the kinds of offences in question, really are extraordinarily wide. On their face they could extend, for example, to a ring of 10-year-old kids who are engaged in systematic bicycle theft in a particular neighbourhood involving the picking of the locks on the bikes in question by some sophisticated piece of gadgetry which one of them has pinched or borrowed from his father's garage. If those same kids, as a sideline, are involved in, say pinching apples, one would have the criteria, on the face of it, satisfied- and that is manifestly absurd. There has to be some limitation built into the very fabric of this definition which makes it clear and which points to the kinds of offences we are very much concerned with. The further effect of the Opposition amendment would be to exclude outright, as Senator Durack frankly concedes, any limitation on the Authority's capacity to poke around in what are clearly genuine industrial disputes involving parties to those disputes and nobody else, because it is the case that criminal offences involving picketing and other things of that kind can often be committed in the course of a genuine industrial dispute. Moreover there would be no limitation on the capacity of the Authority to investigate offences, the time for the commencement of a prosecution in relation to which has expired, and of course there would be no requirement at all that the jurisdiction of the Authority be limited on the face of it, or at least at first sight, to more serious offences as those punishable by three years imprisonment or more. For all those reasons we reject outright the Opposition amendment. I believe the Democrats intend to move amendments for some further qualification and refinements to the original terms of the Government's amendment. While we are happy to debate those on their merits, we are not at all happy to accept as a credible alternative the Opposition amendment. Sitting suspended from 6.31 to 8 p.m. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(8.00) —The Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs made recommendations concerning clause 4, as Senator Durack mentioned. Paragraph 2.7 of the report of the Committee states: Recommendations: Paragraph (c) of the definition of 'relevant offence' should be deleted. Paragraph 2.9 states: (a) The definition of 'relevant offence' should be 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. (b) The Authority should be required to then give particular consideration to types of offences, similar to those set out in paragraph (a) of the definition of 'relevant offence'. These should be set out in an illustrative, not exhaustive, manner. The Government has responded in some way towards those recommendations. That response did not satisfy the Liberal Party nor does it satisfy the Australian Democrats. The Democrats find themselves in agreement with most of what Senator Durack said. The clause of the Bill was limited in ambit, did not include offences committed in connection with each other and excluded connected offences . The Government's proposed amendment No. (2) widens that definition and includes connected offences but excludes offences that carry a punishment of less than three years and industrial disputes. We suggest that the Government's reaction implements neither the wording nor the spirit of the Committee's recommendations. To that extent we believe that the Opposition's amendments make a contribution. However, we do think that they embrace too wide a field as was illustrated by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) particularly in proposed paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). The Attorney illustrated that they could literally apply to rather an absurd range of offences. For that reason we would prefer, with appropriate humility, that the amendments that have been circulated in the name of the Australian Democrats be adopted. Senator Hill —Some of them are a bit hard to follow. Senator CHIPP —Everything is a bit hard to follow in this Bill. However, I would not have thought that this clause is hard to follow. What we do which is different to the Liberal amendment in terms of clause 4, 'relevant offences', is to add certain offences that are not mentioned in Senator Durack's amendment. For example it adds: . . . harbouring of criminals, forging of passports, armament dealings or illegal exportation or importation of fauna into or out of Australia or that involves matters of the same general nature as one or more of the foregoing, or that is of any other prescribed kind, Senator Hill —Does that include arson? Senator CHIPP —That is part of property, surely. I would have thought that arson would certainly be included. I feel a little unusual in this debate being the only non-lawyer participating. I have received advice from the Attorney that arson is certainly included under 'violence to property'. If Senator Hill feels differently, let him move an amendment. As I understand it, these amendments were suggested by Mr Doug Meagher or whoever the anonymous author of the Age articles was. I think he had a point in including those. It is interesting to compare the Democrats' amendment with the Liberal amendment because, in one way, the Liberal amendment goes further than ours and, in another way, the reverse happens. The Liberal amendment states: . . . and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, which of course makes its amendment more widely embracing than ours. However we believe ours to be more suitable because the last sentence states: . . . or that is of any other prescribed kind, So if the government of the day wants to add to the illustrative list that we have used, it would have to do it by regulation. That is why we will move the amendment. We will oppose the Liberal amendment because, as I said, we believe ours to be slightly better. We thought it was outrageous that the Government might try to get away with murder and exclude industrial disputes altogether. We do not believe that is true. However, we believe that the Government has a point in excluding genuine disputes between an employer and an employee. As Senator Durack pointed out, industrial disputes can be mixed up with criminality of a national kind of multi -million dollar proportions. Our proposed amendment has the effect of including an offence committed in the course of a genuine dispute between employees and employers, if it is committed in the course of an activity involving the commission of another relevant offence: For example, violence on a picket line of a company owned by organised crime with the company thus involved in another criminal offence; illegal immigrants being forced to work at less than award rates by organised crime employers; or a casino being erected by an enemy, opponent or competitor of an organised crime figure and the Builders Labourers Federation being paid money to stop halfway through the concrete pour, costing the organised crime figure's competitor millions of dollars. Clearly, those sorts of things ought to come within the purview of the National Crime Authority . I point out in passing that there was no Committee recommendation on industrial disputes exemptions. I will be moving the Democrats proposed amendments Nos (2) and (3) to the Government's proposed amendment No. (2) at the appropriate time. They deal with the three-year exclusion. Admittedly, our amendment would have the effect of retaining the three-year exclusion but permitting the commencement of investigations of such minor offences where the Authority merely suspects that the minor offence may be connected with a major offence. I say, with respect, that that gives even a wider and more liberal interpretation and is even a better way of doing away with the three-year exclusion. Senator Hill —If you are talking about SP bookmaking which is used to fund a narcotics racket, would you say that is a sufficient connection? Senator CHIPP —I will read the suggested amendment through you, Mr Chairman, to Senator Hill. It states: Where the Authority suspects that an offence-- let us assume SP bookmaking-- that is not a relevant offence as defined in sub-section (1) namely, the offence of SP bookmaking does not carry more than three years imprisonment-- may be directly or indirectly connected with, or may be a part of, a course of activity involving the commission of a relevant offence as so defined, whether or not the Authority has identified the nature of that relevant offence, the first-mentioned offence-- that is, SP bookmaking-- shall, for so long only as the Authority so suspects, be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be a relevant offence. I should not have thought anybody would have to worry about that aspect. It includes even the most trivial offence, provided that the Authority suspects it can be connected with organised crime. Senator Crichton-Browne —Why do you say directly as well as indirectly? Senator CHIPP —To cover both. If one asks a simple question, one gets a simple answer. We believe that we have found a compromise solution to the industrial disputes problem. We must be realistic in this debate. Everyone in this chamber desperately wants a National Crime Authority with teeth. We want it to be in shape as soon as possible. We want it to take over the functions of the Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. We know that Mr Costigan has been ill and, so far as I am aware, is still ill. That gives the matter a sense of urgency. What if this Committee goes through an esoteric exercise tonight, takes a hard line and includes industrial offences and does not give a damn about what is done in the House of Representatives? We must live in the real world. There are forces in Caucus that the Attorney has to do battle with. To some members of the Caucus industrial disputes are sacrosanct. The Senate, with the numbers it can marshal, can pass anything it wants, but the matter still has to go through Caucus and the House of Representatives. I am not suggesting that for that reason this Committee should water down anything that will lead to any weakening of these provisions, but we must be realistic. I believe that the compromise suggested by the Democrats does not water down the Authority's power one iota to get into an industrial dispute if it is connected with organised crime. At the same time it might satisfy those hardliners in the Labor Party who regard any intrusion whatever into any industrial dispute of any kind as nobody' s business but that of the conciliation and arbitration system. Is it appropriate to move my amendments now, Mr Chairman? The CHAIRMAN —No, the Committee will first have to clear the amendments moved by Senator Durack. If those are lost, Senator Chipp can move his amendments. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(8.13) —I support the Opposition amendment and I should like to comment now instead of later on the matters to which Senator Chipp referred. I regard these matters as being very much tied up together. What is now happening is that the Government has a proposal that is rigid and deals with a number of offences. As Senator Chipp said, that proposal does not include an adequate description; the Opposition amendment sets out examples, not a defined group, and points to what are, and what were in the previous Act passed by this Parliament, the essential features of organised crime in the community. It points to the general way in which an offence ordinarily involves two or more offenders; which ordinarily involves the use of sophisticated methods and techniques; or an offence that is committed, or is of a kind ordinarily committed, in conjunction with other offences of a like kind. The amendment uses the various forms of description but does not bind the National Crime Authority. I suggest that the amendment to be moved by Senator Chipp is a provision of considerable vagueness. It may apply to a situation in which there is a great deal of use of SP bookmaking, where money is being laundered and where that is the only offence. Senator Chipp said that it would apply provided that one suspects there is some other offence which comes within the definition and which carries a penalty of three years. He suggested that in that case all would be well. However, if all is not well, a great number of offences will be excluded from the ambit of the Authority. No doubt this is the intention of some of the people who want to stick with this limited definition-in other words, that there will not be investigation into these types of offences. I suggest that not only is the variation of the three-year penalty rule inadequate but that the whole general concept of the Opposition amendment is much more sound. It is unwise to lay down offences and to suspect that those are the only matters to come within the ambit of the Authority. I strongly support the Opposition amendment. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(8.15) —I wish to emphasise that my amendment, which I have moved on behalf of the Opposition, gives effect to the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs in two respects-namely, that the limitation in respect of offences carrying a penalty of more than three years be removed and that the definition of relevant offences be expanded in such a way as is illustrative rather than definitive. I would have thought that the members of the Committee, of which Senator Chipp was a distinguished member and which made this recommendation as one of its high points, would look favourably on the Opposition amendment. I hope that on final reflection that will be the case and the honourable senators will support the amendment. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Durack's amendment) be left out . The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Carrick, Sir John Martin, K. J. Chaney, F. M. Messner, A. J. Collard, S. J. Missen, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N.A. Scott, D. B. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasChipp, D. L. McIntosh, G. D. Coleman, R. N. Macklin, M. J. Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Mason, C. V. J. Crowley, R. A. Primmer, C. G. Elstob, R. C. Ray, RobertEvans, Gareth Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Richardson, G. F. Gietzelt, A. T. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Giles, P. J. Sibraa, K. W. Grimes, D. J. Tate, M. C. Harradine, B. Walsh, P. A. Hearn, J. M. Zakharov, A. O. Rae, Peter Foreman, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Coates, J. Reid, M. E. Button, J. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment to proposed amendment negatived. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(8.23) —by leave-For reasons I have already given, I formally move Australian Democrats' amendments Nos (1), (1A) and (2), already circulated, which read as follows: (1) Definition of 'relevant offence', paragraph (d), leave out all words after 'violence', insert 'bribery or corruption of, or by, an officer of the Commonwealth, an officer of a State or an officer of a Territory, bankruptcy and company violations, harbouring of criminals, forging of passports, armament dealings or illegal exportation or importation of fauna into or out of Australia , or that involves matters of the same general nature as one or more of the foregoing, or that is of any other prescribed kind,but-'. (1A) Definition of ' relevant offence', paragraph (e), leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: '(e) does not include an offence committed in the course of a genuine dispute as to matters pertaining to the relations of employees and employers by a party to the dispute, unless the offence is committed in connection with, or as part of, a course of activity involving the commission of a relevant offence other than an offence so committed.'. (2) Definition of 'relevant offence', paragraph (g), leave out all words after '3 years' (first occurring). I also foreshadow the moving of Democrats' amendment No. (3). Senator Gareth Evans —With respect, Mr Chairman, clause 4 is inextricably linked to Democrat amendment No. (3) and I think it would aid debate if they were moved together by leave. The CHAIRMAN —I have to put the motion separately because the actual motion before the Chair does not cover amendment (3), but they could be discussed together by leave. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(8.25) —I just indicate the Government's response to Senator Chipp's amendments. As to the proposed rewrite, or the extension of paragraph (d) of the definition of relevant offence, we regard it as unnecessary but not really doing any damage to the spirit of the original proposition and, as such, it is not something we will oppose. It is not necessary because the language of the original paragraph (d) was deliberately chosen to cover, in terms and through ordinary principles of legal interpretation, almost anything that anyone could think of as coming within the definition of organised crime. But if it makes honourable senators more comfortable to think that there are some of those specific references in there, plus the provision of additional offences to be prescribed, that is something we do not resist. As to amendment (1A), again we would regard this as unnecessary insofar as the exclusion of offences arising out of genuine industrial disputes, we believe, is sufficiently precise and sufficiently embracing to ensure that only those offences which do occur in the context of what are, on any view, genuine industrial disputes, would be so excluded from the Authority's ambit. But to the extent that the additional words proposed by Senator Chipp would allow offences occurring in the course of an industrial dispute to be looked at by the Authority if there is reason to believe that they are connected with other offences in which organised crime is genuinely involved, and if those words were put in those terms, we believe again that that does not do any particular violation to the spirit of the original. As such, we certainly would not resist this to the point of a division, although we do oppose it as being unnecessary. As to amendment No. (2) deleting the qualification to the reference to three years and thus bringing the concept of relevant offence back to the original notion of something which is, in fact, a serious offence, we support that without equivocation. I foreshadow support, when it is formally moved, for amendment (3) from the Democrats, which is linked with amendment (2) and the Democrats' presentation of it, amendment (3) opening a clear window as it does for the Authority to utilise in investigating serious offences that involve organised crime but where the only visible manifestation of that may be a trivial offence which, in itself, would not constitute something satisfying the definition of a relevant offence. The way in which the proposed new clause 4 (1A) is worded would, as Senator Chipp said, make it clear that so long as the Authority has a reasonably well founded suspicion that there is some organised crime activity going on behind the surface appearance of the lesser crime, then it is entitled to investigate the lesser crime even if at that stage it cannot identify with any precision what the more serious crime might be. In order to ensure, though, that the Authority cannot by that means acquire a general belief to deal with trivial offences, the proposed amendment of Senator Chipp is cast in such a way that the Authority's writ stops as soon as its suspicion of the connection stops. That seems to us a reasonable limitation. So I indicate support for the Democrats' amendment No. (3) in the form in which it will be moved. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(8.28) —I thank the Attorney for the assurance because without that assurance that we would get support for amendment No. (3) I would be feeling rather nervous at truncating the previous section at three years. I can understand the queries that Senator Hill made of me earlier, but I am conscious, and I think he would be conscious, from the evidence heard during the hearings of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, that this Authority, no matter what we pass here tonight, just will not work unless we have the co-operation of State police forces. Senator Hill may like it or not like it. Senator Hill —I agree with that. Senator CHIPP —Yes. We are sometimes a bit sanguine about the co-operation that Costigan got. Sometimes I got carried away to the point where I thought that the Authority would get the same co-operation as Costigan, and that therefore we need not worry. But we do need to worry because since the report of the Committee has been announced I have been in four of the six States and had discussions with the police associations of those States. The sorts of people who belong to the State police associations are the salt of the earth coppers. They are the honest policemen. They have had a career in the police force and they are in the less glamorous side of police association work, fighting for the interests of their members and indeed to ensure that justice ensues in their State. The one thing that all of them are terrified about is that some bungling, bumbling Keystone Kops Federal police force will come into their State and override them on offences which they are singularly well equipped to handle. I wish the Australian Federal Police well in its future endeavours. Senator Crichton-Browne —Why does everybody think they are smarter than State police? Senator CHIPP —In answer to that interjection, I do not think we ought to knock the Australian Federal Police. I think we ought to give the Australian Federal Police every encouragement that we can because it is relatively new and has not had the basic opportunities of training in law enforcement and the detection of crime that State police forces have had. At the same time, I can understand the reluctance of the police forces in the States at having an overriding Federal police force coming in and involving itself in an investigation that is already under way. This example was given to me by one police force: 'Let us assume that we are well on the way to detecting the villains in a marihuana or SP bookmaking racket in our State. Let us assume that the Australian Federal Police comes in at an inappropriate time, interferes without knowing that we are already involved, and spoils the investigation'. That is a fear and I believe we have to make a gesture regarding the responsibilities and autonomy of the State police forces in this legislation. I believe this amendment does that and at the same time still gives the National Crime Authority as much power as it ought to have and as it would want to have. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(8.32) —Mr Chairman, I hesitate to enter debate on these amendments in the Committee stage. I refer to the Australian Democrats' amendment to Government amendment No. (2); that is to say, to the definition of 'relevant offence'. The refinement, if that is what it is called, is stated as: (e) does not include an offence committed in the course of a genuine dispute as to matters pertaining to the relations of employees and employers by a party to the dispute, unless the offence is committed in connection with, or as part of, a course of activity involving the commission of a relevant offence other than an offence so committed. I share the diffidence expressed by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) about that matter. I am concerned about it to this extent: Let us take a hypothetical case in which a union which covers the seamen and waterside workers in Australia-I do not want to particularise too much-is in an extortion racket with the shipowners over the employment of Australians on ships that are entering various ports within Australia. Let us say there are matters of genuine concern to the vast majority of the members of that federally registered organisation relating to conditions that apply on those ships, and let us hypothesise that the chief executive officer of that organisation is not interested in the conditions but is interested in getting indemnity payments, to coin a phrase, for his particular purposes. My concern about this would be that the members of that organisation who do take the decision to take action against that vessel or company do not know that some sort of relevant offence is involved in the industrial action. They do not know that. But how are they able to be indemnified, if I can use that word again, if we accept the Australian Democrats' amendment? I raise that as a purely hypothetical matter, and those honourable senators who have been around for a few years would realise that it may have had a basis in history. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(8.36) —May I, without indicating too much commitment to Senator Chipp's amendment, indicate how it is that I can live with that amendment notwithstanding that kind of point which can reasonably be made about people innocently, with purely industrial motives, being caught up in something which nonetheless behind the scenes has criminal activities at its core. The short answer is this: What we are talking about here is not the creation of criminal offences and the exposing to liability of people such as the executive officer to which Senator Harradine referred. If we were exposing them to any sort of liability, to any sort of charge, merely by virtue of being caught up in the process, it would be very alarming indeed. All we are doing is defining what the legitimate jurisdiction of the National Crime Authority is and ruling out by this further extension of the definition any technical point being taken by the criminals, if you like, who are caught up in the particular enterprise that the investigation is misconceived and unable to be continued because the immediate subject matter of the investigation is something which can be characterised as a genuine industrial dispute. I think it is in order to ward off that situation, which none of us would wish to see, whereby genuine criminal activity is occurring behind the facade of genuine industrial activity, creating the possibility of a court injunction or something being obtained by the people whom we want to get at to stop the Authority continuing its investigation. It is in the light of that kind of consideration that the Government would be prepared to live with this amendment although basically, as I indicated, we think it is not strictly necessary. Senator HILL(South Australia)(8.38) —I want to raise a matter relating to the Australian Democrats' amendment No. (3), which is causing me concern. Perhaps my concerns can be easily put to rest. I relate it back to the example I gave of SP bookmaking which eventually funds some more serious Commonwealth offence involving narcotics. The Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs had considerable evidence put before it that SP bookmaking is the cash flow for a lot of the serious organised crime in this country. Therefore the Committee was concerned that the National Crime Authority be able to investigate SP bookmaking, not because it necessarily sees that as such a terrible offence in itself but because of what it believes it might lead to. In the reasonably early stages of its investigation the Authority may well be unsure of what it will specifically lead to. In that case, I am addressing myself to the question of the Authority, therefore, coming across an SP bookmaking organisation and wanting to go to the inter-governmental committee to seek a reference in order that it can, say, exercise its coercive powers in the investigation. Senator Chipp —But why would it want to if it appears to be only SP bookmaking? Senator HILL —Well, that is as far as it has been able to go in its investigation using normal investigatory powers, powers exclusive of the power to compel the giving of evidence and production of documents. At that stage all the Authority has been able to find is, say, a very large SP bookmaking network, but it knows, on the same basis that the Committee knows-from evidence of so many royal commissions in the past-that SP bookmaking is used to fund much more serious organised crimes. But at that stage it is unable to identify the narcotics racket, which it may have some suspicion of. Senator Chipp —Ha, ha! That is the word, suspicion. Senator HILL —Right. In those circumstances the Authority goes to the inter- governmental committee and seeks a reference. All it can satisfy the IGC of is that it has uncovered at that stage an SP bookmaking network. Somehow or other, therefore, to get the reference, presuming that does not by itself come within the definition- Senator Gareth Evans —But it would. It is illegal gambling and, if it is on any sort of scale, it would involve a conspiracy which is punishable at common law by three years or more in gaol; you are immediately in your ball park. It is excluded only to the extent that it is Joe Bloggs running a one-man or two-man operation in the corner pub. Even then, you can get into it through the Australian Democrats' amendment No. 3 to insert a new sub-clause 1A. That situation is covered. Senator HILL —I have great doubt whether it would be covered under the proposed new sub-clause 1A. Perhaps I can come back to the common law case. It has to be shown that it is not a relevant offence in itself. A course of activity would then have to be shown involving the commission of a relevant offence as so defined, whether or not the Authority has identified the nature of that relevant offence. How can we realistically have a situation where the Authority has not identified the nature of it? Does it simply go to the IGC and say: 'We suspect that is a relevant offence although we do not know that it is'. Can we really realistically expect the IGC to act on that? Is that good law that we are proposing to pass tonight, in such a vague and ambiguous form? Senator Missen —Could I add one thing before you reply to that? Also, is it likely to be able to convince the IGC that other police forces cannot deal with that matter? Senator HILL —That is a subsequent matter with which it will have to deal. I really find the- Senator Gareth Evans —But you exclude the technical challenge with that kind of language. All you have to persuade the court about is that you have a reasonable suspicion of some kind of relevant offence. You cannot satisfy the court where this investigation is challenged, past a reference, by someone on the receiving end of the coercive power. If you cannot satisfy the court that you even have a legitimate suspicion, you deserve to go down. But what it does do is avoid the technical challenge that this inquiry cannot get started because it only involves tittley offences. Senator HILL —With respect, I think that will be an incredibly awkward thing to do, not only to convince the IGC, but subsequently a court if it gets into a dispute, that there is- Senator Gareth Evans —But the only alternative is the one you have just been defeated on, to have no constraints at all. Senator HILL —It is all a question of numbers, unfortunately, in the end but the Committee, in its wisdom, therefore decided that it was better to have an illustrated type of provision than an exhaustive one. But we are now to have an exhaustive provision and it is important that we have it in a form that will work. What I am suggesting is that this proposed new sub-clause 1A is very vague and ambiguous in its reference to a relevant offence, whether identified or not. If it is identified there are no problems, but where it is not identified I really find it difficult to see that a court will be able to attract any meaning to that provision. If that is so, we will have to fall back on the Attorney's other argument of common law conspiracy and that this new sub-clause 1A really is not necessary in any event. I think that example is just simply asking for further argument in the future. It is a bit like the argument about whether violence will include arson. What the Committee was attempting to do was to avoid these arguments for the future but the Committee has been- Senator Gareth Evans —But you throw out the baby with the bath water if you adopt that approach. You set no effective limitations at all. Senator HILL —With respect, I know we had some ridiculous examples put before dinner that might technically fall within the Committee's recommendation. Of course, we all know that the case of the children and the bicycle and the bicycle racket would not have realistically happened. But by doing it this way I am concerned, and I am sure that the Committee will be concerned because I recall its deliberations, that what in fact we will have is major disputes in the future as to whether a particular organised crime will come within the definition or not. If we get back to having to define and substantiate common law conspiracies for that to be realised it is asking for problems in the future that could have been avoided. Amendments agreed to. Amendment (Senator Gareth Evans's), as amended, agreed to. Amendment (Senator Chipp's) agreed to: (3) Page 3, clause 4, after sub-clause (1), insert the following new sub-clause : '(1A) Where the Authority suspects that an offence that is not a relevant offence as defined in sub-section (1) may be directly or indirectly connected with, or may be a part of, a course of activity involving the commission of a relevant offence as so defined, whether or not the Authority has identified the nature of that relevant offence, the first-mentioned offence shall, for so long only as the Authority so suspects, be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be a relevant offence.'. The CHAIRMAN —We now come to the questions of special and general powers. Clause 10 (Functions of Authority) and proposed new clause 10A (Performance of functions). Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(8.47) —I move: (9) Page 7, lines 28 to 42, and page 8, lines 1 to 29, clause 10, leave out the clause, insert the following clauses: Functions of Authority 10. (1) The general functions of the Authority are- (a) to collect and analyse criminal information and intelligence relating to relevant criminal activities and disseminate that information and intelligence to- (i) law enforcement agencies; and (ii) any person authorized by the Governor-General, the Governor of a State, a Minister of State of the Commonwealth or a Minister of the Crown of a State to hold an inquiry to which the information or intelligence is relevant; (b) to investigate, otherwise than pursuant to a reference made under section 11 or in accordance with section 12, matters relating to relevant criminal activities; (c) where the Authority considers it appropriate to do so for the purpose of investigating matters relating to relevant criminal activities- (i) to arrange for the establishment of Commonwealth Task Forces; (ii) to seek the establishment by a State, or the joint establishment by 2 or more States, of State Task Forces; and (iii) with the concurrence of the States concerned, to arrange for the establishment of joint Commonwealth and State Task Forces, or for co-operation between Commonwealth Task Forces and State Task Forces; and (d) to co-ordinate investigations by Commonwealth Task Forces, and, with the concurrence of the States concerned, to co-ordinate investigations by State Task Forces and by joint Commonwealth and State Task Forces, being investigations into matters relating to relevant criminal activities, but not so as to preclude the making of separate bilateral or multilateral arrangements between such Task Forces;''. (2) The special functions of the Authority are- (a) where a reference to the Authority made under section 11 is in force in respect of a matter relating to a relevant criminal activity-to investigate the matter 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; and (b) where a reference to the Authority made in accordance with section 12 by a Minister of the Crown of a State is in force in respect of a matter relating to a relevant criminal activity-subject to sub-section 12 (1), to investigate the matter in so far as the relevant offence is, or the relevant offences are or include, an offence or offences against a law of the State. Performance of functions '10A. (1) The Authority shall- (a) in performing the functions referred to in paragraph 10 (1) (b) and in sub-section 10 (2), assemble any evidence of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth or of a Territory, or of an offence against a law of a State, that it obtains in the course of its investigations, being evidence that would be admissible in the prosecution of a person for that offence, and furnish that evidence to the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth or of the State or to the relevant law enforcement agency; and (b) in performing the function referred to in paragraph 10 (1) (d), endeavour to ensure that any evidence of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth or of a Territory, or of an offence against a law of a State, that is obtained in the course of investigations of a kind referred to in that paragraph, being evidence that would be admissible in the prosecution of a person for that offence, is assembled and furnished to the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth or of the State or to the relevant law enforcement agency. '(2) The Authority shall, in performing its functions, co-operate and consult with the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence. '(3) Where, as a result of the performance of any of its functions, the Authority considers that a recommendation should be made to the Commonwealth Minister or to the appropriate Minister of the Crown of a participating State, being a recommendation- (a) for reform of the law relating to relevant offences, including- (i) evidence and procedure applicable to the trials of relevant offences; (ii) relevant offences in relation to, or involving, corporations; (iii) taxation, banking and financial frauds; (iv) reception by Australian courts of evidence obtained in foreign countries as to relevant offences; and (v) maintenance and preservation of taxation, banking and financial records; (b) for reform of administrative practices; or (c) for reform of administration of the courts in relation to trials of relevant offences,the Authority may make the recommendation to the Commonwealth Minister, or to that Minister of the Crown of that State, as the case may be. '(4) In relation to the performance by the Authority of the functions referred to in paragraph 10 (1) (b) and sub-section 10 (2), nothing in this Act (other than section 24)- (a) shall be taken to confer on a member, or on a member of the staff of the Authority (other than a member of the Australian Federal Police or a member of the Police Force of a State), power to interview a person in relation to an offence that the person is suspected of having committed; or (b) shall be taken to confer on a member of the staff of the Authority who is a member of the Australian Federal Police or of the Police Force of a State a power to interview a person that the member of the staff of the Authority does not have in his capacity as a member of the Australian Federal Police or of the Police Force of that State, as the case may be. '(5) Where the Authority has obtained particular information or intelligence in the course of performing one or more of its functions, nothing in this Act shall be taken to prevent the Authority from making use of the information or intelligence in the performance of any of its other functions.'. This amendment opens debate on the issue of special versus general powers vested in the Authority. There will be a series of consequential amendments which will flow from this and which I will move later, peppered all around the Bill, if this particular amendment is passed. The matter in issue here is simply whether one goes down the route recommended by the Committee, that is, draw a very firm and clear-cut distinction between the ordinary level of investigative activity which the Authority is entitled to engage in and, secondly, the coercive level of activity which it is entitled to engage in pursuant to a reference. The Committee, in one of its finer defences of civil libertarian standards, took the very clear view that such a distinction ought to be rigorously maintained. The Government believes such a distinction was built into the original Bill but it certainly acknowledges that the amendments proposed by the Committee both clarify and strengthen that distinction. The approach taken by the Opposition, which Senator Durack will no doubt enunciate in a moment, is completely contrary to that. What the Opposition seeks to do is to collapse the distinction between ordinary and special powers and in effect to allow the Authority to exercise its coercive powers whenever it embarks upon an investigation, without the whole panoply of checks, balances and constraints that we regard as quite central to the operation. The concept here is really that of the phased or graduated response. The idea is that, before the Authority moves to the stage of exercising coercive powers, which are really quite draconian and almost unprecedented except in the context of company offences, it ought to satisfy itself that ordinary police methods and ordinary non-coercive methods of investigation are in fact inappropriate. Just how it should so satisfy itself and what the tests should be is something we will come to later. But the whole series of both Committee recommendations and Government amendments here are premised on that basic assumption that that consistent distinction ought to be maintained. Beyond that I do not think it is either necessary or possible for me to say much more at this stage although I will reserve my right to reply to whatever Senator Durack might say. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(8.50) —In relation to proposed clause 10 I move amendment No. (4): Leave out the proposed clause 10, insert the following new clause 10: Functions of the Authority '10. The functions of the Authority are- (a) to investigate, of its own motion, relevant criminal activities 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; (b) where a reference to the Authority made under section 11 is in force in respect of a matter relating to a relevant criminal activity-to investigate the matter 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; (c) where a reference to the Authority made in accordance with section 12 by a Minister of the Crown of a State is in force in respect of a matter relating to a relevant criminal activity-subject to sub-section 12 (1), to investigate the matter in so far as the relevant offence is, or the relevant offences are or include, an offence or offences against a law of the State; (d) to collect and analyse criminal information and intelligence relating to relevant criminal activities and disseminate that information and intelligence to- (i) law enforcement agencies; and (ii) any person authorized by the Governor-General, the Governor of a State, a Minister of State of the Commonwealth or a Minister of the Crown of a State to hold an inquiry to which the information or intelligence is relevant; (e) where the Authority considers it appropriate to do so for the purpose of investigating matters relating to relevant criminal activities- (i) to arrange for the establishment of Commonwealth Task Forces; (ii) to seek the establishment by a State, or the joint establishment by 2 or more States, of State Task Forces; and (f) to co-ordinate investigations by Commonwealth Task Forces, and, with the concurrence of the States concerned, to co-ordinate investigations by State Task Forces and by joint Commonwealth and State Task Forces, being investigations into matters relating to relevant criminal activities, but not so as to preclude the making of separate bilateral or multilateral arrangements between such Task Forces.'. If the amendment is carried I will move a whole series of consequential amendments. My amendment goes much further than the amendment of the Attorney- General. As he foreshadowed, the amendment gives effect to the Senate Committee' s recommendation that a distinction be drawn between general and special powers. My amendment is quite different from his amendment. It does not draw that distinction. My amendment would enable the Authority to exercise its full powers , of its own initiative. It would not simply be confined to exercising general powers of its own initiative and having to get approval from the inter- governmental committee to exercise its special powers. The Opposition is particularly concerned about this aspect of the Government's proposal. The proposal is based on the recommendation of the Senate Committee. Originally the Government's Bill did not clarify the situation, but Senator Evans now says he believes it did. However, the Senate Committee did not believe it did. Certainly, my impression was that the Bill that we had before us was very deficient in this area. The Authority was virtually unable to carry out any effective investigations at all-it could do much less than police forces could do-unless it received a reference from the inter- governmental committee. I concede that the Senate Committee's recommendation is an improvement of the original Bill in that it specifies general powers of investigation and draws a distinction between the general powers of investigation, that is, the more ordinary traditional police methods of investigation, and the special methods of investigation which attract the powers that are invested in the Authority. However, the Opposition is not satisfied that that distinction is adequate for the purpose of the Authority. We must bear in mind that the inter- governmental committee, which is proposed in the Bill, comprises Federal and State Ministers. That body is given the power of determining, by a majority decision, whether references will be given to the Authority. That committee is comprised of politicians-as I said, Federal and State government Ministers. In accordance with this amendment the Authority's powers can be exercised only with the approval of that body. That seems to me and the Opposition very far removed from the sort of effective, independent national body to investigate thoroughly the menace of organised crime that we have all identified and agreed upon. It was a major feature of the national crimes commission legislation, which was passed by this Parliament nearly two years ago, that the commission, as it was called in that legislation, should be able to act of its own volition. It did not have a group of Ministers sitting over it and telling it whether it could investigate a particular matter. The whole genesis of the need for a crimes commission, a crime authority, this new national body-whatever one likes to call it-was the inadequacy of the traditional methods of investigation. This was pointed out to me very firmly when I was Attorney-General by joint State and Federal police task forces, which tackled some of the more serious manifestations of organised crime which involved suspicions of corruption, as they frequently do. It was shown that the ordinary police powers of investigation were quite inadequate to deal with these matters. We saw the need, or at least the value, of forms of investigation which had greater powers. That was clearly shown in Mr Costigan's inquiry. Despite all the great resources that were put into that inquiry Mr Costigan had the power to summons witnesses. He had the power to summons people to produce documents. These powers were absolutely central to the success of that inquiry. As I have said, problems were revealed by the joint task forces which did not have those powers. We set up the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking. Again, that Royal Commission was set up because of the inadequacy of police methods of investigation, in particular into aspects of the Clark syndicate. The Stewart Royal Commission was set up as a royal commission because it was the only way in which these powers under the Royal Commissions Act could be exercised. That is why these bodies were set up. When we finally formed the view that it was necessary to have an ongoing body-not just ad hoc bodies-that would really be effective in tackling organised crime in this country, the central feature of that body-the whole raison d'etre of the body-was the special powers. It was not for the sake of setting up a national body. We have a national police force. We have the Australian Federal Police. We could jazz that up in various ways and provide it with more resources. We could call it an Australian FBI. We could do all sorts of things but they would be based upon the exercise of traditional powers, powers which have been revealed over and again to be inadequate. The whole point of setting up a national body, a national crime authority-whatever one calls it-was to give it powers so that it could summons people to produce documents and require answers subject, of course-as was the case with the national crimes commission and as will be the case with the National Crime Authority-to preserving a privilege against self-incrimination. Senator Missen —So, this is one of the most vital issues in the Bill, is it not? Senator DURACK —It is not in the Bill. The Bill is totally deficient in this respect, and I am very disappointed-indeed, I am very surprised-that the Senate Committee did not seem to understand this central feature of having a new body. If there were to be no special powers, I cannot see why the Authority should be set up. The police forces should have been strengthened. The point of having this body is to use the special powers. Senator Gareth Evans —Not to have it for all-purpose fishing expeditions whenever the Authority feels like it. Senator DURACK —The only bodies that have had an impact on organised crime and come up with anything effective have been the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking, the Winneke Royal Commission into the Activities of the Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation, in Victoria, and similar bodies which have been set up in the past on an ad hoc basis. The whole point of setting up these bodies is so they can have those special powers. The Senate Committee is saying that the Authority can exercise these special powers only if it is given the authority to do so by the inter-governmental committee of Federal and State Ministers-seven Ministers who are going to have to be summoned and who will debate and no doubt horse trade. I have been on plenty of inter-governmental committees and I am only too well aware of the difficulties in getting them to make decisions. How many years has the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General been trying to make a decision on a defamation code? It has been trying for five years, and it still has not made a decision. How long does the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities take to make decisions on matters? How much detailed attention does it give to these matters? These bodies deal with the broad brush of political considerations. They consist of a group of politicians. I am not knocking them for that as they have a particular purpose to fulfil, but it is not an executive purpose. That is what this Authority is; it is an executive body, to make proper investigations and to exercise the powers that it is to be given under this legislation to make these investigations effective in obtaining evidence on which prosecutions can be brought and hopefully can succeed. We are setting up this new body to fight organised crime and corruption in this country. Heavens, from what we have known in the past and what we are confronted with, I think we need it urgently. Only today Senator Lewis said during the second reading debate that there was evidence of a new, great cocaine drug racket in this country. It is staring us in the face, and it has been for several years. Yet we are going to trammel, hogtie and hobble this Authority-not quite as much as is proposed in the Bill-in the way in which is proposed by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in giving effect to the Committee's recommendation. It is still going to be a very great limitation on the proper and effective operation of this body. That is why my amendment is designed to enable this Authority to exercise its powers and initiative. There are plenty of other limitations in the Bill. Proposals have to be made in private, people will have protection against self-incrimination and so on. There are plenty of matters which will limit the Authority in exercising those powers. It is imperative, in the view of the Opposition, that this body be able to act on its own initiative where it sees the necessity to act. It does not have to get all of these Ministers together and debate the question endlessly. By the time the Ministers have got round to it, the bird will probably have flown and the evidence will have been destroyed. What use will the whole exercise be? For those reasons I strongly support this amendment. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(9.04) —The Australian Democrats cannot agree with Senator Durack's amendment, although we have a great deal of sympathy for it. It is a question of judgment, as I said during the second reading debate. Senator Durack, for the most sincere of reasons, has made errors of judgment in this area in the past. I remind him that probably one of the most serious errors of judgment in his whole political career was to be a party to the sudden disbandonment, on Melbourne Cup Day, of the former Federal Narcotics Bureau, which in one fell swoop removed the most efficient, the most honest and the most incorruptible law enforcement agency against federal organised crime in this country. He was a party to that decision , which was made in absolute good faith at the time. But this is a thing that all of us do in our political careers; we make errors of judgment. Similarly I may be making an error of judgment at this time. I remind Senator Durack that this is directly in line with the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs-- Senator Durack —That was not the impression before. Senator CHIPP —Senator Durack interjects, and I reply to his interjection. If he looks back on his speeches on the previous issue he will see that he was relying extraordinarily heavily on the recommendations of the Committee. Senator Missen —You made a Press statement in support of it. Senator CHIPP —Senator Missen is a person whom I view with the lowest and utter contempt and I would be grateful to you, Mr Chairman, if you would request him not to try to assist me in any way in making my speeches. He has unlimited time in which to make a contribution but I do not even want the air polluted by his voice while I am on my feet trying to make a contribution in this debate. Recommendation 1 (a) of the Committee states: The Bills should be explicitly framed to clearly set out the functions, powers and abilities of the Authority at both its ordinary and special levels of operation. Recommendation 1 (b) states: The Bills should lay down a clear mechanism by which there can be a transition from the exercise of powers and functions at the ordinary level to their exercise at the special level of operations, including an ability in the Authority, of its own volition, to recommend such transition (paragraph 1.19). Recommendation 4 states: Clause 10 of the Bill should be redrafted to ensure that when the Authority is investigating relevant criminal activities, whether or not under a term of reference, it has the responsibility for ensuring the collection and assembly of admissible evidence . . . So it goes on. Recommendation 6 states: The Bill should be redrafted to enable the Authority, as an ordinary function and of its own volition to investigate matters and to collect and analyse information and intelligence relating to relevant criminal activity . . . Four of the first six recommendations refer very strongly to this point. If I remember rightly, the Committee was unanimous on those recommendations, with the exception of one member who wrote a minority dissenting report. I was in a dilemma on this matter-I still am-and on most of these matters where we have competing principles. I still have doubts that Senator Durack is not right and I am. I was impressed by the evidence we received particularly from that distinguished jurist Mr Justice Nicholson who headed an inquiry and had to go to his peers to clothe himself with coercive powers. The thrust of his evidence at the time was something like this: 'I thought it was a jolly nuisance having to stop my investigation and go to my peers to clothe myself with these coercive powers at the time'. But in retrospect he said: 'I am jolly glad that those restraints were on me'. He led us to believe that any sort of crime investigating authority has to justify itself to its peers or somebody along the line for the clothing of these extraordinary powers otherwise there is a massive danger of civil liberties being infringed. Can I just remind the Committee that all right is not on the side of one argument here. We could clothe the Authority with coercive powers from day one, which Senator Durack's amendment would do. But what if the Authority was wrong in its targeting? Let us say that it targets somebody who has been a small to relatively middle sized business person who is named cowardly in the Federal Parliament under parliamentary privilege. Let us assume the Authority says: 'Ah, that great fighter of civil liberties, Senator Missen from Victoria with a great record, has named Mr John X as being a criminal and involved in shady dealings. Ah, we must get after him'. Let us assume that from day one the Authority says: 'We will use our coercive powers to go to that person's bank and say: Right, we want his bank account and the bank record of all his dealings over the last 10 years'. That person could be ruined overnight. His overdraft would dry up. What bank would have anything to do with a person which it knows is under investigation by a national crimes authority? The word would spread through his creditors and massive damage could be done to an innocent person. I am reluctant to put this hurdle before the Authority. Senator Durack mentioned a couple of times that the Authority should be able to act of its own volition. The Authority can act of its own volition in the ordinary functions of gathering evidence. I remind the Committee that there has been written into the Bill as a result, I understand, of the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs that the Authority will be able to gain information from government departments with a facility that hitherto no other investigation authority has had. So it may be too high to be saying that the Authority is already clothed with coercive powers insofar as government departments are concerned, but it is certainly true to say that the Authority from day one is not totally inhibited in gathering information to the extent that it can get to the stage of having a prima facie case so that it can get a reference and then clothe itself in coercive powers. I concede the validity of Senator Durack's argument and amendment. I deliberated, along with other members of the Committee, for a long time after hearing the evidence. Senator Durack could not attend the meetings because he was not a member of the Committee. On balance, one has to make an honest judgment on these things. As far as I am concerned my judgment and that of my four colleagues at this point of time is against the thrust of Senator Durack's amendment. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(9.15) —I rise to speak on this, one of the most vital amendments as far as the Opposition is concerned which I would expect us to divide on. I would also expect the Opposition to continue the consistency which we have had on this matter since the previous legislation was passed by the Parliament and in which, of course, clause 7 gave the National Crimes Commission , which we were then setting up, to investigate of its own motion or on a request to the Attorney-General many matters. I believe it is absolutely essential for the reasons, among others, that Senator Durack has given, that power must exist if the National Crime Authority is to be anything but a spineless body. It is all right for Senator Chipp to say that this body will not be totally inhibited from day one. What a miserable way of expressing it. Why should it be just not inhibited from day one? Why should it not be able from day one to take actions which are necessary to defeat and suppress organised crime in this community which Senator Chipp was so keen to do in previous years. Now he is prepared to have this bodgie and inadequate body inhibited to a very great degree so that it can take on certain ordinary investigations but it cannot use the powers that have been necessary. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) may smile. He may get his way. He may have allies who are going to go along with some of these things. He may create a body which will be the shame of the Australian people for many years to come. He will live to regret that because I believe he has better ideas than that. However, I am afraid he is tied to things which he cannot avoid. Let me remind Senator Chipp who does not want to hear my voice-he is going to hear it very often perhaps before this whole business is over-that on 16 November 1983 when in fact we were sending the National Crime Authority Bill to the Committee he said in a Press release headed 'Democrats Want Better Crime Authority', and he appeared throughout the hearings of the evidence to hold to that point of view, that he certainly did not want to see a Bill with fatal flaws that would make it a toothless tiger. When he came to describe what was going with the Bill, what did he list as the first item? It was: (1) the Authority may not initiate inquiries, but may investigate only if a matter has been referred to it by the ministerial committee (cl. 10). At that time that was his number one priority-it was number one on his list of matters that ought to be dealt with. We have heard that the Committee recommended certain minor alterations. What the Opposition is recommending is that there should be the sort of power that the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federal Ship Painters and Dockers Union has now which enables it to move in, often on a fairly flimsy piece of evidence, to investigate and to call before it people such as bank managers and find out information which enable it, of course, to pursue these matters further. I have, on this matters, dissented vigorously from he majority of members on the Senate Committee. I have set out on page 118 and following pages of the minority report substantial reasons for doing so. I have also included the evidence of the most important witnesses we had before the Committee-people such as people like Mr Costigan- material supplied by Mr Justice Stewart and remarks by Mr Redlich which made it clear that this power should exist. I want to read some of those passages. In my report I said: Substantial evidence before the Committee calls for strong powers of investigation from the beginning of an investigation. Mr Justice Stewart in his Report on the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking February 1983 . . . sees the necessity of a Crimes Commission having a wide range of coercive powers and concludes-- these are his words-- (e) exercise of the commission's powers to investigate the commission should undertake investigations: of its own motion; and at the request of the Commonwealth or a State Government. It should be empowered . . . In regard to Mr Bob Bottom, who held Senator Chipp in a great deal of respect and from my conversation with him does not understand why Senator Chipp has gone back on these things today, said in evidence that the Authority must determine its own destiny, subject to the scrutiny of Parliament. He went on to point out that it needs the powers to roam as it wished rather than to act according to references. Mr Redlich, the Special Prosecutor, who of course has been right in the thick of things, had this to say: It is amazing what Government instrumentalities will do by way of co-operation and support once somebody has the power to demand information. Until that power is given, every device known to man may be employed to avoid co-operation and the handing over of information. Once an authority, a director of public prosecutions or a special prosecutor has the specific power to do so, they do co-operate, albeit reluctantly. That is the important aspect of this matter. It is no good saying that this Authority can exercise its ordinary functions and go along like any other citizen and ask for information, because it will not get that information from people. It will get it if it has the power to do so. The position will be that one has to go to this inter-governmental committee, one of the most leaky bodies that could exist in the Commonwealth. Everyone will know what it is seeking; everybody will know whom it is investigating, and there will be discussion and debate in State parliaments. There will be every opportunity for people to know and therefore there will be no element of surprise whatsoever. The people under investigation will be able to take precautions-leave the country, sell their property, destroy their books. I put this point to Mr Frank Costigan when he was giving evidence and he said: I think it would affect that seriously, particularly as the inter-governmental body encompasses a wide range of people from all over the country and there is power in the committee and in the Ministers of all States to require from the crime authority such information as it wishes. It really is an open sieve. Again , that is a power that might be legitimate. Governments do have to know what is going on. But it would be a very serious detriment to efficient intelligence gathering, I think. I put it to the Committee that here we are making a vital decision about these powers. We are either going to ignore the evidence of the most substantial witnesses who came before the Senate Committee, deny these powers to the committee and thus deny the purposes that the former Government's Bill had by setting up a body and nobbling it from the beginning, or else we are going to give it the powers it should have. I regard this amendment proposed by Senator Durack as the most important amendment to concern this Committee tonight. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.24) —The Government remains unmoved by the gales of highly strung rhetoric that are flowing from Senator Missen in this matter. We prefer the kind of argument that has been articulated simply and effectively by Senator Chipp. Let me quickly repeat the main elements of this matter and meet some of the points made by Senator Durack. Of course it is the case that the raison d'etre of this organisation is its capacity to exercise coercive powers above and beyond those that are within the competence of ordinary police forces. But it does not necessarily follow from that that it is appropriate for those coercive powers to be exercised at the whim of the Authority on the basis of perhaps very flimsy hunches or suspicions or intuitions and in a way that is not subject to some executive control or some line of accountability to government. The difficulty about establishing a crime authority with an ongoing tenure and very open-ended terms of reference or terms of reference that are as broad as those contained in the definition of 'relevant offence' which we have already debated is that it is possible for such an authority to wander at large and become in many significant ways quite unaccountable to government. That is a dangerous matter when one is talking about the exercise of fairly unprecedented coercive powers of this kind. Hitherto royal commissions have exercised these sorts of powers, in some ways even greater powers, but they have done so in the context of particular terms of reference. Indeed, one of the criticisms that has been reasonably advanced of the Costigan Royal Commission, while acknowledging the constructive work that this has done, is that a great many of its investigative activities have roamed a very long way indeed from its original terms of reference, thus arousing a concern-a very well founded concern-in a number of quarters, where it is thought that the Commission is becoming too much of entity unto itself. It is thought that the Commission has the potential to display too little accountability to any given government of the day. This is a sensitive question because one wants these authorities to have a capacity for a degree of independence and certainly to be immune from coercion or political control; but equally, the traditional principles of accountability through the executive government to Parliament are very important to maintain when the liberty of the subject is at stake, as it is with the exercise of the sorts of powers we are discussing here. The approach that the Government has adopted and which is accepted by the majority of the Committee is that by all means those coercive powers should be available, but only in the context of a shaped-up reference which has been explicitly the subject of decision and endorsement by the proposed Inter- Governmental Committee. The criticism then reduces to the argument that that Committee will be a very cumbersome vehicle to move into operation and that it cannot be expected to react swiftly to situations as they arise and perhaps cannot be expected to act at all if it wants to put the brakes on something it is embarrassed about seeing exposed or something that it wants to resist. I do not believe those objections are well founded. In particular, I do not think that Senator Durack's references to the rather lugubrious decision-making capacities of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General or the Ministerial Council is a well founded analogy. Certainly, those bodies have a long time to make constructive decisions about legislation or major policy matters of that kind. But in my experience, limited certainly to just over a year, they have moved rather swiftly when it has come to endorsing investigative activities of the kind involved here. The Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities has been very quick to respond to suggestions from the National Companies and Securities Commission that there be a major investigation of the collapse of the Trustees Executors and Agency Co. Other company fraud issues, some of them generated by material supplied by the Costigan Commission, have resulted in very quick decisions by the Ministerial Council to authorise investigations. It is really the authorisation of investigations that we are talking about here. The only difficulty that one tends to run into with inter-governmental bodies authorising anything is the concern about spending money-where it is going to come from and all the haggles one gets into with respective treasuries. What we have here, of course, is not an argument about money which has to occur each time a decision to confer a reference takes place. We have a standing body that will be well funded and well resourced by the Commonwealth. It is my belief that these inter-governmental bodies will prove themselves able to react quickly. There is provision in the legislation for telex votes and the utilisation of other electronic means of communication. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that it will be cumbersome, slow moving or will resist references where these are clearly necessary, often at relatively short notice, to enable the Authority to properly investigate something. If one accepts all that, as I think one has to, the argument then comes down to some kind of political suspicion or political cynicism about whether an inter-governmental committee will want to respond to requests from the Authority to investigate particular things. The argument there must turn on one's confidence that governments, confronted with well-founded requests to conduct investigations of that kind, simply will not- should some of them be conceivably so motivated to do so-resist that kind of request as a practical matter. I believe that is so. I believe that governments are well motivated in these matters. I do not believe in the sorts of sinister motives that have been so loosely cast around. In any event, to the extent that there might be such motives hypothetically, I believe that the political dynamics of the situation, which were referred to by Senator Crichton-Browne previously, will ensure that there is no resistance mounted to what are obviously well-based requests for references to issue. If one accepts all that and accepts the point I am making about the mechanical aspects of decision making, the argument against this clearly divided two-tier system really falls away. It is terribly important to maintain the principle of executive control, accountability of organisations to the executive, and is only by requiring a two-tier system of ordinary and special power that any pretence of such accountability can be maintained. I urge the Committee to accept the Government's amendment and reject the Opposition amendments to it. The CHAIRMAN —The question is that the amendment be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no. I think the ayes have it. Senator Missen —No. The CHAIRMAN —Are there two voices or not? Senator Missen —Mr Chairman, I draw attention to the state of the chamber. The CHAIRMAN —A quorum is not present. Ring the bells. (Quorum formed) The CHAIRMAN —The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Durack to the Attorney-General's proposed new clauses 10 and 10A be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye; against say no. I think the noes have it. Senator Missen —Divide. The CHAIRMAN —Is there more than one voice? No. Senator Missen —I indicate to the Senate that I will withdraw from this debate. It is obvious that the Opposition is not genuinely seeking to fight these important issues. I intend to take no further part in this debate. I will vote against the third reading of the Bill. Amendment to amendment negatived. Amendment (Senator Gareth Evans's) agreed to. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.33) —I seek leave to move, in a large batch, the consequential amendments which are recorded on the issue sheet. In doing so I indicate that I also seek leave to incorporate immediately after each such amendment an excerpt from the explanatory memorandum explaining what the force of each amendment is. I have circulated such a document in certain parts of the chamber. I make it available to the Chair. I have sought leave for these to be incorporated in Hansard so that any poor benighted reader trying to follow this debate can appreciate what each of these consequential amendments is about. Leave granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —I move: (3) Page 3, clause 4, after the definition of 'relevant offence', insert the following definition: ' ''special investigation'' means an investigation that the Authority is conducting in the performance of its special functions;'. Explanatory note: 3. Defines a ''special investigation'' by the Authority. Rec ( 1) (13) Page 10, clause 17, lines 21 to 25, leave out the clause, insert the following clauses: Incidental powers of Authority '17. The Authority has power to do all things necessary to be done for or in connection with, or reasonably incidental to, the performance of its general functions or of its special functions, and any specific powers conferred on the Authority by this Act shall not be taken to limit by implication the generality of this section. Authority may require information from certain Commonwealth agencies '17A. (1) A member or acting member may, by notice in writing served on the principal officer of an agency, or on a person who is a member, officer or employee of an agency, require that principal officer, or that person, as the case may be, to furnish to the Authority, by writing signed by that principal officer, or by that person, within the time and in the manner specified in the notice, information so specified, being information that- (a) was acquired by the first-mentioned agency in the ordinary course of performing its functions, or was acquired by that person in that person's capacity as such a member, officer or employee; and (b) is relevant to a prescribed investigation. '(2) A member or acting member may, by notice in writing served on the principal officer of an agency, require that principal officer- (a) to attend, at a time and place specified in the notice, before a person specified in the notice, being a member or acting member of the Authority or a member of the staff of the Authority; and (b) to produce at that time and place to the person so specified a document or thing specified in the notice, being a document or thing that relates to the performance by the agency of its functions and is relevant to a prescribed investigation. '(3) If a person who is required, by a notice served on him under this section, to furnish information, or produce a document or thing, to a person specified in the notice (in this sub-section referred to as the 'specified person') claims to the specified person that he is entitled to refuse to furnish the information or produce the document or thing, the specified person shall- (a) if he is satisfied that the claim is justified-inform the claimant that the requirement will not be insisted upon; or (b) in any other case-inform the claimant that he is not so satisfied and, if the document or thing is not produced forthwith, refer the claim to the Authority for decision under section 25A. '(4) Subject to a prescribed provision, but notwithstanding any other provision of a law of the Commonwealth that prohibits the divulging or communicating of information or the production of a document or thing, a person shall not- (a) without reasonable excuse, fail to comply with a notice served on the person under sub-section (1) or (2); or (b) in purported compliance with a notice served on the person under sub- section (1), knowingly furnish information that is false or misleading. Penalty: $1,000 or imprisonment for 6 months. '(5) In this section- ''agency'' has the same meaning as that expression has in the Freedom of Information Act 1982; ''prescribed investigation'' means an investigation that the Authority, in the performance of any of the functions referred to in paragraphs 10 (1) (b) and (c) and in sub-section 10 (2), is conducting or co-ordinating; ''prescribed provisions'' means a provision of a law of the Commonwealth that is specified in the Schedule; ''principal officer'' has the same meaning as that expression has in the Freedom of Information Act 1982. '(6) The regulations may amend the Schedule by inserting in the Schedule, or by omitting from the Schedule, a reference to a provision of a law of the Commonwealth. Explanatory note: 13. This clarifies the incidental powers of the Authority. Rec (1, 5) It also inserts new Clause 17A, a special provision giving the Authority power to require information from Commonwealth agencies, (subject to prescribed exceptions including Taxation information). This is subject to the defence of reasonable excuse, which encompasses claims of Public Interest Privilege, Privilege against Self-Incrimination and Legal Professional Privilege. Rec. (9, 10) New Clause 17B provides for the Commonwealth Minister to make arrangements with State Ministers for the Authority to receive information and intelligence as to relevant criminal activities, and for the Authority to make like arrangements with private bodies or persons. Rec (12) (14) Page 10, clause 18, lines 27 to 38, leave out sub-clause (1), insert the following sub-clause: '(1) A member of the Authority may apply to a Judge of a prescribed court for the issue of a warrant under sub-section (2) if- (a) the Authority has reasonable grounds for suspecting that, on a particular day (in this section referred to as the ''relevant day''), being the day on which, or a particular day within one month after the day on which, the application is made, there may be, upon any land or upon or in any premises, vessel, aircraft or vehicle, a thing or things of a particular kind connected with a matter relating to a relevant criminal activity, being a matter into which the Authority is conducting a special investigation (in this section referred to as ''things of the relevant kind''); and (b) the Authority believes on reasonable grounds that, if a summons were issued for the production of the thing or things, the thing or things might be concealed, lost, multilated or destroyed.'. Explanatory note: 14.-This amends Clause 18 relating to judicial search warrants so as to permit seizure of things of the relevant kind which are reasonably suspected will be upon premises at some definite day within the one-month life of the warrant provided for in the existing Bill. Rec (30a) (15) Page 11, clause 18, lines 25 to 28, leave out paragraph (a), insert the following paragraph: '(a) include a statement of the purposes for which the warrant is issued, which shall include a reference to the matter relating to a relevant criminal activity into which the Authority is conducting a special investigation and with which the things of the relevant kind are connected;'. Explanatory note: 15.-This is consequential upon other Amendments distinguishing 'special' functions, in respect of which coercive powers may apply. This amendment merely adds reference to 'special investigation' to the existing requirement that the purpose of the search warrant be stated. Rec (1) (16) Page 11, clause 18, lines 34 to 43, leave out sub-clause (6), insert the following sub-clauses: '(5A) A warrant issued under this section may be executed, in accordance with its terms, at any time during the period commencing on the relevant day and ending on the date specified in the warrant as the date upon which the warrant ceases to have effect. '(6) Where a thing is seized pursuant to a warrant issued under this section- (a) the Authority may retain the thing if, and for so long as, retention of the thing by the Authority is reasonably necessary for the purposes of a special investigation to which the thing is relevant; and (b) if the retention of the thing by the Authority is not, or ceases to be, reasonably necessary for such purposes, the Authority shall cause the thing to be delivered to- (i) if the thing may be used in evidence in proceedings of a kind referred to in sub-section (9)-the authority or person responsible for taking the proceedings; or (ii) if sub-paragraph (i) does not apply-the person who appears to the Authority to be entitled to the possession of the thing, unless the Authority has furnished the thing to the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth or of a State, or to a law enforcement agency, in accordance with paragraph 10A (1) (a). '(6A) Nothing in this section affects a right of a person to apply for, or the power of a person to issue, a warrant, being a right or power existing otherwise than by virtue of this section.'. Explanatory note: 16.-This makes it clear that a search warrant may be executed at any time during its maximum one-month life. Rec (30a) The Authority is empowered to retain things seized under warrant for a reasonable time necessary for the special investigation to which it is relevant, or may deliver it to the relevant Attorney-General or law enforcement agency under new Clause 10A (1) (a) (Amendment 9). Rec (30) Any powers as to warrants under the general law are saved. (17) Page 12, clause 18, at the end of the clause, insert the following sub- clause: '(9) Without limiting the generality of paragraph (1) (a), a reference in this section to a thing connected with a matter relating to a relevant criminal activity, being a matter into which the Authority is conducting a special investigation, includes a reference to a thing that may be used in evidence in proceedings for the taking, by or on behalf of the Crown in right of the Commonwealth, of a State or of a Territory, of civil remedies in respect of a matter connected with, or arising out of, an offence to which the relevant criminal activity relates.'. Explanatory note: 17.-Taken with Amendment 16, above, this permits the Authority to deliver things seized under judicial search warrants to the authority or person responsible for taking civil remedies on behalf of the Crown connected with or arising out of an offence relating to relevant criminal activity. Rec ( 30b) (18) Page 14, clause 21, line 12, leave out 'an investigation under this Act', insert 'a special investigation'. Explanatory note: 18.-This confines hearings to the level of 'special investigation', and is thus consequential. Rec (1) (20) Page 15, clause 21, lines 16 and 17, leave out 'an investigation under this Act', insert 'a special investigation'. Explanatory note: 20.-This is consequential as to 'special investigation'. Rec ( 1) (22) Page 15, clause 21, lines 26, insert 'special' before 'investigation'. Explanatory note: 22.-This is consequential as to 'special investigation'. Rec ( 1) (30) Page 17, clause 24, lines 17 to 20, leave out sub-clause (6), insert the following sub-clause: '(6) The powers conferred by this section are not exercisable except for the purposes of a special investigation.'. Explanatory note: 30.-This merely re-writes sub-clause 24 (6) to fit in with the present language of the Bill in relation to a 'special investigation'. Rec (1) (31) Page 17, after clause 24, insert the following new clause: Power to obtain documents '24A. (1) A member or acting member may, by notice in writing served on a person, require the person- (a) to attend, at a time and place specified in the notice, before a person specified in the notice, being a member or acting member of the authority or a member of the staff of the Authority; and (b) to produce at that time and place to the person so specified a document or thing specified in the notice, being a document or thing that is relevant to a special investigation. '(2) A notice may be issued under this section in relation to a special investigation whether or not a hearing before the Authority is being held for the purposes of the investigation. '(3) A person shall not, without reasonable excuse, refuse or fail to comply with a notice served on him under this section. Penalty: $1,000 or imprisonment for 6 months. '(4) Sub-sections 25 (3) to (8B), inclusive, apply in relation to a person who is required to produce a document or thing by a notice served on him under this section in the same manner as they apply in relation to a person who is required to produce a document or thing at a hearing before the Authority and so apply as if a reference in those sub-sections to sub-section 25 (2) were a reference to sub-section (2) of this section. '(5) If a person who is required to produce a document or thing by a notice served on him under this section claims to the person (in this sub-section referred to as the 'relevant person') to whom he is required to produce it that he is entitled to refuse to produce the document or thing, the relevant person shall- (a) if he is satisfied that the claim is justified-inform the claimant that the requirement will not be insisted upon; or (b) in any other case-inform the claimant that he is not so satisfied and, if the document or thing is not produced forthwith, refer the claim to the Authority for decision under section 25A.'. Explanatory note: 31.-This inserts a new Clause giving a member of the Authority power, in a special investigation (whether or not there is a hearing), to issue a notice requiring a person to attend before a member of the Authority or one of its staff to produce specified documents or things relevant to the investigation . This is subject to reasonable excuse, including self-incrimination, and where reasonable excuse is claimed, the officer of the authority is required to refer the claim for decision by the Authority, from which there is a review by the Federal Court under new Clause 25A (Amendment 43, below). Rec (27) (50) Page 27, clause 46, line 14, insert 'special' before 'investigation'. Explanatory note: 50.-This is consequent upon the distinction between general and special functions. Rec (1) (51) Page 27, clause 46, after sub-clause (6) insert the following sub-clause: '(6A) The Authority may include in a report furnished under sub-section (5) a recommendation that the report be laid before each House of the Parliament.'. All of the amendments are variations on the theme of clarifying the difference between ordinary and special levels of investigations and the effect of which is explained in the explanatory memorandum excerpts now incorporated in Hansard after each item. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(9.35) —To Government amendment No. (16)-by leave-I move: (9) Clause 18-After proposed new sub-clause (5A), insert the following new sub- clause: '(5B) Where, in the course of searching, in accordance with the terms of a warrant issued under this section, for things of the relevant kind, the person executing the warrant finds a thing that he believes on reasonable grounds to be evidence that would be admissible in the prosecution of a person for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, of a State or of a Territory, and he believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to seize the thing in order to prevent its concealment, loss or destruction, or its use in committing such an offence, the person may seize the thing and, if he does so, the thing shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to have been seized pursuant to the warrant.'. (10) Clause 18-After proposed sub-clause 18 (6), insert the following new sub- clause: '(6AA) The Authority may, instead of delivering a thing in accordance with sub- paragraph (6) (b) (ii), deliver the thing to the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth or of a State, or to a law enforcement agency, for the purposes of assisting in the investigation in criminal offences, where the Authority is satisfied that the thing is likely to be useful for that purpose.'. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.36) —The amendments are a little more than consequential. The Australian Democrats' amendment No. (9) is to add a new sub-clause in relation to the search and seizure making it clear that where a warrant is properly issued and the person executing the warrant comes across something which he or she reasonably regards as constituting evidence of the commission of another offence, then there is a capacity to seize that particular thing even if it is outside the scope of the original warrant. Something about which the Government has been a little concerned is extending the scope of the seizure power in this way. However, on balance we can appreciate the kind of argument that has been traditionally advanced for such a slightly extended power, and we do not oppose it. However, we do have a little more difficulty with amendment No. (10). I ask the Opposition to make sure that it fully appreciates what amendment No. (10) is all about. It is the proposed insertion of new sub-clause 6AA. I appreciate that it is broadly consistent with the recommendation of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs even though I think not expressly the subject of a particular Committee recommendation. What the proposal says is that , where something is seized pursuant to a properly executed search warrant, then that thing can not only be communicated or handed over to an appropriate law enforcement or prosecution agency for the purposes of the prosecution of a criminal offence or to an appropriate agency for the purposes of some piece of civil litigation, for example, a tax recovery; what we are now asked to approve is the handing over of such a thing to some other law enforcement agency, simply for criminal intelligence purposes or, as the amendment says: . . . for the purpose of assisting in the investigation of criminal offences, where the Authority is satisfied that the thing is likely to be useful for that purpose. Senator Chipp —That is unexceptionable, surely. Senator GARETH EVANS —Can I just put the concern that we have about it? This is fair enough if things are advanced to the point that there is a criminal charge outstanding against someone for which that particular thing constitutes evidence ; fair enough equally where it is clearly relevant evidence in the context of a civil matter like a tax recovery and that civil matter is alive and well and actually being prosecuted. But what we are talking about here is the capacity to hand over, for intelligence purposes, in a way that is unlimited as to the duration of the period of time for which it can be retained by that Authority, something which merely may be useful for criminal investigation purposes. What we are talking about here, of course, is likely to be company records, matters, perhaps, of tangible evidence-some particular piece of equipment that might be seized as potentially aiding the Authority in its investigation of something or other-which may have a real monetary value or a real business value to the organisation in question. We are talking about just the open-ended capacity to hand it over. I appreciate the reasons why this amendment has been moved. I can appreciate that the kind of people, companies and organisations that are likely to be on the receiving end of this kind of treatment are not such as to perhaps merit an awful lot of concern on our part. However, if one is applying basic civil liberty standards here, and if one does acknowledge that what is involved here is a deprivation of the use and enjoyment of property which might have a significant monetary value or some other real value to the organisation in question, I think there are grounds for concern about an open-ended power of this kind. I have endeavoured to wrestle with ways in which the power might be narrowed in some respect. But, I confess that I have been unable to come up with any such formula. I think, although appreciating the force of this, that I have to indicate that this amendment is simply not acceptable to the Government. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.37) —I want to make it clear that the Opposition will support both these amendments for the reasons that have already been given by Senator Chipp. I have nothing really to add to that. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.38) —With respect, Senator Chipp did not give any reasons in advance of these amendments and there has been no attempt made by Senator Durack to answer the particular concern I expressed about amendment No. (10). It may well be that I am wrong about this and unduly nervous. But I think I and the Senate are owed some explanation why the Opposition is embarking on this course if it is going to support the amendment. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(9.38) —Clearly, I did not spell out the reasons when I was on my feet tonight. I thought these matters were dealt with in the light of other matters that we discussed and because of the very helpful and frank discussions that have been held elsewhere on the National Crime Authority Bill between the three parties concerned. I thought it was sufficient simply to move the amendments for the reasons that were well known. In the event, Senator Evans has, much more eloquently than I, given the reasons for the amendments which I have here. If he wants me to take up the Committee's time in a boring way and simply repeat what I have written down here than I will do it. But I did not think there was any purpose in doing that. The CHAIRMAN —The question is that amendment No. (9) moved by Senator Chipp to the Attorney-General's amendment No. (16) be agreed to. Amendment agreed to. The CHAIRMAN —The question is that Senator Chipp's amendment No. (10) to the Attorney-General's amendment No. (16) be agreed to. Amendment agreed to. The CHAIRMAN —The question is that the Attorney-General's consequential amendments, including his amendment No. (16), as amended, be agreed to. Consequential amendments (Senator Gareth Evans's) as amended, agreed to. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.42) —I move: Page 8, clause 11, sub-clause (1), lines 30 and 31, leave out 'with the approval of the Inter-Governmental Committee', insert 'after consulting the Inter-Governmental Committee'. This is a second best amendment, the Committee having not agreed to my amendment to enable the Authority to embark on investigations on its own initiative. The Committee now having embarked upon a somewhat different course in accordance with the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs-those amendments have now been agreed to-the fact still remains that under clause 11, the Federal Minister can refer a matter or enable special powers to be exercised only with the approval of the Inter-Governmental Committee. The result is that the Federal Attorney-General cannot utilise the Authority in relation to the investigation of a purely Federal matter unless he obtains the approval of the inter-governmental committee. The object of my amendment is to leave out those words and simply provide for consultation with the inter-governmental committee. I regard that as a proper exercise of the co- operative arrangements with the States which have been achieved on this measure. For the inter-governmental committee to be able to veto-that is what it amounts to-the investigation of a purely Federal matter, a Federal crime, when the Federal Attorney-General desires it, I believe is an inappropriate power to be given to the inter-governmental committee. It enables that committee to make the whole exercise involving a substantial amount of investigation of Federal crimes dependent on the agreement of the inter-governmental committee. Unfortunately, now the National Crime Authority cannot exercise its special powers without the approval of that commitee. If the Federal Attorney-General cannot activate the powers of the National Crime Authority in relation to a purely Federal offence without the approval of the inter-governmental committee, we shall be setting up an extremely limited body which will have little effect. The Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs recommended that the power of veto be removed. My amendment seeks to give effect to that recommendation. We believe it would be ludicrous for a body which has been established by an Act of this Parliament-a body which will be funded by the Federal Government and responsible to that Government-not to be able to investigate a breach of a purely Federal offence when that is desired by the Federal Attorney-General. The amendment is designed to achieve that purpose. The Democrats' amendment is in much the same terms but has further features which I do not regard as necessary. However, I am pleased to see that the Democrats have indicated by their amendment support for the Standing Committee's recommendation . I hope that this vital amendment will be agreed to. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(9.45) —The Democrats are pleased to support the thrust of Senator Durack's amendment, but I find it difficult to understand exactly what it would do. As I understand the position, Opposition amendment No. (8)-I shall be indebted for an explanation from either the Attorney-General or Senator Durack on this matter-removes the need for the inter-governmental committee's approval for relevant offences, and then there is the phrase, 'are or include, an offence or offences against a law of the Commonwealth or of a Territory'. That means, as I understand it, that if Senator Durack's amendment is carried, it would include an offence against State law where it was also an offence against Commonwealth law. That is my understanding, and I should like a legal mind better than mine to confirm that that is so before we proceed. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.46) —I would be delighted to hear Senator Durack on this matter. He does not get much practice these days. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.47) —Clause 11 of the Bill provides that the Minister-that is the Minister administering this legislation, the Commonwealth 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. That is where there is a relevant offence which includes an offence against the law of the Commonwealth. The only body which can prosecute offences against the law of the Commonwealth is the Commonwealth Attorney-General. If the Minister has to get the approval of the inter-governmental committee, it means that there cannot be investigation of a Federal offence by a Federal government if the committee does not give its approval. A veto is there provided against the Federal Attorney-General being able to invoke the investigative powers of the Authority. Indeed, as I read line one of the amendment standing in the name of the Democrats in relation to clause 11, sub-clause (1), it is in exactly the same terms. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(9.50) —I am still in the dark. Does not the Opposition amendment also cover offences under State laws ? The original clause 11 of the Bill states: 11. (1) 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. There is no particular or specific exclusion there of State laws. If offences against State laws are not specifically excluded, by the fact that they have not been mentioned, are they included? Therefore, does the Opposition amendment include offences against State laws? Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.52) —I do not understand it to have that effect. References are given in two different ways. References are made by the Commonwealth under clause 11 and by the States under clause 12. Those are two separate functions. The obvious purpose of clause 11 is to enable a Federal Minister to seek the investigation of offences against laws of the Commonwealth or a Territory. That is the purpose of it. If the facts that are investigated also reveal the possibility of offences against State laws, nothing can be done about the offences. The matter cannot be prosecuted unless the State Attorney- General seeks to take advantage of that. The purpose of this legislation is to have prosecutable offences and the investigation of facts which would lead to prosecutions. This amendment seeks to enable the Federal Attorney-General to have the power to investigate facts which may lead to the prosecution of Federal offences; that is what it is all about. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.54) —The difficulty the Government has in choosing between Senator Chipp's amendment and Senator Durack' s amendment is rather like choosing between the Huns and the Visigoths. We regard both amendments as equally destructive to the concept of the National Crime Authority as it has been worked out by an elaborate process of consultation over a very long period between the Commonwealth and the States, destructive insofar as it would create a situation that in relation to one significant area of the Authority's activity, namely, its investigation of Commonwealth offences, the Authority would no longer derive its authority from the decision of the inter-governmental committee, but rather from the reference from the Commonwealth alone. Before discussing the differences between Senator Chipp's and Senator Durack's amendments I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the text of Senator Chipp's amendment so that for posterity people can see what we are arguing about. Leave granted. The amendment read as follows- (6) Page 8, clause 11, sub-clause (1), lines 30 to 34, leave out the sub-clause , insert the following sub-clauses: '(1) The Minister may, after consulting with the Inter-Governmental Committee, by notice in writing to the Authority, refer to the Authority for investigation a matter relating to a relevant criminal activity where the relevant offence is, or the relevant offences are, an offence or offences against a law or laws of the Commonwealth or of a Territory. '(1A) The Minister may, with the approval of the Inter-Governmental Committee, by notice in writing to the Authority, refer to the Authority for investigation a matter relating to a relevant criminal activity where the relevant offences include an offence or offences against a law or laws of the Commonwealth or of a Territory and an offence or offences against a law or laws of a State.'. We regard Senator Chipp's amendment as marginally preferable, or perhaps I should say marginally less obnoxious, to the extent that it is in two parts. It would require mere consultation with the inter-governmental committee rather than a decision from it where a purely Commonwealth reference was involved, namely, involving Commonwealth law and no other laws. But as I read it, the second part of Senator Chipp's amendment would, in the case of a mixed reference involving a combination of both Commonwealth and State law, require approval from the intergovernmental committee. I appreciate that the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs is not uncontroversial, but to the extent that it can be read as recommending only that pure Commonwealth references be within the capacity of the Commonwealth Government itself to confer upon the Authority and to the extent that the Committee made a distinction between those and mixed references and still required mixed references to be approved by the inter-governmental committee, Senator Chipp's amendment reflects the Standing Committee's recommendations. To that extent we would regard it as preferable to Senator Durack's amendment which simply draws no such distinction between purely Commonwealth matters and mixed Commonwealth-State matters. It requires any Commonwealth component of a reference, whether standing alone or as part of a larger bundle of matters to be investigated, to be not the subject of endorsement by the Committee, but rather to be the subject of merely a consultative approach with the inter-governmental committee. With that distinction explained, I indicate that I accept Senator Durack's reading of clause 11 and the effect on it of his amendment. I think the words 'included' there appearing is not to be taken as in any way incorporating somehow the concept of State laws into the text of clause 11. The basic point still needs to be made as to why all this is quite unacceptable to the Commonwealth. In this regard I think most of the issues have already been canvassed. We are talking about a body which will depend for its effectiveness on Federal-State co-operation. Even when a purely Commonwealth law is involved, as I think Senator Hill and others have acknowledged in debate, it will depend on State co-operation for the job to be done properly and well. That State co- operation is only likely to be forthcoming on other than a grudging basis, in a wholehearted way, if the States feel that they are genuinely part of the operational role or the governing structure of the Authority. Initially, of course, the States wanted to go much further than the Commonwealth has been prepared to concede and to establish some kind of ministerial council to run this on the model of the companies and securities legislation. That is a recipe for absolute chaos, I believe, as any of us who have had the unfortunate experience of living with that legislation would know. It is also a recipe for absolute absence of any kind of proper accountability. So the Commonwealth, giving weight and credence, as it does to accountability in this area and to effective control of the organisation, was not very keen on that. What we were keen on was giving a real rather than merely cosmetic or consultative role to the States. We have taken the view, which is not the subject of argument I now understand, that any reference in relation to a State matter should be the subject of approval by a majority decision of the inter- governmental committee. Equally, we understand and accept the States' view that where the Commonwealth proposes to give a reference to the body, the Commonwealth equally should be prepared to run the gauntlet of a majority decision of the inter-governmental committee. For all the reasons I indicated in relation to a previous amendment, I do not believe that as a practical matter the Commonwealth would ever be denied the capacity to refer something to the Authority. The dynamics of the political process would operate to make that a wildly unlikely proposition. What we are really talking about is something that I think is of symbolic significance rather than real practical significance. Nonetheless, it is something about which the States feel very strongly and on which they have indicated their co- operation is really bound up. The Government may be forced to accept the realities of a combination of the Australian Democrats and the Opposition on this matter but we will certainly divide on it and will have to consider our position after tonight's debate if we are defeated on this one. Whether that will necessarily mean the destruction of the whole Crime Authority concept, if the Senate persists with this approach, will depend on the reaction of the States to this particular decision if such a decision is made. I state that point calmly, in the way that I have calmly stated it in private discussion with members of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, with Senator Durack and Senator Chipp. Senator Crichton-Browne —Haven't you already asked them, Senator Evans? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have asked them and they have reserved their position to see what the outcome of this particular debate will be. I can assure the honourable senator that some States feel very strongly on the subject and they have made that strength of feeling very clear. Senator Crichton-Browne —Which States are they? Senator GARETH EVANS —Particularly Queensland, which has quite publicly made clear its position on this matter through Press statements by the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, Mr Harper. Certainly the view was very strongly put to me by the State representatives at the meeting immediately prior to the production of the Government response to the Senate Committee report. I can only communicate with as much vigour as I can muster the strength of feeling that exists on this. Senator Hill —How could a State reasonably object to the Commonwealth reference? Senator GARETH EVANS —Because the States themselves have to run the gauntlet of approval by their peers on a matter that may involve purely investigation of the breaches of the criminal laws of a particular State. They have accepted the principle that in those circumstances any such reference involving the vesting of coercive powers in the Authority should be, for all the reasons we discussed earlier, the subject of approval by the inter-governmental committee. Equally, we have accepted a reciprocal obligation which the States have requested of us that any reference involving purely Commonwealth law or a Commonwealth component in a proposed mixed reference will be subject to that scrutiny, that decision, by the inter-governmental committee. It is a matter of reciprocal acknowledgment by the Commonwealth of the co-operative nature of the whole venture. As I have indicated, I think it is acknowledged that the point is a symbolic one rather than one that will be of enormous practical significance but symbols rank very large in peoples' appreciation of the genuineness of a commitment to the co- operative process, and that is what is in issue here. I conclude on the note that I really do find it passing strange and delightfully ironical that the Senate, this supposed States' House, should be contemplating rolling over the Government on what is so manifestly an exercise by the Government designed to give the States a genuine voice in a co-operative Federal-State venture. If Mr Odgers is ever to produce, with the help of the clerks at the table, a sixth edition of his volume on Senate practice, he will have to think long and hard before advancing the proposition that this chamber is some kind of residual location for States' rights sentiment. I regard the matter as ironical rather than as a matter for great neurosis, since my own views on this general matter are quite well known. Having a disposition towards the proper use of central authority where that is required does not immunise me from sensitivity to genuine State concerns and it certainly does not blind me to the desirability of Federal-State co-operation in areas of endeavour and activity where the Commonwealth simply cannot go it alone. We need the States to make this work and the kind of proposition that is being here advanced by us, obliging the Commonwealth to have its proposed references submitted to the authority of the inter-governmental committee, is a demonstration of good faith on our part and it is in that spirit, a spirit which has always supposedly ranked very high in this place, that I commend the Government's position to the Committee and urge honourable senators to reject both the Huns and the Visigoths in respect of their respective proposals. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(10.05) —I feel rather humbled that two very distinguished and respected lawyers find slightly different meanings to the proposed amendment. Rather than take up the time of the Committee I just say, at the risk of oversimplification, that I will not be proceeding with my amendments and will support Senator Durack's amendment. In crystal clear terms, recommendation 15 of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, at paragraph 4.11, stated: Clause 11 of the Bill should be amended to require consultation with the Inter- Governmental Committee, rather than its approval, before the Commonwealth Minister refers to the Authority a matter relating to a relevant offence against a law of the Commonwealth or of a Territory. Whether or not this is a States' House, I still feel very strongly that I am a member of the Federal Parliament and it is absolutely outrageous, without putting too harsh a point on it at this time of night, that when a body is essentially funded and staffed by the Commonwealth, States should be given the power-whether they use it is irrelevant-to say that the inter-governmental committee has to approve of something going to the National Crime Authority when it essentially involves offences against the Commonwealth. An example is that there might be some massive taxation or social security fraud clearly limited within the province of the Commonwealth. It is outrageous to believe that a Federal Act of Parliament ought specifically give a majority of States the right to veto that. One could speak at greater length on this but that was a recommendation, I think a unanimous one, of the Committee. It is correct in logic and for that reason the Australian Democrats will support Senator Durack's amendment. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(10.07) —I am delighted to see that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) is a born-again States' righter. I hope that this is not an aberration and that he does not lose his conversion too quickly. What Senator Evans says in terms of the logic has a lot to commend it. It has a certain attraction. It is my own view, from a practical point of view, that the States will not choose to veto a Commonwealth term of reference, and if they do they will have to give very good, clear, precise, logical and articulate reasons because, to use the expression that we both used earlier in the debate, the dynamics of politics are such that the composition of the committee will be made up of Liberal, Labor and National Party governments, each watching each other with a great deal of care, watching the logic, reasons and conclusions that lead it to veto a resolution. From that practical point of view it is unlikely to happen. The truth of the matter is that the National Crime Authority will be an effective authority if it does have the co-operation and good will of the States. One of the inherent weaknesses we have suffered from so far in dealing with crime of this nature is that there has not been that good will and sense of constructive co-operation. One really has to ask oneself what might cause a State to veto a Commonwealth reference. Goodwill and co-operation from the States is important to me. As I said earlier , I think I was the only person in this chamber who voted against our Government 's Bill at the time, and I voted against it primarily because it was introduced in spite of the States and I could see it doomed to failure because it would not have had the co-operation of the States and probably would not have had access to the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence. There was a whole range of reasons. I think also there is something to be said for there being reciprocal arrangements between the States and the Commonwealth in terms of being able to veto each other's references. Of course it ought to be remembered that the Commonwealth still has its general powers of inquiry. Naturally the Australian Federal Police is able to pursue with ardour, vigour and enthusiasm crimes it believes have been committed under Commonwealth laws. It is not abrogating responsibility in those areas. Senator Gareth Evans —And it could help to create a special royal commission where it was considered necessary. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Of course. It could do a whole range of things in respect of legislation exclusive to itself. But the truth is that we all know that by and large crimes of this nature have a colour of State and Commonwealth laws mixed amongst them. That is why we need the co-operation to which I have referred. We are referring now to special investigatory responsibilities as distinct from the general ones. I do not think it would be a problem in terms of veto, nor do I see it necessarily as an abrogation of Commonwealth responsibilities. But at the same time arguments have been put forward by Senator Durack and others on our side that give a balancing point of view. I can understand why they feel the way they do, and why Senator Chipp takes the position that he does. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.11) —I cannot let the comments of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) remain unanswered on the question of the co-operative federal nature of this body. Senator Evans cannot give us an assurance here and now that the States will co-operate. We have sought that assurance from the Attorney-General since last year. He has had numerous discussions with them. When he introduced the National Crime Authority Bill last November he could not tell us whether the States would co-operate. The Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs has investigated this matter and we are still no wiser about whether the States will co-operate. The best I can understand from what Senator Evans says is that they are waiting to see what the Parliament approves, what will be the nature of this National Crime Authority to emerge from this Parliament, and then they will make up their minds whether they will co-operate. What are we asked to do? We are asked by the Attorney-General to make concessions which would amount to an abdication of authority by the Federal Attorney-General of his powers, and an abdication by this Parliament of its clear powers, in some sort of pious hope that that will be the sprat that catches the mackerel and that we will get co-operation from the States simply because of that. To my mind that is paying an absurdly high price for co- operation. Co-operation certainly is desirable but there is a limit to the price that a Federal parliament, a Federal government or a Federal Attorney-General should pay for co-operation. It seems to me to be a totally untenable proposition. Where purely Federal offences, offences against Federal laws, are involved, the person who has the responsibility for the prosecution of those offences is the Federal Attorney- General. He has an instrument created by this Parliament, a proper instrument under which those offences can be investigated. Yet this Parliament is being asked by the Attorney-General, the man responsible for the administration of law and justice at the Federal level in this country, to tie his hands with regard to the use of this very great instrument of investigation that we are creating, which will be funded by this Government, and with the approval of this Parliament. We are asked now by the Federal Attorney-General not to allow him to exercise those undoubted Federal powers. It is not as though it is a matter which is specifically part Federal and part State, where there are doubts about it or where obviously co-operation is necessary to be totally effective-such as was thought to be the case in the companies and securities area-or indeed where it is an absolute practical necessity, as is the case in so many other areas. That is not the case. Here we have a matter which is purely the responsibility of the Federal Attorney-General-the prosecution of Federal crime. No other body, no other person can prosecute that crime but the Federal Attorney-General. Yet he is asking us not to give him the powers to use this Authority because he hopes that , by doing so, the States will co-operate. He cannot tell us whether they will co-operate, even if we pay that very high price and he pays that very high price . It is an amazing proposition. It has nothing whatever to do with the Senate being a States' House. It has nothing whatever to do with notions of co- operative federalism. It is an extraordinary request, if indeed the States are making it. It seems as though some of the Attorney-General's State colleagues are holding a gun at his head. It seems that some of them are holding the gun at his head and saying: 'We want to be able to control-- Senator Chipp —I think there is a Queensland flavour in there as well. Senator DURACK —I do not think he would take much notice of it if it were only Queensland. It is his own State Labor colleagues, or some of them, who want to be able to control the proper investigation and proper prosecution of Federal crime. They are making outrageous demands on the Attorney-General and this Parliament by doing that. They should not be pandered to in any way. These are not matters of Federal-State co-operation; they are matters which are purely, wholly and solely the responsibility of the Federal Government. The Federal Attorney-General is the only person who can prosecute offences of this nature. Therefore, I reject entirely the comments that the Attorney-General has made about this being some noble example of co-operative federalism, which, as he is only too ready to admit, he does not really believe in. Why he is now putting forward this proposal on this matter, and on this matter alone, is beyond my comprehension. The States are given a major role in this whole exercise. It is overseen by the inter-governmental committee. That Committee has the right to nominate members of the Authority and they, of course, will determine what matters can be referred in relation to State laws and so on. They have a major role in this area. Why any State would want to be able to have the opportunity of convincing a majority of members of the Inter-Governmental Committee to prevent the investigation of breaches of Federal law is to my mind a very serious question. Why would States want to be able to do that? We know how intergovernmental committees operate. They get together, count heads and say: 'You support me on this and I will support you on that' and so on. The Attorney-General is quite naive in believing that the States would never do that. They may well see some advantage to themselves in being able to do it. I cannot understand why they want to do it at all. What possible concern is it of the State Attorneys-General ? What concern is it of theirs if the Federal Attorney-General wants to investigate and prosecute a purely Federal crime? It just does not make sense. Senator Hill —That is why they can't really be serious about it. Senator DURACK —They cannot be serious. The Attorney-General is serious about it . Senator Sir John Carrick —He cannot be. Senator DURACK —Well, he is putting on an act. It is an unbelievable proposition which I hope the Committee will not accept. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.21) —I do not want to prolong the agony except to say that this is not a prosecuting body. The Commonwealth will retain fully intact its prosecuting capacity both through me and more particularly now the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is acknowledged by Senator Crichton-Browne, my new found ally on these matters-I do not think that will last too long-that it is highly unlikely to be the case that the inter-governmental committee would ever refuse the Commonwealth a reference, but if it did the Commonwealth would, in a purely Commonwealth matter, retain the capacity to investigate the matter through its own police forces. To the extent that it sought coercive powers it could also, in the time honoured way, create an ad hoc royal commission by way of letters patent maybe vesting those powers in the membership of the Authority for that purpose. But these are artificial ways of securing an objective that it would be much more appropriate all round to do directly. The reality is that the Commonwealth Act will create only a skeleton body, a skeleton which will have to be fleshed out with the co- operation and assistance of State police forces. It is a network of reciprocal co-operative obligations that is hereby created. This proposal is more than anything else, as I said before, a demonstration of good faith by the Commonwealth that it, for its part, is willing to co-operate fully in this enterprise. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Durack's amendment) be left out . The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 2 —— Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Carrick, Sir John, Macklin, M. J. Chaney, F. M. Martin, K. J. Chipp, D. L. Mason, C. V. J. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Messner, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Evans, Jack Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Kilgariff, B. F. Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasColeman, R. N. McIntosh, G. D. Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Primmer, C. G. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertElstob, R. C. Reynolds, M. Evans, Gareth Richardson, G. F. Georges, G. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Harradine, B Zakharov, A. O. Hearn, J. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment agreed to. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.28) —I move: (8) Page 7, after clause 9, insert the following new clause: Authority may request approval of references '9A. (1) The Authority, if it considers it appropriate to do so, may request the Inter-Governmental Committee to give approval for a matter relating to a relevant criminal activity to be referred by a Minister or Ministers to the Authority for investigation. '(2) A request by the Authority under sub-section (1) shall be in writing and may be accompanied by such written submissions as the Authority thinks fit. '(3) Where the Authority has made a request under sub-section (1), the Authority- (a) may, with the consent of the members of the Committee present at a meeting of the Committee at which the matter is considered, make at the meeting such oral submissions to the Committee concerning the request as the Authority thinks fit; and (b) shall, if requested to do so by the Committee, or by a member of the Committee, consult with the Committee, or with that member, as the case may be, concerning the request under sub-section (1). '(4) Notwithstanding sub-section 46 (6), where the Authority proposes to include in a submission under sub-section (2) or (3) any matter the disclosure of which could prejudice a person's reputation, the Authority is not prohibited by reason only of that fact from including the matter in the submission. '(5) In this section, ''Minister'' means the Commonwealth Minister or a Minister of the Crown of a State.'. The Government's amendment is of a purely formal nature. It picks up the theme adopted by the Senate Committee. I foreshadow the acceptance of the Democrat's amendment No. (5A), which adds a further refinement to the Government's amendment. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(10.29) —I move: After proposed sub-clause 9A (1), insert the following new sub-clause: '(1A) Where the Authority has made a request under sub-section (1) in relation to a matter relating to a relevant criminal activity, the Committee may, whether or not the Minister concerned, or all the Ministers concerned, have proposed to refer the matter to the Authority for investigation, give approval for the matter to be so referred by a Minister or Ministers.'. The amendment clarifies the intent of the Government's amendment, in our view, that the Authority may make a request, even though the Minister does not propose to do so at that stage. Amendment agreed to. Amendment (Senator Gareth Evans's), as amended, agreed to. Consideration interrupted. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. The Chairman having reported accordingly- The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(10.30) —Mr President, I rise to absorb a little time in the adjournment debate to demonstrate my concern about the rally that was held in front of Parliament House today. It seemed to me to highlight the alarmist tactics that are employed throughout Australia by people to create an emotional reaction in the public in pursuit of their antagonism towards the development of the uranium industry in Australia. I expressed my concern about this at the rally today and took the trouble of checking out the background radiation of the environment surrounding Parliament House. I discovered that the grass on the lawn in front of Parliament House displayed a reaction to the scintillometer that I used of 38 counts per second. The granite monument of King George IV, I think it is, displayed a reaction on the instrument of 52 plus counts per second. The low level waste that was split on the road in front of the steps of Parliament House initially reacted to the level of 80 counts per second, but after sawdust was put on top of it the instrument recorded 54 counts per second. This indicated to me that these people were overacting, I believe in a fraudulent way, to demonstrate their point of view. Some time ago there was a demonstration in Port Adelaide because a small amount of water leaked from only one of 15 containers which held some ore from Olympic Dam at Roxby Downs in the northern part of South Australia. This demonstration occurred to prevent the export of that material to Finland to test the copper ore in that body to ensure that the appropriate blister of copper was able to be formed in the smelters in that country. The demonstrators created quite a lot of commotion about this. Subsequently, the health authorities in South Australia revealed that the equivalent of four grams of uranium had leaked from that container during the journey from Olympic Dam to Port Adelaide, and that amount of uranium was equivalent to that which we could find in one cubic metre of garden soil. This tends to highlight the lengths to which these people will go to prevent the Government from proceeding with what I regard as an industry-I give full support to the Minister who is in the chamber, the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh)-which will mean so much to the employment of Australians and to our economic future, both nationally and particularly in South Australia. I demonstrated myself to the people who were concerned about the rally at the front of Parliament House that in nature there are quite significant background levels of radiation. For example Granite Island off Victor Harbor has a radiation level which is five times the normal accepted background level. That is difficult to determine because of the cosmic rays from outer space which fluctuate considerably in a matter of hours and certainly in a matter of days. Granite Island has five times the normal background level of radiation. Moana Beach, south of Adelaide, contains small areas of monazite, which contains 15 times the background level of radiation that is normally accepted in this country. The dump at Port Pirie is fenced in and displays something of the order of twice the background radiation level of the areas outside Parliament House. What do these people expect us to do? Do they expect us to fence in all the beaches of Australia? There would be many of them that display radiation that is 15 times the background levels. I think it is incredible that our development should be frustrated by such people. I have a paper-I have given a copy of it to the Minister-that I wish to have incorporated in Hansard. It contains 3 pages. It was prepared by Mr L. H. Keher and presented to the Victorian Branch of the Professional Officers Association in July 1977. It was published in the journal of the Atomic Energy Commission in January 1978. Among other things it describes some normal background levels of radiation that we have learned to live with and expect to persist in our community. It starts off by saying: It appears to be considered by many people that radioactivity and radiation commenced with the nuclear age. They appear to be completely unaware of the radioactivity and radiation to which they are exposed every day as part of normal life. It goes on to describe X-rays-the radiation to which the medical and dental professions expose our bodies and our teeth. Senator Teague —And themselves. Senator JESSOP —And themselves, that is right. The document states: Typical X-ray doses to parts of the body are: Teeth 1 000 mrem/series; Chest 100-5 000 mrem/exposure; Gastro-intestinal tract 1 000 mrem/exposure; Fluoroscopic 10 000-20 000 mrem/minute. Senator Walsh —Why don't you just incorporate it? Senator JESSOP —I want to demonstrate this. I realise the Minister wants to retire and I do not want to hold him up any longer. But the evidence is here, that we are living with radiation. We have accepted it for a long time. We are all conscious of the need to be careful with respect to radioactive storage waste technology. I just rise to highlight the demonstration that occurred today in front of Parliament House as being irresponsible, overdramatic and unnecessarily alarming to many people throughout Australia. I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Radioactivity and Radiation It appears to be considered by many people that radioactivity and radiation commenced with the nuclear age. They appear to be completely unaware of the radioactivity and radiation to which they are exposed every day as part of normal life. We live in a radioactive world. We are exposed to radiation and radioactivity by cosmic radiation, the ground, the buildings we live in, the air we breathe and the food and water we consume. This is called ''background radiation''. Its effect on biological tissue is measured in units called the rem . This is a large unit and for convenience we generally use one-thousandth of the unit-the millerem (mrem). On an average we are exposed to 140 mrem a year from natural background radiation from the following sources: Average Range mrem/a Cosmic radiation 50 30-80 Ground and buildings 60 20-2 000 Air 5 Food and water 25 It is unwise to assume that that average applies to each individual. The background radiation dose is commonly twice and in a few places 10-20 times as much. The cosmic radiation does varies with latitude and altitude. At sea level it is about 30 mrem/a increasing to about 80 mrem at an altitude of about 1 500 m at middle latitudes and then increasing to higher levels with higher altitudes. Probably the biggest variations in background radiation occur with the radiation emanating from the ground and the buildings we live in. Very few accurate surveys have been performed throughout the world and particularly in Australia. A random survey in the Sydney area showed dose rates emanating from the ground between 16 and 91 mrem/a, whilst around Armidale in N.S.W. readings of 250 mrem/ a are common. Probably the most complete survey dose in Australia was performed in 1970 of the natural background in Perth, Western Australia. The survey revealed dose rates from the extremely low value of 1.7 mrem/a in limestone and sand plain areas to a maximum of 306 mrem/a over a laterite formation in the Kalamunda/ Gooseberry Hill area. Dose rates inside buildings were variable but, in general, the difference between inside and outside measurements was insignificant for timber/asbestos (fibro cement) houses but was significantly greater up to a factor of two, for brick, and concrete or granite houses. However, the average dose rate determined for the population of the Perth metropolitan area was 60 mrem/a taking into account distribution of population and the various types of dwellings. Very high ground background radiation readings of up to 2 000 mrem/a have been measured on thorium beach sands in Kerala, India. It would be no surprise if similar high readings existed in parts of Australia adjacent to where the beach sands are mined for their monazite (a thorium compound). In general living in a brick house exposes a person to 15 mrem/a more in background radiation than a person living in a timber house. A very complete survey performed in the Federal Republic of Germany showed that where extensive use of pumice stone for house construction was made the average background radiation to people living inside the house was 75 mrem/a. The largest value reported was 600 mrem/a where the house was constructed from slag from a phosphate fertiliser factory. More frequently doses up to 300 mrem/a were found, certainly higher than the number of cases where individuals may receive a dose of up to 1 mrem/a from the release of radioactive substances from nuclear installations. The background radiation resulting from the food and water we drink is largely due to potassium 40, a naturally occurring radio-nuclide found in all potassium. An average man contains about 140 gram of potassium mostly located in body tissue. A lesser contribution is radium, very small quantities of which are present in many foods. Because of the radioactivity in our bodies we are naturally irradiating all people we come in contact with and they are irradiating us. In fact, when a group of people holds a meeting, they receive much more radiation from each other than they would from a nuclear reactor. Or, to quote Dr Edward Teller, ''In sleeping with a woman, one gets just slightly less radioactivity than from a nuclear reactor; but to sleep with two women is very, very dangerous.'' In addition to background radiation we are exposed, on the average, to a variety of man-made sources, which include: Medical exposure 50 mrem/a Occupational exposure and consumer sources 1-3 mrem/a Jet air travel 0.7 mrem/hour The major source of medical exposure is diagnostic X-rays which average about 50 mrem/a in developed countries. However, this exposure is, of course, very variable and dependent on the X-rays which one has in a year. Typical X-ray doses to parts of the body are: Teeth 1 000 mrem/series Chest 100-5 000 mrem/ exposure Gastro-intestinal tract 1 000 mrem/ exposure Fluoroscopic 10 000-20 000 mrem/minute Occupational exposure in US averaged out over the whole population has a mean of 0.8 mrem/a with the nuclear industry contributing 0.1 mrem/a. Miscellaneous consumer sources contribute about 2 mrem/a with the major contributors being luminous dials (mostly watches) 1-5 mrem/a and from watching television 1-10 mrem/a for children with a mean of 0.4 for adults. Jet air travel has become a major radiation contributor. At the dose rate of 0. 7 mrem/a the trip from Sydney to Perth will provide a radiation dose of 3 mrem whilst for Sydney-London the additional dose is 17 mrem. The average radiation dose received by radiation workers at Lucas Heights on account of their work is about 200 mrem/a, whilst in the UK the mean for radiation workers in the period 1976/77 was 580 mrem (5 000 mrem is the annual maximum permissible dose for radiation workers-see page 20). These values should be compared with air hostesses who in Australia would receive about 670 mrem/a from their hours in the air. Pilots average about 450 mrem/a because they have lower working hours. No biological effects have been demonstrated in man, or animals, at these low dose rates. It requires doses of tens or even hundreds of rems to specific organs, delivered in short periods, before effects become statistically observable in man. On the other hand, it has not proved possible to demonstrate either experimentally or theoretically that no damage occurs at these low doses. In this situation, in establishing radiation protection standards, the cautious assumption is made that any exposure to radiation, no matter how small, carries with it some risk of injury. To give some numerical estimate of the risk as a function of dose, it is further assumed that the risk is proportional to dose down to the lowest levels of exposure. That is, if a dose of 100 000 mrem to an individual results in a chance of his contracting leukaemia, say, of two in 1 000, a dose of 10 000 mrem will carry a risk of two in 10 000 and a dose of 100 mrem, which is about the dose each of us receives from background radiation in a year, will still have associated with it a risk of two in a million for leukaemia induction. There are reasons for believing that such a linear extrapolation will not underestimate the hazards though it may well overestimate them. With numerical estimates of the risk of cancer induction and of genetic effects established in this way it is possible to set radiation standards for individuals, either at work or as members of the public, such that associated risks are comparable with other occupational or non-occupational risks. Protection standards for populations as a whole are set at a sufficiently low level such that any further reduction in risk would not be considered by society to justify the effort required to accomplish it. Radiation protection standards have been recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and these are internationally accepted. The States of Australia, though not the Northern Territory, have legislated these standards and they are also recommended in the Australian Code of Practice and Radiation Protection in the Mining and Milling of Radioactive Ores 1975. The basic annual maximum permissible doses for persons who work with radiation are: Annual maximum permissible dose Organ or tissue (mrem) Gonads, red bone-marrow, whole body 5 000 Skin, bone, thyroid 30 000 Hands and forearms, feet and ankles 75 000 Any other single organ, e.g. lungs 15 000 These dose limits correspond to risks which are comparable with those in other industrial or scientific occupations with a high standard of safety. The ICRP has recommended that, for planning purposes, dose limits for individual members of the public should be set a factor of ten below those for radiation workers. Further restrictions on exposure are recommended when whole populations, or large sections of the community, are exposed. In this case possible hereditary effects as well as risk of individual injury must be taken into account. It is important to note that the ICRP dose limits refer to radiation exposure received in excess of natural background and medical exposures. Overriding all of these dose limits the ICRP has added a final injunction. Since it has been assumed that any exposure to radiation may involve some degree of risk, ''it is recommended that any unnecessary exposure be avoided and that all doses be kept as low as is reasonably achievable, economic and social consideration being taken into account''. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(10.40) —I was also outside Parliament House for some time when this demonstration took place today. I think not only the Senate but also Australia should congratulate Senator Jessop for bringing to the attention of the media just what a fraud the situation was out there. I was absent from the chamber just a moment ago, but I think Senator Jessop has most probably detailed the readings that we took together earlier in the day of the radiation levels that were measurable with a scintillometer. The levels that we got on the lawn opposite Parliament House were 38; on the steps where there is a lot of concrete they were 47. All of the measurements are in counts per second. I think Senator Jessop mentioned the monument opposite Parliament House which is made of granite. All granite contains a considerable amount of radioactivity. The measurement for that monument was 52. I took this scintillation counter and physically put as must of it as I could in the container that had brought that material from South Australia. I got a reading of only 52. Had this demonstration taken place in Melbourne the reading from the container most probably would have still been 52, but the surrounding radioactivity would not have been as high. Honourable senators will be pleased to know that the readings in this chamber in which there is a lot of wood seem to average about 30, 34 or 35 which is much less than that for any office in this building which is constructed of concrete. I was quite surprised that the reading of the material that was brought to Canberra was only 54. But then, I thought, really I was not because some of the people who organise these protests are clever. They are not going to place themselves at risk. They knew that the level of the material that was in the container was less than they would get from sitting on granite. They wrapped it up, though, to make it look as though it was dangerous. I object to that kind of action. Senator Jessop —They even had special costumes on, too. Senator TOWNLEY —That is all part of the act. It is all a theatre. Senator Walsh —They had what on? Senator TOWNLEY —They had masks, gloves and costumes. It is all a part of a theatre and it is about time this country understood what is going on. It is a dangerous theatre that is easily understood when one thinks about why this is happening. Today we received in the mail through Parliament House a document titled ' Chemicals Can Be Hazardous and Take Care'. Yet we have to say in the Senate tonight that chemicals that were labelled dangerous in front of this House today were not dangerous. I object to having to do that. I believe material should be properly labelled. As a chemist, I have been in the habit of informing people when things are dangerous and when they are not. The material in that lead container outside was not in any way dangerous. In fact, one of the gentlemen from the Health Department in Canberra who came to measure whether it was dangerous or not said that he was at much more risk from the fumes driving here than he was from the material that those people put on the ground outside. I am a little bit disappointed with some of the television news people who tonight left the public with the impression that that material was dangerous. They always go for the sensational side and they do not always show the truth. Senator Peter Baume —What would an engineer's view be? Senator TOWNLEY —As an engineer, I can assure the honourable senator that I understand what this machine does. Senator Walsh —I do not. Senator TOWNLEY —Let me briefly explain it to the Minister. It really counts the number of gamma radiations which come through a little crystal at its front. The reading is amplified. If one wanted to, one could make a noise with this machine . However, I will not do so. We have to remember that in every tonne of soil, which is about a cubic metre, on average there is about 3 grams of uranium. There are certainly 5,000 million tonnes of uranium dissolved in the oceans of this world. Any country, if it can afford to do so, can extract uranium from the sea. It cost about, I think, $750 to get a kilogram of uranium from the sea. However, I am not quite sure what the exact figure is for a pound or a kilogram. Senator Walsh —If you want to make a bomb, it does not matter much anyhow. Senator TOWNLEY —That is right. If someone wants to make a bomb he does not do it by getting the material from a power station. He does it by specifically designing a breeding station that will produce the plutonium that he needs. I think it is time that the people of Australia were informed that nuclear stations are producing a permanent source of power. It is a reliable source of power and, after hydro-electric power, in most countries it is the preferred method. If one cannot get power from hydro the next step is to go to nuclear power, and then one goes down the line to coal, oil and other materials. The nuclear power stations that are operating are reliable. Over half the power that is produced in France-57 per cent I believe-is produced from nuclear reactors; 42 per cent in Sweden is produced from nuclear reactors; and about the same amount is produced in Finland. But we have to remember that there are not as many reactors in those countries as there are in the United States of America. In the United States there are 85 operating reactors. Those that are on line are reliable and will continue to be reliable for many years to come. There is a temporary lull because of the monetary cost of establishing nuclear power stations but this lull is only temporary. It is anticipated that in the early 1990s more stations will be designed and brought on line. As more stations are built they will be cheaper. One of the costs incurred in the building of some stations recently in the United States was what is called a learning curve. Mistakes that had been found had to be retroactively fixed. Such an exercise always costs a lot of money. I believe that when people attempt to do what they did in this city today and try to scare not only the people of Canberra but the whole community in an attempt to stop the development of Roxby Downs and to influence the Australian Labor Party Conference that is going to be held later this year, it is up to those people who have a little bit of knowledge in this matter to make that knowledge available to the people of this country. We have to remember that radioactivity is naturally occurring. I have in my hand a document titled 'The Naturally Occurring x-Ray Activity of Foods' which was printed, I think, early in 1958 but which was certainly received by 31 July 1958. Mostly people think that foods are perfectly pure, but they are not. Most foods have some form of radiation. The abstract in the article states: Most of the activity is due to members of the thorium and radium series. There is a factor of 20,000 between the most active and least active foods. The most active food so far measured is the brazil nut; breakfast cereals have the next highest x-activity. In general, values in milk products, fruits and vegetables are low. The x-activity seems to increase with the phosphorus content of foods. It goes on to say: In general, an adequate diet will not contain less than 2 x 10-12c of alpha radiation per day. I do not wish to go on for too long because I am sure that at some other stage we will be talking about the danger of concrete, the danger from timber inside buildings, particularly of freshly-cut pine inside a building which does not have good ventilation, or of going near a granite mountain. The inhabitants of Flinders Island would presumably all have to move away because it is almost totally granite, as is Wilsons Promontory. Senator Peter Baume —What about Jabiru? It would be very high. Senator TOWNLEY —I have not taken my little machine up to Jabiru so I cannot tell you what the background reading is there. But if I took it to Flinders Island, with the radiation from space at its normal level, the machine would read just about the same as it does at the statue across from Parliament House and the same as the sand or whatever the sludge was that was brought here today. With the permission of the Minister and the Senate I wish to incorporate in Hansard a small article that points out how radiation and radioactivity are measured. The PRESIDENT —You say it is a short article. Just how long is it? Senator TOWNLEY —It is two pages, pages 65 and 66 of this document. Leave granted. The document read as follows- RADIATION AND ITS MEASUREMENT Radioactivity and Radiation Some of the elements that occur in nature are unstable in that their constituent atoms change spontanteously into atoms of a different element. Because the change is accompanied by a release of energy, which radiates outwards from a particle of an unstable element, the element is said to be ' radioactive' and the process of conversion to another element is called ' radioactive decay'. Uranium and radium are examples of naturally occurring radioactive elements. In addition to the radioactive elements which are found in nature, many others can be created artificially. One large class of these is the fission products that are formed when certain forms of uranium or plutonium undergo fission in a nuclear reactor or in a nuclear explosion. There are many of these: iodine-131 and strontium-90 are two well-known examples. The numerical suffixes indicate the mass of an atom of the element in question. The distinction is necessary because an element may exist in several different forms, known as isotopes, which have identical chemical properties but differing atomic masses. Strontium, for instance, in the natural state is a mixture of four stable isotopes, but ten radioactive isotopes of strontium are found in fission products. The different radioactive isotopes of one element have different radioactive properties. There are other means of creating radioactive isotopes of stable elements. If the electrically neutral subatomic particle, the neutron, is captured by an atom of a stable element, the mass of that atom is increased by one unit and it becomes unstable. This process is called 'activation'. Large numbers of neutrons are generated in the reactions of nuclear fission, and if these encounter suitable targets, activation products are formed. Activation products will be formed in soils near the site of a nuclear explosion, if it is fired on the ground or at a moderate altitude. Radioactive elements mostly decay by the emission of either alpha particles, which are electrically charged atoms or helium, or beta particles which are light, electrically charged, subatomic particles. As well as energetic particles , radioactive atoms may also radiate energy as gamma radiation which is non- particulate and is an electromagnetic radiation similar to light and radiowaves. There are important differences between the three types of radiation. The particulate forms are easily stopped; alpha particles are the more easily stopped and cannot penetrate the skin, and beta particles, though they may penetrate the skin cannot travel much further in the tissues unless they are of very high energy. It is a characteristic of particulate radiation that it has a finite range in any absorbing material; after a certain thickness it is sharply cut off and anything beyond is completely screened. Electromagnetic radiations are progressively attenuated as they pass through matter, but there is no sharp cut-off point. The different characteristics of alpha, beta and gamma radioactivity determine the way in which they may present a risk. Alpha radiation can present a hazard only if an alpha radioactive material is taken into the body by inhalation, ingestion or through injured skin, and is then retained. Beta radiation may present an external hazard but the injury will be confined to the skin and superficial tissues; it presents a greater hazard if its source is taken into the body and retained. Gamma radiation, on the other hand, can irradiate any part of the body from the outside and may present a serious external hazard as well as an internal one. The general term 'radiation' includes, in addition to the radiations associated with radioactivity and nuclear fission, the various forms of electromagnetic radiation: radiowaves, microwaves, infra-red, visible, and ultra-violet light, and X-rays. We are concerned here only with those radiations which can produce ' ionisation', directly and indirectly, in the materials that they traverse. Ionising radiations can create electrical disturbances, in the atoms of the material traversed, which can break the chemical bonds that link the atoms of a compound into its molecule. It is this property that makes ionising radiation harmful to biological material. The injury may be expressed at an early stage as a cell death, or it may be manifested much later as a delayed effect of exposure to radiation. The ionising radiations are, for practical purposes, alpha radiation, beta radiation, gamma radiation, neutrons and X-radiation. Quantities of Radioactivity and Radiation The unit of radioactivity was originally based on the properties of radium. That unit was the 'curie' and was taken to be the activity of one gram of radium , though it was subsequently defined formally as 3.7 * 1010 s1. For use in radiation protection, the curie was a rather large unit, and sub-multiples in powers of 10 came into common use. e.g. millicurie (1/1 000), microcurie (1/1 000 000) and picocurie (1/1 000 000 of a microcurie). The curie units were in use at the time of the nuclear tests in Australia, and are still frequently encountered, but have now been replaced by a new unit, the becquerel, to comply with the requirements of the International System of Units. The becquerel is defined as 1 s1, i.e. one radioactive disintegration per second, and is very much smaller than the curie. It is usually encountered as a multiple, in powers of 10, e.g. kilobecquerel (kBq). Some equivalents are: 1 microcurie = 37 kilobecquerels (kBq) 1 millicurie (mCi) = 37 megabecquerels (MBq) 1 kilobecquerel (kBq) = 27 nanocuries (nCi) 1 megabecquerel (MBq) = 27 microcuries In this report only the becquerel system of units is used. Some perspective to the numbers can be obtained by noting that an average soil contains about 1 Bq or 30 pCi of natural radioactivity in each gram, and that the human body contains, on average, 5 kBq or 120 nCi of the natural radioactive isotope, potassium-40. At the time time of nuclear tests in Australia, exposure to radiation was measured in roentgens (r or R). The roentgen was a unit of exposure, defined in terms of the ionisation produced in air under standard conditions. It was not necessarily an exact measure of the energy deposited in an irradiated tissue, which depends on the energy of the radiation and the density of the tissue. For this reason, at about the time of the completion of the nuclear test series, a unit of absorbed dose, the rad, was introduced in order to avoid ambiguity about what was meant by the term 'radiation dose'. The rad was defined as the deposition of 100 ergs per gram of irradiated tissue. Because one rad of certain kinds of radiation, principally those involving neutrons and alpha particles, often has more biological effect than does one rad of X-rays or gamma rays, a further unit was required to allow for the difference. The unit was then rem, and it was obtained from the rad with a multiplying factor, the 'Quality Factor' , which allowed for difference in biological effectiveness of different kinds of radiation. Much current legislation is written in terms of the rem but, because it was not compatible with the International System of Units, it has now been replaced by another unit. The basic unit of absorbed dose is now the gray, defined as 1 joule per kilogram; it is 100 times larger than the rad. The unit corresponding to the rem, the unit of 'dose equivalent' is called the sievert and it is 100 time larger than the rem. The present report uses only the sievert or its sub- units, millisievert and microsievert. It may be helpful to remember that the numerical values of the roentgen, the rad and, for most radiations, the rem, will, for a given set of circumstances, be approximately equal. Further, one millirem is the equivalent of 10 microsieverts. Because the doses in question are mostly minute, the unit most used in this report is the microsievert. Appendix 3 gives some perspective on the dimensions of the reported radiation doses. Senator TOWNLEY —As a chemist, I object very strongly to people trying to use scare tactics. Things should be labelled the way they are. Those people today did a disservice by labelling any material and when they attempt similar things in the future, I intend to take as much action as I can to show them to be the frauds that they are. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.53) —I do not intend to speak for very long. Senator Townley and Senator Jessop have both said that there is a good deal of ill-informed and irrational fears about matters relevant to radioactivity and nuclear energy. I think that is patently correct. However there is one matter that Senator Jessop raised. Given the belief that there are widely held, though irrational fears, about radioactivity and nuclear energy, I would like to comment on that matter. I think it was rather careless of Western Mining Corporation Ltd or whoever was responsible for those containers that were shipped out of South Australia. Given what they must have known about the widely-held fears, they should not have allowed a leaking drum to go out. I believe that they should be more careful in the future. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.54 p.m. The following papers were presented: Archives Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 100. Conciliation and Arbitration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 101. Customs Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984 Nos 102, 103. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Remuneration Tribunal-Determinations 1984 No. 12- Remuneration and Allowances payable to holder of certain public offices-Chairman of the Panel of Review of Proposed Income Assets Test and others, dated 1 May 1984. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Ordinances 1984-No. 16-Court of Petty Sessions (Amendment) (No. 3). Regulations 1984-No. 11-(Classification of Publications Ordinance). States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments of the schedules to the subsidy schemes in relation to the State of New South Wales, dated 20 May 1984. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 145) Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 11 May 1983: (1) What is the estimate of tax revenue forgone from provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act relating to Social Security and Welfare for each financial year from 1971-72 to 1981-82 relating to: (a) exemption of certain pensions and benefits for ex-service personnel and their dependants; (b) exemption of income of charitable institutions; (c) exemption of family allowances; (d) exemption of compensation for Nazi persecution; (e) exemption of disability pensions; (f) exemption of fixed sum workers compensation awards; (g) deductibility of gifts of $2 or more to specified funds, authorities and institutions; (h) rebates for adoption expenses; (i) rebates for funeral expenses of dependants; (j) rebate for housekeeper caring for dependants; (k) rebate for sole parent; (l) rebate for dependent spouse; (m) rebate for parent and parent-in-law; (n) rebate for invalid relative; (o) concessional treatment of some subsidised employee housing; (p) concessional rate of tax for abnormal receipts by authors, artists and inventors; (q) the following items exempted from sales tax: (i) motor vehicles for use by leg disabled persons in travelling to and from gainful employment; (ii) motor vehicles for use by ex-servicemen who have lost a leg or both arms or are in receipt of a special pension; and (r) exemption from income tax of bodies including charities and sporting bodies and churches. (2) What is the estimate of tax revenue forgone from provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act for each financial year from 1971-72 to 1981-82 relating to: (a) rebate for superannuation contributions and life insurance; (b) deduction for superannuation contributions by unsupported employees or the self employed; (c) deduction for employer contribution to superannuation funds; (d) concessional treatment of investment income earned by approved superannuation funds; (e) exemption from tax of 95 per cent of lump sum benefit received upon retirement from or termination of employment; (f) exemption for life assurance companies of investment income from superannuation business provided the 30/20 rule is observed; (g) deduction for life assurance companies of one per cent of the value of future calculated liabilities; and (h) availability to life offices of a rebate in respect of intercorporate dividends. (3) What are the estimates for the above items for 1982-83. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (3) (a) Insufficient information is available to enable reliable estimates to be made of the revenue forgone from the exemption of disability pensions and benefits for ex-service personnel and their dependants for each income year from 1971-72 to 1975-76. However, the revenue forgone for each income year since 1976-77 has been estimated as follows: Income year $m 1976-77 65 1977-78 70 1978-79 75 1979-80 90 1980-81 105 1981-82 110 1982-83 150 (b) Charitable institutions that are exempt from income tax are not required to lodge income tax returns and there are no statistics available that would enable a reliable estimate to be made of the revenue forgone attributable to this exemption. (c) The revenue forgone resulting from the exemption of family allowances, that is, the tax payable if they were to be taxed in the hands of recipients and were to form part of separate net income for spouse deduction/rebate purposes for each income year from 1971-72 to 1982-83, has been estimated as follows: Income year $m 1971-72 29 1972-73 33 1973-74 36 1974-75 37 1975-76 44 1976-77 220 1977 -78 215 1978-79 200 1979-80 205 1980-81 185 1981-82 210 1982-83 290 (d) Insufficient information is available to enable reliable estimates to be made of the revenue forgone from the exemption from income tax of payments received as compensation for nazi persecution. However, the cost to revenue of the exemption provided by paragraph 23 (kca) of the Income Tax Assessment Act in respect of certain pensions derived on or after 31 March 1982 by former German and Dutch citizens who were victims of national socialist persecution was estimated at about $2m in respect of the 1982-83 income year. (e) The revenue forgone resulting from the exemption of invalid pensions for each income year from 1971-72 to 1982-83 has been estimated as follows: Income year $m 1971-72 1 1972-73 2 1973-74 2 1974-75 3 1975-76 4 1976-77 5 1977-78 6 1978-79 7 1979-80 8 1980-81 9 1981-82 10 1982-83 12 (f) Statistics are not available to enable reliable estimates to be made. (g) The available income tax statistics relate to deductions for gifts allowed to individual taxpayers and do not include amounts of donations by business for charitable purposes which can be categorised as in the nature of business outgoings and which may, therefore, be allowed as deductions under section 51 of the Income Tax Assessment Act. The extent to which such gifts may be allowed as business expenses is not known. Based on the available income tax statistics relating to deductions allowed in returns of individuals, partnerships and trusts the revenue forgone for each income year since 1974-75 has been estimated as follows: Income year $m 1974-75 20 1975-76 25 1976-77 29 1977-78 30 1978-79 31 1979-80 38 1980- 81 49 1981-82 65 1982-83 85 (h) Rebates for adoption expenses first applied in relation to the 1975-76 year of income. Before that deductions had applied. Adoption expenses are included in concessional expenditure which qualifies for rebate to the extent that it exceeds certain levels, for 1983-84 $2,000. The following estimates reflect the proportion of the total concessional expenditure rebate that is attributable pro rata to adoption expenses: Income year $m 1975-76 .1 1976-77 .2 1977-78 .2 1978-79 .1 1979-80 .1 1980-81 .1 1981- 82 .1 1982-83 .1 (i) Rebates for funeral expenses first applied in relation to the 1975-76 year of income. Before that deductions had applied. Expenses up to a maximum of $100 are included in concessional expenditure and may qualify for rebate. Calculated in the same manner as for (h) the estimated revenue forgone for each income year from 1975-76 to 1982-83 was less than $100,000. (j) The available income tax statistics relate to rebates for a housekeeper caring for dependants and for daughter-housekeepers. For income years prior to 1975-76 deductions had applied. The cost to revenue for each income year from 1975-76 to 1982-83 has been estimated as follows: Income year $m 1975-76 4 1976-77 4 1977-78 5 1978-79 7 1979-80 8 1980-81 13 1981-82 16 1982-83 18 (k) The sole parent rebate first applied in respect of the 1975-76 income year. The cost to revenue for each income year since its introduction has been estimated as follows: Income year $m 1975-76 9 1976-77 19 1977-78 28 1978-79 31 1979-80 36 1980-81 53 1981- 82 58 1982-83 73 (l) The rebate for a dependent spouse first applied in relation to the 1975-76 year of income. For income years prior to 1975-76 deductions had applied. The cost to revenue for each income year from 1975-76 to 1982-83 has been estimated as follows: Income year $m 1975-76 448 1976-77 565 1977-78 616 1978-79 653 1979-80 634 1980-81 867 1981-82 877 1982-83 968 (m) The rebate for dependent parents and parents-in-law first applied in relation to the 1975-76 year of income. Before that deductions had applied. The cost to revenue for each income year from 1975-76 has been estimated as follows: Income year $m 1975-76 25 1976-77 20 1977-78 17 1978-79 7 1979-80 4 1980-81 6 1981-82 5 1982-83 6 (n) The rebate for an invalid relative first applied in relation to the 1975-76 year of income. For income years prior to 1975-76 deductions had applied. The cost to revenue for each income year from 1975-76 to 1982-83 has been estimated as follows: Income year $m 1975-76 .4 1976-77 .2 1977-78 .2 1978-79 .2 1979-80 .2 1980-81 .4 1981- 82 .7 1982-83 .3 (o) Insufficient information is available to allow reliable estimates to be made. (p) The revenue forgone resulting from the concessional rate of tax for abnormal receipts by authors, artists and investors has been estimated at about $500,000 in respect of the 1982-83 income year. Comprehensive information for prior years is not available to enable reliable estimates to be made. (q) Insufficient information is available to enable reliable estimates to be made for each year from 1971-72 to 1977-78 of the revenue forgone as a result of the exemption from sales tax of motor vehicles for use by leg disabled persons in travelling to and from gainful employment or by ex-servicemen who have lost a leg or both arms or are in receipt of a special pension. The revenue forgone in each year from 1978-79 to 1982-83 has been estimated as follows: Income year $m 1978-79 3.5 1979-80 2.5 1980-81 3.0 1981-82 4.0 1982-83 7.0 (r) Insufficient information is available to allow reliable estimates to be made. (2) and (3) (a) Rebates for superannuation contributions and life insurance premiums first applied in relation to the 1975-76 year of income. Payments up to a maximum of $1,200 are included in concessional expenditure and may qualify for rebate. Calculated in the same manner as for (1) (h) and (i) the revenue forgone for each income year from 1975-76 to 1982-83 has been as follows: Income year $m 1975-76 59 1976-77 32 1977-78 27 1978-79 34 1979-80 38 1980-81 45 1981- 82 53 1982-83 62 (b) The deduction for personal superannuation contributions by unsupported employees and self employed persons first applied in respect of the 1980-81 income year. The cost to revenue for each income year from 1980-81 to 1982-83 has been estimated as follows: Income year $m 1980-81 30 1981-82 57 1982-83 70 (c) The estimates of revenue foregone as a result of deductions allowed for employer contributions to superannuation funds for each income year from 1971-72 to 1980-81 are based on statistics in respect of companies only. For 1981-82 and 1982-83 income years the estimates are based on available statistics for companies, partnerships and trusts and individuals. Income year $m 1971-72 110 1972-73 144 1973-74 160 1974-75 205 1975-76 256 1976-77 332 1977-78 403 1978-79 453 1979-80 503 1980-81 606 1981-82 784 1982-83 900 (d) Information to enable a reliable estimate to be made of the cost to income tax revenue in each year since 1971-72 resulting from the concessional treatment of investment income from approved superannuation funds is not available. However, the cost of exempting investment income in respect of the 1982-83 income year, assuming that the income would otherwise be taxed in the hands of the fund members, was estimated to be of the order of $1,200m. (e) The detailed data necessary for making reliable estimates of the cost to income tax revenue in each year since 1971-72, from the exemption from tax of 95 per cent of lump sum payments received upon retirement from or termination of employment are not available. However, based on available income tax statistics, estimates for the 1975-76 to 1977-78 income years have been made on the basis that the whole of the lump sum along with the taxpayers' other taxable income would otherwise have borne income tax at the general rates. For the 1978-79 to 1981-82 income years inclusive, the marginal rate was taken to be limited to 33. 5 per cent, 33.07 per cent, 32 per cent and 30.67 per cent respectively, the maximum rates applicable to other lump sum payments made on termination of employment that were fully assessable. Income year $m 1975-76 275 1976-77 350 1977-78 450 1978-79 360 1979-80 370 1980-81 450 1981-82 580 1982-83 1,020 (f) The revenue forgone as a result of the exemption for life assurance companies of investment income attributable to superannuation business in respect of each of the income years for which statistics are available has been estimated as follows: Income year $m 1975-76 66 1976-77 92 1977-78 121 1978-79 150 1979-80 204 1980-81 272 1981-82 329 1982-83 400 (g) The revenue forgone as a result of the deduction for life assurance companies of 1 per cent of 'calculated liabilities' for each income year from 1971-72 to 1982-83 has been estimated as follows: Income year $m 1971-72 51 1972-73 64 1973-74 42 1974-75 22 1975-76 24 1976-77 27 1977- 78 29 1978-79 31 1979-80 32 1980-81 35 1981-82 37 1982-83 39 The deduction for life assurance companies under section 115 was reduced from 3 per cent of 'calculated liabilities' to 2 per cent in 1973-74 and to the present level of 1 per cent in 1974-75. (h) The income tax revenue forgone by life assurance companies through the operation of the section 46 rebate in respect of intercorporate dividends for each income year from 1971-72 to 1982-83 has been estimated as follows: Income year $m 1971-72 18 1972-73 25 1973-74 15 1974-75 22 1975-76 23 1976-77 27 1977- 78 33 1978-79 42 1979-80 54 1980-81 73 1981-82 78 1982-83 80 (Question No. 185) Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 19 May 1983: (1) What amounts of revenue have been collected from sales tax for the years 1981-82, 1980-81 and 1979-80 for each of the following products: (a) new passenger motor vehicles (or all new motor vehicles if this data is not available), and (b) white goods, including washing machines, refrigerators, freezers and cookers. (2) What amount of revenue is expected to be raised from sales tax in 1982-83 from each of the above products. (3) What sales tax rates were set on the above products in 1979-80 and what rates apply now. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) Amounts of sales tax revenue derived from sales of particular commodities or groups of commodities are not recorded separately. However, based on information from sales tax returns of businesses of which the major taxable sales were identified as relating to (a) motor vehicles including commercial vehicles and (b) household appliances covered by the Third Schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act, the following estimates of sales tax payable have been made: Motor Household Year vehicles appliances $m $m 1979-80 345 14 1980-81 495 16 1981-82 610 32 1982-83 700 47 (3) The rates of tax applicable during the specified periods are: Motor White Period vehicles goods per cent per cent 1 July 1979 to 18 August 1981 15 2 1/2 19 August 1981 to 17 August 1982 17 1/2 5 From 18 August 1982 20 7 1/2 (Question No. 548) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 18 November 1983: (1) What specific items did the Prime Minister undertake to provide for Tasmania during the 1983 election campaign, whether at meetings, by letter or in policy statements; (2) Which of these undertakings have subsequently been cancelled or deferred? Senator Button —The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) During the 1983 election campaign, I gave a number of commitments relating to Tasmania. I made it clear that a Hawke Labor government believed that the Gordon-below-Franklin dam should not proceed and that we would ensure that those who were employed, or would have been employed, on the Gordon-below-Franklin scheme were provided with alternative employment, and that the Commonwealth would involve itself in ensuring that Tasmania's future power needs were met. I said in this regard that the Commonwealth would negotiate with the State Government on: the Federal assistance necessary to assist the construction of a smaller hydro electric project or projects away from the Franklin River (the King and Henty/ Anthony schemes were suggested in this context); funding, in the transition period and beyond, projects appropriate for taking up the skills of the people in the Hydro-Electric Commission (HEC) workforce who would otherwise have been employed on the Gordon-below-Franklin scheme and who could not continue to be employed on existing projects, and in respect of whom there would be a transition period before the alternative schemes could be undertaken. A number of possible projects were referred to in this regard. Other commitments given with respect to Tasmania included: in co-operation with the State Government, to establish a joint Commonwealth/ State south west management authority, similar to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, with financial support for capital and recurrent expenditure by the Authority as well as payments to the Tasmanian National Parks and Wildlife Authority to meet its responsibilities in the world heritage area; to develop a regional economic plan for Tasmania designed to reconstruct industry and regenerate employment. This would include support for the establishment of a Tasmanian development corporation as well as special assistance to the Tasmanian Government to develop access to, and accommodation at, Tasmanian tourist attractions, including assistance to the Youth Hostel Association and similar organisations, to develop low-cost accommodation for tourists; with respect to developing and improving infrastructure for Tasmanian industries, undertakings were given to: adhere to the five-year time frame and consider increasing the grant in light of inflation for the program to rehabilitate Tasmania's rail system, as well as separately funding as community service obligations all strictly non-commercial rail services required for community development purposes; support the recommendations of the Pitt-Sherry report on the development of port facilities to assist the fishing industry in Tasmania and to assist the Tasmanian Government in the implementation of the report's recommendations; institute an inquiry as to the effect of wood and paper imports on the industry in Tasmania and what may be able to be done to alleviate the present difficulties; encourage the development of high technology and high growth institutions particularly relevant to Tasmania. (2) With regard to the Gordon-below-Franklin scheme, I wrote to the Premier of Tasmania on a number of occasions between March and June 1983 proposing discussions on possible alternative employment strategies. These proposals were not taken up and work on the scheme proceeded until the High Court's decision on 1 July 1983 in favour of the Commonwealth. Since the High Court decision there have been extensive negotiations with Tasmania on the provision of alternative employment opportunities and on Commonwealth assistance for Tasmania's future electricity requirements. In the 1983-84 Budget, the Commonwealth appropriated $27m to generate alternative employment opportunities and to ensure income maintenance for Hydro Electric Commission employees and assistance to contractors involved with the construction of the Gordon-below Franklin scheme. A further $3m was provided for the upgrading of Hobart Airport. Negotiations are proceeding with the State Government on both further employment funding (including additional development of Hobart Airport) and the Commonwealth offers to provide: $200m in January 1984 dollars, over a ten year period, to enable the cost of 112 megawatts of power to be reduced to the level of the cost of power that would have been produced by the Gordon-below-Franklin scheme. Further negotiations will be held with Tasmania concerning the provision of assistance in respect of an additional 68 megawatts of capacity that would make up the difference between the expected capacity of the Gordon-below-Franklin scheme an the capacity already subsidised; $25m as an ex-gratia payment to Tasmania in order to avoid the need for any increase by the Hydro-Electric Commission in retail tariffs for electricity as a consequence of the bringing to account of past expenditure on the Gordon-below- Franklin scheme. A number of other matters referred to in the 1983 election campaign have been addressed in the course of the negotiations following cessation of the Gordon- below-Franklin project. These have included: proposals, on which negotiations are proceeding with Tasmania, on the respective roles for the Commonwealth and the State in future management arrangements for the world heritage area in South West Tasmania. An amount of $ 500,000 has been provided to the State for the provision of interim additional protection measures for the world heritage area during 1983-84; the provision of $520,000, under the package of employment projects financed by the Commonwealth, for development of port facilities at Strahan, one of the ports identified in the Pitt-Sherry Report as being of strategic importance to any large-scale fishing development; consideration of the possibility of establishing a special Federal/State commission to examine various aspects of the Commonwealth's proposed assistance, against the background of the longer term prospects for the Tasmanian economy. A number of other matters of importance to Tasmania, such as the possible expansion of the computer software manufacturing industry, other aspects of the Pitt-Sherry report, the rehabilitation of the Tasmanian railway system, the replacement of the 'Empress of Australia', and the future of the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme, are under negotiation with the State Government or are under study in various ways at the present time. In sum, it can be said that the Commonwealth is taking every action to honour its election commitments to Tasmania relating to the Gordon-below-Franklin scheme, and that other undertakings are being implemented or are under consideration. As I pointed out before the 1983 elections, the Government inherited a budgetary situation which was much more difficult that had been admitted by its predecessor. In consequence, it may not be possible to implement all our election commitments as quickly and completely as we would have wished. None of the commitments to Tasmania to which I have referred, however, has been cancelled. (Question No. 662) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry , upon notice, on 29 February 1984: (1) Does the Minister for Primary Industry consider jojoba farming is a sunrise industry in Australia. (2) Does the plant have any commercial future in Australia; if so, where, when and for what commercial purpose(s). Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The term 'sunrise industry' is generally considered to relate to industries which involve a high degree of modern technology. On this basis jojoba farming would not be said to be a sunrise industry. (2) The Bureau of Agricultural Economics, in a study published in October 1982 stated that there was a lack of accurate information about the crop; estimates of yields, prices and costs vary greatly and make it impossible to make investment decisions on jojoba growing with the confidence and certainty associated with a decision to grow an established crop. However, the BAE concluded that once established jojoba growing has a 65 per cent probability of being at least as profitable as the average of all farm industries and that there is a sufficient market and supply of suitable land to allow a moderate sized jojoba industry to develop in Australia. Markets for jojoba products are complex and not well understood. Estimates of the potential world market for jojoba oil vary considerably. While many potential uses for jojoba products have been found, the size of these markets ( or jojoba's ability to penetrate them) has not been verified. The BAE study found there are potentially three main markets for jojoba: A very small and limited market for cosmetics. A medium-sized market for high-grade waxes. It is uncertain whether jojoba wax will be able to enter this market to any great degree. A large market for use as a lubricant and for bulk use in manufacturing and pharmaceuticals. Synthetic substitutes currently occupy the market at a competitive price. Hence, if jojoba is to enter this industrial market, it must have a guaranteed commercial supply at a competitive price. If jojoba is to develop in Australia, its markets can be expected to be as a sperm whale oil substitute because this is a higher price for which jojoba is a close chemical substitute. Whilst there is now a ban on imports of all whale products into Australia there are, however, several synthetic sperm whale oil substitutes. In order to capture this market, jojoba would have to compete with these synthetic substitutes. Another possibility for jojoba to gain access to a large market in Australia lies in the market for general lubricants. However, to enter this market, jojoba growers would have to accept a lower price for the oil . The BAE analysis found that jojoba producers could not compete at this low price, but they may be able to gain a small segment of the lubricant market for more specialised oils which can command higher prices. Whilst at this stage there is inadequate data with which to make an informed judgment about the commercial future of jojoba in Australia, it has been suggested that the most successful operations and locations will be those that are able to achieve higher yields and hence lower unit costs to remain internationally competitive in a period of forecast decline in jojoba prices. (Question No. 726) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 26 March 1984: (1) Is the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware that the Australian parliamentary delegation to Indonesia in July 1983 was told by Mr Sukardi, Chairman of the Indonesian Parliament's Committee for Interparliamentary Relations that: 'The Indonesian delegation to the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) Conference in Helsinki had received the full support of the Australian delegation in its attempts to remove East Timor from the agenda'. (See report of the delegation to Indonesia, page 109.). (2) Is the Minister also aware that this Australian parliamentary delegation was told by Mr Marzuki, Vice-Chairman of the Indonesian Parliament's Committee 1 on Foreign Affairs, Information and Defence, that: 'the Australian delegation had produced the best performance which had resulted in East Timor being deleted from the agenda (of the IPU Conference in Helsinki)'. (3) Was the Australian delegation to the 1983 IPU conference in Helsinki in favour of the deletion of the topic of East Timor from the agenda of this conference. (4) Was the delegation or were individual members of the delegation given any instructions on how to respond to the issue of East Timor, and specifically, were any instructions given to support or initiate moves, formally or informally , to have the issue removed from the IPU agenda: If so, what were those instructions and by whom were they given; if not, will the Minister take steps to determine what actions were taken by members of the delegation to remove the issue of East Timor from the IPU agenda and report back to Parliament on this. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The comments by Mr Sukardi and Mr Marzuki are contained on pages 109 and 110 of the official report of the Australian parliamentary delegation. (3) The question of East Timor was raised in the Committee on non-self- governing territories and ethnic questions; however, there was a ruling from the chair that as this matter was currently under discussion in the United Nations, it was not necessary, at this stage, to vote on the matter. The chairman's decision was accepted by the Committee and no vote was held. (4) Delegates to IPU conferences act as representatives of the Australian Parliament rather than of the Government. While the Department of Foreign Affairs assisted the delegation-as it has assisted previous delegations-with background briefing on the Government's policies and with travel and other arrangements, no directions were given to the delegates on how they might vote on the East Timor issue. Such interference would be inappropriate and would, I am sure, be resented by delegates. (Question No. 778) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 30 March 1984: (1) Will the Federal Government index the fuel levy, which is currently 2 cents per litre and which is channelled into the Australian bicentennial road development program (ABRDP); if so, will the extra revenue earned through the indexation not be directed into the ABRDP; if not, will it be paid into consolidated revenue. (2) Will the Government guarantee that all revenue raised by the fuel excise be used to fund road programs. (3) Is the report published in the Adelaide News on 22 February 1984 which states that motorists will be cheated of up to $600m this decade by the decision , correct. (4) What revenue does the Government expect to raise through the indexation of the levy. (5) Will the Government reconsider its decision not to direct the extra revenue into the ABRDP. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) In accordance with the Excise Tariff Amendment Act (No. 2) 1983, the full excise rates on each of the traditional excise items have been subject to indexation adjustments. The total revenue generated from the excises (including the ABRD levy) on motor spirit and distillate is, in the first instance, paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The ABRD Trust Fund Act (1982) then operates to allocate from the Consolidated Revenue Fund an amount equivalent to 2 cents- rather than an indexed amount-for each litre of motor spirit and distillate subject to excise. (2) No. With the exception of the 2 cents per litre ABRD levy component, all revenue raised through the excises on motor spirit and distillate is directed to expenditure programs according to priorities established in the budgetary context. In that context, I note that the Government attached a high priority to road development and maintenance in the 1983-84 Budget. The total estimated road funding under the Road Grants Act 1981, the ABRD program and under the new jobs on local roads initiative provided for a Budget time represented an increase of 45 per cent over outlays in 1982-83. (3) The Government does not consider that anyone is being cheated by this measure. (4) Any estimate is critically dependent on the assumed growth path of motor spirit and distillate excise clearances as well as assumed future rates of inflation. Both these assumptions would in turn be bound up with assumptions about more general trends in economic activity. In these circumstances, it would be misleading for the Government to venture a view on likely revenue yields from this adjustment. (5) As with a wide range of expenditure and receipts proposals, the nature and level of funding for the ABRD program will be considered in 1984-85 Budget context. (Question No. 783) Senator Crowley asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 30 March 1984: (1) Please advise the number of men and the number of women in the following categories of Australia Day honours awards: (a) Companions of the Order of Australia; (b) Members of the Order of Australia; (c) Medals of the Order of Australia; (d) Officers of the Order of Australia; by State, for each year since inception of the awards. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The total number of awards presented both in the general and the military divisions of the Order of Australia since the Order was instituted in 1975 is 3, 397. In the general division, 2,177 awards were made to men and 646 to women. In the military division, 560 were to men and 14 to women. (2) The following tables provide relevant details. (a) COMPANIONS OF THE ORDER OF AUSTRALIA NSW Vic. Qld SA WA Tas. ACT NT Other* Military 1975 Male 3 1 . . . . . . 1 1 . . . . 2 Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1976 Male 3 1 . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1977 Male 1 . . . . 1 1 . . 2 . . . . . . Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1978 Male . . 1 . . 1 . . . . 4 1 . . . . Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1979 Male 3 . . . . 3 . . . . 2 . . . . . . Female 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1980 Male 3 . . . . . . . . . . 2 1Hon. . . . . Female 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1981 Male 1 3 . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1982 Male 1 1 . . . . . . 1 1 2Hon. . . . . Female . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . 1Hon. . . . . 1983 Male 3 . . 1 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1984 Male 1 1 . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Totals 20 10 1 7 1 2 14 5 . . 2 Male 19 9 1 7 1 2 14 4 . . 2 Female 1 1 . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . Grand Total 62 (b) MEMBERS OF THE ORDER OF AUSTRALIA 1975 Male 18 7 3 3 1 7 . . . . . . 30 Female 2 5 1 3 1 2 . . . . . . 6 1976 Male 19 18 6 9 7 8 . . 1 2 51 Female 5 5 4 4 2 6 3 . . . . . . 1977 Male 12 13 1 7 5 3 2 . . 1 25 Female 1 . . . . 3 1 2 1 . . . . . . 1978 Male 16 7 2 22 8 7 3 4 2 24 Female 3 2 . . 3 3 1 1 . . . . 1 1979 Male 18 18 7 12 9 8 6 1 1 25 Female 8 3 . . 3 . . 1 . . 2 1 . . 1980 Male 36 14 3 20 13 5 7 1 1 25 Female 13 2 1 1 . . 3 . . 1 . . . . 1981 Male 42 25 4 17 8 5 2 1 2 24 Female 9 . . . . 3 2 1 2 . . . . 1 1982 Male 31 29 10 11 14 3 7 2 1 25 Female 6 1 . . 2 1 1 . . . . . . . . 1983 Male 32 23 15 12 5 2 5 1 1 36 Female . . 3 1 2 . . 1 3 . . 1 . . 1984 Male 21 9 7 8 7 3 2 1 . . 19 Female 7 5 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Totals 299 189 67 145 87 69 44 15 13 292 Male 245 163 58 121 77 51 34 12 11 284 Female 54 26 9 24 10 18 10 3 2 8 Grand Total 1,220 (c) MEDALS OF THE ORDER OF AUSTRALIA 1975 Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1976 Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1977 Male 8 8 3 16 10 2 3 . . 22 Female 9 6 1 6 1 6 2 . . . . 1978 Male 19 8 5 19 9 8 4 2 1 20 Female 11 6 5 2 7 1 1 . . 2 1979 Male 34 16 3 17 13 12 4 9 . . 22 Female 16 8 3 11 13 3 3 . . 1980 Male 81 27 9 28 15 15 6 4 . . 22 Female 40 8 3 20 4 5 5 2 . . 1981 Male 85 22 18 39 18 10 2 3 2 22 Female 41 8 6 13 1 7 2 2 2 . . 1982 Male 92 43 19 32 20 5 2 6 . . 22 Female 41 12 7 9 7 3 5 2 . . . . 1983 Male 54 29 16 27 9 8 2 3 1 34 Female 23 17 6 9 2 3 1 . . 4 1984 Male 24 20 12 11 9 2 2 1 1 Hon 30 Female 13 7 7 4 2 1 2 1 . . . . Totals 591 245 118 266 112 115 44 43 7 200 Male 397 173 85 189 93 70 24 31 5 194 Female 194 72 33 77 19 45 20 12 2 5 Grand Total 1,741 (d) OFFICERS OF THE ORDER OF AUSTRALIA 1975 Male 2 4 . . 1 1 . . . . . . . . 5 Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1976 Male 5 11 2 5 1 3 2 . . 1 15 Female 1 1 1 1977 Male 3 2 1 3 1 1 1 . . . . 10 Female 1 . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . 1978 Male 12 6 1 5 3 2 1 1 10 Female 1979 Male 10 4 . . 5 4 3 4 1 . . 10 Female 1980 Male 9 2 1 6 2 1 5 . . 2 Hon 10 Female 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Hon . . 1981 Male 9 5 4 7 1 2 2 1 1 5 Female . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1982 Male 15 9 2 7 2 2 3 1 5 Female 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . 1983 Male 11 5 4 7 2 3 3 3 5 Female 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1984 Male 8 6 4 5 1 1 4 1 5 Female 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Totals 92 55 19 47 20 20 26 3 12 80 Male 84 54 19 46 20 19 26 3 10 80 Female 8 1 . . 1 . . 1 . . . . 2 . . Grand Total 374 * Other-awards to Australian citizens resident abroad and honorary awards to non-Australian citizens. * Australia Day Awards 1984. (Question No. 824) Senator Primmer asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice , on 1 May 1984: (1) Has the Ombudsman, Professor Richardson, refused to investigate a complaint by a former Treasury officer, Mr D. Eastman, that he was assaulted by a Treasury security officer, Mr L. Ruxton, on 29 June 1983 while collecting documents from his personal file to which he had obtained lawful access under the Freedom of Information Act. (2) Did the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, Mr Ralph Willis, in 1983, following information provided by Mr Eastman, write to the Ombudsman suggesting that in future the Ombudsman might declare any cases in which he found himself investigating the actions of a former staff member of the Ombudsman's office. (3) Has the Ombudsman failed to make such a declaration when investigating a complaint against the former Department of the Capital Territory. (4) What other avenue is available to Mr Eastman to have his complaint properly investigated, given that the Ombudsman has refused to investigate Mr Eastman's serious allegations against a Treasury officer. Senator Button —The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1), (2) and (3) I have been advised by the Commonwealth Ombudsman, Professor Richardson, that following preliminary inquiries he has declined to investigate a complaint made by Mr Eastman against an officer of the Department of the Treasury concerning an incident which occurred on 29 June 1983. The office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman was established, through legislation passed by both Houses of the Parliament, as an independent authority to investigate the actions of the Commonwealth administration. The Ombudsman's ability to carry out effectively his statutory functions depends on his independence being maintained and respected both by the Government and other members of the Parliament. Any attempt to direct or control the Ombudsman's investigations constitutes a serious threat to those purposes for which the Ombudsman was established. (4) Mr Eastman has at his disposal those legal avenues available to all citizens for the investigation of allegations of assault. (Question No. 829) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 1 May 1984: What are the names, dates of appointment, terms of appointment and salaries of all persons appointed to the boards and commissions of statutory authorities under the jurisdiction of the Minister? Senator Button —The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Date of Statutory Office Position Name Appointment Term Salary ($) Public Service Board Chairman Dr P. Wilenski 2.11.83 5 years 77,089 p.a. Commissioner R. J. Young 2.10.82 3 years 66,775 p.a. Commissioner J. Monaghan 1.7.81 5 years 66,775 p.a. Office of National Assessments Director-General M. J. Cook 4.7.81 7 years 66,775 p.a. Commonwealth Ombudsman Ombudsman Prof. J. E. Richardson 1.7.77 7 years 70,846 p.a. Deputy Ombudsman J. C. Jordan 1.1.84 2 years 56,840 p.a. Deputy Ombudsman A. G. Kerr 17.9.80 4 years 56,840 p.a. Deputy Ombudsman C. T. Hunt 14.4.83 4 years 56,840 p.a. Auditor-General Auditor-General K. F. Brigden 16.2.81 until 65 years 70,846 p.a. Australian Science and Technology Council Chairman Deputy Chairman Prof. R. O. Slatyer A.O. Prof. J. H. Carver 18.12.82 27.8.81 5 years 5 years 309 per diem 14,712 p.a. Member Prof. D. H. Green 27.2.82 3 years 9,826 p.a. Member Prof. R. I. Tanner 28.2.82 3 years 9,826 p.a. Member Sir Samuel Burston, O.B.E. 28.2.82 (Reappoint- ment) 3 years 9,826 p.a. Member J. N. Davenport 9.6.83 2 years, 9 mths 9,826 p.a. Member K. H. McLeod 9.6.83 (Reappoint- ment) 2 years, 9 mths 9,826 p.a. Member Prof. J. W. Nevile 9.6.83 2 years, 9 mths 9,826 p.a. Member Prof. G. A. Rigby 9.6.83 2 years, 9 mths 9,826 p.a. Member L. S. Zampatti 9.6.83 2 years, 9 mths 9,826 p.a. Member P. M. Trainor 9.6.83 2 years, 9 mths 9,826 p.a. Member Prof. P. S. Kincaid-Smith 4.4.84 2 years, 11 mths 9,826 p.a. Member Dr P. D. Jones 4.4.84 2 years, 11 mths 9,826 p.a. Member Dr D. W. Watts 4.4.84 2 years, 11 mths 9,826 p.a. Economic Planning Advisory Council Chairman Hon. R. J. L. Hawke, A.C., M.P. Ex. Officio . . Deputy Chairman Hon. P. J. Keating, M.P. Ex. Officio . . Member Hon. R. Willis, M.P. Ex. Officio . . Member Hon. R. T. Gray, M.H.A. 25.7.83 2 years . . Member Hon. N. K. Wran, Q.C., M.P. 13.7.83 2 years . . Member Hon. J. C. Bannon, M.P. 13.7.83 2 years . . Member L. F. Cutts 13.7.83 4 years . . Member A. W. Coates, A.O. 13.7.83 4 years . . Member B. N. Kelman, C.B.E. 13.7.83 4 years . . Member D. J. Hughes 13.7.83 4 years . . Member F. M. Davidson, O.B.E. 13.7.83 4 years . . Member C. O. Dolan, A.O. 13.7.83 4 years . . Member W. J. Kelty 13.7.83 4 years . . Member J. I. Marsh 13.7.83 4 years . . Member C. K. Menzies 13.7.83 4 years . . Member Dr J. B. Braithwaite 13.7.83 4 years . . Member D. M. Gibbons 8.12.83 3 years, 6 mths . . Member S. F. Crean 14.3.84 3 years, 3 mths . . Advisory Council for Inter-Government Relations Chairman Prof. R. C. Gates, A.O. 9.7.82 (Reappoint- ment) 3 years . . Member T. P. Purcell 22.6.83 3 years . . Member P. M. Myer 22.6.83 3 years . . Member D. W. Simmons 22.6.83 3 years . . Member J. Oakley 22.6.83 3 years . . Member (Commonwealth Government) Hon. T. Uren, M.P. 3.6.83 Life of Comm. Parl. . . Member (Commonwealth Government) R. J. Brown, M.P. 3.6.83 Life of Comm. Parl. . . Member (Commonwealth Government) J. McHugh, M.P. 3.6.83 Life of Comm. Parl. . . Member (Opposition) R. A. Braithwaite, M.P. 3.6.83 Life of Comm. Parl. . . Member (Opposition) A. G. Cadman, M.P. 29.9.83 Life of Comm. Parl. . . Member (New South Wales Government) Hon. T. W. Sheahan, M.L.A. 8.3.84 Life of N.S.W. Parl. . . Member (Victoria Government) Hon. C. R. T. Mathews, M.L.A. 9.7.82 Life of Vic. Parl. . . Member (Queensland Government) Hon. N. J. Harper, M.L.A. 1.3.84 Life of Qld Parl. . . Member (South Australia Government) Hon. G. J. Crafter, M.H.A. 3.6.83 Life of S.A. Parl. . . Member (Western Australia Government) Hon. J. M. Berinson, M.L.C. 3.6.83 Life of W.A. Parl. . . Member (Tasmania Government) Hon. E. M. Bingham, Q.C., H.M.A. 9.7.82 Life of Tas. Parl. . . Member (Northern Territory Government) Hon. P. A. E. Everingham, M.L.A. 8.3.84 Life of N.T. Parl. . . Member (Local Government-New South Wales) Councillor R. W. V. Irvin 29.10.81 3 years . . Member (Local Government-Victoria) Councillor J. A. L. W. Greenwood 3.6.83 3 years . . Member (Local Government-Queensland) Alderman J. R. Webber 3.6.83 3 years . . Member (Local Government-South Australia) Councillor M. Crome 3.6.83 3 years . . Member (Local Government-Western Australia) Councillor G. L. Kilpatrick 15.4.81 3 years . . Member (Local Government-Tasmania) Warden H. N. MacLeod 29.10.81 3 years . . Member (Local Government-Northern Territory) Alderman C. A. Black 18.7.83 3 years . . (Question No. 848) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 2 May 1984: What are the names, dates of appointment, terms of appointment and salaries of all persons appointed to the boards and commissions of statutory authorities under the jurisdiction of the Minister. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Administrative Services advises that there are no statutory authorities within his portfolio. There is, however, a fully Commonwealth-owned company, Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services ( Ltd) (CACS). The details of the Chairman and directors of the Company are set out hereunder: Date of Term of Appointment Appointment Annual Fee Chairman: J. J. Maunsell 1.7.83 3 years $14,133 Directors: J. M. Wark O.B.E. 1.7.83 2 years $5,684 R. G. Cook 1.7.83 3 years $5,684 P. B. Gibson 1.7.83 3 years $5,684 T. Crothers 1.7.83 3 years $5,684 Mrs K. A. Bourke 1.7.83 3 years $5,684 Ms M. Horder, MHA 1.11.83 3 years $5,684 (Question No. 854) Senator Chipp asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 2 May 1984: What are the names, dates of appointment, terms of appointment and salaries of all persons appointed to the boards and commissions of statutory authorities under the jurisdiction of the Minister. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Term of Designation Name Salary Appointment Repatriation CommissionChairman Derek Volker Nil remuneration Paid as Sec. Dept. of Vet. Affairs: $70,846 per annum, plus allowance $4,025 per annum 23 July 1983 to 22 July 1986 Deputy Chairman Jocelyn Ann McGirr $61,129 per annum, plus allowance $2,025 per annum 30 April 1984 to 29 April 1987 Member Alan Lindsay Morrison A.O., D.S.O., M.B.E. $56,840 per annum, plus allowance $1,450 per annum 25 May 1983 to 24 May 1986 Office of Australian War GravesDirector Peter Raymond Young $38,143 per annum 9 April 1984 to 8 April 1987. REPATRIATION BOARDS(Nos 5, 6 and 15 located in Melbourne) No. 5Chairman Keith Ernest Williams $35,255 per annum 1 Year to 6 October 1984 Services member .%. Denis Albert Smith $32,671 per annum 1 Year to 6 October 1984 Member .%. Ernest Francis de Vlieger $32,671 per annum 1 Year to 6 October 1984 No. 6 Chairman .%. Kevin Stanley Jones $35,255 per annum 1 Year to 6 October 1984 Services member .%. Lawrence Sydney Black $32,671 per annum 1 Year to 6 October 1984 Member .%. Peter Robert Parry $32,671 per annum 1 Year to 6 October 1984 No. 15 Chairman .%. Vacant Services member .%. George Andrew Derham $32,671 per annum 1 Year to 6 October 1984 Member .%. Vernon Richard Russell $32,671 per annum 1 Year to 6 October 1984 REPATRIATION BOARD No. 7-LOCATED IN BRISBANE No. 7 Chairman .%. Vacant Services member .%. Thomas V. Shaw $32,671 per annum 1 Year to 6 October 1984 Member .%. Martin Lawrence Kirwan $32,671 per annum 1 Year to 6 October 1984 REPATRIATION BOARD No. 8-LOCATED IN ADELAIDE No. 8 Chairman .%. Vacant Services member .%. Michael John Ridgway $32,671 per annum 18 May 1984 to 6 October 1984 Member .%. Robert William Heffernan $32,671 per annum 1 Year to 6 October 1984 REPATRIATION BOARD No. 9-LOCATED IN PERTH No. 9 Chairman Herman Anthony Jansen $35,255 per annum 1 Year to 6 October 1984 Services member .%. Brian Greatorex Hammond $32,671 per annum 1 Year to 6 October 1984 Member .%. Pauline Claire Jordan $32,671 per annum 1 Year to 6 October 1984 REPATRIATION BOARD No. 10-LOCATED IN HOBART No. 9 Chairman Kevin John Murray $35,255 per annum 1 Year to 6 October 1984 Services member .%. Ian Thomas Street $32,671 per annum 1 Year to 6 October 1984 Member .%. William Edmund Dixon $32,671 per annum 1 Year to 6 October 1984 REPATRIATION BOARD No. 13-LOCATED IN CANBERRA No. 13 Chairman Garry John Collins $35,255 per annum 1 Year to 6 October 1984 Services member .%. Frederick William Barnes $32,671 per annum 1 Year to 6 October 1984 Member .%. Margaret Chisholm $32,671 per annum 1 Year to 6 October 1984 REPATRIATION BOARDS(Nos 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 12 and 14-Located in Sydney No. 1 Chairman Bruce Finlay $35, 255 per annum 1 Year to 6 October 1984 Services member .%. Donald Donkin, M.B.E. $32,671 per annum 1 Year to 6 October 1984 Member .%. Beverley Ann Milbourne $32,671 per annum 1 Year to 6 October 1984 No. 2 Chairman .%. Thomas Patric Collins $35,255 per annum 1 Year to 6 October 1984 Services member .%. Russel George Patrick St Vincent McNamara $32,671 per annum 1 Year to 6 October 1984 Member .%. Charles Allen Gream $32,671 per annum 1 Year to 6 October 1984 No. 3 Chairman .%. James Ross Marsh $35,255 per annum 1 Year to 6 October 1984 Services member .%. Colin Hubert Allan East $32,671 per annum 1 Year to 6 October 1984 Member .%. Ward Charles Curedale $32,671 per annum 1 Year to 6 October 1984 No. 4 Chairman .%. David Charles Murray $35,255 per annum 1 Year to 6 October 1984 Services member .%. Kevin Henry Foster $32,671 per annum 1 Year to 6 October 1984 Member .%. Patricia Denise Robinson $32,671 per annum 1 Year to 6 October 1984 No. 11 Chairman Leo Joseph Hagerty $35,255 per annum 1 Year to 6 October 1984 Services Member James A. Fahey, A.M. $32,671 per annum 1 Year to 6 October 1984 Member John Paul Murphy $32,671 per annum 1 Year to 6 October 1984 No. 12 Chairman Robert John Emslie $35,255 per annum 1 Year to 6 October 1984 Services Member Brian George Haron $32,671 per annum 1 Year to 6 October 1984 Member Jane Margaret Lengauer $32,671 per annum 1 Year to 6 October 1984 No. 14 Chairman Ann Marie Kerley $35,255 per annum 1 Year to 6 October 1984 Services Member Richard Edward Michael Hughes $32,671 per annum 1 Year to 6 October 1984 Member Ronald Neale Brown $32,671 per annum 1 Year to 6 October 1984 Seamen's Pensions and Allowances Committee-(Part Time Appointments) Chairman Kevin Noel Bell Nil remuneration, Departmental officer 12 April 1984 to 11 April 1987 Member William James Heath $110 per day 12 April 1984 to 11 April 1987 Member Robert Nelson $110 per day 12 April 1984 to 11 April 1987 Repatriation Review Tribunal-Sydney President Francis Joseph Mahony, C.B., O.B.E. $61,129 per annum, plus allowance $2,025 per annum 14 May 1979 to 15 March 1985 Deputy President Basil Virtue $52,551 per annum, plus allowance $1,450 per annum 1 July 1979 to 30 June 1984 Deputy President Lesley Bernard Foley $52,551 per annum, plus allowance $1,450 per annum 19 June 1979 to 30 June 1984 Deputy President John Alexander Flett $52,551 per annum, plus allowance $1,450 per annum 14 January 1980 to 13 January 1985 Deputy President Phillip James Moore $52,551 per annum, plus allowance $1,450 per annum 15 December 1982 to 14 December 1987 Part-time Deputy President Bruce Raymond Nicholls $223 per day 21 December 1983 to 28 September 1984 Part-time Deputy President Kim Bolster Ross $223 per day 16 January 1984 to 15 January 1985 Member Ronald Ashby Osborn (SM) $38,143 per annum 19 June 1979 to 30 June 1984 Member Michael Askey (SM) $38,143 per annum 19 June 1979 to 30 June 1984 Member George Max Rothschild (M) $38,143 per annum 19 June 1979 to 30 June 1984 Member Edward Dyson Hirst (M) $38,143 per annum 1 July 1979 to 30 June 1984 Member Patrick Michael Healy (SM) $38,143 per annum 19 June 1979 to 30 June 1984 Member Francis Bernard Nolan (SM) $38,143 per annum 21 December 1983 to 20 December 1984 Part-time Member Alan Wharton, O.B.E., D.S.O., D.F.C., M.I.D. (M) $157 per day 12 February 1983 to 3 April 1984 Part-time Member James Laurence Merson (SM) $157 per day 14 April 1983 to 25 April 1987 Part-time Member Douglas Franck Gilson, O.B.E., D.F.C. (SM) $157 per day 14 April 1983 to 24 October 1987 Part-time Member Robert Geoffrey Looslie (SM) $157 per day 16 December 1983 to 15 December 1984 Repatriation Review Tribunal-Melbourne Deputy President Colin Bernard Campbell, M.B.E. $52,551 per annum, plus allowance $1,450 per annum 14 January 1980 to 13 January 1985 Deputy President Barry George Hepworth $52,551 per annum, plus allowance $1,450 per annum 16 February 1981 to 15 February 1986 Deputy President Rowland Patrick Hassall $52,551 per annum, plus allowance $1,450 per annum 28 January 1982 to 27 January 1987 Deputy President Michael Neal O'Sullivan $52,551 per annum, plus allowance $1,450 per annum 16 February 1984 to 11 January 1985 Part-time Deputy President Peter Alexander Furness $223 per day 13 October 1982 to 12 October 1987 Member Charles William Rowe (SM) $38,143 per annum 1 July 1979 to 30 June 1984 Member John Munro Moller (SM) $38,143 per annum 19 June 1979 to 30 June 1984 Member Alan Frederick Yeomans (SM) $38,143 per annum 19 June 1979 to 30 June 1984 Member Stanley McLeish Harris (M) $38,143 per annum 1 July 1979 to 30 June 1984 Member David Robert Smyth (M) $38,143 per annum 19 June 1979 to 30 June 1984 Part time member Irwin Matthew Green (M) $157 per day 12 February 1983 to 13 July 1984 Part time member Collins Joseph Fagan (SM) $157 per day 14 April 1983 to 13 April 1988 Part time member Desmond Mathew Tehan (SM) $157 per day 28 January 1982 to 27 January 1987 Note: (SM) Services member. (M) Member REPATRIATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL-PART-TIME MEDICAL MEMBERS Name Salary Appointment New South Wales Asten-Reed, Raymond William Sessional fees payable from time to time to senior medical specialists visiting Repatriation Institutions. Currently $45.50 per hour 22 July 1982-30 June 1985 Binks, Robert 16 April 1982-30 June 1985 Dobell-Brown, David Leslie 22 July 1982-30 June 1985 Hagan, Brian Elwin 5 March 1983-4 March 1986 Hession, George Edward 5 March 1983-4 March 1986 Love, Colin James 22 July 1982-30 June 1985 McManis, Francis Keith 22 July 1982-22 September 1984 Murphy, Warren Ashton 22 July 1982-30 June 1985 Reid, Robert Keith 5 March 1983-4 March 1986 Thorpe, Maxwell Elmore 22 July 1982-30 June 1985 McEwin, Roderick Gardner 19 January 1984-18 January 1985 Saad, Ronald Shalhoub 19 January 1984-18 January 1985 Pasfield, Michael Gordon Fotheringhame 19 January 1984-18 January 1985 Victoria Hoare, Brian Maurice 22 July 1982-30 June 1985 Lowe, Robin Campbell Wilson 5 March 1983-4 March 1986 Maiyah, Madappa Shriphthi 5 March 1983-4 March 1986 Morley, John Barrie 22 July 1982-30 June 1985 Newing, Richard Kernan 1 March 1984-28 February 1985 Richards, Colin Sergearnt 1 March 1984-28 February 1985 Stillwell, Geoffrey Gray 5 March 1983-4 March 1986 Stretton, Leonard Thomas 1 March 1984-28 February 1985 Toyne, Albert Howard 22 July 1982-30 June 1985 Trinca, Gordon Walgrave 22 July 1982-30 June 1985 Troski, Samuel 22 July 1982-30 June 1985 Queensland Aboud, John Dahere Michael 22 July 1982-30 June 1985 Apel, John Victor Tucker 22 July 1982-30 June 1985 Francis, John Brenton 22 July 1982-30 June 1985 Hirschfeld, Brian Eugene Elliot 22 July 1982-30 June 1985 Lynch, John Brendan 22 July 1982-30 June 1985 McGuire, Labceb Isaac 22 July 1982-30 June 1985 McLeod, George Roderick Cooper 22 July 1982-30 June 1985 Mitchell, Kenneth Robert 22 July 1982-30 June 1985 Parker, Lawrence Septimus 22 July 1982-30 June 1985 Toakley, James Geoffrey 22 July 1982-30 June 1985 South Australia Cowling, Brian Deucalion 5 March 1983-4 March 1986 Hoile, Douglas Edward 5 March 1983-4 March 1986 Khera, Swaran Singh 5 March 1983-4 March 1986 Philpot, Christopher Ross 5 March 1983-4 March 1986 Swain, Ian Harold Fulcher 5 March 1983-1 September 1985 Western Australia Anderson, Peter Christie 5 March 1983-4 March 1986 Clements, Dennis Arthur 5 March 1983-4 March 1986 Connor, Peter Maxwell 1 March 1984-28 February 1985 Murphy, Charles Denys 5 March 1983-4 March 1986 Pervan, Zhukov 5 March 1983-4 March 1986 Pinerua, Richard Francis 5 March 1983-4 March 1986 Staer, Peter Alfred 5 March 1983-4 March 1986 Teasdale, John Elvin 5 March 1983-4 March 1986 Webster, Zena Barber 5 March 1983-4 March 1986 Tasmania Binns, Frederick Gordon 22 July 1982-30 June 1985 Brodribb, Robert Kenneth 1 March 1984-28 February 1985 Corney, Athol Charles Donne 5 March 1983-4 March 1986 Fay, Peter William 22 July 1982-30 June 1985 Knight, Lindsay Wescombe 22 July 1982-30 June 1985 MacIntyre-Smith, Robert William 22 July 1982-30 June 1985 Nathan, David Bertram 22 July 1982-30 June 1985 Sutton, Dane Kenneth 22 July 1982-30 June 1985 Thomson, William McLaren 22 July 1982-30 June 1985 Chabrell, Cyprian Michael 6 December 1983-5 December 1984 Edwards, Norman Francis 6 December 1983-5 December 1984 Gunson, John Grattan 6 December 1983-5 December 1984 (Question No. 859) Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 2 May 1984: (1) Are there staff shortages in the artificial limb section of the Greenslopes Repatriation Hospital in Brisbane which are resulting in substantial delays to patients receiving necessary equipment. (2) Has the Minister for Veterans' Affairs reviewed the staffing situation in this section of Greenslopes Repatriation Hospital; if not, why not; if so, will more staff be made available to cope with the increased demand and when will this occur. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) and (2) There have been staff shortages in the RALAC at RGH Greenslopes. These have been partly due to difficulties in recruiting suitable staff. The RALAC workload has been affected by initiatives I announced during 1983 aimed at improving the quality of services available and regaining the share of the market which was lost as a result of the previous Government's RCF decision. Approval has been given for recruitment of an additional limb maker and fitter. I am confident that, following the completion of negotiations between the Public Service Board and staff associations on a revised structure for prosthetist and limb makers and fitters, it will be possible to recruit and retain the staff required and that delays in production will reduce to acceptable levels. I can assure the honourable senator that I shall keep the matter under close review. Senator Walsh —On 1 March 1984 (Hansard, pages 218-9) Senator Haines asked me, as the Minister representing the Treasurer, the following question without notice: Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware of an anomaly in the Income Tax Assessment Act recently noted in the report entitled 'A Maintenance Agency for Australia' prepared by the Family Law Branch of the Attorney-General's Department? The report states: 'The ITAA now provides, by paragraph 23 (1), that income by periodic payments of alimony or maintenance received by a woman from her husband or former husband is exempt from income tax.' This is because the income is assessable in his hands and he is not allowed the payments as a deduction-which is fair enough. The problem arises because, as the report points out, in cases 'where alimony or maintenance is received by a man from his former wife, there is no exemption from tax for the payments in the husband's hands, while the paying wife is also taxed in respect of the same money as it is income in her hands'. Is this assessment of paragraph 23 (1) correct? If so, does the Minister agree that this failure to confer an apparent benefit upon a man in the same circumstances in which it is conferred upon a woman is one of the few cases of sexual discrimination against men in this country? If so, will he approach the Treasurer with a view to having that part of the ITAA duly amended so that both sexes are treated equally and maintenance is not taxed in the hands of the recipient, whether that person is male or female? The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Commissioner of Taxation, who is responsible for the administration of the income tax law, has confirmed that the interpretation of paragraph 23 (1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act noted in the report to which the honourable Senator referred, in that it applies to exempt only periodical payments in the nature of alimony or maintenance to a woman from her husband or former husband, is correct . The Commissioner has also confirmed that any such payments by a wife or former wife, being of an income nature and not specifically exempted, would be assessable to the man. The operation of this exemption is under consideration as part of a review being conducted of all the tax laws in the light of the objects of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. Senator Walsh —On 8 May 1984 ( Hansard, page 1747) Senator Colston asked me, as the Minister representing the Treasurer, the following question without notice: I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. My question has been prompted by the disclosure that the General Manager of the Queensland State Government Insurance Office Building Society, Mr Ashley Goldsworthy, received a loan of $121,303 at a concessional interest rate of 8 per cent. At that time the commercial lending rate was about double that figure. Is it normal for low interest loans to be part of a remuneration package for executives of banks and building societies, as Mr Goldsworthy suggests? Is the concessional part of any such loan regarded as income and taxed accordingly? The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Commissioner of Taxation has stated that he is unaware of the precise terms of Mr Goldsworthy's statement and, to that extent, he is unable to comment on it . He has said, nevertheless, that he is aware that employees in the banking and finance industry can and do receive low interest loans from their employers. There is a long standing provision in the Income Tax Assessment Act, paragraph 26 (e), which includes in assessable income the value to a taxpayer of all benefits, allowances, etc. received in respect of, or for or in relation directly or indirectly to, any employment or services rendered by the taxpayer. Whether a low interest loan provided by an employer would result in a benefit to a taxpayer would depend upon the particular facts of each case. It is the responsibility of each employee to include in his income tax return form the value of any benefits so received.