Wednesday, 6 June 1984 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Regulations and Ordinances: Availability of Publications and Video Material 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 now before the Parliament amend the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs (Cinematographic 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 imported videotapes/discs for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled: should disallow the new Regulations and Ordinance and ensure that the Attorney-General enforce existing laws; that Censors more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes; that further measures be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; and that, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Archer (from 47 citizens), Peter Rae (from 13 citizens) and Walters (from 39 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 nor legislate in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Martin (from 52 citizens) and Walters (from 90 citizens). To the President and Honourable Senators in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that we deplore the continuing presence of United States bases on Australian territory. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government urgently take action to close all such bases. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Mason (from 122 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the Church of Mary Queen of Peace, Klaipeda, Lithuania was the only church permitted (by the Soviet authorities) to be built in post-war Lithuania. That the Church was built by the Catholic parishoners from their own resources and with support from overseas Christians. That upon completion of the church building in 1960, the church was not allowed to be consecrated and, in 1961 was resumed by the State for purposes other than religious. That this resumption of the church and the subsequent persecution and arrests of the local clergy and other christians is contrary to the spirit and the letter of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Human Rights. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled request the Australian Government to communicate most strongly to the Government of the USSR the sympathy of the petitioners for the plight of the Lithuanian Christians and ask that the Church of Mary Queen of Peace be restored to the Catholics of Klaipeda for the practice of their religion without interference. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Mason (from 33 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 436 citizens). Petitions received. Senator DURACK(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That a Joint Select Committee be appointed to- (a) examine the extent to which video tapes and discs containing pornographic and violent material are available; (b) examine the extent to which children under the age of 18 years obtain access and are exposed to such material; (c) investigate the effectiveness of legislative controls upon the dissemination of such material; and (d) examine the likely effects of exposure to such material upon children and emotionally disturbed persons. (2) That the provisions relating to membership, powers and proceedings be contained in a subsequent Resolution. (3) That the foregoing Resolution be communicated to the House of Representatives by Message, requesting its concurrence in the Resolution. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —In accordance with standing order 109A, I give notice that when consideration of business is called on this day I will withdraw Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 1, standing in my name and relating to the disallowance of High Court Directions No. 1 1984. I will give a brief explanation at the time of that withdrawal. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) expresses its concern at attempts by the coal mining unions to interfere with the commercial arrangements between Australia's coal producers and overseas purchasers and the failure of the Government to repudiate such trade union action; and (b) calls upon the Government to encourage the trade unions along with other interested parties to act in a way which will facilitate Australia's obtaining the best possible market share during this difficult period for the coal industry. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs) —On behalf of the Minister for Social Security, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, he will move: That the Senate- (a) notes that on May 30, 1984, the International Coalition of Scientists for the Sakharovs, delivered letters to Soviet Embassies throughout the world, including Canberra, expressing its concern at the continued persecution by Soviet authorities of Dr Andrei Sakharov and his wife, Dr Bonner; (b) recalls Australia's commitment to the ideals of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; (c) notes further our commitment to constructive international action to promote the realisation of Human Rights and to combat gross violations of Human Rights wherever they might occur. (d) commends the Minister for Foreign Affairs for forthrightly and directly raising with the Soviet Government the concerns of the Australian Parliament, Government and people at the inhuman treatment of one of the world's most distinguished scientists and his wife; and (e) calls upon the Soviet authorities to release Academician Sakharov from internal exile and to permit Dr Bonner to leave for medical treatment abroad. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) views with grave concern the Government's moves, including the modification of the ALP platform, which would clearly have the effect of weakening its commitment and performance with regard to the advancement and protection of basic human rights; (b) notes that these moves contradict the essential universal nature of basic human rights such as the right to speak freely without the risk of arbitrary arrest, the right to life, freedom of movement, and freedom from torture; (c) deplores the unevenhandedness which is implicit in the Minister for Foreign Affairs being prepared to raise the issue of human rights in the Soviet Union on behalf of Doctor Sakharov but not being prepared to pursue the issue of the rights of the East Timorese people with the Government of Indonesia; and (d) expresses its concern that in weakening its emphasis on the importance of human rights the Government is merely attempting to justify its policy of abandoning the rights of the East Timorese people. Senator JESSOP(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting , I shall move: That the Senate is of the opinion that: (1) An Australian policy regarding participation in the nuclear fuel cycle should recognise that there is a growing demand for uranium, that many countries are now producing electricity from uranium, that nuclear energy is significantly better environmentally than fossil fuel power generation, and that technology for handling, storage and disposal of high level radioactive waste is already available. (2) Such a policy should outline the course of action Australia should take in respect of: (a) uranium exploration; (b) uranium mining and milling; (c) uranium ore export; (d) uranium conversion and enrichment; (e) uranium pellet manufacture for fuel rods; (f) manufacture and export of enriched uranium and complete fuel rods; (g) nuclear electricity generation in Australia; (h) uranium reprocessing and waste manage- ment; (i) uranium radioisotopes for medical, industrial, agricultural and other uses; and (j) nuclear weapons non-proliferation. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the Hawke Socialist Government for its decision to disband school- based cadet units, which have been in operation for almost 100 years; (b) recognises the important role played by school-based cadets units, and the benefit gained by over 20,000 Australian school students who are currently members of these units; (c) condemns the Hawke Government for transferring the cost of the cadet corps from the Army directly to the parents of cadets and thereby denying the enrolment of children from many families; and (d) recognises that the movement of cadet units to Army reserve depots will mean a greater drain on the already under-funded resources of the Army reserve, will create administrative problems within the reserve and make attendance by many cadets impractical because of travel distances and times for parades. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the Hawke Labor Government for its continuing attack upon the income of the elderly; (b) recalls that despite its election promises, the Hawke Labor Government failed to raise the pensioner tax rebate, to lift the tax threshold or to increase the rate of pensions in its first Budget and notes that this has caused a relative decline in pensioners disposable income; (c) notes that the artificial reduction in the Consumer Price Index caused by the introduction of Medicare will, in November, result in a further decline in pensioners and beneficiaries disposable incomes; (d) expresses concern about the effect of the Hawke Labor government's assets test and lump sum superannuation benefits initiatives which will be to discourage thrift and self-provision for retirement and will result in more Australians seeking the age pension as their sole means of income support during retirement; (e) notes that the Hawke Labor Government's revised assets test singles out widows, supporting parents, recipients of rehabilitation and sheltered employment allowances, and age and service pensioners for the application of a wealth tax; (f) applauds the Opposition's decision to repeal Labor's assets test and lump sum superannuation legislation upon its re-election to Government. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) recognises that Mr Hawke, the Socialist Prime Minister is the mastermind of the assets test; (b) condemns the assets test's cruel impact on Australia's elderly; and (c) urges the Government to reconsider the proposal so as to avoid causing confusion amongst those already retired and about to retire. Notice of Motion Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, while recognising the need to protect sacred sites and objects of special significance to Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders, calls upon the Government to reconsider its approach in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill and to withdraw the Bill to enable proper consultation to take place between the Commonwealth Government, the State governments, Aboriginals and affected industries, including the rural and mining industries. Senator JESSOP(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate condemns the scaremongering activities of some anti-nuclear people, such as those who poured innocuous material from Port Pirie in South Australia with a low level of radioactivity comparable to the level of the natural environment on the road in front of Parliament House, thereby attempting to create worry and emotional reaction to promote their anti-nuclear cause and attempting to frustrate or stop the development of Roxby Downs uranium mining in South Australia to the detriment of that State's economic future. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting , I shall move: That the Senate expresses its concern at the failure of the Hawke Labor Government to honour its election commitment to take responsible action to stamp out tax avoidance and its determination to attack the income of Australia's aged . Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs) —Mr President, papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I incorporate the list in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure Report on Commonwealth Government Purchasing-Revised Government response to the report. 2. Committee of Review of Private Overseas Student Policy-Report Part 1, 2 and Appendices-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs relating to the report. 3. UNESCO General Conference 1983-Report of the Australian Delegation-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs relating to the report. 4. Proposals for Work in the Parliamentary Triangle-Proposals for the temporary enclosure of the verandahs at the main floor level of the Provisional Parliament House on the Northern Facade of the building-Pursuant to Section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974. 5. Ninth Report on the Operation of the Special Employment-Related Programs Act 1982-In accordance with the resolution of 16 December 1982-statement by the Leader of the Government, Senator the Honourable J. N. Button. 6. Academic Salaries Tribunal-1984 Review-Pursuant to sub-section 12DD (3) of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973. 7. Academic Salaries Tribunal-Inquiry into the phasing-in of increases in academic salaries-Document-Pursuant to sub-section 12DD (3) of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —Mr President, I claim to have been misrepresented and seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —A story appears on page two of the Sydney Morning Herald this morning under the rather sensational heading 'Evans said to have offered Costigan ''bribe''. The story is based on an interview between Richard Carleton and Richard Farmer on Nationwide last night, which-although I have not yet had an opportunity to check the transcript-appears to be reasonably summarised in the opening three paragraphs of the Herald story, which read as follows: A Canberra businessman and journalist, Mr Richard Farmer, claimed last night that Mr Frank Costigan had accused the Attorney-General, Senator Evans, of offering him a bribe during discussions over the proposed crime authority. Mr Farmer, who was speaking on the ABC program Nationwide, said Mr Costigan, the Painters and Dockers Royal Commissioner, had made the claim in a letter to the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, soon after the election in March, 1983. He said the letter was written after Senator Evans had told Mr Costigan that if he wanted to head the proposed national crime authority, he would have to be appointed a judge of the Federal Court on a salary of about $90,000 a year instead of his present salary of $1,500 per working day as head of the Commission. It will be evident on the face of the story itself that the so-called bribe being referred to is nothing more than the offer of a Federal Court of Australia appointment at a salary of in fact less than $80,000 per annum to a man who was receiving, and had been receiving for a very considerable period, fees of $1,500 per working day, amounting to an annual income of between $300,000 and $400,000. On any view it is an odd bribe that would reduce a person's earnings by three- quarters, even when compensating pension and other entitlements are taken into account. To that extent the Herald's own heading creates a very misleading impression of the content of the story which follows. As to the substance of the Farmer claims, as distinct from the way in which they have been reported, I do not think it is appropriate for me to canvass in any detail at all the content of what were essentially private communications between the Royal Commissioner, myself and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I should, however, make it clear that so far as I am aware the expression 'bribe' was never used by Mr Costigan. Senator Teague —At the time. Senator GARETH EVANS —Or at any time. It is the case that shortly after the Government was returned I had a wide-ranging conversation with Mr Costigan about the future of both his own Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and the then proposed National Crimes Commission , in the course of which concern was expressed by me about the enormous cost of running such commissions on a daily fee basis, and the possibility of a Federal Court appointment was canvassed. It is also the case that following that discussion-during which, as I recall it, no exception was taken to the judicial appointment question being raised-Mr Costigan wrote to the Prime Minister saying , among other things, that the suggestion of a Federal judicial appointment was 'outrageous'. It is also the case that I reacted with something less than enthusiasm to this characterisation of a conversation which I believe was, in the context in which it occurred, completely proper and utterly innocuous. Further discussion subsequently took place between Mr Costigan and myself in which it was acknowledged that there may have been some misunderstandings and the matter was amicably resolved in a matter of days. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs) —I seek leave to amend notice of motion No. 1 standing in the name of the Leader of the Government, Senator Button, relating to future sittings of the Senate by leaving out paragraph 4 relating to the consideration of committee reports. Leave granted. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I thank the Government for making that alteration, which was done at the request of the Opposition because a number of Opposition senators were concerned to maintain a period for debate on Senate committee reports. I thank the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) for having done that. I also take the opportunity to say that in discussions with the Leader of the Government I agreed to additional night sittings next week. That seemed to me to be a reasonable situation. I did that without having conferred with Senator Chipp of the Australian Democrats. I had understood from an earlier conversation with him that he was quite relaxed about additional evening sittings and hours, but I simply place on record that in agreeing to this motion I would hope that if there is any concern about the health of senators and so on we could take up that matter with Senator Button and he will deal with it in the way he has dealt with other matters we have raised in respect of this motion. I am sorry to speak on a motion which is formal and which has been subject to discussion but I think misunderstandings on things like sitting hours cause an unnecessary waste of time and create heat in this place on occasions. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —by leave-Mr President, do I understand that the Senate is about to vote on the matter which has been declared formal? I am not going to inject any heat into this because, as Senator Chaney said, the negotiations between Senator Button, Senator Chaney and me have been most amicable. I am deeply distressed at the thought that we are going to pass a motion which makes the Senate sit three nights next week- three nights this week and three nights next week, the third week-with no guarantee that the Senate will complete its business for this session. I have expressed on repeated occasions in this place my concern about the health of senators, and I just seek clarification now. We have a frightening list of legislation before us. We are still only one-third advanced in our debate on the National Crime Authority and we are expected to sit three nights this week and three nights next week with, as far as I am concerned, no hope in the world of completing all the business of the Senate next week even if we sit three nights. I cannot see the value of taking a vote on it at this time. Senator Button paid me the courtesy of telephoning me yesterday, saying that this proposition was negotiable. I would have thought it could be left, except for the necessity to pass that part of the motion which relates to sitting tonight, with which we concur. I paint this scenario: If we agree to this, we are committed to sitting three nights next week. If my view is correct, that there is no way we can finish all the program in the three days and nights next week, a gun will then be held at all senators and we will be told, right, we either come back the next week, the fourth week, or we sit until 1, 2 or 3 o' clock in the mornings during the third week. That is something which I will oppose with all the force I have. What is the point of it all? Why cannot we pass that part of the motion now about tonight, to which I agree reluctantly, and then leave next week until we are further down the track, to see if it is conceivable that we can finish the business before we adjourn next week for the winter recess. If we cannot, for goodness sake let sanity prevail and let the Senate agree to sit a fourth week rather than have the crazy thing of sitting all hours of the morning next week. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-On this matter of hours of sitting there are always 64 different views in the Senate and, of course, it is very difficult to bring them all together. I said in discussions with Senator Chaney and Senator Chipp, who in turn I believe would have discussed the matter with their respective parties, that as far as I was concerned the issue of sitting hours was negotiable at any time. What I was concerned to do was to give honourable senators some indication of the likely program for next week. Of course, the motion currently before the Senate states 'unless otherwise ordered' which leaves us room to change that program if the sorts of matters which Senator Chipp, Senator Harradine or others may wish to raise necessitate further consideration. I should say that, looking at the program and the progress which has been made, it is quite likely that we may have to sit a fourth week. I advise honourable senators of that now in order that it may be considered in the context of consideration of hours of sitting next week. But I ask the Senate to adopt this motion which has been brought forward on a formal basis on the clear understanding that it is, in the terminology of the motion, 'unless otherwise ordered'. I hope I will have the opportunity to continue to discuss with the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney), the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Chipp), Senator Harradine, and others in the course of the next few days any difficulties which might be encountered and how they might be alleviated. It is a difficult time for all honourable senators. We are mindful of that fact and I would like that opportunity to continue to discuss the arrangements. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-If consideration is seriously being given to sitting for a fourth week, I suggest that the Monday of that fourth week not be a sitting day. The whole point is that we will then have sat for four weeks with only one day in our electorate offices. Motion (by Senator Ryan for Senator Button) agreed to: (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.; and (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 Order 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. Motion (by Senator Jack Evans) agreed to: 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. Bill presented, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(10.24) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The Corporations (Employee-Owned Co-Operatives) Bill provides a legal framework to enable and encourage the transformation of corporations into corporations operating as employee-owned co-operatives. Australia has been undergoing a period of economic recession which has resulted in the failure of many businesses, the loss of thousands of jobs and the dispersal of expertise. While it may be argued that recession prompts much needed rationalisations within business, there are many corporations which cease trading to the detriment of the community. Often, companies with a potential to operate profitably and efficiently are squeezed out of business by short term external factors. In some cases, transfer of control and ownership of the firm to the employees and other concerned parties would enable the business to grow into a profitable operation. If a company has no reasonable hope of being successful, then market forces should be allowed to have their way. If, however, a company is potentially profitable and it would benefit from transferring ownership and control to its employees and others, then there should exist a legal framework for this to occur. REGISTRATION The Bill establishes an Employee-Owned Corporation Board, to which a corporation may apply if it wishes to be registered as an employee-owned co- operative. A corporation is qualified as such if its memorandum and articles provide that- (a) a majority of the members of the corporation are employees of the corporation, (b) all employees of the corporation are eligible to become members, (c) no property or income shall be transferred to the members, except for remuneration and dividends, (d) a majority of employees of the corporation control or have a right to control a majority of the votes at a General Meeting of the corporation, and (e) on dissolution or winding up, no remaining assets shall be distributed amongst the members. A corporation is not eligible if it employs less than 10 persons. The above criteria also allow representation of other interested parties. For example, creditors, suppliers and customers would have an opportunity to become members. PROPOSALS TO RE-ORGANISE Under this Bill, a corporation may place before the Board, a proposal for re- organising itself to enable it to become an employee-owned co-operative. Such a proposal would have to be approved by a majority of the employees of the corporation. It would contain: (a) particulars of the existing structure of the corporation; (b) particulars of the business carried on by the corporation; and (c) particulars of any arrangements which would enable the corporation to carry on business during the transition period. It would also discuss the need for, and availability of, financial assistance and the need (if any) for the corporation to operate for a period under official management. The Board may approve or refuse the proposal with regard to factors such as: (a) the prospects of the corporation carrying on its business profitably; (b) the prospects of the corporation operating successfully as an employee- owned co-operative; (c) the proportion of employees in favour of the proposal; (d) the provisions to be made for protecting the rights and employment prospects of employees opposed to the proposal; (e) the need for, and availability of, financial assistance; and (f) the desirability of the corporation operating under official management for a period of time. If the Board approves a proposal, then the corporation may be provisionally registered as an employee-owned co-operative. As a provisionally registered co-operative, the corporation must report the things it has done each year in fulfilment of the proposal, and of its business activities. The Board may de-register the corporation if it fails to fulfil the terms of a proposal. ASSISTANCE The Board may grant financial assistance to a provisionally registered corporation, if, in its opinion, it is proper, in all the circumstances, to do so to enable the corporation to develop as a co-operative on a sound financial basis. Financial assistance may be by way of loan guarantees. (Loan guarantees to an individual corporation may not exceed $250,000 or an amount as prescribed) . The Board may, if it is of the opinion that it is proper to do so, resolve that a provisionally registered corporation be placed under official management. In general terms, the official management process operates as though a resolution of creditors had occurred under the provisions of the Companies Code. These powers and conditions provide a framework to enable and assist corporations to survive a transition period between their original state and their becoming employee-owned co-operatives. In order to provide an incentive for corporations to be registered as employee- owned co-operatives, the Bill provides that the income tax of registered co- operatives shall be reduced by 8 per cent in each year of income. The legal framework for transition and the 8 per cent income tax incentive will provide a positive solution for ailing, yet potentially healthy businesses. It will also provide an incentive for the creation and establishment of new co- operative enterprises. Co-operatives offer a grass roots form of industrial democracy. They offer a form of business organisation which is responsive to the needs of those groups most affected by an organisation's activities. Employees, creditors, customers and other groups will be keen to play a meaningful role in guiding the organisation. Co-operatives are particularly suited to small business. In many cases, small businesses are already co-operatives by definition. The employees are frequently the owners and controllers, and vice versa. This Bill will provide assistance for small business of this nature. Co-operatives, as a result of being responsive to employee needs, are likely to provide more stable employment conditions than a normal corporate employer. A co -operative is unlikely to be eager to retrench or to lay off employees. It is unlikely to attempt to exploit its employees and it is unlikely to pursue excessive profits to the detriment of its workforce. Profit, however, is not undesirable. Co-operatives should be healthy and efficient organisations. It is likely that profit would, as in any other commercial organisation, be an important measure of success. It is likely, that in hard times, the owner-employees of a co-operative would strive to keep the organisation viable and to maintain it as an ongoing concern. There would be little incentive to close a business and cut one's losses. Jobs will be maintained and businesses will continue as ongoing concerns with the attendant benefits for the entire community. This Bill provides a legal framework and financial assistance for both the establishment of new employee-owned co-operatives and for existing corporations to undergo a transition to become co-operatives. This Bill does not seek to replace existing corporate structures. It seeks to provide a class of organisational structure which will allow businesses to be responsive and responsible to employees and other interest groups and thereby to create businesses which are more durable and efficient, and of greater benefit to the country as a whole. If jobs and businesses are to be preserved, then it is essential that corporations have recourse to a legal framework such as is provided under this Bill. Likewise, if grass roots industrial democracy is to occur, then incentives as contained here, need to be implemented. The Corporations (Employee-Owned Co-Operatives) Bill provides such a framework and incentives. This Bill therefore, will preserve jobs and businesses, and will provide benefits to the community as a whole. The Australian Democrats are introducing this Bill in the expectation that senators and members, employers, employees and other interested groups will consider its contents and its implications with an understanding that constructive comment will be welcomed by me. The Bill will now lie on the table until the Budget session to provide that opportunity. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Ryan) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Rep- resentatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Ryan) read a first time. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(10.25) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill has two main purposes: 1. To preserve and protect areas in Australia and Australian waters which are of particular significance to Aboriginals or Islanders in accordance with their traditions; and 2. To preserve and protect objects, including Aboriginal and Islander human remains, which are of particular significance to Aboriginals or Islanders in accordance with their traditions. It will fill a gap in the law of Australia which can allow sites of significance to be damaged, destroyed or desecrated, and can allow objects of significance, including Aboriginal human remains, to be traded, displayed and otherwise used in ways which are anathema to Aboriginals and their traditions. The need for legislation to enable direct, immediate action by the Commonwealth has been highlighted by such events as Noonkanbah and a number of situations which have arisen during the life of this Government. Time and again the Commonwealth has been powerless to take legal action where state or territory laws were inadequate, not enforced or non-existent, despite its clear constitutional responsibility. Occasionally there has been enough goodwill to deter people from proceeding in ways inconsistent with Aboriginal traditions and wishes. But goodwill is not always sufficient. The time for legislative action by the Commonwealth has come. In the eyes of Aboriginals such action is long overdue. They have stressed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs the need for priority to be given to enacting legislation which can counter the real, and at times sudden, threats which are made to significant sites and objects. They have asked the Government to provide a means for arriving at solutions to important and often emotionally charged problems. Mr President, this Bill is an answer to those requests. It will give the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs power to protect and preserve areas and objects from injury or desecration. Such injury or desecration encompasses a range of activity. For example, the construction of a road through or near a significant Aboriginal area, entry by tourists to such an area in a way inconsistent with the entry restrictions of local Aboriginal tradition, or the construction of a dam near to such an area which will result in the inundation of that area, may each constitute injury or desecration of a particular significant Aboriginal area. In the case of a significant Aboriginal object, physical mutilation as well as public display of or commercial dealing with the object may constitute injury or desecration. This Bill is the first part of a legislative scheme which this Government intends to enact to ensure the preservation and protection of the cultural heritage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. That scheme will give the Commonwealth Government a legislative framework in which to exercise the constitutional power and responsibility clearly given to the Commonwealth by the overwhelming majority of Australians in the 1967 referendum. This Government has shown itself willing to take on that responsibility and to act seriously in exercising it. The Bill before the Senate is further evidence of the Government' s acceptance of that responsibility. As the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has stated publicly on a number of occasions, model land rights legislation is being prepared in consultation with Aboriginals throughout Australia. In the same way, the Bill before the Senate today has been prepared in response to requests from Aboriginal people and following consultation with them. State governments and the mining and pastoral industries have also been given an opportunity to comment on the Bill. I acknowledge that there has been criticism of the time period in which comments were sought. It did nevertheless provide an opportunity which certain States have not been prepared to give the Commonwealth in relation to legislation prepared by those States impinging on matters for which the Commonwealth has a clear responsibility. Some amendments were made to this Bill as a direct result of consultation with State governments. It is an interim measure which will be replaced by more comprehensive legislation dealing with Aboriginal land rights and heritage protection. As evidence of the Government's intention to legislate more comprehensively, the Bill before the Senate is expressed to have effect for no more than 2 years from the date of its commencement. I must make it clear from the outset that this is not interim land rights legislation nor is it intended to be an alternative to land claim procedures. The Minister will not be making declarations with respect to vast areas of land in de facto recognition of a claim which Aboriginals may wish to make later under another law. The Bill speaks of significant Aboriginal areas, and defines 'area' to include a site. The use of the word 'area' rather than site will allow flexibility in recognising what Aboriginals believe to be significant. It will save a narrow and artificial approach being taken to sites, for example, to discrete geological formations. Where a site is particularly secret and sacred there may be an area immediately adjacent to it where people ought not to go. Transgression of that space may be as offensive as entry to the site. It may also be thought to place people going there in physical danger. This Bill is worded to enable those situations to be accommodated. It is not meant to close off huge areas. It will not be administered in that way. Scheme of Protection Mr President, the scheme of this Bill is a simple one, aimed at granting effective protection to areas and objects under threat of injury or desecration. Its key features are as follows: 1. Action will be taken only when the Minister has received an application by or on behalf of Aboriginals or Torres Strait Islander people. 2. The Minister will need to be satisfied that the area or object for which protection is sought is significant in accordance with Aboriginal tradition. 3. When deciding whether to make a declaration in respect of an area or object the Minister will take into account such other matters as he considers relevant. This will allow the weighing of competing interests in each case. Honourable senators should note that cabinet will be consulted, where practicable, before each declaration is made. 4. Where a declaration may be made in respect of an area for a period of more than 30 days, the Minister will be obliged to receive and consider a report prepared by an independent person dealing with the range of issues that such an application may raise. These include the type and extent of any protection which should be granted and the effects which the making of a declaration may have on the proprietary or pecuniary interests of persons other than the Aboriginal applicants. 5. Declarations will set out particulars of the area or object to be protected. They will also contain provisions for and in relation to the protection or preservation of the area or object from injury or desecration. The Bill recognises that because areas vary in physical form and significance and size, different conditions may need to be applied to each. Because the types of activities which may be permitted on such areas will vary in accordance with local Aboriginal traditions, the activities governed by the declarations may also vary. For example, entry to an area may be unrestricted in one case and closely prescribed in another, depending on traditional rules governing access. Similar comments can be made with respect to significant Aboriginal objects. As I mentioned earlier, while physical mutilation will clearly constitute injury or desecration of an object, the public display of or an attempt to sell such an object may be equally offensive in some cases. The provisions of declarations will be drafted bearing these things in mind. 6. Where Aboriginal human remains are involved, the Minister will be empowered to order the delivery of those remains to himself or to Aboriginal people entitled to them, and willing to accept responsibility for them, in accordance with Aboriginal tradition. This provision will enable the satisfactory disposal of remains held contrary to expressed Aboriginal wishes. Consistent with the requirements of the Constitution, where this, or any other action under the Act, involves the acquisition of property, compensation will be payable to the person whose property is acquired. 7. Before making a declaration, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs will be obliged to consult with his State or Territory counterpart to ascertain whether the law of that State or Territory offers effective protection. If it does, a declaration will not be necessary. I will refer to the relationship between this legislation and State and Territory laws in more detail later in this speech. 8. A declaration will be published in the Gazette and in local newspapers. It will take effect from the date of publication in the Gazette or a later date specified in the declaration. Reasonable steps will be taken to give written notice of a declaration to persons likely to be substantially affected by it. This will include advice to the relevant State or Territory Government. 9. Declarations will be treated in many respects like regulations. For example, a declaration will be laid before each House of this Parliament within 15 sitting days after it has been made. Either House may disallow the declaration within the statutory period. Review by the Houses of Parliament will, in effect, be the only review of the merits of a Minister's decision to make a declaration. Of course, other administrative law remedies will still be available to people affected by the declaration. 10. In some emergency situations, where the Minister is unavailable to make a declaration according to the formal requirements of the Bill, an authorised officer will be able to make an urgent declaration which will remain in effect for no more than 48 hours. State and Territory Laws As I have already said, Mr President, this Bill provides the legal basis upon which the Commonwealth can act where the law of a State or Territory does not provide the necessary protection. The lack of protection may arise from either an absence of effective legislation or an unwillingness to enforce the provisions of legislation capable of meeting the goals of this Bill. The Commonwealth is not attempting to cover the legislative field in this area of heritage protection. The Bill expresses an intention not to exclude or limit the operation of a law of a State or Territory that is capable of operating concurrently with it. In practice the Commonwealth sees this as legislation to be used as a last resort. The processes for the making and continuation of declarations will ensure that full recognition will be given to relevant State and Territory laws, and co- operation will be sought from State and Territory governments. Where the Minister is considering whether to make a declaration in relation to an area, an object or a class of objects, he will be obliged to consult with the relevant State or Territory Minister to ascertain whether there is effective protection of the area, object or objects. In the case of Norfolk Island he will consult with the relevant executive member. By reference to long standing convention, he will consult with the Minister for Territories and Local Government where the Australian Capital Territory or an external territory, other than Norfolk Island, is concerned. Although the Minister will be obliged to consult in this way, the mere failure to consult will not invalidate any declaration he may make. Let me assure the House that all reasonable attempts will be made to consult with State and Territory colleagues. On occasions the relevant Minister may be unavailable to discuss the matter, and the urgency of the threat to the area or object may be such that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs must take a decision without the benefit of such consultation. There may be occasions when a State or Territory Minister will refuse to consult. This Bill is framed to ensure that such refusal will not frustrate its proper operation. Where a State or Territory has no law capable of providing effective protection , or no action is being taken to give effect to that law, the Commonwealth will act in appropriate cases. It is open to the States to ensure that effective heritage protection is offered by their legislation. It is possible that State or Territory law may be capable of providing protection, but not with the same speed as Commonwealth law. The Bill provides that, in such a case, the Minister may make a declaration. Where, in that or other circumstances, the Minister is later satisfied that a State or Territory law does effectively provide protection to the subject matter of a declaration, he must revoke that declaration. The rights of individuals under concurrently operating laws will also be preserved. Where a person may be prosecuted and convicted under this Act or a law of a State or Territory, nothing in this Act will render that person liable to be punished more than once in respect of the same act or omission. Nothing in this Bill will derogate from rights which a person may have to any remedy apart from this Act. Mr President, it will be clear from this summary that the Commonwealth wants to encourage States and Territories to use such legislation as they have in the interests of the Aboriginal and Islander people for whose benefit it was passed. Where that legislation is inadequate the Commonwealth will, through this legislation, encourage changes to be made. Already some States have indicated a willingness to co-operate in the implementation of this legislation. Where the administrative functions are already being performed effectively by a State body willing to accept extra responsibility, the Bill provides a delegation power which will enable formal endorsement of those arrangements. There are other matters, such as the notification of people who might be affected by a declaration, which could usefully be delegated to Commonwealth officials. Mr President, there is no suggestion that the decisions which must be taken by a Minister, and for which he will be held responsible, will be delegated. The Bill specifically excludes from delegation: The Minister's power to make declarations, the Minister's obligation to consult with his State or Territory counterpart, and the Minister's power to seek injunctions from the Federal Court . The Bill before the House is intended to meet those situations where, for whatever reason, local law is inadequate. The Commonwealth has a clear constitutional responsibility to act. This Bill will give it a legislative base on which to act. Enforcement and Penalties The major offences which this Bill creates are breaches of the provisions of declarations. For example, it will not be an offence under this legislation to desecrate a significant Aboriginal area unless there has been a declaration in respect of it and the activity complained of is in breach of that declaration. Thus, where the Minister has made a declaration containing provisions for the protection of an area from injury or desecration, and an individual person or a corporation contravenes a provision, that person or corporation will be guilty of an offence. A similar scheme will have effect in respect of significant Aboriginal objects. In summary, the Bill provides that a person contravening a provision of a declaration will be guilty of an offence. The defendant may adduce his own evidence that he neither knew, nor had reasonable grounds for knowing, of the existence of the declaration. Such evidence may also be drawn out in the cross- examination of prosecution witnesses. Where there is that evidence, the prosecution will bear the onus of proving beyond reasonable doubt that, at the relevant time, the defendant knew, or ought reasonably to have known of the existence of the declaration. Unless the prosecution can discharge that onus, a person cannot be committed for trial or convicted of an offence. Let me assure honourable senators: Innocent picknickers, bushwalkers and campers will not be prosecuted. Where appropriate, fences and signs will be erected to mark areas which are the subject of a declaration. This will be in addition to Gazette and newspaper notices, and notices to persons likely to be substantially affected by the declaration. There will be nothing secret about a declaration. However, where a person genuinely does not know, and could not reasonably have known, of such a declaration that person will not be in any danger of being convicted. Mr President, the high penalties which this Bill sets out for breaches of declarations are an indication of the seriousness with which this Government views the need for heritage protection. The desecration of a site or object can strike at the very roots of Aboriginal beliefs and observances. We would hope that, as declarations are made, those whose activities may be impeded or whose interests may be affected will respect the interests of the relevant Aboriginals or Islanders and observe the terms of the declarations. At the very least, the possibility of substantial financial penalties and imprisonment should act as a deterrent to those contemplating acting contrary to a declaration. No longer will it be a cheap option to destroy a site or sell an object. Where people are willing to proceed in defiance of a provision of a declaration , injunctions and interim injunctions can be sought from the federal court by the minister. The range of conduct which may be subject to an injunction is widely drawn, as is the power of the court to restrain a person from engaging in certain conduct or require him to do something. Company directors and employees will need to look closely at their position under this Bill. The intention of a member of the governing body, a director, servant or agent of a body corporate, or the knowledge of that person, will be deemed to be the intention or knowledge of the body corporate. Conduct engaged in by an individual on behalf of a body corporate shall be deemed to have been engaged in also by the body corporate. I reiterate the hope that this legislation will promote genuine attempts to resolve conflicts which may occur in this area. The Bill recognises that, in judicial proceedings arising under it, there may be occasions when it will be necessary for evidence to be given concerning a secret or sacred aspect of Aboriginal tradition. Where this is the case, people may be reluctant to give such evidence in proceedings which are open to the public and which may be reported. Experience in Aboriginal land claim hearings in the Northern Territory has shown the benefit to the Aboriginal Land Commissioner and parties appearing before him of enabling Aboriginal people to give some evidence on a restricted basis. This Bill will enable courts to adopt a similar approach. It is a further measure to ensure that the secrecy attaching to matters of particular significance to Aboriginals and Islanders is respected. Conciliation and Compensation To encourage attempts at the resolution of conflict, the Bill provides that, where the Minister has received an application for a declaration, he may request such people as he considers appropriate to consult, either with him or his nominee. This consultation could precede or follow the making of a declaration. Where a declaration has been made, the resolution of the matter to the satisfaction of the applicant and the Minister may result in the revocation or variation of the declaration. Where there is resolution of the matter before the Minister has made a declaration there may be no need for a declaration, or a declaration may contain different provisions from those it might otherwise have contained. Furthermore, the Bill provides for the Attorney-General to authorise grants of legal or financial assistance to people who wish to apply for a declaration, whose proprietary or pecuniary interests have been or may be adversely affected by a declaration, or against whom legal proceedings have been instituted. In considering an application, the Attorney-General, or an officer authorised by him, will need to be satisfied that it would involve hardship to the person to refuse the application, and that all the circumstances make it reasonable for a grant to be made. Mr President, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has consulted members of the Australian Democrats, in respect of this Bill. Those consultations have proved to be beneficial and specific matters have been raised upon which comment should be made. Reservations have been expressed about the provisions of clauses 16 and 28 of the Bill. Clause 16 provides that where the Minister refuses to make a declaration in respect of an area or object he shall take reasonable steps to notify the applicant or applicants of his decision. The Bill has no express requirement for the Minister to give reasons for that decision. It may be that reasons could be required of the Minister by an aggrieved applicant pursuant to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. In any case, the Minister has agreed that where he refuses an application for a declaration he will provide reasons for that decision. That refusal will not prevent the applicant making a fresh application, perhaps providing more material in support of it. The second matter involves the compensation provision in clause 28. That clause provides that, where there is an acquisition of property from a person by virtue of this legislation or a declaration made under it, the Commonwealth will pay a reasonable amount of compensation. Honourable senators will be aware that the constitution requires the Commonwealth to pay just terms where property is acquired. Where property is not acquired, that obligation does not exist. The Minister has agreed, however, that where the interests of a person or a company are significantly affected by the making of a declaration the Government will determine what compensation payment, if any, is appropriate according to the merits of that case. Conclusion Mr President, this will be beneficial legislation, as other legislation remedying social disadvantage has been. Aboriginals and Islanders will be secure in the knowledge that areas and objects of particular significance to them can be preserved and protected. Where the remains of ancestors were stolen from graves and shamefully abused, this Bill will allow those remains to be returned to them. As Mr Justice Murphy recently observed as part of the High Court's judgment in the Tasmanian dams case: ''The history of the Aboriginal people of Australia since European settlement, is that they have been the subject of unprovoked aggression, conquest, pillage, rape, brutalization, attempted genocide and systematic and unsystematic destruction of their culture.'' This Bill is an exercise of a Commonwealth constitutional power aimed at preserving what has survived that process. It falls within the kinds of benefit which such laws may properly confer. But the benefit will not be confined to those local Aboriginals and Islanders whose areas and objects receive the direct protection of the law. In a wider and very real sense, the benefit will be felt by the whole community. The preservation and protection of this ancient and significant culture from the destructive processes which have been operating at different rates across this country can only enrich the heritage of all Australians. I commend this Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(10.27) —I move: That consideration of General Business, Orders of the Day relating to the consideration of Committee Reports, pursuant to Sessional Order, be postponed till the next day of sitting. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.27) —I understood that the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, deleted from the motion which she moved on behalf of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button-the motion which was not formal but debated by leave-that paragraph which, in fact, would have had the effect of the motion she has now moved. There seems to be some misunderstanding here. The red sheet points out under the heading 'Presentation of Papers' that Senator Tate will bring down a report on behalf of two committees. I am not sure whether the motion which Senator Ryan has proposed would exclude the consideration of those committee reports. Until there is some clarification the Opposition will oppose the motion that has been moved. I hope that we will have the support of the Australian Democrats and Senator Harradine. The PRESIDENT —As I understand the matter, the motion that has been moved by Senator Ryan relates merely to the consideration of orders of the day. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(10.28) —in reply-I apologise for the confusion. I have sought advice from the Clerks. The motion which I moved should have been more clearly moved in the following form: That unless otherwise ordered General Business orders of the day relating to the consideration of committee reports, pursuant to sessional order, be not proceeded with this day. The motion refers to the item on the Notice Paper, the adjourned debate on the report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations on the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2) 1984. Senator Chaney —I thank the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) for that clarification. As far as the Opposition is concerned, that is a reasonable provision and we would not oppose it. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —In accordance with the notice of intention given earlier today, I withdraw Business of the Senate Notice of Motion No. 1 standing in my name. I seek leave to make a brief explanation. Leave granted. Senator COATES —The Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances has been concerned about certain provisions of the High Court of Australia directions as published in the special issue of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette No. S 16 of 24 January 1984 and made under the High Court of Australia Act 1979. Section 19 of the Act provides that the Clerk of the High Court can give directions regulating the conduct of persons in and around the Court. The Committee was concerned about two reversal of onus provisions in directions 5 (1 ) (b) and 5 (1) (o). The Committee and the Court have had protracted correspondence on the matter. The Committee drew attention to the way in which the provisions place on the defendant the persuasive burden of proving that a lawful or reasonable excuse existed. The Committee reminded the Court of recent amendments which the Committee has obtained to similar provisions in other delegated legislation and sought the Court's co-operation in drafting an alternative provision to directions 5 (1) (b) and 5 (1) (o). The Committee supports the reasoning and recommendation of the 'Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings' report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs that persuasive burdens placed on defendants should be reduced to evidential burdens. The Committee does not accept that the persuasive burden is required by the circumstances. This case is a particularly clear example of the type of provision to which the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee drew attention. Yesterday, the Committee was informed that the Court will delete the two directions. In view of this assurance, the Committee now withdraws its disallowance motion. The Committee regrets that the Court has been unable to see fit to amend the provisions by reducing the burden. A fuller account of this matter will appear later in the year in the Committee's next general report to the Senate. Consideration resumed from 5 June. The Bill. The CHAIRMAN —The Committee is considering the Bill as a whole by agreement. It has also been agreed to consider it in blocks of subjects. We are now dealing with subject No. 5, the intergovernmental committee. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(10.32) —This deals with the question of whether the Authority must consider whether police investigations would be effective before it can proceed. I notice after drafting the Australian Democrats' amendment that Senator Hill has produced an amendment which has, I believe, identical effect. Therefore, I will be very pleased to yield to Senator Hill. Senator Gareth Evans —Do not do that; we prefer yours. Senator CHIPP —I yield to Senator Hill because he has done an enormous amount of work on this matter and I believe it would be proper for him to move his amendment. Senator HILL(South Australia)(10.33) —I move: Page 7, clause 9, sub-clause (2), lines 10 to 14, leave out the sub-clause, insert the following sub-clause: '(2) The Committee shall, before approving a reference, consider whether ordinary police methods of investigation into the matter are likely to be effective.'. This is a recommendation of the Committee. The words are similar to those of the amendment that was circulated by Senator Chipp. They seem to be simply in a different order. I advise the Committee that the current provision in clause 9 ( 2) of the Bill provides: The Committee shall not approve the reference to the Authority of a matter unless the Committee, after considering any action taken, or capable of being taken, by law enforcement agencies into the matter, is satisfied that ordinary police methods of investigation into the matter are not likely to be effective. The spirit of that sub-clause is presumably that it would be undesirable for the National Crime Authority to be simply duplicating work that could otherwise be effectively carried out by existing police forces using existing methods. The Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs accepts the spirit of that provision. It says that it is wholly desirable. However, the Committee is concerned with the drafting of the sub-clause. We believe that an unfair onus is being placed on the intergovernmental committee, in effect to make a preliminary determination which is really impossible. I reflect upon the comments I made in my speech in the second reading debate, when I reminded honourable senators of the facts in relation to the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. If the advice had been received from the Victorian police force-given in all due honesty-that it could effectively handle that matter, a whole new network of organised crime would have never been uncovered. It is reasonable to assume that if a police force is asked whether it feels it can reasonably handle particular criminal activities, the answer is always yes. That is a matter of human nature. We expect that under the Government's clause at present the course of action that the intergovernmental committee would adopt would be to ask the police forces whether they could handle the matter. As I have indicated, the answer is always likely to be yes and the reference will not proceed because the onus has been placed in that way in the sub-clause. The Senate Committee said that a better course of action would be to require the inter-governmental committee to consider whether ordinary police methods of investigation into the matter were likely to be effective. That is, in effect, the provision that the Committee came up with and that I am now proposing in this amendment. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.36) —The Government opposes the substance of both the Chipp and the Hill amendments. There is no great distinction between them and if an arrangement has been made between the two parties for Senator Hill's motion to take precedence, we will bear that with such fortitude as we can command. The actual exercise seems to us to be unfortunate to the extent that it downgrades to the level of a mere consideration to be taken into account the question of whether ordinary police methods are effective in the intergovernmental committee's consideration of whether to grant a reference. It was always the objective here, as we discussed yesterday, for the response to organised crime to be a graduated one, using so far as possible ordinary police methods, and only moving to the special powers and the coercive powers involved in authority references when it was clear that the police methods were not likely to be appropriate. The justification is, of course, that the coercive methods involved here are quite draconian in character and not the kind of thing that should be employed without very close regard to their justification in any particular case. The way the original Bill was formulated, it was expressed more firmly that the committee shall not approve the reference unless it is satisfied that ordinary police methods of investigation are not likely to be effective. Now the requirement is simply, in effect, that the committed take into account whether police methods are not likely to be effective. I do not believe that in its original formulation this would have constituted any technically significant barrier to the operations of the committee, nor do I believe that this would have been in any way a justiciable provision such that it could be taken advantage of by someone on the receiving end of an investigation, arguing that the intergovernmental committee had not done its statutory job of looking at the adequacy of police methods. The way the clause is framed it carries its own sanctions. It is directory rather than mandatory in its character and the Government has proceeded on the assumption that no technical objection would be available. Having said all that, I feel that it really boils down to a question of semantics as to how vigorously one expresses a concept with which I take it basically we all agree. To that extent, the Government will not pursue its opposition to the point of division, although it does register its concern about the unnecessarily loose way in which the content of the original clause has been diluted by the amendment. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(10.39) —With one exception last night, this debate has been conducted without heat. I confess, however, that the kind of response that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has given to this amendment makes me a little angry because the Liberals and Democrats want to amend the original clause. It has been truthfully said that those of us who voted for the recommendation in regard to the intergovernmental committee of Ministers did so with a few misgivings because while civil liberties would be protected and the States would be encouraged to participate the administration of the National Crime Authority would be made more unwieldy than it might have been. That was a sacrifice I was prepared to make to ensure that we get the co-operation of the States with respect to the National Crime Authority because without that co-operation the arrangement will not work. I believe that the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, with the exception of one person, was of that view. Clause 9 (2), which Senator Hill, the Liberals and the Democrats wish to amend, reads as follows: The Committee shall not approve the reference to the Authority of a matter unless the Committee, after considering any action taken, or capable of being taken, by law enforcement agencies into the matter, is satisfied that-- there is an onus placed on the Committee- ordinary police methods of investigation into the matter are not likely to be effective. Therefore, the Committee has to satisfy itself that the police could not handle this matter. I would have thought that in most cases that would put an impossible task on the committee. All that we are saying and all that Senator Hill is saying in his amendment, which I would have thought was entirely reasonable, is that the Committee should, before approving a reference, consider whether ordinary police methods of investigation into a matter are likely to be effective. I am puzzled why the Attorney-General is so adamant in his opposition to this. To me, the logic overwhelmingly demands that the Liberal and Democrat amendment be accepted. Yet, we have this intransigence even in the face of what I believe was a unanimous recommendation of the Standing Committee on this point . We were not unanimous on everything but on this point, Liberal, Labor and Democrat members were unanimous that it was intolerable to put this hurdle before the intergovernmental committee before it can approve a reference to the Authority. For those reasons, I support the amendment moved by Senator Hill on behalf of the Liberal Party with all the force that I have. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(10.43) —I also, as a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, join with Senator Hill and Senator Chipp in just wondering what the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) is on about with this matter. The situation is clear that there would be a mandatory problem, a hurdle as Senator Chipp described it, for the intergovernmental committee to leap over before it could make a reference in this matter. Senator Evans came in here, used moderate language and talked about the Government not seeing this as being a major difficulty. But it is clear, on any view of the Government's proposal, that the committee 'shall not approve the reference to the Authority' unless it is satisfied that ordinary police methods of investigation into the matter are not likely to be effective. Let us take the case of the painters and dockers in Melbourne. I think a sergeant of police in Melbourne held the files in relation to painters and dockers. He had made such investigations as he could over many years into painters and dockers in Victoria. He was aware of the murders which had been committed within the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. He was aware of the crimes of which members of that union had been convicted. He was thought to be the expert on painters and dockers in Victoria. I have no criticism of that policeman who was doing the best job he could with the facilities available to him. Had the intergovernmental committee been considering whether ordinary police methods of investigation into the matter of the painters and dockers in Victoria were not likely to be effective, the Police Commissioner would have advised the Victorian Attorney-General that of course the police could investigate the matter. Senator Chipp —And being most honest and sincere. Senator LEWIS —And being most honest and sincere. The Victorian Attorney-General would have come before the intergovernmental committee and said: 'Well, there have been a couple of wishy-washy loose articles in the Bulletin about the painters and dockers, and that there is something funny going on there, but our police have been keeping an eye on this organisation for many years and we have no difficulty in investigating the painters and dockers of Victoria'. I understand Mr Costigan told the committee that, within two weeks of his investigation into the painters and dockers commencing, he was looking at the painters and dockers being involved in bottom of the harbour tax avoidance schemes. How could the Victorian police have been aware of that? With the material which was then available to the police that inquiry would never have got off the ground. I thought that the committee's recommendation was most moderate. The committee in its unanimous view realised that one could not exclude the police from this matter or make a recommendation which would create difficulties with the States. In relation to the clause the committee recommended: . . . be redrafted to provide that the Inter-Governmental Committee, before approving reference of a matter to the Authority, shall take into account whether ordinary police methods of investigation into the matter are likely to be effective. I repeat the words 'shall take into account'. It shall not be faced with an overwhelming burden of establishing to its own satisfaction that the police methods are not likely to be effective, but shall simply take it into account. I suggest to the chamber that this is a most moderate proposal. The amendments moved by Senator Hill and the Australian Democrats are along the lines of the Committee's recommendation. For the Attorney-General to try to persuade the chamber that there is something difficult or wrong with the amendments, makes us wonder what he is on about. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.48) —It seems likely that people did not get quite enough sleep last night because I am really at a bit of a loss to understand the passion that my remarks have generated. We are all agreed, it seems, that it is appropriate for the intergovernmental committee to take into account the adequacy of police capacity to deal with these matters. We all understand that in so taking into account the committee would be armed with the reports or attitudes of the respective police commissioners, and no doubt many of which might be of a kind which Senator Lewis mentioned. All I have been concerned to ensure all along is that in taking into account the question of the adequacy of police resources, there be a genuine consideration of the possibility of effective police action, rather than merely formal consideration of it, and that there really be some close attention paid by the committee to the possibility of getting there by police action rather than escalating it to the coercive action of the kind that is involved in the granting of a reference. I think we are all utterly of the same mind about those propositions that I have just advanced. It really boils down to an argument, which I have said is simply a semantic argument, as to how vigorously one expressed that obligation to take into account the original language of the National Crime Authority Bill, which I have indicated I prefer, which is, that the committee be satisfied. The language that Senator Hill and Senator Chipp prefer is that the committee consider the particular matter. Were there some legal barrier imposed by the obligation to be satisfied, such that it could be the subject of a court action by someone who wanted to argue that the committee could not have been satisfied or had not been satisfied, I would accept the force of the propositions that are being put, that we do not want to create legal barriers and further opportunities for challenge of that kind. It is certainly no part of the Government's intention to create such opportunities for challenge. I do not read the clause as having, in lawyers' parlance, anything more than merely directory force. I do not believe it would be, to use another posh lawyer 's word, a justiciable matter-that is, one that could be taken to court-the way that clause is framed. As such I think there is practically no practical difference between the forms of words that have been advanced by the Opposition and by the Government. The concern that I am reflecting is simply the understandable concern of the State police forces and Ministers that their particular role in fighting organised crime be not downgraded; that their role be fully appreciated and understood, and that, where appropriate, the State police forces continue to play their traditional crime investigation role. Equally, the State Ministers and State police forces have perfectly happily acknowledged that there will be many circumstances in which police resources and traditional police powers are simply inadequate and, as such, it is appropriate for a reference for coercive powers to operate. I indicated that the Government did not feel strongly enough about this to push it to the point of division. I can only reiterate what I have now said twice and hope that a little bit of the heat can go out of this and that we will continue to debate things quietly and calmly as we have been very constructively doing so far. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(10.52) —Totally without heat, so that Senator Evans does not have the last word on this, I register my total disagreement with what he said. I think there is a world of difference in the meaning of the Government's proposed clause and that which the Liberal Party and the Australian Democrats want. Amendment agreed to. Clause 11 (References by Commonwealth). Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.53) —Both the Opposition and the Australian Democrats have proposed amendments to this clause in very much similar terms; namely, to control the ability of the Federal Minister to withdraw a reference once it has been given. In the spirit of co-operation which is so evident this morning, I will yield to Senator Chipp on this because I think his amendment is preferable to my own. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(10.54) —I thank Senator Durack. The Liberal Party and the Australian Democrats believe that a withdrawal of a reference should not be the prerogative of the Minister but should be referred to both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, I move: (8) Page 9, clause 11, sub-clause (3), lines 1 to 3, leave out the sub-clause, insert the following sub-clause: '(3) A reference of a matter to the Authority under this section may, with the approval of each House of the Parliament given by resolution of that House, be withdrawn by the Minister at any time by notice in writing to the Authority.'. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.55) —This is another area where the Government is faced with the choice between the Opposition Huns and the Australian Democrat Visigoths, both of whom seem determined to tear down-- Senator Durack —I thought we were in a spirit of calm. Senator GARETH EVANS —A spirit of gentle irony is what is abroad at the moment, Senator Durack. With Senator Durack's well-known sense of humour I do not expect him to be able to appreciate that. What I am saying in my usual extravagant language is that we do not like either the Democrat proposals or the Opposition proposals. The fact that the Opposition has now yielded to the Democrats does not make our choice any easier in that respect. What is involved is something of a frontal assault on the tradition of executive responsibility and accountability for matters of this kind. Moreover, it is an assault which seems to be premised on the notion that the government of the day is likely to be motivated by all sorts of shonky considerations and will be got at by the forces of darkness of one kind or another and be wanting, for a variety of ill- sustainable motives, to withdraw references in particular circumstances. Senator Chipp —What is wrong with giving Parliament rights in these important matters? Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Chipp would have had some reservations about that back in his ministerial days where every single bit of executive action he wanted to take had the capacity to be second-guessed by a chamber perhaps wanting to make extravagant political capital out of something which he knew, on the basis of information available to him, was a thoroughly soundly based and legitimate course of action being proposed. The Government is not saying that the Executive ought to be able to act behind closed doors in this matter and not expose itself to some degree of accountability for its actions. We are saying, in the language of the existing Bill, that the Minister be required to publish in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette and table any such withdrawal so that it will quickly come to public knowledge that such a withdrawal is under way. That will, of course, generate for the Government a considerable degree of political trouble if the Government is acting in a way that is colourable or indefensible. The practical situation will be that, if the government of the day is acting in a way which is challenged, it will have to defend itself and explain publicly why it is acting as it is. I do not seek to prolong the debate on this matter except to say that there are quite basic principles that we see to be here involved about the Executive's responsibility for its actions. There are certain things in the Executive and law enforcement area which have traditionally been regarded as properly the prerogative of the Executive alone, notably decisions about prosecutions and decisions about withdrawal of prosecutions, all of which raise policy issues similar to those which underlie this consideration. I do not think anyone is suggesting that there is a proper role for Parliament to play in second-guessing the Minister or the Executive on matters concerning decisions to prosecute, decisions to withdraw prosecutions, decisions to release prisoners from gaol and things of that kind. It is perfectly proper that the spotlight of parliamentary scrutiny be played upon such Executive decisions. But that is a very different matter from saying that the Parliament should be making those decisions. That is as far as I want to take the point. However, because of the gravity of the issue of principle we see as here being involved, the Government is minded to divide on this should it become apparent that we are in a minority. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.58) —As I have indicated, the Opposition has proposed an amendment in much the same terms as Senator Chipp's. We clearly support Senator Chipp's amendments to provide for parliamentary control over the withdrawal or attempted withdrawal of a reference by a Minister. It is useful that the Government's amendment, which we all support, provides that the Minister should table such a withdrawal. However, we think that the perception, at least, of this legislation is that it should be free from political control and manipulation. I really do not see why a Minister, having given a reference to an authority, if the authority wishes to pursue that reference and believes it is right in doing so, should have any power to stop the authority when it is in midstream. It is not just a matter of its being purely an Executive act. The Minister has the Executive power to give the reference. Fortunately now, as a result of the amendments that we made last night, the Federal Minister can give that reference without having to get the approval of the intergovernmental committee, so the Executive act is the act of giving the reference. The danger of the Minister being able to withdraw it, of course, is that there may be a significant difference of opinion between the Minister and the Authority in relation to the need for that investigation to continue. I think, on that basis, the Parliament is the proper body to judge any dispute of that kind. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(10.59) —I want to make reference to the fact that this recommendation, which is supported by both the Opposition and the Democrats, is a use of an affirmative resolution procedure about which there has been much debate over many years, both in this Parliament and in parliaments in general and at meetings of parliamentary organisational groups. Although I am not able to quote his words, or indeed remember any of his speeches, I would not mind having a wager with the Attorney-General that at some stage or other he has made a powerful speech in support of affirmative resolution procedures. Senator Gareth Evans —On occasions. When I was in Opposition. Senator LEWIS —The Attorney-General is now in a position where he will exercise the power. I take it that the Committee will support the amendment, which will enable him to carry out the feelings he had when he was in Opposition. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Chipp's amendment) be left out. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 3 —— Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. F. Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Carrick, Sir John Macklin, M. J. Chipp, D. L. Martin, K. J. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Mason, C. V. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Messner, A. J. Durack, P. D. Reid, M. E. Evans, Jack Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. McIntosh, G. D. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F. Elstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Evans, Gareth Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Hearn, J. M. Chaney, F. M. Button, J. N. Missen, A. J. Foreman, D. J. Rae, Peter Primmer, C. G. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment agreed to. The CHAIRMAN —We now come to group 7, guidelines and directions to Authority. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.06) —The key amendment is No . (12) and consequential amendment No. (11). What is involved is an amendment to clause 16 of the Bill so as to require that the Commonwealth Minister may give directions or guidelines to the Authority in relation to particular cases, but only with the unanimous approval-not majority approval-of the meeting of the intergovernmental committee, and only in circumstances that all such directions and guidelines are to be laid before Parliament. This is another endeavour to secure an appropriate balance between, on the one hand, Executive control and accountability running to the Executive government, but at the same time ensuring that the exercise of that control and the establishment of that accountability mechanism cannot be misused. The sanction against misuse is, again, publicity, the requirement that matters be tabled, together with the requirement of unanimity on the part of the intergovernmental committee. As we all know, unanimity is not likely to be forthcoming from any such body unless the merits of the proposed direction are clear-cut. It is the case, without wanting to get into any more detail, that commissions and authorities of this kind can sometimes be induced to go off on a frolic of their own to allocate their resources in a way which is ultimately and quite objectively unproductive. It is the case that the intergovernmental committee might want to rearrange the priorities of the Authority from time to time to ensure that resources are focused and channelled into particular areas of manifestly greater moment perhaps than that which the Authority wants to pursue at the time. One imagines, as is always the case with these powers of direction over statutory authorities, that it is only in the rarest imaginable cases that the power would ever be likely to be used. Certainly the requirements of unanimity and publicity which are built into the government amendment would certainly ensure that whenever the power was used, albeit only rarely, it would be only for some justification that was absolutely clear-cut, overwhelming and unchallengeable. Against that background the amendment seems to the Government-and, we hope, to a majority of honourable senators-to be a reasonable approach. Therefore, I move: Page 10, clause 16, lines 13 to 20, leave out sub-clauses (2) and (3), insert the following sub-clauses: '(1A) The Minister shall not, without the approval of a resolution passed at a meeting of the Inter-Governmental Committee, being a resolution in favour of which all the members of the Committee present at the meeting have voted, give any directions or furnish any guidelines to the Authority under sub-section (1) with respect to particular cases. '(2) The Minister shall not give any directions or furnish any guidelines to the Authority under sub-section (1) with respect to the performance of the function of the Authority referred to in paragraph 10 (2) (b) unless the appropriate Minister of the Crown of the State concerned has agreed to the giving of the directions or the publishing of the guidelines. '(3) Where the Minister gives a direction or furnishes a guideline to the Authority under sub-section (1), the Minister shall- (a) as soon as practicable after giving the direction or furnishing the guideline, cause a copy of the direction or guideline to be published in the Gazette; and (b) cause a copy of the direction or guideline to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the copy is published in the Gazette.'. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.10) —The Opposition regards the Government 's proposed amendments to clause 16 as some improvement on the National Crime Authority Bill, but it believes very firmly indeed that the Minister should not be able to give the National Crime Authority directions in a particular case at all. Therefore, we have moved amendments Nos (10), (11) and (12) standing in my name. We believe that the Opposition amendments should take precedence, as far as the opinion of this committee is concerned, of the Government amendments. If the Opposition amendments do not succeed we will support the Government amendments. But at this stage we believe that there ought to be much more important amendments than those which the Government proposes. Clause 16 of the Bill provides: Subject to sub-section (2), the Minister may, by notice in writing to the Authority, give directions or furnish guidelines to the Authority with respect to the performance of its functions and the Authority shall comply with any such directions or guidelines. The Opposition is deeply concerned, indeed disturbed, about a provision of that kind being within the ambit of the Bill. The Opposition would not object to the Minister being able to give general directions to the Authority about its operation and so forth, but the significance of this Authority is in its investigation of particular cases, matters which have been referred to it either by the Federal Minister or by the intergovernmental committee. The role of the Authority is to investigate organised crime and official corruption. It will investigate, in particular, the question of whether certain persons should be prosecuted for such crimes. As the Opposition has said over and over again, for the Authority to achieve its purpose it should be able to act independently and fearlessly, with adequate resources. It is to be an expert authority. It is to be a body which can do things which existing traditional methods of investigation have failed to do because of their inadequacy of resources or of powers. This Authority is provided with, in particular, the powers that are needed to investigate criminal conduct, organised crime and official corruption associated with it. That Authority must be independent. It would be a very serious matter if police were called off conducting their ordinary investigations by a Minister . What a scandal that would be. It would be a real scandal in the community if a Minister were to tell police what they were or were not to do. I do not know whether that happens in some places; perhaps it does. But I can rest assured that everyone in this Parliament and in this chamber, I hope, would be up in arms if a Federal Minister were to call off police because they were getting a bit close to somebody who was sympathetic to the Minister. Senator Gareth Evans —What about the Salisbury affair in South Australia? Senator DURACK —The Salisbury matter is perhaps not the best precedent for the Attorney to suggest. I am not going to debate the Salisbury case. There may have been the exceptional case, such as that referred to by Senator Evans. Even if there has been the odd case, the fact of the matter is that this Authority almost certainly will be chaired by a judge; if not by a judge, by a very distinguished lawyer. It will have two members, one of whom is to be nominated by State Attorneys-General. I hope, if a further Opposition amendment is agreed to, that the Authority will be strengthened further by two other experts in the field of criminal investigation and criminal law enforcement. Even under the present Bill, the Authority would be of high standing. It would be so even if an Opposition amendment with which we have not yet dealt were not accepted. The Authority must be independent and it must be able to act fearlessly or it is not worth having. Clause 16, as it stands in the Bill, enables the Federal Minister to call off an investigation at a vital stage. The Opposition, as I said, is deeply concerned-- Senator Gareth Evans —It is not a Minister; it is unanimity of all governments. Senator DURACK —We are talking about the Attorney's Bill at the moment. I will get on to the Attorney's amendment in a minute. Senator Gareth Evans —I am perfectly happy to modify the Bill. Get to the point. Senator DURACK —We are talking about the Bill that the Attorney brought into this Parliament, the Bill that we have in front of us, that which the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs considered. That Bill did not make any delimitation whatever. I have already read clause 16: . . . the Minister may, by notice in writing to the Authority, give directions or furnish guidelines to the Authority with respect to the performance of its functions . . . I am very pleased to note that the Senate Committee-- Senator Gareth Evans —Subject to placing it in the Gazette. Read the rest of the Bill. What about the publicity sanctions? What about the political sanctions? Senator DURACK —It does not matter about putting it in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. If the Minister gave any such directions, an Authority worth its salt would make it pretty well known without its having to be put in the Gazette. The Senate Committee, when it dealt with this matter, recommended that the Minister's power should not extend to giving directions in a particular case . That was a very important recommendation. It is probably of equal importance to the Committee's recommendation about the removal of the veto on inquiries into Federal matters, which has already been dealt with. In my view, this is part of an attempt by this Parliament to prevent political influence and political manipulation of this Authority. The Attorney has said he will not accept that recommendation of the Committee but that he will move an amendment to clause 16 in the terms we are now debating . The Attorney's amendment provides that directions can be given in a particular case if it has the unanimous approval of the intergovernmental committee. I have already expressed my views about the value of intergovernmental committees as executive bodies. Intergovernmental committees and ministerial councils are a great form of co-operative federalism when they talk about policy. They take years usually, of course, to make up their minds about any of these matters. That does not matter so much when talking about policy. But this body will have executive responsibilities. From the experience I have had of ministerial councils with executive responsibilities-the Attorney has had the same experiences-I do not believe that the intergovernmental committee will be structured in such a way that it will be able to make decisions of that kind. It is very likely that if the Minister were to put before such a body the reasons why he wanted to take any action he would be able to get its support. I do not knock entirely the Government's amendments. If my amendments are not supported, naturally I will support the Government's amendments because they would clearly put some brake on the Minister in giving directions. The basis on which I am putting this case and these amendments is that I believe it is wrong in principle that one Minister or a group of Ministers should be able to give directions to the Authority in relation to a particular investigation. The Authority should be independent and fearless in its pursuit of crime. This is what this body is to do; this is what we are setting it up for. If it cannot do that, if it can be stopped from doing it, we might as well not have it. We would be better not to have it because we would be misleading the public by setting up a body which we say is to be independent, which we say will be well resourced and will be fearless and act firmly in investigating organised crime, this great menace facing the community, and then allowing the opportunity for political manipulation of or influence over it. For those reasons I suggest that the amendment of the Government is a very poor second best alternative and that the amendment standing in my name is the amendment which observes the principle that should apply here. I believe it is the amendment that should be first considered by this Committee. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Durack, you have not formally moved your amendments. You mentioned three-Nos (10), (11) and (12). I think the only one that it is appropriate to move at the moment is amendment No. (12). No. (10) is dependent on the Attorney-General's amendment No. (11), which has not been moved, and your No. (11) is consequent upon No. (12). If you move amendment No. (12) I can formalise proceedings. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.21) —Mr Chairman, if it would assist Senator Durack in his dilemma I am happy to withdraw my amendment and allow his to be put first in order that he not be embarrassed. The CHAIRMAN —There is no need for that at all. His is an amendment to yours and I will put his amendment first. Senator GARETH EVANS —But he cannot get the whole box and dice that he wants. The CHAIRMAN —He can that way. Senator GARETH EVANS —I have total confidence in your chairmanship, Mr Chairman, so I will leave it to you. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Durack, are you prepared to move amendment No. (12)? You have not formally moved it. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.21) —I move: Leave out proposed new sub-clause 16 (1A). The CHAIRMAN —The situation is that the Attorney-General has proposed in his amendment No. (12), to leave out sub-clauses (2) and (3) of clause 16. It seems to be common ground that that should be done so I will put the question first. The question is: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Gareth Evans's amendment) be left out. Question resolved in the affirmative. The CHAIRMAN —The Attorney-General has also proposed three new sub-clauses to which Senator Durack, by his amendment No. (12), has proposed to leave one out. So the question before the Chair is that the amendment moved by Senator Durack, to delete the words proposed to be inserted by the Attorney-General, be agreed to. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(11.22) —Mr Chairman, several senators have risen because we are a little unsure as to where you are taking us. Would you mind repeating what words are being inserted into which particular paragraph? The CHAIRMAN —I thought I had clarified it, but I will do so again. The Attorney -General has proposed in his amendment No. (12) to insert three new sub-clauses, (1A), (2) and (3), into clause 16 in place of the words we have deleted. Senator Durack, by his amendment No. (12), has proposed to delete clause (1A). The immediate question is that Senator Durack's amendment be agreed to. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.23) —I will introduce a couple of matters into this debate which no doubt will be dealt with by members of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs which considered this matter. The National Crime Authority is an authority which has been delegated certain executive functions. It is not a judicial body, a judicial institution. As I have been following the debate I have attempted to see what qualities the National Crime Authority should be clothed with. It should have the quality of independence and a quality that enables a proper executive audit over the delegated executive functions of that Authority. Were the Authority a judicial body I certainly would go along entirely with what Senator Durack has said, because the responsibility to ensure the independence of a judicial body would supersede anything else. But it seems to me that in our system of democracy, the elected people have responsibilities, and elected governments have executive responsibilities, which they must discharge on behalf of the people who elect them. If they fail to discharge adequately those responsibilities the people have audit and control over their actions at the next election. If we go too far along the line of clothing bodies with delegated executive functions with absolute independence, who is going to control that body ultimately? These are the things that concern me as I listen to this debate. I have expressed my view here in this chamber about the trend that governments and parliaments are pursuing at this time, of clothing non-judicial, non-elected authorities with either judicial powers or functions or with functions more appropriate to the Executive. Having listened to the debate I am currently inclined to support the proposal that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) is putting forward on behalf of the Government, which I assume is a response to the criticism of the original Bill. Senator Chipp —Contained in the Committee's report. Senator HARRADINE —Yes, contained in the Committee's report. The reason I support the amendment is that in a particular case the proposal would not enable the Committee's proper delegated executive functions to be halted arbitrarily by one in whom there is reposed the proper role of executive functions; namely, the Minister. But this responsibility would be shared amongst the inter-governmental committee upon which, of course, there are representatives of the States who are necessary for the proper functioning of the National Crime Authority. Senator Chipp —The IGC has to be unanimous. Senator HARRADINE —Exactly. As Senator Chipp says, it has to be unanimous. That is how I see it at present; I thought I would chuck those ideas into the ring. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(11.29) —Senator Harradine's last sentence causes me some concern and I ask the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) whether he will clarify his proposed new clause (1A) for me and I hope for our colleagues in the chamber. Clause (1A) says: The Minister shall not, without the approval of a resolution passed at a meeting of the Inter-Governmental Committee, being a resolution in favour of which all the members of the Committee present at the meeting have voted . . . Does that mean that they have voted at the meeting and some of them may have voted in the negative, or does it mean it is a matter in favour of which they have all voted; in other words, it must be unanimous? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.30) —If English language means anything, they all have to vote unanimously in favour because what it says is 'being a resolution in favour of which all the members of the Committee present at the meeting have voted'. I honestly cannot see how it can be changed in any way to produce a different result. We could put the words 'in favour' at the end of the sentence if it is thought that there is some ambiguity, but on reflection I find that difficult to contemplate. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(11.30) —I am concerned both at the original clause 16, sub-clauses (1) and (2), which have now been deleted and at the proposed amendments by the Attorney-General. I support entirely the recommendation of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs which makes it impossible for an intervention by government in a particular investigation. I direct myself to the points that Senator Harradine raised as his dilemma. I respect the dilemma. First of all, quite clearly, if an investigation is to be made, the investigating body, whether it is judicial or quasi-judicial, must be free to do the investigation. If one is given the task of investigation, whether it is a Professor Slayter or the Australian Science and Technology Council, which is not a judicial body, it would be wrong for a government to intervene in the independence of an investigation. Quite clearly the clause now deleted was an objectionable one because it gave to the Minister the authority to intervene. One could have said that that gave a capacity for political manipulation. Now that has gone. But in its place is, I think, an equally obnoxious one; that is, that now the Attorney would not be able to do that to a particular investigation unless there was unanimity on the intergovernmental committee. I find it strange that anyone can support that. The majority of honourable senators voted in this chamber for the deletion of the veto of the intergovernmental committee of a reference which was purely a Commonwealth one. I remind the Senate of that debate. It was a significant one. The Standing Committee and the Senate have referred to the fact that the original Bill, now amended by the Senate, enabled an intergovernmental committee to stop something that was purely a Commonwealth function. As I read the amendment, it would make it possible for an intergovernmental committee to agree or disagree on an intervention in a particular investigation which could be purely a Commonwealth function. If one is to be consistent one would have to say that, if the principle was wrong in the original veto, it is wrong in this amendment also. But it is fundamentally wrong anyway because it ought not to be possible, once an independent body is set up to do an investigation, to intervene in that investigation. For that reason I fully support the Standing Committee. I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that that was an all-party Committee of the Senate. I believe that words should be inserted to make it impossible for the Attorney to intervene in a particular investigation. I find no comfort from the fact that there would be some security in the publishing of these events in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. All that will do is start a political argument, a noisy argument in public in which there could be allegations in Parliament and outside as to the bona fides of the intervention. Therefore, it would weaken the integrity of the independent body. Above all, what we need to do at the moment is to establish a body. I hope it is a judicial body. I see no reason why Sir Edward Williams who had already been nominated and briefed should not be the logical Chairman. He was universally accepted as such. Senator Harradine —But it does not have judicial functions. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —It may not have judicial functions but nor did the Slatyer committee or any other committee set up to find facts. Its job is to find facts. If its job is to find facts-- Senator Chipp —The Slatyer committee did not do a great job on that. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Senator Chipp has very gently intervened to say exactly what I want to say about publication in the Gazette. All that would happen would be that those who wanted to put their subjective viewpoint-I respect any viewpoint one way or the other-would simply be undermining the integrity of the committee. Whether it has a judicial function or not, it has an investigative function. I do not think that, in any committee that we set up in the Senate or the Parliament, we would willingly allow a Minister to intervene in the course of its journey. That does not make any sense to me. It seems utterly wrong. The proposed National Crime Authority will be the most important crime busting authority in this country. The public must be concerned that its integrity is total; that it must be able to pursue matters without fear or favour; that there must be no political intervention one way or another, whether it is concerted by the States and Commonwealth or by the Commonwealth alone. It must get on with its job. Equally, I stress the fact that, if we accept the Attorney-General's amendment, it would allow the States and the Commonwealth sitting together to decide unanimously on a matter which is purely a Commonwealth matter. If a matter is purely a Commonwealth matter, why should it be necessary to have unanimity on the inter-governmental committee? That has been fought out here. It has been resolved here and I cannot believe that anyone who voted to remove the veto power previously can support the Attorney-General's amendment. Senator HILL(South Australia)(11.37) —I wish briefly to support the amendment moved by the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Durack, and also to attempt to address the question that has been raised by Senator Harradine. It is quite true that this body is not envisaged as a judicial body. It is an administrative body . The best analogy that can be drawn with any other functionary of the system is the one that Senator Durack made of a police investigation. In so many ways that was how the Senate Standing Committee addressed the matter when it addressed specific powers. I am as concerned as anyone in this chamber that adequate safeguards are built into the system to ensure that this body behaves in a proper way. Senator Crichton-Browne —What are they? Senator HILL —Some were inbuilt last night. But I am equally concerned to ensure that there is no governmental interference in a particular investigation or, to use the words that have been debated here, that no government, whether it is one government or an intergovernmental committee, can give directions in a particular investigation. We would consider that intolerable in a specific police investigation and I think it follows that, in relation to a specific term of reference and investigation of this Authority, it is equally intolerable. Therefore, although I agree that it is better than what was in the original Bill , I think the amendment being suggested by the Attorney-General still does not adequately answer that criticism, which is a criticism of principle, that direction by a government or governments should not be given in a particular investigation. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(11.39) —I agree with Senator Hill that the amendment moved by the Attorney-General is a vast improvement on the original Bill, which was totally unacceptable. The Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs found that way also in its recommendations 42 (a) and (b) which state: 42. (a) Clause 16 should be amended so as to make it clear that, in furnishing guidelines or giving directions to the Authority, the Minister is precluded from so doing in relation to a particular case. Those are the offending words as far as the Opposition is concerned. It continues: (b) Sub-clause (3) of clause 16 should be amended so as to require the Minister to table a copy of the directions or guidelines in the Parliament within 15 sitting days of their publication in the Gazette (paragraph 8.30). As I understand it, the Government has complied with all the contents of that recommendation, with the exception of the guidelines and directions in relation to a particular case. I am pleased that the Attorney agreed to accept Senator Durack's amendment. His amendment and the ensuing debate on it will be recorded in Hansard and those who study this matter can look at the whole debate and the significance of Senator Durack's amendment in the context of the Bill. We are talking about a very important principle which, unfortunately, covers a not very important set of circumstances. The set of circumstances that is envisaged-I can sympathise with the Attorney-General-is the Authority embarking on lunatic escapades and the Federal Attorney, or the Federal Parliament, having absolutely no say in that. This is not a matter of principle; it is a matter of management. To cover this situation the Attorney has put a matter of some deep principle into the legislation, namely, giving the Attorney power, with some limitations, to intervene in terms of giving guidelines or directions. We will support the Attorney's amendment because we are satisfied that it complies with the recommendations of the Senate Committee, except with regard to the particular case. We are satisfied, after looking at it, that the safeguards against naked political intervention by the Attorney are so many and so adequate as to allay fears that the provision would be abused. Proposed new sub-clause ( 1A) states: The Minister shall not, without the approval of a resolution passed at a meeting of the Inter-Governmental Committee, being a resolution in favour of which all the members of the Committee present at the meeting have voted, give any directions or furnish any guidelines to the Authority under sub-section (1) with respect to particular cases. I ask the Attorney whether it is possible for him to put the words 'in favour' in another part of that sub-clause to satisfy the point made by Senator Lewis. While I agree with the Attorney that it is almost clear, there is room for ambiguity. Senator Durack —The words 'in favour' are there. Senator CHIPP —To answer Senator Durack, through you, Mr Chairman, Senator Lewis suggested that because the words 'in favour' are where they are there is room for ambiguity. I am inclined to agree with Senator Lewis. The Attorney offered to put the words 'in favour' in another part of that sentence to make the meaning totally without ambiguity. I ask the Attorney to give consideration to that while the debate takes place. Proposed new sub-clause (1A) is followed by proposed new sub-clause (2). Let us assume that the Authority embarks on some lunatic fringe activity. Let us assume it is mechanically desirable for it to be precluded from doing so or to be given a direction not to do so. I agree with the speakers from the Liberal Party of Australia who say that it is unthinkable, as the original Bill provided, for a Federal Attorney to have unfettered power to say: 'Listen, stop going in that direction; go in another direction'. That is unthinkable. As I and the Democrats see it, the amendment does place restrictions on the naked power of the Minister . He has to get the unanimous agreement of all members of the IGC present at the meeting for the direction or the guideline to be given to the Authority. Senator Durack —Not all members of it, though. Senator CHIPP —All members who are present at the meeting. There has to be a quorum. All members have to agree; it has to be unanimous. I can see the thrust of Senator Durack's interjection. I did consider such a situation, but one would have to be fairly suspicious or paranoid to think that someone would cook up a meeting and arrange it so that the people who did not attend were the ones who were going to vote against and only those who would vote for would be present. I acknowledge that what Senator Durack says is possible, but one would have to be pretty devious-- Senator Crichton-Browne —Governor-General Kerr could give you an example. Senator CHIPP —I do not know whether Senator Crichton-Browne is being very helpful to me or anybody else. Firstly, there has to be unanimous agreement by all the people at the meeting; secondly, it has to be published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette, as the Committee recommended; thirdly, it has to be presented to both Houses of Parliament; and, fourthly, the State Minister involved has to agree. They are four fairly formidable thresholds over which the Federal Attorney-General of the day has to step before he can do what he wishes to do. I now refer to the scenario envisaged by Senator Durack and put, quite properly and accurately, by Senators Lewis, Sir John Carrick and Hill. The scenario involves a conspiracy between State Ministers and the Federal Attorney-General of the day when the Authority is properly investigating organised crime in a particular State. The State Minister then goes to the Federal Attorney and says: 'Tell these people to lay off'. Those very real fears have been expressed by the Liberal Party. What kind of odium would that attract? First of all, the request has to get through a unanimous vote of the IGC and then it goes immediately into the Gazette. Every policeman engaged in the case would immediately go to the newspapers to alert them of the facts. The matter would be in the headlines of newspapers. After being published in the Gazette the matter would be brought before the Parliament. Can one imagine the furore in the Parliament and the odium that would attach? On balance and in conclusion, I see the worries of the Opposition, but I believe this power to restrain the Authority must exist somewhere, and that power must reside in the Executive and in the Parliament. As I said, it is unfortunate that such a deep matter of principle has to be involved in such a fairly simple mechanical matter. For those reasons we support the Government. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(11.43) —I take up the interjection by Senator Durack in respect of having the right people there at the right time for the wrong reasons. Honourable senators will recall that Sir John Kerr had experience of a meeting which was all about loans for temporary purposes. I am sure that that has not escaped the minds-- Senator Lewis —He did not know what was going on. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —He was not invited, that is why. I think that by and large the safeguards may well protect us from the prospect of there being interference for corrupt purposes. Frankly, regarding a special investigation, I do not agree with the proposition put by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) that the Authority could go off on some wildcat exercise. The Authority must stay clearly within its terms of reference. My greater concern is that this will provide an excuse-we will be dealing with these clauses later on-for the intergovernmental committee to continue to inquire in detail, almost on a daily basis, as to the activities of the Authority in respect of a term of reference which it has been given. I believe that compromises the integrity of the Authority. While I understand that it may have some relevance and virtue in respect of general inquiries, I do not see it has any relevance for special investigations. I ask again: What is the reason for the direction? The Attorney- General has spoken about a misallocation of resources. Presumably, a judge will be the chairman and the other members will be highly qualified and skilled people who are able to make practical-- Senator Chipp —Not necessarily; they are recommendations from the States. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I had forgotten for a moment where the Democrats stand on the abolition of State governments. I thank Senator Chipp for reminding me. Presumably, by and large, they will be competent, capable people who will be able to make practical on the spot judgments. They will surely have the greater knowledge of what is relevant and real, what needs to be pursued, who the targets are and what areas they ought to be probing into. For the committee to be able to make a judgment, as I said earlier, will simply require it to be regularly-- Senator Chipp —How would you like Mr Landa setting a target? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Presumably, he will not be on the Authority. Only the Authority will know what is vital to it. It will require daily monitoring. I understand Senator Harradine's problems. There is, perhaps, in some respects reason for a judicial audit but what concerns me is that as long as the committee continues to inquire into the precise details of the activity of the Authority there is a chance of political corruption. For it to be able to give precise directions means that it will have to know precisely what the Authority is doing. That will mean dates, names, places and activities. As long as that information is available to the Committee in a precise way it concerns me that it could leak out. It might, in some way, compromise the Authority and cause, purposely or accidentally, people under investigation to learn that they are under investigation. All it does is expose the activities of the Authority quite unfairly, unreasonably and, in my view, quite improperly. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(11.52) —I support the point that Senator Crichton- Browne has just made. I say sincerely to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) that I would not in any way suggest dishonesty on his part. I say that openly. But we have to look down the track. We are not establishing an authority to be in existence for six months. The Authority has been created. Although there is a sunset clause that gives the Parliament the opportunity to have another look at it in five years time we are setting in place an authority which will be in existence for the next 30, 40 or 50 years. The probabilities are that at some stage in the future a Minister of the Crown associated with the Authority may be crook. That is a possibility. Senator Crichton-Browne —Not unwell; corrupt. Senator LEWIS —He may be corrupt. It may be that he is not a crook or corrupt in himself but, as a result of something he has done at some stage in his past, some crook may be able to blackmail him. One of the things which became very clear to the Senate Committee investigating this matter was that the people whom the Crime Authority will be aimed at have very large sums of money in store for use. Senator Gareth Evans —But you would have to blackmail seven Ministers. Senator LEWIS —With respect, the Attorney-General misunderstands. He is talking about the legislation providing for a unanimous vote. That is not the point. The point is that in order for the intergovernmental committee to make a direction the Authority would have to reveal to it matters of such detail that a dishonest Minister at that meeting would get information which he could relay to someone. Within hours the money that person had in Australia would be out of Australia and in a Swiss or Singaporean bank. Senator Crichton-Browne —Or they have gone themselves. Senator LEWIS —They may also go themselves. The most important thing about these crooks is that their money is available. The Senate Committee was told that some of these people continue to operate from gaol. It is just a matter of reorganising their office arrangements. As long as they have managed to get their $10m or $20m, or whatever the figure is, overseas, they can continue to operate wherever they are. That is a matter which causes me concern. I accept very much what Senator Harradine said about the Government's amendment. I understand his problem, although I would like to say one thing, through you Mr Chairman, to Senator Harradine. I do not accept that governments are responsible only to the people and that at the next election the people will make a decision. I accept that governments are responsible to the people and certainly at an election that political responsibility can be sheeted home. But in between elections the Executive government of this nation is responsible to this Parliament. It is parliaments which ask the difficult questions. In the course of an election the Prime Minister or leader of a party can talk with great rhetoric about what he will do, the promises he will make and all the rest of it. But it is the Parliament that asks the Minister or Prime Minister how they will do it, where they will do it, when they will do it and how much money it will cost. They are the difficult questions that politicians can avoid in the course of an election campaign. That is why the Executive government must be responsible to the Parliament. I put to the Senate that if we allow the Executive government to interfere in a situation where the Authority may be getting a bit close to the bone-we anticipate that it may be investigating someone's political colleague-suddenly there could be a direction to the Authority. It could be couched in all sorts of language. It could say: 'Look, there is another matter which is more important at present'. A resolution could be passed at the intergovernmental committee to the effect that the Authority should give priority to X instead of A. The result would be that A, in respect of whom the Authority was getting a bit close to the bone, would manage to escape through the loophole. It may have been expressed at the intergovernmental committee in a most proper and reasonable manner. Nevertheless, the proposed government changes would enable that to happen. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.58) —Senator Lewis and Senator Crichton-Browne talked about my problem. I do not see that I have a problem. I threw a few criteria into the ring which I believe ought to be applied, and are being applied, to the consideration of this debate. Quite frankly, we are dealing with a matter of great national importance. We are establishing an authority which could not, I suggest, have been established 10 years ago. Senator Crichton-Browne —And probably in the next 10 years either. Senator HARRADINE —That is a real possibility. The laws that we as legislators make must have a cohesive as well as a protective role. Their cohesive role in this respect is based on the moral indignation of the general populace in response to the expose of rampant crime-white collar crime and other sorts of crime-which, it is considered, cannot adequately be dealt with by the existing establishments in the various States. As an expression of that concern we have this legislation. It is cohesive; in other words, it is an expression of the view of the people, based on their moral values and their moral indignation about the undermining of the values that they consider essential for a democratic society. But the law must also have a protective role. As I said initially, we are establishing a national crime authority and everybody in this chamber realises that this would have been impossible 10 years ago. Senator Crichton-Browne suggested that it might be impossible in another 10 years, so we are getting it off the ground now because of the concern among the populace. But we could go too far. We could clothe this organisation with such powers as would, in fact, undermine our responsibilities to ensure that the protective role of this law is upheld. I am concerned about that. The functions of this Authority are somewhat different from those mentioned by Senator Sir John Carrick when he referred to the Slatyer inquiry. This was a very important inquiry but it was an inquiry, it was not an exercise of delegated executive function. It was more in the nature of an exercise of delegated representative functions of the Government and members of parliament. The report was commissioned, it was announced in Parliament that a report would be made by Professor Slatyer. He received submissions and his report was tabled in Parliament. As such, the report was part of our delegated representative function. However, this body is clothed with delegated executive functions and, as such, its main purpose is to generate hard evidence which could be used in the prosecution and ultimate conviction of criminals in Australia. In my view, there needs to be a real consideration of the protective role of this legislation and, indeed, to ensure that the Executive, namely the Commonwealth Government and the State governments which are participating in this National Crime Authority do not abandon their executive authority. As I said initially when I entered this debate about an hour ago, I am becoming increasingly concerned that the rights and responsibilities of individual citizens in Australia are not being properly determined either by judicial authorities exercising the judicial function or by elected authorities exercising their legislative function. I have said this before about the Human Rights Commission and the Sex Discrimination Commission. These are non-elected, non-judicial authorities exercising functions that would be more appropriately exercised by either independent judicial authorities or by legislative bodies- politicians-who are answerable to the people. Having regard to all that, I believe that the Attorney-General's amended proposal is attractive and unless I hear anything to convince me to the contrary I will support it. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.05) —I shall respond briefly to a couple of matters, particularly a specific point mentioned by Senator Chipp about the drafting of this clause. Mr Chairman, I am happy to seek leave to amend proposed sub-clause (1A) along the lines suggested by Senator Chipp, so that it would read: '(1A) The Minister shall not, without the approval of a resolution passed at a meeting of the Inter-Governmental Committee, being a resolution as to which all members of the Committee present at the meeting have voted in favour, give any directions or furnish any guidelines to the Authority under sub-section (1) with respect to particular cases. Leave granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —I think that the more general issues raised in the debate have been more than adequately canvassed, particularly in the two contributions made by Senator Harradine who got to the nub of the underlying issues of principle that are involved. I would not wish it to be thought that the Government has not given very close and anxious consideration to this question, particularly in the light of the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. However, the text that has ultimately guided us in this matter is Clemenceau's famous remark that war is too serious a matter to be left entirely to the generals. Ultimately, we have had in mind that independent and fearless bodies, to use Senator Durack's expression, may on occasion just possibly do some pretty hair raising things-maybe not now and maybe not in the immediate future but perhaps some years down the track with new personnel and when the initial force of some of the concerns that have been expressed in this debate have worn off. Among the more hair raising enterprises that I can recall executive investigation bodies embarking upon in the past were the South Australian Special Branch compilations of intelligence about people engaged in political activities. These were the subject of an express government direction which was cheerfully ignored by the then police commissioner, Mr Salisbury. It will be recalled that he ignored them on the basis that he owed his obligation to a higher public interest, a higher interest in effective law enforcement. That kind of claim may be made in the future unless a fail safe mechanism is put here to cope with pathological cases. It must be appreciated that it is only the pathological cases that would ever conceivably attract direction of the kind that is envisaged here. The war in question might be too important to leave not only to the generals but also to the Executive Government were there not checks and balances built in to ensure that the overriding power of the Executive Government is not misused or abused. That is the force of the requirements for publicity through tabling these directions and more particularly that is the force of the additional layer of protection that we have built in here in response to the concerns expressed by the Senate Committee report requiring a unanimity of response across governments generally, not just the Commonwealth Government. We can argue around these issues for the rest of the day. It has been a long debate so far, but ultimately it boils down to a matter of judgment. I think the issues have been adequately canvassed. I repeat that we have been very concerned not to do anything which could possibly reduce the effectiveness or the practical independence of the organisation, but we have felt it necessary to put in some kind of mechanism to ensure that in the extreme case the basic principles of executive control and executive accountability are maintained. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(12.09) —The first time the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) spoke he said that the purpose of the provision was to ensure that there was not a misallocation of resources and that the National Crime Authority did not chase some wildcat scheme, which was not the right priority. He is now saying that it is a question of civil liberties and he is taking up Senator Harradine's point. I do not know whether that is a matter of convenience, a debating point or whether it was the true purpose of the clause in the first place. There are a number of safeguards written into the National Crime Authority Bill. I commented on them favourably in my speech in the second reading debate. One of them is the judicial audit, which does not recommend itself to everyone in this chamber. It provides clearly in clause 47 ( 1) (b) (ii), that the judicial audit can inquire into 'whether the Authority has , during the relevant period, done any act or thing contrary to law or trespassed unduly upon the rights and liberties of individuals'. I assume that the judicial audit will be used for the purposes that the Attorney-General has outlined. Senator Gareth Evans —But your Party and the Democrats are going to knock off the judicial audit. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Do not talk about us as one monolithic group. We are all personalities and characters with a view of our own, unlike members of the Australian Labor Party. Senator Hill —You expel them if they have a different view. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —That is right. It seems to me that clearly the judicial audit will overcome the problems that the Attorney is outlining. The proposition that the Attorney has put can be seen only as interference and not as something which will ensure that civil liberties-the rights and freedoms of individuals- are protected. There is a need to ensure that there is a balance between the competing pressures of organised crime and the rights of individuals. It seems to me that the only way that the Attorney or the intergovernmental committee could audit the activities of the National Crime Authority would be to interfere daily with the activities of the Authority. This would distract the Authority from its purposes. A great deal of the Authority's energy and time would be absorbed because it would have to justify its motives and activities to the Attorney. It would have to provide information which quite properly should not rest with the Attorney. An excellent opportunity would be provided to destroy the work of the Authority in the event that a member of the Committee were corrupt. Perhaps this would enable criminals involved in major crime to avoid the full force of the investigation and subsequent charges and convictions . I have not heard anything today that would justify the Attorney-General maintaining the right firstly to interfere and secondly to redirect the Authority away from its purposes. As I said before, presumably the Attorney will have confidants in that presumably he will be appointing at least a judge as chairman as well as other competent members of the Authority. I would have thought that the provisions contained in the Bill are adequate safeguards and that the interference of the committee or any of its members is not required. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Durack's amendment to Senator Gareth Evans's amendment) be left out. The Committee divided. In Division Senator Gareth Evans-Mr Chairman, could I just take a point of order? The CHAIRMAN-The Attorney cannot stand. However, I can rule on the point of order which he wants to make. The Australian Democrats cannot move from their seats during a division. The Attorney has other procedures open to him. However, they cannot move during a division. Senator Gareth Evans-It is a genuine mistake. The CHAIRMAN-You can seek leave to call off the division and you can move to recommit the question before the Chair. However, you would require leave to do that. Senator Gareth Evans-I seek leave to call off the division and recommit the motion on the basis that there has been a misunderstanding as to which proposition has been put. The CHAIRMAN-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. I will call the division again. Senator Chipp-I apologise deeply to the Committee. I was engaged in conversations about several matters with Senator Durack and my colleagues. It was my mistake entirely. I apologise to the Committee. Question put. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J. Garrick, Sir John Martin, K. J. Collard, S. J. Messner, A. J. Grichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Lajovic, M. E. Bolkus, N. Hearn, J. M. Childs, B. K. Jones, G. N. Chipp, D. L. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. McIntosh, G. D. Coleman, R. N. Macklin, M. J. Colston, M. A. Maquire, 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 Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Georges, G. Ryan, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Harradine, B. Zakharov, A. O. Foreman, D. J. Rae, PeterButton, J. N. Missen, A. J. Grimes, D. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Richardson, G. R. Baume, PeterTate, M. C. Chaney, F. M. Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment (Senator Gareth Evans's), as amended, agreed to. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney- General)(12.23) —I move: (11) Page 10, clause 16, line 9, leave out 'sub-section (2)', insert 'sub- sections (1A) and (2)'. Amendment agreed to. Clause 29 (Terms and conditions of appointment). Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney- General)(12.24) —I move: Page 20, clause 29, lines 22 to 24, leave out sub-clause (1), insert the following sub-clause: '(1) Subject to this Division, a member holds office- (a) in the case of the first Chairman and the first 2 other members-for such period, not exceeding 4 years, as is specified in the instrument of his appointment; (b) in the case of a member who is appointed after the expiration of one year after the commencement of this Act-for a period ending at the expiration of 5 years after that commencement; or (c) in the case of any other member-for a period of 4 years, and is not eligible for re-appointment.'. This is directed to the composition of the Authority and the tenure of its members. Whereas the original Bill provided for two-year terms, renewable for a period of two years, the present provision allows for one non-renewable appointment for a period of four years in respect of the position of the Chairman and members of the Authority. This is consistent with the Committee's recommendation as to non-renewability. The provision is also set out in such a way as to enable a staggering of the terms to ensure some continuity. There is also a recognition of the constraints imposed by the sunset clause in the Bill in the way in which the provision is drafted, but generally it is a straightforward amendment designed to pick up and adopt the basic recommendation of the Committee in this respect and I commend it to the Committee. Senator Durack —I just want to ascertain the order in which these amendments should be put. The CHAIRMAN —The Attorney-General has moved his amendment No. (46) and when I put that the words be inserted you should move your amendment No. (28) which is to change the numbers and then your other amendments will be consequential. The question is: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Gareth Evans's amendment) be left out. Question resolved in the affirmative. The CHAIRMAN —The question now is: That the words proposed to be inserted (Senator Gareth Evans's amendment) be inserted. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(12.26) —The Opposition supports the proposal by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, which is given effect by the Government's amendment to extend the period of office of the members of the National Crime Authority to four years. The Opposition's amendment that I will move is to increase the membership of the Authority from a chairman and two other members to a chairman and four other members. There are consequential amendments by the Opposition in relation to those matters. There is also a separate amendment by the Opposition, which is Opposition amendment No . (19A), which deals with the quorums of the sittings of the Authority when it is conducting hearings. I will deal with that subsequently. I will deal firstly with the reason why the Opposition has moved for an increase in the membership of the Authority from in effect three to five. The membership of the Authority, as is provided for in the Bill, and which is unaffected by the Government's amendment, is a chairman, who shall be either a judge or a lawyer qualified to be a judge. I think it has been assumed that the Chairman will be a judge. One of the members of the Authority is to be nominated by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and another is to be nominated by the Australian Police Ministers' Council. Two of the three members of the Authority will be appointed by State Ministers. The Opposition is quite happy about that. We believe that is an important step. It has been achieved over the last 12 months of discussions in relation to this matter, whereby the States will have a major role in the work of this Authority. We have had a good deal of discussion about the pros and cons of State participation including the importance of having that participation in the Authority. I accept that it is desirable to have the States participating in such an Authority, although I have never believed that it is essential. My view has always been that there is such a lot of purely Federal crime. In fact organised crime, particularly with the importation of drugs, has become very much a federal offence, although as I have said on other occasions the organised crime syndicates do not have much regard as to whether they are breaking State or Federal laws on what the jurisdictions are. Nevertheless there is justification for an authority of this kind simply to deal with Federal crime. As we know, Mr Costigan has shown the extent of Federal crime. The position is that the Authority will now have two of its three members representing the States. One will be appointed by the State Minister responsible for police and the other by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. Although that is an important and valuable development, I question the desirability of the Authority having that preponderance of State representation, bearing in mind that the representatives who will be nominated by the States will almost inevitably be representatives of the traditional system. The officers who are appointed will come out of the traditional law enforcement system and will have very valuable contributions to make. Nevertheless, we are setting up a new authority which, for the first time in Australia, will be clothed with new and, hopefully, adequate powers to investigate the nature of organised crime, I think demanding new expertise, techniques and great resources . In the view of the Opposition, it would be desirable for the members of this Authority to be people who are able to look at the problem in a new light and in new ways. They should not be so traditionalist, as I fear nominees of the State governments will be. Therefore the Opposition believes that the best way of providing for that new approach is to appoint people to the Authority who are expert in the area in their own right, not necessarily as a result of their experience only, valuable and all as that will be. I have in mind a person such as Mr Douglas Meagher, the counsel assisting Mr Costigan. Senator Gareth Evans —He is a fine author. Senator Chipp —He writes occasionally for the Age. Senator DURACK —I do not know whether he writes for the Age. My knowledge of these things is perhaps not as extensive as that of the Attorney-General. However, that has absolutely nothing to do with the point I am making. The point I am making is that the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Ship Painters and Dockers Union has revolutionised the investigation of crime in this country. It has made a major contribution to that. Certainly, it was given great resources. However, of the two people, Mr Costigan has the honour, glory, the big name and so on. But the counsel who has assisted him has brought a new and fresh approach to the whole matter. He has had the resources but he has also had a new mind and an innovative approach. Mr Meagher has made a major contribution. People may criticise him for one reason or another. The Attorney-General has perhaps a lot of reasons to be critical of him. He probably feels a little hurt if Mr Meagher has been the author of criticisms. However, I think the Attorney- General thoroughly deserves most of the criticism he received in those articles and in others. Perhaps he is a little touchy on the subject. I hope that will not cloud his judgment in relation to this proposal because I am sure if he brought to bear an independent judgment on this matter and just detached himself somewhat from the negotiations he has been entering into and saw what the result of it would be, he would agree with my argument that it is desirable to have on this Authority people with fresh approaches and innovative abilities. I believe that that is most desirable. That is why we are proposing the amendment. The other aspect of the amendment is, as I said, to some extent separate. But I think it is an argument in favour of expanding the Authority. The Senate Committee recommended that, at formal hearings of the Authority, when exercising its special powers, at least two members of the Authority should take part. I think the Senate Committee had in mind the question of civil liberties and control of the way these matters are conducted. It felt that it was better to have two members of the Authority conducting hearings. One member of the Authority perhaps might be a little more gung ho than he ought to be. If there were two members there would be a restraining influence, one on the other. I think that was a sensible recommendation of the Committee. The purpose of my amendment is to give effect to the recommendation of the Committee. I understand the Government has not taken up that amendment. It may believe that to have two members of the Authority always tied up in hearings would be somewhat impractical and would cause administrative problems and detract from the ongoing work of the Authority in other matters. Senator Gareth Evans —Exactly. Senator DURACK —There is some substance in what the Attorney-General said. Nevertheless, there is an easy solution to it; namely, expand the Authority. The original National Crimes Commission legislation which I have mentioned from time to time provided for an Authority of up to five members. I think it would be desirable, for all those reasons, that the Authority be expanded in the way recommended and that there be two members of the Authority sitting on formal hearings. I move the Opposition's amendment to Government amendment No. (46) to clause 29: (28) Proposed paragraph 29 (1) (a), leave out '2', insert '4'. Senator Chipp —Could the Authority be split into two and have two hearings at once? Senator DURACK —It might be able to do that as well. But I think it would certainly make it easier for the general administration of the Authority if it had increased numbers so that even if there were only two members sitting at the one time it would not be such a burden on the other member of the Authority as it obviously would be if long hearings were being conducted by two out of the three members. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(12.35) —I ask the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) a question. Will the Attorney confirm that he envisages that the National Crime Authority will establish offices in Melbourne or Sydney or perhaps other places and that the three commissioners will be able to sit singly, one in Sydney, one in Melbourne and one roaming around? Is that the Attorney's intention? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.36) —The answer to Senator Lewis's question is, quite directly, yes. It is certainly envisaged that the Authority, when it gets started and when it gets the material transmitted to it from the Costigan Commission, may have at any one time as many as 12 or more significant references on its plate which demand hearings being held. Under those circumstances we envisage parallel hearings being conducted. For that reason we regard it as being wholly impractical for those hearings to have to be constituted by more than one member of the Authority, particularly if the Authority is to be confined, as we believe it must be, to just three members. It is very much with that practical effectiveness thought in mind that we would resist, very vigorously, the proposed quorum requirement. The concept of checks and balances really has force only if there is some reason to doubt the capacity or credibility of a single member of the Authority. Given that the Authority is not acting judicially but is simply conducting investigations and making reports and recommendations and given that those reports and recommendations have to reflect a majority decision of the members of the Authority, we believe that that is a significant check or safeguard against some misuse of power by an individual member of the Authority. That is the reason why we resist the quorum requirement being put in the terms that Senator Durack proposes. Coming to the more fundamental proposition advanced by Senator Durack, that the membership of the committee be increased from three to five with the Commonwealth being put in the position of appointing three, leaving the other two members to be appointed by the respective inter-governmental bodies, the Government feels very strongly that this amendment is neither necessary nor desirable. Senator Chipp —At this stage? Senator GARETH EVANS —At this stage, certainly. Conceivably it may be the case that it will be necessary in the future. Nevertheless we are anticipating an Authority which is not, after all, just its three members plus a skeleton staff supporting them; we are talking about a very significant cast of lawyers, accountants, economists and computer people working to the Authority. We are contemplating the existence of counsel assisting in appropriate cases, preferably on a salaried rather than a daily fee basis. But there will be ample opportunity for the appointment of the kind of supporting cast on which Mr Costigan has obviously so much relied in producing his reports. There is no reason whatsoever why all the members of the supporting cast, or the key members of the supporting cast, should themselves be members of the Authority. It is not necessary to do that for the organisation to work effectively, efficiently and at a high level of expertise. The desirability of it is the nub of the Government's concern. The particular proposal that is before the Committee has been carefully crafted and constructed to advance the cause of Federal-State co-operation that has been crucial in our approach to this matter from the outset. The model of a three-person authority, with a chairman appointed by the Commonwealth and the two other members of the Authority appointed by the respective intergovernmental committees, thus allowing an input for the States, has been regarded as crucial by the States in their willingness hitherto to co-operate with the Authority and to participate actively in the planning for its creation. Senator Chipp —Would that not give the States dominance over the Commonwealth on the Authority? It is two to one. Senator GARETH EVANS —I think that is based on a false premise which Senator Durack kept on asserting, that these are somehow State appointments. They are appointments which are not made by the States alone; they are made by the States and the Commonwealth acting unanimously. It is crucially important to appreciate what that means. It means, to use the language of this debate, that the Commonwealth has a veto over the appointment of the representative of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, and the Commonwealth has a veto equally over the appointment deriving from the Australian Police Ministers' Council. Senator Chipp —You would dare not use it. Senator GARETH EVANS —No, but it does mean that the Commonwealth can ensure that a wildly inappropriate appointment is not made. The existence of that veto will mean that in the normal way there will be consultation, co-operation and some agreement reached about a person who is mutually acceptable. It is not just a debating point but an important point that the Commonwealth has at least that degree of overriding control. Equally every other jurisdiction has the same kind of input into the process, but the Commonwealth has a very definite role in that respect. It is not a matter of the Commonwealth having to cop what the States force upon it so far as the other two members are concerned. I agree that the states will have the more significant voice, that is perfectly true, but it is not a total voice. Senator Chipp —Have you been informed yet who the States want? Senator GARETH EVANS —No; it has been the subject of preliminary discussions both at the Police Ministers' Council and more particularly the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. The expressions of view I have heard, both formally and informally round the table, have been such as to demonstrate to me that the process will be amicable-that it is not a matter of peas having been identified, lined up and set and raring to go against what the Commonwealth might want to do. We are getting where we are because of the co-operative way in which we have approached the matter. Some people might think that is out of character for this Government and for me in particular, but the reality is that we have crafted this whole business step by step, every inch of the way, to get that mutual confidence and co-operation, without which, as we all know from a long history of lack of co-operation, mutual distrust and suspicion in the law enforcement area, the exercise is destined for disaster. I simply say with as much force as I can muster-albeit no heat, because this is not that sort of debate any more-that the Commonwealth regards this as absolutely crucial to the acceptance and acceptability. It may be that as the situation evolves and different needs and so on for the organisation become apparent, there may be some different model or formula we can agree on, but this is the proposal that comes forward unanimously as a result of very extensive inter-government consultation, and I commend it to the Committee accordingly. It may be that if this were not to work, there would be some overriding reason for saying no, that we should scrub all that and do the best to restructure the thing, but, for the reasons I have indicated, it is not necessary that there be more members of the Authority. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(12.44) —I said last night to the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) that he has no practical knowledge of the implementation of civil liberties-and here he is at it again. The protection of the civil liberties of the subject under the National Crime Authority will most effectively be implemented by the chairmen, the judges, the people appointed to run the Authority. If they are not looking after the people who come before them to give evidence, then we must look out or we shall end up with an Authority that is imposing heavily on the civil liberties of the subject. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. It follows several which the Opposition, in particular myself, have asked in an attempt to get the Government to come clean on its plans to hold a referendum or referendums at the same time as the next Federal election. Specifically, it follows the Attorney's confused response to me yesterday. Is it true, as reported in today's media, that the Attorney-General will make an announcement on Monday about referendum plans? Why will he not say now, or why has he not been prepared to say before now, whether the simultaneous elections referendum which was promised by the Prime Minister on 12 April and was widely reported or any other questions will be put to the people in conjunction with the election? Why will he not say now whether the Government intends trying to provide special Budget funding for only one side of the referendum questions as a back door way of getting around the Senate's decision last year that such funding was historically unprecedented and quite improper? Senator GARETH EVANS —The short answer is, because I am a tease, I have nothing to add to what I said yesterday. Senator CHILDS —I remind the Minister representing the Treasurer of the frequent assertions of Opposition spokesmen that the economic recovery under Labor is fragile and is set to fizzle out. Are these assertions supported by the facts? Are there grounds for having confidence that the recovery will be sustained? Senator WALSH —The assertions made by the Opposition were, of course, politically motivated at all times and they have now been shown to be completely without foundation. At a more responsible level, the Australian Financial Review in the past has also questioned whether the recovery is sufficiently broadly-based to be sustainable, or whether it is a temporary phenomenon. But the Financial Review today, in the first paragraph of its editorial, said: The evidence provided by the national accounts figures released yesterday that the economic recovery is in fact very strong is something which should be welcomed without reservation. The uncertainty which surrounded the last quarter' s figures has, to a considerable extent, been dispelled. A wide variety of statistical facts could be cited to support that assessment, but I will mention just three. There has been a massive increase in dwelling constructions. The figures released at the end of May for the December quarter show that in seasonally adjusted terms the total number of new dwelling commencements increased by 12 per cent. That was a 38 per cent increase on the level of new dwelling commencements which applied just one year earlier. Total manufacturing production figures show that in seasonally adjusted real terms manufacturing output increased by 2.3 per cent in the March quarter to a level which was 6 per cent higher than it had been in the March quarter of the previous year. Private capital expenditure, again in seasonally adjusted terms, increased by 7 per cent during the March quarter. That was the first increase in private capital expenditure since the June quarter of 1982. If preliminary estimates of expenditure in the June quarter of this year are realised, there will be a further increase in private capital investment of the order of 10 per cent; that is on top of the 7 per cent increase already recorded. The expectation for private capital expenditure for the year ending June 1985 is 9 per cent higher than the expectation for the same period reported in the December 1983 survey. The evidence is quite clear that a recovery in private capital expenditure is occurring at about the time in the recovery cycle which is normal. It shows that there has already been a very significant increase in private capital expenditure and that expectations of the business community about capital expenditure in the future have risen considerably and risen very substantially even on the expectations held by the same group at the end of last year. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to the same leading article in the Australian Financial Review which the Minister quoted with approval. Does the Minister also agree with the proposition in that leading article, that the Government appears to have resigned itself to a continued high rate of unemployment? That is not the exact quote. The article says: Like the Government, the ACTU also appears to have resigned itself to a continued high rate of unemployment . . . Is the Government resigned to that? I also ask the Minister whether he agrees with that leading article's proposition that: . . . the crucial issue has yet to be settled. This is the Government's ability to deliver on the reality of an incomes policy which will persuade the unions to allow the economy to recover unimpeded by premature wage claims. I ask the Minister whether he agrees with the definition that premature wage claims are: . . . any claims which go outside the discipline of the prices and incomes accord before there is a substantial drop in the rate of unemployment. I ask the Minister for the record and for the sake of future debate whether he agrees with those propositions in the same leading article. Senator WALSH —It would be remarkable if it were done by any party other than the present Opposition for a party which presided over the biggest increase in unemployment which has been recorded in Australia since 1930 to be castigating some other government on the matter of unemployment. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I rise on a point of order. We are not supposed to debate questions and anyone who could describe my question as castigating the present Government is incapable of listening. I put a number of propositions from a leading article which had been quoted with approval by the Minister and asked him whether he agreed with those propositions. He responded by talking about castigation of the Government. I did not castigate the Government. I asked for a definition of the Government's view on those important questions. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator WALSH —The Government has not accepted that there will be permanently high unemployment. Indeed, the Government's strategy, its long term objective, at all times has been to maintain an economic growth rate sufficient progressively to reduce unemployment, but it cannot be wiped out overnight. Likewise, we have always recognised that the success of the incomes policy was an important determinant, probably the crucial determinant, of whether that long term objective could be achieved. There is no evidence at this stage to support the fond hope of the Opposition that the incomes policy will not hold. Indeed, the incomes policy has the strong support of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, including support for the acceptance of the Medicare factor in the consumer price index being passed on in wage indexation, the effect of which is that when the next wage indexation decision is made there will be a negligible increase in wages because of the negligible increase in the CPI in the six-month period preceding that. In some instances individual unions have attempted to break the accord. All of those attempts have been strongly resisted by the Government, in most cases with the support of the ACTU. Senator Chaney asked whether the incomes policy meant that the only wage increases permitted would be those strictly in accord with indexation. That is the general policy; it is not and never has been a rigid policy. It has always allowed for the correction of some anomalies. The most important comment that can be made on this matter is that the discredited Treasurer in the Fraser Government and now Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, admits that the greatest weakness of the Fraser Government was its lack of an incomes policy. That necessity for an effective incomes policy was something which apparently the Liberal Party did not learn in government, and one would hope that Mr Howard 's admission is an indication that it is learning in Opposition. Senator COLSTON —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to an article in the Courier-Mail of 1 June about a suspect $1 coin which a Brisbane shopkeeper found in his change. It has been suggested that the coin, which has been stamped on a blank from another country, could fetch at least $1,000 from collectors. Is it correct, as stated in the Courier-Mail report, that the Australian Mint intends to keep the coin and send the shopkeeper a cheque for a dollar? Is the Mint acting lawfully if it does this? Senator WALSH —The Mint is in possession of the coin described by Senator Colston . I am advised that it has been returned to the Mint for examination. On the advice I have received so far, which I suppose is guarded, the legal position is that it would appear that, under section 51 of the Crimes Act, the coin falls under the definition of counterfeit. Section 61 of the Crimes Act requires the forfeiture of all counterfeit coins to the Commonwealth. It was on those legal grounds that the coin was returned. Indeed, the Mint had no option under the Crimes Act other than to require the return of the coin. I understand that the Mint has sent a cheque to the value of $1, on which I presume postage of 30c would have been paid, to the manager of the Brisbane store and the Mint is arranging to seek an opinion from the Deputy Crown Solicitor as to whether the coin should be forfeited under the Crimes Act. I will ask the Treasurer to ensure that the Controller of the Mint advises the store manager of the position when he is in receipt of that advice from the Deputy Crown Solicitor. Senator MACKLIN —My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. Given the rejection by nurses throughout Australia of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission's recommendations on nursing education, their anger at the delay in the transfer of nursing education to tertiary institutions and the educational and economic arguments for the transfer of that nursing education, what is the Government prepared to do in terms of the promises it made at the last election? When might it be seen to be doing something on this? Senator RYAN —The Government is very well aware of the responses of nurses and organisations representing nurses to the recommendations in the Tertiary Education Commission report and we have already taken a number of steps to have further discussions with nurses with a view to planning a desirable, feasible and effective method of transferring nurse training from hospitals to colleges. There have been a number of meetings, not the least of which was a meeting today that Dr Blewett and I attended that went for over two hours. Several members of the Government and most unions and associations which have nurse members were present. We had extremely fruitful and constructive discussions. The delegations were informed of the Government's decision to set up an interdepartmental committee to look very urgently at the question and to examine all the factors involved. I think all the delegates at the meeting this morning, and on other occasions, recognise that many issues are involved. There are the desires and aspirations of nurses to move to college of advanced education training, and that is an aspiration we share with them. There are industrial relations issues which will arise out of such a transfer. Views are held by some unions which have nurse members to the effect that they want to continue the option of hospital based nurse training for those who choose it. The Commonwealth and the States have to discuss the issue of the very high transfer cost of taking the trainees out of hospitals and putting them into CAEs. There is the question of the accreditation of nurse training courses for the purpose of the tertiary education assistance scheme and there is the question of who will meet the cost of the workers who will need to be employed in hospitals to do the work previously done by trainee nurses. None of these issues can be resolved hastily or without proper planning. One other issue discussed at some length today-I know Senator Macklin will be interested in this-concerned the curriculum to be provided for undergraduate nurse trainees in colleges. We regard it as being of the utmost importance that a sound curriculum be devised so that the aspirations of nurses for a higher status training can be realised. Of course this would not happen if there were a hastily devised curriculum for undergraduate nurse students. These matters are all being addressed by the IDC, taking account of the input from all organisations which have nurses as members. I hope we will have results from this IDC in time to incorporate them in our Budget decisions. Senator HEARN —I address my question to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. The Minister would be aware that I have had representations from women who are former members of wartime Services. Is the Minister aware that most of these women are ineligible for loans under the defence service homes scheme because they were denied the opportunity to serve overseas by virtue of their sex? I ask the Minister: In view of the Government's commitment to eliminating discrimination, does he intend to modify the scheme to include these women? Senator GIETZELT —Yes, I am aware of the fact that for many years ex-servicewomen who served during World War II have pressed upon the Government the need to have access to the Defence Service Homes Corporation, as it has been known in more recent times, on the basis that they volunteered for overseas service and consequently were subject to the discipline of the service that they served in, and therefore should not now be discriminated against in respect of their access to the defence service homes scheme. I draw attention to the fact that since the election of the Whitlam Government in 1972, women currently in the Services, after having served three years and having satisfied other minor criteria, are eligible under the defence service homes scheme. The women who served during World War II believe that their contributions to the war effort were greater than the contributions of those who are currently eligible because of their participation in the peacetime Services. Having said that I have to point out that because of the difficulties in which the Government found itself in respect of the Budget deficit last year and the continuing pressure that is on the Government with respect to the deficit in this year's Budget, one has to look at a rectification of this injustice in light of those problems. Certainly my view is that there should be no discrimination. That would also be the view of the Government. Whether the Government is prepared to change the Defence Service Homes Act in order to accommodate that request from those who served during World War II is a decision I can only suggest will be taken in the context of the Budget considerations. I assure Senator Hearn that it has my support and I will be doing everything possible to meet the needs of those who served during World War II. Senator MacGIBBON —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. It relates to the comments by Mr Richard Farmer on Nationwide last night and to the Attorney's statement in the Senate this morning. I refer particularly to that part of the Attorney's explanation when he said that in discussions with Mr Frank Costigan: The possibility of a Federal Court appointment was canvassed. I ask: Presuming that the possibility of a judicial appointment was raised by the Attorney-General and not by Mr Costigan, was it mentioned in the direct context of Mr Costigan becoming a judge and heading the proposed National Crime Authority? Was the reason for discussing this matter related to achieving cost savings or did it reflect the Attorney's view that Mr Costigan would be an eminently suitable person to head the Authority? Did the Attorney in his discussions with Mr Costigan on the cost of the Royal Commission on the Activities of the Ship Painters and Dockers Union, also voice his concern about the effectiveness of Mr Costigan's methodology and the lack of positive prosecution follow-up? Does the Attorney agree that any such criticism of the Commission might have led Mr Costigan to believe that there was an attempt to nobble him by putting him on the Federal Bench? Senator GARETH EVANS —I made a statement by way of personal explanation on this matter this morning and I do not propose to add to that in any way. It is unnecessary for me to do so. To do so would be to explore matters that, as I said this morning, are essentially and quite properly the subject of confidential communications between the parties involved. I mention only for the record that Mr Costigan has now put out a Press statement of his own this morning in Melbourne, without any communication between us on the subject matter , which in fact reinforces the substance of what I said in my statement this morning. Senator MacGIBBON —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. In the light of what the Attorney said, would he amplify the statement in his address this morning that Mr Costigan wrote to the Prime Minister saying, among other things, that the suggestion of a Federal judicial appointment was outrageous. Will he explain where the outrageous element came from? Senator GARETH EVANS —No, I will not amplify the statement. Senator ELSTOB —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy and it refers to the current investigations into atomic testing at Maralinga. Will the Minister consider the current concerns felt amongst residents of Coober Pedy, Yalata, and particularly Ceduna, that have arisen because large quantities of building materials from Maralinga have been installed in these towns? Will the Minister undertake to have these materials professionally tested for human safety so as to allay any fears felt by the local population? Can the Minister say whether any consideration has been given to surveying the health of all people living in the surrounding region of Maralinga? Senator WALSH —There are a number of questions. Firstly, on the question of the building materials and whether there is any residual health danger to people who removed and subsequently used building materials from Maralinga, I understand- this is subject to check-that everything officially removed came from the village and therefore the possibility or risk of contamination would be extremely low. However, notwithstanding that, and in recognition of the widespread concern about this matter, I believe it would not be very difficult to do a check of the building materials at the present site for residual radioactivity. I will endeavour to arrange for that to be done, possibly after the present Australian Radiation Laboratory survey of the Maralinga site is finished. On the question of the survey of the health of all people living in the surrounding region of Maralinga, the South Australian Government already is doing or has done a survey which covers some of these people. To go beyond that is one of the matters which ought to be considered by the Government when the decision is made on whether to establish a broader inquiry and what type of inquiry. Senator REID —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I refer him to his statement on the decision not to table the interim report received from the Special Prosecutor investigating the Age tapes material, while at the same time making the report available to the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge and the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking. I point out that this is the second occasion in recent times when the Government has suppressed a report dealing with allegations of corruption and criminal activity , the other being one I have mentioned previously, the tabling of the Menzies report into the case of Mr Ramon Sala. Is the refusal to make Mr Temby's report public due to concern that the contents might prove embarrassing to the Government in the context of the need for a powerful and independent National Crime Authority? Will the Government reconsider its decision and table both the Temby and Menzies reports, even if in some sanitised form? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government is not in any way hiding from the appropriate parliamentary bodies the substance of the Temby report. As Senator Reid acknowledges, the report has been made available in a full, unedited, unexpurgated and unsanitised form, to the Senate Committee, subject however to conditions of confidentiality as to its public release, which conditions are inconsistent with the prospect of tabling the document in the Parliament. As I indicated in a public statement at the time the reasons why confidentiality is insisted upon by the Government are simply these: First, the report is very much an interim one and will be supplemented, obviously, by a full and final report, as Mr Temby says, no later than the middle of July. An interim report is just that-a progress report of developments to date and as such not of itself containing any recommendations or of itself especially noteworthy. Secondly, and more significantly, the report contains a very detailed appendix from the Australian Federal Police indicating in very considerable detail the progress of the investigations to date and naming a great many individuals who have been interviewed by the police in the course of that investigation. The parent interim report also contains a number of references to individuals, again not in the context of making any findings about them but identifying them as having been caught up one way or another in the investigation process. It has been the practice not to table police reports of that kind, nor to make public the names of individuals in the context of purely investigative reports of this kind. Apart from the interim character of the report, for that reason it was not desired at this stage to put the report into the public domain. It will probably always be inappropriate for those names to be mentioned in the public domain. Moreover, if the report were to be sanitised in the way suggested, by taking out the names of all the individuals mentioned, it would remove most of the contents of the report at this stage. So, for a variety of interrelated reasons, and for those reasons only, but more particularly based on the fact that the Committee that is doing a job in this area has access to the full version of it-so it cannot be said that the Government is keeping these things to its breast-the Government has taken the view that the interim report ought not to be tabled. I am terribly sorry to have bored Senator Withers but if his side would ask some more interesting questions they would get some more interesting answers. Senator COOK —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Has the Minister seen the pamphlet published by the Scarborough branch of the Liberal Party in Western Australia, inviting the public to 'come and hear the frightening facts about land rights'? Is it true that in part the pamphlet states that Australia's future as a free nation is seriously threatened by two movements? I ask whether it goes on to state: One is to use the Aboriginal land-rights issue to eventually establish a separate Aboriginal nation under communist domination and the second is to fragment a homogenous and stable Australia by a breaking down of traditional immigration policy and by the deliberate fostering of multiculturalism. Does the Minister agree that these views are not only a grotesque distortion of reality but also calculated to inflame racial prejudice in this country? Can the Government say what the facts are? Senator RYAN —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs advises me that he has seen the pamphlet referred to in Senator Cook's question and is disgusted by the attempt by the Western Australian Liberal Party to build up hysteria over the Government 's policy on Aboriginal land rights. The pamphlet selects one aspect of the Government's policy, that 'Aboriginal land is to be held under inalienable freehold title', misrepresents that principle into an horrendous picture of an Aboriginal state within a state and then applies that extravagance as a sweeping threat to practically all of Western Australia. The distortion shows just how low the Liberal Party in Western Australia is prepared to go. Let me put the record straight. The Western Australian Government has appointed Mr Paul Seaman, QC, to conduct an inquiry into land rights. He was not instructed to base his report on the existing Northern Territory land rights legislation. Indeed, in his discussion paper he indicated that it was his preliminary view that much of that legislation would not be applicable in Western Australia. The discussion paper issued by Mr Seaman in January was just that, a discussion paper outlining issues and possible options. Mr Seaman indicated very clearly that he had no commitment to any of the options and was not making recommendations. He is due to report to the Government later this year and the Government will respond accordingly. It is completely scurrilous to suggest, as the pamphlet does, that the matter has been finalised. The only point on which the Western Australian Government has stated its position is that all land reserved for the use and benefit of Aboriginals will be vested in Aboriginal local communities. Such reserve land, 19 million hectares, has never been inhabited by any persons other than those of the local Aboriginal communities. This land has always been Aboriginal land. To give title to such land costs nothing; it simply matches legal reality with historical fact . In the legal sense, inalienable freehold title simply means that the land cannot be sold. The additional benefits accruing to Aboriginal landholders in the Northern Territory arises from the legislation, not the title to the land. This is a further example of a miscarriage of information by the Liberal Party. The granting of land rights is aimed at a restitution of Aboriginal dignity. The basis for claims in the Northern Territory is traditional association. Until the Western Australian Government responds to its own land inquiry it is completely misleading for the Liberal Party to suggest that the property rights of existing landholders in Western Australia will be affected. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I refer the Attorney-General to the answer he gave Senator Chaney on 30 May when he said that a draft Bill of Rights was being made available to State Attorneys-General and the Law Council of Australia but that the Government is yet to decide on whether to make it fully publicly available. I ask the Attorney-General whether he recalls the following clear undertaking which he gave in a Press release dated 7 July 1983: The Government was proposing to introduce a Bill of Rights into the Parliament later in the year; the intention was for it to lie on the table for public comment and not be debated until the autumn session of 1984. Why has the Attorney broken his unqualified promise on making the Bill public? Is it simply because the Government is worried about adverse public reaction in this election year? Senator GARETH EVANS —No, it is not for any of those reasons; it is because this is a Government that is capable of adapting, with sophistication and maturity, as its individual Ministers increasingly are, to changing circumstances. The situation has changed in a number of ways since July last year. It is a complex piece of legislation which we are contemplating in this area. There are many implications for other governments and departments within our Government which need full exploration and consideration. I am sure that the particular process to which the Bill is being subjected at the moment will make it, as I have said on numberless previous occasions in this place, an even better piece of legislation than it was in its original proposed form. Senator JONES —I draw the attention of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to the current industrial dispute throughout repatriation hospitals in Australia in which doctors have taken action, firstly, to impose limitations on the after- hours transfer of patients and, secondly, to impose limitations on the admission of patients. Can the Minister inform the Senate what effects these limitations are having on the performance of services at repatriation hospitals, and what, if any, action has been taken or will be taken to resolve the current industrial dispute to allow the proper conduct of duties at repatriation hospitals? Senator GIETZELT —It is true, as Senator Jones suggested, that currently there is a dispute affecting the medical professionals in four of the six repatriation hospitals. The matter is causing considerable concern to me and, of course, those persons who wish to be admitted as patients. The bans that have been imposed by the medicos restrict the right of patients to be admitted to hospital after hours. The doctors do have some legitimacy in their claims. There is a disparity in salaries and conditions between work in repatriation hospitals and work in the State hospitals system. However, it is rather strange that after the Government has achieved a prices and incomes accord with the trade union movement and we have seen a marked reduction in industrial disputation in the past year the doctors employed by the Department of Veterans' Affairs have seen fit to take industrial action of the type that has been put in place over the last few weeks, despite the fact that they first made their submission to the government of the day in 1982. I think it is a matter of regret that they should show such militancy affecting the welfare of aged and frail veterans who go into our repatriation hospitals. The doctors lodged a claim for extra payment for out-of-hours duty almost two years ago, but they did not pursue it actively with my Department until March this year. That puts the dispute somewhat at difference with the guidelines upon which the conciliation and arbitration system operates. The Government has expressed concern about the obstinacy of the doctors. We appreciate that they work under difficult conditions, and they do work very well; nevertheless the industrial action they have taken is disadvantaging people in the community who ought not be disadvantaged. The matter was listed before the arbitrator, who recommended that the doctors go back to work and that an examination of their claim be undertaken. A substantial improvement to their rate of overtime pay-a figure in excess of 40 per cent-was offered. The doctors rejected that offer, so we asked for an urgent relisting of the matter before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. I understand that the hearing will take place on Friday. It is hoped that in due course the doctors will accept the fact that the matter is before the Arbitration Commission and will not continue their industrial action. Senator MARTIN —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Has the Government yet made the changes it promised to the regulations governing the entry to Australia and classification of video material? If so, are the amendments fully consistent with the undertaking given to Australian Democrats senators which persuaded them to vote against their own motion for disallowance of the original regulation? If the changes have not yet been made, when will they be made? In view of the concern expressed by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs about the need to monitor the new system, what arrangements has the Attorney-General instituted to provide for assessment of the changed procedures? Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes, the regulations were promulgated two days after the debate concluded in this place. I believe they have come into effect in the Australian Capital Territory in the last day or so. That is also the case regarding the Customs regulations. The regulations are consistent with the undertakings that were made not just to the Australian Democrats but to the Parliament. Perhaps Senator Martin has forgotten that during the non-sitting weeks period I circulated the draft text of the proposed ordinance and regulations amendment to all honourable senators in order that they would have a clear indication as to what precisely the Government's intentions were. Senator Durack —Have you forgotten the undertaking you gave on that occasion? Senator GARETH EVANS —The honourable senator can indulge in his fantasies over there, but there is nothing other than a straightforward attempt to come to grips with a difficult policy problem and to do so in a much more sophisticated and civilised way than the previous Government ever felt able to do, or has shown itself capable of doing in the course of this debate. The particular measures that are now, I believe, in place and promulgated mean that there is not only a proper system of point of sale control in the Australian Capital Territory but also a full system of compulsory classification for all videos that are sold or hired in the Australian Capital Territory. As I have stated to the Senate, it is proposed to monitor closely over the period ahead the way the system is actually working. No formal arrangements have yet been devised for such a monitoring process. It is essentially a matter of waiting to see how the thing is operating in six months or so and then exploring the matter with relevant interested parties, of whom there seems to be a legion in the Australian Capital Territory-both video retailers on the one hand and the legion of truth, decency and the Australian way led by hordes of people faithful to the ideals of Senator Walters on the other. But I am sure that between them, with the feminists thrown in, with the House of Assembly members and a cast of 1 ,000 others the Government would have ample submissions before it on which to make some appropriate decision as to whether the legislation needs any modification after a period of operation. Senator MARTIN —I ask a supplementary question. In view of the beginning of Senator Evans's answer, when does the Government intend to table those regulations? Senator GARETH EVANS —Regulations are tabled in the normal course after they are promulgated and as a result of the departmental process they are drawn to the attention of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. I am not sure what the precise status is. Usually a small time lapse of some days occurs between the formal promulgation by the Governor-in-Council and their appearance in the papers which come before this place. Only a matter of a week or two is involved in this case and nobody's rights or interests have been in any way forfeited as a result of any delay that may have occurred. I am happy to investigate the matter and to do something about a remedy. Senator SIBRAA —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs seen the numerous recent Press reports concerning the health of Dr Andrei Sakharov? Can the Minister inform the Senate whether the Government has any additional information on Dr Sakharov's position? Further, has the Government raised with the Soviet Government at an official level Australia's concern at the inhuman treatment of Dr Sakharov? Senator GARETH EVANS —As Senator Sibraa has said, there have been a great many Press reports about Dr Sakharov in recent times. The difficulty the Government has experienced, however, is that first hand information on Dr Sakharov's condition has really not been available to us or to anybody with whom we are in contact. Certainly the reports that Dr Sakharov has recently undertaken a hunger strike aimed at obtaining permission for his wife, Yelena Bonner, to leave the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to seek medical treatment in the West appear to be accurate. It is also the case that the Soviet authorities have responded today to some high level inquiries from leading Western communists by saying that Sakharov is in reasonable health and under observation in a clinic in Gorky. On 30 May, as I think has been reported, Tass, for what that is worth, said that he was 'feeling well, eating regularly and leading an active life'. That is as much as any of us really know. I can add further to the other parts of the question. The Australian Government has sympathetically followed the plight of Dr Sakharov and his family for many years and is aware of widespread concern in Australia at the current tragic situation in which the family now finds itself. That concern is obviously now world-wide, with a number of statesmen and scientists making approaches from all over the world to the Soviet authorities. It is the case, as has been reported, that Mr Hayden raised this matter directly with the Foreign Minister on 29 May, during his visit to the USSR. Mr Hayden has stated that he made the Government's strong concern about Dr Sakharov's human rights unambiguously clear. In response , Mr Gromyko firmly rejected any suggestion, however, that the issue was subject to any international law or representations from third parties. Mr Hayden, for his part and the Government's, declared that human rights were universal and above the prescriptive authority of national law making. It is also worth mentioning that the House of Representatives passed a motion a few days ago on 30 May calling upon the Soviet authorities to release Sakharov from internal exile and to permit Yelena Bonner to leave for medical treatment abroad. So it is the case that both at the government level and at the broad parliamentary level concern on this matter has been clear-cut, quite unambiguous and unanimous. Senator WALTERS —I refer the Attorney-General to his pathetic and inaccurate attempt on Monday to suggest that support for Hawke Government policies had secured Australia a place on the United Nations Commission on Human Rights from 1985 to 1987. Is it not a fact that Australia was a member of the Commission from 1947 to 1956 and rejoined the Commission in 1978 during the period of the Fraser Government? Will he now admit that the extension of Australia's term is primarily the result of the reputation established over a long period of Liberal -National Party governments, or will he persist with another phony 'Record of Government' type claim, the hollowness of which is demonstrated by the historical situation I have outlined? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is the case, of course, that the fine traditions laid down by the Chifley Labor Government in 1947 were enough to sustain for a short period thereafter the reputation of Australia on that international body through the 1950s. It is also the case that under the Fraser Administration we managed to scramble aboard the Commission in 1978. It is a matter of some miraculous achievement as a result of that experience that we were able by virtue of the superior credibility of this Government to achieve the otherwise unlikely and certainly very unusual feat of re-establishing a position on that body, notwithstanding the duration of the previous tenure. Whatever may have been the case previously with the lip service paid to human rights matters by the previous administration, in particular in such ways as the derisory terms of Australia's ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, notwithstanding the concerns that were expressed by a number of other countries about the gap between the rhetoric and the actual performance in human rights matters, it is the case that Australia's international human rights standing now is as high as it was back in the initial days of Mr Chifley and his Government. Undoubtedly, as the result of the kinds of initiatives the present Government is taking both domestically and around the world it will rank even higher still in the days ahead. Senator BOLKUS —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Finance to comments made on Monday by Senator Chaney on comparisons of government spending under the Hawke Government and the Fraser Government. Can the Minister advise the Senate as to the accuracy of these assertions and the Government's plans for the scrutiny of government expenditure? Senator WALSH —I recall Senator Chaney making some baseless allegations. I think it was last Monday, as Senator Bolkus said. Again it is incongruous, to say the least, that a senior member of a government which in its final fatal year produced a Budget which wound up with an increased expenditure of 18.5 per cent, as the Fraser Government did, should have the temerity to criticise any government for allegedly allowing expenditure to get out of control. The plain fact on the comparison between the Fraser Government's last Budget and the likely outcome of this Government's first Budget is that-- Senator Chaney —I rise on a point of order. The question related to facts which I allegedly put before the Senate last Monday. I remember them very well. My facts related to the average over seven years of the Fraser Government, and the Minister is responding with respect to the Fraser Government in terms of one Budget. In view of the introduction he gave about inaccuracies on my part, I suggest he address himself to the matter which was put before the Senate and not to his own point. Senator Grimes —On a point of order, Mr President, I ask you how long you will allow the Leader of the Opposition to indulge in what can only be described as vexatious points of order? I suppose in the last two days he has taken eight points of order. They have all been ruled out of order. They have all taken the form of Senator Chaney getting up and debating the facts, or otherwise, of a question or answer. I believe that if he is to persist you should stop listening to the complaints of Opposition members about the length of answers or the infrequency of questions. The PRESIDENT —Order! On the second point of order, any honourable senator is entitled to take a point of order at any time. On the first point of order, I cannot direct a Minister to answer a question in any way. It is his entitlement to answer a question as he so chooses provided he does not debate the matter. I now call the Minister representing the Minister for Finance. Senator WALSH —The plain fact is that in the last Budget produced by the Fraser Government, the final outcome was an increase in expenditure of 18.5 per cent. Subject to final verification, that was reduced by the present Government in its first Budget to an increase in outlays of 15.8 per cent. That was achieved in spite of such very difficult or indeed mandatory expenditure increases required, for example, by the huge increases in unemployment. I refer to the enormous army of unemployed which this Government inherited from the Fraser Government and which automatically required very large increases in government expenditure. Senator Chaney —There was a big increase in the preceding year. Another lie! Another lie! The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw that remark . Senator Chaney —I substitute untruth. Senator WALSH —Well, I did not hear the comment so I do not know what I said that was allegedly untrue. It is a fact that this Government inherited an army of unemployed of the order of 700,000 from the previous Government, and that under long established law a high proportion of those people were entitled to receive unemployment benefit. As a result of the changes in the level of unemployment benefit in the last year or so of the Fraser Government's life, payments of unemployment benefit increased by more than $2 billion. That was a problem that we inherited-an expenditure requirement which could not be avoided, short of allowing the unemployed to starve. Another very important component of increased expenditure under this Government , also inescapable, is the interest payments on public debt which, again, is largely attributable to the deficit of the Fraser Government in 1981-82 of the order of $5 billion and the tremendous impending deficit which this Government inherited from that Government of the order of $10 billion, which we have managed to pare down to about $8.5 billion. Those deficits have been funded principally by borrowings, and therefore interest payments accrue to them. All that would be bad enough, but the real situation is worse from the Fraser Government's perspective because it concealed the real level of its expenditure, just as it concealed the real level of the deficit that was looming up just before the last Federal election. It concealed the deficit by the sort of trick which was typical of the Fraser Government and of senior Ministers in it, such as Mr Sinclair. The trick was to hide expenditures by converting them into tax expenditures rather than leaving them open as Budget expenditures. Senator Chaney —Another lie! You could not lie straight in bed. Tell the truth. Senator WALSH —These cosmetic arrangements of the Fraser Government were designed to hide from the public the true level-- Senator Gareth Evans —On a point of order, Mr President; the Leader of the Opposition is again being grotesquely unparliamentary in his interjections. I urge that you bring him to heel. I refer particularly to the expression 'could not lie straight in bed' which is most unbecoming of the leader of a party in this place. Senator WALSH —I did not hear the interjection. It does not worry me because I regard an insult from Senator Chaney as a compliment. This cosmetic trick employed by the Fraser Government was particularly important in two areas-its housing policy and health policy vis-a- vis the policies of this Government. There is no difference in macro-economic terms between government expenditure concealed as a taxation concession and government expenditure appropriated in the Budget. In both housing and health the Fraser Government hid its spending in taxation concessions, to a substantial extent. This Government does it openly as Budget appropriations. The ultimate effect of the changes made in the reduction of tax expenditures by this Government last year will be to reduce taxation expenditures by $1.5 billion. The most damning indictment of the Fraser Government was the final Budget it produced which had no economic strategy whatsoever. It had a political strategy designed, it hoped, to win a premature election and completely abandoned all economic responsibility or any attempt to present a coherent economic policy. Senator CHANEY —I cannot encompass all the inaccuracies in that answer, but I ask the Minister two additional questions arising out of his reply. In what year did the major increase in the cost of unemployment benefit rise? Was it the year of the last Fraser Budget of the year of the first Hawke Budget? Further, in terms of what he described as the propensity of the Fraser Government to hide matters of expenditure as tax expenditure, what was the effect of the transfer of tax deductions for children to family allowance? Did that not reduce tax expenditures and significantly increase outlays? That is quite the reverse of the situation Senator Walsh described. Senator WALSH —I am afraid I did not hear all the question because Senator Grimes was reminding me, after listening to the beginning of Senator Chaney's question, that it was no wonder they sent a Chaney to the Kimberleys to stop Aborigines from voting. For as much as I heard of it Senator Chaney referred to the conversion of tax deductions for dependants to family allowances. He asked whether that had the same effect on government outlays as the changes from tax expenditures to Budget expenditures made by this Government. Yes, it did have exactly the same effect and that change was introduced by the Fraser Government in 1976 during its years of relative honesty. That was a very different Fraser Government from the one which was ultimately and ignominiously removed from office in 1983, at least in that respect. Senator Chaney also asked about the Budget in which the major increase in unemployment benefit payments occurred because of the rise in unemployment. I believe it was the 1982-83 Budget but there was a significant further increase in 1983-84. If he wants the exact figures I will get them. I am afraid I did not hear the rest of the question. Senator CROWLEY —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to reports of an Australian athlete, Peter Parcell, being put under house arrest in the Philippines allegedly for failure to pay a phone bill to an American businessman in America? Can the Minister say whether these reports are accurate? Is it usual for an Australian citizen to be held in one country for alleged crimes in another country, neither of which is Australia? What is the current position regarding the Australian athlete? What further steps, if any, will the Government consider taking in this situation? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have had no briefing on this matter. I will take the question on notice and secure an answer as soon as possible for Senator Crowley. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I ask her whether she is aware of the fact that the policy of the Australian Labor Party in Western Australia states that a Labor government will introduce legislation to apply to Western Australia provisions similar to those of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, initiated by the Federal Labor Party? Does she know whether that is Western Australian ALP policy? If it is, does she agree that legislation on those terms would permit Aboriginal reserves, which comprise 8.7 per cent of the State, and the vacant Crown land, which amounts to 40 per cent of the State, to become Aboriginal land. That would be the upper limit in those categories. Does she also agree that something over 30 per cent of Western Australia is pastoral lease and it would be possible for some or all of that land to become Aboriginal land if that promise were kept? Senator RYAN —I am not familiar with all the details of the current platform of the Western Australian Labor Party although I understand that like the Federal Labor Party it has a very strong in-principle commitment to land rights. The implementation of that policy in whatever terms it is currently written is the responsibility of the Burke Government in Western Australia. The way in which the Burke Government is implementing that policy has already been set out by me on behalf of the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) in some detail in Question Time today. I do not think that it is useful to traverse that ground again, but there has been the Seaman inquiry and a discussion paper has been released. No particular decisions have been taken by the Burke Government in response to that but it will proceed towards establishing clear land rights legislation and policies for Aboriginal people in Western Australia. The details of Senator Chaney's question would be better referred to the Government of Western Australia but I will refer them to the Federal Minister. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the Minister indicating that the Hawke Government is now saying that land rights in Western Australia are not a Federal responsibility but a responsibility solely of the Burke Government? In other words, is she saying that there will be no national land rights legislation put forward by her Government to lay down a regime of land rights in Western Australia? Senator RYAN —I am sure that Senator Chaney is quite aware that I have said nothing of the kind. It is very interesting that Senator Chaney, who during the Fraser Administration was at one time Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, should now be adopting such a hostile attitude to the development and implementation of land rights in the State which he represents in this Senate. It certainly is a quite remarkable U-turn from the position of a man who at one time claimed to be a friend of the Aboriginal people in this country and a supporter of land justice for the Aboriginals in his own State. Senator Grimes —Except when they wanted to vote Labor; he didn't like it. Senator RYAN —Senator Grimes's interjection covers ground with which I am not entirely familiar. I am certainly aware from the question asked of me earlier during Question Time today that the Liberal Party of Western Australia has adopted a most mischievous and dishonest approach to publicising the development of a land rights policy for Western Australia. Clearly, there is both a Federal and a State commitment to land rights covering the rights of Aboriginals in Western Australia. Currently that commitment is being pursued by the Seaman inquiry in the State of Western Australia. It is our wish, as I think the Federal Minister, Mr Holding, has said on a number of occasions, to approach the issue of land rights in co-operation with the States where that is possible and practical. It seems to us that it is possible and practical for us to implement our Federal and State commitment to the land rights of Western Australian Aboriginals, in the first instance by the steps which the Burke Government is undertaking. As there is as yet no response to the Seaman discussion paper or in fact no specific recommendations for the Western Australian Government to give a position on, clearly it is premature for the Federal Government to give its position too. I conclude my answer to this question by saying that both the State and Federal governments are committed to land rights and we will proceed in the most equitable and practical way to fulfil that commitment not only for the Aboriginals in Western Australia but also for the Aboriginals throughout Australia, which is something the previous Administration was clearly unprepared to do. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. Has the Minister had discussions with the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations regarding the establishment of a national consumer product safety commission? Does the Government plan to establish such a commission which would aim to prevent injury and death due to household accidents? Senator RYAN —On behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment I can inform the Senate that on 9 December 1983 the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations forwarded to the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, Mr Cohen, resolutions of the biennial general meeting which included support for the establishment of a national consumer product safety commission. Mr Cohen discussed this proposal and other matters with representatives of AFCO on 18 January and 1 February 1984 and during the visit of Lars Broch, Director of the International Organisation of Consumers Unions, in April 1984. Mr Cohen indicated to AFCO during these discussions his own concern that there appeared to be a need for an increased role for the national Government in ensuring the safety of consumer products. I am informed by the Minister that he has requested his Department to prepare a discussion paper on options for upgrading the consumer product safety responsibilities of the Government and that this paper will include the feasibility of a national consumer product safety commission or a consumer protection authority as was envisaged in the Consumer Protection Bill of 1975. The Minister expects the discussion paper to be available for distribution in August this year, at which time further discussions will be held with AFCO and other relevant organisations. The PRESIDENT —Today there have been a number of very long answers by Ministers. Whilst I appreciate their desire to provide as much information as possible in their replies to questions, I would plead with them in the interests of the Senate and Question Time to reduce the length of their answers so that all backbenchers on both sides of the House can get a reasonable go at asking a question. Senator GARETH EVANS —In the course of Question Time Senator Martin asked me a supplementary question in a tone of some indignation as to why the Australian Capital Territory Classification of Publications Ordinance, if it had been promulgated, had not been tabled in this place and similarly the regulations promulgated under the Customs Act relating to censorship. I informed her, and I have checked it, that the regulations and ordinance in question were approved by the Executive Council last week, Thursday, 31 May. I am also now able to inform the Liberal Party's answer to Ron Boswell that yesterday, Monday, 5 June, the ordinance and regulations in question were in fact tabled in the Senate. Senator GIETZELT —In reply to a question asked of me today by Senator Hearn I omitted to say that legislation based on the Whitlam criterion of three years which applied to serving members of the peacetime forces for eligibility for defence service homes was changed in 1977 and, in fact, to qualify for a defence service home serving personnel have to serve for six years and sign on for an additional period. I would like to amend my answer so that the record is correct . Senator TATE(Tasmania) —by leave-I move: That the time for the Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge to report be extended to 15 June 1984. In seeking the previous extension I indicated to the Senate that the Committee was not confident that it would be able to report in this period of sittings. In seeking this further extension, I indicate to the Senate that this is still the situation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce) —I seek leave to make a statement on arms control and disarmament which is presently being made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Leave granted. Senator BUTTON —I seek leave to have the text of the statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- On this day 40 years ago, allied forces landed on the beaches of Normandy to launch the final phase of the destruction of Nazism. Within a year, those forces , Soviet forces to the East, and the resistance movements in the occupied countries had liberated the people of Europe and brought peace to a devastated continent. Shortly afterwards, the allies went on to achieve victory in the Pacific and so brought an end to the carnage of the Second World War. But that end was achieved only after the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had opened humanity's eyes to the existence of a new and uniquely destructive instrument of war-the nuclear weapon. Since the end of the Second World War, we have witnessed great changes in international affairs, the most positive of which has been the virtual end of colonialism and the emergence to independence and nationhood of hundreds of millions of people, many of them in the Asia-Pacific region. Certain essentials of the post-war system, however, continue to form the basis of the present world order. The United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic, the two powers which emerged pre-eminent from the war, have gone on to achieve unchallenged status as super-powers. Moreover, the system has managed for four decades to avoid a further outbreak of global conflict or open warfare between the major powers. We can be thankful that since 1945 nuclear weapons have not again been fired in war. But if the peace has been kept between East and West, the East-West relationship has been at the best of times uneasy and difficult, and frequently tense and dangerous. Stability in Europe has not been matched in many parts of the developing world, where local wars have caused great misery to millions of people. Repression and the denial of human rights persists in many countries. And for forty years the peoples of the world have lived with the nightmare of nuclear weapons, whose number and destructive power have grown enormously. East-West relations at present are at a very low ebb. Arms control negotiations between the super-powers are in great difficulty. Their relationship is permeated with suspicion. The rhetoric surrounding it is potentially very dangerous. At the same time, the international arms race is proceeding apace at the staggering cost of some $700 billion annually or well over a million dollars a minute. This represents a scandalous waste of resources and human ingenuity. None of us needs to be told how the world, particularly the poorer countries, could benefit from a redirection of this military expenditure into peaceful and productive development. Some 80 per cent of the expenditure on arms is on conventional weapons. In the thermonuclear age, we can easily overlook the horrifying destructive power which now hides behind that anodyne term. The bloodshed in the Gulf War and the destruction of sophisticated modern warships in the Falklands War should remind us of its sinister implications. But above all, it is the rapid technological development and build-up of nuclear weapons which, combined with the deterioration in East-West relations, has quite understandably created the current mood of anxiety and anger among ordinary men and women around the world as well as here in Australia. On Palm Sunday, a few weeks ago, some 250,000 Australians marched in our cities to support the cause of peace, disarmament and arms control. They marched to express the increasing concern felt about the threat of nuclear war. Those who marched in Australia joined the countless others who have marched recently in Western Europe and the United States. There is also no doubt that, if the Governments in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe permitted genuine freedom of expression, there would be millions on the streets there, as well. The concern of the marchers for peace, the strength of their feelings, and the very weight of their numbers must be taken into account by all Governments. I have made it clear that we see a very sharp distinction between nuclear weapons, which be abhor, and nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, which we support, and I shall return to this theme in the course of this statement. But we certainly understand and identify with the aspirations of the Australian people for peace and disarmament and these aspirations inspire our policies. Academician Andrei Sakharov, a key figure in the development of Soviet nuclear weapons, whose present plight was the subject of an important motion passed unanimously by this House last week, is an outspoken advocate of the need for arms control agreement between the super-powers. Pointing out that thermonuclear war cannot be considered a continuation of politics by other means, according to the Clausewitz formula, but rather a means of nuclear suicide, Dr Sakharov has identified the consequences of nuclear conflict in stark terms which will move concerned people on both sides of the ideological divide. He identified it as follows: 'A complete destruction of cities, industry, transport and systems of education , a poisoning of fields, water and air by radioactivity, a physical destruction of the larger part of mankind, poverty, barbarism, a return to savagery, and a genetic degeneracy of the survivors under the impact of radiation, a destruction of the material and information basis of civilisation'. Although Australia might appear remote from the areas of the globe where any nuclear war might mainly be fought, it would be unrealistic to suppose that Australia would not be profoundly affected by such a conflict. The Government believes that it is therefore in Australia's vital interests, as a country which wants both to survive and to be a constructive member of the international community, to do all we can do to minimise the prospects for nuclear conflict. We have a modest and realistic evaluation of our influence on the super-powers and other major powers but we will use it whenever we can. The recent overseas visit by my colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs, (Mr Hayden), who will speak in this debate, is an effective example of what we are about. The nuclear weapons states alone do not have the right to determine the destiny of mankind. The fact that their calculations-or indeed their miscalculations- could have terrible consequences for the rest of us gives us the responsibility before our people to be heard on these fundamental issues. In approaching this responsibility, the Government unequivocally rejects the attractive but unrealistic idea that unilateral disarmament would be an effective way to bring about an end to the arms race. We proceed from the fact that Australia is an aligned nation and that our security is supported by co-operative measures under the auspices of ANZUS. The Australian Labor Party takes pride in the fact that the foundations of our alliance with the United States were laid by the great John Curtin, when this country faced the greatest threat to its survival in 1941 . As an independent ally of the United States, Australia last year initiated a thorough and successful review of ANZUS. We are satisfied that the treaty continues to support our fundamental security interests, without absolving Australia from the primary obligation to provide for our own national defence. Honourable members will recall that Secretary of State Shultz commented that the review had been an excellent idea and most worth while. Our membership of the alliance in no way inhibits us from pursuing the issues of arms control and disarmament. On the contrary, as my colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs said on 18 January 1984: 'We work unabashedly through international fora for arms control and disarmament, nuclear and conventional. Our involvement with the United States gives us much greater claim to be heard on these matters internationally. There is much greater weight behind our declarations on this subject precisely because we are sensible enough to support the only effective nuclear restraint system at the moment, deterrence, but intelligent enough to worry about the escalation, the excessive armouries, to want something better and to work for it openly and energetically.'. We intend to continue to pursue these issues vigorously with both super-powers. If allies of the United States do not press their concerns about arms control on the USSR, the Soviet leaders may be tempted to sit back and permit one-sided pressure to build up in Washington. Mr Hayden's vigorous advocacy of these issues in Moscow and the response he was given by Mr Gromyko demonstrate that our alliance with the United States is no barrier to Australia's voice being heard in the Soviet Union. I and senior Ministers of the Government have held discussions on these matters with President Reagan and other leading members of the Administration. We will take these discussions further with Secretary of State Shultz when he visits Canberra next month. Arms control was a major item on the agenda of my discussions with Premier Zhao in Peking in February. I have raised the matter with President Mitterrand and Mr Hayden has done the same in his recent talks with French Foreign Minister Cheysson. Since coming to power, this Government has given a priority to arms control and disarmament issues unmatched by any of its predecessors. We have done this, as I have indicated, because of our concern at the level of international tension in recent years, our appreciation of the difficulties bedevilling relations between the superpowers and our recognition of the very legitimate anxieties which these developments have aroused among the Australian people. The Government believes that we should not allow ourselves to be overwhelmed by a sense of global pessimism or imminent disaster. We are aware that the issues posed by the politics and technology of arms control and disarmament are extraordinarily complex. There are no 'quick fixes' available. Arms control and disarmament cannot be imposed on any nation, let alone the nuclear powers. Progress can be achieved only through agreement between the countries concerned. The Government believes that what is required are realistic, concrete and balanced measures that have at their heart a recognition of the national security interests involved. In these matters we are guided by three basic principles: Security for all states at the lowest possible level of armament; stability in the nuclear balance; and adequate verification arrangements. As a member of every global disarmament body, Australia is promoting treaties to end nuclear testing and to ban chemical weapons, and measures to prevent an arms race in outer space. We are also doing what we can to strengthen measures against the spread of nuclear weapons. For countries such as Australia, there is no substitute for the hard slog of multilateral diplomacy designed to engage the interests and support of the superpowers. The appointment of Australia's first Ambassador for Disarmament has significantly improved the effectiveness of our efforts in this regard. The Government's policy framework was laid down on 22 November 1983 when Cabinet took the following policy decisions on arms control and disarmament: (i) to promote measures to halt and reverse the nuclear arms race; (ii) to uphold the international nuclear non-proliferation treaty; (iii) to promote a comprehensive and verifiable ban on nuclear testing; (iv) to develop the concept of a nuclear free zone in the South Pacific; (v) to support the achievement of an agreement to ban chemical weapons; (vi) to support the process of negotiation and the achievement of balanced and verifiable arms control agreements; (vii) to take an active role in pursuing arms control and disarmament measures wherever possible; (viii) to affirm Australia's readiness to join a consensus to hold an international conference on the Indian Ocean zone of peace question. Since coming to office, the Government has taken steps to strengthen Australia' s public and private institutional capacity, to ensure that its commitment to peace and disarmament will be backed by a high degree of professional competence . I have mentioned our appointment of an Ambassador for Disarmament, whose role is to represent Australia in international forums, especially the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. Within the Department of Foreign Affairs there has been a major strengthening of capacity to handle disarmament issues through the deployment of additional personnel to the disarmament and arms control and the nuclear policy areas. The Government attaches great importance to the analytical and creative role of academic institutions. The Minister for Foreign Affairs announced in March 1984 that decisions had been taken to provide funds on a seven year basis to enable a peace research centre to be established at the Australian National University. Its purpose will be to provide a nucleus for serious and scholarly research into the whole field of peace, disarmament and arms control. Australia has also contributed financially to the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) which aims to raise the level of research into disarmament and arms control problems. In addition, the Government has made a voluntary contribution to the world disarmament campaign, the purpose of which is to inform, educate and to generate public understanding and support for the objectives of the United Nations in the area of disarmament. In 1986, which has been designated by the United Nations as the International Year of Peace, the Government intends to commemorate the year with a program of appropriate activities. Of the many initiatives we have taken in the field of arms control, I draw particular attention to our efforts on behalf of the Treaty of the Non- proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and a comprehensive test ban treaty. I stress again, as I did when tabling the Australian Science and Technology Council report, the particular and fundamental significance which the Government attaches to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. We regard the NPT as the most important multilateral non-proliferation and arms control agreement in existence . We will continue to do everything in our power to strengthen international adherence to the Treaty. In the House on 31 May, I drew attention to the ASTEC report's findings that, if international tensions are to be reduced and the propects of a peaceful global environment enhanced, the importance of national and international energy security cannot be over-emphasised. The report noted that disruptions in the supply of resources of any sort have been a cause of international tension and, through human history, have led to war. The inquiry concluded that Australia, through being a reliable, long-term supplier of uranium, is in a position to contribute significantly to international energy security. The report expressed the concern that we must all share that the prevention of nuclear war is of the greatest importance to all humanity. It also pointed out that should a country decide to embark on a nuclear weapons program, it was most unlikely to use a civil reactor to do so for technical and economic reasons. It concluded that Australia would best be able to make a significant contribution to non- proliferation and world peace if it were actively involved in the nuclear fuel cycle. In this context, let me recall for all honourable members what Academician Sakharov, whose credentials as an advocate for arms control and disarmament are, as I have said, exemplary, said in 1977 about the civil use of nuclear power: 'It is difficult to explain to a nonspecialist (although it is actually true) that the nuclear reactor of a nuclear power station is nothing like an atomic bomb . . . The development of nuclear technology has proceeded with much greater attention to the problems of safety techniques and preservation of the environment than the development of such branches of technology as metallurgy, coke chemistry, mining, chemical industry, coal power stations, modern transportation, chemicalisation of agriculture, etc. Therefore, the present situation in nuclear power is relatively good from the point of view of safety and possible effect on the environment . . . ' The House may recall that, when the great debate took place in this country at the beginning of the last decade on whether Australia should subscribe to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, opponents of the Treaty argued that we would need a nuclear weapons capacity to repel the survivors of an atomic war in the Northern Hemisphere. To the great credit and benefit of this country, that argument did not prevail. The coalition Government signed the Treaty in 1970 and the previous Labor Government moved rapidly to ratify it in January 1973. I now reiterate that this Labor Government categorically rejects any nuclear weapons option for Australia. Another of Australia's primary objectives in contributing to curbing the nuclear arms race has been to promote a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty- CTB-which would outlaw all nuclear testing by all states in all environments for all time. Australia has been active on this issue both in the United Nations and in the Conference on Disarmament, and in bilateral discussions with the nuclear weapons states. The conclusion of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty would help to put strong pressure on France to cease its testing program in the Pacific. A universally adhered-to treaty would also help inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons by making it impossible to test nuclear explosive devices- including the so-called peaceful nuclear explosions. It would also help to limit the development of new nuclear weapons and the improvement of existing nuclear weapons. In addition to advocating the test ban in international meetings and in bilateral exchanges with other governments, Australia has played a major role in seeking to solve procedural obstacles to the re-convening of a committee of the Conference on Disarmament on this issue. To this end Australia and New Zealand sponsored a resolution at the United Nations General Assembly in 1983 with the aim of promoting a formulation for a mandate for the committee that would receive general agreement. This resolution achieved a large measure of support and, unlike competing resolutions on the same topic by Mexico and the Soviet Union, it attracted no negative votes. Our efforts had some influence in the encouraging development that the United States abstained on this resolution, after voting against a similar resolution the year before. Notwithstanding a number of major difficulties which have to date prevented agreement, we are continuing patiently and assiduously to pursue this objective and to seek to build on the modest progress already achieved. In further support of the test ban objective, an Australian expert from the Bureau of Mineral Resources is participating in the group of seismic experts which is considering questions relevant to a global scientific network to monitor a test ban. Australia's geographic situation means we have an important potential role in such a global network A major purpose of our efforts in the multilateral disarmament field is to bring influence to bear on the bilateral relationship of the United States and the USSR. Australia has consistently urged the United States and the Soviet Union to seek agreements to limit and reduce their nuclear stockpiles and has supported their negotiations to this end: the Strategic Arms Reduction talks ( START) and the talks on intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF). It was a great disappointment to the Government when these negotiations were suspended by the Soviet Union and the Government has expressed on many occasions its hope that they will be resumed as soon as possible. Australia is not of course a party to these negotiations but the Government is doing what it can to encourage resumption of these negotiations and to break down the barriers of mistrust and suspicion. In the Government's view, adequate and effective provision for verification is a crucial precondition for progress in arms control negotiations. Another fundamental requirement is the maintenance of effective and stable deterrence between the superpowers and the contribution which that makes to a climate of confidence. Without this there can be no progress. There are special reasons why our role in this is and will remain something more than modest. We contribute positively to verification and stable and effective deterrence. Our standing in these matters derives not only from our policy commitments and objectives but also from the presence of, and the important role played by, the Australian- United States joint defence facilities on our soil. At its highest levels, the United States Administration has been consulted on and has acceded to issuance of the following statement: 'Australia-United States Joint Defence Facilities Since coming to office the Government has determined to act upon its undertaking to provide the public with a statement on the general purpose and functions of the defence facilities we operate jointly with our American ally. Successive Governments have maintained secrecy about the facilities at Pine Gap and Nurrungar. This sometimes arouses concern about the sorts of activities we might be becoming involved in, and about possible dangers to our security. Our Party's Platform, therefore, calls on the Government to make known to the public the general purpose and functions of the facilities and any change to these. When the Ministers for Defence and Foreign Affairs were in Washington in July last year they took the opportunity to raise these matters with the US Secretary of Defence, Mr Weinberger, and relevant authorities in the Pentagon. We are concerned that such a statement should not damage our own and our allies ' interests and accordingly the Government does not intend to act unilaterally and in disregard of international assurances about preservation of secrecy given by our predecessors for over a decade. Nevertheless, there is a good deal that can be said to provide reassurance to the Australian people. The facilities are not military bases. There are no combat personnel or combat equipments there, no military stores or workshops, no plant or machinery or laboratories for research, development, production or maintenance of any weapons or combat systems of any type. Timely knowledge of developments that have military significance is very important and can be critical for the security of the US and its allies, including Australia. Effective deterrence and hence avoidance of conflict depend on this. Similarly, effective measures for military restraint and for the control and reduction of armaments depend upon reliable assessments of military developments. Arms limitation arrangements between the United States and the Soviet Union specifically provide for verification. The general purpose of the facilities that we operate at Nurrungar and Pine Gap with the Americans is to contribute to all of these objectives. Among the functions performed are the provision of early warning by receiving from space satellites information about missile launches, and the provision of information about the occurrence of nuclear explosions, which assists in nuclear test ban monitoring and supports nuclear non-proliferation measures. Disclosures of other technical functions of the classified facilities would involve damage to both US and Australian interests and cannot be justified. The purpose and functions of the joint defence facility at North West Cape have already been made public. It is a communications relay station for ships and submarines of the United States Navy and the Royal Australian Navy and serves as a key element in a complex system of communications supporting the global balance. As indicated in the statement which the Minister for Defence tabled in Parliament on 3 November 1983, agreement was reached with the United States Government on new arrangements to ensure that the Australian Government would be able to make timely judgments about the significance for national interest of developments involving North West Cape. These new arrangements are now in force. The Government is satisfied that Australia's sovereignty in the operation of the joint defence facility at North West Cape is now adequately protected. Some people express concern about possible risks to our security from these facilities. The Government takes the view that the joint facilities directly contribute to the security that we enjoy every day and that this tangible benefit outweighs the possibility that risks might arise at some future time from our hosting the facilities. For many years our intelligence and defence authorities have assessed the risk of nuclear war as remote and improbable, provided effective deterrence is maintained. Australians cannot claim the full protection of that deterrence without being willing to make some contribution to its effectiveness. It is important to support stability in the strategic relationship between the superpowers and our co-operation in the joint facilities at North West Cape, Pine Gap and Nurrungar does this. As to the specific risk of nuclear attack on these facilities in the event of nuclear war it is not possible to be categoric; we cannot enter the minds of possibly hostile foreign military planners. The Government believes that hosting the facilities does bring with it some degree of added risk of nuclear attack. But the maintenance of effective deterrence including through early warning has as its purpose the avoidance of war between the nuclear powers. Such a war would inevitably affect all nations, including Australia, and its avoidance is essential for the security of the Australian people. The preservation of peace between the nuclear powers has for many years been dependent upon a situation of stable deterrence. Maintaining, and where possible enhancing, the stability of that deterrent relationship is the objective of this Government in these matters. Deterrence can be pursued through any means of convincing a potential aggressor that he would face unacceptable costs, but stability requires discrimination and restraint. We do not believe there can be a winning side in a nuclear war. The notion of a nuclear first strike designed to disarm an adversary would be destabilising were it to gain credence. Nor can there be any assurance that nuclear conflict between the super-powers could be limited. This Government's voice on such matters will be directed towards supporting doctrines which eschew moving beyond the requirements of stable deterrence towards postures more appropriate to waging nuclear war in some limited and controlled way. While we recognise that in present global circumstances a unilateral move away from a policy of maintaining stable deterrence is not a realistic option, the Australian Government is committed to working for measures to stabilise the strategic balance, on which stable deterrence depends, and to curb arms competition. Through equitable and verifiable measures for arms control and reduction, we seek to limit qualitative improvements in arms and to reduce the forces involved. The Government does not intend to comment further upon speculation or assertions about the joint facilities at Pine Gap and Nurrungar. Enough has been said, however, to correct some serious misunderstandings and to provide the reassurance that people properly seek. Finally, let me emphasise again that these facilities are jointly managed and operated by the Australian and American Governments. All functions and activities require, and have, the full knowledge and concurrence of the Australian Government. We monitor this and we are satisfied that the operations of the facilities in no way derogate from Australian sovereignty'. Mr Speaker, as I have indicated, the United States Administration has been consulted on the statement I have just made and has acceded to its issuance. The Government's wish to make this statement met with understanding and co-operation from the U.S. Administration. This has enabled me to make today to this parliament the most comprehensive public statement on the facilities yet made by an Australian Prime Minister or Minister. The lack of public information until now on the purposes of the facilities has not assisted public understanding of the vital issues involved. It is to be regretted that the previous Government did not make the necessary effort to see that the Australian people were properly informed. This has helped build up an unwarranted mystique about them and encouraged a tendency in certain sections of the media and elsewhere to discuss Nurrungar and Pine gap in a speculative and provocative manner. Some Australian groups and individuals call for the closing of the joint defence facilities. The Government recognises many of such calls as being sincerely made. We regard them as misguided but not hostile in intent. I do not expect that such calls will now cease. But I ask those making them to consider very seriously the implications of what they are demanding. As I have indicated, the removal of the joint facilities would hinder U.S. efforts to maintain effective and stable deterrence and would damage the capacity of the United States for monitoring and verification, so striking a very serious blow at the prospect of arms control agreements between the super-powers. Such a development would dash the hopes of ordinary men and women around the world for peace and disarmament. Moreover, I draw particular attention to the early warning function mentioned in the statement I have just made, and to the significance of that function for the avoidance of nuclear war. In an uncertain and suspicious international climate, no action should be taken which would reduce stability or increase the risk of war through miscalculation. Mr Speaker, As we contemplate the momentous events of 40 years ago, we can be profoundly thankful for the efforts and sacrifices of those who participated in D-Day. They fought for a cause which was incontrovertibly right. They helped create a world which has managed since to avoid the horror of global conflict. We might also think for a moment of those who had fought with equal bravery in the Great War, believing that that would prove to be the war to end wars. The bloodshed at Gallipoli, in particular, has left an indelible impression on the Australian national consciousness. We may also recall the indignation and pity which the horrors of that war aroused among the young men who went to fight on the Western Front. The great English poet, Wilfred Owen, notwithstanding his winning the Military Cross a month before he died in battle in 1918 at the age of 25, was a passionate opponent of war. The title of one of his poems, ''Anthem for Doomed Youth'', sums up the tragedy of that generation. In letters to his family early in 1917, Owen wrote that ''No Man's Land is pockmarked like a body of foulest disease and its odour is the breath of cancer . . . No Man's Land under snow is like the face of the moon, chaotic, crater- ridden, uninhabitable, awful, the abode of madness''. He described ''the universal pervasion of ugliness. Hideous landscapes, vile noises . . . everything unnatural, broken, blasted; the distortion of the dead, whose unburiable bodies sit outside the dug-outs all day, all night, the most execrable sights on earth''. That was one poet's vision of the First World War. Should there be a nuclear war, the whole world will be a No Man's Land. There will be no one to sing the anthem of our young generations, if we are unable to prevent global conflict. Such a conflict, which God forbid, would indeed be a war to end war-it would threaten the extinction of humanity. It is precisely to prevent such a catastrophe that so many Australian people have taken up the cause of peace and disarmament. And it is precisely to achieve the same end that the Government has, from its perspective developed its policies on arms control and disarmament to which it will continue to devote its highest priority. Senator BUTTON —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.07) —The statement which has been put down is one that is of interest to a number of honourable senators. It is, however, a statement which has only recently become available. I have had a discussion with the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) and I propose to seek leave to continue my remarks on the basis that the Government is agreeable to the matter being brought back for debate during the currency of the present sittings. On that basis, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(3.08) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I think it is encouraging that the Government has accepted approximately three- fifths of the recommendations that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure made on Commonwealth Government purchasing. However, I can see a problem. In setting down such tight rules of procedure there inevitably becomes built in a high degree of rigidity. I think that takes away from management a flexibility to enable quick action and also limits discretion of the permanent heads. While I welcome implementation of discounted cash flow technique analysis and the preparation of guidelines on the use of discounted cash flow analysis, I wish to remind honourable senators that this technique of discounted cash flow method of assessment is only one of a number of tools of evaluation and should be used in conjunction with other methods of appraisal, for example, the pay-back method. Despite the lessons from the past, the record of overseas purchasing by government does present a problem to Australian industry. Let me remind the Senate of some of the past problems. A number of years ago we had the sad story of the procurement of fire tenders from the United States of America. They proved completely unsatisfactory within Australia. There were a number of breakdowns and the company subsequently went into liquidation. The report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts on the HMAS Tobruk indicated the problem of the lack of expertise in Australia, with governments and government departments continuing to take their purchasing procurements overseas. This was highlighted by the problems within the shipbuilding industry. We also have an underutilisation of existing facilities. I cite the case in my own home city of Precision Tool Annexe. We welcome the acceptance of paragraph 40 (a) of the report by the Government that there will be an attempt to get more of the offset work done in Australia. I also have another local example of the case of James Nelson (Tasmania) Pty Ltd, a textile firm which, over a number of years, has lost contracts to overseas companies. For example, Australia Post has tended to put its work out to overseas operations rather than into the local manufacturing sector. Unfortunately the manufacturing sector still criticises the Department of Defence and other departments for not placing their work in Australia. This is rather surprising considering the emphasis that this Government places on high technology industries. I refer to the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry in which, as a result of the Government's attitude, or perhaps the bureaucrats' fanaticism in attacking certain sections of manufacturing industry, no profits on the sale of drugs listed under the national health scheme are being made by companies which produce in Australia. Australia is now faced with manufacturing plants being closed, workers being sacked and research projects being cut. While the Government is scattering millions of dollars on high technology industries some of the established industries, also in the area of high technology, are getting very little support. I mention companies such as Ciba- Geigy Australia and Sandoz Australia Pty Ltd et cetera which are being forced into a corner on these sorts of issues. One of the subtle features of this report and of the Government's response is that there is an inherent built in increase in public sector purchasing, and therefore of government activity at the expense of the private sector. Centralisation is also mentioned in several places in that report as well as in the response. I wish to draw the attention of honourable senators to the view of the Business Council of Australia, which states: The political process extends power to the thrill or selected clientele and tends to inhibit rather than facilitate change. Further on it states: The case for centralised planning is often built on the premise that future market outlets and prices, technology and input costs are known with certainty. In general, the profit-driven market system is much quicker on its feet than the bureaucratic model, or triparte management. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.14) —I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. The report entitled 'Mutual Advantage' is an important document, and the Opposition welcomes its production. The title 'Mutual Advantage' indicates the emphasis which the Goldring Committee of Review of Private Overseas Student Policy placed upon this subject when it came to consider the place of overseas students. I think it is fair to say that it considered mostly the international obligations of Australia, as part of this region. That was probably the prime focus of this report. To the extent that there is a problem in this country in relation to the placing of overseas students, I think we have to examine carefully what it is that the Committee has recommended and whether those recommendations are appropriate and likely to be effective. It is my view that more work needs to be done on how to accommodate overseas students in Australia in our tertiary institutions, acknowledging the value this has to Australia in many international relations terms. As part of the good neighbour policy in our region more work needs to be done on how to accommodate these students into our tertiary institutions at the time when many qualified residents of Australia are being turned away. It is this difficulty which has highlighted the problem in recent years and which really led to this Committee being established. Yesterday I received a letter from Dr Ken McKinnon of the University of Wollongong, in which he presented figures which suggest that 20,000 qualified students were unable to get entry into universities in New South Wales alone this year. That gives us some idea of how great the squeeze is across Australia. Additionally, certain faculties of the University of New South Wales have an extremely high proportion of overseas students, and this has given rise to some unfortunate incidents on that campus, and some unfortunate comments. I think the Faculty of Architecture of the University of New South Wales, certain courses in computing science and certain courses in engineering, shows quite an atypical concentration of overseas students. There have been complaints from the parents of qualified resident students, that those students cannot get entry. We have to find an answer which allows us to meet our obligations within our region, as good neighbours, and to undertake activities which benefit Australia in many ways, by helping overseas students, and yet at the same time by accommodating the needs of resident Australians. In that context the proposal by the Goldring Committee, which might allow the number of overseas students on campuses actually to double from its present figure of 5 per cent to a maximum target figure of 10 per cent, seems not to be wrong but to be premature. It is a recommendation which can really be considered only when the other problem of how to accommodate the needs and aspirations of resident Australians can also be answered. It is a problem which has been described as a displacement problem because while we have a finite number of places available on our campuses, for every student we take in from outside we displace one who is a resident Australian. The solution should be very simple. In order to discharge our obligations under this or similar programs, we simply need to increase the number of available places on our campuses to give all students a chance and to remove absolutely any notion that to take one from outside involves displacing one from inside. It is entirely possible to have both goals being met, one alongside the other. In this regard I welcome the recommendation of the Goldring Commitee that the money collected from the overseas student charge should no longer go into Consolidated Revenue but should be applied to educational expenditure to help provide the extra places. If that happens it may be possible to overcome some of the difficulties. As I say, there is nothing wrong with the recommendation of a 10 per cent target, except that it is premature until the displacement problem is dealt with and resolved. I welcome the report's proposals that the concentrations of students from overseas in any one course should not exceed 25 per cent. I think that has to be considered alongside the displacement problem. I welcome the proposal that the overseas student charge-or the equivalent money-should be allocated to the education budget. I acknowledge that Australia has an important role to pay. The Opposition intends to give very careful consideration to this large report. For example, we are aware that in the United Kingdom 5 per cent of students are from overseas. We would like to accommodate the generous provisions of this report, but to do so in a way that is consistent with the needs and aspirations of Australian students for an adequate tertiary education. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.19) —The report on Private Overseas Student Policy, as the previous speaker has suggested, is a very large one. It has a very large number of detailed recommendations. In the short time available to me I wish to concentrate on only two. One is the connection of the overseas students office to the Department of Education. I am not at all sure that that is the correct Department to which it should be attached. We are talking about educational matters but I wonder whether responsibility for overseas students should be a matter for the Department of Foreign Affairs rather than for the Department of Education. I think that overall this matter may be better handled by the Department of Foreign Affairs. It may be seen precisely and clearly to be so, not only by other countries but also by our own citizens who consider this as a matter of foreign aid. We have a significant and very important obligation to countries in our region to provide, through our tertiary institutions, as much aid and assistance as we can. Otherwise, the contribution that Australia makes in the international forum and the much talk about the North-South dialogue by the previous Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, will be pure rhetoric. We have a very strong moral obligation to our own region. I can think of no better way of assisting countries in our region than by providing places in our tertiary institutions. Senator Peter Baume —And funding them, I guess. Senator MACKLIN —The funding issue is one that I wish to come to now, briefly. The funding of overseas students ought to be entirely separate from the education budget. It ought to be seen as part of our aid to other countries. In relation to funding, when one looks at the report one misses entirely the economics of the matter. I have pointed out previously and again I point out that Australia is now very concerned about the development of our tourist industry. When we talk about that we talk about the jobs that flow from having tourists come to Australia and from the money that they bring in. When one does a cost-benefit study on most of our overseas students one discovers that they leave more money in Australia than our educating them actually costs. I suggest that more detailed understanding of the economics of this issue in the wider community may go a long way towards alleviating a lot of the concern that people have. I share the point of view expressed by Senator Baume that the way we go about things is important; not only what we do, but how we are seen to be doing it. I think it is extremely important to show to our own citizens that the places we provide in our tertiary institutions to people of other countries are provided in addition to those places which are provided for in our educational budget, that they are provided because we have a moral obligation to other countries and we wish to show that as a developed country we have a lot to contribute to other people. Finally, the contribution of students who comes to Australia can never be counted in dollar terms. Upon their return to their own country, undoubtedly almost every one of them becomes an important ambassador for this country. While we may not see an immediate return in dollar terms, we will certainly see, over the years, increasing return by way of bilateral relations between our countries and by a growth in the international community of goodwill between all nations. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(3.23) —Previous speakers have indicated that the report of the Committee of Review of Private Overseas Student Policy which came to hand a very short time ago is so comprehensive in size and so detailed in its recommendations that it is impossible in the space of this debate to deal with it fairly. Therefore, we all hope that we will be given a significant opportunity, firstly, to read it properly and, secondly, to debate it in this place in the very near future. Incidentally, the report could compound very strongly on Budget decisions of the Government, and therefore it ought to be debated well ahead of those decisions. If there are no other speakers, I propose to seek leave at the end of my comments today to continue my remarks later. I support what both Senator Baume and Senator Macklin said. I have a long enough memory to remember the genesis of the Colombo Plan. I had some little hand, behind the curtain, in helping the development of that plan. The concept of the Colombo Plan was for Australia to reach out, as a good neighbour, to offer facilities to developing countries. The main facilities were provided in both secondary and tertiary education. We have gone a long way. We have made a great deal of progress. We have much more to do. There are countries that have become recognised for their ability to export education, as it were. For instance, in the Middle East, Jordan has such a reputation. Countries should develop a size, an expertise and capacity in education, not only to educate their own people, but also to provide virtually a service to other countries as a good neighbour. This is what I think Australia ought to do. Over the past 10 years or more in the education debate-I will seek to be apolitical-the argument has always been that we need more money. Of course we do . The appetite for money in education is enormous. Nevertheless, the fact is that at this moment two things are contending. There is a need in Australia for greater participation in education at all levels by indigenous Australians. The participation rate through to the higher school certificate in Australia is low when compared with the rate in countries around us. At the moment it is something in the order of 36 per cent-low when compared with countries that have a 60 per cent or 70 per cent participation rate. Our participation further into post-secondary and tertiary education is also low when compared with other countries. Retention at school is low. We need, particularly because of our massive unemployment and the world around us becoming more and more skilled, to develop more and more skills amongst our people. Therefore, there is a great hunger inside the Australian community for more facilities in education at all levels and for more participation. During the education debates I hope to develop that point. We ought not have this contending, as in a ping-pong match, between overseas students and our own students. That would be sad. I commend the thought in Senator Macklin's contribution that funding for education of overseas students should be divorced from the general education budget. That was part of the Colombo Plan concept of the past-that there was a service and a reaching out which had a comprehensive series of facilities provided to it. I believe that there is nothing that we can do with greater impact upon the world outside than invite the people from other countries in our region to come and share in what we do very well indeed, by and large-education. We should not have the argument: 'If you have more of these, you cannot have more of them'. I hope, with the time against me at this moment, that that will not be major in the debate. In the hope and expectation that we will debate this matter before the Senate rises for the winter recess, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(3.28) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This document circulated this morning is a bland and unexceptional report, as most of these international accounts are. The presentation of this report provides a formal opportunity for us to comment on the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. It is time that some comment was made on it. There are valid and necessary comments that need to be exposed for public debate on this body. What I am going to say in the few minutes left to me relates purely to UNESCO. The remarks do not apply to the parent body, the United Nations, which is a separate and distinct entity and something that we ought to debate at some time in this chamber. I rose because there seems to be an all pervasive attitude that international bodies are good and beyond discussion, let alone beyond any critical analysis. I have a particular interest in UNESCO as well as some knowledge of it because last year I was fortunate enough to be one of the two parliamentary advisers to the General Assembly meeting of the United Nations in New York. I wish to take part in this debate because UNESCO has been the subject of informed comment in recent years, most of which has been highly critical. The critical comment turns on two broad fields. First, allegations of financial mismanagement, not to say corruption in the body; and, secondly, a proven record of gross politicisation which leads UNESCO down the path of supporting Third World and/or Soviet objectives. This had come to public notice by the decision of the USA to withdraw support from this body from 31 December 1984. Dealing with those two charges, first the allegation-I stress they are allegations-of financial impropriety, there has been an external audit of UNESCO as for all the United Nations bodies, but it is reasonable to assume that there are some lax guidelines on expenditure of funds and for payments. There is always great difficulty finding out just what goes on in these multinational bodies. One is dealing with people with different languages and different cultural and financial practices. The United States has had enough and has at last got approval to put in the Government Audit Office to examine the accounts of UNESCO. Surprise, surprise, there was a major fire in Paris at the end of last year or the early part of this year-and that fire happened to be in the financial records department of UNESCO. So it looks as if it has come to an end. There is enough circumstantial evidence to believe that financial practices have not been what they might have been. The politicisation of the body is well documented and generally the body is hostile to the institutions of a free society, the free Press and the free market. This is at variance with the great ideals on which UNESCO was founded. I will not read them; they are on page 1 of the report. They include the contribution to peace and security by promoting collaboration among the nations through education, science and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, for the rule of law and the human rights of fundamental freedom. Those items incorporate the ideals of free western societies. However, in recent years they have been perverted by the actions of UNESCO. There are many restrictive practices that UNESCO is coming up with, the chief one in recent times being the new information order which seeks to make the Press, mainly the free Press from Western countries, answerable to Third World governments. I have not time to go on with that aspect, but the net result has been an active campaign by UNESCO against the values of Western society. UNESCO as a body in its right should be apolitical. There is nothing wrong with the Russians or the Third World putting their point of view, but there is something wrong with the Third World and the Russians using an apolitical body, to the exclusion of other values, from a propaganda point of view. The US decided to withdraw and, as one of the major budgetary contributors, its action will have a significant effect on the activities of UNESCO. It is true that UNESCO will make up its funds from the general budget of the United Nations, but clearly Australia should withdraw from UNESCO. Our problem is that the Ambassador, Mr Gough Whitlam, is not providing the sort of information and advice to the Government that he should. Despite his great and detailed knowledge of foreign affairs which extends over many years, he is quite unbalanced in his views about UNESCO. I had the privilege of meeting Mr Whitlam in New York when he came across to attend a UNESCO meeting. The case is clear that Australia should withdraw from UNESCO. If we are concerned about providing funds for scientific, educational and cultural purposes, they should be applied within Australia rather than for this body at this time. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(3.33) —I have not time to consider the report in itself. It is true, as Senator MacGibbon said, that in the past year the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation has come under considerable criticism throughout the world. I have not decided in my own mind on the full pros and cons of the situation. UNESCO is a fine concept, a philosophy with which we would all agree. Because I have not had the time to fully consider the report, and because this subject covers a wide range of matters that are now a matter of public controversy, unless any other honourable senator wishes to contribute to this debate, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.35) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This is a brief report which simply details the expenditure under the special employment-related programs Act 1982 which authorised the expenditure of wage pause money amounting to some $300m-money that was available because of the Fraser Government's 12-month wage pause. I wish to refer briefly to the continuing problem in Australia of high unemployment. This morning Senator Walsh referred to a leading article in the Australian Financial Review. I certainly accept some of the assertions in that article, not least the fact that some of the very good figures in the national account should be welcomed without reservation. I also draw attention to the passages in its leading article to which I referred at Question Time. They point to the fact that there is a continuing intractable problem of high unemployment. All honourable senators would agree that Australia needs to be concerned with that reality, notwithstanding the better economic news. A general unemployment rate of somewhere around 10 per cent for the general work force means, on recent indications, an unemployment rate for the young of about 20 per cent. That means about one in five young Australians have real difficulty in finding a place in the work force, but that figure of 20 per cent is not static. However, some young Australians face real difficulty. It is a matter of regret to me that one of the items of expenditure of the wage pause money was discontinued by this Government. I refer to the pilot or experimental program which was announced by Mr Macphee and by me when I was Minister for Social Security. Under that program we offered to fund through the States work programs which would have enabled the unemployed to earn the amount of the unemployment benefit, plus $35 per week, by doing part time work at award rates. That was one attempt on an experimental basis to see whether some economically and socially beneficial alternative to unemployment benefit could be found. It was a relatively small project involving just a few million dollars . I think it a pity that it was discontinued by the present Government. I say that in the context of the Government itself having established a substantial make-work program in the form of the community employment program. I suggest to the Government that because of the difficulties we found in respect of the special employment related programs administered through the States, which had given rise to delays in the expenditure of moneys, and because of delays in providing alternative employment programs, that there are warnings in that connection which are now being echoed in the administration of the CEP program. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) did not confirm the point in precise terms but many Government Ministers have confirmed that Australia faces high continuing unemployment. Therefore, we should be concerned that any expenditure of money which is meant to ease the position of the unemployed should be effective and efficient. There are emerging difficulties with CEP. I mention these to the Government, because I believe that it is incumbent on the Government to try to ensure that moneys are not wasted and that maximum effect is achieved. There are many doubts about whether moneys which are being allocated by the Commonwealth are being spent. I raised that matter in the Senate earlier, and it appears that at the end of this financial year there are likely to be unspent moneys. There are many doubts about the sort of employment that is being provided, some of it through social agencies which provide employment for people with particular skills who are not necessarily very representative of the unemployed. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(3.40) —On behalf of Senator Tate, the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, and on behalf of the Committee, I present a report on the Freedom of Information Act 1982 annual report on the operation of the act for the period 1 December 1982 to 30 June 1983 and move that the report be printed. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator MISSEN —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I will take a little time to give the Senate some information in regard to this report. I explain first how it comes about that the Committee is presenting a report on an annual report which has been put down in this Parliament. It is with a purpose which I hope will be fulfilled, namely that there will be some debate on this matter. As we all know, the Freedom of Information Act which came into operation less than two years ago is of considerable importance to this Parliament and one in which the Senate had a very considerable part to play. It has likewise had a considerable part to play in the amendment of the Act since that time. Unfortunately, after the Act had been operating for seven months, to 30 June 1983, that annual report was put down in the Parliament I think two days before we rose for the Christmas recess. There was no opportunity whatsoever for any members of the Senate to comment in any way on the report. The 1982 annual report on the Freedom of Information Act is a substantial one. I commend the Attorney-General and his staff, as does the Committee in its report, on the excellence of its coverage and the fact that it provides a great deal of useful information for members of the Parliament and the public. The Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee has taken the opportunity to consider that report which, as I said, the Parliament did not do and to report certain matters in relation to it. It is a valuable report because it indicates what I think the Attorney-General calls 'the quiet introduction of freedom of information'. That is a feature which has its good and bad sides. It is somewhat quiet probably because of the lack of knowledge that people have of its facilities and their ability to use it. That lack of usage is to be found not only in the public generally, but also among members of parliament and the media , who, I believe, do not use the opportunity to obtain detailed information from government sources that the Act now provides. The first recommendation the Committee made in its report on the annual report was that: The Government should proceed with the recommendations of the Attorney-General to ensure that there is a better knowledge of the Freedom of Information Act, so that the public and public-interest bodies may make full use of the valuable amount of information which is now available for their use. I think that is important. Only small use has been made of the Act. As a result, only 45 per cent of the staff demanded were required in the first year. That might be good from the point of view of the economy of the Government, but it also indicates a lack of knowledge and a surprising lack of usage which varied considerably between departments. Thus there is a necessity to encourage better knowledge of the Act and its services. The second recommendation of the Committee was that: The Government should facilitate the provision of information about departments required to be supplied under the Act and ensure that the Freedom of Information Handbook is produced and widely distributed at an early date. Some very substantial material has been produced. No doubt the shelves of honourable senators are littered with documents from departments showing what documents are in the possession of those departments. I have a horrible suspicion that most of those documents have not been opened by honourable senators and that we are not fully aware of all the comments. One of my colleagues looks shocked at that suggestion, but I think it is very near the truth. The production of a Freedom of Information Handbook is something of urgency. The type of information given to members of the public should be simply set out so that they can use the facilities of the Act. That is a matter which I think should have urgent attention. The third recommendation made by the Committee is that: The Attorney-General's Department should carefully monitor the differences appearing in the usage made by agencies of exceptions and exemptions and the varying times taken to meet requests. The various appendices of the report are very detailed and very interesting because they indicate that some departments have a comparatively considerable number of inquiries under the Act. The Department of Social Security is one such department. Those departments that have a considerable public content and public connection are used much more than others. I think that three departments accounted for something like 59 per cent of usage in that seven-month period. But other departments were hardly used at all. This recommendation also mentioned the use of exceptions and exemptions. Likewise, we tried to analyse those figures in the Senate Committee report. They indicate very interesting divergences between the use of the various means of avoiding disclosure of government information. I take as an example the ability which a department has to provide only part of a document where some of it is exempt; it makes those excisions and then produces the document. Some departments more often than others use the exception by arguing that production of part of a document would lead to a confusing document or that it is not possible to discriminate between that part which is exempt and that which is not exempt. It is very important that the Attorney-General's Department should scrutinise very carefully this diverse use of exemptions to see whether some departments are overusing them and whether other departments are showing a much more ready acceptance of the idea of freedom of information. When the United States introduced its Acts in 1966 it found in the first few years very differing attitudes. Some departments of government were co-operative and made things available to the public; others were unco-operative. It is very important that in the early stage of the application of the Freedom of Information Act in this country we should not see bad habits developing such that some departments show excessive use of some exemptions and exceptions. This should be a matter of scrutiny by the Attorney-General's Department. The fourth recommendation put forward by the Committee states: The Attorney-General's Department should be vigilant in monitoring exceptions and exemptions to ensure that technical defects in applications are not used to frustrate access to information. We give examples in our report of cases we know. One example was of a department waiting for 59 or 60 days before it told the applicant that the application could not be granted because it also required his wife's signature. It must be ensured that departments do not use technical defects to deny people access to government information. I believe that the report therefore is a very worthwhile production by the Attorney-General's Department. We know that after three years of use of freedom of information there is to be a review by a Senate committee. It is, I think, equally important that in the years before that there should be a close scrutiny by the committee which has responsibility in this regard; that is the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, to which the annual report is automatically referred. It should keep a close watch on these developments. We should not wait until the end of three years suddenly to find that there are defects requiring attention. I hope that each year we will consider the report and make recommendations. But I say to the Attorney-General that overall this report is of very considerable importance and should be examined very closely. It should be reported on and discussed in the media because in it are seeds of some problems but at the same time areas where further development would be valuable. It is with those remarks that I introduce the motion. I hope it will lead to further debate in this chamber. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —I present the fifth report of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill 1984, the Australian Meat and Live-Stock Corporation Amendment Bill 1984, the Australian National University Amendment Bill 1984, the Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill 1984, the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Amendment Bill 1984, the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Collection Amendment Bill 1984, the Members of Parliament (Staff) Bill 1984 , the Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Bill 1984, the National Crime Authority Bill 1983, the Property Rights Protection Bill 1984, the Public Service Reform Bill 1984, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Bill 1984, the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1984 and the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 [No. 2]. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator TATE —On behalf of the Committee I lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 7 dated 6 June 1984. Consideration resumed. The Bill. The CHAIRMAN —The Committee is, by agreement, considering the Bill as a whole. At the moment we have before us amendments to clause 29 relating to membership of the National Crime Authority. We have agreed to omit certain clauses and the Attorney-General has moved an amendment to insert certain clauses, to which Senator Durack has moved an amendment to increase the membership from three to five. The question is that Senator Durack's amendment to the words proposed to be inserted by the Attorney-General be agreed to. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(3.52) —I state briefly the Australian Democrats attitude. Although I concede that it was a recommendation-No. 36-of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs that the National Crime Authority should be constituted by at least two members, I remember agreeing to that on the run, in a hurry. I do not remember taking a great deal of evidence about it. At this stage I concede that I have been persuaded by the arguments of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). I am attracted to the idea of Senator Durack that at some stage membership of the Authority be extended but I would have thought it would be more appropriate to address our minds to that when it is seen that the present membership of the Authority cannot cope with the volume of work. I would like the Attorney to give me an assurance now that as soon as that occurs he will give immediate consideration to bringing in an amending Bill to increase the number of members of the Authority. I hope I am not misquoting Senator Durack but I have always been interested in his argument, when it is mooted to extend the number of judges of the High Court of Australia from seven to cope with the work, that that might well result in two courts within a court and that there is some danger in that. There is some validity to that sort of argument. If we have two National Crime Authorities sitting or the Authority is split in two, we run the risk of having two values running at the same time-the tough Authority and the less tough Authority, or whatever. However, that is a problem to be faced in the future. At this stage the Democrats do not agree to the extension of the numbers of the Authority but agree with the amendment moved by the Attorney. I remember the evidence of Mr Costigan that an authority sitting as one person was ample. I think I remember his suggesting the difficulties that would be created for him in taking evidence or having a hearing if he had to get someone else. For those reasons we support the amendment of the Attorney and do not agree with the Opposition. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(3.55) —I am happy to give Senator Chipp the undertaking he seeks. We will keep the structure and effectiveness of the National Crime Authority under very close review and should it become apparent that the performance of the Authority would be more effective with additions to its membership, however that might be accomplished, we would certainly take the necessary steps to introduce legislation to enable an appropriate increase in size. For the moment, from the outset, we do not see the case for producing an element of elephantiasis in the way the Authority is structured. There will be ample staff and ample expertise to support it and it is more important as we see it that the Authority itself-the decision-making body, the body that we will have to agree with about recommendations-be small and cohesive rather than sprawling around the countryside with all the potential problems of reaching agreement and the further problems about the divisions to which Senator Chipp referred. It is difficult to judge properly how this will work but certainly with the experience of a few months or perhaps a year's operation of the Authority under our belts we will be in a much better position than we are now to make judgments about these structural matters. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.57) —I am concerned that Senator Chipp may have misunderstood to some extent the nature of my argument in favour of this extension of numbers on the National Crime Authority. My conern is not so much with the point that there will not be enough people to do the work but rather that the great preponderance of members-two out of three-will be appointed by this very indirect method and will be representative of old traditional law enforcement experts. My concern about the work of the Authority is subsidiary; my main concern is about the sort of Authority we will be starting off with when we have only the Chairman selected entirely for his expertise merits, stature and all the rest of it. Indeed, the Chairman's selection may be based more on stature than expertise. Then we will have two people selected in the way that we have discussed. What I am really concerned about is that there ought to be room on the Authority for at least one and perhaps two experts who can bring a new thought and approach to the whole exercise. Although I am very concerned about that aspect I wonder whether the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) might give some indication as to the sorts of people who will be nominated by this electoral college that we have been talking about, made up of, on the one hand, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and, on the other hand, the Police Ministers Council. We do not even know how many States, if any, will participate . It may be quite impossible for the Attorney to give some indication of who will be nominated by this process of osmosis that we are talking about. Maybe he has had discussions; maybe he has got indications from some of his colleagues. I know he cannot give any guarantees on it but I would be interested to know what he has in mind. I think I have expressed publicly and in this debate the fact that I am particularly concerned about the fact that we will have the standing committees and all the Ministers at those meetings serviced by officers, some of them with long experience. There seems to be a likely temptation that some officer from a State department will be nominated. When we come to the police Ministers, the temptation may be for some senior police officer to be nominated. There may well be a senior police office who is very well qualified. But I am concerned that we will end up with an Authority with a chairman, who will no doubt be a distinguished independent person, probably a judge, who may not have any great experience in criminal investigation because, obviously, his appointment may be for other reasons. Then we would have two members of it who would be very much representative of State officials. Senator Chipp —Do you think a judge is likely to accept, given the terms of appointment? Senator DURACK —I think it likely that a judge will accept. I hope a judge will accept. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.01) —It is difficult to respond to Senator Durack's invitation, as much as I would like to, in other than a very generalised way and by indicating what my thinking on it is rather than necessarily trying in any way to speak for other Ministers. The views I have been canvassing are really reduced to this: On the question of a chairman, I believe it would be highly desirable for a judge to head the body. It ought to be someone with a great deal of practical experience in criminal law. Whether that experience is from investigation of a royal commission nature as such or whether it is simply by virtue of prior practice and on-the-Bench experience is a matter that will need to be left in the air at the moment. But certainly it needs to be someone who is highly experienced at conducting hearings, highly experienced in the proper procedure, highly sensitive to the kinds of competing considerations involved here and highly expert in his knowledge or experience of the kind of crime at which the agency is directed. As to the other two members, certainly so far as the representative of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General is concerned, I hope that a prominent lawyer-I imagine a silk rather than a second judge-would be the most appropriate appointee, someone with a great deal of experience in hard-nosed, on-the-ground criminal investigation. Senator Chipp —Michael Hodgman has just taken silk. Senator GARETH EVANS —God forbid. Senator Durack —Like Mr Meagher. Senator GARETH EVANS —Well, a number of names suggest themselves. I certainly do not want to canvass the merits or prospects of any individual at this stage. As to a third member, I think it is probably desirable that it be someone with legal qualifications, not necessarily a practising lawyer, to the extent that so many of the questions that will arise in this exercise involve proper interpretation and application of legislation and, indeed to the extent that they will involve the conduct of hearings, someone with a familiarity with and capacity to handle such hearings. It is the view that it is desirable that there be someone, at least one of the three positions, with prosecution side experience. Conceivably that could be a senior police officer, but it should be someone with a sensitivity to and understanding of police procedures. That is important. Somewhere within the troika, one would very much hope that also one could attract someone of considerable administrative experience and capacity and , hopefully, someone with the capacity in particular to master quickly the computer technology that has been so central to the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and which will be taken over by the new Authority. To the extent that any one of those particular attributes is lacking in the final body that we produce, there will of course be ample capacity to provide expertise with the senior level staff of the Authority. To that extent what I am saying should in no way be regarded as sine qua non of the effectiveness of the outfit. With regard to the kind of concern that Senator Durack has expressed about somehow the senior officials getting together and foisting one of their number or someone else upon the Authority, while I have every respect for senior officials-I hasten to add in the context of my present company-I do not think that is a very likely outcome. If anyone were to be appointed with that kind of background, undoubtedly it would be someone with the real credentials to make a very effective job of it. We want expertise. Senator Crichton-Browne —What sort of expertise? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have just been indicating for the past five minutes what sort of expertise. Senator Crichton-Browne —You are not doing a very good job, clearly. Senator GARETH EVANS —The day I can penetrate Senator Crichton-Browne's perceptions of these things I will regard as an occasion for doing handsprings around the chamber. Senator Crichton-Browne —Try going to Rostrum instead of going into the verbal diarrhoea that overcomes you every now and then. Senator GARETH EVANS —I have considerable difficulty. When I answer honestly and frankly a question put to me, I am accused of having verbal diarrhoea. If I do not answer questions, I am accused of stone-walling or something of that kind equally inappropriate for the occasion. I have said as much as I can reasonably say. I do not propose to contribute further to the length of this debate by repeating what I have already said. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(4.05) —I ask a question of the Attorney-General to which I would like an answer before the debate is concluded. When appointments were made to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Government took an initiative that was welcomed by members on this side of the Committee. The Government undertook to present a panel of names to members of the Liberal Party of Australia, the National Party of Australia and the Australian Democrats, to try to obtain consensus on appointees to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. It was a move that was most welcomed by the Liberal Party and indeed by us. Although the number of names suggested did not exceed the number of possible appointees by very many, we found it a very useful process. I ask the Attorney to contemplate putting up a list of names, even informally, to the various parties here. We can be trusted on matters like this, if it is given in confidence. It would strengthen the Attorney's hand. I know he has an enormous responsibility in choosing the right person. As this debate unfolds-Senator Lewis just reminded me of this-this Authority will either succeed or fail depending on the personnel chosen, not just the chairman. I ask the Attorney to consider that. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.07) —I am interested in what the Attorney said in answer to my question about the type of person he is looking for. From the way in which he indicated the variety of expertise that would be required on this Authority, he went clearly beyond three people. I do not think all those various expert requirements that he mentioned can be accommodated within three people. His answer gave only further force to my argument. I add incidentally that I, too, do not want to be thought to be opposed to any officials. If the Attorney were minded to appoint his present senior adviser on this matter, of course I would not object. It is the process of osmosis through the State Ministers and officials with which I have concern. I want to make that quite clear. There is no doubt that in the State system there are officials with great experience who would be very well qualified to be on this Authority. But while we are talking about this particular question I wish to raise something that perhaps I should have raised in an earlier part of the debate. However I think it is equally important on the questions that we are now considering. I wonder whether the Attorney can indicate to us who will be the Minister concerned. We are all rather assuming that it will be the Attorney- General but that is not necessarily to be assumed. I would like to know if the Government has decided whether the Attorney-General will be the Minister to administer this, or whether it will be Special Minister of State, or indeed some other Minister. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.10) —As to the last question, I do not think that a final decision has been made, but I have certainly recommended to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that the responsible Minister be the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) rather than me. It is a tricky question because in some ways this body is right in the middle of the two areas of responsibility. I think that on balance, particularly given the way in which the structure and functions of the Authority have evolved in the course of the debate, it is more analogous to a criminal investigation process and an extension of police capacity than it is to the kind of prosecution function as such that comes under my wing. It is a matter of judgment. Senator Chipp —Have you discussed that with the States? Are they happy about that? Senator GARETH EVANS —It has not been a matter of particular concern, I think, to the States which Minister it is. We have operated on a perfectly co-operative basis. Senator Hill —Has it been discussed with the States? Senator GARETH EVANS —I think that the issue has been canvassed, but it has not been the subject of formal discussion as such. I think they were just interested to know how it would finally wash up. We have not yet reached the stage of making a decision on it, but I imagine the matter will be formalised quite soon. I think that is the way it is going. It is also proposed that there be a special sub-committee of one of the appropriate Cabinet committees, involving me as well as the Special Minister of State and perhaps another one or two Ministers as well, to ensure that there is continued liaison and co-operation between the respective departments to the extent that the functions of the Authority will overlap. That matter is being amicably resolved by reference to general considerations of ministerial work load, but more particularly the functions that are being performed and how they integrate with other functions in the Department. Let me finish by answering Senator Chipp's suggestion. I think the difficulty about his proposal and the example he mentioned is that, in some quarters at least, it has been regarded as something less than an unadulterated triumph in its actual execution. Perhaps judgments that are being widely made at the moment are premature. I for one express no lack of confidence at all in the people who were produced by that consultative process. But then again, he was dealing with a large board which, by its very nature, had to be representative of competing interests within the Australian community. Here we are dealing with the appointment of a much narrower expert body, and I am not sure that the same considerations apply. I will certainly take on board Senator Chipp's suggestion and discuss it with the Government to see what the reaction is. I would think at this stage that the most likely reaction, which is my own instinctive reaction, would be to say that we do not want to go down the track of a formal process of that kind. I would be very happy to engage in any formal discussions of the kind I have had in the last few days with Senator Chipp and, I think, with Senator Durack very briefly on an earlier occasion. I am happy to pursue that further just to get reactions to the names that are being canvassed around. It is very much the Government's desire that there be no controversy about the appointments . We want people who are credible, respected and universally seen to be appropriate appointments to the body in question. Unless we do that the exercise will be self-defeating and counter-productive in terms of the co-operation we want to have and the respect and credibility that this body must have in the community at large if it is to do its job properly. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(4.13) —I asked Senator Evans to repeat for me what he thought were the appropriate qualifications because, as I recall, he was saying that one member of the Authority might have a capacity in computer technology and another one might have a qualification in something else . The truth of the matter is that while the Authority is not a judicial body, a vital function of the Authority will be its hearings. That involves accepting and rejecting evidence and, of course, considering the question of the use of coercive power in the gaining of evidence. If a member of the Authority does not have the competence to deal with such matters at a hearing the Authority will be lacking in terms of proper integrity. We talk about the Authority being cohesive . I think that the number of members of the Authority is inextricably tied to having a quorum of at least two. No doubt the Attorney-General will argue that if the Authority has only three members a quorum of one is adequate. Senator Chipp —A quorum here is one third. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Yes, but we are blessed with quality, not necessarily quantity. I include Senator Chipp in that. Understanding the laws of evidence and the enormous powers that this Authority will have, we want continuity, safety and a common approach. We cannot have those safeguards if there is a quorum of one. One cannot have those safeguards if one member of the Authority is in Sydney, one is in Melbourne and one is in Brisbane or taking evidence somewhere else-all of whom have a different approach to and style of accepting their responsibilities and role. Senator Evans says that it would create administrative difficulties to have a quorum of more than one. That is a very poor excuse. Senator Evans made the observation earlier, following my comments, that there is a great deal to be said for considering the balance of protecting civil liberties and pursuing criminals. I think it is terribly important that the Authority have at least five members. If I had my way I would have a quorum of three. The Authority requires people who have the necessary qualifications, who are competent to take evidence and who are able to understand the law in that direction. It is absurd for Senator Evans to tell us that it would create administrative difficulties to have more than one member present. It is absurd to have somebody who is an expert in bloody technology chairing a hearing when somebody is claiming immunity from self-incrimination, perhaps seeking immunity from providing his own business documents. It is absurd that a guy who is an expert in technology can make profound judgments as to whether that person should be granted immunity. Senator Hill —They have to be lawyers. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —According to Senator Evans they all do not have to be lawyers. There could be a junior policeman from the Australian Federal Police. It seems to me that there is a great deal of merit in having five members of the Authority and a quorum of two. And the members chairing meetings of the Authority should have a knowledge of the law. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(4.18) —Firstly, let me apologise on behalf of my colleague, Senator Crichton-Browne. I am sure that a word in his speech slipped out without his even realising that it had slipped out. Perhaps it will be expunged from Hansard, but I think it did go to air. I wish to draw to the attention of the Committee to the difference between the chairman and the members of the National Crime Authority on the one hand and counsel, in particular senior counsel, assisting the Authority on the other hand. It is much more difficult to explain than it is to see it in action. Members of the Senate Standing Committee were in the fortunate position of seeing the Costigan Royal Commission in action and then talking with Mr Costigan and Mr Meagher, QC, senior counsel assisting Mr Costigan. From that we were able to see the difference between the Royal Commissioner on the one hand and the counsel assisting him on the other hand. They do have different roles. It is important that they do not go down an identical path. Let me try to explain this to honourable senators. The counsel assisting the Authority becomes the hunter. He is really the pinnacle of the information which is being generated by the computer systems in operation underneath the Authority . The material is fed to officers at a senior level who then ask the computer various questions: Does A associate with B? Does A pass money to B? In which companies are A and B involved together? The officers ask the computer various questions and, as a result, information is gathered about A and B to indicate some sort of criminal connection. The Chairman of the Authority-or the Commissioner in the case of the Costigan Commission-is aware in general terms that he is looking at the case of A or B, but he is not down on the ground, in the gravel, fighting this matter. He has overriding control but he is not actually in there asking the computer the questions and generally acting as a hunter. That is the very important point in the proposals which are now before the Senate and which the Opposition is trying to bring out. Although the Chairman controls the hunters by not getting too deeply into the battle, he is the one who has to make the crucial decisions as to whether A or B becomes a target. Once A or B becomes a target practically everyone associated with that person will know that he or she is being targeted by the Crime Authority. His or her bank will be asked to produce its records, and immediately the bank becomes aware that that person is a target. Business associates will be asked to supply information to the Authority as to why transactions took place. Senator Crichton-Browne —They are likely to be subpoenaed. Senator LEWIS —Yes. They are likely to be subpoenaed and they will all know that they are being subpoenaed about the affairs of A. Once a decision is taken that A is to become a target, A will be in a very difficult position until such time as he or she is cleared. It is for that reason that the Chairman and the members of the Authority must not get too much into the fire. They must be able to look at such a matter from a broad view and say: 'Well, really, although, Mr Hunter, you think there is reason to target A, in fact you are not establishing to our satisfaction that we ought to subject this person to this investigation at this stage and you need to go back and do some more homework'. So the Chairman and members of this Authority need to be extremely well versed in principles of justice and fair play, because they are the people who will really be making the vital decisions which will affect the civil liberties of the subject. Senator Crichton-Browne —They need to really know the law. Senator LEWIS —As Senator Crichton-Browne says, there is no doubt they really need to know the law. We cannot afford to have people involved in this Authority who may be very good and smart computer operators. They need to understand whether or not target A should be targeted and whether he or she has behaved in such a way that the Authority ought to hone in on him. The Chairman and members of the Authority will be the protectors of the civil liberties of the subject who appears before them. It is all right to talk about have a judicial audit, having the Ombudsman take a look, setting up a parliamentary committee, or giving, as we have suggested, an immediate right of appeal to a judge of the Federal Court of Australia. It is all right to put all of those protection proposals in the legislation, but there is not the slightest doubt that the most important people looking at the protection of people's civil liberties, right from the word go, will be the Chairman and members of the Authority. It is for that reason that when the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs examined this matter it came up with recommendation 36, which states: Clause 21 (2) should be amended to require that when conducting hearings the Authority should be constituted by at least two members. It was felt that having made a decision to target someone and having started a hearing, there would be really a desperate need to make sure that that person is treated fairly. We felt the solution was to have a quorum of two of the three members. The Senate Standing Committee did not realise that what was in the mind of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) at that stage was that he would not have one Crime Authority. In effect, we will have three branches of the Crime Authority, because one will be established in Melbourne, one in Sydney and another one will be sitting somewhere else. Once the Opposition realised that was what was proposed, we came up with the alternative suggestion of increasing the number of members on the Authority to five and of continuing to have a quorum of two when having hearings. The Attorney said that suggestion would make life very difficult, and suggested we increase the number of members to six and have two in Melbourne, two in Sydney and two floating around. That seems to be a reasonable proposition. But it is wrong to talk about appointing members on the Authority who do not have legal qualifications for starters and then to give them the right to sit and hear evidence, to demand that a person comes before them. No doubt that person will be cross-examined by senior counsel. Counsel of great wisdom will be tearing into such a person in the presence of someone who is not legally trained . It seems to me that that could be a disaster in regard to the protection of what little rights a person will have once he has become targeted by the Authority. I ask the Attorney-General to rethink this matter and either accept the Opposition's proposed amendment or come up with something better than what he has come up with today. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.27) —I just wish on occasions Senator Lewis would give other people some credit for common sense in their approach to this matter. What Senator Lewis suggested will not be the case. In conducting hearings which demand careful attention to the admissibility and status of evidence and the sort of evidence to be introduced-not because that is a criterion for its coming into those hearings, but one of the sorts of questions that will have to be taken into account is the extent to which these hearings do involve questions about self-incrimination, privilege and everything else-of course, it is appropriate, and I would have thought indispensible, that anyone actually conducting a hearing have substantial legal qualifications, both immediate and practical. That has been acknowledged and accepted. That is not to say that every single member of the National Crime Authority need necessarily have those qualifications, although I indicated in my previous contribution that I personally thought that would be desirable. Senator Crichton-Browne —There will only be three of them. Senator GARETH EVANS —All I am saying is that in a situation where members of the Authority have the kinds of qualifications that can enable them to run inquiries and given that we will not be appointing people other than of stature, credibility and appropriate expertise, we do not need this concept of two at a time riding shotgun on each other. That seems to me to be a council for despair and something of a council of desperation. Senator Chipp —I ask the Attorney-General for clarification. Let us assume there are two judges or two lawyers and one senior policeman. I understand that one senior policeman can sit as part of a quorum, as an authority, and hear and conduct an inquiry with coercive powers. That is possible. Senator GARETH EVANS —As the legislation stands. But that is again another case of acknowledging the operations of common sense. Senator Crichton-Browne —By whom? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Costigan and Meagher model is so deeply embedded in the consciousness of the members of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs that they cannot pull themselves out of it. We are not talking about quasi-judicial big whizz-bang public hearings with all the dangers and difficulties that are associated in terms of allowing in material that will get into the public domain. This is all premised on the assumption that this is simply an extension of the investigative mode which is carried out presently by police officers and needs to be supplemented by the kind of investigative coercive armoury we are talking about. In that environment it may be that the view of the world that Senator Lewis has articulated is still appropriate, but, equally well, it may be that it is not. This is something that has to evolve out of the capacities and the expertise of the people appointed to the Authority. This is the danger. I am trying to give a straightforward answer to questions about expertise, capacity and the sort of criteria that we are discussing and honourable senators grab odd individual words and erect an encyclopaedia out of them. Obviously it is not helpful to the cause of rational debate to give any information at all if that sort of thing happens. I regret that. Equally the same applies to the contribution of Senator Crichton-Browne. He erected the prospect of some whizz-kid with computers finding himself on the Authority for that reason alone, then wallowing around utterly at sea and, as a result, endangering people's civil liberties in a hearing. But that is not the way it will work. I would have thought that a polymath like I have always thought Senator Crichton-Browne to be-a man with a whole variety of simultaneous credentials, capacities and different kinds of expertise-would appreciate that it is perfectly possible for many individuals to combine a variety of talents and levels of experience within themselves. To that extent it would be possible to find a lawyer who happened to be, incidentally, someone with outstanding familiarity and competence with computer technology. People like that do exist, I am well aware of that state of affairs, and, obviously Douglas Meagher is one of them. In between his bursts as an author he is an outstanding computer person . Those capacities and combinations of capacities do exist. I have just indicated that in the best of all possible worlds it would be desirable somewhere on any particular body to have a combination of capacities as well as the traditional familiar lawyerly ones. All this remains to be resolved. We cannot legislate for the quality of appointments. We just have to try to get it right. I have indicated the kind of criteria that will be applied and the kind of consultative process we will go through. I believe that the Senate should vest confidence in those of us who will make these decisions. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(4.34) —I do not want to pursue this debate any longer than necessary, but that is the worst explanation the Attorney -General (Senator Gareth Evans) has given so far. The Attorney-General said that the people who, in his opinion, have appropriate qualifications are, under this legislation entitled, independently with a quorum of one, to take evidence, recognise the draconian provisions contained within the Authority and make some very real and vital decision about the liberty and freedom of individuals. If the Attorney-General is seriously concerned about protecting the individual's freedom and liberty the problem could be easily overcome by simply expanding the Authority to five members with a quorum of two and ensuring that one of those on the Authority taking evidence is a lawyer. The Government is asking us to accept that the composition of the Authority ultimately may be sensible and reasonable and that common sense will prevail. But under the present proposals that will be very hard to achieve. If the Government is serious about civil liberties, I cannot see any reason why it cannot have some inbuilt provisions in the Bill which will give a vital guarantee. By simply having one person with significant legal qualifications as one of those taking all the evidence at all the hearings, and by having a quorum of two instead of one at any hearing it can give this vital guarantee. That can easily be done by having five members on the Authority. Senator Gareth Evans —Numbers do not guarantee quality; numbers do not guarantee expertise. Your amendment is not in terms of any of those things; it deals only with numerical criteria. It does not follow. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I am sure the Attorney-General is not suggesting that there are not five people in the Commonwealth of Australia with adequate expertise. The purpose of expanding the number to five is to ensure that there are five quality people; that there will be continuity; that there will be a quorum of two; and that one of those people, presumably, will be a lawyer of some note who will be able to deal with the harsh realities of what will be a quasi court room in making these determinations. For the Attorney-General to say to us that it will all work out well in the final analysis, that it will come out in the wash and that common sense will prevail is not a good form of protection of civil liberties. I am disappointed not only with the Attorney- General's logic or his explanation but also his position on the civil liberties of people who may be directly or peripherally involved. I know the Attorney- General well enough to know that he has not yet seriously intended to try to give us a persuasive argument for his point of view. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Durack's amendment to Senator Gareth Evans's amendment) be left out. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J. Carrick, Sir John Martin, K. J. Collard, S. J. Messner, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Kilgariff, B. F. Bolkus, N. Hearn, J. M. Childs, B. K. Jones, G. N. Chipp, D. L. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. 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 Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Georges, G. Ryan, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Harradine, B. Zakharov, A. O. Rae, Peter Foreman, D. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Richardson, G. F. Townley, M. Button, J. N. Missen, A. J. McIntosh, G. D. Chaney, F. M. Coleman, R. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment (Senator Gareth Evans's) agreed to. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.42) —At this stage I intended to move amendment (19A) in respect of the quorum for hearings. However, I shall postpone moving that amendment because, on further consideration arising out of the previous debate I would like to redraft the amendment to provide that there should be at least one lawyer at a hearing. Indeed, if only one person is to conduct a hearing, we think that person ought to be a lawyer. I would just like to have the opportunity to redraft that amendment. Obviously a lot more debate will take place in the Committee. The CHAIRMAN —As we are considering the Bill as a whole the honourable senator can bring it on at any time he likes before we conclude consideration of the Bill. I will give him an opportunity to do that before the Bill is completed. Senator DURACK —In the spirit of co-operation, I would like the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) to indicate whether he has any great objections to what I propose. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.44) —I indicate in the spirit of grace and charm for which I am famous that I am perfectly happy to accommodate Senator Durack's wishes. I would not like to think that the delay is going to improve his chances of passage. But if he thinks so, we will be only too delighted to accommodate him. Clause 44 (Application of Ombudsman Act). The CHAIRMAN —With that warning given to Senator Durack, we will leave the question of the membership of the authority and quorums and turn to the next matters-the Ombudsman, judicial audit and the parliamentary committee. I give notice to the Committee of how I intend to handle the amendments. I will deal with the amendments in the following sequence: The Opposition amendment No. (29) to leave out clause 44; the Opposition amendment No. (32), and the Democrats amendment No. (14) which is similar, to leave out clause 47; the Democrats amendment No. (13) to insert new part 2A after clause 43; and, if that is negatived, I will give the Opposition an opportunity to move its amendment No. ( 33) to insert a new Part IV after clause 50. If that arrangement is acceptable to the Committee, the first matter is Opposition's amendment No. (29) to leave out clause 44. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.45) —Mr Chairman, do you now want me to move amendment No. (29)? Senator Chipp —Why not move amendments 29 and 32 together? Senator DURACK —I thought the amendments which seek to remove both the Ombudsman and the judicial audit were likely to be two different issues. Perhaps we could debate them both together. We will see what happens in the debate. It will be another matter if we need to vote on both of these amendments. I am happy to do that. I will now move my amendment to the clause dealing with the role of the Ombudsman in relation to the National Crime Authority and later I will move the one relating to judicial audit by the Authority. These are really two quite separate issues and I will have to deal with them as such. I now move: That clause 44 be left out. Clause 44 simply applies the provisions of the Ombudsman Act to the National Crime Authority. It seeks to make the Authority a prescribed authority under the Act. This, of course, means that the investigation of complaints will be by the Ombudsman and that the provisions of that Act will apply to the Authority. In ordinary circumstances one would not cavil at that application. However, the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs which looked at the whole Bill in such detail and which was given expert evidence in relation to this matter has recommended that the Authority should not be subject to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. A number of distinguished witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee emphasised the destructive effect that the Ombudsman's powers could have on the Authority's daily operations. They pointed out that there could be, of course, the danger of the Ombudsman double thinking the Authority's administrative decisions. I believe there is great substance in the concerns that have been expressed by these expert witnesses. I am particularly impressed by the judgment of the Committee in relation to this matter. No doubt, some members of the Committee will be able to speak with greater authority than I can in relation to the evidence that was received and the reasons why they formed the judgment which was the subject of the Committee's recommendation. Apart altogether from the recommendation of the Committee, I have the same concern in relation to this as I have in relation to the definitions of relevant offence and relevant criminal activity, namely that the targets of the Authority , people such as leading figures in organised crime and corruption who will be investigated, will use every conceivable avenue to frustrate the work of the Authority to prevent the Authority from exercising its proper role in respect of such investigations. Regrettably, this is a fact of life. We have ample proof already of the extent to which moves of a technical kind have been made. People with resources have engaged lawyers and paid legal fees to continue proceedings right up to the highest court in the land. We simply have to face that fact of life. Much in all as I dislike removing the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman in relation to any Commonwealth authority, and normally I would never dream of suggesting it, I have that very great fear in relation to this Authority for the reasons I have outlined. As I said, the Senate Committee obviously came to the same conclusion. A very different argument applies to judicial audit. Clause 47 is framed in fairly specific terms in regard to the nature of judicial audit. It provides for the arrangement of a judge of the Federal Court of Australia or of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory every three years. I quote from the Bill, which states: (a) to examine the operations of the Authority during the period . . . since the establishment of the Authority, or since the previous report . . . ; and (b) to report to the Minister- (i) whether the Authority has, during the relevant period, effectively performed its functions under this Act; and (ii) whether the Authority has, during the relevant period, done any act or thing contrary to law or trespassed unduly upon the rights and liberties of individuals. That is a tremendous task which is placed upon the judge. Senator Chipp —You would need a resident judge. Senator DURACK —We would. In fact we would need more than one judge because the judge would be second-guessing the work of this Authority with every step it takes. Everything it does will have to be second-guessed by the judge. I think it is simply a doctrinaire application of a principle to a situation which is quite inappropriate. The judicial audit of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation is something which has bipartisan support, as we know, and it is a very different matter. The judicial audit does not have this statutory requirement, certainly not in these terms. The situation in relation to ASIO is completely different. Here we have an authority, the chairman of which is almost certainly going to be a judge. If he is not a judge he will probably be made a judge or he will be a lawyer of such distinction that he will perform the same role as a judge. Why does the Government want to have another judge judging what that judge has done? It is a quite unnecessary exercise. In the way in which the Bill is drafted, it is an impossible exercise. The Senate Committee has looked at this matter and has heard evidence, I understand particularly in this case from both Mr Justice Williams and Mr Justice Stewart, who have had experience as royal commissioners and who would see the matter very clearly. They gave their opinions that a judicial audit would prove to be quite impossible. Therefore, due to the concerns I have expressed about this and due to the support of the Senate Committee-I adopt its judgment in particular-I ask that these two provisions be removed from the Bill. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Durack, I think it would be easier for the debate and division if we took your amendments one at a time. I am permitting debate on the whole issue of judicial audits, the Ombudsman and the parliamentary committee, but I take it that the question before the Chair is to leave out clause 44. Is that correct? Senator DURACK —Yes. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.53) —The Government believes it is crucial that there be effective counterweights to the operation of the National Crime Authority, and we have said that over and over again in a variety of different contexts. The two institutional counterweights that are here proposed are, we continue to believe, important to maintain. We believe very strongly in the desirablility of keeping the Ombudsman, for reasons I will spell out in a moment. We accept that the arguments for a judicial audit procedure are perhaps less strong, and certainly we could live with the removal of that provision, although we continue to adopt the view that its retention is desirable. I think what needs to be appreciated about the judicial audit provision is that although the terms in which the obligations upon the auditor are expressed seem at first blush to be fairly wide-ranging and fairly absolute, all that is really proposed-I believe this would be consistent in practice with what is workable and with the technical letter of this amendment-is that the judicial auditor be there as someone who is looking over the shoulder of the Authority in the same way as we have talked about the context of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, not so much by his presence guaranteeing that everything that happens in the Authority will be filtered through his hands , but really there as a standing disincentive or deterrent to the members of the Authority doing anything which is unconscionable or which cannot withstand scrutiny. The capacity the judicial auditor will have which others, for example a parliamentary committee, would lack, is the capacity to go in and look at individual files, not on the basis of any prereceived complaint but rather in a random way, thus being able to keep an eye on the organisation and ensure that it does not get that sense of insulation from scrutiny which organisations such as this are perhaps all too prone to do. That very briefly, I guess, is the argument for the concept of a judicial audit. We believe the language is not such as to demand that he second-guess every single thing the Authority does, but rather that he just be there as a standing deterrent to misbehaviour. Under those circumstances the conclusion of the Committee that the requirement for a judicial audit is illusory, we believe is an over-reaction. Having said all that , I accept that provided there are other safeguards of one kind or another in place, the judicial audit is not really crucial to the effective operation of the whole thing and not crucial to the package of civil liberty protections that we have been urging. When it comes to the Ombudsman side of it-I hope that Senator Chipp has still got an open mind on this issue-we feel very strongly that this avenue of redress should be maintained. I put the point in a number of ways: First, it really seems to us to be a case of having to justify the exemption of this particular statutory body from the Ombudsman. It is the case that the Ombudsman has a roving brief over Commonwealth instrumentalities generally, and the principle that citizens who feel that decisions are being made about them, or activities are occurring in relation to them should be able to complain to the Ombudsman in relation to activities of public authorities is one that has become deeply embedded in our administrative law and practice and there would have to be excellent reasons advanced for removing that avenue of redress before the argument really takes wing. To just say that an insufficient affirmative case has not been advanced for establishment of an Ombudsman is to miss the point about the way in which the whole Ombudsman remedy is part and parcel of our existing administrative operations, and very properly and desirably so. The second point I make about the Ombudsman-this is a particularly crucial one, I think-is that he is there as an avenue of redress really for the little people who are caught up by the operations of the Commission in circumstances where they feel themselves embarrassed or prejudiced. The Ombudsman will not be of any particular utility at all to the kinds of people that I know Senator Chipp and others have in mind; the top professional criminals who have access to pricey legal advice and all the money in the world to pursue down every particular burrow every procedural remedy that is available to them. We have forms of redress and opportunities and avenues for challenge, so far as those people are concerned, already built into the legislation in what I believe is an uncontroversial way, with the administrative decisions judicial review proceedings and the proceedings proposed to be established now by the new section 25A of the Act. Those avenues of redress are there, and to the extent that jurisdictional points can be taken, one can imagine they will be taken. But the Ombudsman is there to cope with the complaints or the concerns of essentially smaller people who are caught up in this process in one way or another and who feel they have not had a fair go and want someone speaking for them in this institutional machinery. To that extent the Ombudsman will be able to come in and seek the production of files and to, in various ways, keep the organisation on its toes. Perhaps it is not likely to be quite as effective in an all-round sense, as the judicial audit process is, because the Ombudsman will be able only to come into an organisation and look at individual files in response to complaints. But that capacity would be there and it is a very important mechanism for external scrutiny that we believe should be there to keep the Authority on the straight and narrow in terms of its continuing sensitivity to the effect of its operations on individuals. I make the further point, for those who should be minded to think that the mere existence of an avenue of complaints and investigations through the Ombudsman will itself somehow inhibit the effective operation of the Authority, that of course it is the case that an Ombudsman's investigation does not operate in any way as a stay of proceedings on the Authority. One is not obliged to shut up shop while some point is taken by the Ombudsman or by somebody in the courts seeking to apply some particular rule of law. The whole point about the ombudsman procedure is that it is informal and that it can operate alongside, and parallel with, the continuing operations-and investigative operations-of the agency in question. There is no reason to suppose that the Authority will in any way in a practical sense, be ground to a halt by a series of requisitions or interventions in its procedures by the Ombudsman. That has not been the experience elsewhere in the bureaucracy, although some extravagant claims are occasionally made by certain rear-guard resisters to the ombudsman concept. I have no reason to suppose that it will be the experience here. The final point I make, as a corollary to that last point, is that so far as the Australian Federal Police is concerned there is a procedure already in existence whereby complaints can be made to the Ombudsman about alleged maladministration and misconduct in the conduct of police investigations, a very closely analogous state of affairs to the operations of the Authority that we are here talking about. It is my understanding that in that context the ombudsman system has worked very well indeed although on the face of it it would have all the same potential that some people worry about for extravagant interference in the operations of the police force. It has not been the source of great concern to the police and it has been an excellent additional avenue of assistance for many individuals in the community. For all those reasons, and against the background of the obvious desirability of having a multitude of checks and balances built into the operation, the Government very strongly urges the Committee to stay with the ombudsman concept. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(5.03) —Firstly, let me say that I thoroughly support the Ombudsman and the role that he plays in our present system. I think he does an excellent job. It is not for that reason that I oppose what the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) said. The Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs heard and considered all of the matters raised by the Attorney-General in what he has just said to the Senate and ultimately dismissed his proposal as being illusory. I say to the Senate that it was deceptively illusory because the Attorney-General was just talking about protecting small people caught up. If this measure goes through, small people will in some way or other think that the Ombudsman will be able to protect them. That will be a general feeling throughout the community. The truth of the matter for those small people who find it necessary to appeal to the Ombudsman is and will be that he will not be able to protect them. So it will be deceptively illusory. People who are now not seeking protection will think that it will be all right and that they will not have to worry when it happens to them because the Ombudsman will look after them. When it does happen to them they will find that they will run into a brick wall because the Ombudsman will not be able to help them. The real situation here is that by the time the Ombudsman gets around to looking at matters the attack on their civil liberties will have passed; it will be too late. Otherwise, if he is to be sufficiently quick to protect their civil liberties, he will really need to set up a special department to override and second-guess the Authority every step of the way. For the Attorney-General to suggest to the Senate that the people that Senator Chipp, Senator Durack, I and others have been talking about as being the people who will be the subject of the Authority-in other words, the wealthy crooks in this country-will not be able to use the ombudsman proposal to delay-- Senator Chipp —Abuse. Senator LEWIS —Yes. To suggest that they will not be able to delay and abuse the system is just totally naive. They will have the lawyers, accountants and experts in these matters. They will be able to afford them. Those people will be able to devise schemes which will abuse the ombudsman proposals. There is no doubt about that. Ultimately, of course, the Ombudsman will find out what has happened and he will chop off that means of abuse. Then, of course, they will have the money and expertise to devise some other system of abuse. It really will be a grave interference with the Authority. It was not only Mr Costigan and Mr Meagher who spoke along these lines but also Mr Hampson and Mr Justice Nicholson. They were all desperately concerned about these proposals being misused by the people that they had had something to do with. Then we look at the judicial audit. Again, that really will end up being another illusory deceptive device. The Parliament will probably think it is all right because a judicial audit is going on and when people complain to the various politicians about the fact that their rights have been interfered with politicians will be able to write back to the people saying that there is a judicial audit and no doubt, in due course, the judicial auditor will examine the matter and report on it one way or the other. Of what value will that be to some person who has just been trampled almost to death as far as his business is concerned by some misuse of the powers by the Authority? To find out 18 months later that the Authority was misusing its powers will be of no value to him at all. I am opposed to both of these proposals, firstly on the grounds of misuse and abuse of the ombudsman system and, most importantly, on the grounds of the deceptive nature of these proposals. People will think that their civil rights are being protected when the truth of the matter- Senator Chipp —It will give them a false sense of security. Senator LEWIS —As Senator Chipp said, it will give them a false sense of security when, in fact, their civil rights are not being protected at all. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(5.08) —We have been here for about six or seven hours on the National Crime Authority Bill. I find no point in my repeating arguments that have been eloquently put by someone else . The Australian Democrats will oppose both these clauses for the eloquent reasons put down some time ago by Senator Durack and added to by Senator Lewis. The thrust of these two provisions is to have the Ombudsman involved and to have a judicial audit. The motivations of the Government are quite honourable, respectable and commendable. I suggest that the motive for these two provisions is twofold. The first purpose is to ensure that any complaints about criminal behaviour put by citizens to the National Crime Authority or any evidence put to the National Crime Authority is properly looked at, investigated; in other words , so that the National Crime Authority is kept honest. The second purpose is to ensure that civil liberties are not unduly trampled upon. Senator Lewis dealt particularly with the Ombudsman and said how that office could be abused. He also said, and I agree, that it could give people a false sense of security believing that their civil rights could be protected, whereas in practice they could not. Organised crime is of such dimensions and has such cohesion that smart, expensive lawyers could well use the Ombudsman's office to unduly hamper or harass inquiries from the Ombudsman. Even if one goes to the stage of saying that the Ombudsman could not totally stop an inquiry, he could delay it to such an extent that would allow the criminal or criminals to get off the hook. The motives of the Attorney-General and of the Government could be summed up in clause 47, which I shall paraphrase and which sets out the functions of the judicial audit. It seeks to examine the operations of the Authority and to report to the Minister whether the Authority has effectively performed its functions under the Bill-namely, whether there has been any evidence given to the Authority upon which it has not acted. Secondly, it is concerned with whether the Authority has done any act or thing contrary to law or trespassed unduly upon the rights and liberties of individuals. Senator Durack clearly put the point that to ask for a judge to do that would need at least a resident judge within the office of the Authority, plus some staff. For those two reasons, the Democrats support the Opposition in opposing these two provisions. To save time, I wish now to say a few words about what alternative the Democrats would like to see in place of these two safeguards which the Government quite properly wants to see installed. We want a joint committee of this Parliament on the National Crime Authority. It could well be asked what sort of protection is that to individuals. I am a great admirer of the ombudsmen , both State and Federal, but for the last 15 years I have said publicly that the best ombudsmen in Australia, with great respect to people in official positions, are members of parliament. All of us in our capacities other than legislators receive complaints from ordinary people in our electorates-the little people as the Attorney-General suggested-who complain about their civil liberties being trampled on by government departments, ministers, policemen or whatever. The person who can lift up a telephone and get access to the top bureaucrats in this land is a member of parliament. Therefore, I can see a committee of members of parliament-preferably a joint committee of members of the House of Representatives and members of the Senate-sitting as a watchdog on this Authority as entirely appropriate. It could perform the two functions. It could be a vehicle to receive complaints from people outside to the effect that the Authority is not doing its job, has not pursued a particular investigation, or has disregarded evidence of criminal behaviour which it should have regarded. Further, if somebody has his or her civil liberties infringed, it could be a vehicle to receive complaints of that sort. I do not know how effective such a joint committee on the National Crime Authority could be. Certainly it could not do the all embracing job that the Attorney-General envisages that a judicial audit could do, but neither do I believe that a judge could do the same. But it would keep the Authority conscious that there is somebody there, namely a group of members of parliament, who will act as a vehicle for the receipt of complaints about the Authority's behaviour. To that extent I believe it will be as effective as, if not more effective than, the protection which the Attorney-General wants to write into the legislation, namely, involving the Ombudsman and the judicial audit. For that reason, the Democrats will be supporting the Liberal Party in opposing the two propositions that are now before the Committee. If they are disposed of, I will be moving my amendment no. 13. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(5.14) —I said in my second reading speech that I thought there was some virtue in the provisions relating to the Ombudsman and a judicial audit. I was pleased to hear the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) acknowledge for the first time to my knowledge in this debate, that innocent little people will be involved. When one examines the draconian provisions of this legislation one understands that people will be caught in the web, the trap, the parameters of its powers and terms of reference , and they will be subject to coercive powers. Following the last disgraceful vote, I think that there is virtue in having some sort of discipline, control and over view of the activities and functions of the Authority. If, as the Bill says, there is no guarantee that there will be somebody with legal training- never mind a judge-sitting independently and unilaterally, divorced from the mainstream of judicial advice, making determinations of the type that fall within the framework of this legislation, it is important that there should be some sort of protection. However, that sort of protection would not be necessary if the Attorney-General had not stepped so briskly in the opposite direction when there was an opportunity to provide people with reasonable protection rather than simply the protection of the normal sort that is available in any judicial authority. This can be described as nothing less than quasi-judicial. In regard to the judicial audit, at least there is the chance that, at the end of the day, there might be one judge of a supreme court in a State or one judge in the Federal Court overviewing and examining these activities and seeing whether, in the words of the legislation, any act or thing contrary to law will not trespass unduly on the rights and liberties of individuals. I understand that the Democrats will be supporting the Opposition. Therefore, what I do ultimately in voting for or against this provision is of no moment. But given the draconian provisions of this Authority, given that it has unique powers and responsibilities that do not extend to any other permanent semi-judicial body, I can see no better occasion on which there should be some restraints, discipline and overview of its activities. Perhaps I should look further at Senator Chipp's proposition of a joint committee of parliament on this topic. However, having watched these matters in the period I have been in this Parliament, I do not see how such a body will have the expertise, skill, wisdom and knowledge, least of all the time, to investigate the detailed matters which will be involved in the type of investigation and inquiries that will be conducted by the Authority. There is a great deal to be said for having a judge, a person with experience and qualifications, who will be able to take an overview and report competently to the Parliament on the activities of the Authority. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.18) —I shall resist the temptation to respond to the tortured and rather liverish contribution the Committee has just heard from Senator Crichton-Browne and come straight to the point. Senator Lewis —He was on your side. Senator GARETH EVANS —With friends like Senator Crichton-Browne, who needs enemies in this debate. Senator Crichton-Browne —I hope it is infectious and it kills you. Senator GARETH EVANS —That contribution deserves to be recorded too. The political reality of this is that Senator Chipp with his usual Solomonic status in this debate has now spoken-- Senator Chipp —What was that adjective? Senator GARETH EVANS —Solomonic. Senator Chipp —It has been used only once before in the country, I think. Senator GARETH EVANS —It is better than moronic and a few other 'onics' I can think of. The result of Senator Chipp's contribution is to make inevitable the outcome of the debate. That is something I can agree with a reasonable degree of fortitude so far as the judicial audit matter is concerned, but I confess that the negative response to the ombudsman proposal is very disappointing indeed. The Government does not see any proposal of the kind that is now before us for a parliamentary committee as an alternative remedy or form of redress for the kind of individual complaint we are here talking about. Indeed, if one looks to the terms of both Senator Chipp's proposal for a committee and that of the Opposition one sees the-in context wholly desirable-negative prohibition on the parliamentary committee getting into the detail of any particular matter that has been before the Authority. The terms which are common to both Senator Chipp' s amendment and Senator Durack's proposed amendment that I am referring to are these: Nothing in this Part authorises the Committee- (a) to investigate a matter relating to a relevant criminal activity; or (b) to reconsider the findings of the Authority in relation to a particular investigation. They are wholly desirable caveats and limitations to avoid the parliamentary committee turning into some kind of McCarthyist exercise that none of us wants to see. Those limitations are the one thing that make the proposal for a committee marginally tolerable. But those prohibitions are the very things that will make it impossible for a parliamentary committee to get into the detail and the dust of an individual complaint as to the way in which the Authority has acted. I think that needs to be acknowledged. Senator Chipp —What about proposed new clause 43AD (1) (a)? It specifically states: The duties of the Committee are- (a) to monitor and to review the performance by the Authority of its functions. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes, but nothing in this Part which, on the face of it, gives very wide ranging jurisdiction, authorises that kind of investigation. It is immediately accompanied by the qualification that nothing in that open ended bandaid enables the investigation of any particular matter. Senator Chipp —And properly so. Senator GARETH EVANS —And properly so. But the point I am making is not that there is anything wrong with that limitation, but that one cannot rely on the existence of a parliamentary committee as the salve for one's conscience in removing the protection for the little people that is involved in the Ombudsman form of redress. I think the opposition to the concept of the Ombudsman having a role here is based on a quite profound misunderstanding of the role and utility of the Ombudsman generally. It is based on an unwillingness to accept the Ombudsman's own judgment that he believes he can make it work in this context as it has worked well in the context of the Australian Federal Police. I think it is based on a failure to appreciate the extent to which the Ombudsman, albeit that he lacks coercive or compulsive powers, can be a very useful way of securing redress for people who genuinely deserve it. It fails to acknowledge that the Ombudsman mechanism is perfectly capable of filtering out the genuine complaints from the attempts at technical diversion and delay of the professional crooks. For all those reasons, I believe it is profoundly disappointing, indeed somewhat embarrassing to the Democrats if they think about it, that the Democrats find themselves voting with the Opposition on this. In order to give them an opportunity to think again about what they are doing, we propose to call a division on this matter so far as the Ombudsman is concerned. Question put: That the clause be deleted. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 1 —— Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller)Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Carrick, Sir John MacGibbon, D. J. Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J. Collard, S. J. Mason, C. V. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Messner, A. J. Durack, P. D. Reid, M. E. Evans, Jack Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Child, B. K. Hearn, J. M. Coates, J. McClelland, DouglasColeman, R. N. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S Primmer, C. G. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertElstob, R. C. Reynolds, M. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. Georges, G. Ryan, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Harradine, B. Boswell, R. L. D. Bolkus, N. Chaney, F. M. Button, J. N. Martin, K. J. Foreman, D. J. Missen, A. J. Jones, G. N. Rae, Peter Richardson, G. F. Townley, M. Tate, M. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clause 47 (Judicial audit). Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.30) —by leave-I move: That clause 47 be left out. I have already spoken to this matter and have given reasons why a judicial audit is not necessary. In fact, it is positively undesirable in this case. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.30) —I have already indicated the view of the Government that the judicial audit provisions ought to remain, not least in the light of the defeat of the Ombudsman provision to which the Australian Democrats and the Opposition just contributed. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator CHIPP(Victorian-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(5.31) —I seek leave to exclude from amendment No. (13), standing in my name, sub-clause 43AD (1) (d) . I will not speak to it because I spoke to it when speaking to the previous matter. This is the amendment establishing the new parliamentary joint committee on the National Crime Authority and this exclusion related to the Ombudsman because it is consequential on the vote just taken by the Committee. Leave granted. Senator CHIPP —I move: (13) Page 26, after clause 43, insert the following new Part: Part IIA-Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority Interpretation '43AA. In this Part, unless the contrary intention appears- ''member'' means a member of the Committee; ''the Committee'' means the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority for the time being constituted under this Part. Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority '43AB. (1) As soon as practicable after the commencement of this Act and after the commencement of the first session of each Parliament, a joint committee of members of the Parliament to be known as the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority shall be appointed according to the practice of the Parliament with reference to the appointment of members to serve on joint select committees of both Houses of the Parliament. '(2) The Committee shall consist of 10 members, namely-five members of the Senate appointed by the Senate, and 5 members of the House of Representatives appointed by that House. '(3) A member of the Parliament is not eligible for appointment as a member of the Committee if he is- (a) a Minister; (b) the President of the Senate; (c) the Speaker of the House of Representatives; or (d) the Chairman of Committees of the Senate or of the House of Representatives . '(4) A member ceases to hold office- (a) when the House of Representatives expires by effluxion of time or is dissolved; (b) if he becomes the holder of an office specified in any of the paragraphs of sub-section (3); (c) if he ceases to be a member of the House of the Parliament by which he was appointed; or (d) if he resigns his office as provided by sub-section (5) or (6). '(5) A member appointed by the Senate may resign his office by writing signed by him and delivered to the President of the Senate. '(6) A member appointed by the House of Representatives may resign his office by writing signed by him and delivered to the Speaker of that House. '(7) Either House of the Parliament may appoint one of its members to fill a vacancy amongst the members of the Committee appointed by that House. Powers and proceedings of the Committee '43AC. All matters relating to the powers and proceedings of the Committee shall be determined by resolution of both Houses of the Parliament. Duties of the Committee '43AD. (1) The duties of the Committee are- (a) to monitor and to review the performance by the Authority of its functions; (b) to report to both Houses of the Parliament, with such comments as it thinks fit, upon any matter appertaining to the Authority or connected with the performance of its functions to which, in the opinion of the Committee, the attention of the Parliament should be directed; (c) to examine each annual report of the Authority and report to the Parliament on any matter appearing in, or arising out of, any such annual report; (d) to examine trends and changes in criminal activities, practices and methods and report to both Houses of the Parliament any change which the Committee thinks desirable to the functions, structure, powers and procedures of the Authority; (e) to inquire into any question in connection with its duties which is referred to it by either House of the Parliament, and to report to that House upon that question. '(2) Nothing in this Part authorises the Committee- (a) to investigate a matter relating to a relevant criminal activity; or (b) to reconsider the findings of the Authority in relation to a particular investigation.'. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.33) —The Opposition had given notice of an amendment in almost exactly the same terms as the one now moved by Senator Chipp . In fact, with the deletion of the reference to the Ombudsman I think it is exactly similar. I did not refer to this matter when I moved my previous amendment so I very briefly say that the Opposition does believe that the National Crime Authority needs some form of external review even though we did not think that a review by the Ombudsman or by a periodic judicial audit was desirable in the particular circumstances of this case, particularly in relation to the Ombudsman. It is an anxious question as to whether his jurisdiction should extend to the Authority. Normally, as I said, one would support that, but in the particular circumstances, for the reasons I have already given, we took the view that it was not desirable. The end result is that without the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and without a form of judicial audit the Authority is left without any external review or monitoring, apart of course from the Executive. I believe that, because there is a good deal of concern in the community about the way the Authority may operate, that concern is misguided. I do not want to repeat the debate we have had for over two years on this subject. I believe the Authority, if properly constituted , will be chaired by a judge. I believe also that its other members and staff should be properly selected and appointed. I must say I am somewhat concerned that the Authority apparently will not be administered by the Attorney-General but by the Special Minister of State who is responsible for the Australian Federal Police and other matters. I think I would be more confident if it were being administered by the Attorney-General. Senator Gareth Evans —That is the nicest thing you have ever said to me. Senator DURACK —It is relative praise. I would not like the Attorney to take it too far; he might encourage me to qualify it a little more. It is better left as I said it. I do think there is justification, and indeed a need in all the circumstances, for a parliamentary committee to monitor the body. Senator Chipp has moved that it be this parliamentary committee; it should be a joint committee and it should monitor the general operations of the body. The purpose of the committee will not be to get into the detail of particular cases. I think it would be most undesirable for the Parliament to turn itself into a grand inquisitor of crime. That is a quite inappropriate role for this Parliament or any committee of this Parliament. The amendment specifically provides that it is not to investigate particular cases. It will not be second guessing what the Authority has done in a particular case. Nevertheless, it will have the authority to monitor and review the performance and functions of the Authority; so it will have a wide brief. I believe that that will be an assurance to those people who are legitimately concerned about the creation of such a new institution in our society. It is one which none of us really wants to have but it has been forced on us by the threat to our society of organised crime. Senator Georges —That's a lot of rubbish. I have been hearing rubbish like that for the last two years. Senator DURACK —I take it that Senator Georges will be voting against this Bill at the third reading. Senator Georges —That is not my position. Senator DURACK —If Senator Georges is not voting against it, I do not know what the nature of his proposition is now. Senator Georges —I have never heard so much rubbish in all my life as has been dished out here over the last hour or so and this latest proposition is the worst. Senator DURACK —Ignoring the ludicrous interjections from Senator Georges, I emphasise the fact that Senator Chipp's proposal is a sound one. Senator Georges —It is absurd. We are now going to set up a parliamentary committee to supervise one of the instrumentalities we are going to set up. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator Georges, you are interjecting far too much. Senator Durack has the call. Senator DURACK —The hour seems to tend to bring out these sorts of interjections from Senator Georges. I hope we will be able to continue without his help, as we have quite successfully for some hours. So for those reasons the proposal of Senator Chipp is warmly supported by the Opposition and I believe that it will allay the concerns that I know a number of people have. I believe it is an appropriate role for a parliamentary committee and I am sure the committee will discharge its obligations in the best traditions of parliamentary institutions. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.38) —Two crummy arguments do not add up to a good one. The arguments against the judicial audits were weak and the arguments against the Ombudsman were weak, and now as a result of the unfortunate success of those weak arguments, by the numerical combination of the Australian Democrats and the Opposition, we confront a situation where the main argument left on which the Opposition and the Democrats hang their hats for a parliamentary committee is the absence of provision for any kind of scrutiny as a result of their own destruction of the judicial audit and Ombudsman provisions . They have got themselves up there, having hauled themselves up by their own bootstraps, but their credibility is no better for that and the product we are left with is not something that ought to attract the support of the Committee. There are very real dangers in a parliamentary committee operating in this area . The dangers are overwhelmingly that under the guise of monitoring, under the guise of review, we will have a parliamentary committee exercising all the coercive powers of which parliamentary committees are capable in fact to explore and investigate what it believes is a legitimate investigation, in the public interest, of organised criminal activity. But it will inevitably do that in a way that will have the potential to put at risk and in a quite serious way individual liberties. The only thing that makes the proposed amendment even remotely tolerable is the language of proposed sub-clause 43AD (2), to which we referred earlier in this debate, which states: Nothing in this Part authorises the Committee- (a) to investigate a matter relating to a relevant criminal activity; or (b) to reconsider the findings of the Authority in relation to a particular investigation. Senator Georges —How can they avoid that? Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Georges is correct to question the extent to which as a practical matter the committee will in fact be governed and guided by the strict letter and intent of that particular provision. A series of marginal cases will arise where the committee will be tempted, in order to do its monitoring and reviewing job properly, to seek answers to questions about the way in which particular aspects of the Authority's operations have occurred. There is a very real danger, unless this is terribly closely scrutinised and watched, of gradually, incrementally, bit by bit, the committee getting itself into a position where it regards itself as some kind of appropriate body to rampage around the community investigating organised crime. The dangers are there and are not really reduced totally, although they are certainly lessened, by the language of this qualifying clause. The particular further concern that the Government has about any role of this kind for a parliamentary committee is whether, even if those dangers are discounted, it would really be an effective and efficient means of supervising the Authority. To be effective the Committee would presumably need to know in quite considerable detail how the Authority conducts its affairs. It would need to be able to call for information on specific matters, not in order perhaps, observing the letter of sub-clause (2), to reinvestigate or investigate those matters, but in order to see for itself how the Authority has in fact operated. That creates a situation in which knowledge of these matters would be held by the 10 members of the committee and their staff and the possibility of leakage, disclosure and so on as a result of that operation is all too obvious. If the Authority puts up the shutters and, because of its concern about leakage, refuses to disclose to the parliamentary committee any detailed information other than that which is contained in its annual report and so on, it seems to me that the capacity of the committee for effective supervision will not be over and above that which can be given by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, and all the rest of the ordinary committee apparatus with its responsibility for reviewing annual reports. There is real doubt whether this committee could go further than that. We are caught on the horns of a dilemma. Either the committee would be doing the sort of thing which existing committees can do perfectly well, in which case it is unnecessary, or it would have the capacity to go substantially further than that, in which case it is dangerous-either dangerous to individuals in terms of the enthusiasm it might muster for charging about and performing an investigative role, or, to the extent even that it does not do that, there will be other kinds of dangers about leakage to the world at large of the sorts of things that the Authority is up to. So, for a whole variety of reasons that I will not go on about as we are running out of time-it would be marvellous if we could wrap this up before the dinner break-I indicate the quite strong opposition of the Government to any proposal for a parliamentary committee in this area. We would infinitely prefer the sorts of constraints involved in the Ombudsman and the judicial audit. But the mere fact of those two safeguards having been rolled over does not in itself create any better an argument for the creation of this supposed safeguard. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(5.44) —Firstly, let me refer back to something mentioned earlier by the Attorney-General. I am most unhappy to hear that this Authority will come under the administration of the Department of the Special Minister of State. The Authority will no doubt hereafter be called 'Mick Young's crime commission'. I see that Mr Young has come into the chamber to see how his crime commission is progressing. I think 'Mick Young's crime commission' is probably a good name for it. I must say that I am disappointed that it is not to come under the control of the Attorney-General. We were looking forward to the Attorney-General continuing to bumble along and make his usual errors so that we would be able to rip into him from time to time once this Authority was established. Nevertheless, that will become the pleasure of our colleagues in the other place. Talking to the proposal which is now before the Committee, that is, to set up a joint parliamentary committee to oversee the Authority, I remind the Committee that the majority decision of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs did not support this proposal, and I still have difficulty in seeing any merit in this proposal. I adopt the words of His Honour Mr Justice Kirby, the Chairman of the Australian Law Reform Commission. At the National Crimes Commission Conference held in July 1983, referring to such an authority, he said that it would be able: . . . by the sharing of selected secrets, to win over even initially sceptical or unsympathetic administrators or politicians admitted into its secret world and to its assessments and points of view. That was the matter which caused the Standing Committee the gravest concern. The Committee could see that politicians who became members of this proposed joint committee would gradually be admitted to more and more secrets to do with the Authority, and gradually would lose any scepticism which they might have had at the beginning about the Authority and, as Mr Justice Kirby said, be won over into its secret world. I must say that it would be a very interesting committee to be a member of because it will be a secret world that members of this committee will participate in. I mention the problems which the United States Congress had with its committee which was established to oversee the Central Intelligence Agency. Honourable senators will recall that just recently the chairman of that committee resigned when he discovered that the CIA had in fact been mining ports but had not bothered to mention that fact to the committee. Something similar could happen with this parliamentary committee. It could believe that it was receiving information of value to it but subsequently could discover very serious important matters, perhaps that the civil liberties of subjects had been intruded upon. Such problems may not be found out until it is too late. In any event, that was the decision of the majority of the Standing Committee. There were dissenting reports to that, one from my colleague from Victoria, Senator Missen. If I remember correctly, Senator Chipp supported Senator Missen' s dissenting report. Since that report has been tabled this matter has been considered by my parliamentary Party and by the shadow ministry. Having considered all the arguments, my parliamentary Party and the shadow Cabinet decided to support Senator Missen's dissenting report on this and to support the proposal to establish a parliamentary committee. So, while my view has not changed in the sense that I really see that, frankly, it will be an ineffective committee and there may be difficulties about it- Senator Georges —Quite dangerous. Senator LEWIS —Senator Georges says it will be dangerous. I really do not think it will be a dangerous committee. I do not think parliamentary committees become dangerous. One has only to look at the number of Senate committees sitting at present. In particular, I refer to the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge. Surely one can see that that Committee is performing its current role in relation to a carefully secret matter in a proper and adequate way, with a professionalism that is worthy of praise. Consequently, my Party has decided to support this proposal and I will accept my Party's decision. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(5.50) —I ask a question. I note that it is stated that a person shall not wilfully give false evidence on oath or affirmation before the committee and the penalty is a term of imprisonment of five years. Do I understand that correctly? I might be referring to the wrong page. The CHAIRMAN —The amendment was moved by Senator Chipp. He may answer if he chooses. He is the one to whom you should direct your question, Senator Crichton -Browne. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —So it is the Democrats. What is their penalty? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.51) —It is the kind of thing, as Senator Crichton-Browne ought to be aware, that would represent conceivably a contempt of Parliament. Senator Georges —Well, it should be dealt with in the normal way. Senator GARETH EVANS —It would be dealt with in the normal way. Senator Georges, who is an expert in these matters, is right. There are proper procedures for dealing with witnesses who fail to co-operate with parliamentary committees. The kinds of powers and procedures to be vested in the committee, according to this amendment, are those that are subject to specific parliamentary resolution. If the Senator is stumbling into an acceptance of this amendment without even knowing the implications of it and without being fully aware of the panoply of powers that are available to parliamentary committees- Senator Chipp —The Senate is doing no such thing; it was a question by one senator. Senator GARETH EVANS —I appreciate that Senator Crichton-Browne rarely speaks for his colleagues on that side of the chamber. I understand, from the vehemence of the response, that he seems to be one put out on this occasion. If any other senator who is in this chamber or listening in is equally in a state of hazy oblivion about what the functions of parliamentary committees are all about, what their powers are and what the sanctions are, he ought to think very carefully indeed about supporting this amendment. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(5.52) —The Attorney-General has just moved me to take a position. Every time the Attorney insults somebody he loses a friend but, more importantly, he loses a vote. Let me make it quite clear: I am entitled to ask a question. I did not have time to read one segment relating to this matter. His contribution did not enlighten me or anybody else one bit. Amendment agreed to. Proposed new clause 10A (Performance of functions). The CHAIRMAN —The Committee may recall that previously we dealt with and in many respects disposed of Government amendment No. (9) to insert new clauses 10 and 10A. The problem is that because of the way in which we are handling this Bill, by subject, there are other matters concerning those new clauses that were not dealt with at the time. There are proposed amendments to new clause 10A on the subject of power to interview. Subject to the agreement of the Committee, I am prepared to accept amendments to clause 10A. Leave granted. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.54) —We are dealing with an important new subject; namely, new clause 10A (4)-we will treat it as now being in the Bill- which reads: In relation to the performance by the Authority of the functions referred to- in earlier paragraphs- nothing in this Act- 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 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. That is a very surprising provision to have in the legislation. No explanation has been given as to why it is there at all. I have heard some suggestions that it is here because of the very strong requirements of the Attorney-General of New South Wales, but I may be wrong. Perhaps the Attorney-General will be able to tell us what its genesis is and the point of it. It was not in the original Bill. It has not been recommended by the Senate Committee. It was not mooted by the Government in any debates on this Bill last year, nor was it referred to in the Attorney-General's ministerial statement in relation to the Committee report . As I said, no one seems to have any proper advice as to where it has come from . Senator Gareth Evans —If you sit down I shall tell you. Senator DURACK —I am sure the Attorney-General will let us know in a minute when I have finished. I simply raise that as a matter of considerable concern. This provision has been the subject of very severe criticism, and deservedly so. Its effect will be that for the Authority to speak to a suspect it must hold a hearing at which the suspect is called as a witness, formally sworn and placed in a courtroom setting. This seems to be a quite absurd impediment upon the way in which the Authority would want to proceed. It is very likely that the primary investigations would be frustrated. There could be very many reasons why staff of the Authority would want to make inquiries and ask questions in relation to their investigations. There would be no reason at all to set up a formal hearing to do so. It would seem to be quite natural that staff of the Authority would want to interview witnesses ahead of any hearings and thereby determine whether it was necessary to have formal hearings. The staff of the Authority may be comprised of Federal or State police officers and also other experts who may want to query people, perhaps about financial matters, which they are much more competent to deal with than members of a police force. It seems to be generally quite an undesirable restriction on the proper operation of the staff of the Authority. The Opposition has an objection to the restriction as a whole. I notice that the Australian Democrats have suggested a different amendment which would ameliorate the problem to some extent, but the Opposition believes this new clause should be deleted from the Bill. I move to proposed new clause 10A: Proposed new sub-clause 10A (4), leave out the sub-clause. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.00) —Let me explain the genesis of this clause. It arose from concern expressed at the ministerial meeting following the receipt of the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. A number of States expressed a concern that the street role, as it were, of interviewing people and conducting actual investigations continue to be carried out by the police rather than by a new army of investigators attached to and working for the Authority in some capacity other than as seconded policemen or policemen working in the Authority task forces. The feeling was that we did not want to create a ninth police force. The Authority, in its conduct of its investigations, will be relying essentially on police officers either in their capacity as members of the co- operating forces or alternatively as members actually attached to the staff of the Authority. As a practical matter it is unlikely to arise, but to the extent that on the ground, on the street, investigation is involved, it was felt-and the Commonwealth acceded to this point of view-desirable that the investigative activity be carried out by police officers rather than by anyone else. I think it has subsequently emerged that the proposal was probably too restrictive in the form in which it had been moved by the Government as an amendment and that there ought not to be a limitation on Authority staff as such in interviewing people who are scheduled to appear before the Authority. It is perfectly appropriate that Authority lawyers, for example, should engage in preliminary meetings and consultations with putative witnesses to get proof of evidence, and so on, in a familiar way. There was no real intention to deny that . Certainly, the language in which the draft was put down was wide enough to encompass interviews and discussions of that kind. With that in mind the Australian Democrats have, after consultation with the Government, foreshadowed that they will move amendments (5B) and (5C). Amendment No. (5C) is the big one, (5B) is consequential, and the Government fully accepts the terms of those proposed amendments. I foreshadow that when they are moved we will support them. That substantially narrows and limits the force of the amendment to which the Opposition is expressing objections. We will be supporting the Democrats because the proposed amendments fill the gap that was unfortunately left by the original terms of our amendment. In the light of that, I think that most of the objections that the Opposition has expressed really fall away. I hope we will reach a quick solution by all agreeing to accept the Democrats' amendments and move on. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(6.03) —I am not really satisfied that the Australian Democrats' amendment which has been foreshadowed-- The CHAIRMAN —That can be discussed, but it has not been moved yet. We are discussing your motion to delete the clause. Senator DURACK —As we are really forced to debate the Democrats' amendment in the light of what the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has said, I want to put on record that I do not think that the Democrats' amendments completely overcome the problem that I see. Amendment (5C) provides: Where a person has been served . . . with a summons to appear as a witness . . . a member of the staff of the Authority may interview the person before the person so appears-- That means that a statement could be obtained from a witness. The amendment goes on: . . . but nothing in this sub-section affects the power of a member of the staff of the Authority who is a member of the Australian Federal Police or of the Police Force . . . being a power existing otherwise than by virtue of this sub-section. I suppose that may be interpreted to mean that anybody can interview anybody else. As far as I know, there is no law to stop anybody going around and asking questions of anybody else who is prepared to answer them. I do not know whether that is what the Attorney-General thinks the result is, but in that case, my objections would be removed. I understood it to be the intention, in all events, to prevent people other than members of the staff of the Authority from interviewing people in respect of possible evidence they may be able to give. That sort of activity and process would go on long before summonses were issued. The Authority might want to ask people questions about documents or, as I said, financial records. An accountant who is working on complicated financial or bank records may want to ask somebody some questions about them. This could happen long before the Authority decided whether or not to summons anybody. I want to be absolutely assured that staff of the Authority will be able to do that and will not be trammelled in the way in which the Government's amendment certainly would do; I am not too sure by any means that the Democrats' amendment overcomes that. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(6.06) —I was as concerned about this matter as was Senator Durack when I read the Government's proposal. It seems to me that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has not yet answered the question that Senator Durack has just raised. For example, one of the things that were worrying me was what would happen if some person were to come in off the street and say: 'Look, I have been involved on the edge of something that I think is a bit crooked and I think I ought to talk to someone about it'. Does the National Crime Authority have to say: 'Hang on, we will ring the police and we will get them to come and see you because we are not allowed to talk to you about this matter unless, somehow or other, we issue a summons against you'. I do not understand what the purpose happens to be. On the other hand, I recall a question coming before the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on whether the Authority would establish its own quasi-independent police force. When I say 'quasi-independent', I mean independent of existing police forces. I can assure the Senate that there was unanimous opposition to any such proposal. The Committee was anticipating that the Authority would operate through the existing police forces, whether it be the Australian Federal Police or the State police forces, where there was a need for police-type activity, such as going out and interviewing people or checking evidence. That is the way we expected it to operate. With the task force proposals, I think that is the situation as it now stands. But I am still concerned to ensure that members of the Authority may interview witnesses and take statements from those witnesses without committing an offence. If any person happens to wander in off the street and wants to start confessing his soul to the National Crime Authority, the Authority without committing any offence ought to be able at least to talk to the fellow or the woman to find out what he or she wants to tell it. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.08) —I think there may be some point to a couple of the points that have been made by Senator Lewis and Senator Durack. I rather suspect that the drafting of the Australian Democrats' amendment No. (5C), for which the Government bears some responsibility, could be improved. I wonder whether we might defer consideration of this item for just a few minutes in order to accommodate this point. It is still desired to retain a situation wherein someone who is actually suspected of having committed an offence is interviewed only by the police and that we do not have an army of investigators going around. I think the point being made is that there are plenty of other people whom the Authority may have an interest in interviewing as witnesses in some capacity or another and it ought not to be confined just to circumstances where a person is being summonsed to appear. It might be in the preliminary investigative stage. There is no reason why a professional accountant or a professional lawyer on the Authority's staff ought not do some of these tasks. I think we can probably steer a course in a way that would be acceptable to all of us, I hope, including the Democrats, if a few minutes are given to us. Perhaps we could defer this item and move on to the next one. I move: That further consideration of Senator Durack's proposed amendment be postponed. Question resolved in the affirmative. The CHAIRMAN —We now come to subject 11, the removal of property from Australia. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.10) —I move: Page 14, after clause 20, insert the following new clause: Orders relating to removal of property from Australia '20A. (1) Where, upon application by the Authority, the Federal Court is satisfied that- (a) there is a reasonable likelihood that, as a result of evidence assembled by the Authority, a particular person will be charged with a relevant offence; (b) if the person is convicted of that offence he may, under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory, be ordered to pay a fine or compensation or be subject to an order for forfeiture; and (c) that person has property in Australia which he is likely to remove from Australia in order to avoid the enforcement of any such order that may be made, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for preventing the removal of property of that person from Australia and the Court may, at any time, vary or discharge such an order.'. This amendment concerns the removal of property from Australia and essentially it concerns the situation whereby assets are used by people in other ways. For example, while a person may eventually end up serving a period in gaol, at the same time he may have made an enormous profit, running into millions of dollars, which is in no way touched by his conviction or gaol term. In looking at this matter we were mindful of the mine field that we were treading in, particularly from the point of view of civil rights of any individual in relation to his or her property. Therefore, we sought to hedge around what at first blush looked like a pretty onerous operation with what we feel are satisfactory safeguards. One particular safeguard is that the court may vary or discharge an order-for example, if a person involved in a case has a debt overseas and requires the discharge of some property to enable him to service that debt. The second safeguard is that the court must be satisfied that the use of this power is necessary, so fairly wide discretion has been provided to the court and we believe that that discretion, which is contained within the court, would contain the types of safeguards necessary in operating what is essentially a procedure that is pretty close to a Mareva injunction. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.12) —The Government opposes this and our arguments in this respect are now addressed to the Opposition. I hope that Senator Durack will listen with as much care as I listened to his comments on the last amendment. I will quickly articulate four reasons why we think this amendment is misconceived and will create an enormous number of difficulties both conceptually and in its practical administration. The Mareva injunction, on which this is clearly based, is sought in a superior court having jurisdiction to give the ultimate judgment in the matters. It is an order in advance of a judgment restraining the putative defendant from disposing of his assets so as to avoid payment of the ultimate judgment. On the other hand the Democrats' proposal contemplates that a person may be charged and convicted in one court and ordered to pay a fine or compensation, or suffer forfeiture, but that the injunction be obtained in a different court. The Federal Court here is determining the duration of its order-the Federal Court is to have this power to grant injunctive relief-and accordingly will have to have regard to the likely timetable in the other court, and a whole series of other practical problems of that kind will arise. I do not pretend that this particular objection is insoluble, but it does mean that two separate courts rather than one have to be satisfied as to the relevant facts and that is very much at odds with the kind of procedure that courts are used to in the Mareva area. The second objection is rather more serious. The only requirement here is that the Federal Court be satisfied that a particular person is likely to be charged with a relevant offence and that if convicted, he may be ordered to pay a fine. We say that this is far too light an onus, having regard to the very serious consequences for the individual or commercial organisations concerned. A person might be in the business of moving large amounts of money off shore as part of legitimate commercial transactions. He might be playing the futures markets, the international commodities markets or things of that kind. Yet because of some suspicion, which may or may not be well founded, there is the capacity to go to court and get an injunction on moving any property of this kind off shore. The only onus that must be discharged is that that person is likely to be charged. If he happens to be convicted he may be ordered to pay a fine. By contrast, under the Mareva procedures the requirement is that it appear likely that the plaintiff will recover judgment, in other words the actual merits of the case must be considered, not just the prosecution performance and whether or not someone will be charged. Senator Chipp —But it is a fair way down the track, because a reference has already been issued by the intergovernmental committee at this point. Senator GARETH EVANS —But the fact that a reference has been issued only means that the intergovernmental committee is satisfied that there is a real problem to be investigated that cannot be resolved by police methods as we discussed. Senator Chipp —There is more than mere suspicion. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes, but the reference can be quite wide in its coverage and an awful lot of people can be the targets, quite legitimately, for a reference and yet ultimately be proved not to be a proper subject for prosecution. It is a very important point that I am making. The Authority ought at least be required to satisfy the court that a prima facie case can be established against that defendant. If the Authority has that sort of suspicion, based on hard material which does amount to a prima facie case, the objection would be less strenuous. There is a very slight onus to be satisfied here in order to get this injunction off the ground. We proposed to the Democrats that their suggestion be further amended by an additional requirement that a prima facie case should be able to be established, but regrettably they rejected that. I believe that any residual sense and credit in their amendment was very much lessened as a result. My third point is of less significance than the second, but it still deserves to be made. The Bill, as we have said over and again, is really directed towards establishing an investigative agency, not a prosecuting agency. The present proposal for the capacity to seek a Mareva injunction, if it fits anywhere, would seem to be more appropriate for a prosecuting agency, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, rather than this pre-prosecution investigative agency. Opening up the capacity for an investigative agency to seek this injunction is a wholly new concept. It is not new in the context of prosecutions or in the context of civil litigation, for example tax recovery, but it is very new indeed to import this particular weaponry at the stage of mere preliminary investigation before anything has been shaped up as justifying an actual charge or the introduction of civil proceedings. Certainly, the Government would be prepared to look at the need for this, examine it carefully and consult around the place to see whether something of this kind is appropriate for incorporation in the legislation. But to introduce something like this pretty much on the run- we have seen the concept for only two or three days-worries us a great deal. My final point is procedural rather than substantive, but it is important in terms of the co-operative character of this exercise. Certainly, State underpinning legislation would be necessary to make this work. But there has not been the slightest consultation with the States on this subject and we have no idea whether they would go along with the idea of the Authority being able to exercise this kind of remedy, or of their attitudes to the power being vested in the Federal Court. It may be that we could persuade them easily enough as to the merits of that, but it is a significant additional procedure which has a lot of potential dangers and a lot of technical flaws. We ask, not so much that it be defeated, but that it be withdrawn by the Democrats in order to give us an opportunity to consider it further and move amending legislation as appropriate at some later time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(6.19) —I have listened carefully to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). Certainly there are major problems with this proposal of the Australian Democrats. Certainly the drafting needs to be looked at very closely. On the other hand, there is a very sound thought behind the proposal. Obviously the Mareva injunction as it is developing would still not be available to the Authority. That is clear enough. It is a very new concept but it clearly does not apply in this situation. I suggest to the Attorney-General that there are some precedents which I have not looked at recently. Proposals were developed under the Customs Act in the late 1970s to freeze assets which were suspected of being the ill-gotten gains of a drug importation. I recall that there were very great difficulties in developing those provisions and I am not sure whether they have been very successful. But at least I think there is a basis for concern that large sums of money made as a result of organised crime may be in the country in some form or other. This money probably should be frozen until a prosecution is completed and, in the event that the prosecution is successful, a conviction recorded. Such a case may involve very high fines or some confiscation of assets. So, there is a basis for this proposal. I think that although the Australian Democrats are to be congratulated for bringing the amendment forward it would be inappropriate for us to pass it at this stage. I understand from discussions I have had with Senator Chipp that he is also of a mind not to press it at this stage. I think it would be a pity if the matter were put aside and no further consideration was given to it. I am sure from what the Attorney-General has said that he is prepared to give further consideration to a possible future amendment to this legislation. It may be that in the course of the work of the Authority, situations will arise in which an amendment along these lines can become more specific as a result of experience. However, at this stage I think it would be preferable if the amendment were withdrawn. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.22) —I think the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and Senator Durack have made substantive points on this question. The Australian Democrats would be prepared to withdraw the amendment following an assurance from the Attorney that he will take up the point that he mentioned when he first spoke to my amendment, that is, the undertaking that he will give the amendment serious consideration. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.22) —I am indebted to the Australian Democrats for that response and I am certainly happy to give an undertaking in those terms. Senator HILL(South Australia)(6.23) —The Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs did recommend at paragraph 4.30 that matters of this nature be further considered, that there are good arguments for reform of the criminal law itself to combat organised crime better. The amendment before us is the type of amendment which I think fairly falls within that recommendation and could well receive further consideration by the Committee in due course. Amendment-by leave-withdrawn. Proposed new clause 25A (Warrant for arrest of witness) Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.24) —I move: Page 19, after clause 25, insert the following new clause: Warrant for arrest of witness '25A. (1) Where, upon application by or on behalf of the Authority, a judge of the Federal Court sitting in chambers is satisfied by evidence on oath that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person who has been ordered, under section 20, to deliver his passport to the Authority, whether or not he has complied with the order, is nevertheless likely to leave Australia for the purpose of avoiding giving evidence before the Commission, the judge may issue a warrant for the apprehension of the person. (2) The warrant may be executed by any member of the Australian Federal Police or of the police force of a State or Territory, or by any person to whom it is addressed, and the person executing it has power to break and enter any place, building or vessel for the purpose of executing it. (3) Where a person is apprehended in pursuance of a warrant under this section, he shall be brought, as soon as practicable, before a judge of the Federal Court and the judge may- (a) admit the person to bail, with such security as the judge thinks fit, on such conditions as he thinks necessary to ensure the appearance of the person as a witness before the Authority; (b) order the continued detention of the person for the purpose of ensuring his appearance as such a witness; or (c) order the release of the person. (4) Where a person is under detention in pursuance of this section, he shall, within 14 days after he was brought, or last brought, before a judge of the Federal Court in accordance with this section, or within such shorter or longer time as a judge has fixed upon the last previous appearance of the person before a judge under this section, be again brought before a judge and the judge may thereupon exercise any of the powers of a judge under sub-section (3).' Essentially this amendment seeks to insert new clause 25A in line with recommendation 31 of the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. This amendment would enable the National Crime Authority to apply to the Federal Court for a warrant of arrest when an order to deliver a passport is considered unlikely to stop a person from leaving Australia. I do not think that the reasons for the amendment need to be put in any great detail. I think the honourable senators are well aware that people have enormous capacities to leave this country even if their passports have ben confiscated. Regular visitors from overseas are able to come to Queensland without passports so I do not see why they would have any difficulty getting back out of that State. The major problem with which we were again confronted, of course, was the civil liberties objections which we sought to me by sub-clause (3) of proposed new clause 25A. We have sought to ensure that a person under detention is brought before a judge at 14-day intervals; the judge may admit the person to bail with such securities as he thinks fit, he may order the continued detention of the person for the purpose of ensuring his appearance; or he may order the release of the person. We believe that there should be a continual overview by the courts of this power which we admit goes further than probably a lot of people would like. Nevertheless, we believe that this power may be necessary if we are to deal with the types of people and the capacity that people have in this area. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.26) —The Government opposes this amendment, again rather quixotically, given that it appears that the numbers are against us with the Opposition supporting the Australian Democrats on this matter. We do not believe that it is necessary that there be an explicit power to seek a warrant for the arrest of a person on the grounds that it is believed he is going to leave the country. We believe that the existing powers are ample to cover that situation-the power, first of all, to seek a warrant to seize the person's passport and, secondly, in a situation where it is believed that would be ineffective, the power to subpoena that person to attend a hearing of the committee followed by the powers of arrest that follow automatically from the failure of that person to turn up to answer the summons so issued. We believe that as a practical matter that avenue of redress would be available to the National Crime Authority. Although it might appear cumbrous and circuitous, it is a more attractive way in terms of maintaining consistency of principle than creating a wholly new arrest power for a purely investigative agency in relation to the purely exploratory stages of an investigation. We make that point. We acknowledge that the form in which the amendment now comes forward with certain limitations of time and so on is an improvement on the original draft of it. With that in mind, we will not go wailing to the wall and gnashing our teeth over this one. But we certainly indicate that this is not an amendment that is accepted by the Government; it is one that is forced upon us. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(6.27) —I am indebted to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) for speaking on behalf of the Opposition as well as the Government in this matter. I know that he is wanting to hasten things. I formally say that the Opposition supports the amendment by the Australian Democrats which is in line, I understand, with the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. I think that the amendment proposes a power that is quite reasonable. It is not a power as such that the National Crime Authority has to exercise. The power is exercised in fact by a judge. There could well be situations in which existing laws may not just be adequate. The Bartons case is perhaps a case in point because they had two passports. In such a circumstance the seizing of a passport would not prevent a person from travelling. Maybe the issuing of a summons to appear is one way of getting around this problem. In light of the fact that there are existing powers of doing this indirectly, I just do not see why the Authority should not have the power to apply to do it directly. I cannot see how this power will be abused in view of the fact that an order has to be made by a judge . For those reasons the Opposition supports the Australian Democrats' amendment. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.28) —Just briefly, the reason for moving this amendment was probably spelt out fairly well by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). It is the hiatus between the subpoena and the next step when in fact the person concerned does not turn up. In such a circumstance it is fairly obvious that he has left the country. That is the sort of situation we are seeking to prevent. Amendment agreed to. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.29) —We do, regrettably, have a few more matters to clean up, which it does not appear we will be able to do in a minute. Perhaps in order to give Hansard and those who have to sort out the proof copies a head start, could I at this point jump the gun and move the large bundle of uncontested amendments which are at the end of our list under the heading 'Remainder of the Bill'. The CHAIRMAN —Yes, that is perfectly in order. Senator GARETH EVANS —I seek leave to move them together. Leave granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —I also seek leave, as I did on an earlier occasion, to incorporate in Hansard in the appropriate location after the text of each amendment in the series, a short explanatory note so that the ever-eager posterity will appreciate what on earth it is we are doing. Leave granted. Senator Durack —Have you given notice? Senator GARETH EVANS —This is the bundle of material that I circulated around the chamber. It is just a paragraph or so of explanations. Accordingly I move: (1) Page 2, clause 4, after the definition of ''Authority'', insert the following definition: '' 'business' includes- (a) any profession, trade, employment or vocational calling; (b) any transaction or transactions, whether lawful or unlawful, in the nature of trade or commerce (including the making of a loan); and (c) any activity, whether lawful or unlawful, carried on for the purposes of gain, whether or not the gain is of a pecuniary nature and whether the gain is direct or indirect;''. Explanatory note: 1. Defines 'business' for the purposes of amendment 44 removing the privilege against self-incrimination in regard to production of business records. Rec. (26) (4) Page 3, clause 4, after the definition of ''State'', insert the following definition: '' 'Task Force' includes a body of persons that is similar to a Task Force, however the body is described;''. Explanatory note: 4. Defines a 'Task Force'. Rec. (8) (6) Page 7, clause 9, sub-clause (3), lines 18 to 24, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b), insert the following paragraphs: ''(a) if the reference or any of the references is a reference by the Commonwealth Minister-the member of the Committee representing the Commonwealth voted in favour of the resolution; and (b) if the reference or any of the references is a reference by a Minister of the Crown of the State-the member of the Committee representing that State voted in favour of the resolution.''. Explanatory note: 6. Taken with amendment 7, this clarifies the procedure whereby a reference will not apply to offences against the laws of a jurisdiction unless that jurisdiction joins in the reference, but that in the case of mixed references, the failure of one jurisdiction-say, a State-to so join in does not invalidate the reference as a whole. Rec. (16) (7) Page 7, clause 9, after sub-clause (3), insert the following sub-clause: ''(3A) Where, by reason that a member (in this sub-section referred to as the ' relevant member') or members (in this sub-section referred to as the 'relevant members') of the Committee did not vote in favour of a resolution of the Committee purporting to approve a reference or references to the Authority of a matter for investigation, the resolution does not have any effect for the purposes of this Act, nothing in sub-section (3) prevents the Committee from passing a further resolution approving a reference or references to the Authority of the matter for investigation other than- (a) if the relevant member was, or the relevant members included, the member representing the Commonwealth-a reference of the matter by the Commonwealth Minister; or (b) if the relevant member was, or the relevant members were or included, a member representing a State, or members representing States-a reference of the matter by a Minister of the Crown of that State, or of any of those States, as the case may be.''. Explanatory note: 7. This is to make abundantly clear, and to remove any possible doubt as to, the matters referred to under amendment 6, above. Rec. (16) (10) Page 9, clause 11, at the end of the clause, add the following sub-clause: ''(4) Where the Minister gives notice to the Authority under sub-section (3), the Minister shall- (a) as soon as practicable after giving the notice to the Authority, cause a copy of the notice to be published in the Gazette; and (b) cause a copy of the notice to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister gives the notice to the Authority.''. Explanatory note: 10. Provides that where the Commonwealth Minister gives a notice to the Authority withdrawing a reference so far as it relates to Commonwealth offences, that notice is to be gazetted and laid before Parliament. Rec. (17) (19) Page 14, lines 19 to 39 and page 15, lines 1 to 15, clause 21, leave out sub-clauses (4) to (11) (both inclusive), insert the following sub-clauses: ''(8) At a hearing before the Authority- (a) a person giving evidence may be represented by a legal practitioner; and (b) if, by reason of the existence of special circumstances, the Authority consents to a person who is not giving evidence being represented by a legal practitioner-the person may be so represented. ''(9) A hearing before the Authority shall be held in private and the Authority may give directions as to the persons who may be present during the hearing or a part of the hearing. ''(10) Nothing in a direction given by the Authority under sub-section (9) prevents the presence, when evidence is being taken at a hearing before the Authority, of- (a) a person representing the person giving evidence; or (b) a person representing, pursuant to sub-section (8), a person who, by reason of a direction given by the Authority under sub-section (9), is entitled to be present. ''(11) Where a hearing before the Authority is being held, a person (other than a member or an acting member, counsel assisting the Authority in relation to the matter that is the subject of the hearing or a member of the staff of the Authority approved by the Authority) shall not be present at the hearing unless the person is entitled to be present by virtue of a direction given by the Authority under sub-section (9) or by virtue of sub-section (10).''. Explanatory note: 19. This provides that hearings of the Authority are to be held in private. Rec. (32) It also provides for the possibility that in special circumstances, the Authority might properly permit a person other than a witness giving evidence, to be legally represented at a hearing. (21) Page 15, clause 21, line 23, leave out ''(4)'', insert ''(8)''. Explanatory note 21. This merely corrects an erroneous cross-reference. (23) Page 15, clause 21, after sub-clause (13), insert the following sub- clauses: ''(13A) Where- (a) a person has been charged with an offence before a federal court or before a court of a State or Territory; and (b) the court considers that it may be desirable in the interests of justice that particular evidence given before the Authority, being evidence in relation to which the Authority has given a direction under sub-section (13), be made available to the person or to a legal practitioner representing the person, the court may give to the Authority a certificate to that effect and, if the court does so, the Authority shall make the evidence available to the court. ''(13B) Where- (a) the Authority makes evidence available to a court in accordance with sub- section (13A); and (b) the court, after examining the evidence, is satisfied that the interests of justice so require, the court may make the evidence available to the person charged with the offence concerned or to a legal practitioner representing the person.''. Explanatory note: 23. This provides for a special procedure whereby the Court in a criminal trial may, if justice requires, require the Authority to make available to the Defence evidence given in private and subject to a non-disclosure order of the Authority . This has application where a witness in a criminal trial may have made inconsistent statements in a closed Authority hearing previous to the trial and the Defence, by whatever means, is aware of this and wishes to have access. This provision seeks to preserve a rule of evidence important in criminal trials whilst taking account of the difficulties of a situation which has recently arisen in regard to evidence given before closed Royal Commission hearings. The new provision in this amendment allows the Court access, and the Court decides whether to make the evidence available to the Defence. Rec. (34) (24) Page 15, clause 21, line 42, leave out ''or a part of a hearing''. Explanatory note: 24. This is consequential upon amendment 19 above. Rec. (32) (25) Page 16, clause 21, lines 5o to 8, leave out sub-clause (15). Explanatory note: 25. This is consequential upon amendment 19 above. The special exception to defamation law is no longer necessary as all hearings are to be in private. Rec. (32, 33) (26) Page 16, clause 23, after sub-clause (1), insert the following sub-clause: ''(1A) A person who proposes to make, or has made an application to the Federal Court- (a) under sub-section 25A (2) for an order of review in respect of a decision of the Authority; or (b) under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 for an order of review in respect of a matter arising under this Act, may make an application to the Attorney-General for the provision of assistance under this section in respect of the application to the Federal Court.''. Explanatory note: 26. This extends the availability of legal aid as a consequence of the avenues for judicial review added by amendments 44, 45 and 50. Rec. (47) (27) Page 16, clause 23, line 18, insert ''or (1A)'' after ''(1)''. Explanatory note: 27. This is consequential upon amendment 26 above. Rec. (47) (28) Page 16, clause 23, line 27, insert '', or the application by that person to the Federal Court, as the case may be,'', after ''Authority''. Explanatory note: 28. This is consequential upon amendment 26 above. Rec. (47) (29) Page 16, clause 24, lines 32 to 42, leave out sub-clause (2), insert the following sub-clauses: ''(2) A summons under sub-section (1) requiring a person to appear before the Authority at a hearing shall be accompanied by a copy of the notice by which the matter to which the hearing relates was referred to the Authority under section 11 or in accordance with section 12. ''(2A) A summons under sub-section (1) requiring a person to appear before the Authority at a hearing shall, unless the Authority is satisfied that, in the particular circumstances of the special investigation to which the hearing relates, it would prejudice the effectiveness of the special investigation for the summons to do so, set out, so far as is reasonably practicable, the general nature of the matters in relation to which the Authority intends to question the person, but nothing in this sub-section prevents the Authority from questioning the person in relation to any matter that relates to the special investigation. Explanatory note: 29. This retains the requirement in the existing Bill that a summons issued by the Authority requiring a person to appear before it at a hearing shall be accompanied by a copy of the notice by which the matter the subject of the hearing was referred to the Authority. However, new sub-clause 24 (2A) permits the Authority to dispense with the additional requirements to set out in the summons the general nature of the matters it intends questioning the person upon, if the Authority is satisfied that to do otherwise would, in the particular circumstances, prejudice the effectiveness of the special investigation to which the hearing relates. Rec. 22 (a) The amendment also incorporates a proviso to the effect that where notice of the general nature of the matters upon which the witness is to be questioned is given, the Authority is not prevented from asking questions about any other matters relevant to the special investigation in hand. Rec. 22 (b) (43) Page 19, after clause 25, insert the following new clause: Applications to Federal Court of Australia ''25A. (1) Where- (a) a person or body claims to be entitled to refuse to furnish information or produce a document or thing that he or it is required to furnish or produce pursuant to a notice under section 17A; (b) a person claims to be entitled to refuse to produce a document or thing that he is required to produce pursuant to a notice under section 24A; or (c) a person claims to be entitled to refuse to answer a question put to him, or to produce a document or thing that he was required to produce, at a hearing before the Authority, the Authority shall decide as soon as practicable whether in its opinion the claim is justified and notify the person of its decision. ''(2) If the person or body is dissatisfied with the decision, he or it may apply to the Federal Court for an order of review of the decision. ''(3) Where the Authority decides that a claim by a person that he is entitled to refuse to produce a document is not justified, the person is not entitled to make an application to the Federal Court under sub-section (2) in respect of the decision unless the person has produced the document to the Authority or placed the document in the custody of the Registrar of that Court, and where the person has so produced the document and makes such an application, the Authority shall cause the document to be placed in the custody of the Registrar of that Court. ''(4) On an application for an order of review in respect of a decision of the Authority under sub-section (1), the Federal Court may, in its discretion, make an order- (a) affirming the decision; or (b) setting aside the decision. ''(5) Where the Federal Court makes an order under sub-section (4) setting aside a decision by the Authority that a claim by a person that he was entitled to refuse to produce a document is not justified- (a) unless paragraph (b) applies-the Federal Court shall make a further order directing that the document be delivered to the person; (b) if the Federal Court- (i) makes the first-mentioned order for the reason that the person was entitled , on the ground that production of the document might tend to incriminate him, to refuse to produce the document; (ii) is satisfied that the person was not entitled on any other ground to refuse to produce the document; and (iii) is satisfied that an undertaking of a kind referred to in sub-section 25 (5) or (7) has, or 2 or more such undertakings have, been given to the person and that the person, if now required to produce the document at a hearing before the Authority, would not be entitled to refuse so to produce it, The Federal Court shall make a further order directing that the document be delivered to the Authority; and (c) if the Federal Court- (i) makes the first-mentioned order for the reason that, or for reasons including the reason that, the person was entitled, on the ground that production of the document might tend to incriminate him, to refuse to produce the document; and (ii) makes a further order directing that the document be delivered to the person, evidence of production of the document by the person to the Authority, or of the placing of the document by the person in the custody of the Registrar of the Federal Court, as the case may be, for the purposes of the application on which the orders were made is not admissible in proceedings against the person for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, of a State or of a Territory, other than proceedings in respect of the falsity of evidence given by the person. ''(6) A prosecution for an offence under section 17A, 24A or 25 shall not be commenced in respect of a refusal or failure by a person to furnish information, produce a document or thing or answer a question- (a) if the person has claimed to be entitled to refuse to furnish the information, produce the document or thing or answer the question, as the case may be, and the Authority decides that, in its opinion, the claim is not justified-until the expiration of the period of 5 days (excluding days on which the Registry of the Federal Court is closed) immediately after the day on which the Authority so decides; or (b) if the person has made an application to the Federal Court under sub- section (2) for an order of review in respect of a decision by the Authority that, in its opinion, a claim by the person to refuse to furnish the information , produce the document or thing or answer the question is not justified-until the application, and any appeal from an order made by the Federal Court on the application, have been determined or otherwise disposed of. ''(7) An order of the Federal Court under sub-section (4) is, subject to any appeal from that order, conclusive for the purposes of any other proceedings.''. ''(8) Where a person who is required to produce a document pursuant to a notice under section 24A, or who is required to produce a document at a hearing before the Authority, claims that- (a) the document contains- (i) particular matter (in this sub-section referred to as the 'relevant matter' ) relating to the personal affairs of the person, not being matter relating to the activities of an existing or past business; or (ii) in the case of a person who is or has been an employee-particular matter ( in this sub-section also referred to as the 'relevant matter'), being details of earnings received by the person in respect of his employment; and (b) the person would, if the document had contained only the relevant matter, have been entitled, on the ground that production of the document might tend to incriminate him, to refuse so to produce the document, the person may, whether or not he has made an application to the Federal Court under sub-section (2) in respect of a decision by the Authority in relation to the document, make an application to the Federal Court for an order under this sub-section and, if such an application is made and the document is produced to that Court, then, subject to paragraph (5) (a), that Court- (c) if it is satisfied that the claim is justified-may, subject to paragraph (d ) of this sub-section, make such order as it thinks fit for the excision or concealment of the part of the document that contains the relevant matter and shall, if it makes such an order, make a further order directing that the document be delivered to the Authority after the first-mentioned order has been complied with; (d) if it is satisfied that an undertaking of a kind referred to in sub-section 25 (5) or (7) has, or 2 or more such undertakings have, been given to the person and that the person would not, if the document contained only the relevant matter and the person were now required to produce the document to the Authority , be entitled, on the ground that production of the document might tend to incriminate him, to refuse so to produce it-shall make an order directing that the document be delivered to the Authority; and (e) if paragraph (d) does not apply and that Court does not make an order of the kind first referred to in paragraph (c)-shall make an order directing that the document be delivered to the Authority. ''(9) A person is not entitled to make an application to the Federal Court under sub-section (8) in relation to a document unless that person has produced the document to the Authority or placed the document in the custody of the Registrar of that Court, and where the person has so produced the document and makes such an application, the Authority shall cause the document to be placed in the custody of the Registrar of that Court. ''(10) Where- (a) a person makes a claim as mentioned in sub-section (8) in relation to particular matter (in this sub-section referred to as the 'relevant matter') contained in a document; and (b) the Federal Court, being satisfied that the claim is justified, makes in relation to the document an order of the kind first referred to in paragraph (8) (c), evidence of production of the document by the person to the Authority, or of the placing of the document by the person in the custody of the Registrar of the Federal Court, as the case may be, for the purposes of the application on which the order is made is, in so far as the document contains the relevant matter, not admissible in any proceedings against the person for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, of a State or of a Territory, other than proceedings in respect of the falsity of evidence given by the person. ''(11) A prosecution for an offence under section 24A or 25 shall not be commenced in respect of a refusal or failure by a person to produce a document- (a) if the person has made a claim in relation to the document as mentioned in sub-section (8)-until the expiration of the period of 5 days (excluding days on which the Registry of the Federal Court is closed) immediately after the day on which the document was to be produced; or (b) if the person has made an application under sub-section (8) in relation to the document-until the application, and any appeal from an order made by the Federal Court on the application, have been determined or otherwise disposed of. ''(12) An application to the Federal Court under sub-section (2) or (8)- (a) shall be made in such manner as is prescribed by Rules of Court made under the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976; (b) shall set out the grounds of the application; and (c) shall be lodged with the Registry of the Federal Court within the period of 5 days (excluding days on which the Registry is closed) immediately after the day on which- (i) in the case of an application under sub-section (2)-the decision to which the application relates is made; or (ii) in the case of an application under sub-section (8)-the document to which the application relates was to be produced, or within such further period as that Court (whether before or after the expiration of the first-mentioned period) allows.''. Explanatory note: 43. This provides to a person claiming entitlement to resist the production of information, documents or things, or to answer questions at a hearing of the Authority or under the other procedures for notices to produce, an avenue under which the Authority is required to speedily determine such claim, subject to review by the Federal Court. Where the claim relates to documents, the documents are to be placed in the custody of the Court's Registrar pending the outcome. Provision is made for a time limit on applications and for stay of any prosecution in the interim. Rec. (23, 44b) Where a document is claimed to be one containing personal, non-business information, a special procedure is to be available on application to the Federal Court whereby the Court may make appropriate orders so that the authority receives the business record portion only. Rec. (26) Express provision is made for the Federal Court to order the return of the document to the claimant or its delivery to the Authority, depending upon whether the Court upholds or rejects the claim. Special provision is made to allow the Federal Court to order the claimant to deliver the document to the Authority where, notwithstanding a successful claim of the self-incrimination privilege, an ''indemnity'' undertaking pursuant to sub-clause 25 (5) or (7) has been given to the claimants. Additionally, where a claim on the ground of self-incrimination is successful, evidence of the production of the document to the Authority or to the Court Registrar is not admissible in proceedings against the claimant except proceedings for falsity of evidence given by the claimant. (44) Page 19, clause 26, line 30, leave out ''An offence against'', insert ''A contravention of''. Explanatory note: 44. This is a 'tidying-up' amendment. (45) Page 19, after clause 26, insert the following new clause: Protection of witnesses, &c. ''26A. Where it appears to a member or acting member that, by reason of the fact that a person- (a) is to appear, is appearing or has appeared at a hearing before the Authority to give evidence or to produce a document or thing; or (b) proposes to furnish or has furnished information, or proposes to produce or has produced a document or thing, to the Authority otherwise than at a hearing before the Authority, the safety of the person may be prejudiced or the person may be subjected to intimidation or harassment, the member or acting member may make such arrangements (including arrangements with the Minister or with members of the Australian Federal Police or of the Police Force of a State) as are necessary to avoid prejudice to the safety of the person, or to protect the person from intimidation or harassment.''. Explanatory note: 45. This makes express provision for steps to be taken for the protection of witnesses before the Authority from intimidation or harassment by reason of the fact of their appearance or proposed appearance before it. This was recommended by the Standing Committee on the basis of United States precedents for such measures. Rec. (45) (47) Page 26, before clause 44, insert the following clause in Part III: Transfer of certain materials to the Authority ''43A. Upon the termination of the Royal Commission that was commissioned, by Letters Patent dated 10 September 1980, to inquire into the activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, the Authority is entitled to take possession of all documents and other materials that relate to the inquiry conducted by the Royal Commission and that are in the possession or under the control of the person conducting the Royal Commission.''. Explanatory note: 47. This makes express provision for the transfer of all materials held by Royal Commissioner Mr F. X. Costigan, QC under the relevant Letters Patent at the expiration of those letters. This material consists of information and computer data which will be useful to the Authority, and its transfer was recommended by the Standing Committee. Rec. (48) (48) Page 26, after clause 44, insert the following new clause: Application of Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act ''44A. Section 11 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 has effect in relation to matters arising under this Act as if sub-sections (1) to (5), inclusive, of that section were omitted and the following sub-section were substituted: '(1) An application to the Court for an order of review in respect of a matter arising under the National Crime Authority Act 1984- (a) shall be made in such manner, and shall contain such particulars, as are prescribed by Rules of Court and shall contain such other particulars (if any) as the Court directs; (b) shall set out the grounds of the application; and (c) shall be lodged with a Registry of the Court within the period of 5 days ( excluding days on which the Registry is closed) after the day on which the applicant becomes aware of the matter or within such further period as the Court (whether before or after the expiration of the first-mentioned period) in special circumstances allows.''. Explanatory note: 48. This inserts a new clause to provide a special steamlined procedure under the Administrative Decision (Judicial Review) Act 1977 whereby persons aggrieved by decisions of the Authority can seek review by the Federal Court of Australia without undue delay which might hamper the work of the Authority. This is in accordance with the Standing Committee's recommendation. Rec. (44a) (49) Page 26, clause 46, lines 26 to 35, leave out sub-clauses (1) and (2), insert the following sub-clause: ''(1) The Authority shall keep the Minister informed of the general conduct of its operations in the performance of its functions and, if the Minister requests the Authority to provide to him information concerning a specific matter relating to- (a) the Authority's operations in the performance of its general functions; (b) the Authority's operations in respect of a reference or references made to the Authority under section 11, the Authority shall comply with the request.''. Explanatory note: 49. This is consequential upon amendment 9 above. Rec. (1) (52) Page 27, clause 46, after sub-clause (7), insert the following sub-clause: ''(7A) The Authority may, whenever it appears to the Authority to be appropriate to do so, furnish to authorities and persons responsible for taking civil remedies by or on behalf of the Crown in right of the Commonwealth, of a State or of a Territory any information that has come into the possession of the Authority in the course of any investigations conducted by it and that may be relevant for the purposes of so taking such remedies in respect of matters connected with, or arising out of, offences against the laws of the Commonwealth , of a State or of a Territory, as the case may be.''. Explanatory note: 52. This permits the Authority, where appropriate, to furnish relevant information coming into its possession in the course of its investigation to the authorities responsible for the taking of civil remedies on behalf of the Crown in right of the Commonwealth, a State or Territory, in respect of matters connected with or arising from, offences. (53) Page 28, after clause 46, insert the following new clause: Public sittings and bulletins ''46A. (1) The Authority may hold sittings in public for the purpose of informing the public of, receiving submissions in relation to, the general conduct of its operations. ''(2) At a sitting held under sub-section (1), the Authority may be constituted by one or more members or acting members. ''(3) Subject to sub-section (2), section 38 applies, so far as it is capable of application, in relation to a sitting held under sub-section (1) as if the sitting were a meeting of the Authority. ''(4) The Authority may publish bulletins for the purpose of informing the public of the general conduct of its operations. ''(5) The Authority shall not- (a) divulge in the course of a sitting held under sub-section (1); or (b) include in a bulletin published under sub-section (4), any matter the disclosure of which to members of the public could prejudice the safety or reputation of a person or prejudice the fair trial of a person who has been or may be charged with an offence.''. Explanatory note: 53. This permits the Authority to hold public sittings, as opposed to hearings where witnesses are examined. At a public sitting, the Authority is able to give the public general information as to its operations or receive submissions in that regard, and it may publish bulletins for public information, but it may not publish or divulge anything prejudicial to the safety, reputation or fair trial of a person. The distinction between private hearings and public sittings was drawn by the Standing Committee in its Report at paragraph 6.16 thereof. (54) Page 28, clause 48, lines 25 to 29, leave out sub-clause (1), insert the following sub-clause: ''(1) The Authority shall, as soon as practicable after each 30 June, prepare a report of its operations during the year that ended on that 30 June and furnish the report to the Inter-Governmental Committee for transmission, together with such comments on the report as the Committee thinks fit, to the Commonwealth Minister and to the appropriate Minister of the Crown of each participating State.''. Explanatory note: 54. This provides for the Inter-Governmental Committee to make comments on the Authority's annual report which are to be tabled along with it. This was suggested by State Ministers in discussion with Commonwealth Ministers and the Government sees no objection to it. It serves to underline the co-operative scheme of the Bill. (55) Page 28, clause 48, line 34, insert '', which may include statistics,'' after ''description''. Explanatory note: 55. This provision expressly provides for the Authority to include statistics in its Annual Report as recommended by the Standing Committee. Rec. (39) (56) Page 29, clause 48, at the end of sub-clause (2), add the following paragraphs: ''(f) particulars of matters in respect of which the Authority has, during that year, made requests under sub-section 9A (1) and, subject to sub-section (4A) of this section, of the outcome of such requests; and (g) particulars of the number and results of- (i) applications made to the Federal Court under sub-section 25A (2) for orders of review in respect of decisions of the Authority; (ii) applications made to the Federal Court under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 for orders of review in respect of matters arising under this Act; and (iii) other court proceedings involving the Authority, being applications and proceedings that were determined, or otherwise disposed of, during that year.''. Explanatory note: 56. This enables the Authority to set out in its Annual Report particulars of instances where it has requested the Inter-Governmental Committee to approve the giving of a reference, including the outcome of such requests, subject to a proviso that where the Inter-Governmental Committee resolves that prejudice to a person's safety, reputation or fair trial or law enforcement operations may ensue, the Authority is prohibited from doing so. Rec. (31) (57) Page 29, clause 48, after sub-clause (4), insert the following sub-clause: ''(4A) Where the Inter-Governmental Committee resolves that the inclusion in a report by the Authority under this section of particulars of the outcome of a request made by the Authority under sub-section 9A (1) might prejudice the safety or reputation of a person, the operations of law enforcement agencies or the fair trial of a person who has been or may be charged with an offence, the Authority shall not include in such a report particulars of the outcome of the request.''. Explanatory note: 57. This inserts the proviso referred to in amendment 56 above. Rec. (21) (58) Page 29, clause 4, lines 12 to 15, leave out sub-clause (5), insert the following sub-clause: ''(5) The Minister shall cause a copy of- (a) a report of the Authority under this section that is received by him; and (b) any comments made on the report by the Inter-Governmental Committee, being comments that accompanied the report, to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is received by him.''. Explanatory note: 58. This provides for the tabling in Parliament of the Inter-Governmental Committee's comments on the Annual Report of the Authority referred to in amendment 54. (59) Page 29, after clause 50, add the following Schedule: ''SCHEDULESection 17A PRESCRIBED PROVISIONS Australian Capital Territory Taxation (Administration) Act 1969, section 7 Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1979, sections 18, 81 and 92 Bank Account Debits Tax Administration Act 1982, section 7 Census and Statistics Act 1905, section 19 Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act 1980, section 4 Gift Duty Assessment Act 1941, section 10 Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, section 16 Ombudsman Act 1976, section 35 Pay-roll Tax (Territories) Assessment Act 1971, section 8 Sales Tax Assessment Act (No. 1) 1930, section 10 Social Security Act 1947, section 17 Taxation Administration Act 1953, section 14F Taxation (Interest on Overpayments) Act 1983, section 8 Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979, section 7 Tobacco Charges Assessment Act 1955, section 10 Wool Tax (Administration) Act 1964, section 8''. Explanatory note: 59. This adds a schedule to contain secrecy provisions in the Commonwealth legislation prescribed as exemptions under amendment 13 inserting new Clause 17A (power to require information). Rec. (9, 10) In addition I have two more amendments that have been circulated on separate sheets. One is an amendment to proposed new clause 17A. The further amendment, which has also been circulated around the chamber and which is equally technical and uncontroversial, I believe, is an amendment to clause 50, lines 25 to 27, leaving out sub-clause (2). Again, in respect of that, there is an explanatory memorandum which has been circulated and which will be incorporated. I move: After the definition of 'agency' in sub-clause (5) of proposed new clause 17A, insert the following definitions: ' ''law of the Commonwealth'' includes a law of a Territory;'. Explanatory note: This is a further amendment to Government amendment 13. The further amendment to proposed new clause 17A is a minor amendment of a technical nature inserting a definition to remove any doubt that, for the purposes of new clause 17A, the expression 'law of the Commonwealth' includes laws of Territories. In view of the definition of 'Territory' in clause 4 of the Bill, this does not apply to Northern Territory laws. Page 29, clause 50, lines 25 to 27, leave out sub-clause (2). Explanatory note: Clause 50 in the Bill reads as follows: Cessation of operation of Act 50. (1) This Act, unless sooner repealed, shall cease to be in force at the expiration of 5 years after the date of commencement of this Act. (2) For the purposes of section 8 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, when this Act ceases to be in force by virtue of sub-section (1), it shall thereupon be deemed to have been repealed by an Act other than this Act. Explanatory note: Clause 50 is the 'sunset clause'. The proposed deletion of sub-clause 50 (2) is a formal amendment consequent upon an amendment made earlier this year to the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. New section 8B of that Act, inserted by the Acts Interpretation Amendment Act 1984, renders sub-clause 50 (2) of the present Bill redundant. The five year 'sunset' provision would still remain. Amendments agreed to. Sitting suspended from 6.31 to 8 p.m. (Quorum formed) Senator GARETH EVANS —(Victoria-Attorney-General) (8.02)-Mr Chairman would it be possible to go back to the two postponed clauses at this stage in order to assist the officers who have to produce a print of this matter for the House of Representatives? The CHAIRMAN —If it is the wish of the Committee we can certainly go back. The two postponed clauses involve a possible amendment by Senator Durack relating to membership of the Authority, a quorum and the power to interview. Clause 21 (Hearings). Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(8.03) —I propose to move two amendments. The first is amendment 19A which stands in my name. It is to increase the number of members of the Authority required to conduct a hearing. At present any one member of the Authority can conduct a hearing. My amendment will require two members of the Authority to conduct a hearing. I have already given the reasons for this amendment. I move: (19A) Page 14, clause 21, sub-clause (2), line 14, leave out 'one', insert '2'. Senator GARETH EVANS —(Victoria-Attorney-General) (8.03)-I have made it clear we oppose the amendment. That is still our position. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(8.03) —The Australian Democrats will oppose the amendment also. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Durack's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Martin, K. J. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Collard, S. J. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Lajovic, M. E. Bolkus, N. Hearn, J. M. Childs, B. K. Jones, G. N. Chipp, D. L. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Coates, J. Macklin, M. J. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J. Cook, P. F. S. Primmer, C. G. Elstob, R. C. Ray, RobertEvans, Gareth Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Robertson, E. A. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Rae, Peter Foreman, D. J. Missen, A. J. Richardson, G. F. Boswell, R. L. D. Button, J. N. Townley, M. Ryan, S. M. Chaney, F. M. Crowley, R. A. Crichton-Brown, N. A. McClelland, Douglas Question so resolved in the negative. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(8.10) —I move: (19B) Page 14, clause 21, after sub-clause (2), insert the following new sub- clause: '(2A) The member or one of the members constituting the Authority at a hearing (as the case may be) shall be a Judge or be enrolled as a legal practitioner and have been so enrolled for not less than 5 years.'. This amendment relates to membership of the Authority and has already been circulated. On an earlier occasion I foreshadowed that the Opposition would consider whether the authority would have a quorum of two members at a hearing, or even one member. However, the Committee has now decided that there should not be a requirement for more than one-although, of course, there can be more than one. This amendment has been drafted on the basis that the quorum will remain at one. Nevertheless, it is the Opposition's view that at least one of these members, or the sole member, if that is the case, should have legal qualifications. The reason is that the member who is conducting the hearing will be exercising the new special powers of the Authority and will be responsible for the way in which the examination is conducted. One must bear in mind the likelihood of the appearance of counsel, the right of people to claim privilege and so on, and the fact that hearings must be conducted in a professional manner . It is not simply an ordinary case of investigation by a police officer. It is a special hearing with special powers and should be conducted in accordance with correct procedures, having regard to the rights of people who find themselves brought before a hearing. For all those reasons, the Opposition believes that this amendment is desirable and should be part of the Bill. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(8.12) —On first reading this amendment moved by Senator Durack one could be sympathetic. However, I feel that no good reason has been advanced why it must necessarily be correct. If one examines the structures of the Authority, certainly one of the people appointed could well not be a legal practitioner. If this amendment were agreed to, that person would be unable to sit alone. In other words, there would be two classes of commissioner on the Authority and, given the nature of their task, that appears to be inappropriate. I imagine that in any hearing that is undertaken if such a person who is not a legal practitioner is sitting alone he or she would have available the full panoply of legal advice. Such legal advice would not go simply to a person who has been a legal practitioner enrolled for not less than five years. I imagine the hearing would have on hand Queen's Counsel with the best advice to assist the Authority, were such legal advice necessary. I do not believe it is necessary for that person to have undertaken a course at university and to have been practising for five years or enrolled for not less than five years. This proposal does not seem to give any additional benefits, particularly when one considers that the stature of the person who may not be a legal practitioner could be such that the person is a highly respected retired police commissioner with great experience in the area with which the National Crime Authority will be dealing. It seems to me to take away from such a person to suggest that he or she should not sit alone, whereas somebody else who had merely been operating as a lawyer for five years could sit alone. Senator HILL(South Australia)(8.15) —I wish to speak briefly to the amendment moved by the shadow Attorney-General. I am surprised at the attitude of the Australian Democrats and what I suspect will be the attitude of the Government. It is totally familiar to us to have boards that comprise one or a number of persons one of whom is a legal practitioner. Such provisions usually contain words equivalent to those used by Senator Durack in this amendment suggesting a legal practitioner with some years' standing. I speak of boards with nowhere near the status and responsibility as will be held by the National Crimes Authority, with its coercive powers. Therefore that attitude surprises me. Senator Chipp —You assume that being a legal practitioner makes a person better. That is a sense of arrogance which I find quite offensive. Senator HILL —Senator Chipp has misinterpreted what I said. One takes as an example a person who is called to give evidence before the Authority and who claims privilege of self-incrimination. If Senator Chipp will go back to the report and reflect on the evidence put before the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs he will recall that a great deal of evidence was put to the effect that in such circumstances a determination will have to be made as to whether that can be validly claimed. Simply to make the claim is insufficient. It is all very well for Senator Chipp or somebody else to say that the commissioner can take advice from counsel assisting him. Nevertheless, the Authority, if it is just one person, will have to decide whether he requires the answer to be given. It seems to me to be so obvious that the appropriate person to make those decisions is somebody with legal training and who is aware of the provisions of the criminal law and the extend of various rights and privileges. Therefore, I express my surprise at the Democrats' attitude in this regard. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(8.17) —The Government opposes the amendment essentially for the reasons articulated by Senator Macklin. We appreciate the force of what Senator Durack and Senator Hill say, at least to the extent that it is wholly desirable that somebody who is conducting a hearing have a close familiarity with legal concepts and their application in practical situations. I do not know whether that needs to be taken to the point that a person has to be an enrolled legal practitioner as distinct perhaps from somebody who has merely had extensive legal training at some time in the past, or somebody who has had extensive police experience without ever having been enrolled as a legal practitioner; or whether it should extend to exclude a former parliamentarian with many years' experience on the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, and the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, and in debates of this kind, where we engage in logic- chopping that would make the practitioners in Owen Dixon Chambers feel positively envious. It is a matter for argument whether it needs to exclude any of those categories of people. I do not believe it likely, as a practical, commonsense matter, that the Authority will allocate to the conduct of the hearing somebody who is wholly unfamiliar with and ill at ease with legal concepts-not the least because there is every chance that mistakes will be made, and that the Authority will be embarrassed by redress being sought through judicial review proceedings of the kind provided for in the Bill. But then again , because there is that sanction available of judicial review-and there are plenty of checks and balances even with the removal of some of those that have occurred in the course of this debate-there are enough checks and balances to guarantee that any really significant mistakes that are made in the jurisdiction of the Authority will be able to be technically redressed. I think that will operate as a sufficient disincentive in practice to getting someone into a hearing situation who may be ill-equipped to handle it. So as a practical matter I do not think we need worry about the absence of a constraint of the kind the Opposition proposes. I believe the terms of the constraint it is seeking to impose are too tight and too narrow. It has to be remembered as the bottom line in all this that we are not talking about the conduct of judicial proceedings. We are talking about simply an extension of an investigative mode. It is not quite so crucial under those circumstances that there be someone conducting those hearings who is totally familiar with all the esoteric impedimenta of the conduct of judicial or quasi- judicial proceedings. It is just not crucial in the same way as it would be if we were establishing a court or a more obviously judicial body. While not wishing in any way to denigrate the Opposition amendment that has come forward because I think it has a solid foundation in commonsense, I believe it is unnecessarily restrictive. The Government will join with the Democrats in opposing it. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(8.21) —I am not sure that I heard all that the Attorney-General said. I would have thought that had the Attorney wanted to give the small people, to use the expression he used earlier, the little people and the people who might feel threatened absolute security, he would accept the amendment. If he wants absolutely to satisfy the community and provide absolute certainty that there is no risk of having the only member of the Authority who had the right qualifications chairing a hearing he would fulfil the request of the amendment. I do not know what the Attorney means when he talks about being ill at ease with respect to a member. There is only one way to ensure that anybody who is sitting on a quasi-judicial authority with powers which extend beyond those of any other permanent authority has the capacity and competence to deal with the enormous powers cast upon him; that is, to have somebody who has very significant legal training. I do not understand the Attorney's fundamental objection to the proposition that has been put. For his part, the Attorney knows better than anybody the significant powers that have been provided to the Authority. I am still waiting for him to tell me why the legislation cannot provide that there shall be somebody with legal qualifications on each hearing. I find it difficult to comprehend his argument, particularly given the definitions of the sorts of people he referred to as being likely to be members and to be unilaterally sitting in judgment and making decisions which will have an enormous impact on individuals. I would have thought that in those circumstances there was an irrefutable case for having somebody with legal qualifications on each hearing, as distinct from his other responsibilities. As I said to Senator Evans once before in this debate, his argument in this respect is not one of the most profound, persuasive, articulate or compelling arguments he has put in the time I have been in the Senate. I would be disappointed if I did not know that deep in his heart he is not giving the real motives to this Senate. I am not satisfied that he has really sought to address himself to the truth of the subject. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(8.25) —My argument may have been a pale and sickly thing, but 'twas my own and 'twas offered sincerely. I am sorry that Senator Crichton-Browne thinks that the arguments the other way are irrefutable. I did my humble best to refute them in my last contribution to this debate and I do not think any useful purpose would be served by repeating them now. I take seriously the points that have been made about the desirability of legal expertise on this body, but whether it needs to be the precise kind of legal expertise that has reflected itself in five years practice at the Bar or appointment to the Bench is something about which I think reasonable men and women- Senator Durack —You might conceivably have a lecturer, might you not? Senator GARETH EVANS —It might indeed conceivably be a lecturer. I am glad for that graceful tribute to a much neglected profession falling at last from Senator Durack's lips. It is a profession I abandoned myself sometime before I went into practice in politics so I take it that the gesture is not directed at me, but I take the point nonetheless. It is a point very well made. Familiarity with legal concepts and the capacity to apply them in a hearing situation is not an attribute that is necessarily confined to people who have either been judges or been enrolled at the Bar or as solicitors for five years. It is essentially for that reason and in the hope and expectation that commonsense will prevail in practice that we take the position that we have. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(8.27) —If the Attorney-General thinks commonsense will prevail I ask him why he does not let it prevail in respect of the legislation. Why does he assume that commonsense will prevail through judgements that are made outside the ambit of the legislation? If he accepts that the proposition we are putting is one of commonsense in terms of the application of the legislation, why does he not put it in the legislation? Would he feel comfortable in a situation in which investigatory power is given to the Authority and, to use the definition he gave this afternoon, to have somebody who is 'technically efficient' in terms of knowing the ins and outs of computers to be-- Senator Gareth Evans —Repetitive. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Yes, it might be repetitive, but frankly repetition does not necessarily detract from the argument. I ask the Attorney-General whether he would feel comfortable with a policeman, whose knowledge of the evidence is limited to the experience he has had. Would he feel comfortable with somebody who does not have a discipline in terms of the law making judgements about whether he ought to provide his taxation returns of his personal financial or business transactions? I use the word 'personal' loosely, given its definition in this Bill. By and large, personal business dealings and general business dealings are exactly the same thing. Would the Attorney feel comfortable having somebody sitting in judgment upon him under the powers that are given to this Authority? Would he feel terribly relaxed about it if the person sitting in judgement was not somebody with the qualifications of a person whom he would think ought normally to be making judgements about him in a normal criminal court or normal civil case? Amendment negatived. Postponed proposed new clause 10A (Performance of functions). The CHAIRMAN —We now turn back to the power to interview. The Committee will remember that we earlier inserted clauses 10 and 10A, dealing with different matters. The Committee has accepted amendments dealing with this aspect of the power to interview and the matter postponed was a motion by Senator Durack to leave out sub-clause 10A (4). The question now is: That proposed new sub-clause 10A (4) be left out. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(8.30) —It will be recalled that when we left this matter before the suspension of the sitting for dinner it was on the basis that I would have a look at the possible drafting improvements that could be made to the proposal advanced by the Australian Democrats. During the suspension we have had an opportunity to look again at the clause and I believe it is now prepared in such a way that it meets the essence of the objection raised before dinner. I seek leave, subject to the Democrats being prepared to withdraw their amendment which I think is now on the table, to move my amendments. The CHAIRMAN —You will have to wait until this present matter is resolved. You can foreshadow it now but Senator Durack's motion to leave out sub-clause 10A (4 ) is now before the Chair. Senator GARETH EVANS —I indicate, as previously, that I oppose Senator Durack's motion. Senator Macklin —I had not moved ours. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am sorry, Senator Macklin has simply foreshadowed his amendment and has not moved it. I simply indicate to the Committee that after Senator Durack's proposition is disposed of, and hopefully negated thus still leaving us something to play with, I will move as a further amendment some additional words. It might be useful in assisting the Committee to determine how to vote on Senator Durack's amendment if I were to foreshadow the terms of that amendment. I propose to add at the end of the existing sub-paragraph 4 (a) the words that have been circulated which would have the effect of producing a section which essentially reads that nothing in this Act shall be taken to confer on a member of the Authority who is not a police officer power to interview a suspect-these are the words I would insert- except in a case where the person has been served, as prescribed, with a summons to appear as a witness at a hearing before the Authority and has not yet so appeared. That picks up the substance of the Democrats amendment which was previously to be moved as a separate sub-paragraph and in effect makes the point that although normally suspects are only to be interviewed by police officers, thus preserving the notion that the Authority is not a ninth police force but is acting through police officers and associated forces or officers seconded to it, it picks up the point that there may be circumstances in which a person who is a suspect is scheduled to appear as a witness before the Authority and this may enable the staff member, for example a lawyer attached to the Authority, to interview him and take a proof of evidence. That point is accommodated in that way. The amendment goes on further to add an additional sub-clause, which says: Nothing in paragraph (4) (a)- to which I have just referred- shall be taken to affect a power of a member, or of a member of the staff of the Authority, to interview a person otherwise than in relation to an offence that the person is suspected of having committed. In other words, so far as interviews of witnesses generally or the bank managers who were mentioned before in relation to documents are concerned, there will be no constraint of the kind implied by the original clause. This allows a situation where the Authority through its ordinary non-police members can go around picking up documents and making the kinds of investigations that it may be appropriate, for example, for an accountant rather than a policeman to make by way of interview. I think that is clear. It is certainly intended to pick up the gist of the situation as I endeavoured to summarise it before dinner and I hope that proposed course will now be acceptable to the Opposition, as I understand it is to the Democrats. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(8.34) —Mr Chairman, I am still of the view that the original amendment to the Bill which introduces this idea that nobody other than a member of the Australian Federal Police or the police force of a State can interview a person who is suspected of having committed an offence really is a very odd attitude. The idea that only policemen interview those who are suspected of having committed an offence is complete nonsense. There is no prohibition on anybody interviewing anybody about the possible commission of an offence. Within the Government's service itself a great many investigations are undertaken by departmental officers in relation to the commission of offences or the suspicions of offences having been committed. I just cannot understand at all the justification for this concept. I have already pointed out that it has come in without any explanation apart from the notice we received tonight from the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). It was not included in the Bill, it was not considered by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. We now have a situation where, if we put in this proposal, we will have to have all sorts of exceptions to it. No wonder we have legislation of the length and complexity we do, with the result that ultimately it is unintelligible. If the Attorney-General wants to end up with legislation that is unintelligible, it is on his head; it is not the Opposition's responsibility. I agree that if this proposal goes in, the amendment of the Australian Democrats and the Government's further amendment are both desirable but I just think that the whole thing would be better without any such amendments at all. People will have to decide whether or not they can interview people and whether or not they suspect a person has committed an offence. I do not know how anybody will be able to make that judgment. We have the obvious case where an accountant employed by the National Crime Authority may want to ask some questions to elucidate complicated financial transactions appearing perhaps in bank statements that have been obtained. He may well have suspicions about the person he is interviewing but has not been able to form a judgment as to whether or not he ought to be charged. For heavens sake, the Judges Rules formulated in 1910 or thereabouts had far more common sense and practicability about them than that, and have proved to be basically workable in regard to an investigative officer having to make up his mind about whether or not he is going to charge somebody. At least they were intelligible and have been proved to be. This sort of language will not be intelligible in practical situations. I am getting a bit tired of trying to make something of this legislation. If the Attorney-General wants to have complicated, complex, lengthy, unintelligible and impractical legislation, it can be on his head. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(8.38) —That was the finest rhetorical flourish we have heard from the shadow Attorney-General all day. It is a pity this debate is on its last legs. There is some force in what he says. I certainly would regard this as one of the provisions that needs to be kept under very close review with the experience of the National Crime Authority as it develops. Perhaps the criticism overemphasises the significance of the interview as a crucial part of the investigative process. The way in which the Authority will operate is essentially by indirect means. All the evidence suggests that it will go chasing the paper trail, as the cliche now has it, rather than operate by direct, head-on confrontationist interviews. To that extent I do not think it will have quite the same negative impact that Senator Durack envisages. To the extent that any problems do show up in this area, I certainly undertake to watch very closely how this area operates and to bring in amending legislation as necessary should it prove to be so. Amendment negatived. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Macklin, do you still wish to move your amendment No. (5) or do you wish to yield to the Attorney-General? Senator Macklin —I do not intend to move that amendment. We will support the amendments moved by the Attorney-General. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(8.40) —I seek leave to move my two amendments together. Leave granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —I will now formally move the two separate amendments that have been circulated around the chamber in my name and I urge their support for the reasons previously stated. I move: (1) At the end of paragraph (4) (a) of proposed new clause 10A, insert ', except in a case where the person has been served, as prescribed, with a summons to appear as a witness at a hearing before the Authority and has not yet so appeared'. (2) After sub-clause (4) of proposed new clause 10A, insert the following sub- clause: '(4A) Nothing in paragraph (4) (a) shall be taken to affect a power of a member , or of a member of the staff of the Authority, to interview a person otherwise than in relation to an offence that the person is suspected of having committed. '. Amendments agreed to. Clause 25 (Failure of witnesses to attend and answer questions). Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(8.41) —Mercifully, this is the last section. The last group of amendments that I will move, beginning with amendment No. (34), are an endeavour to pick up and implement the Committee recommendations so far as the immunity of witnesses is concerned in circumstances where the Authority has decided that it badly wants their evidence and wants accordingly to be able to override a claim of privilege against self- incrimination. This is a situation that often recurs in practice with investigative and prosecutorial agencies, particularly in a context where small fry are involved and one wants to use the sprat, as it were, to catch the mackerel. The particular scheme that the original Bill envisaged was one whereby the Authority could recommend to the appropriate State or Commonwealth Attorney- General or Director of Public Prosecutions that, in return for the overriding of the claim of privilege against self-incrimination, the person in question would be immunised by government decision against the use against him in future of the evidence in question. The Senate Committee basically adopted that scheme but sought to extend it slightly. It wanted to create a situation in which the privilege against self- incrimination, which applies in relation to personal oral testimony and the production of personal non-business documents, giving rise to a claim of privilege against self-incrimination, could be utilised and the claim of privilege overridden in circumstances where the Crown was prepared to grant an immunity not only in relation to the use against someone in any future proceedings of that particular evidence but also the use against that person of evidence which might be derived as a result of the leads given by that original evidence. This is the so-called derivative use immunity. It is not just the evidence itself that the person gives that cannot be used against him; it is any evidence that might be derived as a result of it. It is the fruit of the forbidden tree, as the Americans describe it. It is an extension which the Government has had some reservations about accepting. In some ways it limits further the capacity of the prosecution to garner admissible evidence which might be helpful in subsequent prosecutions. But, nonetheless, on balance the Government felt inclined to accept the Committee recommendations and we urge that the Committee do likewise. I move: (34) Page 18, clause 25, sub-clause (5), line 29, after 'may be,' insert 'or any information, document or thing obtained as a direct or indirect consequence of the answer or the production of the first-mentioned document or thing,'. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(8.44) —I put down some amendments on behalf of the Opposition in relation to these matters, the purport of which is to oppose the new amendments that the Government has moved. I have been troubled by this proposal of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs since I first became aware of it. I have given the matter a good deal of consideration and it still concerns me that the nature of the immunity which will be in statutory form should be as wide as the amendments propose and which the Committee recommended. The fact that the Committee has recommended it is, of course, a matter which has to be given very considerable consideration. But I fear that the width of this amendment may prove to be an impediment in the investigation of the serious crime that this Authority will be investigating. I am aware that the general rule will be that the prime targets of an investigation will not be summoned and will not be given immunities at all so, as things go along, according to theory, the problem will not arise. However, it became quite clear to me in discussions that I had with prosecuting authorities in the United States of America a couple of years ago, when I was first concerned with this matter, that things do not always go according to plan or according to theory and that in fact sometimes one finds that one has called as a witness at an early stage of an investigation the person who proves to be the prime target. If that person has been given an immunity in wide terms, of course it becomes almost impossible to obtain a conviction against him or her in subsequent prosecutions. This derivative use again sounds very nice in theory. I think the Attorney-General put the argument in favour of it in the best light possible. I suppose in many cases it is only fair and reasonable that the immunity should have that effect. But nevertheless, if a leading figure in an organised crime syndicate has in fact been called and given immunity, one can virtually kiss goodbye to any chance of getting a conviction, no matter how much evidence is obtained or how strong the evidence may be. He will always be able to argue, and will keep arguing until the cows come home, again with all the resources he will have available to him and all the appeals he will continue to make. He will have those resources to ensure that he never gets convicted. That has been the experience in the United States. We are not doing something with this Authority that is unheard of. The sort of debate I have listened to on this subject over the last two years indicates that somehow or other we are embarking upon some terribly revolutionary assault on people's civil liberties and so on. Nothing can be further from the truth. The ideas that are essential and basic to this proposal are ones which have been the features of the Constitution of the United States for many decades, probably a hundred or more years. There they have the Fifth Amendment which protects the privilege against self-incrimination. That has been interpreted by the courts in this derivative use. The United States has developed it in that sense. It is not a concept that has been developed in Australian law. But the United States has had the experience of this development and it has suffered. The advice that I received was to the effect that this does create very real problems. The United States of America has experienced these problems, and therefore I am very concerned about this proposal. I agree that the form of the immunity should be given by the prosecutor, either the Attorney-General or in fact now the Director of Public Prosecutions. The granting of immunities is essentially a responsibility of the prosecutor, not of the investigator. I hold very strongly to that view. But I think it would be far preferable if the prosecutor who gives the immunity had the judgment available to him as to the form of the immunity. The form of the immunity that has been provided in a statutory form in this Bill is a form of immunity which, as Attorney-General, I found was acceptable to most people who wanted to give evidence and who wanted immunity to protect themselves. It was proving to be quite satisfactory. On the other hand, sometimes one has to give an immunity in a much wider form, and it has to be tailored to the circumstances of the particular case and the person who is seeking it. In regard to the importance of the evidence one makes a judgment as to whether one gives it in one form or another. I think it would be far better if that immunity were granted at the discretion of the prosecutor. Again, I take note of the concerns that were expressed by the Senate Committee in relation to this matter. I take note of the concerns that people have about the granting of these new and extensive powers in this Authority. It may well be new to Australia, but as I said, it is old hat as far as the United States is concerned. It rather staggers me that all these concerns have been expressed about the Authority's powers in this country by civil libertarians when, in fact , the powers have been exercised in the United States for decades. With all its Bills of rights, the Fifth Amendment and so on, these things are dealt with as a matter of course. Nevertheless, there are concerns in Australia. It is new legislation. If it is going to allay a lot of fears by having an immunity in this form I do not propose to make a great issue of it in this debate, but I must register my concern about it. I hope that the Attorney-General-although apparently he will not be administering the proposed Act; nevertheless he has responsibility for the overall administration of law and justice-will take a close interest in the way this matter works. Certainly, the Director of Public Prosecutions, who will be granting immunities, comes under his jurisdiction. I will be very interested to hear how the granting of immunities in this form works out in practice. I hope that it will be monitored very closely. If it is proven in practice that people who are major figures in crime syndicates are able to escape conviction because of the granting of immunities of this kind-they have to be granted in this form because of the statute; that is what this amendment requires-I hope the matter will be reconsidered and appropriate amendments will be proposed to prevent the misuse of this type of immunity which the Government has proposed. Although I do not propose to vote against this amendment-I am prepared in this case to accept the views of the Senate Committee-I must express my very grave concern about it and wonder what effect it will have on the proper and successful operation of this new Authority. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(8.53) —I simply indicate that I have very considerable sympathy for the point of view that has just been expressed very articulately by Senator Durack. I have some concern that the reach of these immunities may be too wide. However, the judgment has been made that for the moment we will proceed down this track. I certainly undertake here, as with a number of other rather tricky aspects of this legislation, to monitor the matter very closely, to review the way in which it is working and to bring back to this Parliament appropriate remedial legislation should it prove to be the case that it is operating in a far too restrictive way. I fully accept the thrust of what Senator Durack has said on this and the spirit in which he has said it. Amendment agreed to. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(8.54) —by leave-A number of consequential amendments flow from the previous amendment. Accordingly, I move: (32) Page 18, clause 25, line 11, leave out 'and (7)', insert ', (7) and (8A)'. (33) Page 18, clause 25, line 27, leave out 'Attorney-General', insert ' Director of Public Prosecutions'. (35) Page 18, clause 25, line 32, leave out 'Attorney-General', insert ' Director of Public Prosecutions'. (36) Page 18, clause 25, line 37, leave out 'Attorney-General', insert ' Director of Public Prosecutions'. (37) Page 18, clause 25, line 40, leave out 'by the Attorney-General'. (38) Page 19, clause 25, line 9, after 'State', insert ', or a person authorized by him, being the person holding the office of Director of Public Prosecutions, or a similar office, of that State,'. (39) Page 19, clause 25, line 11, after 'be,' (first occurring), insert 'or any information, document or thing obtained as a direct or indirect consequence of the answer or the production of the first-mentioned document or thing,'. (40) Page 19, clause 25, line 13, after 'State', insert ', or the person so authorized.'. (41) Page 19, clause 25, lines 23 and 24, leave out 'by the Attorney-General of that State'. (42) Page 19, clause 25, after sub-clause (8), insert the following sub-clauses : '(8A) For the purposes of sub-section (2)- (a) it is not a reasonable excuse for a corporation to refuse or fail to produce a document or thing that the production of the document or thing might tend to incriminate the corporation; and (b) it is not a reasonable excuse for a natural person to refuse or fail to produce a document that is, or forms part of, a record of an existing or past business (not being, in the case of a person who is or has been an employee, a document that sets out details of earnings received by the person in respect of his employment and does not set out any other information) that the production of the document might tend to incriminate the person. '(8B) Sub-sections (5), (7) and (8A) do not apply where the offence in respect of which the answer to a question or the production of a document or thing, as the case requires, might tend to incriminate a person is an offence with which the person has been charged and the charge has not been finally dealt with by a court or otherwise disposed of.'. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(8.56) —I move: That the Bill be now read a third time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(8.56) —For some time now we have been engaged in a very extensive debate about the establishment of a national crimes commission-as it seems to be popularly called, although the Bill creates what is called the National Crime Authority. I am somewhat flattered that the Press seems to have taken hold of the original name for this proposal, the national crimes commission, which was, of course, part of the title of the Bill which was proposed to the Parliament by the Fraser Government nearly two years ago. That legislation was in fact passed by this Parliament and the commission was ready to be established when the present Government won office in March last year. I do not propose to canvas again the long and sorry history of the way in which this Government and the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), on the Government's behalf, have delayed the establishment of the National Crime Authority. However, I think that the Government has been forced into taking steps which apparently it did not wish to take and which it has taken reluctantly. During the Committee's consideration of this legislation, in which it was engaged for a considerable time, the Government fought a number of proposals which were supported by the Committee. I believe all the decisions the Committee took have improved and strengthened the legislation. The Opposition has always had to bear in mind whether, after the final process of parliamentary consideration, the Authority would be useful, even if not as powerful and as effective as we would have liked to have seen it. I have to express my disappointment about the final result of the Bill as it has emerged from that process. However, the Bill in its present state is a considerable improvement on the Bill that was introduced into this Parliament by the Attorney-General last November. That Bill was the result of seemingly endless discussions-what I have described as backing and filling-by the new Government after it was elected in March last year. I think that the delays by the Government as a result of that process were quite indefensible and quite contrary to the sorts of promises that were made by the Government in the election campaign before the Government came into office. The very clear impression was given that the Government was really serious about the problem of organised crime and definitely intended to do something very immediate about it. During the first parliamentary session the Prime Minister ( Mr Hawke) indicated a crimes commission would be established and that it would be in operation, I think he said initially, by 1 January this year. Here we are nearly half way though this year and the Bill is only just emerging from the Parliament. There have been quite indefensible delays on the part of this Government. Here again we have an example of its performance falling so far short of its rhetoric and its promises. I have spoken in general terms about an Authority of some kind. When we come to judge the actual product as it has emerged in this Parliament I must express again on behalf of the Opposition some very grave disappointments and also some very great doubts as to whether this Authority, which we have now fledged as effectively as we can be the process of the Committee stage debate, will by the effective, firm, fearless and independent Authority which I have always maintained is required. I refer to a form of Authority which the Fraser Government got through the Parliament. The Authority had received approval and was ready to be put into operation when we lost government. The Government's Bill contained some really quite iniquitous proposals and limitations on that Authority. In particular, it proposed the incredible abdication of authority by a Federal Government and a Federal Attorney-General, whereby the Federal Attorney-General could not give references to the Authority in respect of breaches of purely federal law without the approval of the inter- governmental committee, which is provided for in this legislation and which comprises Federal and State Ministers. I am pleased to note that an amendment at the Committee stage has changed that situation which was really one of abdication of authority on the part of the Federal Government and the Federal Attorney-General of one of its major responsibilities, namely, the investigation and prosecution of crime at the federal level in purely federal matters. As I have said over again, in recent years crime has, regretfully, become a major problem in this country. It is a national problem, and organised crime has grown to a great extent because of the increase in drugs and the huge profits that can be made from their importation and the formation of drug syndicates, and so on, with which we are all familiar. At least as a result of the investigations of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs and of the deliberations in the Committee of the Whole, we have removed one of the major limitations on the role of the Authority, which the Bill provided. I am pleased to see that other amendments were approved by the Committee of the Whole, such as a widening of the definition of 'relevant offence', although, again, this, was not done to the extent that the Senate Committee had recommended. There is an improvement again in the creation of a general power of investigation for the Authority, without its having to use its special powers. Although that was a recommendation of the Senate Standing Committee, in my view and in the view of the Opposition, it has not gone far enough because I think the Authority should be able to use its special powers as well as its investigative powers on its own initiative and volition. Certain impediments to the role of the Authority have been removed. The Bill provided that the inter- governmental committee was not to give references unless it was satisfied that ordinary police methods of investigation were not effective. That limitation has been removed. The power of the Minister to withdraw a reference has been removed. The great impediments on the Authority as proposed in the shape of the Ombudsman's powers, and a judicial audit, have been removed. The extraordinary proposal that the Government made in the Committee stage to limit the powers of the staff of the Authority to interview witnesses and people who could assist with inquiries has also been improved. I believe that there have been very considerable improvements to the Government 's Bill, largely as a result of the work of the Senate Committee. I must say that no credit may be given here to the members of that Committee who sit on the Government benches, because the Chairman and some of the members of the Committee who recommended some of these major changes have not been prepared to stand up in this chamber for their recommendations. They have servilely followed the numbers game imposed on them by the Attorney-General and by the ethos of the Labor Party. We have seen a pathetic performance. I think that only one of them spoke in this debate. Is that right? Senator Missen —Only one. Senator DURACK —One of them spoke and made a minor contribution to this very lengthy and important debate. What happened to the Chairman of the Committee which recommended these changes? We did not hear him. We saw him only when he came in to vote servilely with the Government. Senator Hill —He knows they would expel him. Senator DURACK —Of course he would be. We know the way the Labor Party operates. Here we have had a pathetic performance. People talk about the value of Senate committees. When it comes to the crunch, Labor members of Senate committees are told what to do by the Labor Caucus and we have seen how servilely they come into line. So no credit whatsoever goes to the Labor Party and its members for its performance in this debate. Another matter which has been a disappointment to me is some of the attitudes adopted by the Australian Democrats in this debate. Senator Chipp, the Leader of the Democrats, has played a major role in regard to dealing with the major problem of organised crime which we face in this country. I think Senator Chipp has a right to claim a fine record in rhetoric in all events-- Senator Gareth Evans —Mr Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 421 which vests in you the capacity to call to the attention of the Senate continued irrelevance or tedious repetition, and your power to direct a senator to discontinue his speech. I suggest that the time has come to discontinue Senator Durack's speech. This is the third reading debate. Senator Durack seems to be caught in some kind of time warp whereby he thinks we are starting out on the second reading debate again and engaging in the kind of argument we have had for two days. I do not know who he is trying to con, who he is trying to convince or who he is trying to ginger up by this tedious, endless regurgitation of matters and stances with which we are all entirely familiar. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —There is no point of order. In a third reading speech a senator may express his views. Senator DURACK —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I am glad that you have a much finer appreciation of the Standing Orders and the traditions of the Senate than the Attorney-General has. He is again showing his inability to take it. He likes to dish it out but he cannot take it. It is a matter of disappointment that the Democrats have not always supported the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee of which their leader, Senator Chipp, was a distinguished member. He was anxious to serve on that Committee and the Committee was expanded to enable him to do so. I think that it was a very sound decision of the Senate to enable him to do so, but despite the fact that the Committee made some major recommendations in relation to the definition or 'relevant offence' and in regard to the directions that could be given to the Authority by the Minister-matters that were very important as far as political control and manipulation of the Authority were concerned-the Democrat vote did not accord with the recommendations of the Committee. I express my disappointment that the Democrats' vote did not match their rhetoric or, indeed, the recommendations of their leader in regard to some of the important debates that we have had. The last disappointment I express on behalf of the Opposition is about two matters on which we felt that the Committee itself had not been strong enough in its recommendations. The first was the failure of the Committee to recommend a wide power of initiative on the part of the- Senator Georges —On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President, I ask you to consider whether Senator Durack, in his third reading speech, is canvassing and questioning the decisions that the Senate has reached- Senator Missen —I hope so. Senator Georges —The Senate in committee made certain decisions which Senator Durack is now canvassing and criticising. He is now in the process of questioning those decisions which were the subject of debate and decision by vote of the Senate in committee. If he wishes to take part in the third reading debate, he should confine himself to a third reading speech which has some limitations. He cannot introduce new material, but I suggest, Mr Acting Deputy President, that he cannot canvass or question the decisions formally taken during the process of this Bill. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! I draw Senator Durack's attention to the fact that a third reading speech should not be a rehash. I agree that to some extent he has been overstepping the mark. The third reading speech should be confined to reasons why the third reading should take place. Senator DURACK —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. In fact my remarks have been directed precisely to that point. If Senator Georges has not been able to follow that it is not surprising because he has not played a very notable part in this debate from go to whoa. If he could only remain silent instead of making inane interjections, he might learn something from what I am saying. The vital point of my speech, which I now come to, is that we now have to decide whether this Bill is in a form that is worth supporting on the third reading. That is the point we are dealing with and which I have been addressing. The final point that I wish to make in relation to the judgment which the Senate must make is that there are two matters to which the Opposition attaches great significance which went beyond the recommendations of the Senate Committee. One would have enabled the Authority to act on its own initiative not only on references that it is given, that is, it would have enabled it to exercise its special powers. Admittedly, the amendments which have been agreed to, which were recommended by the Senate Committee and which have been adopted by the Government, have widened the powers of the Authority to investigate matters on its own initiative, but not to exercise its special powers without a reference from either the Federal Minister in a Federal matter or the intergovernmental committee in matters which are in breach of State laws. That in itself is a considerable improvement on the existing Bill and the Committee's vote in the debate we have just completed has greatly extended the powers of the Authority in State matters, whereby the Federal Minister can give a reference after consulting the intergovernmental committee. On purely Federal matters a reference can be given regardless of the view of the intergovernmental committee . The other matter which is a disappointment is that we have an Authority which is comprised of only three members, two of whom will be nominated, in effect, by State Ministers, although the Attorney-General could play a part in it and, indeed, could veto it, although I believe it is very unlikely that he would ever take that step in view of the attitude that he has adopted-- Senator Gareth Evans —On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. If ever there were a case for the application of standing order 421, I suggest it is now . Senator Durack's disappointments may be of great moment to him and his party but they are not of any moment to the Senate in considering whether to grant this Bill a third reading. He is indulging in tedious repetition of points that were made endlessly in the course of this debate. We have a program, the Government has a program and the Parliament has a program. Let us get on with it . The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order but I ask Senator Durack to confine his speech to why the third reading should take place. Senator DURACK —The Attorney-General should contain his patience. I know it is very troublesome for him to have to listen to anybody else. We have all listened to hours and hours of tedious and tendentious debate by the Attorney-General, and I realise that it is troublesome and tedious for him to have to have to listen to somebody else. Despite his evident desire not to be reminded of his own deficiencies, weaknesses and delays in the handling of this matter, I propose to indicate the judgments which the Opposition has had to make in this lengthy debate. The Opposition is not satisfied with the result-I make that quite clear. We believe that this Authority will not be as effective or as independent as we would like. However, we believe that the urgency and the magnitude of the problem and the threat to our security of organised crime and official corruption is such that a national authority is required to tackle it. We believe that this Authority is better than nothing. In conclusion, the Opposition will continue to pursue its criticisms and will monitor this Authority closely. When we are returned to government, as hopefully we will be before long, we will make the amendments that we consider necessary in order to make this Authority the effective, fearless organisation which we think is required. But in the meantime we believe that this Authority should be established, with the deficiencies that it certainly has, because the Government cannot be goaded into doing anything better. The responsibility for it in this form is going to be on the Government's head. I hope that it will be more effective than we fear it will be. But we wish it well and we will support the third reading. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(9.20) —In speaking on the third reading of the National Crime Authority Bill 1983, I want to make it very clear that what I am doing is saying that I do not believe that this is a Bill that should pass the third reading stage and I, for one, will certainly record my vote against it. I am sorry that other members of the Opposition will not. I am pleased that Senator Durack said in the concluding stages of his speech that when the Opposition comes to power it will take action to repair this Bill, to repair the damage which I believe will have been done by an authority which will be operating under the very inadequate powers which it has been given by this Senate and, presumably, by the House of Representatives after being bulldozed through that place. Although I was absent from this chamber today and part of yesterday due to an unfortunate action on the part of the Opposition due to a blunder which I think we may later regret, I think we did not show a forceful enough need to indicate our opposition to decisions which were being made. Nonetheless, I want to say this about the debate, most of which I have been listening to today: I commend Senator Durack, the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Lewis and others who, I think, made excellent points which were often defeated in debate and as a result of divisions. Senator Gareth Evans —You will need some friends after your performance. Senator MISSEN —I cannot hear the Attorney-General. I will not bother listening to him. I have heard him too often today. I believe that many of the points have been argued effectively and that they will stand in the record of time. However, I believe that what has happened in the last day and a half is that the Bill has been improved by the incorporation of certain of the majority recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. However, with one exception, none of the major criticisms which I made in the course of my minority report as a member of that Senate Committee and which were, with that one exception, incorporated in amendments which the Opposition presented during the Committee of the Whole debate in the last day and a half was met. Consequently, because the Australian Democrats did not support those amendments they were defeated. I believe that we will have reason to see in the course of the next few years the deficiencies which this Bill contains. I am glad that members of this Parliament, as a result of the carriage of one of the Opposition 's amendments, will be in a position to question, examine and ascertain the defects so that when we come back to office at least we will be in a position to repair those defects. As I say, I have listened to the debate that has taken place today. I want to say something about the matters which have been decided because it is very easy to lose the whole effect by going through a great number of amendments and thinking that because some things have been passed substantial objections have been met. What I want to do is briefly to take honourable senators through the nine major objections which I in my minority report presented to the Senate as being matters which need to be cured and, with one exception, the Opposition was endeavouring to cure. Except in one case, none of them has been satisfactorily overcome. Of those problems the first is ensuring that the effective attack undertaken by the Costigan Royal Commission into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union can be continued by the new Authority. That is perhaps a general one. If one reads the substantial evidence which Mr Frank Costigan and other witnesses gave to the Senate Committee one will realise that what has been done by the Senate Committee and by the Senate itself has not been adequate and what will follow the Costigan Royal Commission is a very weak, puny infant that is not likely to be able to take up and complete the work which Costigan has done. Such a body will not be able to go into other areas unless it has the blessing of the intergovernmental committee which remains in the legislation in all its horror, though it has been improved a little bit and some things have been taken out of its aegis. The second of the matters I raised was the need to expand the purposes of the new Authority so that it can, of its own motion, proceed with effective information gathering, surveillance, collation of evidence leading to prosecution and forfeiture of illegal profits and other civil remedies. In some areas, that has been achieved. There are some improvements. But honourable senators will notice that I say: 'Of its own motion'. That was the subject of the amendment last night on which I left this chamber because I regard that that is of essence to the new Authority. I believe that the Authority should not be dependent on a conglomeration of State Ministers which will pre-advertise throughout the world an inquiry that is supposed to go ahead, with all the results that that will have, and then depend upon that organisation to give it the power before it can move from a position where it is like any other citizen in that it can ask questions but cannot demand answers. The evidence of Redlich, Costigan and others shows that that power is needed. The idea that there is a difference between ordinary and special powers has been rejected by the Committee. This distinction, which the Committee has kept, will lead to an impossible situation for this body. Thirdly, I recommend that there was a need to provide the Authority, when needed, with strong coercive powers for obtaining information following the money trail in getting to the central figures of organised crime. That is very essential. In fact, the Authority will not be able to do that unless it can get past the problems in regard to whether a State police force can handle it, unless it can get to a situation where it can convince this intergovernmental committee that the exercise of federal powers is necessary. That is something that will not be able to be done. The fourth recommendation related to burdening the Authority with excessive powers given to an intergovernmental committee, arming it with veto powers over the commencement and continuation of inquiries. There have been some improvements in regard to the veto powers. But the situation still remains unsatisfactory. Of course, because the Authority does not have the powers it will be constantly at the beck and call of an intergovernmental committee. I have no doubt that that committee will use those powers to inhibit the Authority . Fifthly, I referred to the problem of the promotion of excessive indemnity provisions and denying the Authority the opportunity to pursue lines of investigation. I heard Senator Durack and others argue tonight about the insertion of an indemnity provision in the Bill. I heard even the Attorney- General having doubts because the original Bill contained much less than that. Tonight I heard him expressing his doubts as to whether this goes too far. Indeed it will go too far. Indeed, we will find that a great deal of the evidence that this Authority could otherwise get together is going to be denied to it. It will be faced with a constant legal battle in which it will be told: ' You only learnt of this because I spilt the beans before the inquiry and therefore you cannot use all the information that you have developed from that'. I am afraid that that is going to be an absolute fatal blot on the powers of this Authority. My sixth point is the failure to retain in the Authority a proper discretion to hold public hearings and keep the public informed of criminal frauds and conspiracies. This is the one area in which the Opposition amendments did not follow my minority report recommendations. I was prepared to go along with that if in fact we were able in our other amendments and with the assistance, we hoped, of the Australian Democrats, to ensure that this Authority had the strength to be able to do these things. Now the Authority, in its weakened state , we will find, lacks the power to go to the public. The power for the Authority to by-pass the governments which are trying to inhibit it and the power to put its evidence before the public will be very necessary powers which are lacking in this Authority. I consequently believe that this is one of the problems. This weakness that the Authority will have will be a weakness behind closed doors. We know that people will, therefore, be able to attack it with impunity. It will not be able to defend itself. I fear that the failure which we in the Opposition have had to obtain the support of the Democrats to ensure that these powers are in the legislation will mean that the lack of a public hearing will be all the more detrimental in the future. My seventh objection is the failure to promote a system of appointment of members of the Authority to ensure that members are highly competent, respected and able to perform effectively. Senator Georges —I take a point of order. Mr Acting Deputy President, I draw your attention to standing order 415 which states: No Senator shall reflect upon any Vote of the Senate, except for the purpose of moving that such Vote be rescinded. Standing order 413 may be relevant in a different way. I would suggest that what Senator Missen is doing is reflecting upon the votes that have been taken in the Committee of the Whole, the manner in which they took place and the debate that led to the votes taking place. Therefore, I would suggest to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that the honourable senator is out of order. Senator Missen —Mr Acting Deputy President, in reply to the point of order: I am explaining why I will vote against the third reading of this Bill. I am not reflecting on the vote. That is the majority view of the Senate. I am explaining why I cannot vote for this Bill at the third reading stage. That standing order can never be interpreted to mean that a senator cannot explain to this House why he is voting the way he is. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Senator Missen indicated in the first place that he was opposing the third reading. I ask him to confine himself to that section. Senator MISSEN —My eighth point is as follows: Failing to promote a system of appointment of members of the Authority to ensure that members are highly competent, respected and able to perform effectively. I must say that I do not have the same confidence that Senator Durack has in these members who are appointed. There are now just three in all and two of them have constituencies-the Police Ministers and Attorneys-General. I can understand that it is desirable to have such representatives who give the State Ministers some influence in this. If our recommendation of a five member Authority had been accepted, with a majority appointed, including people with specialised authority and experience, that would not have mattered. We will have a Commonwealth authority financed by Commonwealth money. It will have a majority of its members determined by a constituency mostly composed of State Ministers; who have to be appointed, if honourable senators remember, by the unanimous decision of those Ministers. If they cannot agree, the Attorney-General or apparently the Special Minister of State will proceed to make the appointment. But assuming that they agree on some public relations figure, some person who has never offended any of the States of the Commonwealth, and who is liked by all the Attorneys-General and, on the other hand, by all the Police Ministers, we can imagine the sort of person we are likely to get. I have the gravest doubts of the ability of the type of people who will apply for appointment to a body of this weakened nature. If we are to get unanimity among those groups of Ministers I believe we will get someone who has not got the sufficient strength of character, who has not offended anybody and who has not got the courage to move quickly and firmly in these areas. I fear for the types of appointments which the Attorney-General may be forced to make because the rest of the Ministers choose that sort of person. Of course that is important. With all the powers that the Authority might have, the type of people who are appointed to it and who constitute it are of vital importance. I regret that we have very little hope of their being of the calibre that is needed. The ninth and only matter which I raise which is covered, is that of failing to provide an adequate system of parliamentary monitoring of legislation. I am glad to see that that committee will be there, assuming this legislation passes both Houses of the Parliament. It remains a slender thread by which we will, in the next few years, be able to monitor what is happening, whereby members of the Parliament will be able to obtain real experience as to what such a body is doing, where it is being inhibited and to what extent the various powers in this Bill are being used to frustrate the work of that body to control and suppress organised crime in this country. Unless it has that strength, I fear we are all in trouble. The shadow Attorney-General mentioned two matters that went beyond the Senate Committee. One was that the Authority should act on its own initiative, which I have mentioned was not dealt with. The Senate, unfortunately , has rejected that power. The other point is that of the three members of the Authority. Those are matters which are gone from this Bill and which will need to be changed in the future. In conclusion I say two things: In the document that I incorporated in my speech I raised the salient point that there are great dangers in this Bill so far as the references of State powers are concerned. I do not think this matter has been considered. If we do not get uniform legislation from the States, if we have piecemeal legislation empowering the Authority to investigate certain matters of State law, I can see a considerable field for lawyers and a considerable constitutional challenge. We may have the Authority handling an investigation and taking evidence in regard to one State and having strong powers in one State parliament and weaker powers in another State parliament. I see a very grave situation here which has not been faced up to in this Bill, and I do not think it has been debated at all in this chamber. The last thing I want to say is that the Opposition has been consistent in respect of the fight against organised crime. It put down a Bill two years ago which I think stands high by comparison to this one. It could have done an excellent job and it could have obtained the support of the States. The present Government has failed to take up the initiative. Instead we have a patchwork quilt here; a Bill which is a product of competing forces inside the Australian Labor Party and outside the Labor Party, of compromise which regrettably the Australian Democrats-- Senator Georges —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise the same point of order. Surely that is a reflection upon the vote of the Senate and those who took part in that vote. Senator MISSEN —No, it is not. Senator Georges —If it is not, I have not been listening very carefully. It seems to me that Senator Missen has reflected upon those who participated in the vote. He has been highly critical of those people and the methods by which they reached their decision. That decision was reached by a vote of the Senate and he is reflecting on that vote. Mr Acting Deputy President, I suggest that he is out of order. Senator MISSEN —I assure the Senate that I am not. I am pointing out that the Bill which has come forward is a patchwork quilt. It comes from various people, many of them outside this chamber. I am not reflecting on the honourable senators here, who, I am sure have all endeavoured to turn their minds and abilities to the best provisions in this Bill. Some of them may have been faulty , but it is the forces outside which had a lot of influence on the nature of this Bill. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator Missen, I ask you once again to keep to the third reading of the Bill. Senator MISSEN —I am coming to my conclusions. My point is that the Opposition, on the other hand, has had a consistent record in its fight against organised crime. It had an excellent Bill, which it can stand by. It has taken a strong attitude in regard to the alterations that ought to be made to this Bill. I trust that it will continue with this matter and will argue it before the people . The Australian people do not yet have sufficient knowledge of the extent to which organised crime exists and the extent to which it must be fought with the most powerful weapons. We have failed to achieve those powerful weapons. We must go along with such as we have, because obviously this is the Bill we are going to get as it will be pushed through the other House. I am sure that in the coming years we will have reason to regret the timidity and the inability of this chamber and the other chamber to create a Bill which would have properly dealt with the problem of organised crime in this country. I therefore will vote against this motion. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(9.39) —Mr President-- Senator Gareth Evans —Oh, God! Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Through you, Mr President, I invite Senator Evans to repeat his comment. He used the Lord's name in vain in a very unpleasant and unnecessary way, and it was directed at me. Senator Evans speaks longer, more laboriously and more monotonously than anybody else in this chamber. The moment anybody else gets up in this chamber and dares to put a point of view forward he gets exasperated, frustrated and, presumably in his own privacy, a number of other things. I just take up one point, which is a point that Senator Evans was so unnecessary unpleasant about this afternoon when I challenged what the wording of an amendment was. It concerned the powers that were sought to be vested in the parliamentary committee. Senator Evans spent 10 minutes giving me a misguided lecture about what its powers are. Might I read out, with respect, the section to which I was referring . It was a circulated Opposition amendment and it stated that anybody who wilfully gave false evidence on oath or affirmation before the committee would have a penalty imposed upon them of five years imprisonment. I was seeking to compare that with an offence against the contravention of clause 26 (1), which relates to false or misleading evidence under the Bill. That proposes a punishment upon conviction by imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years or by a fine not exceeding $20,000. That was the point I was trying to make. However, in blissful ignorance, Senator Evans, indulging in his own glorious knowledge about nothing, was prepared to argue about it. The fact was that the amendment suggested that the parliamentary committee would impose upon anybody who gave false evidence a penalty greater than that which they would have received if they had given false evidence to the Authority. I think, I should put that right. Having said that, perhaps next time Senator Evans might be less enthusiastic about jumping up and giving us a lecture about his knowledge of parliamentary procedure. Senator Lewis —I doubt that. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Yes. My plea is more in hope than in knowledge. This legislation has enormous powers. I fear that there are people who will have a temptation to the view that we ought to be perhaps myopic, perhaps blinkered in our single-minded pursuit of crime of the nature that this legislation is intended to encompass without looking at the balancing considerations. I sometimes thought, as I listened to the debate, that other considerations were put aside and that the balance of competing interests were not taken seriously. I think it was said by Senator Harradine that 10 years ago this legislation would never have been contemplated. I say that, in the terms that it has been passed in so far-and some that have been rejected-I suspect that in 10 or 15 years time such legislation would not be contemplated again. I am sure that in some areas some of the draconian provisions trample upon the rights and freedoms of individuals in an unbridled way in pursuit of crime without considering the balances. I dare to say that nobody is more ambitious than I to see the sort of crime stamped out that this legislation is intended to stamp out. I touch on a couple of other matters: Firstly, the veto powers. I said in my speech in the second reading debate that I did not think it was a major area of concern to the extent that had been put by some of my colleagues. Frankly, I feel that there is a great deal to be said for recognising the responsibilities and the roles that the States have in the composition, construction and the contribution of this Authority. While my vote would not have influenced circumstances in terms of the final outcome, my inclination, of course, was to pursue the line of State responsibility as well as Federal responsibility. There seems to be a temptation in this Parliament to assume that all wisdom, all knowledge and all competence reside in this building and that State governments and their members are inferior. Yet, as I look around, I often ask myself about those amongst us who first sought but failed to get endorsement for State parliaments and ultimately managed to succeed in getting Federal endorsement as a result of being a failed State candidate. The same thing applies when I ask myself why it is that the Federal Parliament believes that it has divine wisdom in terms of appointments to commissions and various other bodies. For example, with the exception of some aberrations, the great majority of the judges of the High Court of Australia have come out of the supreme courts of the various States. The sooner we recognise that the States ought to be equal partners, and not unequal partners, not subservient and not second rate in terms of their contribution, the sooner we shall have co-operation, and, in respect of this legislation, effective legislation. I say the same thing with respect to the various police forces. These days, notwithstanding the fact that some revelations of the last four or five years seem to have evaporated from the minds of many people, it seems that the State police forces have demonstrated, comparably at least, an integrity and capacity equal to those of the Commonwealth police force. I do not know why there ought necessarily to be anxiety that the people who will be selected and ultimately elected to the Authority from the States will be in any way inferior to those appointed by the Commonwealth. I almost conclude by saying- Senator Georges —Never mind the 'almost'; just conclude. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Senator Georges, you tempt me to continue for some time . However, having woken you up, I do not want to keep you in that state for too long. The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the honourable senator address the Chair? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Yes, Mr President. Through you, I say to Senator Georges that having woken him up, I would not want to keep him in that state; so I shall limit myself to just a few other remarks. Senator Georges —That is a bit of an affront. You have been completely out of order for the last 10 minutes. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —A number of areas that I would canvas for the first time in the debate so far fall within the provisions of the Standing Orders relating to third reading speeches. First, I am concerned about the Minister being able to demand a report. I believe that if other people have information that will lead to a temptation to expose in a way that Senator Gareth Evans has been very concerned about. I should have thought that there was some virtue in the judicial audit and that, particularly given the special investigatory powers of the Authority, in time that will, perhaps, be seen to have merit. The present wording allows too long a period before such an audit was intended to take place . I am not particularly enthusiastic about that provision having been removed. I am not certain that a committee of this Parliament will be any more competent to make judgments about the-- Senator Georges —Have you read standing order No. 415? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I will keep speaking, Senator Georges, and you keep reading that. Senator Georges —You are in breach of it now. The PRESIDENT —Order! Please continue your remarks, Senator Crichton-Browne. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —With the indulgence not only of you, Mr President, but also of Senator Georges, I should be glad to. The Bill in its final form has some virtue. It has to have extensive powers to give it the capacity to pursue the types of criminals that it is intended to. But at the same time I suspect that the balancing considerations have not been considered in the way in which one might have thought. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.50) —in reply-To be brief, this has been a long and difficult debate which, for the most part, has been conducted in this chamber without rancour. It is a pity in those circumstances to hear some of the remarks, particularly by Senator Durack and Senator Missen, at this late and unusual third reading stage. In the words of a prominent member of the Opposition, who shall remain nameless, we should at least be grateful that the sulking Achilles has at last returned from his tent. We have heard from Senator Durack and Senator Missen contributions to the debate which can be described only as whingeing, whining, sniping, destructive and demolishing. That is a pity, because the outcome of our deliberations has been to produce legislation which, while not satisfactory to all of us, is at least in my belief -and, I suspect, in the genuine belief of the Opposition-perfectly workable legislation. I only hope it proves to be seen in that light by the States, in light of some of the decisions that have been taken. I suggest that our task now is not to engage, however self-satisfying it might be for some in this chamber, in further demolition and destruction. The task is rather to engage in a constructive feat to try to bring together all the competing interests and agencies in this country which have a crucial role to play in fighting organised crime. The task of mounting that attack on organised crime is difficult enough at the best of times. To have to conduct it in an atmosphere of party point scoring of the kind we have been subjected to in the past hour or so only makes that task infinitely more difficult. I commend the third reading of this Bill to the Senate and urge all honourable senators to allow us constructively and co-operatively to get on with the job. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Senator Missen —Mr President, I would like my dissenting vote on this Bill to be recorded in Hansard. Notice of Motion Senator MASON(New South Wales) —by leave-I give notice that, four sitting days after today, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to provide for a commission of inquiry in relation to certain criminal convictions in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. Consideration resumed from 9 May, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.53) —I move: (1) Page 2, lines 1 to 43, page 3, lines 1 to 43, and page 4, lines 1 to 27, clause 4, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: Officers to observe secrecy '4. Section 16 of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by omitting from paragraph (4) (j) ''or'' (last occurring); (b) by adding at the end of sub-section (4) the following word and paragraph: ''; or (m) the National Crime Authority for the purposes of a tax-related investigation.''; (c) by inserting after paragraph (4A) (b) the following paragraph: ''(ba) the Royal Commission may communicate the information to the National Crime Authority if the Royal Commission is of the opinion that the information relates, or may relate, to a tax-related investigation;''; (d) by omitting from paragraph (4A) (c) ''and (b)'' and substituting '', (b) and (ba)''; (e) by inserting in sub-section (4F) ''or (4HJ) (e)'' after ''(4E) (a)''; (f) by inserting after sub-section (4H) the following sub-sections: ''(4HA) Where- (a) the National Crime Authority is conducting a special investigation; and (b) the Authority considers that the Commissioner, under the provisions of this Act or of any previous law of the Commonwealth relating to income tax, may have acquired particular information (in this section referred to as the 'requested information') that is relevant to the special investigation, a member of the Authority may apply to a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia for an order under sub-section (4HD). ''(4HB) An application under sub-section (4HA) shall be in writing and shall be accompanied by an affidavit made by the applicant that- (a) sets out details of the special investigation in relation to which the application is made; and (b) specifies particulars of the requested information, ''(4HC) Where a member of the National Crime Authority makes an application under sub-section (4HA), he shall give notice in writing to the Commissioner of the making of the application and of the particulars of the requested information. ''(4HD) Where an application is made to a Judge of the Federal Court under sub- section (4HA)- (a) the Judge may order the Commissioner to disclose to the National Crime Authority all of the requested information, or such of the requested information as is specified in the order, that the Commissioner has acquired under the provisions of this Act or of any previous law of the Commonwealth relating to income tax; and (b) if the Judge makes an order under paragraph (a)-the Judge may make a further order prohibiting the Authority from communicating the information except in such manner as is, and to such persons (being persons to whom the Authority is entitled pursuant to this section to communicate the information) as are, specified in the order, and a Judge of the Federal Court may at any time , on application by a member of the Authority or by the Commissioner, notice of which shall be given to the Commissioner or to the Authority, as the case requires, vary or revoke such a further order. ''(4HE) A Judge of the Federal Court shall not make an order under sub-section (4HD) in relation to an application unless- (a) the Commissioner has been given the opportunity to bring to the notice of the Judge any matter to which the Commissioner considers the Judge should have regard in considering the application; (b) the applicant has given to the Judge, on oath or by affidavit, such further information (if any) as the Judge requires concerning the special investigation in relation to which the application is made; and (c) the Judge is satisfied that- (i) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the information to be specified in the order is relevant to the special investigation in relation to which the application is made; and (ii) the information to be specified in the order is not readily obtainable by the National Crime Authority from a source other than the Commissioner. ''(4HF) A Judge of the Federal Court, in considering for the purposes of paragraph (4HE) (c) whether or not particular information that may be relevant to a special investigation is readily obtainable by the National Crime Authority from a source other than the Commissioner, shall have regard to any prejudice to the conduct of the investigation that may result if the Authority is required to obtain the information from such a source. ''(4HG) Where a Judge of the Federal Court makes an order under sub-section ( 4HD)- (a) in the case of an order under paragraph (4HD) (a)-the Commissioner shall comply with the order; or (b) in the case of an order under paragraph (4HD) (b) that has not been revoked -the National Crime Authority shall, notwithstanding anything in this section, comply with the order or with the order as varied pursuant to paragraph (4HD) (b ). ''(4HH) Nothing in sub-section (4A) prevents the National Crime Authority from taking possession of a document or other material of which the Authority is entitled, pursuant to section 43A of the relevant Act, to take possession. ''(4HJ) Subject to sub-section (4HK) and (4HL), where- (a) information respecting the affairs of a person is communicated to the National Crime Authority under this section; or (b) the National Crime Authority, pursuant to section 43A of the relevant Act, takes possession of a document or other material that contains information respecting the affairs of a person, being information that was communicated pursuant to paragraph (4) (k) of this section to the Royal Commission referred to in that section, then- (c) the Authority may, in a manner that does not identify, and is not reasonably capable of being used to identify, the person to whom the information relates, communicate the information to the Inter-Governmental Committee in a report by the Authority under sub-section 46 (5) of the relevant Act; (d) the Authority may divulge the information in the course of a hearing before the Authority; (e) the Authority may communicate the information to the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, or to the commanding officer of the Police Force of the State, if the Authority is of the opinion that the information indicates that a person may have committed an offence against a law of the Commonwealth or of a Territory, or against a law of that State, as the case may be, being an offence the punishment, or maximum punishment, for which is or includes imprisonment for life or for a period exceeding 6 months; (f) in a case where paragraph (a) applies-subject to paragraphs (c), (d) and (e ), the Authority shall not divulge or communicate the information except to- (i) a member of the staff of the Authority; (ii) a barrister or solicitor appointed by the Attorney-General to assist the Authority; or (iii) a person assisting a barrister or solicitor so appointed, for the purposes of, or in connection with- (iv) in the case of information communicated to the Authority pursuant to paragraph (4) (m) or paragraph (4A) (ba)-a tax-related investigation; or (v) in the case of information communicated to the Authority pursuant to an order made under sub-section (4HD)-a special investigation; (g) in a case where paragraph (b) applies-subject to paragraphs (c), (d) and (e ), the Authority shall not divulge or communicate the information except to- (i) a member of the staff of the Authority; (ii) a barrister or solicitor appointed by the Attorney-General to assist the Authority; or (iii) a person assisting a barrister or solicitor so appointed, for the purposes of, or in connection with, the performance by the Authority of any of the functions referred to in paragraphs 10 (1) (b) and (d) and in sub- section 10 (2) of the relevant Act; (h) a person who has ceased to be a member or acting member of the Authority shall not make a record of the information, or divulge or communicate the information, in any circumstances; (j) a person to whom information has been communicated in accordance with paragraph (d) shall not make a record of the information, or divulge or communicate the information, in any circumstances; (k) a person of a kind referred to in sub-paragraph (f), (i), (ii) or (iii) to whom information has been communicated in accordance with paragraph (f) or this paragraph shall not- (i) while he is such a person-divulge or communicate the information except to another such person, or to the Authority, for the purposes of, or in connection with- (A) in the case of information that was originally communicated to the Authority pursuant to paragraph (4) (m) or paragraph (4A) (ba)-a tax-related investigation; or (B) in the case of information that was originally communicated to the Authority pursuant to an order made under sub-section (4HD)-a special investigation; or (ii) after he ceases to be such a person-make a record of the information, or divulge or communicate the information, in any circumstances; and (m) a person of a kind referred to in sub-paragraph (g) (i), (ii) or (iii) to whom information has been communicated in accordance with paragraph (g) or this paragraph shall not- (i) while he is such a person-divulge or communicate the information except to another such person, or to the Authority, for the purposes of, or in connection with, the performance by the Authority of any of the functions referred to in paragraphs 10 (1) (b) and (d) and in sub-section 10 (2) of the relevant Act; or (ii) after he ceases to be such a person-make a record of the information, or divulge or communicate the information, in any circumstances. '(4HK) Nothing in sub-section (4HJ) prevents the communication of information respecting the affairs of a person to- (a) if the person to whose affairs the information relates is not a company- that person; (b) if the person to whose affairs the information relates is a company-any person who is, or has been, directly involved in, or responsible for, the preparation of information furnished to the Commissioner on behalf of the company; or (c) the person who furnished the information to the Commissioner. '(4HL) Where sub-section (4HK) permits the communication of information to a person, nothing in sub-section (4HJ) prevents the communication of the information to a barrister or solicitor appearing before the National Crime Authority for the purpose of representing the person. '(4HM) Where information is communicated to a person in accordance with sub- section (4HK) or (4HL), being information that was not furnished to the Commissioner by the person and does not relate to the affairs of the person, the person shall not make a record of the information, or divulge or communicate the information, in any circumstances. '(4HN) Where information is communicated under paragraph (4HJ) (e) to the commanding officer of a Police Force of a State- (a) that commanding officer shall not divulge or communicate the information except to a person or employee under his control for the purposes of, or in connection with, the performance by that person or employee of the duties of this office or employment; (b) a person who has ceased to be the commanding officer of the Police Force of that State shall not make a record of the information, or divulge or communicate the information, in any circumstances; and (c) a person to whom information has been communicated in accordance with paragraph (a) or this paragraph shall not- (i) while he is a person or employee under the control of the commanding officer of the Police Force of that State-divulge or communicate the information except to that commanding officer, or to another person or employee under the control of that commanding officer, for the purposes of, or in connection with, the performance by that commanding officer of the duties of his office, or the performance by that person or employee of the duties of his office or employment , as the case may be; or (ii) after he ceases to be a person or employee under the control of the commanding officer of the Police Force of that State-make a record of the information, or divulge or communicate the information, in any circumstances. '(4HP) Where- (a) information is communicated to the National Crime Authority under this section; or (b) the National Crime Authority, pursuant to section 43A of the relevant Act, takes possession of a document or other material that contains information that was communicated pursuant to paragraph (4 (k)) of this section to the Royal Commission referred to in that section, nothing in sub-section (4F), (4HJ), (4HM) or (4HN) prevents- (c) the communication of the information to another person for the purposes of, or in connection with, the prosecution of a person for a tax-related offence; or (d) if the information is admissible in a prosecution of a person for a tax- related offence-the communication of the information to a court in the course of proceedings before that court against the last-mentioned person for that offence . ''(4HQ) A person to who. information has been communicated in accordance with paragraph (4HP) (c) shall not make a record of the information, or divulge or communicate the information to another person, except as permitted by this section. ''(4HR) Notwithstanding anything contained in the relevant Act, an officer shall not be required, except pursuant to an order made under sub-section (4DH), to divulge or communicate to the National Crime Authority, to a member of acting member of the Authority or to a member of the staff of the Authority, information in relation to which sub-section (2) applies. ''(4HS) In sub-sections (4), (4A), (4HA) to (4HR) (both inclusive) and (4K) and in this sub-section- 'acting member' has the same meaning as that expression has in the relevant Act ; 'Inter-Governmental Committee' means the Inter-Governmental Committee referred to in section 8 of the relevant Act; 'member' has the same meaning as that expression has in the relevant Act; 'member of the staff of the Authority' has the same meaning as that expression has in the relevant Act; 'relevant Act' means the National Crime Authority Act 1984; 'special investigation' has the same meaning as that expression has in the relevant Act; 'State' includes the Northern Territory; 'tax-related investigation' means an investigation that the Authority, in the performance of any of the functions referred to in paragraphs 10 (1) (b) and (d) and in sub-section 10 (2) of the relevant Act, is conducting or co-ordinating, in so far as the investigation relates to a tax-related offence or tax-related offences; 'tax-related offence' means an offence against a law of the Commonwealth that deals with the imposition, assessment or collection of income tax; 'Territory' does not include the Northern Territory.; (g) by omitting from sub-section (4J) 'or under sub-section (4A), (4E) or (4F)' and substituting 'or (m), under sub-section (4A), (4E), (4F), (4HJ), (4HK), (4HL ), (4HM), (4HN) or (4HP) or in pursuance of an order by a Judge of the Federal Court under sub-section (4HD)'; and (h) by inserting after sub-section (4J) the following sub-section: ''(4K) A person who is or has been a member or acting member of the National Crime Authority shall not be required to divulge or communicate to any court information contained in a document or other material of which the Authority has taken possession pursuant to section 43A of the relevant Act, being information that was communicated pursuant to paragraph (4) (k) of this section to the Royal Commission referred to in that section.''.'. This long amendment to the National Crime Authority (Consequential Amendments) Bill has been circulated to honourable senators. As indicated in my second reading speech, to be fully effective the National Crime Authority will require access, in appropriate circumstances, to information held by the Australian Taxation Office and royal commissions. The consequential Bill as introduced contained provisions to that end, which I canvassed some time ago in my second reading speech. The amendment now before the Senate makes additional amendments to section 16 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 in order to give effect to recommendations relating to access to taxation information made by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a couple of pages of material which indicate in point form the nature of the amendment and a brief explanation of the changes. Leave granted. The document read as follows- The changes proposed are as follows: enabling the Commissioner of Taxation to communicate taxation information to the National Crime Authority for the purpose of tax-related investigations; [Sub-clause 4 (b) inserts para. 16 (4) (m) Rec (11)] enabling certain Royal Commissions, including the Costigan and Stewart Royal Commissions, to communicate to the National Crime Authority taxation information received by such Commissions pursuant to the provisions of section 16 of the Act and which in the opinion of the Royal Commission, relates to a tax-related investigation by the Authority; [Sub-clause 4 (c) inserts para 16 (4A) (ba) Rec (48)] removing any doubt that new Clause 43A of the National Crime Authority Bill will authorise the Costigan Royal Commission to pass over tax-derived information in its possession to the National Crime Authority; [Sub-clause 4 (f) inserts sub-section 16 (4HH) Rec (48)] retaining the provision for the National Crime Authority to have access to taxation information under judicial warrant, but requiring that the information be relevant to a ''special investigation''; [Sub-clause 4 (f) inserts sub-section 16 (4HA) Rec (29)] the Judge hearing an application for access by the Authority is required to have regard to possible prejudice to the conduct of the investigation when considering whether the information is ''not readily obtainable'' from sources other than the Commissioner of Taxation; [Sub-clause 4 (f) inserts sub-section 16 (4HF) para. 5.54 of Standing Committee Report] other changes relate to the ''downstream'' communication by the Authority of taxation information; communication is to be permitted to the IGC in a report by the Authority on a reference (provided the identity of the person is not revealed) [Sub-clause 4 (f) inserts para 16 (4HJ) (c)] to the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police or the Commanding Officer of the relevant State Police Force for use as intelligence only where the information indicates the commission of an offence punishable by 6 months imprisonment or more. [Sub-clause 4 (f) inserts para 16 (14HJ) (e).] The other changes made are to lay down the limits of further communication by the Authority's staff and counsel assisting it. Further communication is appropriately limited to communication for the purposes of a tax-related investigation, (where the information was received under the exception to the general taxation secrecy provision) or for the purposes of a special investigation (where the information was received under judicial order). [Sub-clause 4 (f) inserts paras 16 (4HJ) (f) and (k)] Information received by the Authority from the Costigan Royal Commission under Clause 43A of the principal Bill may be communicated to the IGC or relevant Police Commissioner as mentioned earlier, but communication of such information within the Authority is to be permitted only in connection with ordinary investigations, special investigations under a reference, or Task Force investigations co-ordinated by the Authority. [Sub-clause 4 (f) inserts paras 16 (4HJ) (g) and (m)] Senator GARETH EVANS —I believe that there is agreement by the various parties around this chamber that these changes and additions to the consequential Bill give very substantial effect to the recommendations of the Standing Committee. They give the Authority access to taxation information necessary to assist its investigations and at the same time incorporate appropriate safeguards to protect the privacy of individuals. I commend the amendment in all its complexity and detail to the Senate. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. 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 the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration 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)(9.57) —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- Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1984 The primary purpose of this Bill is to introduce new taxation arrangements for retirement and kindred payments, effective for payments made on or after 1 July 1983. The measures were first announced in the Government's economic statement of 19 May 1983. Details were subsequently clarified in press statements on 30 May and 7 August 1983. While those important measures take up much of the Bill, a wide range of other matters are dealt with in it. Another major proposal to be given effect is the introduction of amendments to strengthen section 26(a) of the Income Tax Assessment Act which imposes tax on profits made on the sale of property acquired or the purpose of resale at a profit. Details of these measures were given in an announcement made on Budget night last year. Also included are measures to give effect to the taxation concession for investors of share capital to licensed venture capital companies under the incentive scheme announced by the government on 14 September 1983. To be given effect too is the Government's decision, which was announced in the 19 May 1983 Economic Statement, to tax the income of friendly societies from the investment of their funds from life, disability and accident insurance business, on a basis broadly comparable with life insurance companies. Other measures will clarify the operation of the income tax law with respect to deductions for repairs to property that is used only partly for the purpose of producing assessable income. As announced on 18 April 1984, this action is necessary following a decision handed down by a taxation board of review. Other areas of the law which could be affected by the principles emerging from the board's decision are also being amended. Included in the Bill too are measures to give effect to the Government's decision, announced on 3 May 1984, to reduce the paperwork burden of the prescribed payments system by removing the requirement for deduction forms to be lodged with income tax returns. A further measure will give effect to the Government's decision, announced on 9 March 1984, to authorise deductions for capital contributions to the cost of railway rolling-stock owned by a government or tax exempt government authority that is used for the transport of petroleum or minerals. Additionally, the Bill will authorise income tax deductions for gifts of $2 or more made to the African Famine Appeal conducted by the International Disaster Emegencies Committee. Finally, the Bill contains measures to exempt from tax rent subsidy payments made to persons to assist with their rent costs under the Commonwealth/State Mortgage and Rent Relief Scheme. Before turning to details of these various measures, I first wish to make some remarks about aspects of the Government's retirement income policies and then about the rationale for the new taxation arrangements. In the decades ahead a smaller proportion of employed people will have to support relatively larger numbers of aged people. Accordingly, this government places a high priority on developing a national retirement incomes package. There are three major element in this package-improvements to occupational superannuation, improvements to the age pension, and consideration of a national superannuation scheme. There are widely acknowledged deficiencies in existing arrangements for occupational superannuation. These include the extent of coverage-and thus the access to taxation benefits for retirement saving, the portability of superannuation benefits and the conditions relating to the vesting of employer contributions. The Government has a good deal of work in hand relating to these issues. The area is complex and there are no easy answers. The Government is proceeding with an assessment of the report of the Commonwealth Task Force on occupational superannuation in the light of views received from the States, the superannuation and insurance industries and other interested parties. With regard to pensions, the Government has a commitment to raising the standard pension to 25 per cent of average male earnings. We hope to be able to move further towards this target in the coming Budget. We also expect, in the near future, to receive a paper prepared by an interdepartmental committee canvassing options in relation to improvements in the provision of retirement incomes, including possible national superannuation alternatives. The Government will also give careful consideration to the views of the Senate standing committee on social welfare when it reports on its enquiry into retirement income systems. The Government recognises the particular importance of portability and vesting arrangements in the occupational superannuation area. This Bill provides for the setting up of approved deposit funds, which will represent a major institutional innovation as a mechanism for portability of benefits. Employees who change jobs may, without paying any tax, deposit any superannuation lump sum received on termination into an approved deposit fund. Investment income earned on lump sums deposited in these funds will be tax exempt, in the same way as if the sum had remained in an employer-sponsored superannuation fund or had been accepted by a new employer's fund. This innovation is not, of course, a complete answer to the very difficult question of portability but is a major step in the right direction. The Government aims to have discussions with interested parties on further ways of extending and improving arrangements for occupational superannuation. It also expects that its consideration of the IDC report on national superannuation will involve discussions with interested groups. The changes to the taxation treatment of lump sum superannuation and kindred benefits contained in this Bill themselves represent a major reform of retirement income arrangements and will facilitate further reforms to the retirement incomes system. The major reason for the changes is taxation equity. There has been a glaring inequity between those people who receive remuneration in the form of an income stream and those receiving it in a lump sum. The differential income tax treatment is particularly apparent in the retirement benefit area. Pensions are fully assessable but, prior to the new measures, a mere 5 per cent of lump sum benefits was assessable. This meant that at Maximum-were the recipient faced the top marginal rate of 60 per cent-any lump sum would be taxed at only a rate of 3 per cent. Needless to say, this near-absence of tax has been a major avenue for tax minimisation. Employers have faced a strong incentive to provide remuneration to their employees-especially those for whom wage and salary income would be taxed at high marginal rates-in the form of contributions to superannuation funds receivable as lump sums at the termination of employment. Moreover, a practice, essentially for tax avoidance purposes, has developed in some industries of paying deferred remuneration as severance pay on termination of employment. The taxation treatment of lump sums has been recognised as anomalous by a succession of committees of inquiry-the Asprey Taxation Review Committee, the Hancock National Superannuation Committee and the Campbell Committee of inquiry into the Australian Financial System. I think it is fair to say that the line of thought common to all of these inquiries is that, while taxpayers should retrain the option of taking a lump sum on retirement, the taxation system should not provide an incentive for taking retirement benefits in that form rather than as a pension. The tax treatment of pensions is, of course, consistent with the treatment of other forms of income under the tax system. It is the treatment of lump sums that has, in the past, been out of step. Superannuation benefits received by employees are a form of remuneration which is available only to some of the work force. The Government intends that remuneration in that form should be taxed on a basis reasonably consistent with other forms of remuneration. When, as to the present time, this is not the case, tax rates generally have to be set higher than would otherwise be needed to raise a given amount of revenue. That means that those without access to superannuation have been bearing significantly higher tax rates on their total remuneration than those with access to this savings medium. That is unfair, and needs to be corrected. I must emphasise that the measures contained in this Bill involve no element of retrospectivity. There is no diminution of any benefit relating to employment before 1 July 1983. Lump sums paid after June 1983 will continue to attract the previous tax rules to the extent that they relate to service before the change- over date. Of course no-one is happy to pay more tax. The expected effect on revenue of the tax changes demonstrates the moderation, and absence of retrospectivity, of the Government's proposals. The additional revenue collected from the taxation of lump sums is estimated to be $70 million in 1984-85. This represents some $20 million collected on assessment in respect of lump sums received in 1983-84 and collection of some $50 million on a PAYE basis in respect of lump sums received in 1984-85. The revenue gain will rise steadily over the years ahead as the proportion of future lump sum payments in respect of service after the transition date rises. The cost to the public purse of taxation concessions for superannuation is now of the order of $2.5 billion. This Bill contains some measures directed towards ensuring that tax concessions for occupational superannuation foster their purpose of encouraging genuine provision for retirement incomes. After all, if the tax concessions do not achieve genuine provision for retirement what are they for? The first such measure is that no tax is to be payable immediately on termination payments that are rolled over into annuities, into another superannuation fund or into an approved deposit fund. That is, no taxation is payable where the amount is being preserved for retirement income purposes or converted into an income stream that can be used for retirement. Secondly, approved deposit funds will provide a mechanism for portability that promotes the use of termination payments for retirement income purposes. Thirdly, a reduced tax rate of 15 per cent is to apply to the first $50,000 of lump sums received after the age of 55. Consultation has been a feature of the development of the present proposals. The Government recognised that, for such a very complex change to the income tax law, consultation was essential. Accordingly, we announced the broad principles and structure of the new arrangements in May last year, but also indicated that we would sit down with interested parties and be receptive to views that were consistent with the broad thrust of the new arrangements. We have had extensive consultations with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and the Confederation of Australian Industry. We have also consulted with and received submissions from very many other groups, including the superannuation industry. As a result of these consultations we have made a number of modifications to the original proposals to meet reasonable concerns. We have significantly reduced the tax rates to apply. In particular, the first $50,000 of a lump sum paid after age 55 is to attract a 15 per cent rate. As announced in the Press statement of 7 August 1983, we have made changes that recognise the concerns registered in respect of lump sum death benefits and disability payments. We have also made special provision for the treatment of lump sum payments received under the auspices of approved early retirement schemes. The guidelines and mechanism for approval of such schemes are included in this Bill. The Government has not, of course, been able to accommodate all proposals for change to the new arrangements. Some groups have suggested changes that would strike at the basic rationale of the new arrangements or changes that reflect little more than an aversion to paying more tax. Because the new taxation arrangements are to apply from 1 July 1983, there are major administrative reasons for the Government wishing to secure passage of this legislation during the current sittings, and in advance of the distribution of income tax return forms for the 1983-84 income year. I turn now to the main features of the Bill. The taxation arrangements proposed for termination payments depend upon four attributes: Whether the payment is one judged to be a payment that is subject to the new taxation treatment; whether transitional rules apply to the payment; whether the payment falls into a category which attracts concessional taxation treatment, and the extent to which the taxpayer has appropriately ''rolled-over' ' the termination payment so as to defer the tax payable on it. To elaborate on the first of these attributes, the new taxation treatment proposed by the Bill is to apply to three classes of payment made on or after 1 July 1983. These payments are described in the Bill as ''eligible termination payments''. The first class is those retirement and kindred payments that are generally assessable under the existing law as to 5 per cent of the amount paid. This category includes payments from superannuation funds upon retirement through age or invalidity or upon other cessation of employment, ''golden handshakes'' and other severance payments, contractual termination payments, payments in lieu of unused sick leave and payments in compensation for loss of office or employment. The second class of payment consists of those amounts that have their origin in untaxed income and are not taxed at all under the existing law. This category includes payments in full or partial commutation of pensions and most classes of annuity, payments of residual capital values of pensions and such annuities, distributors made from superannuation funds in accordance with fund rules during an employee's service, and termination payments made otherwise than as a lump sum. The third class is payments from approved deposit funds. The changes will not apply to capital sums paid under covenants in restraint of trade or as compensation for loss of income through personal injury and amounts received on retirement or termination of employment in lieu of annual leave or long service leave. Payments of these kinds will remain subject to the existing law. The press statement of 7 August 1983 indicates that in certain circumstances amounts by way of death benefits would be exempt from the new taxation arrangements. I now clarify the scope of the exemption for death benefits. The death benefits exemption will apply to the following cases of termination payments to the estate, widow, widower or dependents of a deceased person: Payments from a superannuation fund; gratuities in the form of ''golden handshakes''; and withdrawals from approved deposit funds. The exemption will not extend to commutations of superannuation pensions and annuities. To do so would tend to encourage, through the tax system, the conversion of retirement income streams into capital amounts. Because the rationale for the death-benefit exemption is our concern to alleviate any possible financial hardship for those dependent on the deceased person, the exemption will be restricted to situations where, and to the extent to which, an amount paid to an estate is for the benefit of the spouse or dependants of the deceased person. Death benefit payments within the scope of the exemption will be free of tax in the recipient's hands. As already mentioned, the Bill has no element of retrospectivity in the application of the new taxation arrangements. Where a payment is subject to the new rules only so much of the payment as is referable to periods of service or fund membership after 30 June 1983 will be subject to the new tax treatment. Any part of the payment that is referable to service or membership up to 30 June 1983 will continue to be taxed on the basis of the existing law. The standard rule for apportioning a lump sum into its ''before'' and ''after'' components is to be that the ''pre-30 June 1983 component'' is the proportion of the basic payment that the period of the taxpayer's service or fund membership up to 30 June 1983 bears to the total period of service or fund membership. The total period may include periods of employment prior to attaining fund membership. Where there has been a full transfer of benefits between funds or between a fund and the issuer of an annuity, total period of service will also include periods of membership of the earlier fund or funds. Periods during which moneys are held in an approved deposit fund are also to be included. Any period of entitlement to a pension or annuity is to be included in the case of payments that result from a commutation, or consist of the residual capital value, of that pension or annuity. As the press statement of 7 August 1983 indicated, where a lump sum is only partially preserved by transfer to another fund, there will be an adjustment, related to the unpreserved amount, to the operation of the ''before/after'' formula. The Bill provides that a proportion of the period of service up to 30 June 1983 will be used in the application of the ''before/after'' formula to a termination payment from the later fund. The proportion will be determined by reference to how much of the ''pre-30 June 1983'' component of the first lump sum is preserved. From the viewpoint of the tax rate to apply, payments subject to the new arrangements may consist of four different classes of component. First, there is the ''pre-30 June 1983 component'' that is referable to service or fund membership up to 30 June 1983. This is to be taxed on the basis of the existing law. Accordingly, 5 per cent of the amount will generally be included in assessable income, but in certain circumstances, such as where the amount is tax-free under existing law, a lesser amount or no amount may be assessable. The second class is the component of an eligible termination payment that represents contributions by the employee or fund member after 30 June 1983 that have not attracted an income tax deduction. These are to be exempt from tax. Third, there will be the part of the eligible termination payment which relates to service or fund membership after 30 June 1983-Net of any employee contributions which have not attracted a tax deduction. This component is to be included in full in assessable income. A tax rebate, however, will apply to ensure that the ''after 30 June 1983'' component of a lump sum received before the taxpayer reaches age 55 is taxed at a flat rate of 30 per cent. The first $ 50,000 of a lump sum received after a taxpayer reaches age 55 is to be taxed at 15 per cent. Finally, an eligible termination payment may include various concessional components which will be assessable as to 5 per cent. These components are such parts of an eligible termination payment as consist of a bona fide redundancy payment, a payment under an approved early retirement scheme or an invalidity payment. The concession for redundancy and early retirement payments will apply to the extent that the eligible termination payment exceeds the amount that would have been received had the employee resigned on the date of the retrenchment or early retirement. In the case of a person who retires prematurely due to invalidity the application of the ''before/after'' transition formula will be varied so that, in determining the ''before 30 June 1983'' component, the individual's notional period of service from the date of invalidity until normal retirement will be treated as ''before'' service. The benefit of this concession will increase with the length of the period from the individual's invalidity retirement to his or her normal retirement age. The tax treatment of an eligible termination payment will depend upon the extent, if any, to which the payment is ''rolled over'' by way of payment into any of the following forms of investment: A superannuation fund for the provision of superannuation benefits for the taxpayer (or in the event of the taxpayer's death, his or her dependants); An approved deposit fund; or The purchase of an annuity for the benefit of the taxpayer. Any part of the eligible termination payment may be ''rolled over'' in this manner. To the extent to which a component of an eligible termination payment is ''rolled over'', it will be exempt from tax unless and until returned to the taxpayer in a taxable form. A person will generally have a period of up to 90 days after receiving an eligible termination payment in which to ''roll over'' the payment in order to secure immediate exemption from tax. As a transitional measure, the initial ''roll over'' period will be from 30 June 1983 to the date 90 days after royal assent to this legislation. Having regard to the role of annuities as one of the designated ''roll over'' mediums for exempting a termination payment from tax, the Government has proposed the removal of major impediments to the development of the annuities market. These steps are directed to making annuities a viable alternative form of retirement income provision for retired persons. In particular, this Bill removes the effective double taxation of income that applied to most annuities, where those annuities are used for retirement income purposes. The Government has previously announced its intention to make the writing of annuity business more attractive to life offices by changing the minimum valuations basis prescribed under the Life Insurance Act. This Bill also sees to it that if a purchased annuity or pension is derived successively by two or more persons, the exclusion from assessable income of the capital component of the annuity or pension (commonly called the ''Undeducted Purchase Price'') will not be lost on the death of the person who made the contributions or paid the purchase price. Further, superannuation contributions and other payments towards a purchased annuity or pension that are concessionally rebatable under the income tax law are to be treated as part of the undeducted purchase price even though some tax concession by way of rebate at the standard rate may have been allowable. These measures will to an extent operate to reduce the tax payable on income in the form of an annuity or pension. We have also proposed a more generous-and fairer-treatment of the return-of- capital component of annuity income in the assets test for the determination of eligibility for the age pension than currently applies in relation to the income test. The Government has announced its intention to issue indexed bonds, which will facilitate the supply by financial institutions of indexed annuities and pensions. As a further step, the Government is proposing to conduct a review, to be completed by 30 September 1984, of the scope for wider participation in the issue of annuities. I emphasise that these changes are designed to make annuities more attractive by putting the tax treatment on a par with that of other retirement incomes and to remove other disadvantages associated with annuities. The Government's measures have not been designed to force people to take retirement income as an annuity, rather than in a single payment-but rather to restore taxation even- handedness between these alternatives. In proposing these improvements to the law governing the taxing of annuity income, the Government has taken the opportunity to remedy a deficiency in the existing law revealed in the decision in the case of Federal Commissioner of Taxation v. Harris in which the Federal Court of Australia held that a gratuitous supplementary payment to a retired employee by a former employer was not assessable income. Payments of this kind will be made subject to tax. A feature of the Bill is its framework for the establishment of approved deposit funds. An approved deposit fund will be one established to receive on deposit amounts of eligible termination payments, to deal with those amounts in accordance with specified rules and to repay those amounts with accumulated earnings at the request of the depositor. The Bill allows for wide participation in the conduct of approved deposit funds . Categories of institutions specifically eligible to establish approved deposit funds include banks, life insurance companies, State government insurance offices, trade unions, employee associations, building societies, finance companies, money market corporations, credit unions, friendly or benefit societies and trustee corporations. As well, other institutions or classes of institutions may be added by regulation. I mention that the Bill does not impose any prudential requirements in respect of approved deposit funds-except for certain rules designed for revenue protection purposes. Depositors will need to make their own decisions in selecting between approved deposit fund institutions and in considering the terms and conditions on which deposit facilities are offered. As long as such a fund is maintained at all times by an approved trustee as an indefinitely continuing fund for approved purposes and with approved rules, the investment income of the fund will be exempt from tax. If, by virtue of non-compliance with the rules for the operation of approved deposit funds, the income of an approved deposit fund is not exempt from tax but the fund is maintained by an approved trustee on the last day of the year of income, the income will be subject to tax at the rate of 46 per cent. If the fund is not maintained by an approved trustee, the income will fall to be taxed under the general trust provisions of the income tax law. The Government has also reviewed the taxation status of superannuation funds for which investment income is already taxed, against concerns that-with increased taxation of the end-benefit in the hands of the recipient-the total tax burden borne by a member of a taxed fund may be unduly high. Investment income derived by most classes of superannuation fund-generally section 23F and paragraph 23 (ja) and 23 (jaa) funds-is currently exempt from taxation in most situations. There are some exceptions in the form of section 79 funds and section 121DA funds. We have decided to reduce certain taxation rates which apply to taxed funds; with effect for the 1984-85 income year. In particular the penalty tax rate on non-approved (section 121DA) funds will generally fall from 60 per cent to 46 per cent. The penalty rate for non- compliance with the 30/20 investment rules by section 23F funds (employer- sponsored employee funds) and paragraph 23 (ja) funds (approved funds for 20 or more self-employed persons) is to fall from 46 per cent to 30 per cent. As a measure to guard against exploitation of these reduced tax rates for tax avoidance purposes, funds which do not provide genuine superannuation benefits on retirement will continue to be taxed at the rate of 60 per cent. Payments from such funds will not be subject to the new tax treatment. Nor will employer contributions to these funds any longer be tax deductible. The final tax rate change concerns section 79 (non-supported employees and self -employed persons) funds whose investment income has been subject to tax at the specified rate of 50 per cent. Relief in the form of a special deduction equal to 5 per cent of the cost of certain prescribed assets has enabled such funds to reduce substantially the effective tax rate payable. It is proposed that the investment income of these funds will in future be exempt from income tax and the 5 per cent cost-of-assets deduction will therefore be abolished. A benefit of this will be the removal of incentives that led section 79 funds to distort severely their choice of investments. Section 79 requires that benefits generally not be paid before the fund member' s 60th birthday. The same requirement is usually adopted by the Commissioner of Taxation in administrative rulings in relation to benefits paid by paragraph 23 (ja) funds. Under the Bill there will be a reduction in the earliest age at which benefits may be paid from age 60 to age 55. This is consistent with contemporary community standards as to earlier retirement which are also reflected in the Government's decision that the earliest qualifying age for the concessional 15 per cent tax rate under the new lump sum measures is to be 55 years. Pay-as-you-earn tax instalment deductions are to apply when an eligible termination payment is made to a person. Such deductions will be required whether the eligible termination payment is made by the employer of the person or, for example, by the trustee of a superannuation fund or from an approved deposit fund on withdrawal of a deposit. The paye arrangements are to apply from 1 August 1984. I turn now to other features of the Bill. Speculative transactions Under section 26 (a) of the Income Tax Assessment Act, the assessable income of a taxpayer includes any profit made on the sale of property acquired for the purpose of profit-making by sale, or from the carrying on or carrying out of any profit-making undertaking of scheme. On budget night last year, we announced the government's decision to amend that provision to overcome some clear technical deficiencies it contained. To give effect to this decision the existing provision is to be repealed and a new section introduced covering both the present operation of section 26 (a) and the remedial measures. The first measure will cover those situations where an entity, typically a private company, acquires property with the intention of profit-making by sale and, when the property has appreciated in value, the proprietors of the company effectively dispose of the property and realise the profit by selling some or all of the shares in the company. The relevant provisions will extend to the disposal of an interest in a private trust estate or a partnership which is used as the vehicle to hold the underlying property, or where an interest in such property is effectively held through a chair of companies or through any combination of interposed companies, partnerships or trusts. These provisions will ensure that such part of the proceeds of a sale or such shares or interests occurring after 23 August 1983 as represents a profit on the effective disposal of the direct or indirect interest in the underlying property will be included in the assessable income of the vendors. The second measure will authorise the inclusion in assessable income of profits made on the sale of bonus shares or rights arising from ownership of shares in situations where, had a profit been made on disposal of the original shares, that profit would be assessable. This provision will apply to bonus shares or rights acquired after 23 August 1983. A further measure will cover the situation where a person disposes of property acquired, after 23 August 1983, in a non-arm's length manner from the original owner in circumstances where, if the original owner had sold the property, there would have been a liability to tax on the profit arising from the sale. In these circumstances, the donee or transferee will be treated as having acquired the relevant property for the same purpose as it was acquired by the original owner and thus attract appropriate tax consequences. However, where the transferee has incurred expenditure in making improvements to the transferred property before it is sold (other than expenditure on the property which was also incurred for profit-making purposes), that part of the profit on sale which is attributable to those improvements will not be treated as taxable. Allowance will also be made for the amount of any profit that has been included in the assessable income of the transferor in a case where the transfer was made for inadequate consideration. The provision will also have application to a distribution in specie to a shareholder or beneficiary from a company or trust, but will not apply to any property acquired by a beneficiary in a distribution from a deceased estate. In addition, the Bill contains provisions which make it clear that strict legal identity between the property purchased and the property sold is not necessary where the general requirements for application of the section are met. Under these provisions a taxpayer will be taken to have acquired property for the purpose of profit-making by sale where the property sold is an interest in property which was acquired for speculative purposes or where it is property in which has been merged an interest in property acquired for speculative purposes. In such circumstances, the amount to be included in the assessable income will be ascertained with regard to the property or interest which was originally acquired for the purpose of re-sale at a profit. The measures I have just outlined will remove certain technical deficiencies which, over the years, have resulted in the intended application of the law relating to the taxation of speculative profits being avoided. Reflecting the nature of these changes, the Bill also contains a number of consequential and complementary technical amendments to the provisions of the income tax law which prescribe the circumstances in which a loss on the disposal of property may be allowed as a deduction. Subscriptions to licensed management and investment companies This legislation also implements the taxation aspects of the incentive scheme announced on 14 September 1983 to encourage the development of a substantial venture capital market in Australia. Under the proposals, initial subscribers of share capital in companies licenced under the Management and Investment Companies Act 1983 will be entitled to an income tax deduction equal to the capital subscribed on their shares, including any share premiums. This concession will have an annual revenue cost of about $20m and the amounts of share capital authorised to be raised by licensed companies will be monitored so that it reflects the level of support intended by the Government. The deduction will be allowable, in the year in which the subscription is made, in respect of amounts paid after 13 September 1983 to a licensed management and investment company (MIC) on application for or allotment of shares, and on subsequent calls. Consistent with the aim of the scheme to encourage patient capital into high- risk investment areas, deductions so allowed will be subject to withdrawal or partial disallowance if a shareholder disposes of his or her shares within a 4 year period. Relevant periods will be measured from the time when the shares are fully paid-up or, in the case of partially paid-up shares, from the date on which the last amount of share moneys was paid. Under these arrangements, the deduction will be wholly withdrawn if the disposal takes place within 2 years, while 50 per cent or 25 per cent respectively of the deduction will be withdrawn if there is a disposal in the 3rd or 4th year. There will be comparable withdrawal or partial withdrawal of deductions if an MIC has its licence revoked or not renewed by the MIC Licensing Board or if shares in the company are redeemed, cancelled or forfeited, or their capital value is reduced, within the 4 year period. The deduction for subscriptions paid on shares held in a licensed MIC will generally be limited to amounts paid by the initial subscriber but where the shares devolve on account of the death of the original subscriber the new owner will be entitled to deductions in respect of any calls that he or she pays. Subscriptions will generally attract deductions only if made at a time when the MIC is licensed or, if made before the grant of a licence, where the MIC licensing board determines that they were made in anticipation of the licence being granted or to ensure that the company satisfies statutory minimum paid-up capital requirements as a pre-requisite to the grant of a licence. Safeguarding provisions in the bill are designed to prevent the 4 year holding rules being circumvented by arrangements under which persons could dispose of an interest in MIC shares held indirectly through their ownership of company shares or through partnership or trust interests. Appropriate assessing adjustments will be authorised to reflect the underlying disposal of interests in the MIC shares by the persons who have effectively enjoyed the benefit of the deductions . Repairs and other expenditure not wholly to produce assessable income The bill will clarify, in relation to property that is used only partly for the purpose of producing assessable income, the operation of the provision of the income tax law which allows a deduction for expenditure on repairs. The Government's decision to amend the income tax law in this way was announced on 18 April 1984, following a decision handed down by a taxation board of review which held that a deduction was allowable for the whole of the cost of repairs to a car in a year of income, although the car was used only partly for business purposes. The amendment will restore the previously understood principle of longstanding that expenditure should be deductible only to the extent that it is incurred for the purpose of producing assessable income. In addition, we announced at the same time that the Government had decided to propose amendments to three other provisions of the law which might be affected by the views emerging from the Board's decision. These authorise deductions for expenses of borrowing, expenses relating to lease documents and expenses relating to the grant of patents or the registration of designs or copyrights. The proposed amendments will apply to expenditure in these categories incurred on or after 19 April 1984. Rent subsidy payments Under the mortgage and rent relief scheme, the Commonwealth and the States and Northern Territory share on a 50/50 basis the cost of providing short-term financial assistance to tenants and mortgagors who are experiencing genuine financial difficulty in meeting their rent or mortgage commitments. Payments under the scheme may take the form of rent subsidies, help with bond payments and re-location expenses and assistance with mortgage repayments. With the single exception of those rent subsidies that are paid direct to a tenant, payments under these assistance arrangements have no income tax consequences for the tenants and mortgagors being assisted. The Bill will amend the income tax law so that rent subsidy payments made direct to persons being assisted are exempt from tax and so maintain comparable net levels of assistance to all those qualifying for relief. To ensure that all such payments made from the commencement of the mortgage and rent relief scheme are exempt, the amendment will apply to payments made after 17 August 1982. Prescribed payments system The prescribed payments system was introduced by the Government in September 1983 to deal with a significant tax evasion problem involving the non-reporting of income in certain industries. There is already ample evidence that it has been a success in this regard. While the Government has been pleased with the early results of the system, it has always appreciated that some adjustments could be required in the light of experience. It was for this reason that the Government acted swiftly to place on the statute books the changes to the system recommended by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations late last year. Since then, the Government has continued to monitor the system's operation and, as announced on 3 May 1984, we have decided to introduce a further change to reduce the paperwork associated with the system in connection with the preparation and lodgment of income tax returns. This will remove the immediate effect the statutory requirements for copies of deduction forms received by payees to be furnished with their annual income tax returns. At the same time, the Commissioner of Taxation has indicated his intention that the schedule of deduction forms which it was envisaged would also have to accompany a payee's return, will now only have to be completed in respect of forms relating to prescribed payments from which tax deductions have been made. Where tax is not required to be withheld from prescribed payments, only the total income recorded on relevant deduction forms will need to be shown on the return form. A review of the first six months operation of the prescribed payments system is currently proceeding and the Government will consider other aspects of the system's operation following completion of that review. Life insurance business of friendly societies Because friendly societies are specifically exempt from tax they are, in relation to the investment income they receive from their life, disability and accident insurance business, placed at an advantage over life insurance companies. In the 19 May 1983 economic statement we announced that the Government had decided that the tax exemption of friendly society income from such business would be terminated in respect of the 1983-84 and later income years. This Bill will give effect to that decision. Reflecting this Government's approach in dealing with the introduction of measures such as these, I note that the details of the new arrangements as announced on 17 April 1984 were settled in the light of extensive discussion and correspondence with representatives of the friendly societies and other interested parties. The Bill will make friendly societies subject to tax in the 1983-84 and later income years on earnings from investment of funds from their life, disability and accident insurance business. Earnings from traditional activities of friendly societies in providing sickness and funeral benefits will continue to be exempt from tax. In addition, the assessable income of friendly societies will not include earnings related to superannuation business and annuities of a kind which, as I mentioned earlier, are to be exempt when issued by a life office. In determining their taxable incomes, friendly societies are to be allowed deductions for expenditures related wholly to the earning of the income that is to be assessable. Other expenditures incurred in earning income but not directly related to a specific income source, such as general overheads, will be pro- rated between exempt and assessable income, and will be deductible in part on that basis. Within the aim of achieving a tax treatment broadly comparable on average to that applicable to the non-superannuation business of life offices, the Government has devised a less complex legislative basis of taxing friendly societies than applies to life offices. Thus the 30/20 investment rules will not apply to friendly societies. Certain concessional provisions applied in the assessment of life offices will not enter into the calculation of friendly societies' taxable income either. The effect of those concessions generally result in life offices bearing, on average, effective rates of tax on their investment income that are well below the nominal tax rate of 46 per cent applied to the taxable incomes of life offices. For these and other reasons, including the statutory constraints which typically apply to the investment avenues of friendly societies, the Government has decided that the rate of tax to be applied to the taxable investment income of friendly societies should be 20 per cent. The present Bill also proposes to allow a 30 per cent rebate to holders of policies issued by friendly societies who are taxed in 1983-84 or later years on proceeds of certain short-term policies. This will ensure treatment consistent with that accorded to policy holders of life offices under recent amendments to the income tax law. Capital contributions to government-owned railway rolling stock The Bill will also authorise deductions-under special provisions in Division 10AAA of the income tax law which permit the write-off of expenditure on mineral transport facilities-for capital contributions to the cost of railway rolling- stock owned by a Government or Government Authority and used for the transport of minerals, including petroleum. Capital contributions of this kind where incurred after 9 March 1984, the date on which this change was foreshadowed, will be deductible over 10 years or, at the option of the taxpayer, over 20 years. Expenditure on railway rolling-stock is currently excluded from the scope of Division 10AAA but if the rolling-stock is owned by a taxable entity its cost is eligible for deduction under the general depreciation provisions of the income tax law. The practice has recently developed for mineral producers to be required by State Authorities to contribute to the cost of railway rolling-stock used for the carriage of their mineral output but which continues to be owned by a Government or tax-exempt Government authority. Without the proposed amendment no deduction would be allowable in these case either under Division 10AAA, because of the specific exclusion, or by way of depreciation, because the rolling stock is not owned by the mining company. Gifts Under the gift provisions of the income tax law, deductions are allowed for gifts of the value of $2 or more to specified funds, authorities and institutions. These provisions are to be amended to authorise deductions for gifts made between 27 June and 30 November 1983 to the African Famine Appeal conducted by the International Disaster Emergencies Committee. By virtue of the Gazettal, on 1 December 1983, of the IDEC Overseas Disaster Aid Fund as and eligible fund for the purposes of the income tax gift provisions, any donation made to the appeal on or after that date is already tax deductible. A detailed technical explanation of the Bill is contained in an explanatory memorandum that has been circulated to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Income Tax (Companies, Corporate Unit Trusts and Superannuation Funds) Amendment Bill 1984 This Bill is complementary to proposals contained in the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1984 which I have just introduced. It will amend the Income Tax (Companies, Corporate Unit Trusts and Superannuation Funds) Act 1983 which imposes income tax on income derived by companies, corporate unit trusts and superannuation funds and established rates of tax for that purpose. The purpose of the amendments made by this Bill is to declare and impose the rate of tax payable on the taxable income of certain approved deposit funds- whose establishment is provided for under the previous Bill-in cases where such a fund fails to meet the statutory requirements for tax exemptions set by that Bill. The rate of tax so imposed on the income of a non-complying approved deposit fund by this Bill is to be 46 per cent and will apply for the 1983-84 financial year and, until the Parliament otherwise provides, for the 1984-85 financial year. In accordance with established practice, rates of tax applying to the 1983-84 year of income for companies-which will, at the rate of 20%, also apply to the insurance business of friendly societies and other registered organisations-will be declared by a bill to be introduced in the Budget sittings. Similarly, rates of tax for 1984-85 in respect of superannuation funds will be dealt with then. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of all or several of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of all or several of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Second Readings Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(9.59) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speeches in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRLINES COMMISSION RETENTION BILL 1984 Mr President, I have very much pleasure in introducing this Bill. The purpose of the Australian National Airlines Commission Retention Bill 1984 is to repeal the previous Government's legislation providing for the establishment of TAA as a public company and to remove any doubt that TAA will remain a Statutory Authority of the Commonwealth. There is no doubt the previous Government's ultimate aim in setting TAA up as a public company was to sell it off to private interests. This has become clear in the Opposition's remarks made in the earlier debates on this Bill in the other place. Although it was not their stated position, it is also clear now that the previous Government was gearing up to a situation where they could deregulate the industry. They wanted to set TAA up as a company, sell it off and then deregulate the industry. What would have resulted would have been chaos. The new owners of the privatised TAA would then be thrust into a position of trying to survive in a market which traditionally has had a tendency towards monopoly. The new owners would be in this position at a time when TAA would be considering re-equipping with new aircraft to replace its DC9s. The position of the Australian Labor Party is clear. It was clear when we were in Opposition and it is clear now. It is our stated policy that TAA will remain wholly owned by the Commonwealth. In these circumstances (full Government ownership of TAA) there are no real advantages of moving to set the airline up as a public company over retaining it as a Statutory Authority. The Government sees no reason to subject TAA to the turmoil and dislocation of transforming from a commission to a company when it can operate just as efficiently and with full accountability to the Government and the Parliament in its present form. Indeed, retention of TAA as a Statutory Authority gives the Government a policy arm to ensure the best interests of consumers are served. The previous Government's move to set TAA up as a public company, even at the initial stage of its being wholly owned by the Commonwealth, was frought with difficulties. These difficulties were complex and had the potential of costing the taxpayer considerable sums if they were to be overcome. Some of the difficulties involved were: The Transfer of matters from Commonwealth to State jurisdiction, for example, long service leave, workers' compensation, transfer of titles of land, eligibility for State taxation TAA's overseas loans would require renegotiation which would likely result in further requirements for Government guarantees and increased costs to TAA The requirement for specific legislation to allow TAA to operate certain of its intrastate services The requirement to pay State stamp duty on the transfer of property and assets from the Commission to the company involving likely expenditure of $3-5 million. The industrial implications over the potential changes in employment conditions and uncertainty over the future ownership of the airline. In addition, the previous government's attitude to TAA and its public position of uncertainty over the future ownership of the airline had a serious impact on TAA's management and staff. It had a significant effect on performance and morale. Why then go to the trouble. Why subject the airline to real uncertainty and reduce morale if they were not completely sure they would sell it and had not decided what the future regulatory arrangements for the domestic airlines would be towards the end of this decade. Honourable senators will know that the previous government had indicated that a review of the regulatory arrangements would be undertaken. But, this review would be conducted after TAA was transformed into a company. Surely the most appropriate course is to conduct the review first and then implement the necessary arrangements. This is the aim of the Government. However, there is one important step which must be taken before the review is conducted. That step is to remove the shackles which have placed TAA at a disadvantage over its competitors and update the provisions of its Act so that it can operate in a commercial manner befitting an airline of its stature in the 1980's and 1990's. This is the purpose of the other Bill in this package-the Australian National Airlines Amendment Bill 1984. Since coming to office, the Government has looked very hard at the difficulties faced by TAA and at the options for its future. The first major initiative on TAA taken by this Government was the injection of capital funds to reduce TAA's debt/equity ratio to a level more appropriate for a commercial business concern engaged in airline activity. Even the previous government was well aware of the handicap imposed on TAA by inadequate capitalisation. Their own consultants believed that TAA was starved of capital, and would require a large capital injection before any sale option could be entertained. For over twenty years TAA had struggled with a capital of $15m. This has meant that its investment in equipment has had to be financed solely by loan funds. The injection of a further $25m in December 1982 by the previous government helped, but at most it was a token gesture. The injection last June of a further $90m in capital by the present Government brought TAA's capital to $130m and gave the airline the flexibility to plan and finance its operations on a more commercial basis. The effect of this move is now becoming apparent. In 1981/82 and 1982/83 TAA's operating losses were $6.6m and $16.9m respectively. For 1983/84, TAA is budgeting for an operating profit-evidence of a significant turnaround in its financial performance. In defending the Australian consumer this Government's first plank is a strong, competitive TAA. Not one with its organisation under constant attack. This package of legislation achieves this aim. From that base a sensible approach can be adopted to a change in the regulatory environment of the Australian aviation industry. When we were in Opposition we did not believe that the 1981 airlines legislation should bind us to the two airline policy for a further 8 year period . There is a need to review the current arrangements. The Minister for Aviation has announced his plan to initiate a review later in the year. This review will need to consider the total framework of regulation which best suits our unique national requirements. It will be an orderly review and will place us in an informed position for determining the arrangements to apply into the 1990's. The review will need to look at previously neglected aspects of the industry which this Government is concerned should be covered in any future arrangements. In this category I include the protection of consumer interests. In other words, the balance will move away from what the airlines want to what the consumers want. The Minister for Aviation has taken great pains to make it quite clear that the timing of completion of the review will be such that the possibility of a renegotiation of the airlines agreement by early 1987, when notice of termination of the agreement may be given, will be opened up. It is not the Government's intention to leave aside an examination of the regulatory arrangements until the agreement runs its course. It is our intention to conduct an orderly and structured review. Since coming to office both the Minister for Aviation and myself have pointed to the possible difficulties that will arise if we determine a deregulated regime, or a liberalisation of regulation, without a thorough examination and understanding of the Australian aviation system. There are many issues to be examined before we can make a judgment. The origins of the two airline policy must be remembered. These rest essentially in the natural tendency of the aviation industry in Australia to move to a monopoly. While the tendency in the late 1940's, early 1950's was move to a public monopoly, there are certain features of the present industry, even though the system is bigger and and the economy more complex, which make the general tendency to monopoly, whether private or public, applicable today. Mr President, we should also be aware that the two airline policy is not just upheld by the legislation. It relates to the monopoly on expertise in operations and services the two airlines now enjoy. One of the reasons why deregulation has been possible in the United States is that there was a wealth of expertise and equipment which could be utilised by new airlines. A major impact of the deregulated regime was the laying-off of a large number of highly skilled employees by the existing airlines. This reservoir of skilled resources does not exist in Australia. Another very major issue is that the operation of the two airline policy for some thirty years has resulted in Ansett and TAA having an effective monopoly on access to terminal and other infrastructure facilities. They would also have, from the first day of deregulation, a monopoly of the large jet aircraft in operation in the country at that time. Consequently, their ability to adopt predatory pricing on each other, and more importantly on a new entrant, would be a real possibility. I agree Mr President, that it is worth examining the experiences of other countries. Many observers of the aviation industry point to the US experience. Others point to what has happened in New Zealand and to what is presently going on in Canada. In New Zealand, the situation of deregulation was preceded by effectively the creation of Air New Zealand as a monopoly for both domestic and foreign operations. Other potential airlines are thus severely limited in their abilities to openly compete on the market. The present moves in Canada appear to be much more realistic. The first requirement of the Canadian Government is to create an understanding of what is necessary for the Canadian airline system. This is to be based on a thorough understanding of the Canadian aviation environment. The government holds the view that this approach is the most appropriate for an examination of Australia' s domestic aviation sector. Both the Minister for Aviation and myself consider the recent statement by the Canadian Minister for Transport sums up to a significant degree the views of this government in relation to our regulatory arrangements. The Canadian Minister of Transport said: ''However, these benefits of airline deregulation in the US do not mean that Canada should necessarily take the same road. The political, socio-economic, demographic and geographic differences between Canada and the US, coupled with the evidence that US deregulation has also had some disadvantages, dictate a unique, 'made in Canada' approach to regulatory change.'' As I said earlier, what we need is an orderly approach to change in the regulatory environment. That orderly approach will also be based on what is the best set of arrangements which match the unique Australian system. What we have and will continue to do is to make certain that the changes that take place are in the interests of all consumers. During this period we will continue to maintain control over capacity-that is, whether or not additional aircraft should be imported and we will continue to have a strong, stable, properly equipped, TAA. In contrast to the Opposition, the Government will pursue a logical and structured approach to the future of the Australian domestic aviation industry. We will not pursue change for change's sake. We will conduct a comprehensive review to recommend on appropriate domestic aviation regulatory arrangements, and we will make the necessary changes in a measured and deliberate manner. Our aims are to ensure that the interest of consumers are properly protected and that the aviation industry is provided with the stability necessary for its future development. The retention of TAA in full public ownership and as a statutory authority, is an essential pre-condition to the achievement of these aims. A strong and vital TAA will be a major asset to all Australians, whatever regulatory arrangements apply to Australian aviation in the future. I commend the Bill to the Senate. AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRLINES AMENDMENT BILL 1984 Mr President, I now introduce the second Bill in this package of legislation. Honourable senators will be aware that TAA has been operating at a significant disadvantage to its competitors for many years. The principal difficulties faced by TAA in recent years have been threefold. First, it was severely under capitalised Secondly, it has had to carry a superannuation burden considerably higher than its principle competitors, Ansett Thirdly, outdated provisions in its legislation have unduly hampered the management of TAA. The first of these difficulties-the under capitalisation of TAA-was quickly addressed by this Government when we assumed office. In June 1983 we increased the capital base of TAA from $40 million to $130 million. This has provided TAA with the working capital base needed to ensure that it can operate effectively, and has been a major factor in enabling the airline to significantly improve its financial performance during this financial year. The Bill now before the Senate will address the two remaining areas of difficulty to which I have referred. TAA has suffered significant disadvantage through the level of contribution the Commission has been required to make to the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme. Let me deal with the superannuation problem first. The effect of the arrangement whereby the groundstaff of TAA were eligible to join the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme, has meant that the Commission has been required to make employer contributions to the scheme at a level significantly greater than for schemes provided for similar employees in Ansett and other private organisations. In fact, the level of contribution by TAA has been around two and a half times greater than the equivalent industry rate. As a result, the Commission, in consultation with its various industrial organisations, has set up private superannuation schemes for new employees and existing staff who took up the option of transferring from the Commonwealth Scheme. The level of contribution by the Commission to these schemes is commercially negotiated and is generally equivalent to Ansett's schemes. However , many TAA employees exercised their right to remain with the Commonwealth Scheme. This is one area where even the previous government realised TAA was facing an unfair burden. The Government has decided to remove this disadvantage and embody in legislation the provision that TAA pay employer contributions to the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme at the same rate as it contributes to its equivalent private scheme. Outdated provisions in its legislation have required the Commission to continually obtain the approval of various arms of Government in matters which, in comparison with its competitors, were of a relatively minor, day to day nature. This has imposed unnecessary management constraints on the Commission. The Government has therefore undertaken a close examination of the relationship between TAA and the Government. In carrying out this review, the Government has had the benefit of the Commission's views on the best way of improving the commerciality of TAA. Against this background the main objective of the Australian National Airlines Amendment Bill 1984 is to give TAA greater flexibility of management and greater responsibility in its commercial airline operations while providing an appropriate level of ministerial control and oversight. This Bill achieves this purpose. Under the arrangements proposed by the Government, TAA will be able on strictly commercial grounds to request additional capital; have more freedom in relation to staffing, purchase and disposal of assets; and more freedom in borrowing arrangements, application of profits after dividend, and insurance arrangements. These provisions will allow TAA to take decisions in line with commercial reality. In addition, TAA will be required to set profit and dividend targets based on commercial criteria. However, to ensure an appropriate level of accountability, the Government will retain the right, under the proposed legislation, to approve or revise these targets. I turn now to the specific provisions of the Bill. Under clause 4, the Commission has been increased from seven members to a minimum of seven and a maximum of nine. This has been done to increase the level of representation on the Commission and to provide greater management efficiency in giving TAA the ability to draw on expertise when needed. Clauses 5 to 7 update arrangements for the appointment of Commissioners and acting arrangements and procedures to be adopted where a member may have a pecuniary interest. Clause 8 increases the Quorum for Commission meetings from three to four to cover the increased membership and to make the arrangements similar to those of the Australian Shipping Commission (ANL) and the Australian National Railways Commission (ANR). Clause 10 allows the Commission to exercise its discretion in determining employment and employment conditions of its staff. Salary and allowances of the General Manager will continue to be subject to determination by the Remuneration Tribunal. Although clause 11 repeals this reference in the Australian National Airlines Act 1945, the arrangement is presently covered by the provisions of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973. This will allow any future revisions to the arrangement for the determination of the Remuneration of Chief Executives of Commonwealth Statutory Authorities to be implemented without further amendment to TAA's Act. In regard to the operation of Intrastate Services, clause 12 provides that the consent of the State Premier is no longer required before TAA can provide Intrastate Services in Queensland and Tasmania. This is replaced with the requirement that TAA operate these services in accordance with State Law and puts TAA on the same basis as any other operator wishing to engage in these services. In passing I should point out that this amendment was proposed by the previous Government in its 1980 legislation. Clause 13 revises arrangements that require the Commission to obtain the approval of the Minister before establishing or before buying shares in another body corporate, in circumstances where TAA would have effective control of that organisation. While the present Act does not contain the requirement for ministerial approval, its inclusion has been considered necessary to ensure there is proper ministerial accountability over the actions of the Commission in this area. For a very long time, the Commission has been hamstrung by the requirement to seek ministerial approval before acquiring or disposing of any property, right or privilege, or entering into a contract for the construction of a building, where such arrangements exceed $250,000 in value. Ministerial approval has also been required for the lease of land where the period of the lease exceeds ten years. Clearly these limits are now well out of date and clause 14 provides for an increase in the monetary limits to $5 million for land and buildings and $2 million in respect of other contracts. Ministerial approval is also required to cover circumstances where TAA guarantees the borrowings of a subsidiary or another organisation and thus may become liable for the repayment of the loan, if the potential liability exceeds $2 million. Arrangements similar to those applying to ANR and ANL are to be included under clause 15 to ensure that TAA is reimbursed for any losses incurred in operating services where it has been directed to do so by the Minister. Similarly, the Minister is to table the details of those directions in the Parliament. TAA will be able to seek the injection of additional capital from the Commonwealth in circumstances where the commission considers it is commercially justified, as provided in clause 16. Clause 17 removes the existing arrangements for the payment of dividends. These are replaced by clause 18, whereby the commission makes a recommendation on commercial grounds to the Minister on the level of dividend for each financial year. The Minister can approve or direct the commission to pay a different dividend but in making a determination, the Minister not only has to take into account commercial criteria but is also required to table in Parliament a notice with reasons. The effect of the amendment is the removal of the ability used effectively by the previous Government to limit TAA's access to funds-funds which could have been used to finance re-equipment programs or, invested elsewhere to reduce TAA' s heavy dependence on borrowings. Let us be quite clear as to the impact of the policies of the previous Government. Over the seven year period 1975-76 to 1981-82, TAA earned almost $20 million in profits but was required to pay back almost $18 million in dividends. This represents repayments of about 90 per cent of its profits. Under the new arrangements, the dividend payment will be more attuned to commercial realities rather than to the revenue requirements of governments. Clause 18 also provides for revised arrangements in respect to borrowings, superannuation and financial policy. In regard to borrowings, TAA will be given additional freedom to raise monies by dealing in securities. Similar provisions were included in the changes made to ANR and ANL last year. The provisions covering Commonwealth guarantees on loans have been extended to cover the guarantee of penalty interest and to loans taken out by wholly owned subsidiaries of the commission set up to own and operate aircraft. This provision is to put TAA on a similar footing as its major competitor, Ansett. This Government has recognised the particular disadvantage TAA has faced in the arrangements applying to those of its staff who are members of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme. Unlike Ansett, TAA has had to make employer contributions in respect of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme at a level of more than double the equivalent industry rate. TAA has established its own superannuation plan for new staff and existing staff have been given the option to transfer from the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme. Under the new arrangements to be embodied in the legislation, TAA will only be required to make contributions in respect of employees who remain in the Commonwealth scheme at the same rate as it contributes to its own plan. In line with the previous Government's decision the Commonwealth will fund the shortfall. However, the impact of this liability will be gradual and will not affect the Commonwealth's budget for some time to come. In regard to the financial policy of the Commission, the Bill, as mentioned earlier, enables the Commission to set profit targets on a commercial basis. These targets will be subject to the approval of the Minister who may direct that a different target be set. I should emphasise that in setting the profit target, both the Commission and the Minister must take account of the need to maintain the net worth of TAA and to consider the profit on the basis of the need to ensure a reasonable return on capital. The net worth of the Commission is the equivalent of a company's shareholders funds and is defined as the sum of capital, reserves and retained profits. As is the case with respect to dividends, the Minister will be required to table in the parliament the notice of direction and the associated reasons where a different profit target has been determined. During the currency of each financial year the commission will be required to periodically review its performance as it relates to the profit target. To maintain an overall view of TAA's performance, the commission will be required to draw up annually a three-year rolling corporate plan. This plan will contain TAA's financial and operational targets, its policies and strategies and , because the commercial information in these plans would be of obvious benefit to TAA's competitors, it will remain confidential to the government. Under clause 20, the commission will be given authority over the operation of its insurance accounts. This authority will be subject to a disallowance provision which the minister must exercise within 30 days. I should emphasise that the new provision does not remove the requirement for TAA to insure against its major risks nor does it alter the basic function of the insurance accounts. What it does do is to require the minister to take positive action if he considers the proposed arrangements by the commission inappropriate. Clause 21 allows the Commission the freedom to determine how the balance of profits, after the dividend has been paid, can be applied. This gives the commission the unrestricted choice in regard to commercial investment decisions. The reporting requirements of the commission have remained basically unchanged. The only revision has been to place a time period of 21 days for the Minister for Finance to approve or make a direction altering the form of TAA's financial statements. Clause 23 provides for an update in the reference to the current airlines agreement, while clause 24 extends the provision for compensation for damage to property to that owned by wholly owned subsidiaries owning and operating aircraft. At the request of the commission, the Act is being amended by clause 25 to repeal the provision relating to the arrest of offenders. The Bill also contains a number of machinery amendments to provide for the legislation to be in accord with modern drafting practice. I am sure honourable senators will agree that the government is adopting the best arrangements, not only for TAA but the Australian travelling public. TAA has already responded well to the injection of $90 million in capital funds last financial year. This Bill, by further enhancing TAA's competitiveness, will enable the airline to take further initiatives which would not have been possible under the previous government. They will make TAA a truly competitive force in Australia's airline industry well into the 1990's. I commend the Bill to the Senate. AIR NAVIGATION AMENDMENT BILL 1984 Mr President, the purpose of this Bill is to provide protection to aircraft crew members against the use of Cockpit Voice Recorders for purposes not related to air safety. The Bill will place restrictions on the access that interested parties may have to information obtained through Cockpit Voice Recorders (CVRS) in Civil Aircraft , and on the uses that may be made of such information in Australia. Cockpit Voice Recorders have been in use in Australian Civil Aircraft since 1964. They were installed for air safety purposes, as a means of obtaining information about the causes of accidents involving aircraft. Australia was among the first countries in the world to work on the development of Cockpit Voice Recorders, and then to require their use in certain classes of Civil Aircraft for air safety purposes. However Australia has lagged behind other countries in clarifying the uses to which information from CVRS may be put . CVRS record voice communications, announcements and other audible sounds in the cockpit of an aircraft, including crew conversations that may not be relevant to operation of the aircraft. The decision to require installation of CVRS in certain classes of Civil Aircraft operated in Australia was announced by the then Minister for Civil Aviation in March 1961. This decision was in response to the report of a Board of Accident Inquiry into the loss of a Fokker Friendship Aircraft at Mackay in 1960. The Board had been unable to reach any firm conclusion as to the causes of the accident, because there had been no survivors and no means of determining what had happened. The Board of Accident Inquiry referred to the desirability of having a record of crew conversation and the readings of flight instruments up to the moment of impact. The Board recommended that the search for suitable equipment should be pursued. Flight crews in Australia and elsewhere accepted the use of Cockpit Voice Recorders for air safety purposes, but from the outset expressed strong reservations about the possible future use of information from such equipment for purposes other than were originally intended. Flight crews saw CVRS as an invasion of privacy in the workplace. They were prepared to accept this in the interests of maintaining and enhancing air safety , but sought safeguards that the information not be used for other purposes to their possible detriment. Concern on the part of air crews has been heightened in recent years with the introduction by various countries of Freedom of Information Legislation. The International Civil Aviation Organisation, an agency of the UN, has recommended that information from CVRS be used only for air safety purposes, and some countries have legislated to remove uncertainty about uses that may be made of such information. CVRS are used in Australian Civil Aircraft under agreements reached between the Department of Aviation, and its predecessors, and the Australian Federation of Air Pilots (AFAP) which date back to 1964. However, the present arrangements are not satisfactory to either party. The most recent agreement between the Department and the AFAP was negotiated in 1975 and provides that use of CVR information in air accident investigations will be restricted to accidents which result in death of the pilots, or their incapacity to the point where they are unable to give evidence as to events leading to the accident. From the viewpoint of air safety investigators, the full potential of CVRS to contribute to the enhancement of air safety is not being realised. At the same time, the AFAP continues concerned that the agreement now in force might not withstand legal challenge and CVR information may be used for purposes that were not originally envisaged and to which the Federation had not agreed. Under the Bill I have now placed before the Senate, a cockpit voice recording or the information it contains cannot be used for disciplinary purposes or criminal proceedings against a crew member. The definition of crew member will exclude someone who is also the operator of the aircraft. A party to civil proceedings may seek that the court admit CVR information in evidence. The court may, on the grounds of public interest and the need for the information to establish a material question of fact, order that the information be admitted. However, the use for evidentiary purposes is limited by proposed sub-section 27A (6). It will be possible to use information obtained from a CVR to establish damages liability against an employer of a crew member or against someone else who is not a crew member. Misuse of information obtained from CVRS by Commonwealth officers is an offence against the Crimes Act. Under this bill misuse of such information by persons not subject to that act, will also be an offence. The protection offered under this bill has been sought by air crew members for twenty years. It is therefore proper that officers of the Department of Aviation and the Attorney-General's Department should feel a sense of achievement in developing a bill which strikes a balance between the legitimate concerns of air crews on the one hand, and the public interest in the proper administration of justice on the other. Might I also say that the pilots have shown considerable forbearance on this matter. I appreciate very much the spirit in which their representatives have conducted negotiations with us. They have been constructive as befits people concerned with the safety of air operations as well as the requirements of their members. This is a measure which materially advances the safety of our aviation industry . I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. [COGNATE BILLS: COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1984 COCOS (KEELING) ISLANDS SELF-DETERMINATION (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 1 June, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator HILL(South Australia)(10.01) —I rise to put the Opposition's position in the second reading debate on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Bill 1984 and the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill. The Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill amends the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Act 1983, and the Representation Act 1983. It follows the major overhaul of Commonwealth electoral legislation which took place late last year. The Senate will remember the Bill that contained in excess of 150 clauses which we passed towards the end of last year. In the Bill that we have before us tonight we have a very large number of further amendments. Although camouflaged somewhat in the form of schedules, the variances from the existing legislation cover in excess of 100 further changes. The amendments contained in this Bill enable the renumbering of provisions of the principal electoral Act and provide for, as stated in the second reading speech of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), a number of machinery changes. We certainly acknowledge that there are many machinery changes in this Bill, but there are also some substantive changes. I bring to the attention of the Senate the major provisions as seen by the Opposition. They include provision for members of the defence forces and service personnel who are currently overseas, together with others accompanying them in official capacities, to register as eligible overseas electors prior to the issuing of writs for the next general election. Amendments made under the 1983 legislation, while providing for those going overseas to retain their enrolments if a divisional returning officer is notified, did not take account of those already overseas. Although this Bill no doubt seeks to remedy that anomaly, it is an anomaly of a substantive nature which clearly should have been included in the legislation of last year. The Bill provides for a change in the format of the Senate ballot paper. The amended ballot paper will no longer contain alphabetically sequential letters opposite the names of group candidates. I understand that that has come pursuant to a recommendation of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform which has been meeting now for a considerable time. The Bill allows for claims for enrolment or transfer of enrolment to be lodged with an Australian electoral officer in addition to the divisional returning officer. It allows for the establishment of separate registers of candidates for each Senate general election and House of Representatives election and by-election. It requires candidates seeking registration to do so prior to the closure of nominations. Additionally, it provides that parties and candidates requiring to receive public funding will be required to register for such funding before the issue of the writ and by the close of nominations. The Bill incorporates the substantive provisions of electoral and referendum regulations regarding absentee voting into the principal Act. It allows the scrutiny of Senate ballot papers to be conducted at a central point in each State or Territory, an amendment we would have thought was a matter of common sense. It clarifies the status of all surplus votes for elected candidates in a Senate election. It provides for the transfer of surplus votes for an elected candidate to constitute a single, separate transfer of votes. It provides additionally for the exclusion from the existing provisions of the disclosure of gifts of an entirely personal nature received by a candidate during an election campaign. Finally, it amends the Act to allow enrolment claim cards to be destroyed where a record of their particulars is kept on microfilm, microfiche or another approved form. We think that is simply updating the procedures in accordance with modern technology. The Bill will not be opposed by the Opposition. However, the Opposition is particularly concerned about the extent of the Bill in that it contains in excess of 100 changes to legislation which was passed only a few months ago. We believe that reflects the incompetence of the Government. It should not be necessary for the Government to bring massive pieces of legislation to this chamber and to follow them only a few months later with an equally massive set of amendments. With that reservation as to the method of handling this matter, as I indicated, the Opposition will not be opposing the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill. The other Bill to which I must refer is the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Bill 1984. This Bill brings referendum legislation in line with the provisions of the new electoral Acts which were passed late last year. One might somewhat cynically ask how it is possible to bring it into line with legislation so passed when we have before us already a massive number of amendments to that existing Commonwealth electoral law. Nevertheless, that is what the Government is seeking to do. As the name of the Bill implies, it deals with the machinery of a referendum. The Attorney-General claims that these provisions will simplify the administration of referendums, particularly when they are held concurrently with elections. We think these provisions will allow for some simplification when referendums are held concurrently with elections. That raises a matter touched upon in the last few days in this chamber. We still do not know whether referendums are to be put at the general election we anticipate being held late this year or early next year. The Senate will remember that only a few months ago we passed five referendum Bills dealing with simultaneous elections, four-year terms, advisory opinions, interchange of powers and miscellaneous provisions. We were expecting that referendum to be put to the people in February of this year but it was called off by the Government because it was unsure that the Yes case would be supported. In other words, the Government determined that, because it was not certain that the questions would be upheld, they should not be put to the people. That raises the question of the money expended on those referendum proposals which did not get to the people. I understand, for example, that $1.25m was spend on paper alone. Although I am sure it will be said that paper can be used for some other purpose, that is a significant expenditure of Commonwealth money when, for political reasons, the Government decided not to proceed with putting the referendum to the people. That was contrary to the spirit of the Constitution in that the Government in effect determined: 'We will put a question only if we get the answer we want'. It is the Opposition's view that that is not the role of government. Referenda are to be determined by the people . The people should have access to adequate information to make the decision. They should not be treated as an arm of government. That leads me to raise the disgraceful attempt to spend $1.25m of taxpayers' money to promote only the Yes case. I think that is the matter that Senator Jessop just mentioned. The Government intended to do that without recourse to any legislation and notwithstanding that the Referendum (Constitution Alteration ) Act 1906 appears to be premised on an equal presentation of both cases. I remind the Senate, although I am sure honourable senators are familiar with the provisions in the Act, that a Yes case is put out by those who support that case and that a no case is put out by those who oppose it. Those cases are put out in a particular form as prescribed and are paid for by the State. But this Government on that occasion decided that it would abuse the system by utilising taxpayers' money-$1.25m-simply to promote that side of the case it wished to be successful. The Senate will recall that we were successful in moving an amendment to that Bill, with the support of the Australian Democrats, as I recall it, and I think Senator Harradine-- Senator Macklin —It would have to have been us. Senator HILL —I am reminded that it would have to have been, and it was a very wise decision by the Democrats on that occasion. We stopped the Government from abusing its responsibility in expending taxpayers' money in that unsatisfactory way. We will again move an amendment at the Committee stage to ensure that in relation to this Bill there is a provision which will prohibit the Government from attempting to behave in that totally unsatisfactory way again. There have been some improvements to the electoral laws. The Opposition certainly accepts that some streamlining has arisen out of the worthwhile work of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. No doubt some of those improvements will flow down to this Bill and as far as streamlining amendments are concerned, of course we applaud such amendments. Other improvements are contained in the Bill. That the Yes/No case be dispatched not less than 14 days before voting day rather than the current strict rules whereby pamphlets may reach electors months before a referendum is something we applaud. So we see an improvement in that regard and we duly give credit. The Government has carried through the spirit of lodging returns of expenditure, although only by publishers, broadcasters and printers. We have considerable reservations about the necessity of that invasion of privacy and it is something that we will certainly re-examine when returned to Government. However, we accept that the Bill does preserve the basic elements and the broad approach which is at the heart of the current system. It will therefore not be opposed by the Opposition at the second reading stage. I foreshadowed that at the Committee stage we will seek to prevent the Government abusing the referendum procedure by funding one side of the argument. I wish also to foreshadow that in the Committee stage we will move three amendments to delete reference to the position of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. The Opposition warmly welcomes the decision by the Cocos (Keeling) Islands to integrate with Australia but we express our real concern that this Government, contrary to the principle of consultation about which we hear so much, is including the Cocos (Keeling) Islands within the Northern Territory for referendum purposes, without any consultation. We say that there should be consultation with the occupants of the islands as to whether that is their wish. It may be that rather it is their wish to be incorporated for electoral purposes within the Australian Capital Territory. Some would argue that that would be more appropriate, being the base for the Minister who has responsibility for the Territories. It may be that it would be more appropriate that they be associated with Western Australia, with which they have had close links for a long time- links of communication and links through families that have moved and now live in Western Australia. It may well be that that would be the preferable choice. If that is their choice it should be respected notwithstanding that it may provide some complications with regard to the need for a referendum to that effect. The Cocos (Keeling) Islands Self-Determination (Consequential Amendments ) Bill 1984 is being dealt with separately. It deals with the general election consequences of those from the islands whereas the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Bill 1984 also incorporates the integration system for the purposes of a referendum. That is why I raised the matter when we are discussing the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Bill. Tomorrow, when we get to the Cocos ( Keeling) Islands Bill, the debate will have to be revived to deal with electoral issues. I will be moving amendments in both those areas in the Committee stage of the debate; otherwise the Opposition will not oppose this Bill. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.16) —I will address my remarks first to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Bill 1984. Unlike Senator Hill I have the opposite view about the types of amendments that have come forward in this Bill. I often wonder, given the complexity of the laws on elections, how we manage to get Bills put together in one piece. The amendments contained in these Bills are technical amendments. It is a quarter past 10 and undoubtedly many people outside are listening enthralled at the progress of this debate. It is unfortunate that they will not hear the end of it. If they listen to Parliament tomorrow they will hear some other matter being debated in the House of Representatives. At this stage the Australian Democrats will be supporting this Bill but will be seeking at the Committee stage to raise an issue relating to the informal votes for the Senate. We believe that this has been the subject of some excellent work so far by the Joint Committee on Electoral Reform and the Government in its formulation of the amendments which were discussed in this chamber last year. The referendum Bill deals with a whole host of items. Basically it picks up the changes which the Parliament has agreed to in respect of electoral legislation. When one reads through this Bill one is struck again by the extent of the reforms that have taken place. To our minds there are still some disappointments in the referendum Bill. An amendment which I shall move on behalf of the Australian Democrats at the Committee stage relates to the translation into other languages of the various information which is provided for referenda in Australia. The translation into community languages of these issues is an important recognition of the multicultural nature of Australian society and of the fact that a large number of people, who come to Australia with the best will in the world, still have difficulty grasping the complexity of the arguments which may be involved in referenda. I believe it is very useful for them to have in their native languages information on matters which are so complex. The other matter, which is not the subject matter of this Bill, deals, as Senator Hill has already said, with the matter of funding. I do not propose at this stage to rehearse the whole vitriolic argument that we had last year concerning this, except to say that the Australian Democrats will also move an amendment which will seek to have fair funding of the Yes and No cases. Senator Crichton-Browne —To both sides? Senator MACKLIN —The Yes and the No cases happen to be both sides. Senator Crichton-Browne —Fair for both sides? Senator MACKLIN —Yes, fair for both sides. It will provide for the printing and distribution of those Yes and No cases but, in addition to that, we also wish to make sure that other bodies, which have been given a statutory requirement under their Acts to engage in activities in relation to the referenda, are also provided with moneys to be able to do that. That refers in particular to the Commonwealth Electoral Commission which has a statutory requirement in relation to this, and also of course to members of parliament and the staff of members of parliament who have a legitimate role in the propagation of information and argument on these matters. They ought to be allowed to expend money in this regard, as should other officers who have a statutory requirement to engage in any activity necessary for the referendum to be put to the people. We have taken more care in the drawing up of the referendum this time because we believe that it will have to stand as part of the legislation. Therefore, it is more extensive by those additions from the amendment which we had foreshadowed last year but did not move because instead we supported the Opposition amendment. There will obviously be a debate on that issue again because the Government has also foreshadowed that it will discuss an extensive amendment of its own to this legislation on that issue. I think it is probably best to put off until then the debate which will ensue at that time. I hope, again unlike Senator Hill, that these Bills will not be the last Bills that we will see in these areas. When one looks at the history of the Commonwealth Electoral Act in Australia, one sees that it has been a relatively static document for far too long. We ought to be constantly concerned with refining our electoral processes. The Australian Democrats believe that this goes to the very heart of a democracy and to the very heart of the operation of a parliament and that we ought to be adventuresome in the types of reforms to which we look forward. Indeed, we have suggested an extension in relation to referenda; that it ought not to be simply for the Parliament to propose to the people the questions to be voted on. The people by way of an initiative ought to be able to put questions on the paper for their own deliberation. We feel that that is an advance of the democratic process. As a country with an extremely proud history of reform and far-seeing advances in this area, we have dropped far behind in proposing new and more dynamic ways of involving our citizens in the governance of their country. The history of Australia in this regard is a proud one. Unfortunately, it is not something that very many of our citizens are aware of. I believe that an understanding of that history should rekindle in us a determination to go further than we have with the very static system we have tended to operate under . We have tended to say that that is it, and no more. We ought to look at further developments. I have just spoken about a development in the referenda area; that is, the notion of initiative. An amendment in the electoral area that the Australian Democrats have constantly argued for is the extension of the method of proportional representation to the House of Representatives. It is a proposition we have argued for in the past. We have not been successful in getting the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party of Australia or the National Party of Australia to adopt it. Interestingly enough, when the previous Labor Government was looking at a method of government for the Australian Capital Territory it chose the method of proportional representation. It is interesting to note that the Labor Party has reformed itself internally in most of the States by using the system of proportional representation. Senator Tate —Tasmania, the Hare-Clark system. Senator MACKLIN —Senator Tate has reminded me that the longest running use of proportional representation anywhere in the world is in the State of Tasmania, which has gone further than any country in reforming its electoral methods. Indeed, Tasmania is held up in any text book which deals with electoral matters as an example of a parliament which is willing to innovate and take hold of the obvious solutions to problems as they present themselves. Senator Gareth Evans —It has not done much for the quality of government down there. Senator MACKLIN —As I remember, the Australian Labor Party ruled in Tasmania for almost as long as it did in Queensland. Senator Gareth Evans —QED. Senator MACKLIN —If that is the Attorney-General's view of the previous Labor Government in Tasmania, I suppose that is why Tasmania is now run by the Liberal Party. The Attorney-General seems to be suggesting that he did not believe in it himself. Proportional representation is, when one looks at it, a method which reflects more truly the nature of the various groupings within the electorate. As a system it is the obvious system that is needed when there is a diversity of opinion. I would have thought that when the Labor Party sought to reform itself and took upon itself to use this method, it did so precisely for that reason. It is an incredibly powerful method of welding together a variety of opinions. Indeed, it is the only electoral method which will enable that to work in a satisfactory manner. I hope that the debate on this issue will be faced yet again when we look at the suggestions in relation to self-government for the Australian Capital Territory and the electoral method that it will choose in going into that form of government. I believe that if the House of Representatives and the Senate, through the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, constantly review the electoral matters, Australia can once again move to the forefront in electoral reform and show, unlike many countries round the world, that it is interested in having its own citizens run the country. As I have said on many occasions, every year we lose democracies round the world. In the United Nations count there are now 10 fewer democracies than there were when this Parliament rose at the end of last year. That is a staggering thought to contemplate. That has happened every year for the last five or six years. Democracy is not something which survives simply because it survives; it survives only if it is fought for. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.30) —Tonight I want to raise a matter only briefly. I cannot possibly deal with it at the length it needs to be dealt with. I guess in a sense I am just posing some questions to which I would like answers. I will deal with the question in more detail at some later stage. I see a number of young people from time to time who are, or have been, heroin addicts, some of whom take part in the methadone program at the Woden Valley Hospital and some of whom would like to do so. I ask: On what basis can a person be admitted to the methadone program at the Woden Valley Hospital? What assessment is made of the condition of the addict at the time he presents himself to become a member of the program? Is the degree of addiction at the time assessed so that the amount of methadone that he is given is commensurate with the degree of addiction? At the other end of the scale under what circumstances are people removed from the program, or put off it? Are they taken off in a sufficiently gradual way to see that they do not return to heroin? Is the drug that is being used there, methadone, appropriate for everybody or should some of the other drugs that are available to assist in getting off heroin addiction be used? I believe it is also a question of finding out whether the program is administered merely in accordance with the national methadone program as laid down or whether there is any real support, counselling, care and compassion for these young people to try to assist them to get off their drug addiction and get back into the community. Stories are presented to me from time to time about the way the program operates at the Woden Valley Hospital. It is difficult for me to assess what I am told. I think it is time that we gave some thought and consideration to the future of some of these young people, many of whom, I believe, genuinely want to get rid of the addiction and in a sense, return to society. I ask: How long does it take for the methadone dose to be administered? I hear stories of people having to spend so much time at the hospital that it is impossible for them to have a job as well because they can never get to work on time. If that is the case, can we not work towards having a program whereby they could go to the hospital at, say, 7.30 and still go to work at 9 o'clock, instead of their treatment at the hospital taking up half the day? Some of those people believe they could have jobs if the program were administered more sympathetically. In a sense they have become slaves to the hospital by having to go there to get their methadone dose. I fully appreciate the problems that could arise by the drug being administered in another way-it could be used for bartering and trade-but we are creating a situation whereby those people do become slaves to the hospital. I am told that it is not easy for them to come to an arrangement whereby they can leave Canberra, even for a weekend. I would like to know more about the program: How many people are on it and to what extent is counselling and sympathetic and understanding support given to the people who are participating in it? In particular, what are the steps taken when anyone is removed from the program; what is the basis of their removal; is it done in such a way that we can be reasonably certain that there is no likelihood of their going back on to heroin almost immediately? I am told by young people in Canberra that one can obtain the drug easily. It has been said to me several times that if I gave them the money they could be back with it in 15 minutes. I certainly have no intention of doing that. Equally , I have no reason to doubt that perhaps, unfortunately, that is the case. This situation is partly responsible for the fact that the incidence of petty crime is growing in this and other areas. It is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. Are we running programs that encourage young people to take part to try to get off the habit? Is that part of what we are trying to do? Merely cutting out heroin and fighting the problem in that way is not sufficient. As I said, a lot more is involved in evaluating whether or not a methadone program is the right program. After three nights of sitting, tonight is not the time to try to develop or debate the matter. However, I wanted to raise it so that I can perhaps pursue the questions I have raised later, I think we need to show some care and concern for young people who have, for one reason or another, got themselves into this unfortunate situation. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(10.35) —I think Senator Reid would appreciate that I am not in a position to respond tonight to the matters she has raised. However, I will certainly draw them to the attention of the appropriate Minister and seek an early response. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.36 p.m. The following paper was presented: GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S PROCLAMATIONS-COMMENCEMENT OF ACT: Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General were presented, notifying that His Excellency had proclaimed the following Acts to come into operation on the dates specified: Archives Act 1983-6 June 1984 (Gazette S 206, 5 June 1984) Copyright Amendment Act 1983-6 June 1984 (Gazette S 203, 4 June 1984). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 485) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 8 November 1983: (1) What level of funding is available for the Commonwealth Schools Commission country area program during the 1983-84 financial year. (2) What amount of funding from that program will be made available to Queensland for the priority country area program. (3) Are there any anticipated changes to the program for future years, especially with regard to funding levels. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The Government makes funds available to Commonwealth Schools Commission programs on the basis of calendar years, not financial years. The following information relates to funds made available to the country areas program in the calendar years 1983 and 1984. (1) (a) In 1983 an amount of $9,377,000 was initially allocated to the country areas program. In December 1983 this allocation was adjusted to take account of cost increases in salaries and wages which had occurred during the year. The initial allocation was supplemented by $94,000 making a total of $9,471,000 available to the program in 1983. (b) The program has been allocated $9,714,000 for 1984. This allocation will also be adjusted retrospectively. (2) (a) The Queensland priority country area program was allocated $2,256,000 for 1983. This was supplemented by $22,000 making a total of $2,278,000 available to Queensland in 1983. (b) An amount of $2,354,000 has been allocated to the Queensland priority country area program in 1984. This allocation will be adjusted retrospectively. (3) The Government's education guidelines for 1984 directed the Schools Commission to review the full range of Commonwealth specific purpose programs to ensure that the Government's objectives and priorities were being met. The Commission is to provide a full report on the operation and needs of the country areas program in its next Triennial report, due early in 1985. (Question No. 487) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 8 November 1983: (1) Is the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs aware of the extent of concern about the guidelines relating to funding of education projects of national significance; if so, will the Minister clarify the procedures which will be adopted in selecting these projects. (2) What attempts will be made to ensure that projects of national significance are distributed across Australia to include a diverse range of educational options. (3) Will there be any effort to direct funding to regional areas so that such projects are not concentrated in capital cities. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The projects of national significance program of the Commonwealth Schools Commission consists of the following elements. The notional funding allocation for each element is indicated. $ Aboriginal Education 104,000 Arts Education 208,000 Choice and Diversity in Government Schools 104,000 Computer Education 156,000 Education of Girls 260,000 Gifted and Talented Children 104,000 School and Community 104,000 School Evaluation 104,000 General Projects of National Significance 272,000 Review and Evaluation of Commission Programs 311,000 As well, projects of national significance elements are included in the participation and equity program and the multicultural education program. The funding allocations for these elements are as follows: Participation and Equity 520,000 Multicultural Education 378,000 The various elements each have their own guidelines and procedures for selecting and funding projects. Guidelines for all elements are endorsed by the Commission. Applications are called for by advertisement and other forms of promotion in the case of the gifted and talented children, school evaluation and multicultural education elements. Panels of commissioners consider and make recommendations on applications in the school evaluation and general projects of national significance elements. In the case of the choice and diversity in government schools, computer education, education of girls, and gifted and talented children elements selection of projects for funding is done by the advisory groups associated with those elements. These advisory groups are composed of representatives of the interests connected with the operation of the elements. In the case of the multicultural education element projects are assessed by a panel consisting of representatives of the various interests making up the Australian education community. In the case of the Aboriginal education element proposals are developed at the instigation of the Commission in consultation with the National Aboriginal Education Committee. The Commission considers the recommendations of the various panels and advisory groups and recommends to me, or my delegate, those projects it considers worthy of funding. No procedures have been developed yet for the arts education and participation and equity elements. A school and community workshop to be held in June 1984 will recommend guidelines for the school and community element for 1984. (2) and (3) Projects are selected according to the guidelines associated with each element and the quality of individual projects on a competitive basis. In the case of the choice and diversity in government schools element projects are conducted in each of the participating States. In the case of all elements efforts are made to direct funding to regional areas so that projects are not concentrated in capital cities. (Question No. 488) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 8 November 1983: Is the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs aware of a resolution passed by the Anglican Synod of Carpentaria in far north Queensland on 24 September 1983, which reads 'this Synod expresses very strongly its concern over the poor standard of education in the Torres Strait and urges the Department of Aboriginal and Islander Affairs and Cabinet to respect the wishes of the people of the Torres Strait and hand over the Islands' schools to the Education Department for the good of the future of the Torres Stait Islanders'; if so, will discussions be held between the Federal and State education departments to expedite such a transfer, so that all Torres Strait Islands' children are educated on the same basis as other Australians. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: I am aware of the resolution passed by the Anglican Synod of Carpentaria relating to the provision of education services in the Torres Strait Islands and I share the Synod's concern. You will recall from my answer to a question of 4 April 1984 on this topic that I strongly support the transfer of responsibility for education in the Torres Strait to the Queensland Department of Education. These concerns have also been voiced by my colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in reply to a question put to him in the House of Representatives on 4 May 1984. At this stage no formal discussions have been arranged between Commonwealth and State Departments of Education, however, I have taken the initiative of writing to the Premier of Queensland on 19 April on this matter. In the letter I emphasised my desire to contribute to the improvement of educational opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander children and expressed the view that the transfer of responsibility for Torres Strait Island schools to the Queensland Department of Education was a necessary first step towards this goal. Should such a transfer fail to take place, resulting in the inevitable perpetuation of the existing unsatisfactory educational situation for Torres Strait islander children, then the Commonwealth would need to assess whether it should become more directly involved in educational matters relating to the needs of these people. The Premier has acknowledged my letter but has not yet replied in detail. It is my hope that the transfer of responsibility will be effected in the near future, paving the way for a more positive and collaborative approach between Queensland and the Commonwealth in dealing with the educational needs of Torres Strait islander children and youth. (Question No. 550) Senator Colston asked the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice , on 29 November 1983: (1) What are the projected allocations for each State and Territory for the computer education program for: (a) government; and (b) non-government schools, for 1984. (2) What criteria were used in determining each State's and Territory's allocation. (3) Were any allowances made for the differing length of secondary school instruction in the various States and Territories. (4) What are the detailed calculations in relation to the allocation received by: (a) Queensland government schools; and (b) Queensland non-government schools . Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The projected allocations for each State and Territory for the computer education program for 1984 (at 1984 prices) are: ($'000) Non- Government Government State Schools Schools Total New South Wales 1,545 337 1,882 Victoria 1,282 339 1,621 Queensland 676 176 852 South Australia 482 106 588 Western Australia 447 114 561 Tasmania 239 71 310 Northern Territory 136 31 167 Australian Capital Territory 180 73 253 Total 4,987 1,247 6,234 (2) The criteria for determining each State's and Territory's allocations are as follows: (Note: These calculations are based on 1983 prices, and results indexed for 1984). For government schools, the total allocation for Australia is $4.8m. For non- government schools this allocation was $1.2m. A basic grant for each State and sector was set at $100,000 for government schools in each State, and $50,000 for non-government schools in the States and the A.C.T. Because of the small number of non-government secondary schools in the Northern Territory, a total grant of $30,000 for the non-government sector was recommended by the National Advisory Committee on Computers in Schools. The remainder of funds was distributed on a per capita basis in relation to the number of students enrolled in secondary schools (1982 figures). The amount allocated to government schools as a basic grant was in total, $800, 000, leaving $4.0m to be allocated to government schools on a per capita basis. Similarly the amount allocated to non-government schools as a basic grant was $ 380,000, leaving $820,000 to be allocated on a per capita basis. (3) No. (4) Details of how the Queensland allocations were calculated (at 1983) prices and indexed for 1984) are as follows: Government Schools Basic grant-$100,000 Remainder of national allocation to be distributed on a per capita basis-$4,000 ,000 Number of secondary school students in Queensland government secondary schools- 114,020 Number of secondary school students in Australian secondary schools-828,080 Queensland share of national allocation- 114,020 828,080 x 4,000,000 = $551,000 + basic grant $100,000 = $651,000 at 1983 prices and currently indexed to $676,000 Non-Government Schools Basic Grant-$50,000 Remainder of national allocation to be distributed on a per capita basis-$820, 000 45,829 Queensland students in non- government secondary schools 314,987 Australian students in non- government secondary schools x $820,000 = $120,000 + basic grant $50,000 = $170,000 at 1983 prices and currently indexed to $176,000. (Question No. 709) Senator Coleman asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 8 March 1984: What accidents or unplanned incidents have been reported at the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Since the Australian Atomic Energy Commission's reactors HIFAR and MOATA commenced operation in 1958 and 1961 respectively there have been no accidents or incidents, reported or otherwise, involving the reactors which have threatened public safety or caused the radiation exposure of any staff member beyond internationally accepted annual occupational limits. (Question No. 761) Senator Colston asked the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice , on 28 March 1984: Are record cards kept for students in government schools in the Australian Capital Territory; if so, what information is held on these cards, who has access to the cards and are parents able to peruse the record cards. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Record cards are kept for students in government schools in the Australian Capital Territory. The record card is maintained in two sections: (1) a general record card accessible to parents and in some cases students, as well as to teachers; (2) a confidential record card accessible to teachers and counsellors but open to discussion with parents in an interview situation. The information held on the non-confidential card includes name, date of birth, parent/guardian, address, telephone, record of admissions, record of absences, siblings, pre-school attendance, emergency contact, date and name of standardised tests undertaken, interests and participation, teacher's chronological comment and special factors, for example authenticated information regarding legal custody of a child. The confidential card has results of the standardised tests administered by school counsellors and teachers. A section of the card has an action box where the school is asked to initial that the parent/guardian of the child has been informed of the conditions attached to the use of the student record card and the confidential card. (Question No. 809) Senator Peter Baume asked the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 4 April 1984: (1) Did the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs receive, some time early in December 1983, a letter from Noel B. Gorton of 43 Bayswater Terrace, Hyde Park, concerning alleged fraud by another person to a claim for assistance for an isolated child in respect of a child living with Mr Gorton. (2) Is the allegation that the claim was made by the child's parents. (3) Is it claimed the child does not and has not for some time, lived with or been dependent upon her parents for her maintenance. (4) Does the letter express the fear of Mr Gorton that the claim for assistance for an isolated child in this case might implicate them in a breach of the law and do they cite specifically section 29B of the Crimes Act in this regard. (5) Did Mr Gorton request access to the form under which the claim was made, in view of the above. (6) Did Mr Gorton further request a full investigation be carried out and did he request specifically that the appropriate Department take all action necessary to investigate his complaint of attempted fraud. (7) What action has been taken by the Department of Education and Youth Affairs on this matter and by any other departments to whom you may have referred the question. (8) Can the Minister assure us that no claim for assistance for isolated children is being paid in respect of the child residing with Mr Gorton, or alternatively, any payment that is being made is being made properly under the provisions of the appropriate Act and regulations. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) to (4) Yes. (5) Yes. Access was provided under the Freedom of Information Act to those parts of the application which were specifically relevant to Mr Gorton's allegation. (6) Yes. (7) The matter has been referred to the Australian Federal Police, who are currently investigating it. (8) No claim has been made for benefits under the assistance for isolated children scheme for 1984 for the student involved. Even if such a claim were submitted no payment would be made as long as there was any doubt about the legality of the payments made in 1983 before Mr Gorton's allegation was received . (Question No. 846) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction, 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 Grimes —The Minister for Housing and Construction has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Date of Name Position appointment Term Salary Housing Loans Insurance Corporation Fitzpatrick, J. M. B. Chairman 18.6.78 7 years 61,129 +2,025 allowance Blundell, F. M. Deputy Chairman 18.6.78 7 years 48,262 +875 allowance Begg, S. W. Member 17.5.83 3 years 5,917 Tune, J. M. L. Member 31.1.84 3 years 5,917 Yates, J. N. Member 31.1.84 3 years 5,917 Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Price, D. G. Director 18.4.82 7 years 66,775 +4,025 allowance Neal, R. R. Assistant Director 30.7.83 2 years 61,129 +2,025 allowance Lewis, T. E. Assistant Director 20.7.78 7 years 61,129 +2,025 allowance (Question No. 863) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 2 May 1984: (1) How much Australian uranium has been processed at Oak Ridge in the United States and where is it now. (2) How many nuclear warheads have been built at Oak ridge since 1977 when Australian uranium was first exported. (3) What are the internal guarantees or safeguards within Oak Ridge to ensure Australian uranium is not being used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Detailed information on quantities, form and flows of Australian origin nuclear material-AONM-is not disclosed publicly because of considerations of commercial confidentiality. However, on the basis of nuclear materials accountancy records held by the Australian Safeguards Office pursuant to Australia's nuclear safeguards treaty arrangements with the United States, it can be stated that since 1976 2,080,631 kilograms of natural uranium element have been enriched in the United States gaseous diffusion enrichment complex at Oak Ridge, and subsequently transferred for exclusive use as fuel in reactors generating electric power. Approximately 85 per cent of the enriched product has been sent to Japan, and the remainder to the Federal Republic of Germany. Enrichment is carried out subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement between Australia and the United States of America concerning peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Depleted uranium tails from the enrichment process are stored in an area separate from but adjacent to the enrichment complex. They are designated and recorded for safeguards purposes as AONM. (2) For obvious reasons, the Australian Government is not privy to details concerning United States nuclear weapons production. (3) Internal guarantees arise from Article 8 of the agreement between Australia and the United States concerning peaceful uses of nuclear energy which specifies that material subject to the agreement is not to be utilised for any nuclear explosive device, research on or development of any such device, nor for any military purpose. Article 9.2 of the agreement in part states that material transferred to the United States shall be subject to safeguards in accordance with the safeguards agreement between the United States and the International Atomic Energy Agency-IAEA. I draw the honourable senator's attention to the relevant section of my 4 May statement to the Senate on the Four Corners program on uranium regarding the IAEA's role in accounting for AONM at the Oak Ridge complex.