Thursday, 7 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: 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 A.C.T. Objectionable Publications Ordinance in such a manner as to be harmful to society by removing from existing Commonwealth law the power to prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography (e.g. X- rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; the power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications, including those associated with blasphemy; the power to require imported video tapes/discs for non-commercial use to be registered by the 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, ensure that a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Archer (from 26 citizens), Robertson (from 74 citizens), Tate (from 18 citizens) and Walters (from 13 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That 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 Jack Evans (from 59 citizens) and Withers (from 106 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens shows that: 1. the Hawke Labor Government's retirement income policies are piecemeal, inconsistent and make no provision to encourage people to save towards their retirements; and 2. the Government's proposed assets test legislation is iniquitous and, if enacted, its effects would be discriminatory. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: 1. scrap its proposed assets test legislation; 2. either institute a broad enquiry into Australia's retirement income and taxation systems or await the outcome of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare's work on this matter; and 3. following the report of such a wide enquiry institute a retirement income policy which is fair and equitable, that encourages self-provision and which will be non-discriminatory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Collard (from 75 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 107 citizens). Petitions received. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(10.03) —I table a document setting out the Government's responses to the recommendations of the report of the Senate Select Committee on Passenger Fares and Services to and from Tasmania. I seek leave to make a statement on the Government's response to the Senate Select Committee's report and ask that the text of the statement be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- The Government views the Report as a substantial and further contribution to the development of policies aimed at resolving Tasmania's special transport difficulties. The Report's 25 recommendations represent a detailed proposal for the enhancement of Tasmania's passenger transport links with the mainland and overseas. The Government is pleased to note that many of the Committee's recommendations are either already the subject of Government initiatives or are currently under consideration. The Government fully supports what it believes to be the broad objective underlying the Report's detailed recommendations, namely provision of adequate, realistically priced passenger services. We recognise the importance of the continued provision of such services for the economic and social well-being of the State. This takes account not only of Tasmania's disabilities due to the State's isolation from the mainland but also takes into consideration the importance of tourism to employment and to the whole Tasmanian economy. In this context, the Government recognises that tourism is relatively more important to Tasmania than it is to some mainland States principally because of Tasmania's narrow economic base and because of the recent decline of some of the State's major industries. I should like now to draw the attention of honourable Senators to some of the more detailed aspects of the response to the report. The recommendations fall readily into two categories: first, long term initiatives for the future development of passenger services and second, short term actions to maintain existing services at an adequate level. The Government accepts that there will be a continuing demand for sea passenger transport. Sea services provide an alternative for those travellers who cannot or do not wish to fly and also tourists on 'self-drive' holidays. The current service provided by ANL's 'Empress of Australia' has required significant subsidisation since 1973-74. The maximum level of Budgetary assistance made available to sustain the ' Empress' operations was set at $1 million per year in 1973-74 and now is $2.75 million per year. In 1982 the previous Federal Government, in collaboration with the Tasmanian and Victorian Governments, sought detailed Statements of Interest from shipowners for the provision of commercially viable seas passenger services across Bass Strait to replace the 'Empress', which in 1985 will be 20 years old. Refurbishment would permit the vessel to remain in service for a further period beyond 1985. The Committee's recommendation that ANL replace the 'Empress' with two combined freight and passenger ships was brought to shipowners' attention in the invitation of May 1982 to submit Statements of Interest and it was given careful consideration by them. Of the five responses received only one offered a commercially viable sea passenger service on a proven design. In October 1983 Federal, Victorian and Tasmanian Transport Ministers agreed unanimously that there was no purpose in pursuing this exercise further. The Federal Government is working closely with the Tasmanian Government to meet the latter's wishes for continuing and adequate sea passenger service. A joint statement by the Federal and Tasmanian Ministers for Transport recently announced that the Federal Government would fund the provision of a suitable replacement vessel to provide this service-subject to satisfactory resolution of a number of details including negotiations for a vessel at a satisfactory price and successful negotiations about manning scales. Much of the Committee's report was concerned with the adequacy of existing and future air links, both with the mainland and overseas. Many of the recommendations seek to ensure that domestic air fares are kept as low as possible while the level of services provided is maintained or improved. Others sought guaranteed levels of service to particular geographic areas, such as the North West and the Bass Strait Islands. Five of the Committee's recommendations address the question of air fares and subsidies. In accordance with the provisions of the Independent Air Fares Committee Act 1981, responsibility for approving domestic fares, whether full tariff or on a discount basis, resides with the Independent Air Fares Committee. However, the Senate Committee's concern over the level of domestic air fares was in large part influenced by changes in the air fare jet formula resulting from findings of the Independent Public Inquiry into Domestic Air Fares (the Holcroft Report) in 1981. The adjustment to short haul fares, relative to overall network increases, would have resulted in a sharp increase in fares on the trunk routes between Melbourne and the Tasmanian mainland. Each air fare purchased on trunk services between Tasmanian ports and Melbourne receives a 10 per cent subsidy. This subsidy was introduced to keep increases in the air fares charged by the two major carriers on these routes to about the average increase in fares across the whole of their network, following the adjustment to short haul fares in April 1981. This subsidy was not extended to commuter operators' fares as they were not subject to the fare structure changes which affected fares charged by the major airlines. With the take over of TAA's services to North West Tasmania by East-West Airlines, the subsidy was extended to include East-West's services on these routes. The committee also suggested that air services to the Bass Strait Islands from both Melbourne and the rest of Tasmania receive a 20 per cent subsidy. This 20 per cent would be composed of the 10 per cent applied to TAA/Ansett/East-West services and an additional 10 per cent as an isolation subsidy. As I mentioned previously, the 10 per cent paid to the major operators' fares is not applicable to the fares of other operators as their fare structures were not affected by air fare formula adjustments made following consideration of the Holcroft Report . The proposed 10 per cent isolation subsidy is also not applicable. This type of assistance is only provided to ensure a basic level of air service (normally one service per week) between a remote area and the most appropriate regional centre. There are already unsubsidised air services to the Islands. The Prime Minister wrote to the Tasmanian Premier on 19 September 1983 and 16 December 1983, noting that services to the Islands were far in excess of the normal weekly services incorporated in the Remote Area Subsidy Scheme, and were therefore ineligible for assistance from this source. From 1 January 1984 the Tasmanian Government has provided a passenger subsidy for air travel between the Tasmanian mainland and King and Flinders Islands. Under this scheme, all residents of the Islands are entitled to a 10 per cent subsidy with pensioner residents receiving a 50 per cent subsidy on their air fares. I can assure Honourable Senators that in this matter full detailed consideration has been given to the Committee's recommendation. The question has been the subject of regular consultations between the Commonwealth and Tasmanian Governments. Let there be no doubt that the Government is concerned to see that Tasmanians are not unfairly disadvantaged by the lack of a land transport alternative. However, in this particular case, the residents of the Islands are benefitting from services already being provided. With regard to the provision of direct air services between Tasmania and New Zealand, the Committee commended the introduction of Hobart-Christchurch services in 1980 on an interim basis and recommended that these be continued. It was agreed in consultation with New Zealand authorities in mid-1981 that the services should continue. TAA continues to operate on the route under arrangements with Qantas, but Ansett no longer does so. However there continue to be two airlines operating Hobart-Christchurch services, following a decision by Air New Zealand to commence services from January 1983. The Committee was not convinced that the present two operator service was necessarily the best arrangement for Tasmania's main domestic trunk route services. It recommended that the Government examine whether a single operator or a third operator proposal offered a more flexible and beneficial air passenger service than the current system. The Committee suggested that any investigation of this proposal could be considered in the context of the inquiry proposed by the previous Government into deregulation of the domestic airlines. The Minister for Aviation has already announced that a review of current air service arrangements will be commenced this year. The questions raised are likely to be addressed in that review. Air services to the North West region attracted some adverse comment in the Report and the Committee made a number of suggestions aimed at improving them. Most of the suggestions were concerned with such aspects as frequency of services, delays to services, improved aircraft types, promotional fares and employment of staff in the region. These are commercial matters which must be addressed by the airlines. In these circumstances, the frequency of services provided is essentially a matter for decision by the operators concerned. Similarly, the standard of services provided is not subject to regulation by the Commonwealth. This Government seeks at every opportunity to encourage the airlines to improve their standards. The airlines for their part have an obligation to, wherever possible, meet the needs of the travelling public. I will now turn to the Committee's recommendations concerning the upgrading of some of Tasmania's airports. Honourable Senators may recall that, late in 1981, the previous Government announced a plan to upgrade Hobart Airport. This Government is carrying out that plan. The upgrading has included the construction of an international terminal and associated facilities. In the 1983 -84 Budget the Government announced that upgrading of the aircraft pavement areas at Hobart Airport to permit unrestricted B727 operations would be carried out at an estimated cost of $3.0m. These works have now been physically completed. The Government recently decided to provide an additional $3.0m to improve the pavements of the airport to a standard accommodating limited operations by wide- bodied aircraft. This work will permit international passenger and freight operations by aircraft up to B747 standard, with some limitations on weight, range and frequency. The work does not provide passenger terminal capacity for full wide-bodied aircraft loadings at normal levels of service. However, it will serve to test the Tasmanian Government's belief that services by wide-bodied aircraft will eventuate if such capacity is provided. While reviewing the whole question of air services to the North West, the Committee considered the need for overall upgrading of the region's airports. The Committee was keen to see a jet aircraft service introduced but recognised that this was dependent on the upgrading to medium jet standard of either or both Wynyard and Devonport airports. A difficulty for the Committee appears to have been deciding which of the airports to recommend for upgrading. The question of upgrading is linked with the Aerodrome Local Ownership Plan (ALOP), which provides for the Commonwealth funding the full cost of approved aerodrome movement area upgrading of Commonwealth owned aerodromes to meet known aircraft needs, provided a local authority agrees to take over ownership of the aerodrome. Ownership of Devonport Aerodrome, under the provisions of the ALOP, was transferred to the Marine Board of Devonport, now the Port of Devonport Authority, on 1 March 1982. The previous Government had agreed that Wynyard Aerodrome should be upgraded to medium jet standard as part of an agreement on local ownership. This decision was reversed by the present Government as part of the economic review announced in the May 1983 economic statement, on the basis that the expenditure proposed could not be justified at this time. By way of illustration, Devonport airport was recently upgraded to accommodate proposed medium jet cargo services. As there were no firm proposals for medium jet passenger services through Devonport at that time, an air traffic control tower was not included in the upgrading program although a new passenger terminal was provided due to the poor condition of the former terminal. East- West Airlines has recently introduced medium jet services on the Melbourne- Devonport and Sydney-Devonport routes and Department of Aviation is permitting such services to Devonport without the provision of a control tower as overall traffic levels at this airport are still relatively low. Clearly in addressing the future development of Wynyard airport, the Commonwealth would have regard to the standard of facilities already available at Wynyard and elsewhere in the North West and expected future airport requirements. There are no current proposals before the Government for the introduction of medium jet services to Wynyard, but there have been recent discussions between the Commonwealth and the Marine Board of Burnie concerning possible upgrading works in connection with a transfer of the airport under the Local Ownership Plan. The Government is also considering possible developments at Launceston to enable the operation of new freight aircraft at a frequency which will not damage the existing pavements. The Committee also examined the Melbourne end of Tasmanian air services and recommended that the Commonwealth establish a regional/commuter terminal facility at Tullamarine Airport. The Committee was concerned that commuter or regional airlines are forced to use the berths of the two major domestic airlines and, consequently, are unable to preserve their independence from these large operators. A Commonwealth/State Committee studied the question of the airport needs of the Port Phillip region and reported to the previous Government in November 1980. Consequent to this study, a plan for the long term facility requirements of Melbourne Airport is in preparation and an investigation into the future role of Essendon Airport is underway. The issue of a commuter or regional airline passenger terminal at Melbourne Airport in addition to, or in place of, those commuter facilities already provided at Essendon is included in the studies associated with this long term airport planning. Finally, I should mention the Committee's recommendation concerning the establishment of the Inter-State Commission (ISC). The Inter-State Commission Act was passed in 1975 and was proclaimed on 27 September 1983. The Minister for Transport announced the initial appointments to the Commission on 6 March 1984 and the Commission became operational on 15 March 1984. The Commission will have an investigating and advisory role with respect to interstate transport matters referred to it. Whilst the ISC will not have a role in regard to the Airlines Agreement or the operation of the IAFC, it will be able to consider other aspects of interstate aviation, including interstate air freight operations. It is not a regulatory body. In summary, the Government welcomes the Senate Committee's report as a most useful contribution to the ongoing examination of Tasmania's transport needs. The Government supports the general thrust of many of the Report's recommendations, and has taken action on these recommendations. The report will remain a useful reference document of value not only to the Government but also to the transport industry. The Government will continue to take the Report into account and to assess applicability of its recommendations to meeting Tasmania's continuing passenger transport needs. Senator GIETZELT —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Baume) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans for Senator Grimes) agreed to: That the Senate- (a) notes that on 30 May 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 inhumane 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. Motion (by Senator Durack) proposed: (1) That a Joint Select Committee be appointed to- (a) examine the extent to which video tapes and discs containing pornographic, violent, or obscene 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 availability of such material; and (d) examine the likely effects upon people of exposure to such material and particularly upon children and emotionally disturbed persons; and (e) examine the extent to which advances in technology might affect considerations of public policy in relation to such material. (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 GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —by leave-Because we have a healthy appreciation of the numerical realities in this chamber, the Government does not oppose this motion. However I indicate formally that the Government does not accept that a full scale joint select committee inquiry of the kind here proposed is either necessary or desirable at this stage. Very full attention has been paid in this Parliament and its committees in recent weeks to the analysis of the relevant legislation now in force, and we believe it is too early to gauge the practical operation and effectiveness of that legislation. The Government accepts that there is a need to generate good quality research about the effects particularly on children of exposure to violent and pornographic material and to monitor the way in which the legislation is working . We are currently considering ways in which that research and monitoring can best take place and it may be that in due course there will be some role that a parliamentary committee can usefully play, but we believe that to establish a full dress parliamentary inquiry of the kind proposed at this stage is premature . For that reason we indicate our opposition to the course proposed, although we will not pursue that opposition to the point of a division at this stage. Senator DURACK(Western Australia) —by leave-That is a disappointing response from the Government. I know that this matter is being dealt with on a formal basis because of the time constraints, but those constraints are being imposed upon us because the House of Representatives seems determined to get up tonight. It is important that the House of Representatives should deal with this matter before it gets up tonight. The message will be conveyed promptly to the House of Representatives because of the way the matter has been dealt with and I hope that the Government in the House of Representatives will respond and return its message to us, so that when we sit next week we can decide what action we will take in this place in the light of that response. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia) —by leave-I think that the Senate should turn its attention to the fact that it has five Senate select committees. I am not opposed to what Senator Durack has raised, but honourable senators must take account of just how much we can investigate and how much time we can devote to those investigations. At the moment the Senate is being overworked and honourable senators have virtually no time for their electorates or for anything else. I give warning that I think all honourable senators, irrespective of party , should take a very close look at what we are doing. If we carry on in this way in the future I do not think that we will serve the public as we should. Will we be able to look in depth at all the problems? I voice my concern as a chairman of a committee. It is easy to say that we want to form a select committee, but all senators should take a very serious view of what is happening. There should be a complete review of what is going on. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-I was not proposing to speak on this matter until I heard the last contribution. The matter under consideration probably transcends most of the matters that are being considered by any of the other committees. The proposal concerns the establishment of a joint select committee and hopefully the Government will allow members of the House of Representatives to serve on it. This would mean that only three or four members of this chamber would be required to be members of the committee. I hope therefore, along with Senator Durack, that the Government will agree to this proposal so that members of the House of Representatives can bear some of the burden. Question resolved in the affirmative. 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)(10.14) —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- INSURANCE (AGENTS AND BROKERS) BILL 1984 The purpose of the Bill is to regulate the activities of life and general insurance brokers and, to an extent, life and general insurance agents. The Bill is largely based on the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Bill 1983 which was introduced into the Senate on 7 December 1983 and which, in essence, reflects the regulatory arrangements recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission in its report on insurance agents and brokers. That Bill was allowed to lie on the table of the Senate to enable public submissions to be made on its detailed provisions. The Government has recently completed a review of the provisions of the 1983 Bill against the background of the submissions received from the States, the Northern Territory, insurance industry and consumer organisations, and a wide range of other interested parties. In addition, the Bill has been the subject of discussions with representatives of the industry and other related interests. As a result of these processes the Government has decided to make a number of amendments to the 1983 Bill which have been incorporated in the current Bill together with some minor technical amendments passed in the other place. For the most part the changes have been designed to improve and clarify the regulatory arrangements reflected in the earlier Bill and to take account of certain practical and technical considerations raised in various submissions on the Bill . A description of the provisions of the Bill is contained in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated to honourable senators for information. In very general terms, the Bill is aimed at strengthening the financial stability of the insurance industry overall; protecting the insuring public against the negligence or misconduct of an agent or broker; and encouragement of practices consistent with the interests of the insuring public and the maintenance of standards of conduct of, and quality of advice offered by, agents and brokers. The main provisions will: establish the responsibilities of insurers for the conduct of their intermediaries; determine the arrangements concerning the discharge of financial obligations between an insured and intermediaries; deal with questions of misrepresentation by insurance intermediaries; require annual registration of brokers and permit suspension or cancellation of registration; establish financial controls and requirements for insurance which indemnifies brokers in respect of liabilities arising out of their business operations; and establish measures to minimise the risk of compromise of a broker's impartiality. I will now outline for the information of honourable senators some additional brief background on a number of the provisions. The provisions of the Bill do not apply to State insurance or Northern Territory insurance. I should mention, however, that the Government firmly believes that private and public sector insurers should as far as possible compete on the same terms and conditions. To this end, the Government will be continuing with its efforts to seek the agreement of the States and the Northern Territory to adopt the requirements of the Bill in respect of their government insurance offices. In order to assist in promoting improved standards of conduct on the part of insurance agents, new provisions have been included in the Bill which will prevent an insurance intermediary (other than an insurance broker) from holding himself or herself out as entitled to arrange contracts of insurance as agent for an insurer unless he or she has been authorised to do so in a written agreement with the insurer. In addition to the above requirement, agents will be required to provide copies of their agency agreements to intending insureds or insureds on request or to the relevant Insurance Commissioner. As I shall mention later, the Bill will also impose a number of other disclosure requirements on insurance intermediaries. Under a provision of the 1983 Bill as introduced into the Senate, a person who arranges contracts of insurance incidentally to carrying on some other business or profession (other than the business of insurance) would not be required to observe the requirements of the Bill that are imposed on insurance brokers. Many of the submissions received on the Bill drew attention to the potential difficulties and confusion that this provision would create and it was suggested that in the interests of equity and equal competition all intermediaries carrying on business as an insurance broker should be subject to the requirements to register as a broker. Against the background of these considerations, the Government has agreed to omit that particular provision from the Bill. The Bill also contains provisions which will impose responsibilities on the relevant insurance commissioner for keeping a register of life insurance brokers and a register of general insurance brokers. Additions to and deletions from these registers will be published in the Gazette and the registers and certain documents lodged by registered brokers will be available for public inspection. Following a review of the provisions of clause 24 of the 1983 Bill, the Government has remained firmly of the view that it will promote industry stability and add to the protection of the insuring public if appropriate controls are imposed over the maximum credit periods allowed for remitting of premiums and other moneys by brokers to insurers and insureds. While there have been strong differences of view on these issues as between underwriters and insurance brokers, I am pleased to note that considerable consensus on this subject has been reached between the Insurance Council of Australia and the National Insurance Brokers Association of Australia. As a result of that development these bodies have put forward a number of constructive suggestions for improving these provisions in a way that would be consistent with the Government's broad objective. The relevant provisions in this Bill (Clause 27) largely reflect those suggestions. The main changes will allow insurance brokers a maximum credit period of 90 days within which premium moneys are to be remitted to insurers; this period to be measured from the date on which the cover provided under an insurance contract commences to have effect. The Bill also contains certain adjustments to the information to be provided by brokers to their clients. In particular, a broker will be required to clearly indicate to insureds the amount of any fees imposed by the broker over and above premiums or other charges relevant to an insurance contract. In addition, a broker will be required to disclose to insureds, on request, any commission or other remuneration or benefits received from an insurer in respect of his or her services in arranging insurance contracts. In reviewing these requirements, the Government has decided to omit the provisions which would require brokers to disclose their fees and commissions to insurers. Those provisions have been strongly opposed by broking interests and the omission does not remove requirements necessary from the viewpoint of protection of insureds, particularly given the disclosure rights available to insureds as noted above. With respect to the prohibition on cross-directorships contained in the 1983 Bill, the Government has decided that it should be sufficient for a broker to be required to disclose to intending insureds or insureds various relationships between the broker and the insurer which may be capable of prejudicing a broker' s impartiality or create conflicts of interest to the detriment of clients. The Bill contains further provisions which extend the information that intermediaries are to provide to insureds. Persons who act for two or more insurers will be required to inform an intending insured of the name and a place of business of the proposed insurer before arranging a contract. This requirement, together with the provisions mentioned earlier concerning the requirements for agents to operate under written agency agreements, should help to pinpoint which insurer is responsible where the operations of 'multi-agents' are involved. In addition, appropriate information is to be given to an intending insured or an insured where the cover under an insurance contract is to be provided by a foreign insurer not authorised under the Insurance Act 1973. I should add that this provision is closely related to the provisions of section 113 of the Insurance Act 1973 and that the Government proposes to review those provisions in the light of the regulatory arrangements being established under this Bill. As indicated when the 1983 Bill was introduced into the Senate in December last year, it is the Government's intention that this legislation be implemented in accordance with the principle that there will be full cost recovery by the Commonwealth from the industry in respect of the legislation. Taking the Bill as a whole, the Government believes that it will make a very worthwhile contribution towards establishing appropriate standards and practices in a relatively unregulated area of the insurance market. Clearly, the Bill will provide increased protection for the insuring public and will complement the supervisory systems already established under the Insurance Act and Life Insurance Act. I commend the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Bill to honourable senators. LIFE INSURANCE AMENDMENT BILL 1984 The main purpose of this Bill is to amend the Life Insurance Act 1945 to effect a number of changes consequent upon the provisions of the Insurance Contracts Bill 1984. In general terms this Bill recognises the introduction of the wide ranging provisions contained in the Insurance Contracts Bill and the fact that, in a number of important areas, these provisions are more comprehensive than related sections of the Life Insurance Act. The amendments here proposed are also necessary to eliminate certain anomalies as between the Life Insurance Act and the Insurance Contracts Bill. In particular the amendments will provide that in respect of contracts entered into after the enactment of the Insurance Contracts Bill, its provisions will supersede provisions in the Life Act relating to age misstatements; the consequences of written misstatements made when effecting insurance; and the specification of interests that must be present if valid policies of life insurance are to be effected. Another amendment will ensure that, in situations where a policy owner does not wish to continue with a life policy and requests a paid-up policy, the relevant contract shall be varied, rather than a paid-up policy issued in lieu, to recognise the policy owner's right to payment of the varied amount as determined in accordance with the rules relating to paid-up policies and to ensure that provisions of the Insurance Contracts Bill relating to misrepresentation will carry over to paid-up policies. Finally, a technical amendment is considered desirable as a result of the above -mentioned changes relating to insurable interest. The Life Insurance Act currently contains a number of provisions relating to the payment of claims on the death of children under ten years of age. However, a savings section in the Act provides that those provisions are only intended to apply in situations where there exists a family or personal interest, as distinct from an economic type interest, in the life of a child. The amendment will remove any doubt that those provisions will continue to apply to contracts entered into after the enactment of the Insurance Contracts Bill. I should add by way of general background that as foreshadowed last November when introducing amendments to the Life Insurance Act the Government is continuing with the process of developing a number of other proposed amendments to the Act. I refer, in particular, to possible administrative improvements to the Act suggested by the former Life Insurance Commissioner, proposals arising out of a recent comprehensive review of the Act, and any comparable changes of the kind that may be developed to amend the Insurance Act 1973 in the light of the failure of Bishopsgate Insurance Limited. I assure the Senate that it remains the Government's intention to pursue these possible further changes to the Life Insurance Act at the earliest opportunity. I commend the Life Insurance Amendment Bill 1984 to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. The PRESIDENT —I have received the following message from the House of Representatives: Message No. 279 Mr President, The House of Representatives transmits to the Senate the following Resolution which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day and requests the concurrence of the Senate therein: That, in accordance with paragraph 8 (1) (d) of the Public Accounts Committee Act 1951, this House refers to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts for investigation and report as necessary from time to time, the proposed purchase of automatic data processing facilities by the Commonwealth, or any department or authority of the Commonwealth staffed under the Public Service Act 1922; notification of intention of which is to be conveyed to the committee by the Minister responsible for the intending purchaser. H. A. JENKINS Speaker Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the Senate concurs in the resolution transmitted to the Senate by message No. 279 of the House of Representatives relating to a reference to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and that the foregoing resolution be communicated to the House of Representatives by message. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(10.16) —Senator Georges, the Chairman of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, very graciously asked me to speak to this resolution from the House of Representatives as I happen to be the Chairman of the sectional Committee of the Joint Committee which would be undertaking this work. The Committee wants to make it known to the Parliament that it has accepted the reference from the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) with regard to a review of automatic data processing purchasing, and in doing so it does wish to make a couple of points that are quite important. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts, as is understood, represents both Houses and the parties within the Parliament and it has an enviable reputation of efficiency and effectiveness, and it values that very highly. In undertaking this new role it does not wish in any way to jeopardise that reputation. What is envisaged is that the sectional Committee and the Joint Committee will undertake the reference and it will take, in its own way, steps that need to be taken. It would be envisaged that the Secretary of a department and the Minister concerned would agree to the proposal, and the Cabinet then would ask the Public Accounts Committee to comment on it. The Committee would examine the strategic plan and discuss it either with the Minister or the Secretary, and undertake its own investigations. Of course it is understood that the Joint Committee of Public Accounts reports to the Parliament, but it would make recommendations to the Minister concerned and report to the Parliament from time to time. The Minister for Finance did ask the Committee to check that the proposals cover specific areas, such as Australian industry participation, employment issues, the effective use of public resources, and industrial relations. These areas would be considered as part of a check list that the Committee would pursue in looking at the items that had been referred to it. We considered that it was important that senior officers be involved in dealing with the Committee and in all cases that are referred to us the Committee will insist that the Secretary of the department or the head of the agency concerned appear before the Committee to explain why the project is essential and to discuss his own personal commitment to it. The Public Accounts Committee does not involve itself in policy decisions, but it will expect the chief of the organisation to know and to understand how this new system will work and how it will affect his Department. What is of importance, I think, to the Parliament in recognising that this is a committee of the Parliament is that the resources of the Committee be adequate to deal with this new responsibility which has been accepted by it. At present the Joint Committee of Public Accounts has very few resources and it relies mainly, for this ADP proposal, on Mr Vincent Cleary from the Department of Administrative Services for advice. Mr Cleary is on a short secondment and is required to monitor the Department of Social Security project of Stratplan as well as to advise the Committee on the new procedures. It is planned to continue the seconding arrangement as the Committee sees benefit in ensuring that its main adviser is a working professional rather than a consultant. The main reason for this is that we need people with an intimate knowledge of strategic planning and the total purchasing and auditing cycle of the Public Service. However, the secondee will in future be supported by two qualified staff and he will be able to use one or two consultants. There will therefore be perhaps up to five professional staff which the Committee can call upon, as it is expected that only 4 or 5 proposals will need to be checked in any detail in each year. But this number could not be handled unless there were sufficient resources on the Committee staff to do so. If the Committee does not have the resources that it realises are absolutely essential it will advise the Cabinet that it cannot accept the reference given to it. It is important to recognise the strenuous efforts that have been made by the Chairman of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, Senator Georges, to the appropriate persons with regard to the staffing structure of that Joint Committee and the support staff that it will need if it is to perform effectively the new role that has been given to it by the Minister for Finance. Perhaps I should say that something like $150m of ADP proposals are currently before the Government. I believe the Senate understands that for the Committee to make a positive recommendation on those proposals it would require talented staff, a lot of work by the parliamentary members of the Committee and the provision of sufficient information by the heads of departments and Ministers concerned. In supporting the message that has been sent to us from the House of Representatives and in seeking the concurrence of the Senate to it, I draw attention to these matters that the Joint Committee felt ought to be placed before the Parliament at this time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans)-by leave-agreed to: That in accordance with the provisions of the Archives Act 1983 the Senate choose Senator Martin to be a member of the Advisory Council on Australian Archives for a period of three years on and from 7 June 1984. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That, unless otherwise ordered- (1) Government Business, Order of the Day No. 3 (Cocos (Keeling) Islands Self-Determination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984 , be postponed till the next day of sitting. (2) That, after consideration of Government Business; Order of the Day No. 2 ( Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill 1984), Government Business be considered in the following order: (a) Order of the Day No. 5 (Copyright Amendment Bill 1984); and (b) Order of the Day No. 4 (Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1984; Income Tax (Companies Corporate Unit Trusts and Superannuation Funds) Amendment Bill 1984). Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.23) — I would like it noted that in Government Business today the Remuneration and Allowances Amendment Bill is not mentioned. Honourable senators know that I have circulated an amendment that I propose to move to the Remuneration and Allowances Amendment Bill. That amendment seeks to prevent the Remuneration Tribunal from dealing with any matters in relation to de facto spouses of members of parliament in respect of overseas travel entitlements on study leave. It is quite clear that if the Government is not bringing this matter on today it will have to come up next week. The Government is providing a great disincentive for honourable senators to vote for that amendment seeing that, if the Bill is amended, members of parliament will not get an increase in their salaries because they will have to wait until the House of Representatives comes back before the amendment is considered. Senator Peter Baume —We have a position on that in principle. We do not worry about that. Senator HARRADINE —Sure. This will be the situation unless we are assured-I hope we are assured on this and a number of other measures that are coming before us which are the subject of amendments-that the House of Representatives will be brought back to consider all the amendments to this Bill and other Bills that the Senate may consider are appropriate. Question resolved in the affirmative. [COGNATE BILL: COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 6 June, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.25) — The House is dealing cognately, as I understand it, with the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Bill and with amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill. The Government has brought back the referendum Bill and is proposing an amendment thereto which I wish to discuss briefly. As for the other Bill, the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill, a number of amendments to that legislation are said to be tidying up, consequential and technical in nature. I suggest that at least one of the amendments is not technical in nature. It attempts to provide a substantial change in the form of the ballot paper and also attempts to provide undue regulatory power to the Commonwealth Electoral Commission for it to determine the form of ballot papers. We are all practising politicians and know the importance of the ballot paper. We all know that if the ballot paper is drawn in one form or other, it has consequences on the results. Therefore, it is important that we examine this legislation in detail. In the Committee stage I shall be asking the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) a number of questions to try to seek clarification. In order to set the scene I refer to a letter which was forwarded to members of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform and which enclosed a Senate ballot paper prepared by the Commonwealth Electoral Commission following discussion at a previous meeting of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. The Electoral Commission proposes that this form will be used in a test run to be conducted by the Morgan Poll organisation-at least I assume that is the Electoral Commission's proposal, or it may be a proposal that has come from the joint committee. Senator Elstob —The Electoral Commission. Senator HARRADINE —If it is the Electoral Commission, I am very disturbed about the proposal. I have not seen a ballot paper for the State of Tasmania. I assume that the test run will be done in all States. I have the ballot papers that are to be run for New South Wales and Victoria. They use the names of the people who were candidates at the 1983 double dissolution election. In using those candidates, the Commission has set out the ballot paper in the form that it would have taken had the Commonwealth electoral legislation of 1983 been in force at that time. It is clear that the ballot paper has on the top the easy method of voting, and as to the second alternative listed it has the method that was adopted at the last election-namely, that the voter was to consider the candidates and the number of candidates in order of choice. We debated these alternatives on the last occasion that this Bill was under consideration in this chamber. We considered it when the 1983 Commonwealth electoral amendment legislation was being considered. The type of ballot paper I hold in my hand is the result. Consideration was given to the various methods. I indicated at that time that I believed that the present method would assist the party system to the disadvantage of Independents and a true exercise of choice by the electors. In effect, this system will lock people into the machine decisions of the political parties so far as preferences are concerned. Therefore, inferentially, it will in effect disadvantage a true freedom of choice on the part of the electors. It might be said, of course, that the electors can have the choice of voting right through numbers 1 to 50, or whatever it is; in my State it is 1 to 27, or something like that. On the last occasion we debated electoral legislation, I said that the way to do that would be to have optional preferential voting. What is wrong with optional preferential voting? Senator Robert Ray —You cannot get 33 votes in this chamber. Senator HARRADINE —Because the Government cannot get 33 votes it opts for this system which is a bodgie sort of thing. Again, optional preferential voting would have been the best method. Because the Government cannot get the best option through, what does it do? It panders to the Australian Democrats. Is that what Senator Ray is saying? Senator Gareth Evans —It is the second best option. Senator HARRADINE —The second best option in the important question of electoral reform is not good enough. Of course, this system will advantage the political parties. It will advantage the Democrats because they do not, as I do, have most of the booths manned. It will disadvantage Independents. I have not seen the ballot paper that has been prepared as a test run for my State by the Commonwealth Electoral Commission. I will be interested to see where I am on that paper. I point out that a single Independent cannot have a box on the top of the ballot paper. Senator Peter Baume —But there probably will not be single Independents. Senator HARRADINE —Just a minute. A single Independent cannot have a box at the top of the ballot paper. The Commonwealth Electoral Commission, with my money and with everybody else's money, will publicise this system of voting and urge people to vote simply; it argues that this system of voting is designed to cut out informal votes. Of course, it is not. If that was the design an optional preferential system would have been adopted. This system is designed to support the party system, to disadvantage Independents, and to deny true freedom of choice to the electors. The election campaigns of parties will be geared to publicising the simple system of voting; electors will be asked to vote one, Australian Labor Party, vote one, Liberal Party, and vote one, Australian Democrats. So we will see a situation whereby I am the last Independent ever to be elected to the Federal Parliament. Nobody will deny that. I will be the last Independent, as such. Senator Macklin —Not to Federal Parliament; the Senate. Senator HARRADINE —No, to the Federal Parliament. Senator Macklin —The House of Representatives has not changed; its system has not changed. Senator HARRADINE —When was the last Independent elected to the House of Representatives? Senator Robert Ray —Sam Benson. Senator HARRADINE —All right, I will correct that; I am the last Independent as such to be elected to the Senate. I think I have some right to say something about that. For me to get re-elected I have to set myself up as a political party. That has certain outside consequences but I will not state here what those consequences are. Under the Commonwealth electoral legislation I can set myself up as a party. I can write today to the Commonwealth Electoral Commission and say that I want to be the Brian Harradine Senate Party, or whatever party; I can write to the Commission and say that is what I want, put my name up there on the ballot paper. Senator Watson —You have to. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Watson says I have to, and I agree. I will have to do it. Senator Macklin —You ran as a group last time. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Macklin says that I ran as a group last time. The only reason I ran as a group last time-and the time before and the time before- with the consent of my running mate was to participate in the draw. Senator Macklin knows that as well as I do. Senator Macklin —That is all this is, too. Senator HARRADINE —What a lot of tripe. Senator Macklin —You will be participating in the draw. Senator HARRADINE —The honourable senator is voting for it but he does not know what he is voting for. Senator Macklin —I don't think you know what is in the Bill; obviously you haven 't even read it. Senator HARRADINE —Don't worry about that; I have read the Bill backwards, frontwards, sideways and upside down, and I know it off by heart. I know what I am talking about all right, because the old head is at stake. I have my head on the chopping block. Senator Macklin —You know you haven't. Senator HARRADINE —I will explain in terms of one syllable for Senator Macklin- Senator Macklin —Don't be patronising. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Macklin started this blasted nonsense and, as is admitted by Senator Ray, it is all because of Senator Macklin that we are here, that we have this bodgie system. But for him we could have had the optional preferential system. So, if I do the same as I did last time, if I get some altruistic person who is anxious to assist in the campaign and to form a group, what would we have? Yes, we would have a group all right; I would not be on the un-group list along with various other people, who may of course have better qualities than I-that is one of the problems of being in the un-group-but I would have my group and would participate in the draw. However, what about the section up the top? What will happen up the top where everybody is going to vote ? What will be up there? There will be nothing. Unless I register as a party, there will be no name, nothing, up there for me. Senator Macklin —Right. Harradine Party. Senator HARRADINE —That is what Senator Macklin is saying. I said before that, unless I registered as a party, I would not be able to participate. My name would not be up there, nor the name of the party. There would be no name there. There would be an identification up there. It would be identification L or Group A, Group D, Group B or whatever. So, theoretically, in my election campaign I can say: 'Vote Group D. Put a vote in Group D.' but under this amendment I would be denied even that. Senator Robert Ray —No. You are already denied that. The amendment does nothing to it. Senator HARRADINE —But under this amendment the numbers are to be whacked out. The lettering will not be up there, that is, Group A, B, C, or D. Am I right? Senator Robert Ray —No, you will have an A above the box. Senator HARRADINE —No, there will not be. Senator Macklin —Yes, you will. Only the lettering goes. Senator HARRADINE —That is what I am saying. The lettering goes. Senator Robert Ray —From the side; down the bottom it goes. Senator HARRADINE —No, it goes everywhere as far as I can see. Senator Robert Ray —No, you will still have a letter across the top box. Senator Macklin —The letters run across the top but not down the side. Senator HARRADINE —That is fair enough but it is small comfort to say that the lettering goes. So the lettering goes across the top instead of down the side. The point is, as Senator Robert Ray has said, that under the 1983 legislation an Independent is in fact denied the opportunity to participate in the first option group except and unless he is registered as a political party. It is quite clear that I can do that. As I have said, I can write anything to the Electoral Commission today. I will do it and make history. I can register as long as the name is no more than six words and is not obscene. Actually, at one stage in this chamber I was called obscene. I wonder, if I wrote to the Electoral Commission, using my name, whether I would get an objection from the honourable senator who called me obscene. But I hope that if I wrote to the Electoral Commission it would not rule my name out as obscene. So provided that it is no more than six words-- Senator Sir John Carrick —Harridans are obscene sometimes. Senator HARRADINE —It is a different spelling. Can honourable senators see visible the horns of the dilemma on which I am hoisted, not by my own-- Senator Peter Baume —Is it a petard? Senator HARRADINE —Is it a petard? Senator Macklin —You can be impaled on the horns. Senator HARRADINE —I am well and truly impaled and do not know what to do. But, seriously, it is no joking matter. In order for me to be re-elected-as I have said, I will be the last Independent to be elected to this chamber-I shall have to set up a political party. That is recognised. If I have to set up a political party, I may as well do it fair dinkum. Senator Teague —What does that mean? Senator HARRADINE —I will do it fair dinkum. I hope all honourable senators realise that I could write to the Electoral Commission -I have read the Bill-and set up a political party in Tasmania, New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, Western Australia and-where is the other place? Senator Macklin —South Australia. Senator HARRADINE —Yes, my home State. I have a quota of relatives in South Australia. I could form the Harradine Party there. Uncle Bob would say: 'Give him a vote'. It is very interesting for me. But what about another poor Independent who wants to run for election? The proposals in this Bill undermine his independent principles. He may believe that the Senate is a States House; it should be a non-party House. In order to get elected he will have to set up a party. What a farce! This is supposed to be a non-party States House, although we know that is a farce too. What happens if someone genuinely believes in that concept and wants to be elected to the Senate as an Independent? I refer to a man of great stature in his home State. I am not talking about myself; that is why I have to set up a party. Even if such a man wants to make a contribution and feels quite genuinely that this place is or should be a non-party House, he will never be able to get into this chamber as a senator unless he establishes himself as a member of a registered political party under the proposed Act. Senator Peter Baume —He could still go on the ungrouped but he would not get the tick in the box. Senator HARRADINE —Of course; that is what I am saying. If that person's name is ungrouped he will lose. He will not be elected because the Electoral Commission in its great new deal will have all the political parties advertised on the proposed ballot paper, and that will be it. So this person will not be elected. He will get a box without a name if he groups himself with someone, but if he stands alone he will not get a box. In order to get a box with a name on it he will have to dart around to get 500 people to sign into a political party. They will say to him: 'You are running as an Independent. What are you talking about? '. He will reply 'I am only trying to fix things up', and he will be told: 'That is underhand'. What a farce this has all turned out to be! It raises very serious problems for me and I am giving a great deal of consideration to it. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(10.48) —I rise primarily because of Senator Harradine's contribution to the debate on the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill. I sympathise entirely with what he has said. In my dissenting report in the report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform I tried to show that the proposed system was a farce and lacked democracy . The system is not aimed at introducing and allowing in free rein the proportional representation system of voting. If that were the aim, the old system would continue. The proposed system has been designed as a means of reducing proportional representation to an absurdity. To have teams and to require people to put a tick for a team of their choice means that they are not encouraged to make a value judgment at all but simply to run in the party's stable and colours. I have pointed out that what it has done to the ballot paper is to make it a nonsense-it is now so complex that there will be a tendency for parties, in fact a very great eagerness on the part of the Australian Labor Party, to advertise and take the top line. The ballot paper is becoming more and more distorted and complex. I have spoken many times in the select committee on this matter. I opposed the idea that there had to be 500 members to form a political party. I have pointed out the nonsense of this situation. If individuals or political parties were to set up a series of spurious groups of 500, they could manipulate this ticket and win the Senate. The fact is that people can increase their odds of getting the left hand position and thereby transfer what was the donkey vote by simply registering a few more parties. Senator Harradine —You could register a few more preferences. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —That is right. The decision that was made by the Labor Party and the Australian Democrats to institutionalise this was made, in fact, to institutionalise the donkey vote. Nothing could be more cynical than that. In the past, the accident of fate, the apathy and the ignorance of some people who have simply voted across the page at least had a random element. Not so for the future, because that party which gets the left hand ticket can distribute its donkey vote the way it likes. One could not have a more absurd situation. I invite members of the Senate to read my dissenting report. The decision was cynical. It was nothing to do with the philosophy of democracy at all. It was to do with the eagerness to collect votes at the maximum rate. Senator Harradine is utterly right-by putting a listing system on the ballot paper and making it so absurdly complex, we virtually compel people to look at the top strip and not the rest. Once they do that, there is a very grave disadvantage for Independents . I have always believed that the Senate, above all places, should be a possible place for Independents. If indeed it is to live up to its name as a House of review, as a States House and as a place to have second thoughts, then it should be able to have Independents. Equally, proportional representation was designed to encourage the independent and the smaller group. What we have designed here in an utterly cynical way is a system to destroy proportional representation. That is exactly what this is doing. Senator Harradine is abundantly right. He can get on the top line, but he must form a political party. He must go and get 500 people-- Senator Harradine —No, I do not have to get 500 people, somebody else has to. I can set up myself as a parliamentary party tomorrow under whatever label I please. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —That is right; the device of getting on the top line is just that-a device. Unless an independent does that, he will be lost somewhere in a right hand list at the bottom. Unless the person is extremely well known and can educate the population, he is running at a grave disadvantage . We now have an incongruity because it is necessary to explain to people their choices. The ballot paper is being extended and extended with all sorts of explanations and all sorts of arrows. It is beginning to look like some D-day battle plan. If I hold up the ballot paper, honourable senators will understand the incongruity of it. Senator Harradine has been good enough to hand me the battle plan complete. As it is 7 June today, one better understand that this does not relate in any way to yesterday's 40th anniversary of D-day. These arrows are simply to tell one of all the complexities of the ballot paper. If we are going to have something like this-a lengthy paper-we should bear in mind this fact. Some people may decide that they would like to run a team of seven instead of a team of four, so the ballot paper will be long both ways. We are creating a Greek tragedy-a silly kind of comedy. We cannot really say that we are presenting such a ballot paper to the people of Australia for serious consideration. What we are doing is telling the people of Australia that we are forcing them by this complication to take the top line, and that is exactly what we want. By making the top line simple the Government is aiming to reduce the number of informal votes. There are informal votes that are committed in absolute good faith-people earnestly trying to fill in a complicated form but making errors. In a proportional representation system we say to people 'we want you to take all these candidates and list them in good faith precisely as you would have them listed'. Of course some people will make errors. The select committee made some recommendations to ease that situation. But there are always people who do not want to vote, who are completely apathetic or who are opposed to the system altogether-one would say, if it were not unparliamentary, that they cast a bloody minded vote. By simply telling them they can cast such a vote by a tick, we are giving those people the margin of decision. Decisions in marginal electorates and in the Senate are made by the last one or two per cent. So as we oversimplify, we allow the decision to be made by the speed of the apathetic or by the speed of those who are opposed to voting. Therefore, the system is perverted. There is nothing knew in my saying this. I have written it in the dissenting report and I have said it in the Committee ad nauseam. We are now debating a situation that has been legalised because the Bill has gone through Parliament. The Australian people have been presented with a Senate ballot paper which does not accurately implement the proportional representation system. True it can be said-and those who will seek to contradict me will argue this- that there is down the bottom an opportunity to express preferences as in the past. But nobody who has designed this ballot paper would deny that the aim is to make it so simple to use the top line that the great majority of people will do just that and therefore not use proportional representation at all. It is very simple-the top line means that it is not a proportional representation system at all. It is a system of teams. It is nothing to do with proportional representation. It simply says 'I worked out that in this kind of situation I can win four out of seven, so I will run a team of four'. That has nothing to do with the concept of proportional representation in which people are asked to make value judgments one by one across the whole ballot paper. All the arguments that the system is too complicated resolve themselves down to this: What do we want in the first place? Where do we start? Do we start by saying: 'Let us design a system of election which will ensure that the slowest, the most apathetic and the most unwilling will have their opportunity to cast a formal vote' or do we start by saying: 'The philosophy behind voting ought to be that of proportional representation and we are going to proceed on the basis that the electorate is made up of people who are reasonably intelligent and capable of casting such a vote and then make some concessions for those who may stumble on the route'? What has happened is very simple indeed. The list system itself is based not on the philosophy proportional representation but on the philosophy of 'let us get every vote into the stable whether it is apathetic, whether it is unwilling or not'. This is not a proportional representation system at all. Of course, as Senator Harradine says, it very greatly prejudices the Independents. It also makes a mockery of the system because it institutionalises the donkey vote. The very fact that this can be done makes a complete cynicism out of what has happened. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(11.02) —I support the remarks of my colleague Senator Sir John Carrick and also my Tasmanian colleague Senator Brian Harradine. I think it is unfortunate that so little attention has been given to the work that Senator Sir John Carrick has done in this area. The Press has not taken it up in the interests of democracy. I think we have to congratulate the Australian Labor Party on the way it has handled and manipulated the system because it is very obvious that what has been proposed will work very much to its own advantage. Whilst I might be a representative of one of the major parties, I concur with the remarks of my colleague Senator Brian Harradine from Tasmania. I think there is a danger to democracy in what we are doing in the Senate today not in the sense that the legislation will not give expression to the wishes of the majority of voters-I acknowledge that it will do that-but in the sense that it will lock out small Independents who wish to participate as individuals rather than as members of a political party. The legislation before the Senate will certainly hinder their chances of election to the Senate. I think there is always a danger to democracy when the aspirations of people to enter politics by a system other than through the party system are denied by a House of Parliament. People who aspire to have their names placed on the top line of the ballot paper, which they must do under the proposed system, immediately must make deals in order to get the required amount of support. On the other hand, I am also concerned that there are dangers, because of the closeness between the numbers of Government and Opposition senators, that an Independent may have excessive or extraordinary powers. That, in itself, is not good. However, I think it is the lesser of two evils, rather than having an electoral system under which individuals of talent have greater difficulty in getting elected to this place and having a degree of power. Many people in our community with sincere convictions who wish to stand as Independents will be forced by this legislation to join a political party simply to get a good position on the ballot paper to enable them to have any chance whatsoever of election to this House. The legislation also discourages electors to exercise an individual choice to give a preference and to vote across a ticket. I believe that in a few years 80 or perhaps 90 per cent of electors will be voting for candidates across the top line. I will not be surprised if, within a few years, the alternative or the choice disappears. Electors will find themselves selecting a party with more than one mark on a ballot paper because it will be argued that, after all, the overwhelming majority of Australians prefer it that way. Again, I think the opportunity for people to vote across party affiliation and make their own choices under a true preferential system will disappear because we will be locked into the party system. This means that the control of people's destinies will increasingly pass to an outside party selected executive and to people who are outside the political format and to faceless men. In time we will find that the representatives who come into this chamber will be party hacks rather than true individualists. I am particularly concerned about what will happen in my own Party. Liberal senators have been given a degree of independence which at times has allowed them to cross the floor. Under this system we will increasingly be forced into a rigid party system, into tight discipline and into following the dictates of the people behind us. That is what I am worried about. Those who tend to vary a little bit, who are guided by their consciences and who support the sorts of, for example, issues that Senator Harradine will put forward in relation to de factos. Senators will not therefore be able to afford to have these little indiscretions against the party system in favour of their own consciences. Senators will increasingly be forced along the path of adopting the general philosophy of the community. If that community philosophy is in favour of downgrading standards, who would be bold enough to stand alone? He will have to fight very strong backroom discipline exercising increasing control. He will be put under the thumb and his activities will be watched more and more. I believe that Senator Sir John Carrick made a very good point that a regimented vote under the party system will reflect not so much the wishes of those who really have a desire to vote but those who do not want to vote-those who are forced into it and who want to get in and out of a booth as quickly as possible to avoid being fined for not voting. Those sorts of people do not give a lot of thought to whom they really want elected. They perhaps are swayed more by television advertising by a major party than by what they think about the issues. We should encourage people increasingly to think about issues and to think about the candidates. We are tending to become more and more materialistic in terms of the legislation that we pass. We are becoming less concerned about individuals and their rights. Rather, we are concentrating on the general community. While I think we always have to give expression to legislating for the community good, at the same time we also have to acknowledge that some people in society take different views about things. I am rather concerned that in time we will see the disappearance of the proportional system of voting and I do not think that this will be good for democracy. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(11.10) —We have just heard a great speech on someone's personal philosophy. Good or bad though that may be, I do not see what it has to do with the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Bill. Senator Harradine began by saying that the main thing that worried him was a technical aspect, and then went on, I suppose, to canvass the more general areas that we could have considered last November. One thing he did say was that this will provide the Commonwealth Electoral Commission with undue regulatory powers relating to the formation of a ballot paper. At least the Electoral Commission has taken the time consistently to consult with the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, where all four parties, which are represented in this chamber-- Senator Harradine —I'm not on it. Senator ROBERT RAY —I will come to that in a moment. All four parties at least have been able to look at and have some input into the design of that ballot paper. The only real amendment we suggest will de-cluttering this new ballot paper by removing the necessity for symbols and the letters to appear next to each candidate's to indicate the group, and merely to put it on the top box and on the bottom of the top part of the ballot paper. That is all we are doing in this amendment. I must say that the Electoral Reform was specifically given the power for an on-going review of the Electoral Act, and this is part of the process and part of the recommendations. I think at least what appears in here is the unanimous recommendation that those letters be removed. Senator Harradine —But it does provide for further regulatory powers to be given to the Electoral Commission. Senator ROBERT RAY —It does do that, and I would imagine that those powers cannot contravene any of the existing and adequate provisions in the Act. That cannot be done by regulation. The reference to the Electoral Commission about polling is to find whether people will use the top or bottom option. The purpose of the polling is so that the Electoral Commission can determine afterwards where the count for the Senate has to be done. It must know in advance whether 70, 80 or 90 per cent of people will use the top box, because in that case none of those ballot papers go to the centralised counting room. Most honourable senators would be aware that we have changed the way in which we count the Senate votes. It will in some way be a more complex vote in future but a much fairer one. All the ballot papers of people who vote with just a ticket vote can remain in the divisional returning offices. All the others have to go to a centralised counting room. It is essential the Electoral Commission knows in advance what the rough proportion will be, so it can make staff and other arrangements. Senator Harradine has claimed here that this matter will reinforce the party system. I would not contest that. It may well do that, and it may to some extent disadvantage some Independents. But I have to stress that the electors were left with a choice of voting 1 to 50 or 1 to 30, however many people nominate, or they can vote the box and the ticket. They were left with a choice. Senator Harradine said: 'You have made a bad choice. You should have gone for optional preferential voting'. That is something that did appeal to the Australian Labor Party, as it is in our policy, but we were not able to convince the majority of people in this chamber about it. I do not know whether Senator Harradine believes we should remain pure on all occasions-just type it out and retain the existing crook system or go for a second best option. We went for a second best option. I think there is some confusion about how much Independents will be disadvantaged. Senator Harradine claims that he will be the last Independent elected to this chamber. In recent decades there have not been many Independents . I suppose one could term former Senator Steele Hall and Senator Townley as Independents. I would probably call them Independent Liberals. Everyone knew that at some stage, after they got over their huffs with their local party machines they would rejoin the establishment, and they did that. Former Senator Negus was, I suppose, the other genuine Independent, apart from Senator Harradine, to be elected to this place. In any event not many have been elected. I do not think Independents will be particularly disadvantaged. For Independents to survive they have to get about 0.6 or 0.7 per cent of the quota in any event. Once they do that they will find that the list system will advantage them rather than other parties, because it will tighten up preferences. That will mean that the major political parties, by avoiding sending preferences to each other, will direct them through everyone else but the other major political parties. Senator Harradine —Your mob down there put me last. Senator ROBERT RAY —We are still suffering the ramifications of that, as Senator Harradine well knows. But in general political parties tend to run through Independents and minor parties and put the other major political party last. Senator Harradine —Like what happened in Queensland. Senator ROBERT RAY —I will come to what happened in Queensland. The reason things occurred in Queensland is that we already had to jump one way over the ballot paper. The honourable senator will realise that if we made a double jump we would increase informality. That is another good reason for the list system. Preferences do not have to be artificially allocated because of ease of marking. Most Independents will be advantaged if-I stress 'if'-they get to that point of quota, 0.6 or 0.5 per cent, where they survive in the count. So this system will be of some advantage to them. Senator Harradine —There won't be any advantage to me. Senator ROBERT RAY —I do not think any of this has anything to do with Senator Harradine. He got quotas so easily in the past, and probably will in the future. It will not have any effect on him. Senator Harradine —Not unless I set myself up as a party. Senator ROBERT RAY —I will come to that in a moment. The honourable senator is indicating that he may have to set up a party Australia-wide, called the Obscene Party, maybe the Fair Dinkum Party or some other party. The one disadvantage that people such as Senator Harradine will suffer is that they cannot put their names under the top box. It does not mean they cannot use the top box. By nominating, as they do normally in a group, they can register their how to vote cards. They can have the letters. Let us say they draw position C. There will be a C on the top and a C at the bottom, so the connection can be made. If honourable senators look at the ballot paper they will see those lines are not the printer's lines, they are lines that will be there to connect the top to the bottom. Therefore unless people are, shall I say, fairly stupid, they should be able to connect the two. Certainly by manning all the booths, as candidates do, their supporters can very easily tell the electors: 'Vote the list system for Harradine and put a figure 1 next to box C'. That is very easy to do outside the booth. They can design their how to vote cards to explain that. The Independents ' disadvantage is only very marginal, in my view. I come to some of the comments made by Senator Sir John Carrick. He extolled the virtues of proportional representation. That is probably why his Liberal Party opposed it in 1948, and that is probably why it will never introduce it in its own Party voting system. How many branches of the Liberal Party have proportional representation? Maybe Tasmania does, but none of the others do. But , like the Independents, the Liberals like the freedom of choice; yet their own voting system in their own internal Party is as conservative as far as one vote, one value is possible. So the Liberals are not really advocates of public relations. They just like it because under the current Senate system, that means no radical party can get a majority in this chamber. Senator Sir John Carrick complained here and shed some crocodile tears about Independents. He had less time for Independents or any Opposition when he was Leader of the Government here than anyone else did, and in my view his are just crocodile tears. He went on to say that this new system is particularly complex. I ask honourable senators to look at it and tell me how complex it is. The electors will have two voting choices. They can vote for the ticket or the existing system. I will just read out what they can do. The electors have a choice between 'either' and 'or'. It may be a bit difficult for Senator Sir John Carrick to work out what 'either' or 'or' means. I would have said that persons could vote for one or the other. Let me read the instructions to someone who wants to vote by way of the top option. They state: Place the single figure 1 in one, and one only, of these squares to indicate the . . . voting ticket . . . you wish to adopt . . . In other words if voters want to vote for their party's ticket they must put the number 1 across the top. Is that hard? If electors do not want to follow their party's ticket, they vote on the bottom section, which is basically identical to the current voting system we have been using for the last 30 years. What is complex about that? What is impossible for people to understand about that? It has been stated here today that the Electoral Commission is in some way going to advertise only the top option. That is not true, and it should not be the case. If it does that, it is not doing its duty. Senator Harradine —Nobody said that. Senator ROBERT RAY —It was inferred that it would support, by massive publicity, only the top option. That is not going to be the case. If it is the case, it will have to be reversed. It is not for them to say which of the two options people should choose. Senator Sir John Carrick said that this is a complex voting system. One out of 10 people cannot handle the existing system. It has been a system, over the years, that has been exploited and favoured by the Liberal Party. It has probably taken us 20 years to catch up on those sorts of matters because Senator Sir John Carrick has been one of the great political operators in this chamber and in New South Wales. He is a wily old apparatchik. He has always sought to have the system that would best advantage the Liberal Party. No one can doubt his basic loyalty. He has a lot of admiration from our side of the House because of that loyalty. However, I am convinced, having listened to his speech today, that we have finally wound him back. After 20 years we have finally caught up with him. We have finally introduced a system that he is finding desperately hard to condemn or to exploit. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 and 2-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 3 (Interpretation). Senator HILL(South Australia)(11.22) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 3, clause 3, sub-clause (1), line 38, definition of 'Northern Territory', leave out the definition. (2) Page 4, clause 3, sub-clause (2), paragraph (b), after 'Territory', insert 'specified in a notice published under sub-section 79 (1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918'. (3) Page 4, clause 3, sub-clause (3), line 38, leave out the sub-clause. The amendments relate to the question of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. I referred to the matter in my speech in the second reading debate. The Bill was amended in the House of Representatives by three Government amendments tying the islands to the Northern Territory for the purposes of a Commonwealth referendum. Firstly, the Northern Territory was redrafted to include the Territory of the Cocos ( Keeling) Islands. Secondly, the provision that a reference to a sub-division shall be read as including a reference to a district of that Territory specified in a notice published under sub-section 79 (1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 was altered to exclude the latter words because the Cocos (Keeling) Islands are declared to be a district by the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Self-Determination Bill rather than a specification under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. Thirdly, the provision was inserted to provide the Act extends to the Territory of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. The purpose of the Opposition's amendments is to revert to the position that previously existed. In my speech in the second reading debate I said that it is the Opposition's view that the occupants of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, now that they have voted to integrate with Australia, would have the opportunity to express a preference as to which State or Territory they wish to be associated with for the purpose of Commonwealth elections, for voting purposes other than referenda. The matter will be dealt with subsequently in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Self-Determination (Consequential Amendments) Bill which we will debate later today. For the purposes of referenda, it comes clearly within this Bill. That is why the Government decided to implement its policy decision that the Islands be associated with the Northern Territory. We believe that the islanders may well have good reasons to prefer to be associated with Western Australia with which they have considerable ties such as communication ties as I mentioned yesterday and ties through the fact that many of the islanders now live in Western Australia. We believe that they should have the opportunity, therefore, to express their view and should be consulted. In the Bill to be subsequently debated we intend to suggest a process of consultation that could take place. However, I do not think it is necessary to go into that at the moment. All we do by these amendments is to seek to preserve the status quo until a proper consultative process can take place with the people of those islands. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.24) —As will be obvious, the Government resists those amendments. The desire has been to give the Cocos ( Keeling) Islanders a vote in referendums as it equally is to give them a vote in Australian elections. I understand that there will be no dissent from that basic aspiration. The difficulty is determining where they are to be entitled or able to vote. The situation is, as was essentially explained by the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) in the House of Representatives in moving the amendments, simply that the Cocos (Keeling) Islands can be included in a division of a State-that is to say, in Western Australia or anywhere else- only if the islands are actually made part of that State. That is the view of all my predecessors of Attorneys-General, and that is my view. For that to occur would require support from both the State Parliament in question and from the majority electors of that State at a referendum. For all practical purposes, that places an absurd set of obstacles, I would imagine, to either the achievement of State status for the Cocos Islands or, at the very least, for the speedy implementation of that status. Presumably it would not be proposed by Senator Hill or anyone else that there be a separate referendum within Western Australia or anywhere else on this issue alone. The suggestion, no doubt, would be that that should occur in conjunction with the next referendum whenever it is held or the next election whenever it is held. But, for that to occur, would deny the Cocos Islanders a vote in that election or referendum, as the case may be. One is caught in something of a vicious circle in this respect. For all those reasons it has been the Government's view that the Cocos Islands should be incorporated in the Northern Territory. If the State incorporation option is excluded, the choice reduces, obviously, to either the Northern Territory or one of the two Canberra divisions. There is obviously a much greater coincidence of interest between the Cocos Islands and the Northern Territory than would be the case with either of the Australian Capital Territory electorates by virtue of geographical proximity if nothing else. Against that background the Government has taken the view, both in the context of this legislation and in the separate Bill, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Self- Determination (Consequential Amendments) Bill, that will be dealt with today that there is no practical alternative but to deal with the Islands in that way. I also understand it to be the case that this issue was canvassed with the Cocos Islanders during the recent domestic plebiscite or referendum that occurred within that Territory. There was a clear understanding of this proposal and support for it. To that extent I am not sure that there is the necessity for the kind of further consultation that Senator Hill describes as now being necessary or desirable. I appreciate that the matter will be further debated in the later-- Senator Kilgariff —It is not our understanding, Minister, that there was any consultation. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not well briefed on this matter. I am speaking from my recollection of briefing notes that I saw on the later legislation. There may be differences of opinion about it, but I am sure Senator Gietzelt will carry that argument later in the day. The main point on which I hang my hat is the sheer practical unavailability of any realistic alternatives to this course. I suggest that that alone is amply sufficient reason for the Senate to prefer the Government's clauses now before it. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.28) —We will be opposing the Opposition's amendments. The full argument, I think, might be better left until we actually discuss the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Self-Determination (Consequential Amendments ) Bill. Essentially, our concern is that the citizens of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands ought to have the right to vote in the next election. There seems to be no other way of achieving that result except by what has been proposed in this legislation. However, we also feel considerable sympathy for the point of view that was expressed by Senator Hill. When we get to the next Bill we should look further at what type of operation might be able to be put in train to ascertain the true wishes of the people of the Cocos Islands. It would seem, at least on all the advice we have been able to get on this matter, that a referendum would probably have to be held to enable the boundaries of Western Australia-if that is the State that is to have the Cocos Islands and Christmas Island-to be extended and a referendum would have to be held for that purpose. If that were the case and a referendum were held even at the next election, the people of Cocos Islands and Christmas Island would be deprived of a vote on the next election. It might be possible to see this as an interim arrangement that could be rectified at a later stage by other mechanisms. On the basis that we wish those citizens of Australia to have the right to vote in the next election, we cannot support the Opposition amendments. Amendments negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 4 to 10-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Proposed new clause 10A (Commonwealth to provide funds for arguments against prospect law in certain cases). Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.32) —I move: Page 7, after clause 10 insert the following new clause: Commonwealth to provide funds for arguments against proposed law in certain cases '10A. (1) Where- (a) a proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution has been submitted to the electors; and (b) the Commonwealth has incurred expenditure in promoting the case in favour of the proposed law, the Minister shall, as soon as practicable after the submission of the proposed law to the electors, prepare a notice in writing stating that that expenditure has been incurred by the Commonwealth and setting out the amount of that expenditure or, if more than one proposed law was submitted to the electors on the same day, setting out the total amount of the expenditure incurred by the Commonwealth in promoting the cases in favour of all the proposed laws, and shall cause a copy of the notice to be published in the Gazette. '(2) A notice under sub-section (1) is conclusive evidence for the purposes of this section of the amount of the expenditure incurred by the Commonwealth in promoting the case in favour of a proposed law, or the cases in favour of proposed laws, for the alteration of the Constitution. '(3) Where- (a) a proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution has been submitted to the electors; (b) the number of members of the Parliament who voted against the proposed law is equal to or exceeds 5 per cent of the number of members of the Parliament who voted either for or against the proposed law; (c) the Commonwealth has incurred expenditure in promoting the case in favour of the proposed law; and (d) a person who is a prescribed person in relation to the proposed law has incurred expenditure in promoting the case against the proposed law, a person who is a prescribed person in relation to the proposed law may, by notice in writing in an approved form given to the Electoral Commission, request the Commonwealth to make a payment in accordance with this section. '(4) Where- (a) a request is made to the Electoral Commission under sub-section (3) in relation to a proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution; and (b) the Electoral Commission is satisfied that- (i) the person who made the request is a prescribed person in relation to the proposed law; and (ii) a person who is a prescribed person in relation to the proposed law has incurred expenditure (in this sub-section referred to as the 'relevant expenditure') in promoting the case against the proposed law, The Commonwealth shall pay to the person who made the request an amount calculated in accordance with the formula A B, where- C A is the amount of the expenditure incurred by the Commonwealth referred to in paragraph (1) (b) or, if more than one proposed law was submitted to the electors on the same day, the amount ascertained by dividing the total amount of the expenditure incurred by the Commonwealth in promoting the cases in favour of all the proposed laws by the number of proposed laws so submitted; B is the number of members of the Parliament who voted against the proposed law ; and C is the number of members of the Parliament who voted for the proposed law, or the amount of the relevant expenditure, whichever is the lesser amount. '(5) Where- (a) an amount would, but for this sub-section, be payable to a person under sub -section (4) in relation to a proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution; (b) that amount is less than the amount referred to in that sub-section as the relevant expenditure; and (c) the number of members of the Parliament who voted against the proposed law is less than 10 per cent of the number of members of the Parliament who voted either for or against the proposed law, sub-section (4) does not apply in relation to the person and the Commonwealth shall pay to the person an amount equal to the sum of the amount that would, but for this sub-section, be payable to the person under sub-section (4) and the amount calculated in accordance with the formula AB (10-D), where- 200C A is the amount represented by the symbol A in the formula in sub-section (4); B is the number of members of the Parliament who voted either for or against the proposed law; C is the number of members of the Parliament who voted for the proposed law; and D is the number obtained by dividing 100 times the number of members of the Parliament who voted against the proposed law by the number of members of the Parliament who voted either for or against the proposed law, or the amount of the relevant expenditure, whichever is the lesser amount. '(6) Where the Electoral Commission is satisfied that an amount will become payable to a person under sub-section (4) or (5), the Electoral Commission may, by notice in writing given to the Attorney-General, authorize the making of advances to the person on account of the amount that is expected to become payable to the person under that sub-section and, where such an authorisation is given, advances shall be made accordingly. '(7) Advances authorized by the Electoral Commission shall be made subject to the condition that the amounts advanced are expended in promoting the case against the relevant proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution. '(8) Payments under this section shall be made out of moneys appropriated by the Parliament for the purposes of this section. '(9) Where a request is made to the Electoral Commission under sub-section (3) in relation to a proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution by a person who is a prescribed person in relation to the proposed law, no subsequent request may be made under that sub-section in relation to the proposed law. '(10) In this section- (a) a reference to members of the Parliament who voted for, or voted against, a proposed law shall be read as a reference to members who voted in favour of, or in opposition to, as the case may be, a motion in the Senate or the House of Representatives that the Bill for the proposed law be read a third time; (b) a reference to a prescribed person, in relation to a proposed law, shall be read as a reference to a person acting on behalf of those members of the Parliament who voted against the proposed law or on behalf of a majority of those members; and (c) a reference to expenditure incurred in promoting the case in favour of, or against, a proposed law shall be read as not including a reference to- (i) expenditure incurred in the preparation, printing and distribution of the pamphlets referred to in section 11, or in the preparation and distribution of translations into other languages of material contained in those pamphlets; (ii) expenditure incurred in respect of the provision by the Electoral Commission of other information relating to, or relating to the effect of, the proposed law; or (iii) expenditure incurred in respect of the salaries and allowances of members of the Parliament, of members of the staff of members of the Parliament or of persons who are officers or employees within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1922.'. This amendment, which has been circulated, deals with the question of funding for promotional expenditure in relation to referendums. The Government's preferred position is that there be no statutory limit placed on promotional expenditure for referendum campaigns. By promotional expenditure, I mean expenditure over and above that which is required in the presentation of the official Yes and No cases, and which is required by statute to be even-handed, and has traditionally been so, in the way in which public moneys have been allocated. The reasons for the Government's preferred position were fully explained by me in this place in December last year when this matter was debated in the context of the then proposed five referendum items. There are three points that are relevant and bear quick repetition. The first is that the No case tends traditionally to be predominant in media reporting of referendum campaigns, simply by virtue of the stridency with which it is usually advanced and the ease with which opposition to proposals, as distinct from reasoned support, can capture the airwaves. The Yes case traditionally starts with a disadvantage, as has been acknowledged by most commentators over the years. Promotional expenditure on the Yes case to that extent is justified to redress the inherent imbalance that tends traditionally to be associated with the conduct of referendum campaigns. The second reason that has been advanced by the Commonwealth in support of promotional expenditure is that it enables proposals which are the product of genuine cross-party consensus or intergovernmental consensus-in particular those worked out in the context of the Constitutional Convention-to be properly and effectively communicated to the Australian people and assists the cause of consensual constitutional reform thus being advanced. The third reason advanced for allowing the Commonwealth in appropriate circumstances to spend promotional moneys is that by that means one overcomes the effect of expenditure from public money by the States-all too often a situation that has existed in the context of referendum campaigns. It is a matter not of creating an imbalance, but of redressing an imbalance in expenditure of public money which exists by virtue of the States ploughing in, as Queensland obviously was anxious to do in the last referendum campaign. Senator Crichton-Browne —What if States support the Yes case? Senator GARETH EVANS —The tradition has been not to support the Yes case with the expenditure of money. What is a fair thing by way of promotional expenditure will obviously differ from time to time, depending on the circumstances of a particular referendum campaign. Obviously it is much fairer, on the kinds of arguments I have been advancing, for promotional money to be expended in the context of a proposition which has been the product of genuine cross-party consensus and genuine intergovernmental support than it would be to apply Commonwealth money in support of something which has been won by only the narrowest of party majorities in this place, and which has clearly aroused a great deal of antagonism among other governments within the Federation. Clearly, the policy reasons that could be advanced in support of promotional expenditure in those circumstances would be much less strong in the case of division and strife about something than in the case where it is genuinely consensual. That brings me to the text of the proposition I now advance. Because it appears that the Government's preferred position which is that of being able to expend money without formal statutory constraint, appears to be not one that attracts majority support in this place, the Government has reconsidered its position and now brings forward a modified version of our original position. It brings forward a proposal for a system of proportional allocation of promotional funds in proportion to the degree of parliamentary support for or against a particular proposal. This is the substance of proposed new clause 10A that is now before the Committee. In support of this, I point to a few brief and straightforward matters. Funding in proportion to the votes cast in Parliament seems to the Government to be fair and equitable. After all, Parliament represents, or is supposed to represent, the will of the people. Votes in Parliament are a fair indication of the interests that are lined up in support of, or in opposition to, any proposal for amending the Constitution. That has traditionally been the case one way or the other. Opposition to a particular referendum will emerge and be articulated within the Parliament. Such was the case even with the proposals that commanded obviously broad cross-party and intergovernmental support that were advanced by the Government last year. Nonetheless, opposition was still expressed by a significant minority of voices in both Houses of this Parliament. The second point to appreciate is that none of this would cut across the place of the traditional and statutory funding for the Yes and No cases. It is not proposed that that would in any way be affected by the kind of proportionate funding that is here contemplated. To the extent that people look to the traditional Yes and No pamphlet and associated argumentation for an explanation of the arguments for and against the proposal, they will continue to be able to do so. It is worth making the point-it seems to be constantly ignored by people in this debate-that last year the Government was proposing to spend some $5m of public money on the even-handed Yes-No pamphlet: $2.5m, in effect, on the Yes case, and $2.5m on the No case. The argument on promotional expenditure was about an additional $1m or $1.25m on top of what the Government was proposing to spend in promoting the cross-party supported referendum Yes proposals. That context has been continually overlooked by those who have argued about the supposed uneven-handedness of the Government's approach last year. The third and obvious point is that the proportionate funding proposal here advanced would not interfere in any way with the rights of political parties and private interests to campaign for or against a particular proposal, nor would it interfere in any way or could it interfere with the rights or the capacity of State governments to campaign in their own way, using whatever funds they wanted to mobilise in the context of the particular referendum campaign. As to the details of the particular proposal, I have circulated around the chamber an explanatory memorandum. I think it might be helpful for anyone who is subsequently interested in this debate if I incorporate it in Hansard. It is brief and I seek leave to do so. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- The amendment would insert a new clause 10A in the Bill which would require the Government to make funds available to opponents of a referendum proposal where the Government intended to spend money in support of the proposal. Sub-clause (1) requires the Minister to publish a notice in the Gazette setting out the amount of Commonwealth expenditure. This statement is the basis upon which the entitlement of the opponents of a proposal is to be calculated. Sub-clause (2) provides that a notice published under sub-section (1) is conclusive evidence of the amount of expenditure incurred by the Commonwealth. A provision of this kind is necessary for the smooth administration of the scheme. Sub-clause (3) sets out the preconditions to a grant in paragraphs (a) to (d) and the procedure to be followed by a spokesperson for the opponents of a referendum proposal in making a claim. The conditions are that: the proposal must have been put to referendum; the number of opponents equals or exceeds a threshold of 5% of total votes cast ; the Government has spent money in promoting the 'Yes' case; and members of Parliament who are opposed to the proposal have incurred expenditure in promoting the 'No' case. Sub-clause (4) is the substantive provision for payments to be made to a spokesperson for the opponents of a referendum proposal. Where the Electoral Commission is satisfied that the claimant is an appropriate person (i.e. one of the members of Parliament who voted 'No') and that he has incurred expenditure in promoting the case against the referendum proposal, the Commonwealth is required to pay to the person an amount proportionate to the votes against the proposal in the Parliament but if the amount spent is less than that amount the claimant only receives reimbursement of the amount spent. The effect of the formula is that the proportion of funds for the 'No' case to total funds corresponds to the proportion of 'No' votes to total votes. Sub-clause (5) provides that where the opposition in Parliament is between 5% and 10% of the total votes cast, the opponents are entitled to a weighted percentage of the funds. In effect, opponents would get a ''bonus'' of a few thousand dollars to ensure that the amount provided is commercially practicable for the purpose of mounting a 'No' case. The proportionate rule applies at 10% and above. Sub-clause (6) allows advance payments to be made to the opponents of a referendum proposal. The mechanism adopted is that the Electoral Commission would notify the Attorney-General by letter that an amount was expected to become payable and a payment could thereupon be made out of moneys appropriated for a referendum information program. The approximate entitlement of the opponents of a referendum proposal could be calculated, once the votes had been taken in the Parliament, by reference to the amount appropriated for a referendum information program. Sub-clause (7) imposes the condition that amounts advanced must be spent on promoting the case against the relevant referendum proposal. For example, an entitlement in respect of one proposed constitutional alteration could not be spent on promoting opposition to another proposed alteration. Sub-clause (8) provides that payments are to be made out of moneys appropriated for the purpose. Sub-clause (9) precludes the making of more than one claim in respect of a particular referendum proposal. Sub-clause (10) defines: the opponents of a referendum proposal by reference to the votes at the Third Reading stage; who may make a claim on behalf of opponents of a referendum proposal as any member who voted against the particular proposal; and expenditure incurred in promoting a referendum proposal as not including expenditure on the official Yes/No pamphlet or salaries and allowances of members of Parliament, ministerial staff and public servants. Senator GARETH EVANS —Just speaking briefly to the content of it so that the force of it can be appreciated in this place, it is proposed that there be a threshold of 5 per cent of the total votes cast in Parliament before the proportion funding would apply. That means to say that opponents of the measure who are unable to attract at least 5 per cent of the total votes would not in fact under this proposal receive anything. Senator Hill —Why choose 5 per cent? Senator GARETH EVANS —It seems to be an arbitrary figure. We could take 4 per cent to bring it closer into line with the electoral public funding provisions, but the intention was to put forward an order of magnitude beyond which it seemed that the kinds of funds that would be produced would be unlikely to be such as to sustain or support a useful media campaign anyway. It just reflects the reality that there are some proposals which have such overwhelming majority support and such idiosyncratic opposition that public funds really ought not be advanced to that idiosyncratic, eccentric, perhaps tendentious-to anticipate Senator Withers's inevitable interjection-fringe, but conversely-- Senator Walters —Did you say 5 per cent for any funding? Senator GARETH EVANS —Under 5 per cent the proposal being put forward is that there be no funding, but that is counterbalanced by a proposal for a weighted funding advantage for the number of votes which is in the range of 5 per cent to 10 per cent. It is proposed that opponents of the proposal who can marshall something between 5 per cent and 10 per cent of the total votes cast would attract a weighted percentage of the available funds. For example, if opponents of a measure could get 5 per cent of the votes they would not get just 5 per cent of available funds. They would get a weighted additional percentage. They would get 7.5 per cent of the additional funds and so on up through 8 per cent or 9 per cent, a weighted extra advantage, with the object, basically, of giving a reasonable pool of funds to a significant minority in this place to play with. Senator Crichton-Browne —Are they votes cast in public that you are talking about? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am talking about votes cast in the two chambers added together. Senator Crichton-Browne —No, I am talking about the weighting factor. Senator GARETH EVANS —The weighting factor is just a percentage formula that is built into the terms of the particular proposal before the chamber. It means, in effect, that if opponents of a measure get between 5 per cent and 10 per cent of the votes in the whole Parliament, they get pretty close to 10 per cent of the available funds on the principle that it is only likely to be really significant and really useful if they have that amount of money. If they got much less than 10 per cent, the amount of money we are talking about would be so small as to be of no particular use to anybody. A significant minority voice, as distinct from an insignificant minority and 5 per cent, I acknowledge, is a pretty arbitrary figure to choose as a measure of significance, but perhaps not a reasonable one- gets a weighted additional advantage. A group which gets a percentage of 10 per cent and beyond gets an exact proportion of the available funds matching the percentage of the votes that are in question. Senator Crichton-Browne —Some 4 1/2 per cent of the money spent in a State like Western Australia might be just enough to stop the referenda going through. Senator GARETH EVANS —It is possible no doubt that with the support of Lang Hancock and all the rest of the tiros of reaction who have been traditionally inclined to oppose referendum proposals the honourable senator could make a very good fist of some such exercise. But just let me follow that through by saying that that produces the situation that if the Opposition as a whole were opposed to a proposal, it would end up receiving approximately 45 per cent of the available funds. That is very close to equality. The proposal is designed to reflect, to the extent that votes in this Parliament can reflect and ever do, differences of opinion in the community at large and give the additional funds to be spent in that way. I will quickly give some illustration of how that would work in practice. On voting figures in this Parliament for the February 1984 proposals, funds for a No case would be available in respect of those wanting to fight for simultaneous elections and the advisory opinions matters. In each case about 10 per cent of the available funds would have gone to the No proponents. Because opposition to the other three proposals-four-year terms attracted a 4.3 per cent vote in this place, interchange of powers, 3.7 per cent and obsolete provisions, 3.1 per cent -was less than 5 per cent they would not in fact attract any funds. The amounts to which the opponents of simultaneous elections and advisory opinions would have been entitled, given the kind of money the Commonwealth is proposing to expend, would have been approximately $26,000 in respect of each of those proposals, which is better than a poke in the eye with a burnt stick, as I think might be appreciated. I believe and the Government believes that this proposal is a fair and reasonable one. We commend it accordingly to the Senate. Senator HILL(South Australia)(11.46) —The Opposition, not surprisingly, will oppose the inclusion of proposed new clause 10A in the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Bill. I say not surprisingly because the Opposition's position was firmly laid down last November when we successfully had inserted within the referendum legislation a provision which prohibited the Government from expending any public moneys on the campaign, other than that which has traditionally been included; that is, the equal expenditure on the Yes and No cases through the published literature. That remains the Opposition's position. It is important that referenda be put to the people on an even-handed basis and that there not be the abuses that we believe will come about by a government expending public money to promote one case or the other as is its wish. The statements made by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) really were astonishing. The first of his arguments was that the No case will always have a predominant position in the media and will therefore have a major advantage to start with. That, of course, fails to take into account the whole apparatus of government-of the Prime Minister, of Ministers, of all their staff and the opportunities that the Prime Minister clearly gets to be in the media in every State as he travels around the nation in a referendum campaign. To say that the position is such that the media at the start of a referendum campaign will have a predominant interest in the contrary position is just absolutely not the case. The Attorney-General went on to say that his proposition will overcome expenditure by the States. As Senator Crichton-Browne correctly interjected, that argument failed to take into account that there may be States, perhaps a majority of States, that do in fact support the same position that the Federal Government supports. In such circumstances, to talk of redressing the imbalance is nonsense. In fact, if there were a majority of States supporting the same position as the Federal Government, to redress an imbalance it could be fairly argued that the Commonwealth should provide additional funding for the No case. Therefore, as a matter of principle, we are opposed to any additional funding that breaks down the even-handed approach that has been traditionally included within referendum legislation. As we are opposed to that, we are certainly opposed to this additional proposal that looks towards some proportional scheme. A number of distortions and anomalies come through in the detail of the Attorney's Bill. I will just mention a couple of them. For example, it seems that if a number of referenda proposals are being put on the same occasion, Commonwealth funding is divided equally between them. What that may mean is that the Commonwealth Government spends $3m on Question A and $1 million on Question B, but those who have opposed question A therefore get simply a proportion of $2m based on the formula that is included . Thus a proportion of the money is not actually expended on that particular question. That strikes me as unsatisfactory. The Attorney put the point that the proportion is based on the concept that votes in the Parliament reflect community attitude but of course that fails to take into account the fact that the Australian Labor Party, for example, is locked into a position with regard to votes. In that case it simply reflects the position that the Labor Party dictates to its members as to how they should vote . Senator Crichton-Browne —Senator Hill, if half the members from Western Australia vote No, why shouldn't we get half the money to spend in that State? Senator HILL —If there is to be any additional Commonwealth expenditure on referenda other than that which is traditionally included, that might well be a good argument. It might be one that the Attorney will address later in this Committee debate. I think the Attorney will concede, if he has read his proposed new clause, the difficulty that will come about with payments made in anticipation of those which the Commonwealth is to make. Of course the formula becomes incredibly awkward because it may not be known until late in the campaign how much the Commonwealth intends to spend, in which case the formula really becomes impossible to administer. So not only for the reason of the principle that I have outlined but also because of the awkwardness of the proposal, the inequities that come through in this so-called proportional system that has been put up by the Government, the Opposition will oppose the clause. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.52) — Mr Chairman, the amendment moved by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) is an interesting example of attempting yet again to come up with unequal funding for the cases to be put to the people. In a debate that ensued on this aspect last year it was made very clear that the majority of the Senate wished to continue with the practice of providing equal funding for the presentation of the cases to the electorate and to allow the electorate on the basis of that equal funding to make up its mind on the merits of the case essentially, avoiding the technicalities of the proposition that the Attorney has brought forward; that is, the principle which has been violated by this amendment. Regardless of the fact that a particular proposal may have overwhelming support from politicians, I do not think one can then claim that such a proposal necessarily has overwhelming support from the people in the electorate, and it is not politicians' money which is being spent; it is the public's money. It is being spent to convince members of the public of an issue that politicians happen to believe in, and I think that that attempt is wrongly placed. It goes against the notions of fair play in terms of what we are going to say a particular proposal is about. Therefore, I do not propose to address the details of the amendment except in so far as a number of concerns have been raised by way of interjections about the 5 per cent level. As the Attorney said, he is willing to move this cut-off point to 4 per cent. I draw to the attention of a number of people who were interjecting, particularly from the Liberal Party, that they supported the notion of a cut-off point in the electoral legislation. They said it was perfectly all right that if under 4 per cent support was obtained no public funding would be available, so I do not know why they are getting upset about this. In fact, members of the Australian Democrats were the only people who said that financial support ought to be connected with public support in the electorate. I believe that now to cry wolf on this certainly verges on hypocrisy . As I say, the Australian Democrats reject this and we rejected the 4 per cent operation that the Liberal Party supported in relation to the Commonwealth electoral legislation, and we will continue to reject it on the principle that that relationship has nothing to do with the ultimate wishes of the people. Their votes decide what changes the Constitution and their vote must not be sought to be manipulated by excess expenditure on one side or the other. In conclusion, I also hold very strongly that the States ought not spend public money in this regard either. We ought to have an even-handed operation at the Commonwealth level and that ought to be it, because moneys spent by the States are not the States' moneys; they too are the public's moneys. An even-handed operation from the Commonwealth level, which has occurred by and large in every case in the past, ought to be what continues into the future. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(11.55) —I ask the Attorney-General a question. I missed one of his statistics. What did he say would have been the proportion of the allocation of funds following the last vote in respect of the interchange of powers? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.56) —The note I had-I presume it is accurate; I have not done the calculation myself-was that 3.7 per cent of the total number of members of the Parliament voted against the interchange of powers proposal. Senator Crichton-Browne —So we would not have got any funds at all? Senator GARETH EVANS —Under this proposal, no. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.57) — Mr Chairman, we are debating an amendment by the Government to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Bill which would allow for a certain amount of public moneys to be spent on the No case in a referendum campaign. Formulae are scattered throughout this particular amendment , now before us for consideration. In fact, this amendment is an acknowledgment of the fact that what the Government attempted to do last year was misconceived and an improper use of public moneys. The Executive Government was proposing to spend public moneys on only a Yes campaign for the referendum proposals. Senator Gareth Evans —No; $2.5m on the No case. Be fair. Senator HARRADINE —I am being fair. That was an addition to the normal informative provisions already contained in the legislation. I am talking about advertising campaigns in support of the Yes and No cases. The Government was attempting last year to provide for public moneys to be spent exclusively on an advertising campaign in support of the Yes case. Now, of course, this legislation is a recognition that that was an improper proposal because the Government has included in it a proposal to have public moneys expended on an advertising campaign in support of the No case. The Government is proposing in this legislation to provide a formula which in its view will reflect public opinion on the referenda proposals. What the Government is really saying in the formula is that the gauge of that public opinion will be the number of members of parliament who voted for or against the proposition. That is the foundation of the argument in this proposition for the formula. Senator Gareth Evans —It is either that or admit that we do not represent anybody out there. Senator HARRADINE —I do not admit that that is the alternative. As honourable senators will realise, in the 1967 referendum only two members of parliament voted against a similar proposal; I think there were only two. That proposal went to the people and it was defeated. So, if this proposal had been in force at that time, they would not have got any money but the people would have rejected the proposal. That is not an adequate gauge of public opinion. I will make a suggestion. If the Government is bent on going along this track, and I do not know whether it is a proper track to be going along, let us try to devise a proper gauge of public opinion so that the amount of money can relate to that public opinion. The Commonwealth Electoral Commission is in the business of having test runs. We have heard about the test runs. The Electoral Commission is having test runs on its ballot papers, through the Morgan gallup poll. A more adequate gauge of public opinion, surely, in this matter-that is, who wants to vote for the referendum and who does not-is the people. If the Government is to let the Electoral Commission do a test run on the ballot papers, with which I do not agree, let it do a test run on this. It is far easier for the Morgan gallup poll, or whoever is to do the job, to go to the people with a mock-up ballot paper. We know what the proposals will be. The Government knows what will be put to the people. Why does not the Electoral Commission, in order to gauge public opinion for the purposes of providing the amount of money that is proper in the circumstances, do a test run? I put to the Committee that that is a more realistic proposition than the one inherent in this amendment of the Government which really says that the gauge of public opinion in these matters equals the number of members of parliament who voted for or against the proposition. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.03) —As usual, a little power has gone to the head of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). He would absolutely wipe democracy out of the Senate. What he just said is that, if less than 5 per cent of senators vote against the Government's proposed referendum, the people of Australia should be denied any knowledge of the No case being put. Senator Gareth Evans —Rubbish. There is $2.5m that will still go to that eccentric minority to present its No case. Senator WALTERS —Now that less than 5 per cent of senators is called an eccentric minority because those people do not agree with what the Attorney considers appropriate. They get the normal funding. I asked the Attorney by way of interjection whether he said that they would not get any funding and he replied: 'Yes, that is right'. So I presume what he is now saying is that they would get the ordinary equal funding by the Commonwealth Electoral Commission. Is that right? Senator Gareth Evans —Yes, of course. I have been talking about promotional funding over and above that. Senator WALTERS —Fine. We will have a letterbox drop of all voters with the Yes- No cases. Then we will have a saturation of television and media promotion by the Government. There will be no more money spent on the No case if that eccentric minority of less than five senators dares to vote against the proposal put by the government of the day. I believe that every senator is equal; that is what democracy is all about. But that eccentric 5 per cent, according to the Attorney, is not equal. They have no right to have additional money to put their case to the people of Australia. That to me seems a most undemocratic situation. The Attorney talks about a significant minority and a non-significant minority. The Attorney made it very clear how he feels about a democracy when last year he slid in the expenditure of public money for the Yes case only; he slid in that extra amount. Honourable senators may recall that at that time I asked the Attorney why he had not made this disclosure that money had been set aside by the Government before the appropriations were passed. Why did the Government hide it in the slush fund of the Minister for Finance? Why did the Government not come clean and say that the money available for the referendum to be held was itemised in those appropriations? His comment at that time, as recorded in Hansard, was: 'You did not ask. I would have told you if you had'. That sort of statement comes from the Attorney-General. He talks of freedom of information, open government and honesty within government. He can call it anything he likes. I am hunting to find the most parliamentary word I can use to describe the Attorney's method of hiding, not only from this chamber but also from the people , the intention of the Government. He just sprang it on us and hoped that it would not be noticed. That was not the only case. He also changed the voting paper. No previous decision had been made about that. It was not debated in this place but he did not even have the decency to put the regulations down. It had to be leaked to us that this was the sort of thing he was up to. The Attorney ignores completely the Constitution, which makes it very clear that not just a majority of voters, but also a majority of States, have to pass any referendum. Of course, in his inimitable fashion, he says that the No case wins only because of the strident opposition from the strident vocal minority and that for some reason that strident minority wins. He says he cannot quite understand it because, of course, the Yes case is reasoned debate. He says that the No case is supported by a strident minority but the Yes case is reasoned debate. It depends on whether one believes in the Constitution. The Constitution does not state that the minority wins only because of a strident opposition. It states indeed that the majority of Australian voters do not necessarily win a referendum; it has also to be agreed to by a majority of States. I believe that is the most important aspect that we should be looking at. I think the Attorney forgets that when we became a unified nation the various States only entered Federation because of the reasoning behind referendums. As has already been said, the Australian Labor Party caucuses its members. They have never had an opportunity to vote on a referendum as their consciences tell them. They are caucused and they must vote the way they are told to. We on this side of the chamber are not caucused. We can vote according to our consciences and indeed we do. In the past we have differed from our Party. A small group of senators from this side of the chamber has been able to convince the Australian population of the error of an affirmative decision on simultaneous elections particularly, and that that would be the worst way that voting could possibly go . Senator Robert Ray —You will force us to an early poll this year. Senator WALTERS —This irritates the Attorney and I see it also irritates Senator Robert Ray very much indeed. They do not like the fact that our Party is able to make a free choice. Now they want to be able to overcome the Liberal Party philosophy of enabling its senators a freedom of choice when voting by saying: ' Well, your Party can allow you a freedom of choice to vote, but we will not allow you an equal amount of money to put your views to the people. If your Party cannot caucus you, we will try to take a hand and we will make sure that your views are not put across to the public in an equal fashion'. This is exactly what the Attorney is doing at the moment. I am glad to see that the Australian Democrats will also not have a bar of the proposal. There are other areas on which no doubt I will have a few words to say, but that is all I have to say at the moment. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(12.12) —I take a fairly straightforward attitude to something like this. I do not believe a government will bring in any referendum proposal unless it is of benefit to itself. I say to the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) that there might have been one or two instances, I give him that, but most governments bring in referendum proposals that they believe will be to the benefit of the government that is in power at the time. The same applies to the provisions in the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Bill. They have been introduced because the Government feels that they will be to its benefit. It is as if the Government is attempting to stack the deck once more on how to run a referendum. If these provisions are approved, the Government will continue to try to stack the deck. I suggest to the Attorney-General that he does not underestimate the intelligence of the members of the public. They, particularly the people from the less populous States, do not want to be dominated by the large numbers of government members of parliament who come from New South Wales and Victoria. That is in fact what will happen if we pass some of this legislation. It will stack the deck even more to the benefit of New South Wales and Victoria than it is at the moment. If we look at sub-clause (5)-- Senator Peter Baume —We are turning this into a States debate. This might get interesting now. Senator TOWNLEY —I always regard the debates in the Senate as States debates, particularly when honourable senators from New South Wales and Victoria try to run over the less populous States. Whether they be from my Party or from the Australian Labor Party, I will always stand up for my State before I stand up for the Liberal Party. In relation to proposed sub-clause (5) the explanatory memorandum states: . . . where the opposition in Parliament is between 5 per cent and 10 per cent . . . A little quick arithmetic will show that to get 5 per cent of the members of parliament is 12.2 per cent and therefore 10 per cent is 24.4 per cent. That seems to me to be an unnecessary provision as long as there is any opposition. If we are to have funding it should preferably be equal funding. Certainly we should not have to have 5 per cent of the members of parliament opposing some legislation before assistance is given. Let me make it quite clear: I am against any assistance at all. I notice that the explanatory memorandum in relation to proposed new sub-clause (10) states in part: . . . expenditure incurred in promoting a referendum proposal as not including expenditure on the official Yes/No pamphlet. So the Government is proposing to leave the space for Yes-No in the pamphlet equal yet it proposes that paid advertising in other areas not be equal. This whole thing points to the Government recognising the ability of clever manipulators of the public mind, through the media-the newspapers, television and radio-making things work to their benefit if they can spend more on advertising than can the people opposing a referendum proposal. Unless the Government eventually agrees to the Democrats proposal of having referendums forced upon it, no government will bring in a referendum that it does not entirely support. I remind the Senate that in the great majority of referendums history shows that the results are fairly close. So under what justification should the expenditure by the Government be other than fairly close, irrespective of how many senators vote for or against a referendum proposal in this place or in the House of Representatives? I agree with the Democrats that States should not really spend taxpayers money in opposing or supporting a referendum, but I suppose that will be very hard to enforce because sometimes State governments see their rights being attacked by a referendum that the Federal people are trying to run. I cannot foresee every referendum that this Government or any government will try to bring in, but it seems to me at first sight that the States should keep out of referendum proposals unless there is something materially to do with the States. It still comes to a matter of how many people are involved. Let us take Tasmania. Even if all Tasmanian members of the House of Representatives and of the Senate voted against a matter-perhaps they were the only ones who voted against it-the amount of money that would be spent as a proportion would be very little. Senator Macklin —What about if funding were equal? Senator TOWNLEY —If there were equal funding perhaps the State government matter mentioned by Senator Macklin has a little more weight. As I said at the beginning, I see these proposals as the Government's way of trying to stack things once more in its favour. When the previous Labor Party Government was in power we saw all types of attempts to alter and stack the electoral system in this country. I believe this is another step in the mechanism of changing the ability of a government to get a referendum proposal passed by the people. We could have a referendum that applies to the way voting is carried on in this country, and I see that as very dangerous. Progress reported. Debate resumed from 4 June, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(12.20) —I wish to speak very briefly on the Copyright Amendment Bill and say that the Opposition supports it. Indeed, our attitude was made clear by Senator Durack, the shadow Attorney-General, in a statement that he put out on 24 March. He indicated at that time the Opposition's view that the Government should legislate without further delay to give interim copyright law protection to the creators of computer software. This is a matter of great interest, but its history is adequately set out in the second reading speech and in the Press release put out by Senator Durack. In the interests of brevity I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard that one-page statement put out by the shadow Attorney-General at that time. Leave granted. The document read as follows- STATEMENT BY SENATOR PETER DURACK, SHADOW ATTORNEY-GENERAL The Government should legislate without further delay to give interim copyright law protection to the creators of computer software. Shortly after the decision in the Apple Case, the Attorney-General, Senator Evans, and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, issued a joint statement in which they said, '. . . industry should note that it is the Government's intention to promptly undertake such legislative action as is necessary to ensure that software is adequately protected'. They foreshadowed the likely amendment of the Copyright Act as a short term measure. Last week when he opened a symposium on legal protection for computer software, the Attorney-General seemed to be less sure of what action the Government should take and to be more interested in a long-term solution rather than the need for immediate short-term protection for the software industry. The Attorney-General has himself pointed out the size and importance of this industry in Australia and has recognised the strength of its claims for the protection of its interests. Arguments about the best legal method of doing this and the role Australia can play in international consideration of the problem are all very interesting and no doubt stimulating for the lawyers taking part in them. They are cold comfort however for those who are competing in the market place and developing a worthwhile industry for Australia. There should be no difficulty about introducing as a matter of urgency an amendment to the Copyright Act to give protection while the debate and discussion about long-term solutions is carried on in whatever forums appeal to the academic interests of the Attorney-General. Perth/Canberra March 24 1984 Senator CHANEY —Having done that I simply wish to say that we are co-operating in the speedy passage of the Bill through the Senate because the House of Representatives is being lifted by the Government today and it is the Opposition 's view that this legislation should complete its parliamentary consideration during these sittings. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(12.22) —The Australian Democrats wholeheartedly support the concept of this Bill. I will move one or two amendments in the Committee stage. We compliment the Government on its speedy action on this matter which is obviously needed urgently by the computer industry. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.23) —in reply-I thank the Senate for its speedy consideration of this Bill at the second reading stage. It must be appreciated that the speed with which the matter has been addressed in no way denigrates the significance of this issue. As I indicated in my second reading speech, it is the Government's desire to treat this as merely an interim measure and to give effective consideration to the longer term implications of the whole computer software issue. It is a matter in which we obviously acknowledge the force of the arguments that have been put around-that copyright protection in its traditional form may not be the most appropriate long term way of dealing with this issue. Certainly in the short term there needs to be the degree of certainty in the computer industry that this legislation will provide. I wish the Bill a speedy passage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(12.24) —I move: Page 2, after clause 3, insert the following new clause: '3A. Section 33 of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by inserting after ''musical work'' in sub-section (2) ''other than a computer program''; and (b) by inserting after sub-section (6) the following sub-section: ''(7) Copyright subsisting in a computer program by virtue of this Part continues to subsist until the expiration of 5 years after the expiration of the calendar year in which the computer program is first published.''.'. The only concern that we have about this Bill relates to the fact that the copyright laws as they stand give copyright protection for periods of 50 or 75 years. This is a new industry, a new communications medium and a new concept. It has never been covered or protected before. It is imperative that we do not give people the impression that they will have that sort of protection and then, suddenly, in the next 18 months or two years, change the law so that the protection comes back to five years, which is a far more relevant period for this industry. I make that point particularly because the moment this legislation is proclaimed people will be paying royalties on computer programs and the fee for those royalties will be determined in part on the term of the copyright, the term of the protection. It will be far easier for the Government to start with a five-year protection period and expand that, if it feels that that is necessary, in its next legislation than it would be for it to start with 50 years and try to reduce it, having already allowed people to enter into a long term protective regime. It will be important to free up important programs. Computer software is not like books and other items that are covered by the Copyright Act. Computer programs need to have the ability to be built on to. We must allow international competitiveness of Australian users. The protection needs to be there but we do not want a situation in which Australia is denied forever a copyrighted program which is imported by one user in this country who then restricts its distribution from that moment on. There must be some sort of avenue for an important scientific program, for example, to be able to be used at some time in the reasonably near future, or for other provisions to be written into future legislation which would provide for that. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) made it quite clear in his second reading speech that this Bill is explicitly aimed at resolving immediate problems. It is a short term measure and it provides immediate protection without prejudice to the development of the most appropriate long term solution. That prejudice is in fact there if we begin with 50 or 75-year protective terms. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.27) —The Government has given very careful consideration to this kind of proposal in its drafting of this Bill. We definitely consider a sunset clause as a way of making clear the short term nature of this legislation and our commitment to a review of the longer term implications of it. We have had two particular difficulties, though, with the sunset clause proposal. One of them may have been overstated but it is a consideration that we need to bear in mind, and that is if we set a definite life of two years on this legislation we would tend to create all over again that very degree of uncertainty in the computer industry which it is the objective of this legislation to remove. Senator Jack Evans —On a point of order, Mr Chairman, I draw the Attorney- General's attention to the fact that we are not talking about the sunset clause at this stage; we are talking about the amendment that refers to the five-year period. The CHAIRMAN —That is not a point of order; it is a debating point. It may be helpful to the Attorney-General. Senator GARETH EVANS —I had thought that Senator Evans moved both these amendments together. I am sorry. I might as well complete my remarks in anticipation of what he intends to say and get it all over with. The CHAIRMAN —Just to clarify the point, Senator Jack Evans has moved this whole amendment because he has not sought leave to split it. He may not have spoken to it, but he moved it, so the whole amendment is before the Committee. Senator GARETH EVANS —Let me conclude my remarks on the sunset issue, then address quickly the points that Senator Evans has raised and by that means wrap up everything I intend to say in one contribution. To set a finite period of two years would be to recreate the very uncertainty which it is the primary objective of this legislation to remove. That is of particular significance in the context of contractual agreements between overseas suppliers, particularly of custom tailored software, and domestic Australian consumers. There is a concern expressed by overseas suppliers that the absence of clarity or certainty about copyright protection in Australia means that they are unwilling to enter into contracts of any scale or significance. That is one of our primary motivations for moving quickly to pass this amending legislation. It is possible that that concern is overstated but it is there. A much more significant consideration in our mind-and this is also relevant to the proposal for a five-year limitation-is that this proposal would bring us, for better or worse, squarely into confrontation and conflict with the terms of the Berne International Copyright Convention to which Australia is a signatory and which, of course, sets as the appropriate period of copyright protection a period being the life of the author of the work in question plus 50 years. Although that is probably wildly excessive as an appropriate term for computer software which has a much shorter generational life, the difficulty is that that is the term which we are obliged to adopt domestically in Australia if we are to get reciprocal protection overseas under the terms of the Berne international convention for our own material. If we want to rely overseas on the operation of copyright law and the international law associated with it and the adherence by other countries to that law and the protection for us that their adherence in turn involves, we in Australia have to accept the full range of obligations under the Berne convention. So, if we set a two-year limit on the kind of protection by a sunset clause we are not giving life of the author plus 50 years. If we set a five-year specific limit on the period for which the copyright protection will apply we are equally not giving another plus 50 years protection of the kind that is required under the Berne copyright. So there is that fundamental technical problem. That is the very issue, of course, among others, which the international intellectual property organisations are wrestling with at the moment in order to devise some more appropriate protective regime for computer software. It is in the context of those sorts of problems that the Japanese, for example, are talking about patent law as being the appropriate basic point of reference for software protection with a much shorter period of protection reflecting industrial generational technology realities. So they are the sorts of considerations that, while fully accepting the spirit in which Senator Jack Evans has foreshadowed his amendment, do not enable us actually to accept them. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(12.32) —I am grateful to Senator Jack Evans for expressing the concern which I share. It is perhaps as well that I waited until the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) made his comments. But I must express some concern at the speed with which the Copyright Amendment Bill 1984 is going through the Parliament. I express this view, having in mind the fact that there has been a court decision which re-established the copyright position and which is now the subject of appeal to the High Court of Australia. I have a suspicion-I am seeking another word-that this legislation may anticipate the result of the appeal. I would prefer to see that process completed before any legislation is passed through the Senate. The Attorney-General indicated that there may be other ways in which one can deal with patent rights for computer software and I think that they ought to be examined quickly. I think it is extraordinary that we should be extending the copyright which applies to authorship to those who produce works of substantial art which have inspirational participation or content. I find it very difficult to accept that we should, even in the short term, give such protection to computer software. I would have preferred, of course, this matter to be the subject of considerable debate both out in the community and within the Parliament. My impression was that this Bill would be introduced into and passed by the Senate and held at that point. I would like the Attorney to tell me why that will not happen. Have I received the wrong impression that the Bill would be introduced into the Senate but would not go to the House of Representatives? We have a situation in which the Bill will be raced through the Senate in about 15 minutes and will be dealt with by the other place in five minutes. Senator Hill —There is no urgency after the Federal Court judgment. Senator GEORGES —That is quite correct. Of course, there is protection for the time being; there is an appeal against the decision. However, one would have thought that that process could have been followed. It could be argued that I should have been present when debate on this matter was taking place in the Parliament. However, I was not. Therefore, I express my very deep concern about this sort of legislation. Although the Attorney-General has used the words 'short termed' in respect of this legislation, my experience in this place is that if we put something into place on a short term basis we find that it becomes entrenched and difficult to reverse. I have put on record my objection and concern. I think I have even put on record my suspicion. I will leave it at that. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.36) —No undertaking has been given publicly or privately by the Government that this legislation will not proceed. It was a matter of the Government considering very carefully just what the effect of that judgment was. There was an indication by me when the judgment came down that we were deferring the immediate introduction of the Bill that had been previously foreshadowed but there was certainly no undertaking not to introduce legislation at all. The reality is that close study of the decision showed that although the immediate issue had been resolved there were still a number of matters of acute concern to the computer industry that had not been addressed by the Full Bench of the Federal Court of Australia or on which the Full Bench of the Federal Court had divided. Accordingly, with the lodging of an appeal to the High Court of Australia, bearing in mind that division of opinion, there is very real continuing uncertainty in the industry. Against that background we made the decision that we have. Perhaps the best way of explaining the limitations in terms of scope of the Full Court of the Federal Court decision is by my seeking leave to incorporate in Hansard a brief table which indicates the provisions in the Bill by reference to how they were dealt with in the appeal in the Apple case demonstrating, I think quite clearly and succinctly, just how many matters the Bill addresses and needed to address for the sake of removing uncertainties that were not in fact dealt with, for one reason or another, in the decision and, accordingly, which justifies rather swift legislative intervention of the kind we are now making. I seek leave to incorporate that table in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Apple Computer v Computer Edge IMPLICATIONS OF FULL FEDERAL COURT DECISION FOR COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT BILL Provision in Bill How issue dealt with in Apple appeal S.3 (b)-''computer program'' defined No definitive treatment of concept of computer program, though much explanation. S.3 (f)-definition of ''literary work'' to be amended- to remove requirement for visible form in respect of tables and compilations; Not addressed. Apparent existing requirement for fixation in writing in case of compilations may be important to databases built up from contributions of many authors. to include computer programs, whether in source code or object code; All 3 judges held that source code was proper matter for protection as an original literary work Two judges did not think it necessary to decide whether object code might of itself be protected as an original literary work, whilst the third found that object code was not so protected. (But see 'adaptation' below). to include a compilation of computer programs Not addressed. There may accordingly be doubt as to whether a computer program which is an arrangement of existing subroutines, in itself qualifies for protection. S.3 (a)-''adaptation'', in relation to a computer program, defined to include translations between computer source and object languages. By a majority of 2:1 the Court held that object code was an adaptation of source code. S.3 (c) and (e)-''infringing copy'' re-defined- to remove anomaly that article imported with permission might technically be an infringing copy. Not addressed. to ensure that copies of adaptations are covered. Not addressed. S.3 (g)-''material form'' defined. The concept has relevance both to the '' making'' or fixation of original works, and to the making of reproductions of works. The majority judges regarded embodiment of the Apple object programs in Wombat ROM's as embodiment in a material form. The reasoning used would appear to apply equally to ''material form'' in the context of fixation. S.4-Presumption created that making of back-up copy permitted. Not a matter considered by Court. S.5-Transmission of program by telephone deemed to be ''supply'' for purposes of existing S.132. Not considered by Court. Such result not likely to be achieved judicially. S.6-New offence of advertising supply created, and transmission deemed to be '' supply''. Not a matter for Court. S.7-Transitional provisions to confer copyright protection on existing programs, but make clear acts done prior to amendments not thereby to be infringements. Copyright already applies to computer programs, hence now clear that past acts were infringements and copies created are infringing copies. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(12.38) —The Opposition will not be supporting either of the amendments of the Australian Democrats. The views which have been expressed by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) adequately encompass the reasons. I was a little fascinated by the distinctions which were drawn by Senator Georges. I remind him that it is a very long time since C. P. Snow wrote The Two Cultures and I suggest that he showed that he very squarely has both feet in the one camp. I am sure that there are lots of people tinkering away with computer programs who feel that they are doing things which are highly artistic, even if they do not appeal to Senator Georges. In any event, the main point is that there is a real problem in continuing uncertainty in the industry and that is a matter which the Opposition has been saying for some months ought to be brought to an end. Amendment negatived. Proposed new clause 7A (Cessation of operation of Act). Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(12.39) —I move: Page 4, after clause 7, insert the following new clause: Cessation of operation of Act '7A. (1) This Act, unless sooner repealed, shall cease to be in force at the expiration of 2 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.'. Except for one matter, the arguments have been fairly well canvassed. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) indicated in his second reading speech that alternative legislation will be coming through within the short term. As the Opposition has indicated that it does not intend to support this sunset clause, I ask the Attorney-General to give the Committee the assurance that this will happen within the next two years. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.40) —For reasons already indicated the Government opposes this amendment. I am not able to give an unequivocal undertaking of that kind-- Senator Chaney —You may not be in government. Senator GARETH EVANS —Not for the reason inserted into the record by Senator Chaney, with my co-operation-on the contrary-but rather because an effective longer term response really does, to a significant extent, depend on what is happening internationally. We are all hoping that the international effort that is being devoted to getting an appropriate protective regime for copyright will get itself sorted out within that kind of time span. As such we can lock into the network of international protections that are necessary if this essentially international industry is to be appropriately protected. But certainly within two years I would expect that we would be able to address a number of the kinds of concerns that have been expressed by Mr Langer, of Software Liberation, and other fellow travellers with that organisation who have raised a number of questions, obviously of large policy significance and which need and deserve to be addressed with sensitivity, care and considerable attention. We will be doing all those things within the time span I have indicated. The interests of educational institutions to some considerable extent are protected by the existing fair dealing and other provisions in the copyright legislation so far as computer programs are concerned, like everything else. Nonetheless, questions arise as to whether some additional exemptions might be appropriate in that area and we will certainly be able to address that within that time frame. It is my great desire to be able to bring together an effective legislative regime for the longer term within the period that Senator Jack Evans mentioned, but for the reasons I have indicated I cannot be absolutely clear cut and decisive in giving him an affirmative response. Question resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Debate resumed from 4 June, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bills be now read a first time. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(12.44) —I wish to take advantage of the first reading of the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill and cognate Bills to talk on a matter raised in part yesterday. The alleged landmark statement on disarmament and United States bases made yesterday by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) outlined very few specific measures to curb the nuclear arms race. Two items were outlined-a concern to prevent an arms race in outer space, and a desire for a comprehensive test-ban treaty. Yet from the information publicly available yesterday, this Labor Government is perpetuating a research program that will undermine those arms control initiatives and promote a nuclear arms race in outer space. Australia is involved in a collaborative program with the United States to develop hypervelocity and electromagnetic guns. This has been made clear by the United States Information Agency report of 30 April, which quotes Major Rogers of CINCPAC, Hawaii. In that statement Major Rogers says: Australia and the U.S. have had a bilateral co-operative agreement for the technology development of hypervelocity and electromagnetic guns and launchers for approximately the three last years. This agreement is in the process of being reviewed. The agreement is between the Australian Ministry for Defence and the U.S. Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency. To date, there has been an excellent co-operative effort. The Australian National University has developed a power source that has proved very useful, and the Materials Research Laboratory at Melbourne has helped pioneer the development of the technology. I emphasise the point that it has helped pioneer the development of the technology. He continues: This type of technology has many potential tactical military uses. It allows the launch of projectiles at speeds many orders of magnitude higher than possible with conventional chemical guns. The Government has confirmed Australia's activity in the program in answers given to Senator Chipp in the Senate on 10 May and to Mr John Scott, MHR, on 2 May. In those Government replies, the fiction that we can be pioneers in this technology yet remain untouched by the devastating implications it has for the development of space-based ballistic missile defences is continued. Such a system would undermine the notion of deterrence in which the Government has placed so much faith. The Government has maintained, and I quote from the answers: While not of interest to Australia in this respect, they- that is the electromagnetic guns- have also been proposed for strategic systems such as defence against ballistic missiles. This kind of obfuscation is what we have come to expect from this Government on this issue as it proceeds to embrace the pro-nuclear philosophies of the previous Government. Electromagnetic guns are a technology that employs electromagnetic projectiles at hypersonic speeds far beyond those obtainable by the chemical methods which are currently in use. As the United States Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency's April 1983 summary makes clear: The primary purpose of this program is to demonstrate the feasibility of this technology for military application. Since 1979 the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency has spent $150m on researching this technology, $10m of which has been spent in fiscal year 1984 alone. Research into hypervelocity and electromagnetic guns has a clear purpose. Consider these quotes from an article 'USAF Studies Hypervelocity Technology' in Aviation Week and Space Technology on 5 December 1983: US Airforce is starting to develop hypervelocity electromagnetic railgun technology to provide space-based and airborne defence systems. The Airforce would join the Army in exploiting this technology for ballistic missile defence. Activity in this area has been given an enormous boost since President Reagan's space war speech on 23 March 1983, which proposed a ballistic missile defence system for the United States. Following that, the United States authorities commissioned a defensive technologies study team to prepare a report on how best to achieve a ballistic missile defence. It strongly favoured the electromagnetic gun technology and the hypervelocity launchers as the best option to follow up Ronald Reagan's space war scenario. The Aviation Week and Space Technology article from which I quoted earlier states in relation to that study: . . . emphasised the application of electromagnetic gun technology as a relatively new-term ballistic missile defence capability that should be exploited. In other words, we are not talking about something a long way down the track; we are talking about something very much on the drawing board now. It went on: A hypervelocity launcher development program is expected to be initiated by the Pentagon for ballistic missile defence use . . . It continued: Hypervelocity guns appeared to be strong candidates for boost and post-boost phase intercepts of ballistic missiles in comparison with laser weapons. While it certainly would be wrong to assume that ballistic missile defence is the only military application of electromagnetic gun technology, it is beyond doubt that the Star Wars application is the primary purpose for this technology. It is also beyond doubt that not only is Australia involved in this technology but also that we have a pioneering role in relation to it. A report in Time magazine on 1 December 1980 stated in relation to electromagnetic guns: Revival of serious interest . . . began a few years ago . . . at the Australian National University in Canberra . . . updated the old concept with some notable innovations . . . As well as work at ANU, as I have already said, the Materials Laboratory at Maribyrnong in Victoria, run by the Department of Defence, has played a pioneering role. An article in Engineers Australia of 5 August 1983 entitled ' CSIRO Develops Projectile Launcher' stated: According to the principal research scientist at Materials Research Laboratory this research has given Australia a world 'first' in this field. The point I am making is that the Government currently is fudging this issue. Australia has played a pioneering role, an ongoing role, in a technology which has the primary purpose of attempting to make President Reagan's Star Wars scenario a reality. The Australian Democrats believe that the concept of a ballistic missile defence would undermine any notion of deterrence, encourage nations to build more and more nuclear warheads, and be advantageous to the developing nuclear war-fighting strategies America has now embraced and which make nuclear war more likely, not less likely. It is crucial to note that any ballistic missile defence is illegal. The 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty between the super-powers all but outlawed these strategic defences. To proceed with their deployment will abrogate one of the most successful operative arms control treaties. We certainly have too few of these. The world needs more arms control agreements. To abrogate a successful one would be a disaster. Yet this Government has acquiesced in and perpetuated a research program the logical outcome of which will be the deployment of technology that will put the nuclear arms race into space and destroy current arms control measures. The Labor Government's commitment to arms control runs deeper than the rhetoric on D-Day. They must not be involved in defence projects which are developing the very thing that they are saying they are seeking to prevent. Australia should be doing everything possible to seek an agreement to ban the deployment of weapons in space. In the process we must ensure that our domestic activities do not destroy our international credibility. To continue this electromagnetic gun program will make Australia's concern to prevent an arms race in outer space totally unbelievable in the eyes of other nations, but the statement put down in this place yesterday by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) precisely follows that train. It sets out in rhetoric that would be acceptable probably to most people in the world what this Government maintains it holds dear, but at the same time, in the background, the Government is progressing with a particular program which will bring into jeopardy anything that has been achieved to date. It seems to me that what we had yesterday, as I think I have spelt out conclusively here today, was another example of the hypocrisy of this Government on this particular matter. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(12.55) —Madam Acting Deputy President, today I will speak on two matters, one relating to the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication scheme, and the other, if time permits, relating to nursing homes, particularly as the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) is in the Senate at the moment. I take the opportunity of the first reading of the Live-stock Slaughter Amendment Bill to raise the matter of the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication scheme. Honourable senators will know how important it is that this scheme be continued and given high priority. It is most important that brucellosis and tuberculosis be completely eradicated in Australia. Failure to do so will endanger export markets in places such as the United States of America, Canada, Japan and South Korea. It has been estimated that at the moment the beef export industry is worth some $1,500m a year-one and a half billion dollars. So one can understand, with the problems that are experienced in the beef trade these days, the absolute necessity to ensure that the brucellosis eradication scheme is continued with the highest priority, the plan being to have it completely eradicated in the early part of this next decade. The tuberculosis eradication program began in 1968 and the brucellosis eradication program began in 1970. It is a joint program between industry and the Federal, State and Territory governments. The operational costs are financed by the industry. Some 70 per cent is raised through the cattle slaughter levy and the States and the Northern Territory contribute some 30 per cent. A vast amount of compensation is paid too, of which the Commonwealth funds 75 per cent and the States and the Northern Territory 25 per cent. In the 1983-84 financial year additional assistance was introduced, with the Commonwealth and the States and the Northern Territory paying half each. I take the opportunity to seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard two tables. I have seen Senator Gareth Evans, the Attorney-General, regarding the incorporation. These two tables set out figures for the bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign, State and Commonwealth cumulative expenditure from 1970-71 to 1982-83, and the estimated annual expenditure from 1983-84 to 1986-87. The second part of Table 2 sets out the actual expenditure from 1970-71 to 1982-83 and the estimated expenditure from 1983-84 to 1986-87. I seek leave to have the two tables incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- Table 1 BOVINE BRUCELLOSIS AND TUBERCULOSIS ERADICATION CAMPAIGN STATE AND COMMONWEALTH CUMULATIVE EXPENDITURE 1970-71 TO 1982-83 Operational expenditure Compensation expenditure Total expenditure Financial year Australia NT Australia NT Australia NT $(m) $(m) $(m) $(m) $(m) $(m) 1970 0.9 0.1 . . . . 0.9 0.1 1970-71 4.0 0.2 0.2 . . 4.2 0.2 1971-72 8.5 0.4 0.5 . . 9.0 0.4 1972-73 13.9 0.7 0.8 . . 14.7 0.7 1973-74 22.1 1.1 1.4 0.2 23.5 1.3 1974-75 33.4 1.7 2.2 0.5 35.6 2.2 1975-76 45.2 2.2 3.7 0.8 48.9 3.0 1976-77 60.6 3.0 6.2 0.8 66.8 3.8 1977-78 83.3 4.1 11 .1 1.0 94.4 5.1 1978-79 111.8 5.2 15.2 1.2 127.0 6.4 1979-80 142.6 6.7 19.1 1. 7 161.7 8.4 1980-81 172.4 8.4 23.8 1.9 196.2 10.3 1981-82 202.3 10.9 28.7 2.3 231.0 13.2 1982-83 233.3 14.3 37.3 5.2 270.6 19.5 Table 2 BOVINE BRUCELLOSIS AND TUBERCULOSIS ERADICATION CAMPAIGN STATE AND COMMONWEALTH ESTIMATED ANNUAL EXPENDITURE 1983-84 TO 1986-87 Operational expenditure Compensation expenditure Additional assistance exp. Total expenditure Financial year Australia NT Australia NT Australia NT Australia NT $(m) $(m) $(m) $(m) $(m) $(m) $(m) $(m) 1983-84 35.3 5.4 11.3 8.0 5.0 1.6 51.6 15.0 1984-85 35.9 5.5 19.1 8.2 10.1 6.9 65.1 20.6 1985-86 34.9 5.5 18.7 7.7 8. 9 6.1 62.5 19.3 1986-87 28.9 5.5 17.9 7.1 7.9 5.7 54.7 18.3 Total 135.0 21.9 67.0 31.0 31.9 20.3 233.9 73.2 BOVINE BRUCELLOSIS AND TUBERCULOSIS ERADICATION CAMPAIGNSTATE AND COMMONWEALTH ACTUAL EXPENDITURE 1970-71 TO 1982-83AND ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE 1983-84 TO 1986- 87 Operational expenditure Compensation expenditure Additional assistance exp. Total expenditure Financial year Australia NT Australia NT Australia NT Australia NT $(m) $(m) $(m) $(m) $(m) $(m) $(m) $(m) 1970-71 to 1982-83 233.3 14.3 37.3 5.2 . . . . 270.6 19.5 1983-84 to 1986-87 135.0 21.9 67.0 31.0 31.9 20.3 233.9 73.2 Total 368.3 36.2 104.3 36.2 31.9 20.3 504.5 92.7 Senator KILGARIFF —The tables have been prepared by the Department of Primary Industry, and they show that from 1970 to June 1983 a total of $270.6m was spent on the scheme, throughout Australia, with $19.5m of that going to the Northern Territory. By the way, these figures are Federal and Northern Territory figures. I have no doubt that a break-up of State figures would be available too. The Federal Government, as I understand it, estimates that a further $504.5m is to be allocated up to June 1987 for this eradication scheme. Some $92.7m of this will be for the program in the Northern Territory. As a result of the funds spent and the efforts made over the last 10 years or so large areas of Australia are now free, or provisionally free, of brucellosis and tuberculosis. Even so, a major effort is still required to complete the campaign. Failure to do this will bring about reinfection of herds now free of the disease-freed from the disease, as can be seen from the tables, at considerable cost. For the campaign to be effective we must have total eradication, and I wonder whether the people who are responsible for this are really getting sufficient support to bring about eradication. When one looks across the north of Australia , from the north of Western Australia, through the Top End of the Northern Territory, to Cape York in Queensland, the problems experienced in those areas with feral animals and cattle running wild can be realised. It seems to me that we need to give even higher priority to the eradication campaign. As a representative of the Northern Territory, I think it is extremely important that an increased effort is made, even though there are large areas of difficult terrain. Those large areas of difficult terrain make de-stocking difficult, and mustering often leaves stragglers. There is also the problem of tuberculosis-infected buffalo in the Northern Territory. It will be realised, of course, that there is no brucellosis in buffalo, but as part of the scheme tuberculosis in buffalo will have to be eradicated. In the Northern Territory the buffalo has been looked upon at times as a pest and at other times as something of economic value. Buffalo farming is growing rapidly as an industry in the Northern Territory. It provides meat, hides and live exports, and of course it has its tourist value. One need refer only to the report by Dr Goff Letts on feral animals in the Northern Territory to realise the problems that are being experienced in the north. Now I understanding that the Department of Primary Industry is conducting a further review of the future of the buffalo industry, and this is being carried out by Dr Jim Whittem. I have been pleased to learn from the Northern Territory Primary Production Minister, Ian Tuxworth, that the Federal Government has allocated some $6m to the scheme in the Northern Territory, and $4.4m has been released. However, more funds will be needed to speed up the program. At the moment some $1.6m is being withheld until an audit has been carried out of compensation expenditure on particular pastoral areas in the Northern Territory. Some questions have been asked about that, but I believe that when the inquiry is completed we will find that there has been nothing illegal but certainly over-expenditure. As I have indicated, I believe that more funds are needed to speed up the program to ensure that all herds are tested and the diseases eradicated. I notice that the Northern Territory representative in the House of Representatives has said that the Northern Territory Government has defrauded the brucellosis and tuberculosis scheme of $2m. That is the amount I have just mentioned, and I believe that that sort of statement is harmful for the industry and will be proved in the long run to be a lot of nonsense. There has obviously been over-expenditure, but I would not think there is any case for claiming that the scheme has been defrauded. Mr Tuxworth told the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly yesterday that the problems have been resolved with the Minister for Primary Industry John Kerin and, as I have indicated, funds are now flowing and the audit is being finalised. In closing my remarks on this matter, I urge the authorities to take more action in the eradication of brucellosis and tuberculosis. There are so many things happening in, say, the northern part of South Australia, where shoot-outs are actually taking place. It seems incredible that we have to have these massive shoot-outs, where it has been necessary to shoot thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of cattle, without any economic value being obtained from them. At the same time, as I understand it, the station owners are getting no compensation. To me it is a strange situation. Surely these cattle could be used for something, and if they have to be shot out surely the station owners can get some compensation. As it is now, I expect that a lot of people in the industry will go broke through this type of operation. I shall speak very briefly about leave for nursing home residents. I should also like to take this opportunity to speak briefly about a matter first raised by the Northern Territory Health Minister, Nick Dondas, who is also the Deputy Chief Minister. I support him in what he is endeavouring to achieve, and I ask Senator Grimes to take the matter in hand and look at it sympathetically. It involves the time for which residents of nursing homes are allowed to leave their beds, say, to visit relatives, without having to pay to keep the bed. This is a problem that worries a number of invalid people in the Northern Territory. The current situation is that private nursing homes such as the Chan Park Nursing Home in Darwin are obliged to maintain a 100 per cent bed occupancy if they are to operate viably. The Commonwealth nursing home benefit pays about 50 per cent of the cost but it is paid only for the beds occupied. Currently, if residents spend more than one night a month away from the nursing home the Commonwealth benefit is cut off. This means that the nursing home is forced to ask residents to pay an amount equivalent to the Commonwealth benefit in order to keep their beds if they are going to spend more than one night a month out of the nursing home. This is becoming very expensive for some residents, despite the fact that the Northern Territory Government has introduced a scheme to assist the residents in covering these costs. Particularly hard hit are Aboriginal people-and other people too, for what it may be worth-who find that they are prevented from visiting their communities and homelands because they do not have the money to meet the cost of keeping their beds. Other problems have also been encountered with severely disabled children whose families would like to take them home for weekends but are prevented from doing this because of the cost. The Hon. Nick Dondas has asked the Federal Government to review the situation and to allow the residents to spend more time with their families without having either to give up their nursing home beds or pay to keep them. I have given him my full support on this matter and would ask the Minister to undertake to carry out such a review and look favourably at giving some further assistance to these people confined to nursing homes. I will give one example of a young Aboriginal girl who was found paralysed out in the bush. She is completely paralysed and is some 11 or 12 years old. She is now in a nursing home. Of course, it is most beneficial for her to be able to get back to her homeland on the Daly River, amongst her people, but the cost defeats them. Despite the fact that friends of the Aboriginal people pick her up and are able to take her in specially arranged transport back to her homeland, the cost of this extra time when she is not in the nursing home is so huge that it precludes her people from having her at home . I think it is a matter of compassion, and I certainly believe that Senator Grimes will treat the matter with compassion. Some of these cases are very difficult. I merely draw it to his attention hoping that, in his compassion, he can do something to assist these people. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(1.10) —I wish to use this opportunity to draw three matters to the attention of the Government. The first matter relates to the labelling of food, and I preface what I am going to say about that by saying that it now appears that the governments of Australia and the manufacturers of alcoholic beverages seem to have recognised their responsibility to a large extent by putting on the label the amount of alcohol that is in beer or wine. Alcohol is a very dangerous drug, and the alcohol content is something of which people who buy alcohol should have knowledge, and I am glad to see that it is happening. I think it should be extended to cover all alcoholic drinks-all wines , whisky, hard liquor, as well as beer. The amount does not have to be given to three decimal places, but the label should give the person buying the beverage a simple indication of the amount of alcohol it contains. I hope the labelling will be extended to cover all those things. With regard to food labelling, although it is something that has not worried me to a great extent because I think I have had enough experience of nutrition to know the kind of foods to choose, a lot of people perhaps do not have the interest to read as much as they should about the food they buy. I believe that food manufacturers should be made to recognise their responsibility for labelling any processed foods in a manner that allows people to tell from the label just what has happened to the particular food they are buying. For instance, I think the calorie, or kilojoule, content should be noted on the label in a fairly simply understood way. If items such as salt and sugar in particular are added to foods, then that should be noted on the label and the percentage content included. There has been a start to labelling certain things so that one can get an idea of what is in food. Salt is an important ingredient and is known to cause hypertension, and of course sugar involves a lot of calories and therefore leads to overweight, which is also a very big problem in this country of Australia. People these days are attempting to take much more interest in what goes into their food, and I believe they have very much a right to know. Perhaps we should say whether a food is high, low or medium in fibre, because fibre is important in the diet. It is important that we get sufficient by way of bread and cereals and things of that kind. Breakfast cereals in particular, I believe, should be classified as high, medium or low fibre. There should be some kind of scale that gives people an indication of whether or not the food they are buying is in fact the way the name indicates it should be. They are three of the things that I think should be noted. In the United States of America a lot of foods are labelled, I believe, in a much better way than they are in this country. In America, as well as the product name and the address of the manufacturer, they have to show the weight. Most also include a list of ingredients in order of amount used, so that the ingredient present in the largest amount is listed first. That is starting to happen in Australia, but I think it could go further, particularly with foods that are supposed to be especially nutritious. Manufacturers should give us a percentage, or even a calorie content, perhaps the amount of protein that is in the food and, if there is a vitamin claim for them, maybe that should be listed as well. Australia has gone some of the way down the track towards achieving this aim, and I am raising it once again to try to hurry along the labelling of these things. I believe it requires agreement between Federal and State governments, and over the last 10 years or so I have been trying to get something done. Something is moving, but I would like to see it hurried up. I can see no reason why we do not adopt almost entirely the American system. Consumer groups in America seem to have more influence than do consumer groups in Australia, and I imagine they have thought very deeply about what should go on a label for the benefit of the consumer. Another matter I have raised before is the matter of traffic lights. Again using America as an example, when a driver pulls up at a red light there he is able to turn through the red light provided he is turning into the direction the traffic is flowing. Of course, nobody would suggest that a driver should be able to go through a red light across the traffic that is coming through. I received a reply from Senator Messner to a question I asked about this, which said: The advocacy of left-turn-on-red in Australia began after a similar rule was introduced in the United States as a fuel-conservation measure . . . Those of us who do a lot of driving and have to buy a lot of petrol I am sure would appreciate being able to save petrol, and this procedure does indeed save the amount of petrol used when a car is stationary at a red light. It enables traffic to find different routes that get rid of some traffic snarls, and it has one other advantage that I do not think I mentioned on the other occasion I raised this matter. While the driver waits for the green light, the pedestrians too are waiting for the green light. They cross, and so for the first half of the time the green light is available in quite a lot of places there are pedestrians crossing who preclude the driver from turning left. If a driver is able to turn through a red light, the pedestrians are not there; they have moved across in front of him. Of course, the driver always has to come to a stop before he does any of this. Because the pedestrians are not there it is doubly easy to turn and it saves petrol. This system is being used in a large number of areas in the United States. Senator Peter Baume —And in Sydney. Senator TOWNLEY —In Sydney it was brought in after I suggested it, I think. All sorts of excuses are made in this country for not doing it. One excuse in the reply from Senator Messner said that in the United States most lights are on a fixed time basis whereas in Australia they are activated by cars driving across a detector strip in the road. The reply continues: In off-peak times a driver may receive a green signal almost as soon as he reaches the stop line . . . But by that time he has stopped; he has wasted the fuel. Admittedly if he went through the red light he would have to stop, but that excuse is not a good one. There is absolutely no reason why this could not be made Australia-wide virtually overnight, without any effort, without any cost whatsoever. The fact that the traffic lights are to a large extent as described in the answer to my question would make no difference whatsoever. Senator Baume has mentioned the situation in New South Wales, where there are some streets where this can be done. Senator Baume will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe they have a sign saying: 'Left turn after stop is allowed through a red light'. Senator Peter Baume —That is quite correct. Senator TOWNLEY —They do not need that sign in America, in the States where this practice is followed, because it is common practice. I have driven there and forgotten to do it and the cars behind very rapidly reminded me to keep moving. Also, we do not have to have these left turn slipways at a red light. They are very expensive to put in, and in fact I think they make the situation more dangerous than coming straight up to a red light, where one is able to turn easily and watch what is coming from the right, and then turn through the light when it is completely safe. It is a matter that is being proceeded with but, again, too slowly. If State Transport Ministers and the Federal Minister for Transport Mr Peter Morris were to sit down and think about it for only a few minutes they would see that it could be done immediately and, as I see it, with absolutely no additional danger . I think there is more likely to be additional danger from people getting infuriated with red lights, waiting at them and eventually driving through them, being annoyed at sitting wasting time. There is more likely to be an accident as a result of their annoyance than from any reaction to the method I have suggested. If it can be done in places such as New York and California it can be extended immediately to Australia. The other matter I wish to raise relates to a letter I noted in the Australian of about a week ago. I have not found a suitable time to ask for its incorporation in Hansard. It is an excellent letter, written by Russell Schneider, who we all remember at one stage worked for Senator Withers. That should not be held against him because this letter is virtually a mechanical letter. It explains the cost of welfare and the number of recipients of welfare at different times and the way the costs have gone up. The only thing it seems to omit is the number of Veterans' Affairs pensioners, who I believe numbered 363,000 or thereabouts in December last year. To save the time of the Senate, I ask leave for that letter to be incorporated in Hansard. Senator Grimes —I hope you are also going to incorporate the letter written in reply to it. Senator TOWNLEY —I have not seen that letter, but if there is such a letter-I do not have it at hand-I would be quite happy to incorporate it. Senator Grimes —I have no objection. I just want to point out that there are two sides to that story. Senator TOWNLEY —I will undertake, at the first opportunity, to find the letter Senator Grimes mentions and seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard. Senator Grimes —We will sort it out when we come to it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Collard) —Is leave granted for the document to be incorporated in Hansard? There being no objection, leave is granted. The document read as follows- THE PENSION RIP-OFF IS A MYTH SIR-As one who, when a contributor to your editorial columns, played a major part in coining the cliche ''soaring welfare bill.'' I would like to destroy some of the mythology surrounding the debate about the assets test on pensioners . The unfortunate thing about this debate is that simplistic editorials such as that which you published on May 22 mislead people into thinking that the welfare devils are aged pensioners. This prospect of the ''grey hordes'' ripping off the taxpayer is no doubt the major cause for ill-informed politicians and commentators promoting the idea that the wealthy old must somehow be punished. In fact aged pensioners represent only 31 per cent of our total welfare bill. If that figure is not enough to prove the fallacy of the argument that the elderly are placing too much pressure on the public, the accompanying tables should help to illustrate where the real blow-out in welfare payments has taken place. The figures show that the number of aged pensioners rose by only 7 per cent over the past five years. The number of supporting parent beneficiaries rose by 146 per cent and unemployment beneficiaries by 109 per cent. Interestingly, that other symbol used by those ostensibly concerned with cost control-family allowances-rose only marginally. In cost terms the figures are even more dramatic. While the total welfare bill over five years rose by 106 per cent, the cost of aged pensions rose by only 64 per cent. The cost of providing benefits to single parents rose by 295 per cent and the cost of unemployment benefits went up by 258 per cent. Welfare Recipients at: Estimated Per cent June 30, 1979 June 30, 1984 increase Age Pensioners 1 323 000 1 417 000 7 Invalid 276 000 285 000 3.2 Widow 161 000 165 000 2.4 Supporting parents 62 500 153 900 146 Unemployment benefits 325 000 680 000 109 Sickness benefits 46 000 65 000 41 Family allowances 4 231 000 4 340 000 2.5 Cost of Welfare Estimated Per cent 1978-79 1983-84 increase $m $m Age Pensioners 3 229 5 325 64 Invalid 690 1 215 76 Widows 499 845 69 Supporting Parents 226 893 295 Unemployment benefits 910 3 261 258 Sickness 150 342 128 Family allowances 997 1 514 52 General administration 220 556 152 Total welfare bill 8 143 16 843 106 There is also a certain irony in the fact that while the welfare bill rose by 106 per cent the cost of administering it rose by 152 per cent, a figure which should be preoccupying the mind of anyone concerned with public administration. While it is true that the ageing population will ultimately become a greater proportion of the community, these figures should make it clear that they are not yet responsible for the massive increase in the welfare bill and if governments wish to reduce that they should be looking at the largesse they dispense in other areas. In my last column for The Australian, I said, ''any attempt to change the welfare system must be handled delicately . . . in a coherent, well defined, well explained manner.'' That statement is as true today as it was then. I would repeat my other comment of that time: if a government is to pursue the problem rationally, it just has to accept that anyone aged more than 45 has gone too far down the track to be expected to face major changes to the system. Those under 45 (and to establish I am not arguing from self-interest, I am still in the younger age group) should be informed of the arrangements they should make for their retirement. To attempt to impose an assets test or other restriction, no matter how economically sound, on people who have retired or are reaching retirement age today is, in fact, a retrospective tax. It is made even worse by the fact that over the past several decades politicians from both sides have encouraged these people to believe, rightly or wrongly, that they had an entitlement to a pension in their old age. It is a tragedy that neither side of politics has yet thrown up anyone capable of taking this sort of longer-term view. RUSSELL SCHNEIDER Rivett, A.C.T. Senator TOWNLEY —I thank the Senate. I undertake to do what was mentioned a moment ago. Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned. Sitting suspended from 1.24 to 2 p.m. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I inform the Senate that Senator Ryan will be absent from Question Time today. In the circumstances, any questions which would normally be directed to Senator Ryan should be directed to me. Senator CHANEY —I refer the Minister for Resources and Energy to his attack on the actions of Sir Robert Menzies in agreeing to allow the British Government to conduct atomic tests in Australia in the 1950s and 1960s. I ask Senator Walsh whether he recalls his lurid description of the then Prime Minister as: The lickspittle Empire loyalist . . . and- . . . invited the British to pollute Australia with nuclear fallout . . . and- . . . who cravenly surrendered Australian sovereignty to a declining imperial power. Will he now direct the same abuse to the then Leader of the Australian Labor Party and Leader of the Federal Opposition, Dr Evatt, who said in the House of Representatives on 5 June 1952 in debate on the Bill to allow the Monte Bello tests: . . . the Opposition believes that the bill should be passed and that there should be no opposition to it. Senator Button —I suppose you will say he went mad. Senator CHANEY —In deference to the Leader of the Government who pointed out to me that Dr Evatt went mad, I would say that other members of the parliamentary Labor Party spoke in similar vein in the Parliament at that time. A second speaker, Senator Armstrong, in the Senate put exactly the same views. In each place the Bill was passed without any dissent from the Labor Party. I again quote Dr Evatt who said: . . . the Opposition believes that the bill should be passed and that there should be no opposition to it. Does he direct the same comments to Labor members of the Opposition in the 1950s ? Senator WALSH —Senator Chaney has invited me to condemn Dr Evatt. I am certainly not going to do so because Dr Evatt, unlike the then Prime Minister, was not in a position to receive relevant information about the tests. That applies not only to the Monte Bello tests, of course. The more enduring damage which was done to Australia was done by the tests conducted in the early 1960s at Maralinga and not the tests at Monte Bello. The dangers from the weapons explosions were short term dangers. The dangers from the subsequent tests were dangers which apply over geological time, virtually, and not just over human lifetimes. Of course, one could add that one of the other things that Dr Evatt did not do was mislead the Parliament when taking Australian forces into the Vietnam war or conscripting Australians to fight in that Vietnam war. If Senator Chaney wants a more exhaustive list of the things that Sir Robert Menzies was responsible for and Dr Evatt was not responsible for, I will be happy to supply it to him later. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Is the Government encouraged by the May labour force figures released today showing a national unemployment rate of 8.9 per cent? When was the last time seasonally adjusted unemployment figures in Australia were below 9 per cent? Senator BUTTON —Of course, the Government is pleased and I am sure all honourable senators will be pleased to note that there has been a drop in the unemployment rate to below 9 per cent. For the first time since November 1982 the figure has fallen to below 9 per cent. The unemployment rate is now down to 8.9 per cent seasonally adjusted. That is the largest recorded fall since the introduction of the monthly figures in February 1978. That represents, in terms of people, a decline of 95,000 in the unemployment figures and of 1.5 per cent in the unemployment rate since the peak in September. The figures reveal that employment is up. There has been an increase of 217,000 jobs in the year to May 1984 and 233,400 jobs in the 13 months since April 1983. This is 47 per cent of the Government's target, expressed prior to the election, of creating 500,000 jobs over three years. I remind the Senate that the anticipation and hope of the Government were expressed in terms of caution about the prospects of dramatically and immediately reducing the unemployment figure. I point out that the falls in the unemployment rate as indicated by the just released figures were recorded in all States other than Tasmania. For example, in South Australia the figure is now down from a figure of 9.5 per cent to 9.3 per cent. The only two States where the level is significantly above average are Queensland and Tasmania. Senator Walsh —I wonder why. Senator BUTTON —It is a source of regret to the Government that in those two States similar results have not been achieved, and Senator Walsh wonders why. In referring to Senator Maguire's question and giving the latest figures on unemployment, I make two cautionary notes again. We have always said that the task of the Government was to make a steady attack on the levels of unemployment which existed when we came to government. Caution needs to be exercised, of course, in respect of one month's figures. But these figures, following on the publication of the national accounts figures earlier this week, are encouraging ones and certainly suggest that the favourable figures released in the national accounts statements are having their effect in the employment area. We would like to draw the conclusion that the Government is on track with its macroeconomic policies. Of course, that is a matter of debate. But certainly, the figures are encouraging in suggesting that is so. I would also like to make the point that, whilst the Government has to be concerned with aggregate unemployment figures and with aggregate employment creation, there are, in particular sectors of the economy, some very severe difficulties which will have to be dealt with as far as possible over time. They have been the subject of some noisy speculation in the last week or so. But they are matters of concern to the Government and will be addressed, as far as it is possible, by the Government taking action which is helpful in those areas. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer, refers to the Hawke Government's proposed lump sum superannuation tax. I refer to the widespread practice, over history, for individuals, including those of pensionable age, to purchase an annuity from a member of their family or some other person, with real and adequate consideration, mostly drawn up by a lawyer and generally accepted by the Department of Social Security. Am I correct in understanding that the proposed legislation will forbid the purchase of annuities from individuals and will force their purchase from specified institutions? Since there can be no question of double dipping involved, why is the Government forcing capital savings out of the hands of individuals and into institutions? Senator WALSH —I am afraid I do not know the answer to that question. I will have to refer it to the Treasurer and get Senator Sir John Carrick a definitive reply . Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Since this matter is of very considerable importance concerning an impending debate may I ask that the Minister give some urgency to getting the answer? Senator WALSH —I will endeavour to get it today. Senator McINTOSH —Is the Minister for Veterans' Affairs aware that a number of wards in the Repatriation General Hospital in Perth, Western Australia, have been closed due to the shortage of nurses? Are measures being taken to overcome this shortage of nurses? Senator GIETZELT —Senator McIntosh has highlighted a very acute problem that exists at the repatriation hospital in Perth. We are very concerned about the current shortage of nurses that exists not only in that State but throughout Australia. In particular, the circumstances at Hollywood require some specialised and extraordinary recruitment steps to be taken to solve the acute problem that exists there. I think it largely flows from the fact that it is difficult to get nurses to move from the eastern seaboard to the western seaboard, no matter how many people regard Perth as a pleasant place in which to live. There is no surplus of nurses in the rest of Australia. Therefore, it is difficult for us to recruit nurses from those who work in the public and private hospital systems. The problem has been accentuated by the granting of the 38- hour week. This means that the hospital staffs are working at greater pressure. However, we have taken steps at Hollywood to establish a refresher course, and have taken advantage of the community employment program to try to attract back into the nursing service those who have left the service to work in other occupations. Out of 100 applications for the refresher course, 25 have been selected. We hope that in the due process of time the problem in Perth will be solved so that the work of the hospital and patient care will be adequately protected. Senator CHIPP —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health a question about Mrs Kerry Burke, who is dying from leukemia and has been advised by her doctors that she may prolong her life by the use of the drug harringtonine. Does the Minister know about the outrageous decision of the Department of Health and the Health Minister, who refused permission to Mrs Burke to import the drug for her own personal use and under her doctor's supervision, even though she has given an undertaking that it would not be made available to anybody else? Does any politician or public servant have the right to refuse Mrs Burke or anyone else the chance to use a possibly life-saving drug , where no one else is affected? Is it not a massive denial of basic human rights for bureaucrats and pliant politicians to deny a person's right to prolong her own life? Senator GRIMES —The situation which has been described by Senator Chipp in such emotive terms-I do not condemn him for doing so; these matters are always difficult-has arisen over the years in regard to various drugs. It is worth while putting down certain facts about the situation before too many wild claims are made about the Department of Health or the Minister for Health. There are in fact two preparations of the type mentioned by Senator Chipp which come into consideration in these circumstances. One is a pure, standardised, carefully prepared preparation called homoharringtonine which is under test by the United States National Cancer Institute. There is a second preparation, harringtonine, which was mentioned by Senator Chipp, which is produced apparently in China. It is a different analogue. At times it has been described as a mixture of the two substances. It is of unknown composition, unknown sterility and unknown purity. As to the first preparation, the National Cancer Institute in the United States is not prepared to make some of its small supply of the drug available to doctors who treat individual patients, unless those doctors are willing to take part in proper trials and have a proper protocol. This is standard international practice. It is my understanding that Mrs Burke's doctors are not willing to do that. The Department of Health has a duty to ensure that Australian patients are not exposed to therapeutic substances of unknown composition and safety. Mrs Burke's physician has advised the Minister 'that harringtonine is not the only treatment available nor may it be the most efficient treatment available'. The physician also advised the Acting Minister for Health in similar terms. On the advice of other consultants involved in the management of leukemia, there are already treatments available in Australia which might be used, and the Department believes it cannot endorse the use of unidentified preparations. Data from the National Cancer Institute in the United States from carefully controlled trials have shown that, despite the statements made in Melbourne, homoharringtonine is toxic to bone marrow cells as are other anti-cancer agents. It has been found to be associated with severe, unpredictable and unexplained effects on blood pressure and similar side effects. The Minister for Health has indicated to the physicians involved that the Department of Health continues to seek data from China to establish the sterility and purity of this substance. Once such data are obtained and evaluated, it may be possible to institute a trial under conditions of control demanded by international experts in this area . Senator Peter Baume —What is to be lost for this lady, though? That is the problem, is it not? Senator GRIMES —That always is the problem. Senator Baume will know that in the past we have had in this country, under the previous Government and other governments, situations where people wanted to import substances of dubious therapeutic worth, dubious standards of preparation, sterility and everything else, and in those circumstances they have been refused. I have asked the Minister for Health, in view of Senator Chipp's representations yesterday, to have another look at the matter. But the Department of Health has a duty to protect patients generally in this country from the importation of what may be potentially very dangerous substances. That is the decision made by the Department of Health and it has made such decisions in the past. One can imagine that if there were no such regulations, in view of the potential for the importation of all sorts of extraordinary drugs into this country, with all sorts of extraordinary and dangerous effects, judgments would have to be made. I believe that, on the evidence in this case, the right judgment has been made. I believe that the unpublished data of physicians involved in the case have cast doubt on the effectiveness of this drug when it was used in the past. Therefore, for all those reasons, the Minister for Health and the Department of Health have made a decision which the Minister for Health has confirmed. Senator CHIPP —Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. Is the Minister not aware that Mrs Burke's own doctors advise that the alternatives to which the Minister referred could in fact hasten her death and that harringtonine offers the only chance she has? Since her doctors and medical supervisors have given an unconditional guarantee that the drug, if imported, would not go to anybody else and that Mrs Burke personally has made a decision to give it a try, what possible damage could it do to anybody, other than Mrs Burke who has been given four weeks to live, if the Minister reverses the decision? Senator GRIMES —I can only say that the statements made by the doctors concerned last night on Nationwide are contrary to the statement they made in written form to the Acting Minister for Health and the Department, in which they said that it is not the only treatment available, though it may be the most efficient treatment. All the evidence is that the effects and side effects of this substance, such as its effects on bone marrow depression, and its unpredictable effects on the circulatory system, make it no safer than alternative forms of treatment for leukemia. That happens to be the view of the experts in this area and other experts in this area in the country. Personally, I think it is most unfortunate that the doctors have gone public in this way, contrary to the written evidence which they have given on previous occasions. Senator REYNOLDS —Is the Minister for Social Security able to report on a Federal Government initiative to provide up to 30 new child care centres in Queensland? Has the Minister received a favourable response from the State Government that it will co-operate in this important project by allocating Crown land so that all available funds can go towards construction costs? Senator GRIMES —The Federal Government has been endeavouring to establish agreements with all States to increase the number of child care centres. We have already succeeded in reaching agreement with New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia, with the result that there has been a considerable increase in the number of child care centres available because of the provision of land and sometimes buildings by those States. I understand that a proposal has been agreed to in Queensland and that such co-operation will come from the Queensland Government with the production of land and, I understand, with the approval of the Queensland Government, some funds, so Queensland will also be able to take part in this initiative. I have not yet got the exact details of the proposal. I understand that it is probably in my Department at the moment. I am pleased that at least in this area the Queensland Government is willing to follow up a Federal Government initiative. Senator LAJOVIC —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. In view of the fact that the Australian Press has recently focused its attention on the huge amount owed to Western banks by the Third World, developing countries and Soviet bloc countries and their problems in repaying the loans, I ask the Minister whether he can provide the Senate with an as accurate as possible analysis, country by country, of their total debts and repayment obligations. Senator WALSH —I certainly cannot do that off the top of my head. Somebody suggested I should therefore talk about the Sinclair-Peacock coalition Opposition, but I presume Senator Lajovic means international debt and not total debt. I expect that such information could be obtained and I will endeavour to obtain it. Senator ROBERTSON —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Territories and Local Government whether it is the case that the previous owner of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Mr John Clunies-Ross, has sought to generate public opposition to the Islanders' act of self-determination and the dispossession of his land holdings on the Islands on the strength of the claim that his family were the original settlers on the Islands. Is this claim correct? Senator GIETZELT —There is a controversy raging about the early settlement of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Some of the forebears of the present Cocos people settled on Cocos before the forebears of Mr Clunies-Ross. According to information provided to me, the first settlement was in approximately June 1826 when Alexander Hare settled there with approximately 100 people, largely Malays. The first Clunies-Ross arrived some eight months later, precisely on 16 February 1827, accompanied by his wife, children, mother-in-law, two servants and about 12 English and Scottish apprentices. As to whether there is any historical basis in the claim of Mr Clunies-Ross, the short answer is no, members of the Clunies- Ross family were not the original settlers. Senator DURACK —I refer to the Attorney-General's personal explanation yesterday concerning his contretemps last year with Mr Costigan and also to Mr Costigan's Press release of yesterday, which I am sure that the Attorney-General has read with some care. I refer particularly to two matters stated by Mr Costigan in that Press release which explain why he regarded the suggestion of a judicial appointment as 'outrageous'. Mr Costigan said: On many occasions I have stated, and I again state, that I am not seeking an appointment to the Crime Authority on any terms. He also said: I am very strongly of the view that judicial appointments should be limited to those selected to discharge judicial functions. Mr Costigan was also of the view that completion of the work of a royal commissioner should not be 'crowned', as he put it, by appointment as a judge. I ask the Attorney: Is it not clear from Mr Costigan's statement that he had very good grounds for the reaction he made to the suggestions of the Attorney-General about a judicial appointment? Was the Attorney not aware of these views, strongly held by Mr Costigan-views shared, of course, by the vast majority of the judiciary and members of the Victorian Bar? In light of these matters, why did the Attorney-General raise the question of a judicial appointment with Mr Costigan in the context in which he did? Senator GARETH EVANS —I want to add very little to what I said yesterday in relation to this matter. I will say only that I do not share the view of Mr Costigan about the inappropriateness of judges performing royal commission or other similar functions. Indeed, Mr Costigan in his statement yesterday acknowledged that reasonable men and women and reasonable lawyers might have different views on that subject. As to the question of someone being 'crowned', as Mr Costigan put it, with a judicial appointment following the successful completion of some other period of service for the Government, I simply say this : The context in which the question of a judicial appointment was raised was not in any sense that of reward, or 'crowning' in Mr Costigan's language; the context was rather that of a rational way of structuring the continued operation of the kind of investigations that Mr Costigan had been carrying out at substantially less cost to the taxpayer than the between $300,000 and $400,000 a year that we were then paying to Mr Costigan, with costs of similar orders of magnitude for counsel assisting him, by virtue of the daily fee basis on which the arrangements had originally been entered into. That was the context in which these matters were canvassed. I note that Mr Costigan in his statement yesterday confirmed my own statement to the Senate that there was no question of bribe language being employed by anyone, no question of that being in any conceivable way a remotely accurate description of what transpired between us. I hope that after all the due sensationalism that this particular episode has created around the place the matter will be allowed to rest and be appreciated as the very minor contretemps that it in fact was. Senator DURACK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I accept to a large extent what the Attorney has said, but he really did not answer the two questions I asked him, namely, whether he knew of Mr Costigan's attitude to a judicial appointment in the context that was the subject of the conversation and whether he was aware also of the views of the vast majority of members of the Victorian Bar on that same subject. Why did the Attorney raise the matter if he did know of those attitudes? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am aware that a large number of Victorian practitioners share the traditional view of the Victorian Bench that it is inappropriate for judges to be involved in matters of this kind. I am equally well aware that large numbers of Victorian practitioners take a very strong view to the contrary . I happen to be one of them. I had no knowledge of what Mr Costigan's attitude may or may not have been to the suggestion of someone with Federal judicial office performing that particular role. Mr Costigan's attitude was not, as I recall it, made particularly plain to me on the occasion of our discussion. Certainly, the language of outrage that was subsequently employed was not in any way communicated to me; thus my reaction as I reported to the Senate yesterday. Senator TATE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Can the Minister indicate the Federal Government's view of the importance of sea passenger transport between the mainland and Tasmania, and has the Federal Government taken any recent action to give substance to its concern that this vital social, tourism and transport link be maintained? Senator GIETZELT —The Minister for Transport advises me that an agreement has now been reached between the Federal and Tasmanian governments over the possible replacement of the current ferry, described as rather ancient, known as the Empress of Australia. The vessel under consideration as a replacement for the Empress is an existing overseas passenger ferry known as the Nils Holgersson of 12,500 tonnes, which was built in 1975. It has double the capacity of the Empress and it is anticipated that it will carry some 900 passengers and 440 cars. Of course that will be a boon to Tasmania. This agreement was announced in Devonport today by the Minister for Transport, together with his Tasmanian counterpart, Mr Roger Groom. Under the agreement the Commonwealth will provide a $26m grant for the purchase of the vessel, its modification, its positioning and the upgrading of the terminals and other related work. As a result of the negotiations and the agreement the State Government will be responsible for arranging the purchase of the vessel and for operating the service. I am further advised that while Tasmania has taken an option on the vessel the final purchase is conditional upon agreement being reached in the unions on crewing levels and the vessel meeting normal Australian safety and other standards under the Navigation Act. This agreement has been achieved through the genuine co-operative approach to Tasmania's sea transport needs by the respective Ministers of the Federal and State governments. Senator TEAGUE —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Another area of confusion and public concern arising from the Government's imposition of an assets test on age pensioners and not yet taken up in the Press concerns those home owners still paying off a mortgage on their homes. For example, a pensioner owning a home valued at $50,000 on which there is a mortgage may hold half the equity of that property but have a mortgage for the other half, that is, of $25,000. However, a pensioner not owning a house is eligible on this account for a supplementary $50,000 of assets to be exempt from the test. In this comparison, I understand the home owner is disadvantaged to the extent of the mortgage. I ask the Minister whether the assets test will take a mortgage into account. What are the detailed provisions that will apply? Senator GRIMES —I would have expected Senator Teague to come up with nit-picking objections of this type. The assets test is perfectly clear: The purchase or ownership of a home is completely excluded. The addition of the $50,000 to the assets of non-home owners is to take into account the fact that there is an advantage over those who have their home excluded, whether that home is worth $ 25,000 or $300,000. In fact, in the vast majority of cases non-home owning pensioners-renters-in fact have very few assets at all. The only ones who will have assets of any substance are those who are in nursing homes who have sold their own homes, and it is largely for them that this provision is introduced. In excluding the home or the principal place of private residence, whether or not there is a mortgage on that home does not come into account. If Senator Teague really wants to complicate an assets test, I suggest the best way to do it is to take into account every mortgage and every encumbrance on the exempt assets and try to make up in some artificial way part of the extra allowance which has been given to non-home owners. There is no suggestion that that should be done. The Gruen Panel of Review of Proposed Income and Assets Test did not suggest that that would be a sensible thing to do, nor have I heard it suggested by any other commentator in this area. Senator PRIMMER —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Why did the Department of Foreign Affairs not cable immediately to Ambassador Whitlam the text of my question of 29 May, as is the usual procedure? Is it a fact that Mr Whitlam learnt of that question relating to the interception of his mail by the Department of Foreign Affairs to the Queen in November 1975 from the media? Can the Minister indicate at what stage are the investigations into this matter? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not in a position to give any indication as to the condition of those investigations or to respond to the other matter raised by Senator Primmer, but as is my normal practice in these matters I will refer Senator Primmer's question to the Minister and seek an early response. Senator WATSON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I refer to media reports concerning the impending crisis in the dairy industry which could result in employment losses of up to 80 ,000 people, and a description of Government assistance to the dairy industry as a pathetic 16 per cent compared with 80 per cent for the clothing industry and 57 per cent for the motor vehicle industry? I ask the Minister: Will the Government rescue the industry with increased assistance and give consideration to the formation of a national marketing plan for dairy products which would allow dairy farmers to regulate voluntarily their production to suit both domestic and export demands through a system of production levies and entitlements? Senator WALSH —Leaving aside claims such as the one that Senator Watson has made about the employment of 80,000 people being in jeopardy, it is a fact that there are major economic problems in the dairy industry which can be attributed to two main causes: Firstly international prices have either declined or it has become impossible to sell products at the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade minimum price; and, secondly, because of the dairy industry policies of the previous Government producers within the manufacturing sector were paid an average price instead of a marginal price for their product. Under those arrangements some dairy farmers found it quite profitable to increase production whereas had they been receiving a marginal price for marginal output an increase in production, would not have been attractive. Because of that, production has increased by something like 20 per cent in the last few years. So compounding the world market difficulties we have the substantial increase in production within Australia because of the inept marketing arrangements applied by the previous Government and inherited by this Government. I attended a meeting the other night with Mr Kerin and others at which a proposal was discussed to ensure that the price received for product was the marginal market price instead of the average price, under what is commonly referred to as an entitlement scheme. I understand there is substantial opposition from some States to the introduction of that sort of marketing scheme. In general terms, it is favoured in Tasmania and Victoria and opposed in the other States. I will see whether Mr Kerin has anything to add to what I have said. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Has the Minister seen the article in today's Australian which implies that the value of a pensioner's home is to be taken into account under the proposed assets test and that a person who owns a valuable home and has little or no other income may not be entitled to a pension? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I have read the extraordinary article in the Australian by one Des Keegan under the heading 'National Affairs'. All I can say is that Senator Childs has been very kind to Mr Keegan because Mr Keegan does not imply that the assets test includes a pensioner's home; he says in fact that it does. He says: If you worked hard all your life and have a house worth $300,000 and nothing much by way of income, the immediate response of this Government is to deprive you of your pension. What is even more serious is that this article in fact touts a scheme by one organisation called Seniors Home Equity Planning Pty Ltd, and includes a phone number and the name of the person to ring. The whole of the article tells pensioners that their homes will be considered in the assets test. I suppose the most charitable thing we can say about Mr Keegan is that he has been asleep for the last fortnight. I would have thought that if anyone-- Senator Walters —It is hard to keep up with, you will admit. Senator GRIMES —Senator Walters would approve of this sort of tactic. It is the sort of tactic she used when the previous assets test was in place. But I suggest that if Mr Keegan has not been asleep all this week he has written this blatantly dishonest and unnecessarily misleading article in order, I assume, to tout the scheme which he is promoting under the guise of a current affairs article, that is, a scheme by Seniors Home Equity Planning Pty Ltd. First of all , I make it perfectly clear, in case Mr Keegan does not know, that a pensioner's home is in fact excluded from the assets test. If a person, such as Mr Keegan describes, has a $300,000 home and no income, that person will qualify for the full pension and will continue to qualify for it. The second thing I would warn any pensioner about in this situation is to look very carefully before entering into a program which is touted in this article by Mr Keegan. I believe that in most cases, if pensioners look at that program, compare it with the option which is provided in the assets test legislation of taking a lien out on their estates and choose the latter, they will be very much better off. It is appalling that an article with such basic errors, based on such a false premise, by someone who purports to be an expert should appear in what purports to be a national newspaper. This sort of ultraconservative nonsense, which has no regard for the truth, is typical of some of the articles we have seen written by this gentleman in the past. Senator LEWIS —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to a media report that Miss Patricia Rankin, the daughter of the late Lieutenant-Commander Rankin, Royal Australian Navy, who was killed in action as commanding officer, HMAS Yarra, while defending a convoy against an overwhelmingly superior Japanese cruiser force in 1942, is stranded in Canada because Australian authorities refused to renew her passport on the ground that Miss Rankin, apparently a direct descendant of a First Fleeter, was born in England while her father was serving on exchange with the Royal Navy in the early part of World War II. I ask the Minister whether it is a fact that some petty bureaucrat made the extraordinarily insensitive remark: It could be that with her British birth-and if her parents didn't register her properly in Australia-- They were therefore very naughty- this lady should never have been issued with an Australian passport in the first place. Secondly, is it not a fact that in any event that statement is not correct in that a British subject resident in Australia prior to 26 January 1944 is automatically an Australian citizen under section 25D of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948-73 transitional provisions. Will the Minister undertake to investigate the matter, ensure that departmental officers are fully conversant with the Act and expedite the issue of a new Australian passport to Miss Rankin? Will the Minister also undertake the necessary action to establish what action, if any, departmental officers have taken to assist Miss Rankin to establish her bona fides as an Australian citizen? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have been advised by the Minister for Foreign Affairs that he has already asked his Department urgently to look into the matter with the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and the Australian Consulate in Vancouver. Hopefully, I will be in a position to advise the honourable senator of the outcome of that inquiry very soon. Senator JONES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of the allegations that some 15,000 tonnes of emergency food aid to Ethiopia was diverted from its agreed target area of western Ethiopia last year by the Ethiopian Government's Relief and Rehabilitation Commission, even though it was supposedly being monitored by officials of the World Food Program. Secondly, is he further aware that the Eritrean Relief Committee in Australia raised the matter with the Department of Foreign Affairs in January this year and has not yet received a specific reply from the Department? Thirdly, can the Minister indicate whether any investigation has been undertaken concerning the specific misuse of this food aid? Will the Government seriously reconsider directing food aid to the Ethiopians through the World Food Program until the matter has been thoroughly investigated, and direct any further food aid through Australian non- government organisations operating in that country? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am able to confirm that the Government is aware of allegations made by the Eritrean Relief Committee claiming that food aid provided through the World Food Program, which I will refer to as WFP, was diverted by the Ethiopian Government. These allegations are not new. Officials from the Australian Development Assistance Bureau raised the allegations with senior officials of the WFP during their recent visit in May of this year to Australia. They were assured by the WFP officials that the claims had been thoroughly investigated and were groundless. A report pertaining to WFP's investigations into this matter is being sent to the Australian Development Assistance Bureau. Australia's food aid program to Ethiopia is directed to specific projects and programs. This fiscal year the Australian Government is providing 16,000 tonnes of wheat to Ethiopia valued at $3.927m including freight . Of this amount some 11,600 tonnes is being used in an Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture land rehabilitation and reafforestation project in the Gama Gofa Province which is being monitored by WFP. The Government has no reason to doubt WFP's monitoring ability. In addition, officers from our High Commission in Nairobi visit Ethiopia on a regular basis and report on aid matters. The balance of the food aid program to Ethiopia is directed through Australian Catholic Relief and World Vision Australia to feeding programs being implemented by the Ethiopia Catholic Secretariat, involving 3,400 tonnes and World Vision Ethiopia, involving 1,000 tonnes. There would appear, notwithstanding the reports, which have quite understandably and properly given rise to concern by Senator Jones and other honourable senators, that there is no real foundation for the allegations being made in those reports. Senator KILGARIFF —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Will the Minister review the guidelines under which residents of some nursing homes who leave their beds to stay with relatives or friends for more than one night per month are forced to pay an amount equivalent to the Commonwealth nursing home benefit, or to lose the right to retain their beds? In particular, will the Minister consider under some circumstances increasing the number of nights that nursing home residents can leave the homes without incurring any cost or the risk of losing their beds? Does the Minister acknowledge the hardship this is causing for families who cannot afford to meet this cost and so are forced to leave relatives, and in some cases their children , in nursing homes for extended periods, despite the obvious benefits of a disabled person having contact with the family? Senator GRIMES —I can tell Senator Kilgariff that I have already referred that matter to the Minister for Health. I heard Senator Kilgariff speak about this during the non-contentious debate period at lunchtime today, when he asked me to do the same thing. I will get an answer as soon as possible. Senator COOK —Has the Minister for Resources and Energy seen the article in last Saturday's Age newspaper by that paper's business editor, Mr Terry McCrann, headlined 'Walsh's RRT will tax phantom profits'. If so, has the Minister noted the pompous and paternalistic criticism of the Minister's views of the resource rent tax? In view of Mr McCrann's analysis, has the Minister modified his approach on this issue? Senator Chaney —Point of order, Mr President. My recollection is that Senator Walsh has already answered this question and has put an article in the Age answering it. This is becoming rather repetitious. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Cook is entitled to ask a question and the Minister is entitled to respond. Senator WALSH —Not everybody reads the Age. Although I normally read it fairly diligently, I was not aware until about an hour ago that a letter I had sent to the Age had been published on Tuesday. So even some of those who read the Age fairly diligently missed it. Yes, I have seen the article. Senator Chaney —Funny, I saw it. Senator WALSH —The honourable senator has more time than I do these days. The first part of the article made some comments approving of me and some of my actions. I do not know whether I should be pleased or worried about that. I noted that Mr McCrann, though querying the rates which had been proposed, approved in principle that tax, which puts him light years ahead of resource tax dilettantes like Senator Chaney. That section of the McCrann article was based on an argument which was used by some sections of the industry. That argument was answered at the industry meeting on 18 May, although that fact was apparently not known to Mr McCrann. In simple terms, the industry argument assumed that both rent tax and corporate tax would be paid on all net revenue. So far as corporate tax is concerned that assumption would be correct if all funds invested were equity capital funds. Of course, as anyone who knows anything about the industry realises, the overwhelming majority of funds which are invested, especially at the developmental stage, is either borrowed funds upon which the interest paid is deductible for corporate tax purposes or alternatively, retained earnings upon which corporate tax would have been paid had those retained earnings not been invested. The second point overlooked was that no rent tax will be applied at all until the investment compounded in all but an insignificant number of cases at the threshold rate has been repaid. Another point overlooked in that article was that even after total investment compounded at the threshold rate has been repaid from earnings, there will be, almost certainly in all cases, further earnings which will return dividends to the original equity capital holders. Senator ARCHER —I ask a question of the Minister representing the Treasurer. Ever since low alcohol beer came on the Australian market suggestions have come from all sides of the community that excise on this beer should be lowered considerably. The fact is that excise is levied on beer because it contains alcohol, but this beer contains considerably less alcohol. Authorities agree that low alcohol beer is not only less injurious to health but also plays an important part in the reduction in the road toll. Can the Minister advise the attitude of the Government on encouraging the consumption of lower alcohol beer by levying appropriate and proportionate excise charges? Senator WALSH —If I recall correctly, this matter was considered some time last year. But it is conjectural, to say the least, whether a variation in excise would significantly affect the relative consumption of the two products. I do not believe the price elasticities are that high. I will refer the matter to the Treasurer and see whether he thinks it is worth reconsidering. Senator SIBRAA —I refer the Minister representing the Treasurer to a report earlier this week in the Australian Financial Review-I think it appeared on Tuesday-with regard to the national accounts data in which it is claimed that ' the extent of the recovery in Australia remains clouded' because of discrepancies between income-based and expenditure-based estimates that applied. Can the Minister give any indication whether there is any substance to these claims? If so, what action will the Australian Bureau of Statistics be taking in the future to correct the situation? Senator WALSH —Senator Sibraa asked whether there was any substance in the point made in the Australian Financial Review. I think the answer is that there could be substance in it but nobody can be certain at this time. The ABS traditionally measures both the income stream and the expenditure stream in attempting to measure total gross domestic product. Because of imperfections in data collection and probably in the analysis, I can not remember any occasion on which the measurement of those two streams has produced an identical result, and from time to time they diverge to a significant extent. There is not a prior reason to believe that one is more accurate than the other. However, I think it is worth noting that in the most recent national accounts figures which have been issued the difference between the income and expenditure streams as measured-or in statisticians' jargon, the statistical discrepancy-is considerably narrower than it was in the previous quarter. So whatever importance or validity that point may have had, it now has less than it had in the immediately preceding period. As to the last part of the question on what action can be taken to correct this , I am not sure whether the Treasurer or the ABS has any proposals in mind in an attempt to improve the accuracy of the data collection or analysis. If there are any, I will try to find out what they are and supply the answer. Senator MISSEN —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware that at present a protest hunger strike is taking place outside the Polish Embassy in Canberra and that the strike is organised in moral support of the political prisoners who are currently held in concentration camps and gaols in Jaruzelski's Poland, as well as being a gesture of solidarity with Dr Andrei Sakharov and his wife Yelena Bonner of Gorky in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? Has the Minister been informed that the Australian residents participating in the hunger strike all suffered severely at the hands of the Polish communist state? Will the Australian Government take up their demands for an immediate and unconditional release of the growing number of political prisoners in Poland and deplore the failure of Poland to recognise their status as political prisoners? Will the Australian Government immediately make representations to the Polish Government and further condemn the increasing record of deaths, torture and ill-treatment of prisoners in Poland? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am very well aware of the protest, because I drive past it twice a day. As to the other matters raised by Senator Missen, I will raise them straight away with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and seek a reaction from him. He has made clear, as many of us have made clear on behalf of the Government, our continuing concern at the human rights situation in Poland. It may well be possible to make some productive further representations in that respect. Senator BOLKUS —I refer the Minister for Social Security to the assets test on pensions announced by the Government last week. In view of allegations by the Opposition that Australian Labor Party members of parliament constitute an extremely small minority in the community which supports the measure, can the Minister say whether he or his Department has received any indication of community response to the assets test as announced? Senator GRIMES —I can assure Senator Bolkus, as I can assure all other honourable senators, that in fact more than just members of the Labor Party are in favour of the introduction of assets tests on pensions. Senator Bolkus will undoubtedly remember that during the controversy surrounding the first proposal a letter in favour of the assets test was sent to the West Australian by a prominent Minister in the previous Government. In the last week Sir William McMahon has come out and said that the Government was right. An article in the Age this morning, which I viewed with great interest, reported the controversy between the shadow Minister for Health, Mr Carlton, who apparently has been completely converted to the cause of means test free pensions, and the former Treasurer, Mr Howard, who takes a more realistic approach and realises that we should have a needs-based pensions system. Of course I suppose the clearest indication of the divisions on the conservative side of politics in this country is the interview with Mr John Elliott, the managing director of the Elders company and the treasurer of the Liberal Party in Victoria. John Elliott was recently featured prominently at the National Press Club and he is frequently put forward as an alternative leader of the Opposition, even though he is not in the Parliament, which demonstrates what a parlous state the Liberals are in. Mr Elliott pointed out, despite the screams opposite, that he had always been and would always be in favour of a means-based social security system and therefore he was in favour of the assets test. He has made that perfectly clear to more than one member on this side of the Parliament . Senator Chaney —This is about as nice as my quoting Carmichael. Senator GRIMES —I do not have to quote Carmichael. I can quote Senator Chaney as I have done in this place who said in a speech in 1981 that he was greatly concerned about the number of pensioners who were so adjusting their affairs to get more pension than they needed while others could not get sufficient. Senator Chaney wanted to do something about it, but neither Senator Chaney nor the discredited former Prime Minister had the political guts or will to do so. Senator Chaney —What have you done? Senator GRIMES —We are introducing an assets test. Senator Chaney —The assets test you asked for. It is costing $30m. Senator GRIMES —I am amazed that we have not heard too much from Senator Chaney or Mr Howard or anyone else in the Liberal Party making a lot of noise. We have only heard all the noise in this issue from Mr Peacock who is in a state of desperation, having lost all his feathers, and Senator Messner. The simple fact of the matter is that John Elliott raises all the Liberals' dough in Victoria, runs the place in Victoria and is the senior spokesman for the Party in Victoria . On this issue he has managed to stand up on his principles and support the Government. I think Mr Elliott would be very interested to hear some of the things that Senator Withers and Senator Chaney are saying about him now. I will pass their remarks on to him the next time I see him and see what he says. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —Yesterday Senator Crowley asked me about the detention of an Australian athlete, Mr Peter Parcell. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) has provided the following information: It is correct that Australian athlete Peter Parcell was refused permission to leave the Philippines by immigration authorities in Manila, reportedly because of a complaint lodged with them by an American citizen concerning the amount of money he claimed Mr Parcell owed him for telephone calls in the United States. In view of this unusual action the Australian Embassy in Manila made prompt oral and written presentations to the authorities and shortly thereafter Peter Parcell was allowed to depart the Philippines without further hindrance. The PRESIDENT —I present reports by the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House relating to proposed works in the parliamentary zone, namely the Provisional Parliament House, Temporary Extensions; the Provisional Parliament House (Temporary Enclosure of Verandahs); and the Australian National Gallery Amphitheatre; and also a report on the future use of the provisional Parliament House, together with minutes of proceedings and the Hansard transcript of evidence. In connection with the last report, I inform honourable senators that in May 1983 the Senate and the House of Representatives agreed to amend the resolution of appointment of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House, to enable the committee to consider and report on the use of the provisional Parliament House after it is vacated by the Parliament. The decision to refer this matter to the Committee was made for two reasons: Firstly, in a report in 1982, outlining its plans for the development of the parliamentary zone, the National Capital Development Commission noted that, in the absence of any decision about the future use of the provisional Parliament House after it is vacated by the Parliament in 1988, it has been assumed the building will remain in its present form. Secondly, the detailed planning of the interior of the new Parliament House will be affected by decisions about the future display of artworks and other memorabilia presently housed in the provisional Parliament House. Such decisions depend, to a large extent, upon the future use of the provisional building. The Committee's principal recommendations are: That the provisional Parliament house should not be demolished; that it should remain basically as it is with modifications to the roof and the southern facade; and that it should be used as a museum related to the Australian Constitution, Federation and the Australian Parliament. In making these recommendations the Committee took account of the fact that a major part of Australia's contemporary political history has been enacted in this building and that it would be an act of desecration either to destroy the scene of that history or to devote the building to a use that did not have strong political or historical connections. It was also recognised that the new Parliament House will not be able to house all the memorabilia and material of historical consequence from this building or to have an educative role in relation to Federal or the political history of this country. The principal criteria used by the Committee in determining the post-1988 uses of the provisional building were: Only nationally rather than locally oriented uses should be considered; regular use by the public including visitors and tourists should be encouraged, rather than a static use such as general office accommodation or intermittent occupation such as a conference centre; and in view of its history and close relationship with the new Parliament House, future use should have a parliamentary bias. The Committee believes that the provisional building will provide suitable accommodation for such a museum. It has the range of large spaces which would be required for displays, lectures and similar functions with sufficient accommodation for the administration, curatorial, storage, workshop and other activities which are an essential part of a large, active museum. It is clear that a necessary preliminary to a closer study of the means by which a museum might be accommodated in the provisional House is the completion of a conservation analysis and plan. The aim of this examination would be to facilitate a detailed understanding of the building's structural history, present condition and its architectural and historical significance. This examination would also consider the means by which the proposed uses might be achieved in a way which is consistent with its proper conservation, both of the interior and exterior. The Committee therefore recommends that funds should be provided in the 1984-85 financial year for a conservation analysis and plan to be carried out on the provisional Parliament House. The Committee hopes that this inquiry and report will provide the basis for early decisions by the Parliament and the Government on the future of what is one of Australia's most significant and historic buildings. I commend the Committee's report to the Senate. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That in accordance with Section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the Senate approves the following proposals contained in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House presented to the Senate on 7 June 1984, namely: The construction of a two-storey prefabricated modular building in the House of Representatives' gardens linked to the existing building by a covered walkway at the first floor level. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That in accordance with Section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the Senate approves the following proposals contained in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House presented to the Senate on 7 June 1984, namely: The temporary enclosure of the verandahs at the main floor level of the Provisional Parliament House on the northern facade of the building. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That in accordance with Section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the Senate approves the following proposals contained in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House presented to the Senate on 7 June 1984, namely: The construction of formal seating at the Australian National Gallery amphitheatre. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia) —I present the tenth report of the Publications Committee. Report-by leave-adopted. Consideration resumed. Proposed new clause 10A. Question put: That the proposed new clause be inserted. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Bolkus, N Hearn, J. M.Button, J. N. Jones, G. N.Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. McIntosh, G. D.Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R.Colston, M. A. Primmer, C. G.Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M.Elstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Evans, Gareth Sibraa, K. W.Georges, G. Tate, M. C.Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A.Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O.Grimes, D. J. 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.Chaney, F. M. Martin, K. J.Chipp, D. L. Mason, C. V. J.Collard, S. J. (Teller) Messner, A. J.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Missen, 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.Kilgariff, B. F. Foreman, D. J. Rae, PeterRyan, S. M. Archer, B. R.Richardson, G. F. Haines, J. Question so resolved in the negative. Clause 11 (Distribution to electors of arguments for and against proposed law). Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.15) —I move: Page 8, clause 11, at end of clause, add the following new sub-clause: '(4) The Commonwealth shall not expend money in respect of the presentation of the argument in favour of, or the argument against, a proposed law except in relation to- (a) the preparation, printing and distribution of the pamphlets referred to in this section, or the preparation and distribution of translations into other languages of material contained in those pamphlets; (b) the provision by the Electoral Commission of other information relating to, or relating to the effect of, the proposed law; or (c) the salaries and allowances of members of the Parliament, of members of the staff of members of the Parliament or of persons who are officers of employees within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1922.'. This amendment seeks to require that the Commonwealth not expend money in respect of the presentation of the argument in favour of, or the argument against, a proposed law except in relation to three items. This is an expansion of the discussion we had last year. I shall take each item separately. The first is the preparation, printing and distribution of the pamphlets referred to in the proposed section-the pamphlets for Yes and No cases that have traditionally been funded. The paragraph also refers to the distribution of translations of material contained in those pamphlets. This proposal will allow material to be translated into community languages for the purposes I expressed yesterday during the second reading debate. The second is a new item; namely, the provision by the Commonwealth Electoral Commission of other information relating to, or relating to the effect of, the proposed law. On the last occasion on which we were looking at this matter we had only just passed the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Act and established the Electoral Commission. I think that those of us who dealt with this matter at that time were unaware of the nature of the Commission. The functions of the Commission are set out in section 7A (1) (c) of the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Act, which we passed last year, in the following terms: To promote public awareness of electoral and Parliamentary matters by means of the conduct of education and information programs and by other means; The Act defines 'electoral matters' as follows: matters relating to Parliamentary elections, elections and ballots under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 and referendums; Senator Peter Baume —Parliamentary and union? Senator MACKLIN —Parliamentary, union and referendums. So the Commonwealth Electoral Commission already has as part of its statutory function the conduct of education and information programs. It, therefore, seems to us appropriate that the Commission ought not be excluded from undertaking that statutory role already given to it by the Parliament and hence I made provision in paragraph (b ) of the amendment circulated on behalf of the Australian Democrats for it to be able to continue that education and information function in relation to referendums. I believe if one reads in as unbiased a way as one can the previous Yes and No case pamphlets one can see that the actual amount of material provided to the electors by them was almost zilch. Indeed, I think that any reasonable elector who did not have any great connection with a political party would have found it very difficult to understand what the argument was all about. Indeed, the Yes case more or less suggested that if the electors passed a particular referendum proposal the following morning would be much brighter than ever before and the No case suggested that if the referendum proposal were agreed to the end of the Western world was in sight. Of course, most referenda proposals mean nothing of the kind. I think that now we have an independent Electoral Commission to which we have entrusted a statutory requirement to engage in the conduct of education or information programs, perhaps provision of some information in relation to referendums, other than propaganda provided by political parties, would be for the benefit of the electoral process. Senator Peter Baume —Could this provision be used to circumvent the last vote in the Senate? Senator MACKLIN —No, it is not able to be used in that way because by definition the Electoral Commission is an independent body and, hence, would not be able to promote either the Yes case or the No case. However, it would be able to provide information, hopefully of an intelligent and educational kind, to enable electors when voting either yes or no to understand the effect of the proposed change to the Constitution and how that would affect the Parliament or whatever else the referendum proposal involved. Paragraph (c) is another item that I think is important to include, since we assume this provision will remain in the Act until another Parliament looks at the referendum machinery provisions yet again. It provides for the salaries and allowances of members of parliament, members of the staff of members of parliament or persons who are officers or employees within the meaning of the Public Service Act. When parliamentarians engage in activities in relation to referendums they expend money by attending meetings and flying around the country. Likewise, their staff engage in the expenditure of money by making telephone calls, issuing Press releases by telex or whatever else they are called upon to do by the member of parliament. Lastly, those people who have an obligation to engage in activities in relation to the conduct of referenda will obviously have to be paid. If we left out (c) we could very well render impossible the holding of any referenda campaigns at all. We believe that this amendment is comprehensive in its application, but nevertheless would achieve the effect that the Parliament sought to achieve with its holding operation last year; that is, to achieve a fair and balanced presentation of material to the electorate and ensure that the money which is expended is not expended in any way which would enable an overwhelming case one side or the other to be put to the electorate-rather a balanced case should be put to the electorate for its consideration and vote. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(3.22) —The Government is obviously not altogether enamoured by the insertion of a provision which directly prohibits the Commonwealth from expending any money in respect of the presentation of the argument in favour of a referendum, otherwise than in the context of the official Yes/No pamphlet. But we do nonetheless recognise the reality of the opposition of a majority of senators in this place to any such Commonwealth financial capacity. We derive some solace from the terms in which this prohibition is now expressed under the Australian Democrats' amendment. In particular we see it as being quite appropriate and desirable that there be expressed provision enabling the Commonwealth Electoral Commission to produce impartial information for the public on the way the constitutional amendment will work. It would be unfortunate if there were indeed to be any exclusion of the role of the Electoral Commission in this respect. The effect of the proposed clause 11 (4) (b) is to ensure that the prohibition against extra funding does not in fact override the function which the Commission would otherwise have under section 7A (1) (c) of the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Act of promoting public awareness of electoral matters, including referendums, as it says 'by means of the conduct of education and information programs and by other means'. We need the kind of provision that the Democrats are here inserting in order to ensure that what is otherwise the function of the Commission can in fact take place. 'Impartial information' of course means an explanation of what a particular proposal does. It does not mean arguments for or against a proposal. For these the elector would have to continue to turn to the official Yes/No pamphlet and any supplementary advertising that the proponents for or against wanted to engage in and were able to engage in. The provision of information as to the effect of proposals obviously would not replace the official Yes/No pamphlet. I note that some of the States have produced information pamphlets on issues such as four year terms in New South Wales and daylight saving in the case of South Australia. If there is to be a function of conveying information of this type, of course it needs to be vested in an impartial body with the capacity to carry it out, and the Electoral Commission would seem to be the obvious vehicle in that respect. It should be squarely acknowledged that the official Yes/No pamphlet is simply no longer adequate-if indeed it ever was-as a means of conveying information. Most people now look to television for information about what is going on and the pamphlet no longer seems to be regarded as an authoritative account of what a referendum proposal is about. It may still have a useful role as a point of reference for the Yes/No arguments. The last occasion on which the Yes/No pamphlet appears to have been relatively informative and moderate in its presentation was back in 1913. It was not used again after that for 24 years, when it was produced for the marketing and aviation referendums of 1937, and the No case was of the 'once again democracy is attacked' variety which has become all too familiar ever since. Since then the quality of the Yes/No pamphlets has been consistently criticised from all quarters. I think the question that perhaps deserves more serious consideration than we have given in this debate is whether we should continue to incur the kind of expense that is associated with Yes/No pamphlets in the future. It ought to be said, finally, that a system of this kind, giving a positive role to an independent or impartial body to communicate information, has, I am told, operated in California for some time, where someone called a Legislative Analyst is given the duty of placing before the people an analysis of the effects of any proposal for constitutional alternative. The statutory duties of that official are specified in some detail. For example it is provided that: The analysis is to be written in clear and concise terms so as to be easily understood by the average voter, must avoid the use of technical terms wherever possible, may contain background information, including the effect of the measure on existing law, must generally set forth in an impartial manner the information which the average voter needs to understand the measure adequately, it must also show the total number of votes cast for and against the measure in the Legislature. I am not suggesting we should seek to write in detailed- Senator Hill —Is he an independent authority? Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes, so I gather. It is a public official, but I do not have any information about the way he is appointed. Perhaps this is something we might look at. Certainly, as I understand it, the whole object is to create some officer outside the legislative framework. He may be an executive official who is outside the legislative environment-there being no connection between them in the Californian system as elsewhere in the United States of America. As such he is independent by virtue of standing outside the legislature. That would need to be further looked at. Accordingly I indicate the Government's support for Senator Macklin's motion in the terms in which he has moved it. It is very much a second best position, so far as the Government is concerned, as will be fully appreciated. If we are to be denied the capacity to spend money as we like in promoting the referendum issues, or if we are also going to be denied, as we were by the last vote, the capacity to spend money at least in proportion to the degree of parliamentary support for the measure in question, at least there should be some capacity to communicate neutralised information to the electorate as some contribution at least to redressing some of the more strident propaganda which has traditionally made constitutional referendums so irrational a feature of Australian political life. Senator HILL(South Australia)(3.29) —I wish briefly to put the Opposition's position in regard to the Australian Democrats' amendment. The chamber will be aware of the Opposition's view that the Commonwealth should not expend money in the presentation of the arguments in favour of or against a proposed law. The chamber will be aware that we pursued that matter when a similar debate took place late last year. On that occasion we accepted that moneys be expended in the publication of the pamphlet that is referred to, the Yes/No pamphlet that is covered in the legislation, and also for travelling and accommodation expenses for members of parliament. We took a similar view on this occasion when this Bill, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Bill 1984 was being debated in the House of Representatives, and moved an amendment to that effect, but of course due to the numbers in the other place it was unsuccessful. We intended again to move a similar amendment here today. We noted that the Democrats were going to do likewise, except their amendment also covered the matter that has just been discussed. That is an exception also related to the Electoral Commission in the provision by it of information to electors. We considered the drafting of the Australian Democrats' amendment and we are happy with it. We are, therefore, prepared to defer to them except in one aspect. That aspect relates to paragraph (b). The wording included in the Australian Democrats' amendment is: the provision by the Electoral Commission of other information relating to, or relating to the effect of, the proposed law; We accept the spirit of that provision and of the Commission in its educative role. Nevertheless, we believe the drafting is too loose. It needs to be tightened up. We therefore desire to move an amendment to the Australian Democrats' amendment. Our amendment has been circulated; it is in two parts. Instead of the word 'other' we wish to substitute the word 'factual' so that the present wording of the Democrats' amendment: the provision by the Electoral Commission of other information would read: the provision by the Electoral Commission of factual information . . . to make it quite clear that we are looking for the Commission simply to provide facts relating to this matter; so that it cannot use funding to spread out and take a wider role in the provisions of opinions. We believe that once it started to do that it would become too close to the political process. That would be undesirable. Therefore, to make it absolutely clear that what it prints should be limited to facts, we propose the amendment. The second part of our amendment is to add at the end of paragraph (b) the words: which is not aimed at advancing either the argument in favour of the proposed law or the argument against the proposed law. It might be thought that that is perhaps being overcautious and that the Electoral Commission certainly would not act in that way. I can see from the Attorney-General's nodding that that is his view. However, we have had some unfortunate experiences in relation to this subject in the last 12 months. Last year we witnessed what we believed was a gross abuse by the Government in attempting to expend taxpayers' funds in a way that was contrary to the spirit of the referendum Acts. That spirit, as we all know, is that there should be an even-handed approach and that the Australian public should, from Commonwealth expenditure, have simply the Yes and No cases put to them. That was abused. The Government attempted to expend $1.25m of taxpayers' money promoting the Yes case which was the case which it wished to promote. We were able to contain that abuse. It has meant that, perhaps, we have become a little more suspicious than we would otherwise be in these matters. That is why we will move these amendments. We accept that they are expressed in terms that are extremely cautious, but we believe that our experience of the last 12 months is such that we should exercise caution in these matters. I seek leave to move the two amendments together. Leave granted. Senator HILL —by leave-I move: (1) Paragraph (b), leave out 'other', insert 'factual'. (2) Paragraph (b), after 'the proposed law', insert 'which is not aimed at advancing either the argument in favour of the proposed law or the argument against the proposed law'. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(3.35) —I support what Senator Hill said with respect to the Australian Democrats' amendment and also the desirability of the Senate having regard to the Opposition's amendment to that amendment. I was interested to hear that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) is more sympathetic to this amendment than he was to the former one. I was also interested to hear him repeat that he is not enamoured about anything that will frustrate his determination to inflict his will and the Government's will on the people of Australia. I think the history of the Attorney-General's approach to the matter has been very slippery, if not even snide, as far as the proponents of the No case were concerned because history shows that the Attorney-General went to the lengths of what I believe to be misappropriating $1.25m last year from the Advance to the Minister for Finance which I understand was going to be- Senator Gareth Evans —I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. I suggest that it is a somewhat unparliamentary allegation to suggest that someone is misappropriating money. It is likely to be misunderstood. I appreciate that Senator Jessop is using it in a wholly technical fashion but I have been accused of bribery in the last two days; I would not like a bit of theft to be thrown in as well. The CHAIRMAN —In the terms in which it was used, I ask Senator Jessop to withdraw. Senator JESSOP —Mr Chairman, I will use the word 'misallocation'. The CHAIRMAN —Withdraw first. Senator Jessop —No, I do not want to withdraw. I will speak to the point of order. I noticed that the Attorney-General did not object to the expression that I have just used when I used it last year. I want to know why he has suddenly changed his mind and is now offended at the term that I used last year. He has apparently now changed his mind. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The question is one for the Chair, not for the Attorney- General. The suggestion of improper motives, which misappropriation most certainly is, is out of order and should be withdrawn. Senator JESSOP —I will withdraw, if that pleases you, Mr Chairman. I will approach it in a different way. In the Governor-General's Speech last year, mention was made of certain constitutional laws that were to be made. I believe that to use funds which are supposed to be used for unforeseen and urgent purposes was not the proper approach by the Attorney-General. What is more irritating to those who stood on the No side of the Senate is that a considerable amount of that money had already been spent in promoting the Yes case by circulating kits to schools, unions, certain employer organisations and other information centres throughout Australia. That information gave the Yes case a head start. Senator Hill —What was the cost of that? Senator JESSOP —The cost of that was $120,000 or $130,000. Senator Hill —He sent the kit to schools? Senator JESSOP —Yes, he sent it to schools. That indicates the lengths to which the Attorney-General will go to brainwash the children of Australia and persuade them that the Government is doing the right thing with respect to constitutional change. I totally reject that. Some people have referred to the Attorney-General as the Clayton's-on-the-rocks Attorney-General. For him now to try to give some crumbs to the supporters of the No proposition in the referenda is quite incredible. I believe that the next best proposition that we can offer now is to reject the allocation of any funds at all. However, in this enlightened Parliament, where public funds are provided for electoral campaigns, it seems to be quite fair to ask what will happen in the future with respect to referenda in Australia irrespective of which government happens to be in power. A tremendous advantage is being presented to the government of the day simply because it has the capacity to use the VIP fleet at will. Senator Hill —It would not hesitate. Senator JESSOP —It would not hesitate as Senator Hill properly points out. Because of its determination to snow the electorate and bend it to its will it would not hesitate to use the VIP aircraft at will. It certainly would not restrict the activities of the considerable personnel resources that are available to Ministers. Neither would the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia if they were in government be restricted. Therefore, this matter should be given serious consideration. The Opposition should take another look at these provisions. We have always been opposed to the use of public money for party political campaigns, but now that this precedent has been created I believe we should re-examine Parliament's approach to it. The proposition that is now before the Committee, which I support, is a second best proposition having regard to the future of referenda proposals with which the country may be faced. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(3.40) —I say at the outset that there should be equal public funding for referendums. I do not support the proposition that there should be no funding. That is my fall-back position, and it was my position the last time we discussed this matter. We then found a mechanism to overcome a very obnoxious, insidious and pernicious way of sneaking public funds into referenda campaigns. The No case will always be disadvantaged, because no referenda legislation passes through this Parliament without the support of the Government. During the campaign the Yes case would always have the advantage because of the Government's logistics, its capacity to attract publicity and its enormous resources. The distinction between having Prime Minister Hawke coming to Perth and having a modest member from the back bench seeking to put the No case is a clear, demonstrable example of who is likely to attract the most publicity. These days Hawke has only to wink to get on the front pages. In the America's Cup one would think he rowed that darned boat. The reality is that the Yes case has the advantage because the Government is on its side; otherwise one does not have referendums. In these days there is an unfortunate temptation among Opposition parties to support some of these proposals. It only compounds the influence and impact of the Government upon the media. When one compares the exposure given to senior members of the Opposition one can see what little chance there is for the modest number of those who argue in favour of the No case. That argument invariably favours the rights and responsibilities of the less populous States and the State governments. The fact is that the majority of members of the House of Representatives come from the more populous States. It is also a fact of life that the great majority of referenda proposals are intended to impinge on the rights of the less populous States. One has only to look at the numbers. There are more members of the House of Representatives who come from outer metropolitan Melbourne and Sydney than there are in the combined States of Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania. Senator Harradine —We make the money for those two States. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —That is dead right. Western Australia produces 20 per cent of our export income and has 8.7 per cent of the population and one-third of the land mass. All the other two States do is produce expensive motor cars and refrigerators. One can imagine that the views put by those in the more populous States, certainly those in the Australian Labor Party, will not necessarily be looking after the best interests of the less populous States. There is a likelihood that people from the less populous States will be infected by and tempted to join those from the more populous States who do not understand the impact and effect of these proposals on the less populous States from time to time. If there is to be a prospect of arguments being put properly, fairly and equally in all the States, this can be done only by having equal funding. In practical terms, it is impossible for the minority who represent the No case to attract the sort of media attention that can be attracted by the Government. One cannot rely on the media to give a balanced point of view. In these days they seem to be spending more time listening to the propaganda of the Australian Labor Party than they do to reporting the facts. To give an example, I refer to an editorial in the Australian immediately prior to the floating of the last referenda. That editorial suggested that in the United States of America advisory opinions had existed for 100 years. As the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) knows, the United States does not have advisory opinions. Indeed, it has not had an advisory opinion since President Washington approached the Supreme Court way back. The Supreme Court knocked him back and that country has not had one since. Senator Gareth Evans —The media were talking about Canada; they got confused. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Does the Attorney-General mean that they could not read his writing? They also suggested that simultaneous elections would necessarily mean fewer elections. In fact, it will mean more elections. The government of the day is not inhibited or impaired by the fact that if it has a House of Representatives election without a half Senate election, it will have to go back to the people with a half Senate election at a later time, which in practical terms means a by-election. Senator Gareth Evans —Simultaneous elections are part of your Party's policy, do you realise that? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Politics is very fluid. In respect of simultaneous elections, the logic is that there will be more rather than fewer elections. It means that if Hawke, without the grace of God, happens to win the next election, he can have one in a year's time, two years time or three years time, without having to worry about a half Senate election. He does not have to fear the backlash because he will have both Houses out at the same time. Here one sees the Australian in an editorial putting that point of view. Therefore, one can hardly rely on the media to put a balanced point of view. The founding fathers clearly, purposely and knowingly wrote in the Constitution that it could not be changed without a plebiscite, without a majority of voters and a majority of States casting a vote in favour of the proposal. That was done for a very good reason-to protect the less populous States. It was done to ensure that the plebiscite was cast with an enlightened public aware of the arguments from both points of view. With electronic media these days, with communications the way they are and with modern transportation, it is quite difficult not to be drowned by one point of view. The Australian Labor Party is proposing that these decisions will be made by its amendments. The decision to have no funding will mean that the majority of Australians will be casting a vote in respect of these matters in the darkness of ignorance. I find it very interesting that the Attorney-General's proposal sought to suggest that the percentage of the people who vote in this place should relate to the amount of funds to be provided. If one looks at the interchange of powers , 52 per cent, yes; 48 per cent, no; and only 3.7 per cent of the combined members and senators supported the No case. On that proposal more than half the money should have gone to the No case. Senator Gareth Evans —I take a point of order. Could the Chair draw the honourable senator's attention to the fact that the amendment about which he waxes so lyrically and indignantly has been defeated and that the Committee is now debating something else? Senator Hill —I wish to speak to the point of order. Surely Senator Crichton- Browne is addressing himself to the extra precaution that needs to be built into these provisions to contain the Government from abuse. It is an experience we had last year, and I can understand the point Senator Crichton-Browne wants to emphasise on this occasion. The CHAIRMAN —Order! We are dealing with the provision of information on the Yes and No cases. I would not like Senator Crichton-Browne to go too far on that line. However, he has been in order so far. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I will say that on third reading, Mr Chairman. If this Government is properly committed to constitutional reform, it should seek to persuade an enlightened and informed public and not use this insidious method of seeking to seduce people to cast a vote in the shadows of darkness, without knowledge and understanding of the process. It ought to seek to ensure that the public is fully informed. Senator Evans knows better than anybody the difficulty in this day and age that a minority has in putting forward a point of view, notwithstanding the fact that he seeks from time to time to argue that he represents minorities. I believe there is a very clear distinction between public funding for elections and public funding for referendums. Quite clearly, at general elections the points of view of both political parties is put forward with persuasion, vigour, enthusiasm and the support of both political parties. Of course, we will invariably find that there will be opposing points of view. Whether the media distorts the truth or not at least it pretends to give equal space to both major political parties. Of course, with a referendum that is not the case. We may well find ourselves in the circumstances in which we found ourselves prior to the last referendum. Both major political parties were then supporting the Yes case. That left the public without a capacity to understand the ramifications and implications of what they were being asked to vote in favour of. The taxpayers' money for the simultaneous elections referendum was spent without their authority. In Western Australia the Yes case received 75 per cent of the vote and the No case 25 per cent of the vote. I ask the Attorney what sort of odds he needs. He wants another couple of million dollars thrown in just to make sure he gets there. He only needs half the vote. No doubt that vote would not ultimately manifest itself in the ballot box. The Attorney knows that, because as the day of enlightenment approached, I am sure that the vote would swing around in favour of the No case, despite the fact that clearly it would be denied funds. That is a very good reason for having equal funding. As an absolute long way second-best fall-back position I support no funding. But it will inevitably lead in the future to reform by the Government of the Constitution without the support of the public. The smaller States will suffer and will be the losers. Of course, the Government of this day has no concern or regard for them. It is for them that I speak to defend their rights. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(3.52) —Apropos particularly of Senator Jessop's contribution in support of Senator Hill's amendment, what I like about this place is the way in which we really respect each other across this chamber; the way we acknowledge the sincerity of each other's motives; the way we never question the bona fides of each other's arguments; the frank and friendly way we concentrate on the merits of matters without any elements of cynicism or suspicion. In that spirit, reinforced by the contribution of Senator Jessop, I express to the Australian Democrats particularly some views which might, I hope, lead them to reject on perfectly honourable grounds the kind of amendment that has in fact been moved by Senator Hill. The Opposition amendment which would add all sorts of further words and qualifications to sub-paragraph (b) of clause 11 (4) appears to be based either on a misconception that that sub-paragraph confers a new function on the Commission or upon a belief that the Commission's existing function in 7A (1) (c ) of the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Act should be narrowed. That function under the existing provision is expressed as follows: . . . to promote public awareness of electoral and Parliamentary matters by means of the conduct of education and information programs and by other means; 'Electoral matters' is defined to include referendums. The expression 'other information' in clause 11 (4) (b) as it has been moved could encompass in addition to factual information, which is the language that Senator Hill wants to incorporate, information by way, for example, of legal analysis or perhaps material that is essentially predictive in character: 'This would mean X or Y or Z'; in other words material which may or may not satisfy some very strict application of the notion of factual material. I believe that that kind of information, provided it was carefully and impartially put together and presented, would have a perfectly proper place in an Electoral Commission program. There is a danger in incorporating the kinds of qualifications that Senator Hill is insisting upon. Furthermore, the suggestion that the Commission should be expressly precluded, in the language that Senator Hill proposes, from providing information aimed at promoting one side of the case or the other, is either quite redundant or, I believe more worryingly, unduly narrowing in its effect. On one view, of course, it is redundant simply because 7A (1) (c) which I read a moment ago does not give the Commission power to favour one side. Certainly it is strongly arguable that the Commission would be acting beyond its existing statutory charter if for a moment it purported to do so or acted in such a way that could so be construed . The other aspect of it is, as I said, more worrying. If the words are treated as not redundant, the restriction could prevent the publication of almost any information on the ground that information is only provided for the purpose of encouraging a Yes vote. One can imagine an argument of that kind being put forward in order to give some meaning to the words which we would argue to be otherwise redundant in this particular clause-perhaps an unlikely point of view, but not by any means a far-fetched one when one appreciates that it is a basic rule of statutory construction that words have to be given some meaning to justify their appearance in a statutory provision. There is every chance that the court might feel inclined to give these words that Senator Hill proposes some meaning beyond their ordinary first blush natural meaning because of that rule of statutory interpretation that effect should be given to every provision, that redundancy should be avoided if possible in the construction of an enactment. Thus I suggest to Senator Hill that there are really technical lawyers' arguments for rejecting the amendment that he proposes. They are not arguments that I put forward with any motivation other than a genuine desire to ensure that this section, in the form in which it has been moved by the Democrats, operates as it is manifestly intended to operate to ensure that an impartial Electoral Commission can in fact supply information which is genuinely that and which will assist electors to understand the nature of the proposal being put to them. As Senator Hill himself acknowledges, his amendment is born of something of a surfeit of suspicion as to what other people's motives might be in the light of a rather uncharitable view of recent history. Based as it is on that motivation rather than on any grounds of technical necessity, the amendment has a danger of proving to be a rather more fierce amendment than Senator Hill thinks it in fact is. The words he is putting there have a capacity to be quite destructive of what he and, presumably, the Democrats are trying to achieve. In that spirit of general enlightenment and frank exchange on the merits of matters, I commend the arguments I have just made to the Democrats in order that they might react accordingly to Senator Hill's amendment. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.58) —In the same spirit, I suggest to the Committee that if we adopt the Australian Democrats' amendment without further amendment we may be adopting a proposal which has very grave dangers for our democracy. I will explain why. Democracy in Australia depends to some extent upon the public perception of the role of the Electoral Commission, the role of the electoral authorities. One thing can be said about that and that is that the public believes that the electoral authorities in Australia are people of integrity, efficiency, and fairness and are people who are above partisan politics. The people believe that. In my view this added function-I will prove that it is a function, added to what is in clause 7-will undermine that opinion which is widespread and almost unanimous amongst the people of Australia. What the Government is asking the Electoral Commission to do by proposal (b) is to provide other information; that is, information other than what can be provided by the proponents for or against the referendum. Of course the 'other' refers to the preceding language in the Australian Democrats' amendment. It certainly will be other than what is contained in proposal (a). It could be that it is similar to the information contained in only one of the official arguments for or against the proposal. I give the Committee an example, bearing in mind what the Attorney-General has said. He asked why the Electoral Commission cannot give information such as advice based on legal precedent or predictive viewpoint . Is it suggested, for example, that the Democrats' amendment (b) would enable the Electoral Commission to provide information to the public about the Constitutional Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) proposal? I think a reading of the Democrats' amendment would enable the Electoral Commission to give advice to the people about the advisory jurisdiction proposal . What qualifications do the Australian Electoral Office or the Electoral Commission have to provide the people of Australia with an analysis of the advisory jurisdiction referendum proposal? Indeed, if we look at the scheme of the Australian Constitution, is it not very dangerous for the Electoral Commission to be involved in giving such advice? I say that because of the very clear and distinct divisions of power in the Australian Constitution between the Parliament, the Executive and the judiciary. Take that advisory jurisdiction referendum proposal as an example. As I see it, the Electoral Commission really has functions to do with the election of a parliament, the election of a government. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the judiciary. For example, what if it were to give information about the advisory jurisdiction proposal? The Attorney is shaking his head. Is it suggested that it could not do that? Senator Gareth Evans —Its function is to promote public awareness of electoral matters, and electoral matters is defined to include referendums. There is your answer, in the text of the statute. Senator HARRADINE —In other words, the Attorney is saying that it could in fact give information to the people about the referendum proposal relating to the advisory jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia? Senator Gareth Evans —About the effect of the proposal, yes. Senator HARRADINE —That is right; the effect of the proposal. Senator Hill —Arguments for and against. Senator HARRADINE —Exactly. That is the effect of the proposal. What about the High Court judges? For example, would the Electoral Commission quote what Sir Harry Gibbs, the Chief Justice of the High Court, said? Senator Gareth Evans —That would be a matter for those propounding the No case, presumably. Senator HARRADINE —Those propounding the No case, but not the Electoral Commission? Senator Gareth Evans —Or those propounding the Yes case if they saw some advantage in it. Senator HARRADINE —Yes, but the Attorney has said the Electoral Commission could give information as to the effect of a particular referendum proposal. One of the major effects of that advisory jurisdiction referendum proposal would be to overload the court. In that situation, would the Electoral Office quote Sir Harry Gibbs as saying that he and his fellow judges are against it? And if it did not, surely the people on the No side of the case would cry foul. I would certainly cry foul about the Electoral Commission being biased in favour of the Yes case if it did not include that comment. Can the Committee see what I am getting at? This is a very dangerous situation indeed. Section 7A (1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill says, quite clearly-the Attorney read it out: The functions of the Commission are- . . . . (c) To promote public awareness of electoral and Parliamentary matters by means of the conduct of education and information programs and by other means; I suggest that the referendum question relating to advisory jurisdiction has nothing to do with the Parliament. Senator Macklin —No, it is included in the definitions, in section 6, what electoral matters means. Senator Gareth Evans —So an electoral matter is a referendum. Senator Macklin —It says referendum, specifically; it is part of the definition. Senator HARRADINE —The honourable senators are talking one language and I am talking another. Senator Gareth Evans —We are talking English. What is yours? Senator HARRADINE —I am trying to carry on this debate in the spirit in which the Attorney spoke. I am saying that this could be very dangerous to democracy. Senator Gareth Evans —It would if it were being done by a body other than an impartial body, on your premises. Senator HARRADINE —I understand what the Attorney is talking about-its role so far as referenda are concerned-but we did not envisage the Commission giving information to the public about the nature of referenda proposals. I did not vote for that on that basis but that is what the Government is trying to impose. This is the obligation it is trying to impose on the Electoral Commission, and the Electoral Commission will be unable adequately to discharge that obligation without somebody calling foul. Under those circumstances I believe that it will undermine the public perception of the Electoral Commission, or the electoral authorities, as being fair and impartial. I feel that Senator Hill's amendment does go some way to tightening up the amendment put forward by the Democrats. Passing the Democrats' proposal as it is will pave the way for people at the time to get up legitimately and cry foul about what the Electoral Commission might or might not say. People will inevitably do that, and I believe that is not a good thing for democracy. I hope that this Senate does give proper consideration to that viewpoint because, if anything, we do want to see the maintenance of public confidence and the confidence of all politicians in the integrity of the Electoral Commission. Senator HILL(South Australia)(4.10) —I want to respond briefly to the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans). I think, in his own words, he really put the danger that we are trying to eliminate. He said that if the words that we want to include are included, that is, 'which is not aimed at advancing either the argument in favour of the proposed law or the argument against the proposed law' , that might restrain the Commission from giving practically any information. That is exactly our concern. That is why we feel that this extra caution should be exhibited in this particular case. We believe that the Commission should operate from only a very narrow area, that is, to give purely facts and information of an educational and informational nature, to use the words in the Act. It must be very strictly limited. As soon as the Commission verges into an area of giving advice, looking at the arguments for and against-and if it is to put information before the public on a referendum it will be difficult for it not to do that-I believe we will get into trouble. We will start running into the concerns that have been expressed so eloquently by Senator Harradine. The Attorney has acknowledged in effect that, by allowing the Electoral Commission a wide berth to give information of an educative and informational type on a referendum, without a restraint that it should not be aimed at either side, we will run into serious trouble. I say to the Democrats-most of these debates seem to be directed at the Democrats-before their spokesman speaks, that our amendment is purely a cautious amendment. We cannot see how in any way it would damage or cause difficulty to the role of the Electoral Commission; rather, it is cautious and positive and will emphasise to the Electoral Commission that, in meeting its responsibilities under section 7A (1) (c) of the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Act , it must be particularly careful to ensure that the material it provides cannot be interpreted to be aimed at advancing either side of the argument. That is the role of those who, under the terms of the referendum legislation, have the opportunity to produce a Yes case and those who have an opportunity to produce a No case. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.13) —In the framing of the amendment I have moved on behalf of the Australian Democrats, we sought to construct it in such a way as to stay as close as we could to the statutory requirements which have already been imposed upon the Commonwealth Electoral Commission in relation to what it may do by way of promoting public awareness. Although I think the propositions put forward by Senator Harradine are certainly cautionary, I have not been persuaded that one ought to move from the wording presented in the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill and to add to that so as to create additional or more restrictive obligations upon the Electoral Commission. I am confident that the Electoral Commission will be able to distinguish, and will indeed be most cautious in its activities as it is in all other activities in this area. As Senator Harradine has already said, it lies at the hub of the operation of our democracy. One can look back at the fact that the Electoral Commission has always been held in high regard in relation to the activities it has conducted on elections and other matters, even indeed in matters arising out of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Surely that must give one confidence that, if the Electoral Commission can walk through that particular minefield and emerge unscathed, it can very well go into referenda with full flags flying and have no difficulty at all. I imagine that the Electoral Commission will rely on quite senior legal advice in the framing of any advertisements or any information pamphlets that it may wish to put out, or any other type of information on education programs it may wish to mount in relation to an election. I have full confidence that the Commission will pursue its activities in the tradition and spirit in which the Australian Electoral Office pursued its activities. I see no reason to go further than the principal Act governing its statutory requirements and hence would feel that our amendment adequately covers that. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.15) —It is difficult, of course, to ask the Minister what the Australian Democrats' amendment means. Senator Crichton-Browne —He says he knows. Senator HARRADINE —Well, if he knows, I ask him what it means. Does it mean that the Electoral Commission will in fact be able to give information on the advisory jurisdictions referendum proposal? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.16) —In endeavouring to reply in the spirit that we have all been talking about-whether we meant it or not is another question-I think I can say to Senator Harradine that clearly the core of the amendment would be to enable the Electoral Commission to say something like this in relation to advisory opinions: 'The effect of this is to enable the Commonwealth, the States and the Northern Territory to obtain advisory opinions from the High Court on certain constitutional matters' and then to identify what they are. On an extension of that, one could go further and say that it might be competent, in the guise of information, for the Electoral Commission to produce some neutral summary of the main arguments advanced respectively by the pros and cons. That is conceivably part of what might be subsumed under the description of information. It is water that the Electoral Commission would no doubt be rather anxious not to wade in, but as Senator Macklin has said, it is a matter of having confidence in the Electoral Commission. I do not join in this debate with any gigantic sense of enthusiasm because this is not what I want. I want to get in there and hammer away the Yes case with a degree of vigour, and flail all the eccentrics pursuing the idiosyncratic resistance to legitimate constitutional change. That is what I would like to do with government funds. I am quite open and unashamed about that. I think that is legitimate, given the whole course of referendums in this country. If I cannot have that, I would like to have a proportionate capacity to do that. This seems to me really to be a way of putting the Yes and No cases back to their original conception. They were intended in their original conception to give genuine advice to the electors on the arguments. It is a pity that over the decades they have become strident noisesome publications in many ways. It may be that that balance can be redressed a little by allowing the Electoral Commission, in its own judgment, to produce material of a neutral kind which would be designed to inform the electors. Just what the information means will be a matter for the Commission and its advisers, as Senator Macklin said, to judge. I think that we ought to have confidence in their judgment. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.18) —I thank the Attorney-General. Like him, I would be rather inclined to weigh in in the same spirit. Politics is what we are all talking about. But what I am saying is that the Electoral Commission should not be political. I draw the Committee's attention to section 7A (1) (c) of the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Act. Section 7A (1) (c) has been quoted by Senator Macklin as the basis for enabling his amendment to clause 11 ( 4) (b) to operate. Senator Crichton-Browne —Would you read it out? Senator HARRADINE —I will just read out proposed new clause 11 (4) (b) to the Senate: the provision by the Electoral Commission of other information relating to, or relating to the effect of, the proposed law; Section 7A (1) (c) of the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Act states: The functions of the Commission are- (c) to promote public awareness of electoral and Parliamentary matters by means of the conduct of education and information programs and by other means; 'Electoral matters' under the heading 'Interpretation' in section 6 of the Act is defined as follows: 'electoral matters' means matters relating to Parliamentary elections, elections and ballots under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 and referendums; We are dealing here solely with referendums, but it does not say whether those referendums affect parliamentary matters or other questions under the Constitution, for example, the advisory jurisdiction matters. We must bear in mind that a function of the Commission is to 'promote public awareness of electoral and Parliamentary matters'. It does not say 'electoral or Parliamentary matters.' Senator Gareth Evans —You have missed your vocation. Senator HARRADINE —I am just pointing out that it does not say 'or Parliamentary matters', it says 'and Parliamentary matters'. Senator Gareth Evans —It does not have to be conjunctive in the context. It is disjunctive. Senator HARRADINE —I am just pointing to the question. When I voted for this legislation last year, I voted in favour of that. Senator Georges —But you did not understand it. Senator HARRADINE —I did understand it. Senator Georges —But you just said you did not. Senator HARRADINE —I did not say that I did not understand it. I said before the honourable senator came in that this role was not envisaged when we voted for the Commonwealth electoral legislation last year. I have raised this point now so that when things go bung later on the Electoral Commission might understand that this field is full of mines. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.23) —I want to make only one comment on what Senator Harradine said. He said that it was not envisaged that the Electoral Commission would engage in providing information and education programs. This item arose from a recommendation of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, which in its report specifically envisaged that the Electoral Commission would engage in those activities. Indeed, considerable evidence was given to the Joint Committee on Electoral Reform that insufficient work had been done by the Electoral Office, partly because of budgetary constraints and other matters, to engage in information and education programs. So it was actually envisaged that the Commission would engage in precisely such activities. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.24) — The honourable senator is addressing something altogether different. The Select Committee made no recommendations at all which would enable the Electoral Commission to give information to the public about the nature of referenda proposals. We are talking about the nature of referendum proposals. We are not talking about how electors should be provided with information by the electoral offices on what they should do in respect of referendum proposals, where they should vote, and so on. We are talking about a wholly different thing, which goes to the nature of referendum proposals which are essentially political in character. That was my point all along; because they are essentially political in character we are opening the way for people to cry foul against the Electoral Commission and thus undermining its integrity. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(4.25) —My view is that this amendment in practical terms substitutes the Electoral Commission for a political party or for both political parties. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) says to us, as he did yesterday in respect of the composition of the National Crime Authority, that common sense would prevail in the Electoral Commission. I do not believe that, without adequate safeguards and guidelines, this clause can be implemented without trespassing in the political areas. I do not know how the Commission will be able properly to discharge its responsibilities imposed upon it by this amendment without trespassing upon matters of political argument. Senator Harradine —Let them go, and we will scream blue murder later. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —That seems to be the way of the world these days. We complain about things, they go through, then we are all visited by their sins. The effect of the proposed words is very much a question of argument. Most debates during referenda are not about the results of the proposals; they are about the effects of the proposals. Their meaning and implications are always open to debate. Senator Gareth Evans, responding to Senator Harradine in respect of advisory opinions, said that the Commission would say that they would be allowed to be given by the High Court of Australia to the Commonwealth, the States or the Territories-end of story! That is only a quarter of the story. It would not also say that this would be done without a litigant, without concrete facts and without concrete evidence. It would not say that the arguments would be of a general, not a specific, nature or that the advisory opinions under the original proposal could be given prior to the Parliament contemplating, making a determination and voting on the legislation. In respect of simultaneous elections, how would the Commission respond? Would it say: 'Simultaneous elections means you have elections at the same time'? Senator Harradine —Yes, that is what it will say. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —That is right. Will it also say: 'But, of course, we can already have simultaneous elections without this referendum proposal'? There will be a vacuum. Once we try to get an explanation of the effects-that is the exact word-of the proposed law there is no way that the Commission can trespass in this area without causing enormous problems for itself. In the past the Electoral Commission has been held in very high regard and it will be politicised by this legislation. I think it is being unfair to the Commission. It is being gravely unfair to the political process and, more particularly, to the public. Senator HILL(South Australia)(4.28) —I will make one last attempt to persuade the Democrats. The more one looks at section 7A (1) (c) of the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Act, the more ambiguous it appears to be. The ambiguity relates to whether one is speaking of referendums-the task of the Electoral Commission is to provide education or give information on the nature of referendums, to use Senator Harradine's expression-or the detail of a particular referendum. To give information as to the nature of a referendum and on the responsibilities of the public in a referendum is obviously a proper and worthwhile role for the Commission to take. We will not argue against that. But if it means rather that the Commission has the ability to educate and provide information on the arguments for and against a referendum, it will be involved in the business of politics, which we say is totally undesirable. I would have said before today that on balance this provision was limited to dealing with the nature of a referendum. I would have said that, because it is not only referendums, it is parliamentary matters. Surely the Attorney would not say it was the role of the Electoral Commission to be able to advertise in the paper as to the arguments for and against pieces of legislation that are passing through these Houses. I am sure he would not say that. He would say that when it speaks here of parliamentary matters, it is talking about the nature of the parliamentary process. I would have thought that probably that it how this provision should be interpreted. We were not certain about this, so we said that when we were talking about giving the Commonwealth power to fund its role under this provision, it should be made clear that it is limited to questions on the nature of the parliamentary process or the nature of referendums. That is why we said, in a spirit of caution, that we should include this provision. We now hear that the Attorney's interpretation of this provision is that it might well give power-- Senator Gareth Evans —I did not say 'might well'. I said it is conceivable but I doubt it. Senator HILL —You said, if I may quote: 'In the guise of information it may well be legitimate for it to put arguments for and against'. If that is a possible interpretation and one that the Attorney endorses, there is even more reason for the Committee today to exercise the caution that we advocate and make clear by this amendment that the only material that the Commission should put out in relation to a referendum should be material which is factual and which is not aimed at advancing either the arguments in favour of the proposed law or the arguments against it. Perhaps the Democrats could consider the clause in that light. There is ambiguity and it should be clarified. It has become more worrisome after what the Attorney said today. The Democrats should come with us on this occasion and exercise that little bit of caution that we all concede, except perhaps the Attorney, cannot do any harm; the amendment will simply ensure that the Commission does not run that risk of delving into waters that are inappropriate for its role and responsibility. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Hill's amendment to Senator Macklin's proposed amendment) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. R. (Teller)Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Martin, K. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J. Carrick, Sir John Missen, A.J. Chaney, F. M. Scott, D. B. Collard, S. J. Teague, B. C. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Townley, M. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walters, M. S. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Harradine, B. Withers, R. G. Hill, R. Button, J. N. Hearn, J. M. Childs, B. K. Jones, G. N. Chipp, D. L. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Coleman, R. N. Macklin, M. J. Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Mason, C. V. J. Elstob, R. C. Primmer, C. G. Evans, Gareth Ray, RobertEvans, Jack Reynolds, M. Georges, G. Richardson, G. F. Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Rae, Peter Foreman, D. J. Reid, M. E. Ryan, S. M. Scott, D. B. Tate, M. C. Durack, P. D. Bolkus, M. Lewis, A. W. R. Crowley, R. A. Jessop, D. S. Robertson, E. A. Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment (Senator Macklin's) agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 30 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 MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.41) —I move: Page 14, Schedule 1, Part I, after the amendment to sub-section 133A (3), insert the following substantive amendments: Paragraph 133B (1) (a)-Omit 'in the square', insert 'or such other number which is the lowest number (in this sub-section referred to as ''the lowest number'') to appear in a square'. Paragraphs 133B (1) (b), (e) and (f)-After 'the number 1' (wherever occurring), insert 'or the lowest number'. Sub-section 133B (2)-Omit '3', insert '2'. Paragraph 133B (2) (a)-Omit 'in the square', insert 'or such other number which is the lowest number (in this sub-section referred to as ''the lowest number'') to appear in a square'. Paragraphs 133B (2) (e) and (f)-After 'the number 1', insert 'or the lowest number'.''. Essentially we are seeking to overcome the problem of what I believe could now be the largest number of informal votes in respect of the bottom half of the Senate ballot paper. As honourable senators would know, or presumably they will find out at some stage, if an elector fills in the top half and bottom half of a Senate ballot paper and that bottom half is filled in in accordance with the relaxed rules that were passed last year, the bottom half takes precedence over the top half. In other words, the exhaustive distribution of preferences takes precedence over the vote for the party registered ticket. If one looks at the pro forma ballot paper that has been circulated or the ballot paper in Schedule 3 of the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill 1984 one will notice that the party registered ticket appears directly above the squares in which an elector indicates the candidates for whom he wishes to vote. The example we have been given shows the second square on the New South Wales ballot paper belonging to the Call to Australia Party and directly under that appear the names of the six candidates who stood for that party. Senator Harradine and a number of other senators have pointed to the fact that political parties will obviously seek to have their voters put the number 1 in the top square. If they do nothing else at all they will hopefully put a 1 in the top square against their party's name. That seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable assumption as to how the parties will act. I would think that it will very likely be the case, certainly in the first election, that a large number of voters who are used to the exhaustive balloting system of the Senate will put a number 1 against, say, Call to Australia in the top section of the ballot paper and then will jump over the very large black line that appears on the sample ballot paper which I have. They will start with the number 2 and go on with 3, 4, 5, 6 and then continue on and vote an entirely exhaustive vote of all the candidates. But that bottom vote will be informal. Although they sought to distribute their preferences- Senator Robert Ray —The top one will still be formal. Senator MACKLIN —The top one will still be formal. They will have cast a formal vote. But the bottom vote will be disadvantaged although someone may have gone to the trouble of putting the numbers, 2 to 73, as was the case in the New South Wales ballot paper, on the bottom. The reason is that the Act provides that to get the start of a formal vote one at least has to write the figure 1. One can then continue on. There are various rules, which were changed last year, which mean that a ballot paper can have a certain number of blanks and divergencies from consecutive numbering. But, by and large, leaving those refinements aside, one has to get through the entire number of squares on the bottom half of the ballot paper in a consecutive form. My worry is this: An imbalance has been created by the demand to write the figure 1. Previously the requirement to indicate 'I' did not in any way disadvantage anybody. Indeed, I believe that people will still put the figure on their ballot paper but that number will now appear in the top section. My amendment seeks to redress that balance by enabling a person to put the figure 1 in the top section and start his exhaustive balloting with a figure 2 and continue right the way through the ballot paper. Provided that they do that, all the other rules apply because this will enable people to diverge from the requirements regarding consecutive numbering in a sufficiently large number of ways to encompass that provision. In other words, the only incorrect numbering that will now occur if a person carries out a completely consecutive numbering of the exhaustive ballot section is when that person indicates a number one in excess of the number of candidates standing. However, because our informal rules have been relaxed sufficiently that will still be a formal vote. Hence, a person will still be able to direct his preferences. Therefore, I believe that the imbalance which has now been built in by the juxtaposition of the ballot papers will be redressed. I must admit that I, but no other members of the Joint Committee on Electoral Reform, picked this up. Indeed, I remember that we requested that a ballot paper be drawn up because, as I think Senator Robert Ray said at the time, it is not until we see such a ballot paper that we know how it is going to operate. I think that was good advice because as soon as I saw the document that the Commonwealth Electoral Commission had drawn up as a start to its testing, I immediately noticed precisely what I thought was likely to occur. I emphasise, as Senator Robert Ray by way of interjection pointed out, that a voter who filled in his form as I have described will still have a valid vote. He will not be deprived of a valid vote. But he will be deprived of a valid vote if, in the exhaustive section, he chooses to move his vote around in a way which differs from that set out by the registered card of the party for whom he voted at the top. I think that the amendment I have moved will assist us to redress that balance slightly. I think it will strengthen the bottom section of the ballot paper, which in a different debate today on another issue many members of the Liberal Party said they wished to do. I think that this amendment, though complex, will achieve that result and I hope it has the support of the Committee . Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(4.49) —Senator Macklin has raised a potential problem with regard to the legislation. What we have sought to do quite clearly is to reduce the amount of informality, which averages 10 per cent throughout this country. We have done so by introducing a list system of voting and by simplifying the existing method of voting by allowing people still to vote formally. The vote will still be formal even if some 90 per cent of squares are filled out and the other 10 per cent are left vacant. Three numerical sequence mistakes are allowed. What worries me about Senator Macklin's amendment is that I do not think we have had sufficient chance-at least I and other members of the Joint Committee on Electoral Reform have not-to look through that proposal to see what the ramifications are. I think Senator Macklin may be right-that there is a potential danger that people will vote 1 on the top and begin the second row with the number 2. I do not think there is much danger for the major political parties because clearly it is in their interests just to put a number 1 in the top square and call it quits, as a way of maximising their votes. But the Australian Democrats in particular, and others, may have problems because with their renowned independence they like to jump all over the ticket and make things difficult for everyone. That is their right, and no one is trying to take it off them. But it is clear that the informal vote study of 1977 showed that the party most disadvantaged by informal votes was not the Australian Labor Party but the Australian Democrats. That is partly a function of possibly their supporters' much vaunted independence. It may be that they have not been able to hand out the how to vote cards at all the booths. There could be a lot of reasons. I would not suggest for a moment that it is because Democrat voters are stupid that this circumstance comes about. However, as we have time to look at this question, I suggest we should send it to the Select Committee for discussion so that all parties can have an input, and through that process try to find out whether Senator Macklin's idea is valid and whether there are any objections to it. If Senator Macklin's proposal can be sustained by argument, we would have little difficulty, I would think, in putting a provision to deal with the matter in a miscellaneous law Bill in the spring session, well before any election. I do think that all angles need to be looked at before we can make a final decision on it. Senator HILL(South Australia)(4.52) —The Opposition is also of the view in this matter that it would be more appropriate for Senator Macklin's proposals to be referred back to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform for consideration. In saying that, we are not looking to legislation by committee as an alternative to this process, rather we reflect upon the fact that major changes have been made to the Senate voting system in recent months. Those changes have arisen out of the work of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. It seems unwise to us at this stage, when we have a new system in place, simply to come back with what appears on the face of it to be another minor change. We think that rather than take it as a one-off change it would be more appropriate for it to go back to the Committee. We therefore concur with the suggestion that has been made by Senator Robert Ray and we will not be supporting the amendment. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.53) —I thought I had read the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Act backwards, frontwards and sideways. One of the things I said this morning was that the requirement for the letters A, B et cetera be printed before the squares opposite the names of group candidates on Senate ballot papers will be done away with under this legislation. When I said that this morning I understood Senator Macklin to say that the legislation will not do away with the boxes and we will still have, say, group B. Senator Macklin —No, at the top. It does not have them down the side. Senator HARRADINE —That is not mentioned on page 21 of this Bill. I want to know what we are voting for. Are we voting to abolish the lettering on the bottom and the top or only on the bottom? Senator Macklin seems to be under the impression that we are voting to abolish it only at the bottom. The Schedule to the legislation, on page 21, suggests that we are abolishing it both from the top and the bottom, so what are we doing? I refer to another matter. The second reading speech of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) states: The Government has accepted an interim recommendation from the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform that the present statutory requirement of printing letters before the squares should be repealed. If in the Committee's final report some form of lettering to identify groups is recommended for Senate ballot papers, this and any other recommendations regarding format can be given effect to by regulation made under the Act. As I said before, I feel the form of the ballot paper is a very important matter for everybody, including candidates and every member of parliament, irrespective of whether he is on the Committee. I take some heart from what Senator Robert Ray just said, that if there were to be further amendments in respect of the matter that is under consideration they could be dealt with by an amendment to some Act or other. Senator Robert Ray —Statute miscellaneous. Senator HARRADINE —If that is the case, I am not unhappy about that, but I would be unhappy about it being done by regulations. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(4.56) —I must say that I did not pick up form E. My understanding is-the Attorney-General could check with the advisers-that the letters were supposed to be above the top square and above the first of the other squares in form E. Whether it is necessary to have it that way and do it that way, I am not sure, but that was my impression of what was supposed to occur, and that is what this rather large mock-up, which everyone has been looking at today, has on it. That is what it should be. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.57) —Mr Chairman, I am not sure what debate we are having at the moment. I thought it was a debate on my amendment, but obviously it has moved into a debate on something else. I am happy for the other matter to be resolved. The CHAIRMAN —The question before the Chair is that the amendment moved by Senator Macklin be agreed to. Senator MACKLIN —Perhaps we could deal with my amendment first and then deal with the other matter. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.58) —So that I do not forget what I have just been told I shall deal first with this vexed question of whether the letters are going to be placed above the boxes, below the boxes or beside the boxes. Senator Harradine —Or not at all. Senator GARETH EVANS —Or not at all. I am advised that the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform has made no recommendation on this. It is devoting all intellectual and physical resources to this problem at the moment. In due course, no doubt, a recommendation will be forthcoming which will be capable of implementation by regulation and which will not require us to go through this business again. We can all work out where we want to put them and if honourable senators do not like the result they can seek to disallow it. On the consensual basis on which this has proceeded so far, no doubt whatever strong views honourable senators may have on the location of the letters will be effectively communicated to the Committee and we will sort the matter out well in advance of there being any practical problems. I am not sure whether that answers the problem the honourable senator had, but that is the message I got to pass on. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.59) —I am happy with the suggestion to send the idea to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. I hope that something will be able to be done prior to the next election, because I feel that the problem I suggested is likely to decrease with elections rather than increase. It is really only at the next election that such a large problem might occur. I think following that it is likely to be less of a problem as people become more familiar with the new format. However, I would like some assurance, before I withdraw the amendment, that we will be able to have an opportunity, if the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform so decides, to discuss this matter, prior to the next election. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.00) —Senator Robert Ray has stated the Government's view of this, namely, that it ought to be referred to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. I think it is in everybody's interest that this matter is resolved as quickly as possible. I think I can quite confidently give an assurance on behalf of the Government to the extent that any amendment that is thought to be required will be introduced in appropriate legislation, probably the Statute (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, early in the Budget session. To the extent that any other timetable should emerge during the course of the Budget session which makes it impossible for that piece of legislation to be the vehicle for doing this job, I am sure consideration will be given by the Government to putting through a quick special Bill dealing just with this matter or some other matter that may in that time have come to life. I do not think the logistics of it give any cause for difficulty. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.01) — On that assurance from the Attorney-General I am willing, with leave of the Senate, to withdraw my amendment. Leave granted. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Debate resumed from 6 June, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(5.03) —The Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 3) and the Income Tax (Companies, Corporate Unit Trusts and Superannuation Funds) Amendment Bill which are now before the Senate deal with a number of matters relating to income tax, as has been announced by the Government throughout 1983-84. There are two major purposes for the Bills. The first purpose is to introduce new taxation arrangements for retirement and kindred payments. Another important aspect is to strengthen section 26(a) of the Income Tax Assessment Act, which imposes tax on profits made on the sale of property acquired for the purpose of resale at a profit. There are many other purposes to the legislation. In fact, it is quite complex and deals with a diversity of subjects, some of which include taxation concessions for investors of share capital, licensing venture capital companies, taxing the income of friendly societies and changing their arrangements, clarifying 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 and other things such as changing the arrangements for the prescribed payments system and deductions for capital contributions for the cost of railway rolling stock and exemption for tax rent subsidy payments. I want to speak to only two or perhaps three of those issues in the time that we have for debating these matters in the Senate. The first matter about which I wish to speak is the taxation arrangements for retirement and kindred payments, which have been referred to as the lump sum superannuation changes. A number of questions have been raised with the Opposition in regard to the superannuation changes. I think it is fair to say that there has been public debate on this issue for many months. We now have the legislation before us. It is of interest that the approved deposit funds are to be established and that there are many other arrangements which are detailed in the Bills under our scrutiny today. Some questions have arisen with regard to the establishment of the approved deposit funds, which, in the terms of the Government, have been set up as a partial solution to portability. One of the matters about which there has been some concern expressed is the bodies which will be able to establish the approved deposit funds. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) made available to members of the Parliament and, I am sure, in a wider sense, a statement which he released on 30 May which sets out, in 13 pages, the details of the proposed changes. In that statement he set out the changes to the tax rates. He also set out a number of comments with regard to annuities and pointed to the fact that, under his proposals, individuals will have great flexibility in the types of annuities into which lump sums can be converted. He stated: The Government will shortly make the supply of annuities more attractive to life offices by changing the minimum valuation basis prescribed in the Fourth Schedule to the Life Insurance Act. He also announced that he intended to issue index bonds. On page 11 of the statement of 30 May he said: Annuities may currently be issued by life companies registered under the Life Insurance Act and State Government Insurance Offices. Annuities may also be issued by trade unions, friendly societies and associations of employees registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act (although their issue of annuities is restricted to their members of their dependants). He then made a statement which is of interest to a number of people outside who are involved in this business. He said that the Government proposes to conduct a review to be completed by 30 September 1984 of the scope for wider participation in the issue of annuities. I think that review is of some interest because, in the legislation that is before us, there is not sufficient detail for people to understand how it will operate. For instance, trade unions will be able to set up approved deposit funds without prudential safeguards or any statutory control . I think people would ask the question: What protection is there for funds that are within the trade union associations, where there is not even the obligation to reveal their financial position, let alone to have the prudential safeguards that are required of others who would offer annuities? Perhaps a further question that could be raised is: If employee associations can be involved in the setting up of approved deposit funds, is it envisaged that some of the other bodies may include employer associations? I think the review in September will be awaited with interest, as will the regulations and the detail under which these new arrangements will operate. It is of interest to the Opposition and it is certainly of interest in the wider discussion of the changes that are to be made for employees in their occupational superannuation. It has been raised with me that there could be disadvantages to the established life assurers inasmuch as they have to deal with the corporate affairs legislation of the States and they have to issue prospectuses. They have to enter into these sorts of arrangements whereas the bodies which are presently to be set up may or may not. I think the regulations which will govern these things are of importance. I think to have a proper debate on this we really ought to have some more information from the Government about what is envisaged in this area. The matter of superannuation and the fact that trade unions are able to set up approved deposit funds is of interest when we consider the interview that was given by Mr Simon Crean, the Vice-President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, on 31 May on the AM program in which he said: We indicated to the government that we felt that the legislation should not be introduced. That's still our view, because we didn't see that concentration on one aspect only of retirement benefits was the appropriate way to go; particularly when that concentration taxed the lump sums which in may cases were the only ways in which members in occupational schemes could provide for their retirement. Mr Crean continued: But objection has been that why concentrate only on the taxation aspect at this stage when a whole package needs to be developed. We were prepared to accept that within the context of a package the taxation question needed to be looked at. And our major concern was that a couple of specific problems that we had with the tax, not one of those aspects was met and that the legislation in our view was introduced in isolation in which it should have been introduced as part of a total package. The interview continued with regard to tax rebate in the forthcoming Budget. That states the attitude of the Australian Council of Trade Unions to the package, despite the fact that under this legislation the trade union movement and its associations can establish approved deposit funds. I think the Government should provide more information and not bring in Bills to establish these sorts of arrangements without giving advice with regard to the whole picture. The public debate on lump sum superannuation over the months has ranged along the lines that there is to be a big change in the expectation of people who are presently covered by superannuation. It is all very well for the Government to point to new arrangements and to changes that will make annuities more attractive-and that remains to be seen-but one should examine how the changes will affect somebody who is presently in a superannuation scheme. I was interested in a table prepared by the actuaries E. S. Knight and Co. and I will cite some of the figures revealed in that document. Under existing tax arrangements somebody who is expecting a lump sum of $50,000 would be taxed an amount of $775. Some assumptions are made with regard to a standard rate of 5 per cent on a lump sum. The figures also make assumptions that one-third of the post-30 June 1983 benefit is assumed to comprise exempt member contributions. These figures are on that basis. At present such a person would pay $775. If he were to retire in 1984, under the new arrangements he would pay $986; in 1986 he would pay $1,409, twice as much as he would pay this year. If he were to go through to 1993, he would pay $2,888, and if he went through to the year 2003, nearly 20 years from now, he would be pay $5,000. A considerable change is envisaged. I have instanced the person on a $50,000 lump sum rate. Somebody who was to receive $100,000 would pay presently $1,550 in tax; in 1984 he would pay $1,973; in 1986, $2,818; in 1993, $5,775; and 20 years on, in the year 2003, he would pay tax of $12,500. A figure of $12,500 as against the present tax payment of $1,550 is an enormous change in the expectation of someone in a superannuation scheme who envisaged that he would pay the lower amount when he emerged from that scheme on retirement. It is little wonder that there has been a lot of concern, resentment and difficulty for many people who find that the provisions now introduced will have a marked change on their expectations of what they will realise on retirement. I know that other Opposition senators intend to speak on lump sum superannuation. I wish to deal with the changes in relation to section 26 (a). The purpose of these provisions is to strengthen that section, which imposes taxes on profits made on the sale of property acquired for the purpose of resale at a profit. The Treasurer in his Budget Speech last year announced that with effect from a date after the Budget he would change the provisions under section 26(a). He listed the changes he would make and I think it is fair to say that notice of them was given on Budget night last year. What is of concern to practitioners outside and those who seek to understand the legislation is that very little time was given, from the time the Bill itself and the explanatory notes were available to assist our understanding, to obtain a reaction from those who may have to deal with the legislation in a professional or personal way. The changes have been discussed very little, so far as I am aware, with the people who would have expected to deal with the legislation. There was an immediate reaction when the Bill was released and confusion in people's minds as to what the new changes entailed and what would be the Commissioner's interpretation. A fairly complex set of changes has been made to that section. The section will provide for matters being determined in the opinion of the Commissioner and statements have been made that led people to believe that there was some unwarranted extension of the Commissioner's discretion. The former Treasurer, when dealing with the Bill in the House of Representatives, following a short period of study and analysis of the Bill, expressed the Opposition's concern with regard to the discretion of the Commissioner. He pointed to the number of occasions on which it was said that it was his opinion that these changes would be effective. We took the opportunity to have a fair discussion with officers from the Australian Taxation Office on the implications of the provisions that changed section 26(a). They assured us that the drafting of the Bill made clear what would be the operative role to be played by the Commissioner in determining the taxable effect of the changes. In discussing with the officers the points we wished to raise with them, we were assured that it would be proper for the Minister in dealing with the Bill in the Senate to seek to clarify these matters, not only to enable the Senate to be informed but also to assist those who have expressed concern to us about the way in which the provision will operate. We expressed concern in other areas, notably clauses 18 to 20 which relate to expenditure on repairs, borrowings, lease documents and things of that kind. Concern was expressed that, in the opinion of the Commissioner, the words 'is reasonable in the circumstances' leave a fairly wide open area for discretion and determination by him. It was also felt that if these matters had to go to a board of review, there could be considerable delay and interpretation from people outside trying to determine what the word 'reasonable' means. Again these matters were discussed with officers from the Taxation Office and we had assurances from them on the interpretation and drafting of the Bill in regard to assets purchased for the purpose of resale. Some of the points made by the former Treasurer in the House of Representatives were clarified. I hope that some clarification can be given of the operation of the section when we are dealing with the Bill this evening. Another aspect of the Bill I refer to is the matter of friendly societies, because the Bill makes substantial changes relating to friendly societies. What is of interest to me are the changes that were made to affect friendly societies because I would think that almost everyone in this place had had a lot of representation from friendly societies prior to the announcement by the Treasurer in April of what the rules were to be for the changes to the taxable income of friendly societies. There had been very strong representations from them and a great deal of nervousness as to how they would be affected by the changes. I must say that from the time of the Treasurer's announcement of the details no representations have been made to me. I am interested in the Treasurer's statement that the average effective rate of tax, which is well below the nominal rate of tax applied to life offices, now to apply to the taxable income of friendly societies is to be 20 per cent. The Treasurer has had representations from life offices which say that they feel that that is a fairly generous interpretation of something that could be classified as being broadly comparable with the rate that they would pay for their activities in the same area. To have an effective rate of tax of 20 per cent of taxable income in the comparable area is stated by life offices to be fairly generous treatment. They say that theirs is something like 25 per cent plus. I simply draw attention to that while we are discussing the Bill before us. The other matters in the Bill are of interest to different groups for different reasons. For instance, the prescribed payments system changes reducing the paper work are of interest to all those who have to deal with this system, to those who have worked on it in the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations and those who have taken a close interest in the matter. The changes to that system are welcome. The most important changes in the Bill are those that relate to lump sum superannuation and those that were made to section 26(a) . The Opposition wishes to make quite clear its attitude with regard to the Bill . I have circulated in my name an amendment which fairly succinctly states the Opposition's approach to it. In that amendment to the motion for the second reading, the Opposition: (a) deplores the Bill's attack on the retirement aspirations of hundreds of thousands of ordinary Australians; (b) notes the blatant breach of pre- and post-election commitments of the Prime Minister involved in the introduction of the Bill; Those matters have been raised by others in the preceding debates. I do not intend to take the time of the Senate to raise them all again. But the disappointment of those who are affected by the changes in their superannuation arrangements can very easily be seen if one considers that the pre-election commitments, even the post-election commitments, of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke ) in this respect have been quite blatantly breached. In the amendment I will move, the Opposition also: (c) condemns the privileged status conferred upon trade unions in relation to deposit funds; and (d) regrets the Government's failure to produce a coherent approach to retirement security policy. It could be said further that the Opposition's approach to this legislation with regard to retirement incomes has also been made plain by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) from the time that the first changes were announced. The Opposition has given a commitment that on return to Government it will repeal this legislation in respect of lump sum superannuation changes. We put on the record our rejection of the changes because they in no way encourage people to provide for their retirements and to have available to them a lump sum, however modest, to fulfil their aspirations at a time when they would no longer be income earners. It is for that reason and for those reasons given in many of the statements that have been made that the Opposition takes the point of view that the effect of those changes is enormous, as can be seen from those few figures I extracted from the actuarial table. In 20 years time the tax on a lump sum superannuation payment of $50,000 will have increased from $775 to $5,000; the tax on a $100,000 lump sum payment increases from $1,550 to $12,500. I think that the Government will find it very hard to wear these changes in the community, among people who have been making provision for their retirement and who have sought to have at the end of their working lives access to some capital with which they can express some of their own needs or with which they can provide for a more comfortable future. I now move: at end of motion, add 'but in relation to the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1984 the Senate- (a) deplores the Bill's attack on the retirement aspirations of hundreds of thousands or ordinary Australians; (b) notes the blatant breach of pre- and post-election commitments of the Prime Minister involved in the introduction of the Bill; (c) condemns the privileged status conferred upon trade unions in relation to deposit funds; and (d) regrets the Government's failure to produce a coherent approach to retirement security policy.' Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales)(5.26) —The Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 3) represents one of the most important steps in the Government's program of tax reform. That was acknowledged by even the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, John Howard, whom I shall quote later on. He referred to the Bill as the most important taxation measure this Government has introduced. It is being introduced, of course, because after seven years of the Fraser Government, the negligence displayed by that Government had become so great that this Government had to acknowledge the need to adjust some of the anomalies. This Bill goes further than merely a reform of the tax system. It is an attempt to improve the retirement incomes system. It also touches upon matters such as the management and investment companies and concessional tax arrangements for them that may bring about and introduce to Australia some of the benefits that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development nations have had from these companies. The Bill provides for improvements to the prescribed payments system to attempt to reduce the burden of paper work that has fallen on so many companies and at which the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, of which I am a member, has looked for some time. The Bill also provides some relief in tax payments for mortgage and rental subsidies and a number of other smaller matters. Because of the constraints of time, however, I seek to address only those provisions of the Bill referring to lump sum superannuation benefits. They are the sections that have been greeted with the most comment. It has to be acknowledged that when they were announced last year they created some anxiety, even amongst large sections of the Labor movement. As part of the Government's overall strategy for reforming the retirement incomes system, this Bill seeks to redress just some of the unsatisfactory features. The task of overhauling or completely repairing retirement incomes is a complex and difficult one. It cannot be accomplished in a single stroke. This is what we might call the first attempt. It is more difficult because of that seven years of neglect and inactivity to which I referred. During that period of neglect, the cost to government spiralled; it grew and grew. In fact, as more and more people became eligible for lump sum superannuation payments, the drain on government finances swelled to the point where now the cost of tax concessions for superannuation is in the order of $2.5 billion, an enormous amount. Whenever a tax concession is given to one sector of the community, the whole community has to pay for it. This Government, which is committed to equity in the system, seeks to ensure that the burdens are spread equally. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow Treasurer, John Howard, gave this excuse for his Government's inactivity: It may well be that one can construct arguments about anomalies in the taxation system. There are hundreds of anomalies, and I do not believe that any government, whether it be a government of the present political persuasion or a government of our political persuasion, will ever eliminate all of the anomalies in the taxation laws. His response to freely admitting that we had hundreds of anomalies was to do nothing. It was to say: 'If there are hundreds of anomalies, it is too big a task to tackle so I will not tackle even one of them: I will simply leave them alone'. So for seven years nothing was done. While I acknowledge that it is not possible to revamp completely the retirement income system in one stroke, it certainly is if one looks at a package of measures, and this Hawke Labor Government is looking at such a package. We have seen in the last few weeks announcements concerning the assets test. We looked at that over a long period and had consultations with all those in the industry. We have looked at the Government's announced policy of gradual increases in the pension to try to achieve a level of 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. The Government is also undertaking a study of the superannuation system, looking particularly at occupational superannuation schemes and the difficulties that have been experienced in portability, preservation and vesting. The package of programs offers a significant reform. These Bills directly deal with the taxation of superannuation lump sums and similar payments. That is just one aspect of the package. The fundamental inequity addressed by the Income Tax ( Companies, Corporate Unit Trusts and Superannuation Funds) Amendment Bill is the imbalance between those who retire on lump sum superannuation payments and those who retire and take superannuation benefits in the form of a pension. Obviously the inequities there are enormous and I shall go into them in some detail later on. The original proposals in this area were announced on 19 May last year in the Government's economic statement made by the Treasurer, Paul Keating. They were subsequently clarified by Mr Keating on a number of occasions. While the original proposals did address many of these anomalies, they did have some serious limitations and, as we are all well aware, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and particularly the Labor Council of New South Wales-led by Barrie Unsworth at the time, who is now the Minister for Transport in the New South Wales Government-saw those limitations and were worried about the effects they would have on their members. The Government talked not only to the ACTU but also to the Confederation of Australian Industry and to the superannuation industry itself. Significantly, it has taken 12 months to bring this Bill before the Parliament. That is just one more example of the consensus approach being put into practice. Representatives of all those affected by the proposal have been consulted and the Government has made some significant modifications to the scheme that it originally announced. This legislation reflects those modifications and I want to address myself to them. Under the previous system the main tax benefits for superannuation fund lump sum payments were as follows: Employer contributions to a superannuation fund on behalf of an employee were, generally speaking, tax deductible to the employer. Employee contributions were in most cases deductible or rebatable and income earned by superannuation funds was also exempt from taxation. Under those arrangements only 5 per cent of lump sum payments was assessable for tax purposes. That created a glaring inequity between those who received their superannuation benefits in the form of a lump sum and those who received them in the form of a pension. Obviously superannuation pensions were and are fully subject to tax, so we have one section of the community fully subject to tax and another being taxed on only 5 per cent. It was the Government's opinion, and indeed its policy is now stated, that the system should neither encourage nor discourage people from choosing lump sums ahead of pensions, so the new arrangements are as follows: That part of contributions paid prior to 30 June 1983 will be taxed under the old 5 per cent rule. After 30 June, employee contributions which have not attracted a tax deduction will be tax exempt. Amounts received after 30 June 1983 going to those prior to age 55 years are taxed at a flat rate of 30 per cent but at age 55 or later the first $50,000 will be taxed at only 15 per cent and any excess over that $50,000 will be taxed at 30 per cent. These new arrangements contain also some key supporting elements. First off, there are what we might term the transitional arrangements. By ensuring that contributions made prior to 30 June 1983 were exempt, the Government made sure that there could be no element of retrospectivity introduced into the debate. In other words, those people who were members of funds often for most of their lives prior to 30 June 1983 in fact suffer no penalty whatsoever. There was also the equalisation provision, which was one of the major concessions won by the trade union movement and others from the Government in those discussions over the last 12 months. Obviously those people reaching the end of their working lives tend to pay far greater sums into their superannuation schemes than do those people just starting out in life, in their first job, and we have been able by compromise with the union movement to acknowledge this fact and people can now equalise their payments over the whole of their working lives. That means a very significant saving for them. Naturally there are exemptions for bona fide redundancy payments, but I think the main cause of worry for the trade union movement was the problem of those who retire on lump sums at smaller rates, those who retire on perhaps $30,000 or even less. It has to be acknowledged that while there has been great concentration on the issue of pilots and people like that-even politicians, I am told-who might retire on $200,000 or $300,000, or in some spectacular cases $500 ,000 or $700,000, the great mass of people receiving lump sum superannuation receive $30,000 or less. The people receiving these sums are municipal workers, railway workers and others who have had to rely on a salary or a wage all of their working lives. They are not people who could in any way be described as privileged and not people who by virtue of the fact that they receive a lump sum payment could suddenly be described as wealthy. What it has enabled many of them to do is perhaps pay off a mortgage or take the long overdue overseas trip. Many of them who live in Sydney have not been further than Manly. It does give them the opportunity to travel. That is something the Government acknowledged and it in no way wished to penalise those people. Accordingly, in those discussions with the ACTU the Government determined to reduce the original announced rate of tax for people in that category, and for the first $50,000 received by a person 55 or over, the amount was reduced to 15 per cent. The other major concession by the Government, again after consultation, was the exempting of employee contributions which meant that only the employer or fund contributions were taxable. This removed the union objection of double taxation and it negated much of the regressive impact of the original proposals. I for one was delighted to see the Government change its mind on that point. These Bills also provide for greater portability, something which both unions and employers have been worrying about for some time, and they encourage the provision of annuities. I will not burden the Senate with a turgid diatribe on annuities but I think at least now some rationalisation has been put into them. I for one have never been terribly happy with annuities as a form of providing for care in one's later life and I am hopeful that there will be some innovation on the part of the superannuation industry. I take it from the nods of those in the gallery that that will be taking place. Senator Jack Evans —And from the Government. Senator RICHARDSON —Yes, and from the Government. I have to agree with Senator Jack Evans. We have to encourage the Government in that respect. That is something that I will most certainly be doing. The attacks on the Government measures to improve the superannuation system can be described only as pathetic. We have heard John Howard say that it is a tax not directed at tall poppies, the ones apparently all taxes have to be directed at. But, given that only a small section of the Australian community currently receives superannuation-certainly less than half the community-it is not simply a question of redressing an imbalance by attacking tall poppies. It is an attempt to redress that imbalance, so that the whole of the community does not have to bear that $2.5 billion burden. When the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, John Howard, was Treasurer he was never shy about increasing taxes on low and middle income earners. In the short seven years of his Government-short by standards of the length of our history; long in the terms of the suffering caused to the people-personal income taxes increased from 12.7 per cent to 14 per cent. Of course, there were also significant increases in indirect taxation. That was one of the great tragedies of that period. As I said at the beginning, any tax concession for one group in the community is ultimately paid for by the rest. As long as this Government is in power-it looks like being a very long time-we will seek to ensure that all burdens are shared equally. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(5.43) —by leave-The Government commends to the Parliament the very significant report of the review of the Industries Assistance Commission conducted by Mr John Uhrig. The review has been widely and justly recognised as having considerable merit. With the Government's acceptance of the great majority of its findings, the review will play a major role in revitalising the industry advisor process. The principal reason for the Government requiring a comprehensive review of the IAC lay in a concern to ensure that the IAC will be able to maximise its effectiveness as a provider of practical advice to Government on questions of industry assistance. Over recent years, there has been increasing criticism of the contribution of the IAC to industry policy. Some of this criticism has been justified. But, while some of the blame can be directed to the Commission, a significant part of the problem lies in the legislative charter for the Commission and the nature of government references. In the past the Commission's approach has focused on tariff and other forms of protection. This has often resulted in a stereotyped approach by the IAC towards its recommendations, with lower levels of protection frequently being the sole solution proposed to an industry problem. In the Government's view the focus on protection has been excessive; the Government is of the view that it is essential that a wider range of more positive forms of assistance should be developed. Such positive measures are of particular relevance to the Government in its efforts to restructure and modernise Australia's industrial base. The Government, in agreeing with the thrust of the Uhrig report agrees also that it is time to make changes so that the IAC is able to contribute effectively to the formulation of the Government's industry policy. In this respect there is no wish to disturb the IAC's independence. The IAC has performed an invaluable role over the years, particularly by drawing the attention of the community to the cost of protection. Australia's public inquiry and public report system knows no parallel overseas. It is a system which, supported by the highly professional individuals who have constituted the Commission, has brought great benefits to Australia. Implementation of the review's recommendations will, however, require changes to the IAC's approach to the inquiry process and to the nature of its advice. In his report, Mr Uhrig said: There is no doubt that the standing of the Commission in influencing government policy has declined. If this process is allowed to continue there is a danger that more influential advice on industry policy will be progressively transferred to the less public domain of various State and Commonwealth departments. Independent advice on assistance based on the maximum public exposure is crucial to informed and equitable decision making. This requires an advisory process which has the respect of all participants and which can express the disparate views in an impartial way. He went on to say: The major conclusion of this review is that the Commission should be a more effective advisory body than it is at present. It should be more responsive to the information needs of government in implementing its industry policy objectives. The Government too should play its part by specifying more clearly the information required. Mr Uhrig recognised that changes in legislation will not, on their own, ensure that more effective advice is forthcoming. He pointed out that much depends on the IAC being more responsive to the information needs of government in implementing its industry policy objectives. Similarly, it was recognised that the Government must ensure requests are framed to permit effective use of the Commission. The Government agrees with these sentiments. The report calls for a reorientation towards industry-wide references which specify the issues on which advice is sought and the information needs of the Government in greater detail. The Government intends to follow this path and will shortly be sending an industry-wide reference on the chemicals industry to the IAC. A reference on the textile, clothing and footwear industries will also be sent in due course. There will, however, inevitably be a transition period during which narrower references will still be necessary. However, the Government intends that the industry-wide approach recommended by Mr Uhrig will be adopted whenever possible in future references. A related recommendation in the report was that references should normally require that options be provided, including the Commission's recommended option. The Government accepts this recommendation, and the report's proposal that the Commission's advice should extend beyond its current rather narrow focus on barrier protection to cover other forms of assistance. Both changes should encourage the Commission to provide government with considered advice on the range of available means by which to pursue its policies of facilitating structural change and developing industry. In line with this, the Government accepts the recommendation that the Commission's policy guidelines should be simplified and reformulated to reflect widely supported industry policy objectives. The new guidelines will be: To encourage the development and growth of efficient Australian industries which are internationally competitive, export oriented and capable of operating over the long term with minimum levels of government support; to facilitate adjustment of industries to structural change and persons affected by those changes having regard to the need to minimise any social and economic hardships that may be involved; and to have regard to the interests of other industries and consumers likely to be affected by assistance measures. The IAC, with its skilled staff and extensive industry data base, can play a significant role in advising the Government on broader issues of industry policy . It is, for example, the Government's intention that references in the areas of industry restructuring and structural adjustment assistance will be sent as appropriate. The Government has also accepted the recommendation that the Commission's power to initiate inquiries should be revoked. The Government believes that such decisions are policy matters which should be decided by the Government itself. The power to initiate inquiries has not in fact been used in the past. Rather, the Commission has been able to suggest an inquiry to the Government where it considers this is in fact warranted. This course of action will remain open to the Commission under the new arrangement. A major recommendation in the report was that the Temporary Assistance Authority be abolished and that the IAC be responsible for advising on all temporary and short term assistance matters. The Government has agreed to this and to the related recommendation that a separate set of guidelines be developed to apply to all temporary assistance matters. These guidelines will be based upon those proposed by Mr Uhrig. They will ensure that the Government can make temporary assistance available in cases where serious injury is occurring or threatened to an industry from circumstances largely outside its control, and where that injury is peculiar to the industry or impacting with particular severity on the industry. Where temporary assistance is recommended, it should be in a form that will not seriously disadvantage other Australian industries and be limited to a maximum of twelve months. The Government has also accepted the report's recommendation that specific reference to tertiary or service industries be included in the IAC Act. This decision reflects both the importance of the tertiary sector to the Australian economy and the Government's intention to have greater recourse to the IAC in future examinations of issues facing this sector. In an effort to improve the efficiency of the Commission's operations and reduce the cost burden on interested parties, first round public hearings are to be eliminated in the great majority of cases, and draft reports will be based on written submissions and informal investigatory work. However, the responsible Minister will retain the power to authorise first round public hearings, either on his own initiative or at the suggestion of the IAC Chairman, should the circumstances of a particular inquiry warrant such hearings. Public hearings following the issue and examination of draft reports will, of course, remain. This should encourage increased participation in the inquiry process and is consistent with the Government's objective of increased consultation with parties affected by possible change. We intend to complement this action by, on most occasions, publishing final reports prior to a government decision being taken except in cases where it is evident that significant commercial gain could ensue or where this may jeopardise international negotiation positions. The Government has also accepted the recommendation that no formal links be established between the IAC and the industry councils. The report considered the respective roles of the IAC and the councils to be different and it would be inappropriate to formalise their relationship. The report, however, stated that there was some scope for increased use of the Commission by industry councils and the Government agrees with this suggestion. The councils could draw on the Commission's industry data base and non-confidential information collected by the Commission in the course of its inquiries. Councils could also request the Commission through the Minister to undertake research tasks where such requests complement the Commission's own work schedule or draw upon some of the special skills of the Commission's staff. The Government has rejected two of the report's recommendations. The first was the recommendation that the responsible Minister's power to give directions to the Commission as to priorities to be observed be revoked. The Government believes that as a matter of principle it should determine priorities to be observed with respect to policy guidelines rather than delegating such responsibilities. The second is the recommendation that a position of Deputy Chairman be established. After consulting with the Chairman of the Commission, the Government has decided that there is no need for this at present. In accepting the vast majority of the report's recommendations, the Government considered that the changes to the IAC's guidelines, references and procedures should result in an industry assistance advisory process which is more effective in meeting the Government's industry policy objectives and needs. Amendments to the legislation have been set in train and the Government expects passage to take place during this year's Budget session. However, the changes proposed go beyond the legislative amendments. The IAC must play a major part in the advisory process by which the Government wishes to bring about the restructuring and revitalisation of industry. New guidelines and broader industry-based references will be instrumental in permitting this change in direction. The change in style, with less formality in initial hearings, will also assist in this regard. But the legislative changes will not be the most important aspects of the process which Mr Uhrig's review has set in train. I expect that the change in approach by the IAC will be an evolving one. That evolution I expect to occur in tandem with other changes occurring in the advisory and consultative process. The new Australian Manufacturing Council and industry councils will also be assisting the Government in the formulation of industry policy. These changes represent a major redirection of policy-making towards one based on co-operation, consultation and consensus. I seek leave to move that the Senate take note of the statement. Leave granted. Senator BUTTON —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.55) —I speak to the motion in the absence of Senator Peter Rae who is indisposed and away from the Senate today. I agree with the commendation at the beginning of the statement of the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) as to the great significance of the report of the review of the Industries Assistance Commission conducted by Mr Uhrig. All I wish to do at this stage is to put on record a statement which has been prepared by my colleague Senator Peter Rae. With respect to the Government's response to the review of the IAC, Senator Peter Rae said: The Opposition welcomes the general thrust of the Government's decision in relation to the Review of the Industries Assistance Commission. This Review was conducted by Mr John Uhrig, Chief Executive of Simpson Holdings Limited. It was both a timely and in-depth examination. The Opposition is disappointed that the Government has not seen fit to maintain the full independence of the Commission by allowing it to retain the power to initiate its own inquiries. Although the power has not been formerly used, its existence guaranteed a degree of independence. The move to make the Industries Assistance Commission inquiries 'industry wide' is a move in the right direction, but in terms of today's real world of international trade, industry wide really means industry wide-world wide. The Government has referred to the fact that it proposes to reduce reliance on the tariff, and this is a move in the right direction. However, it does not appear that the Government has adequately addressed the relationship between the structure of industry as opposed to the economics of industry. The structure of industry must be viewed in terms which compare it to its world competitors. The real world is full of protective provisions, providing particular industries with advantages by way of subsidies (sometimes hidden), export incentives, tax holidays, special standards to provide protection to local industries, and a whole wide cross-section of other such measures. We are not competing in a perfect world. For this Government to produce a statement on the Uhrig Review and the future of the Industries Assistance Commission without reference to the relevance of wages policies and the tremendous impact which this can have on competitiveness, lends to the statement an aura of unreality-an Alice in Wonderland overlay. The Government does not appear to have adequately dealt with the Report's recommendations relating to anti-dumping measures. The Opposition welcomes the moves to reduce the cost of the Industries Assistance Commission procedure, and also the recognition that the change in approach by the Industries Assistance Commission must be an evolving one. The Opposition believes that the whole of these questions must be viewed in the context of the creation of jobs, and that can only take place through the creation of a competitive position for Australian trade. The Government does not appear to have adequately acknowledged this essential element. That statement has been put out on behalf of the Opposition by Senator Rae. I am sure that this very important matter is one which a number of senators will wish to debate at a later time, and at this stage I seek leave to continue my remarks . Leave granted; debate adjourned. Consideration resumed from 29 May. House of Representatives message: Message No. 245 Mr President, The House of Representatives transmits to the Senate the following Resolution which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day and requests the concurrence of the Senate therein: (1) That, for the purposes related to the inquiry into the televising and radio broadcasting of proceedings of both Houses of Parliament and their committees: (a) the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings have power- (i) to appoint a sub-committee consisting of 2 or more Senators and 2 or more Members of the House of Representatives, 2 members of the sub-committee to form a quorum of the sub-committee; (ii) to appoint the chairman of any sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee, the members of the sub-committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of chairman at that meeting, and (iii) to refer to such a sub-committee any matter into which the committee is instructed to inquire; (b) any sub-committee appointed by the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings have power- (i) to send for persons, papers and records, and (ii) to authorise publication of any evidence given before it, or any information obtained in the course of its inquiry, or any document presented to it, and (c) the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings or any sub-committee appointed by the committee have power to move from place to place. (2) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, insofar as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. H. A. Jenkins Speaker Motion (by Senator Walsh) proposed: That the Senate concurs in the resolution transmitted to the Senate by message No. 245 of the House of Representatives, relating to the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings, and that the forgoing resolution be communicated to the House of Representatives by message. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.58) —After consultation with Senator Watson, who was a representative on the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings, the Opposition has decided it will support this motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy) —by leave-I table a document entitled 'British Atomic Tests in Australia Chronology of Events: 1950-1968' and seek leave to make a statement relating to the document. Leave granted. Senator WALSH —Tabling of this document has been delayed because of British concerns that some of the information it contains is drawn from British documents which remain classified. Those difficulties have now been resolved. While certain British sourced references have been deleted, for the most part it has proved possible to add new and similar material drawn from Australian sourced documents. The report has been prepared by a consultant to my Department , Dr J. L. Symonds. His principal task is to prepare a fully documented history of the British atomic tests in Australia and that report will be available later this year. However, in view of recent public concern about the test, I asked some weeks ago that Dr Symonds produce a summary version of the significant events for public release as soon as possible. I have only two comments to make on the report. The first is in relation to the Mosaic series of tests at Monte Bello Islands in 1956. Dr Symonds's report indicates that although some of the light elements characteristic of a thermonuclear or hydrogen explosion were used in these tests, the resultant explosion could not be classed as a hydrogen bomb. However, in the September 13, 1955 entry in chapter 4 of Dr Symonds's report, the larger yield weapon, the 19 June test which produced a yield of 60 kilotons, is stated to be, 'a fission weapon containing no uranium with which the light elements can react''. I am advised that this may not be entirely correct scientifically since a fission weapon does contain fissile material, whether it is plutonium 239 or uranium 235 . The product of the light element reactions would interact with this fissile material to some degree. The relative contribution to the total explosive force of the nuclear interactions which may have occurred is unclear. My second comment is in relation to the minor trials covered in chapter 7 of Dr Symonds's report. It is clear that it is these trials, and particularly the Vixen B series, which involved the use of plutonium, that produced the major source of radiological contamination which remains of concern at Maralinga today . One would assume that the Australian Governments of the day were aware of the nature of these tests. However, Australian documents examined to date do not enable us to determine this. Ministers of those governments or the then chairman of the board of management may be able to clarify this point. It is principally for this reason that a recently completed radiological survey at Maralinga concentrated on the question of residual plutonium contamination and why I have asked a series of questions of the British Government about the quantities of plutonium used, dispersed and buried at Maralinga. As I have already announced, some plutonium 'hot spots' were identified during the recent survey. I am awaiting a full report to enable consideration to be given to the management regime in those areas so as to ensure that members of the public are not exposed to any radiological hazard and also to determine whether any further action should be taken. Finally, Mr President, I apologise to honourable senators that in the short time available it has not proved possible to print sufficient copies of the report for distribution. Pending printing I have arranged for a limited number of copies-about 20-to be placed in the Parliamentary Library. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(6.05) —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. This is one of a long series of statements and documents that have been made or produced in this place which relate to Maralinga and the atomic tests which were conducted there many years ago. A number of those documents are reports of the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council which touch on some of the issues that are covered in the document before us now. I have only just received the chronology of events. It is a very substantial document and I have not yet had time to read it. No doubt additional, new and interesting information may be contained in it. It is consistent with the stance that has been adopted by the Opposition, both in opposition and when it was in government, that we believe that the Government should make public all relevant details of these matters and that it should conduct such inquiries as are necessary to look after or follow up any areas of concern. I will not bother to go over the ground that has been covered often in this place on the various steps that have been taken to follow up matters of concern, whether it be the tests that have been taken with respect to the many personnel who were involved in the atomic tests, or the many actions that have been taken in respect of the range itself. I point to the one possible danger in all this-that each time information is reproduced it appears that there is some new and startling revelation. For those of us who have come to this field relatively recently and to elements of the media which have come to such statements fresh on each occasion, it appears that information which has previously been published, in whole or part, is something new or startling. I refer to the relatively brief statement the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) has just put down. In what he described as his second comment relating to certain trials involving the use of plutonium, Senator Walsh described these as producing the major source of radiological contamination which remains of concern at Maralinga today. I have no reason to disagree with that remark. Indeed, it appears to be very sensible of Senator Walsh to say that when a further report on that contamination is received the Government will consider the management regime of the areas affected to ensure that members of the public are not exposed to any radiological hazard. Of course the Opposition would fully support any steps that the Government might take in that regard. I remind the Senate that the same problem was considered by AIRAC prior to 1979 . I referred in the Senate yesterday to Parliamentary Paper No. 120 of 1979 which is the report of AIRAC dated January 1979. In that report one finds reference to the very danger that is referred to in this report. I quote one paragraph from the summary and conclusions of that report. AIRAC said: The presence of small low-level fields of external gamma radiation presents little hazard because it is reasonable to suppose people would not wish to spend long periods at such unattractive spots as the former ground zeros, and only minor restrictions are necessary for safety. The same can be said for the risks associated with the plutonium-contaminated areas, but in the case of those areas it would be advisable to ensure that any prolonged dust-raising activity was prevented in occupied areas. I remind the Senate of that merely to underline the point that I have made- namely, that these matters have been the subject of investigations. The Opposition does not in any sense quibble with the Government's intentions to subject them to further and more detailed investigation. But they are not matters which have been ignored in the past and indeed, an independent body has been enabled to examine them. I also remind the Senate that AIRAC at that time included Professor Kerr, who is the professor who was in charge of the recent short inquiry, the results of which the Minister announced in the Senate in the last few days. I note one other element in the report which suggests that there are areas where there is a shortage of information and where it is thought perhaps that Ministers from previous governments may be in a position to assist. Of course we are going back very many years and I would have to consult the record to find out who the relevant Ministers were and whether they are still alive. They are certainly not people who are still in this Parliament. It may be that Senator Walsh is suggesting that there is some obligation on the Opposition to pursue some elements of inquiry, perhaps with former members of Liberal governments, and I would be happy if he would clarify with me at some stage whether he sees some line of inquiry which we could usefully follow on his behalf. I cannot quite imagine what it could be, but I offer him the co-operation of the Opposition if he is hinting at anything in that area. I am aware that Senator Walsh is a very reticent fellow and that he does not like to speak too bluntly and directly on these matters but I assure him that he can drop his habitual shyness and reticence and let me know if there is anything he expects of us in this regard. Senator MASON(New South Wales) —by leave-The report of the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council on British nuclear tests in Australia is truly a massive document of 77 pages. As the report has just been tabled by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) it is not possible at this time to deal with it at length. However, I wish to pursue a point to which I have given some attention in recent weeks. I refer to the circumstances which occurred between the Buffalo explosions of 1956 and the Antler explosions of 1957. I recently drew the attention of the Senate to the recent 16-day report of the Expert Committee on the Review of Data on Atmospheric Fallout Arising from British Nuclear Tests in Australia-the Kerr Committee-into those incidents which noted that there had been a planned intrusion into a contaminated area after the Buffalo tests. The story goes further because another document indicates that there are a few inconsistencies or at least misunderstandings. Table 4.1 in the January 1983 AIRAC No. 9 document indicates the yield of the bombs which were exploded at that time. The last Operation Buffalo explosion for the year, code named Breakaway, took place in October 1956. Breakaway was a tower drop which means that the explosion was close to the ground and the yield is expressed as being in the kiloton range. I, and many other people who have read this report, have interpreted that as a one kiloton bomb. That, however, appears not to be the case because the British document which sets out the chronology of British atomic tests in Australia states: October 22 The fourth Buffalo atomic device, tower-mounted, is exploded on the Breakaway site at 0005 hours CST giving a yield of about 10 kt. There is a great difference between the expected radiation and the fallout, particularly the dust fallout and ground disturbance, of a 10-kiloton bomb compared with a one kiloton bomb and I think that is a point that deserves to be made abundantly clear. The AIRAC No. 4 report contains a map which shows, interestingly enough, that the ground zero on the range position of the 10-kiloton Buffalo test we are now considering was located almost exactly half way between Taranaki and Biak, which were two of the major tests in the ensuing Antler series. These tests were carried out less than a kilometer from each other. That means, of course, that any work that was done in that area for those 1957 tests was carried out in preparation for ground zero positions which were only a kilometre or less away from the place at which a 10-kiloton weapon had been exploded as a ground explosion from a tower. In the next few pages of the chronology we find an account of a great deal of activity that was carried out at the Maralinga range at that time. So I think that even the 77-page report deserves some further explanation as to what is happening. For instance, the following comment is made in the chronology for January 1957: The UK army medical officer who arrived with a group in Sydney on June 19, 1956 reports on his four-month tour of duty at Maralinga. He points out: . . . on the whole personnel were very healthy except for a few hacking coughs probably as a result of all the dust around. On the dust question, he remarks that the temporary tent camp provided quite adequate medical facilities except for the dust and dust storms which were a great problem because it was difficult to keep the equipment clean without it being well covered. I make the point here to honourable senators that the original reason this matter was raised was because my informant had told me that there had been an appalling dust problem on the Maralinga range at that time. Here we have confirmation of that. The dust problem, of course, is not merely a problem of dust itself; it is dust which almost certainly would have contained the unburnt plutonium and fission products of that 10-kiloton weapon which was exploded there only a few months before. Page 59 of the chronology contains a series of views about what would happen to the range after those tests. This indicates that considerable numbers of people were working at this location and that a great deal of work was going on. The comment is made in relation to 25 October: It is evident that the UK programme would produce Range activities where considerable importance is to be placed on 'Minor Trials', involving the employment of a large number of people over almost the whole year. A little later the document states: A paper is to be prepared for Cabinet as to the services required to support Maralinga after the Buffalo series, the contributions to be made by Australia, and the division of responsibility between Australia and the UK for management of the range. If I may make a suggestion to the Minister, I think that that paper which was prepared for the Cabinet-which I presume is the British Cabinet-as to the services required to support Maralinga after the Buffalo series ought to have come into the hands of this Government because I think it is the one way we have of getting a highly relevant idea of just what was going on after those Buffalo tests at the time when, according to my information, between 400 and 800 Australian civilians were operating in a contaminated area. Of course, as the Kerr report says, there was a planned intrusion at that time into a contaminated area. The chronology also states: As Sir William Penney is present at the meeting with his Trials Superintendent, he gives an account of the work which has to be done to complete the Range buildings and roads. He emphasises the excellent work done by the Task Force under the direction of the Range Commandant. It would be interesting for us to have more information of just what that work was. We know that there were range buildings to be put up; we know that there were roads to be put in. My information is that additionally heavy earthmoving equipment and jackhammers were used particularly to create instrument lanes which presumably would have had a clear line of sight to the ground zero positions of the 1957 tests. Some of those works must then have been possibly as close as a few hundred yards from the ground zero of the 10-kiloton explosion Breakaway which took place on 22 October 1956, only a few months before. I suggest that every document that is released makes this story more intriguing and interesting and indicates the need for further study. I commend the Government's idea of having an investigation into all of what took place. If such an investigation is carried out I suggest that this time span and what is said about it in the chronology from which I have quoted ought to be the subject of close study by expert people and further information should be requested from the British Government along the lines I have suggested. Debate (on motion by Senator Walsh) adjourned. Assent to the following Bills reported: Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1983-84 Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1983-84 Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1983-84 Senate adjourned at 6.18 p.m. The following papers were presented: GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S MESSAGE-ASSENT TO LAWS: Message from His Excellency the Governor-General was reported, informing the Senate that His Excellency had, in the name of Her Majesty, assented to the following laws: 6 June 1984-Message No. 73- Appropriation Act (No. 3) 1983-84 Appropriation Act (No. 4) 1983-84 Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act (No. 2) 1983-84 Telecommunications Act- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts) Amendment No. 45. Telecommunications (Community Calls) Amendment No. 37. Telecommunications (Digital Data Charging) Amendment No. 2. Telecommunications (General) Amendment No. 40. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 656) Senator Primmer asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice , on 29 February 1984: (1) How many Commonwealth public servants have retired over the past 10 years on the grounds of 'ill health'. (2) How many of these were genuine cases of ill health and how many were in fact 'whistle-blowers' who were urged by one means or another to opt out. Senator Button —The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Public Service Board has advised that final figures are not yet available for the calendar year 1983 but there was a total of 10,945 invalidity retirements of permanent officers of the Australian Public Service in the 10- year period 1973-1982 as follows: 1973 593 1974 628 1975 729 1976 1,137 1977 1,805 1978 1,862 1979 1, 533 1980 1,153 1981 725 1982 780 10,945 (2) Under the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act, officers may be retired only where: A medical officer employed by the Department of Health has found that the officer is permanently unfit for his normal duties, there is no other suitable work in the officer's department which he is fit to perform, the Board has certified that it is not practicable to redeploy the officer elsewhere in the Australian Public Service on suitable work at or below his level on duties which he is fit to perform. Decisions on invalidity are not based on officers' activities such as those described by the honourable senator as 'whistle-blowing'. (Question No. 686) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 27 March 1984: (1) What are the responsibilities of the Aboriginal Legal Aid Service with regard to the victims of crime. (2) Is the Aboriginal Legal Aid Service responsible for providing victims of crime with legal aid and with compensation; if not, will the Federal Government move to provide the Aboriginal Legal Aid Service with funds for the purpose of assisting victims of crime. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) There is no single Aboriginal Legal Aid Service but 18 separate Aboriginal legal services. Aboriginal legal services have a responsibility to provide free legal advice and representation to all of their clients, including those who are victims of crime, to ensure that their legal needs are met. (2) Aboriginal legal services, whilst being available to assist clients who are victims of crime to service their compensation claims through the appropriate channels, do not provide compensation to these clients. The Federal Government does not intend to provide Aboriginal legal services with funds for the purpose of compensating clients who are victims of crime. These clients have the same rights and avenues of redress as other Australian citizens to claim compensation under the relevant provisions of State and Territory legislation relating to criminal injuries compensation. (Question No. 813) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice, on 5 April 1984: (1) What is the award wage for builders' labourers working at the new Parliament House construction site. (2) Are cash allowances added to this figure; if so, what are the items covered and what are the amounts payable in each case. (3) What other benefits, concessions or entitlements of a non-cash nature are provided. (4) Were the terms and conditions of employment determined and agreed to before the job commenced in all cases; if not, what categories of employment were not covered by such agreement. (5) What conditions have been changed since then as would make those conditions inappropriate. (6) Does the wage paid to on-site building employees include an allowance known as 'follow the job', or in other words an allowance for severance; if so, how much does this represent in cash per year on the wages paid. (7) How many employees on strike, or stood down, have taken other employment. (8) How long is it estimated to take to find enough employees to restore a full labour force to the new Parliament House site after settlement of the current dispute. (9) Should the Government pay compensation by way of reimbursement of site allowance, and will it undertake to pay those employees whose contracts are for periods of less than 133 weeks. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories and Local Government has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The award wage for a builders labourer on the new Parliament House site is $334.86 for a 38 hour week. (2) From 1 December 1983, a site allowance of $1.50 per hour worked is payable, which includes all special allowances of general application. (3) Protective clothing and safety footwear and sunglasses are supplied to employees in accordance with the Australian Capital Territory awards. (4) The terms and conditions of employment were determined and agreed before each major phase of the job commenced. An agreement covering the earthworks period was arbitrated in early 1981. This was replaced by a new arbitrated agreement in November 1981 to cover a two year building construction period and the agreement was renegotiated to cover the period between December 1983 and the end of the project. (5) There have been no significant changes to conditions during the currency of each of the agreements. (6) Unlike some State awards, Australian Capital Territory awards do not specify a 'follow the job' allowance. However, there is a parity allowance in the Australian Capital Territory award of $41.24 per week to cover those items identified in the State Awards. (7) It is not possible to quantify the number of new Parliament House construction employees who were able to obtain other employment during the period of the dispute. However, the general indication is that a substantial number were able to obtain alternative employment. (8) There is no satisfactory way to accurately determine how quickly the original work force will return to the site or how quickly the work force can be increased to the number required to properly undertake the planned increase in construction activity. However, it is expected to take several weeks. (9) It is assumed the question relates to employers not employees. The current policy, established by the previous Government, is that site allowances are not reimbursed for contracts of less than 130 weeks duration. It is therefore not possible to give an undertaking to reimburse contractors at this stage. (Question No. 865) Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 May 1984: (1) What was the total value of personal income tax deductions claimed for gifts to school building funds in the financial years 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981- 82. (2) What was the cost to revenue of the above deductions in each year. (3) Do these deductions represent a further Commonwealth Government contribution to education through the taxation system in addition to funds appropriated in the Budget for expenditure on education. (4) Are deductions allowable for gifts to government school building funds as well as to private school building funds; if so, what were the costs to revenue of deductions allowed for gifts to government school building funds and what was the cost to revenue of deductions allowed for gifts to private school building funds. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The estimated value of deductions allowed to individual taxpayers for gifts to school building funds for the income years 1979-80 to 1981-82, together with the estimated cost to revenue of the deductions, are as follows: Deduction Cost to Income Year allowed revenue $m $m 1979-80 36 14 1980-81 39 16 1981-82 45 19 (3) Yes. (4) Deductions are allowable under sub-paragraph 78 (i) (a) (xv) of the Income Tax Assessment Act for gifts to public funds providing money for buildings used or to be used as government, semi-government or private non-profit schools or colleges. The available statistics relating to deductions for gifts to school building funds do not identify separately deductions to government and private school building funds. (Question No. 866) Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 May 1984: (1) Does the report, 'Taxation Statistics 1981-82', supplement to the 61st report to Parliament of the Commissioner of Taxation, contain calculations on page 35 which indicate that taxpayers who claimed the dependent spouse, daughter -housekeeper and housekeeper rebates had a mean taxable income of $17,863 compared with a mean taxable income of all individuals of $14,119. (2) Did taxpayers claiming these rebates have a higher mean taxable income than all other groups for which calculations were made. (3) Do the above calculations suggest the rebates are going disproportionately to taxpayers with higher taxable incomes; if not, what explanations can be advanced for the higher mean taxable incomes of taxpayers claiming the rebates compared with other taxpayers. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) Schedule 1.5 to 'Taxation Statistics 1981-82' shows that of the 1,202,563 claims allowed for spouse, daughter-housekeeper and housekeeper rebate, more than 68 per cent were for taxpayers with incomes below the $20,000 level. The distribution also shows that the highest number of these rebates were allowed to taxpayers in the $15,000-$15,999 range of taxable income. Most of the other taxpayers covered by Schedule 1.5 are tabulated under two main heads. These are 'Married not elsewhere included' and 'Single not elsewhere included'. The composition of these two groups explains to some extent the reason for the mean taxable income in each case being less than that for taxpayers with the spouse rebate. Taxpayers in the 'Married n.e.i.' group are excluded from the spouse rebate because of the level of the separate net income of their spouses. The group generally includes two income families, including those where incomes have been split between spouses such as in a husband and wife partnership. This tends to reduce the mean taxable income for the group as a whole. With regard to two income families, Schedules 1.25 and 1.26 of Taxation Statistics 1981-82 give details of matched 1980-81 income year husband and wife returns. A total of 1, 133,700 couples' returns were matched and for these couples the combined mean taxable income was $24,622-Schedule 1.25. The income of such couples in 1981-82 income year would be higher and compares with the mean income of single income families, that is, those with a spouse rebate, of $17,863. The 'Single n.e.i.' classification includes a high proportion of taxpayers in their first or early years of employment and generally in receipt of incomes at the lower end of the scale. There are 2.2 million taxpayers in this group, 75 per cent of whom have incomes less than $15,000. The weight of taxpayers in the lower ranges of taxable income is reflected in the lower mean taxable income for this group. (Question No. 867) Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 May 1984: (1) Does the report, 'Taxation Statistics 1981-82', supplement to the 61st report to Parliament of the Commissioner of Taxation, contain information on the cost to revenue in respect of taxpayers in each taxable income grade of claims for the dependent spouse, daughter-housekeeper and housekeeper rebates. (2) What was the proportion of the total cost to revenue accounted for by rebates claimed by taxpayers with taxable incomes in the following grades: (a) $ 30,000 and above; (b) $24,000 and above; and (c) $20,000 and above. (3) What proportions of all taxpayers had taxable incomes in the following grades: (a) $30,000 and above; (b) $24,000 and above; and (c) $20,000 and above. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Schedule 1.4 (b) to 'Taxation Statistics 1981-82' includes details of rebates allowed in respect of spouses, daughter-housekeepers and housekeepers. The Schedule covers more than 99 per cent of the tabulated cases in the individual field. (2) The proportions of the total cost of such rebates allowed to individual taxpayers with taxable incomes in excess of $29,999 and $23,999 and $19,999 calculated from the Schedule are as follows: Rebate allowed per cent Grade of taxable income of total $ 30,000 and over 5.65 24,000 and over 16.41 20,000 and over 32.67 (3) The proportions of all taxpayers in the same grades of taxable income are shown in Schedule 1.2 to Taxation Statistics 1981-82. They are: Number of Taxpayers per cent Grade of taxable income of total $ 30,000 and over 3.48 24,000 and over 8.48 20,000 and over 16.61 (Question No. 868) Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 May 1984: (1) Does the document 'Taxation Statistics 1981-82', supplement to the 61st report to Parliament of the Commissioner of Taxation, contain on pages 103 to 104 numbers of taxpayers, taxable incomes and net tax paid on a postcode basis in South Australia. (2) Can further information be provided for postcodes in the Adelaide metropolitan area as follows: (a) numbers of taxpayers claiming dependent spouse , daughter-housekeeper and housekeeper rebates; and (b) numbers of taxpayers claiming the full ($830) dependent spouse, et cetera rebates. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Pages 103 to 104 of 'Taxation Statistics 1981-82', the supplement to the 61st report to Parliament of the Commissioner of Taxation, set out information relating to the numbers of taxpayers, taxable incomes and net tax assessed classified by residential postcode, within each electoral division. Generally, separate details have been shown in respect of each postcode with 1,000 or more taxpayers in the 1981-82 income year. The information relates to taxable individuals only and reflects assessments made in the period 1 July 1982-30 June 1983. (2) The items number of taxpayers, taxable income and net tax assessed are the only data which are classified by postcode. Accordingly, statistics of (a) numbers of taxpayers claiming dependent spouse, daughter-housekeeper and housekeeper rebates; and (b) numbers of taxpayers claiming the full ($830) dependent spouse, et cetera, rebate, dissected by postcode within the Adelaide metropolitan area are not available. Senator Gietzelt —On 3 May 1984 (Hansard, page 1558) Senator Reid asked me, as the Minister representing the Minister for Territories and Local Government, the following question without notice: My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Territories and Local Government. I refer to the report that the Government has had since February this year from the Task Force on Self-Government. Does the Minister agree that the citizens of the Australian Capital Territory have a right to comment on the report's proposals before any government decision is taken? When will the report be made available for public consideration and debate? If the Government has already considered its position on the report's recommendations, when will that decision be announced? The Minister for Territories and Local Government has provided the following additional information in answer to the honourable senator's question: The Government is committed to the widest possible process of public consultation and discussion of self-government options. To facilitate this process and enable the people of the Territory to understand and contribute to proposals, the report of the Self-Government Task Force was tabled in the House of Representatives on 10 May 1984 so that public comment can be sought. The Government is not necessarily committed to particular arguments or recommendations of the Task Force and will take full account of community response to the report in the development of its position on implementation of self-government. Senator Walsh —On 3 May 1984 (Hansard, page 1559) Senator Archer asked me a question without notice, in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry in the Senate. His question concerned industrial action by members of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees' Union in Victoria. The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The industrial action to which Senator Archer was presumably referring occurred on 2 May 1984, and involved a twenty-four hour stoppage of meat workers in Victoria. The cause of the stoppage was the crossing of picketlines during the loading of live sheep into the vessel Al Shewaikh at Portland. I understand that the picketing of the Al Shewaikh on this occasion was carried out peacefully, and that the vessel was successfully loaded and sailed on 3 May. I also understand that the loading of a subsequent vessel, the Al Qurain, with live sheep at Portland was accompanied by a twenty-four hour stoppage on 16 May. The vessel was however successfully loaded and departed on 17 May. I am very concerned to see a permanent solution to industrial disputation over the live sheep trade and the Government has taken a number of initiatives to this end. In particular, a special working group has been set up with the purposes of bringing the industrial and political wings of the Labor movement together clearly to identify and resolve the areas of agreement and disagreement on the facts of the live sheep export trade. The establishment of the working party is an attempt to put consideration of this long-running dispute where it belongs, and that is clearly in the industrial relations area.