Thursday, 14 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: Helsinki Agreement To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth that the Polish People's Republic authorities has not honoured its agreement to the Helsinki Convention (signed in 1975) and United Nations Human Rights Pact (ratified in 1977), particularly with regard to the following issues: freeing of all political prisoners; respect for all citizens and human rights; the right to form free trade unions; removal of censorship; permission for Polish citizens to travel abroad especially to allow family reunions; We humbly request that Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, through proper diplomatic channels, raise in the United Nations Forum a strong request to the Polish People's Republic authorities that it honour its obligation agreed to the Helsinki Convention (1975) and Human Rights Pact (1977) And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Missen (from 100 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action nor legislate in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Childs (from 117 citizens), Peter Rae (from 104 citizens), Ryan ( from 59 citizens) and Townley (from 61 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:- 1. That governments have a responsibility to maintain standards acceptable to society's wishes. 2. It cannot be guaranteed that X rated video material will not be viewed by children. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should:- Not adopt the X Classification for Films and Video Tapes, nor Category 2 for Printed Material. Further, that tighter restrictions be applied to R rated Films and Video Tapes and Category 1 Printed Material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 22 citizens). Petitions received. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the terms of reference of the Select Committee on Volatile Substance Fumes , as contained in the resolution of the Senate of 10 May 1984, as amended, be varied as follows: Paragraph (4), leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: '(4) That the Committee elect as Chairman one of the members nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.' Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate notes- (a) the recommendation of the Task Force on implementation of A.C.T. self- government that 'the Commonwealth make an early commitment to the principle that national functions in the A.C.T. will continue to be funded by the Commonwealth following self-government'; and (b) the tabling statement of the Minister for Territories and Local Government on 10 May, 1984, that 'I want to make it clear that the financial arrangements for the A.C.T under self-government would be generally modelled on the Commonwealth-State financial arrangements and principles of fiscal equalisation to ensure that citizens of the A.C.T. are treated fairly and equitably compared with the wider Australian community', fails to make an early commitment to the funding of National Capital functions and the additional provision of Territorial services arising from the National Capital role and calls on the Minister to make that commitment forthwith. Senator JONES(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment: The adequacy of current mechanisms to investigate and monitor the introduction and current application of new technologies, and the need for a national technology assessment system better able to provide information and advice in relation to- (a) Effects on unemployment, manpower planning and industrial relations; (b) Extent of Australian control of technological change; and (c) Policy planning for the purpose of encouraging, or directing technological change in Australia. Motion (by Senator Mason) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to provide for a Commission of Inquiry in relation to certain criminal convictions in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. Bill presented, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(10.05) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- I am submitting this Bill as a private member in the interests of two constituents, Michael Leigh and Alice Lynne Chamberlain, who are normally resident in New South Wales. I am aware that I am reopening a matter which has engaged much time and money in the community and which many might now say ought to be laid to rest. However, at the same time, many thousands of other Australians take a different view. Indeed, more than one hundred and thirty thousand people have petitioned the Governor-General on behalf of the Chamberlains, exhorting him to exercise his power of pardon. That petition was beyond doubt well-intentioned, and is important in that it gives some guide to the intensity and volume of opinion in the community about the Chamberlain case. However, it would seem scarcely feasible or desirable for the Governor-General to contemplate such an action unless an inquiry, such as this Bill proposes, had first expressed a view as to whether there are indeed any reasons why the convictions against the Chamberlains represented a miscarriage of justice. On the other hand, on the assumption that a commission of inquiry did conclude upon good and demonstrable grounds that there had been such a miscarriage, then I believe the constraints upon the Governor-General, or perhaps the Administrator of the Northern Territory, would no longer exist. The view has been put that the same purpose could be achieved by appointment of a royal commission by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). I myself, of course, had considered this possibility. However, there seems very considerable doubt about this means. Indeed, the Attorney-General himself takes the view that he cannot make that appointment. I have a copy of a very recent letter from the Attorney-General to Professor Barry Boettcher, Head of the Department of Biological Sciences at the University of Newcastle, in which the Attorney says: I refer to your letters of 20 March and 7 May 1984, to myself and the Prime Minister, the latter having been passed to me by the Prime Minister for reply. I also refer to your meeting with my Private Secretary on 23 May 1984 at which you provided details of the forensic evidence in the Chamberlain case. I have noted your comments and the information you have provided. However, as you know, the prosecution and sentencing of Mr and Mrs Chamberlain is entirely the responsibility of the Northern Territory Government. It is not possible for me to set up any judicial review or Royal Commission to inquire into the case. Nor is it appropriate for me to comment on any particular court proceeding. Now my advisers also have doubts as to whether the Attorney-General can indeed operate on this within the Royal Commissions Act 1902. However, there seems good reason to believe that appointment of a commission of inquiry, with all the relevant powers of a royal commission, can be established through an act of this Parliament, and that is, of course, the purpose of this Bill. Section 122 of the Constitution states: The Parliament may make laws for the government of any territory surrendered by any State to and accepted by the Commonwealth, or of any territory placed by the Queen under the authority of and accepted by the Commonwealth, or otherwise acquired by the Commonwealth, and may allow the representation of such territory in either House of the Parliament to the extent and on the terms which it thinks fit. Now this clearly empowers this Parliament in this matter, and equally clearly indicates a viable course of action for us, should the Parliament decide to proceed. Another reason for the Bill, of much lesser importance but still I believe, significant, is that it will permit examination of the new evidence, now said to be available, by members of parliament, and members of parliament will decide whether or not the Chamberlain case is granted further examination. In a matter over which there are such deep divisions in the community it would seem unfair to place this burden on even the most senior Crown law officers who must bear a certain amount of praise or a certain amount of approbrium, whatever way their decision went. In all fairness, I think that is a decision we ought to take, and a responsibility which reasonably devolves on us. It also brings a tripartite involvement, which I believe to be desirable. To turn to the Bill, I will mention that it stipulates three judges or ex- judges as the Commission. Why not a commission of one? Here again, I think, it would not be right to wish such a decision on one person. The terms of reference are as follows: 1. The Commission shall, after due inquiry, report to the Governor-General whether, in the opinion of the Commissioners, fresh evidence presented to the Commission, considered in conjunction with the evidence adduced at the inquests and at the trial that resulted in convictions, is such as to justify a conclusion that the convictions, or either of them, constituted a miscarriage of justice. 2. The Commission shall, subject to this Act, conduct such inquiry as it thinks necessary for the purposes of reporting in accordance with subsection (1). 3. Proceedings of the Commission shall be in public, but the President has power to exclude any person for reasons he thinks sufficient. 4. If the Commissioners are not in agreement as to the report that should be made, a Commissioner may submit a separate report concerning that matter. 5. Upon receipt by the Governor-General of a report under this section, the Attorney-General shall cause a copy of the report to be laid before each house of Parliament. It will be apparent that we have tried to set these out in a way which does not commit the Commission to a virtual retrial of the Chamberlain case. The accent is placed on new material which is said to be available. It is the contention of those who believe the Chamberlains innocent that this new material would significantly incline a reasonable person to that view. If that is so, an Inquiry on these terms of reference ought to satisfy them, and I understand that is indeed the case. I might say that my motivation in this matter springs partly from my concern at the way in which circumstantial evidence is increasingly being used to convict persons of major crime. This, of course, is the large issue, of tremendous community importance, which lies behind the Chamberlain case, in which there was a conviction in circumstances where there were no witnesses to the alleged crime , no body has been found, the alleged murder weapon has not been found and no motive has been adduced. Mr President, justice can err at times with the best of intentions, and a later examination can bring a completely different result from the original verdict. There is a very good, simple, and practical reason for this. It is that, as time passes, new facts tend to arise in almost any matter; and these new facts can give, perhaps even dictate, a completely different view of the case. This is what hundreds of thousands of Australians believe about the Chamberlain case. If, indeed, there is any possibility of it being true of the Chamberlain case, then of course the vote, initially of honourable senators and the later of members of the other place, on this Bill, is of vital importance. It would indeed be a serious step to take to refuse anyone, no matter how black their reputation or how long their list of crimes, the opportunity of a fresh look at those facts in appropriate circumstances, much less persons of previous good character. It is important to recall that for a variety of reasons, no new evidence was accepted at either the Federal Court of Appeal or the High Court hearings. Indeed, I am advised that much of the new material is quite recent. One grouping of material is based on the question of the alleged blood found in the Chamberlains' car. I may say that material is too detailed, too complex and, indeed, too visual for me to put here, nor is there any need for me to do so. I hope my colleagues will go to the trouble of looking carefully at it themselves. However, I was influenced sufficiently by that new evidence concerning the alledged blood, and other material said to be new, to bring forward this Bill in association, as I have said, with my concern on the wider matter of conviction on circumstantial evidence which has also been commented on, of course, by such lawyers as Professor Julius Stone and Sir Reginald Sholl. There are said to be not less than fifty reliable elements of new evidence that have come forward, which have not yet been made available to a court. This material is so voluminous it would be unreasonable of me to seek to incorporate it in this speech. Nor is it desirable I should do so, since I certainly do not wish to appear as judge and jury in this matter. I have read many statements concerning new evidence, much of which is in the form of statutory declarations, and have also talked with many people who seemed to have significant material to bring forward which has not yet been considered by a court. All these matters need to be considered in a proper legal setting where their truth or otherwise can be tested by full investigation and cross-examination. The real issue before us is then, whether all this new material is to be ignored, which seems to me to present a risk of a continuing injustice, or whether it can be looked at again. It is to the point that much of this new material is far from being secret. It has had an airing to very high audience television and radio programmes. Very grave allegations as to the conduct of members of the Northern Territory Police, and other people, have been made and some of these are contained in the statutory declarations I hold. Concerning the new evidence, I seek to comment briefly on three general areas. The first is that there does seem to be evidence that a dingo was in the Chamberlains' tent on the night Azaria disappeared; that its tracks were seen. There is evidence of dingoes taking food and attacking children. There is evidence, supported by statutory declarations in my hands, that the baby Azaria was heard to cry in the Chamberlains' tent, and that this was commented on by a number of people. This happened at a time at which, if the Crown's case against the Chamberlains were sound, the child was already dead. There is substantial evidence which appears to rebut the linchpin of the Crown' s case-forensic evidence concerning blood in the Chamberlains' car and Michael Chamberlain's camera bag, and evidence that damage to the baby's jumpsuit, found later at Ayers Rock, could not have been made by a dingo's teeth, but was caused by a pair of scissors. Evidence now exists which I understand shows similar damage in an identical jumpsuit was caused by canine teeth. There is also evidence from persons at Ayers Rock at the time of the disappearance of Azaria that they considered the police did not take due note of their statements on some of the matters I have raised above, especially the baby 's cry and the dingo tracks, and I hold statutory declarations to that effect. I hold a statutory declaration from Professor Barry Boettcher, Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of Newcastle, stating his view that the evidence that stains of infant blood: 'specifically that of Azaria Chamberlain, had been found in the Chamberlain car and on other items, is wrong. The bases for my conclusions are: (a) the results recorded by the forensic biologist are not consistent with those expected if the examined blood stains had come from an infant and, specifically, from Azaria Chamberlain, and (b) the testing solution (antiserum) for haemoglobin F used in the tests on the blood stains would react with adult blood in addition to infant blood. ''Further, I consider that the best interpretation of the results of the tests recorded in the forensic biologist's work notes is that the reactions observed between the antiserum to haemoglobin F and extracts of the blood stains were due to a contaminant in the antiserum reacting with haemoglobin A in the badly denatured blood stains. In other words, the blood stains were not of infant blood, but of aged adult blood.' According to statutory declarations in my possession from two other persons, a distinctive, red-coloured dingo known as 'Ding', said to be very strong, with a fluffy coat, was alive some days after the disappearance of Azaria Chamberlain. Other statements, which I understand are supported by statutory declarations I have not personally seen, claim that the dingo Ding was seen near the Chamberlains' tent shortly before Azaria disappeared; that the same animal had attacked a child not long beforehand and was to have been shot at that time; that it was not in fact shot; and that it was quite possible for such an animal to carry off a child of Azaria's weight, which I understand to have been nine and a half pounds. It has also been stated that due to a request from Rangers to visitors to Ayers Rock not to feed the dingoes, they were especially hungry and aggressive at this time. These are matters on which I have no judgement to make, other than they would appear to require testing before some competent authority. I have read many thousands of words of statements and statutory declarations about the Chamberlain case, and spent many hours talking with people who seem to have some material contribution to make. Again I make no judgement on any of this material, other than to say that the volume and nature of it is such as to confirm in my mind that further inquiry is necessary. If indeed there is a doubt about the matter, it must raise concern among us all that it be resolved quickly. However, it would appear that unless unusual measures were taken, it would not be possible for this Bill to be considered by both Houses in this session, which has now almost ended. On this basis, it would seem inevitable that the second reading be adjourned until the Budget session. This would give all Members of Parliament the opportunity to consider the issue and form a view. However, I can see no reason why this Bill should not be voted on early in the Budget session in August. On that basis, I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That the publication in the National Times of 8-14 June 1984 of a purported report of evidence taken by and documents submitted to the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge be referred to the Committee of Privileges. Motion (by Senator Grimes) proposed: That unless otherwise ordered Government Business Notice of Motion No. 1, relating to days and times of meeting, be postponed until after Questions without Notice this day. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.09) — I wish to speak briefly to this motion. I am not sure whether any negotiations are proceeding, but I understood from the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) that there would be consultations with various members of the Senate and representatives of members of the Senate. I hope that this will take place before this matter comes up this afternoon. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.09) —in reply-That is one of the purposes of the postponement of the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 4 May, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.10) —I wish to refer to several matters relating to the Bounty (Two-Stroke Engines) Bill. I commence by saying that there is a question of the right of entry and search without warrant which I will deal with at some length. There are other matters associated with the industry which I will deal with briefly. The Opposition does not oppose but supports the Bill. The Bill provides for the continuation of a bounty in relation to the production of two-stroke engines. Under the Bill, Australia will continue to be able to encourage the production of a particular type of extremely efficient two-stroke engine, one which I hope will eventually become a major export for Australia. A great deal of money has been spent by the company involved in the research and development of the latest model of the engine. It is now regarded by many as the most efficient in the world. It is one which I hope, with some reasonable approach in relation to other aspects of industry policy, can become a major export for Australia. Certainly, we would in no way wish to inhibit the opportunity for its further development and the continuation of a period of limited protection. I will not hold the Senate any longer in relation to that aspect of the matter. I wish to make particular reference to clause 15 of the Bill. The provisions of that clause are similar to so many provisions in this type of legislation, either industry legislation providing for bounties or other forms of assistance or, alternatively, primary industry legislation relating to marketing authorities which provides that, as a quid pro quo for people, whether they like it or not, being involved in a marketing authority, they have to put up with the right of some authorised officer of a department or an authority to enter and search their premises without a warrant in circumstances which are quite different from the normal circumstances which prevail in the community. It seems to me to be extraordinary that we can have a requirement that the police in pursuit of a murderer do not have the right of entry and search of somebody's home without a warrant, but that an authorised officer of the Department of Industry and Commerce or the Department of Primary Industry has the right of entry and search of a person's home, office or work place without any form of judicial procedure to require justification of that entry. I refer to some of the speeches which took place in this chamber some 15 years ago when I thought the Senate established a fairly firm rule; that is, that it would not pass legislation which gave the right of entry and search without warrant unless the most exceptional case was made out. One of the proponents of that view was a former leader of the Australian Labor Party in this chamber, both in opposition and in government, then Senator Lionel Murphy and now Mr Justice Murphy of the High Court of Australia. I propose to quote certain of the things which he said. Another of the outstanding proponents of the view was the then Senator Sir Magnus Cormack. Many honourable senators on both sides of the chamber expressed the view that the right of entry and search without warrant should not be lightly given for the convenience of the bureaucracy and to the detriment of and the potential misuse against the citizens of Australia. Senator Sir Magnus Cormack quoted from Lord Denning who cited Lord Chatham's magnificent speech in the House of Lords dealing with this question. He said: Let us consider, then, the power to enter a man's house against his will for this is a power which has been greatly extended of late. It is a power which we must watch with care, because, next to our personal freedom, we value most the freedom of our homes. ''An Englishman's house is his castle,'' we say, and our feelings about it were well summed up by the great Lord Chatham when he said: '' The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail-its roof may shake-the wind may blow through it-the storm may enter-the rain may enter-but the King of England cannot enter-all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.'' This did not mean, however, that the King or his officers never had any right at all to enter a man's house. All that it meant was that they had no prerogative right to enter. I believe that that is a very appropriate quote from one of this century's greatest jurists. It is one which we should not lightly dismiss. I wish now to refer to another even more contemporary jurist, the former Senator Murphy. In speaking on the Chicken Meat Levy Collection Bill on 4 June 1969, he said: . . . If a constable wants to enter any place to search for books, documents and so on, he must approach a justice of the peace and give information on oath that there is reasonable ground for suspicion that there is in such place something which will supply evidence of an offence. In other words, one's premises cannot be invaded except when it is suspected that one has committed an offence. Later he said: It seems to me that the exceptions have been made only with great reluctance. They have been made only after it has been proved that some great social evil exists and that it cannot be coped with unless this type of power is granted. A little later he said: We should look with great jealousy upon the extension of this power of entry into premises. I well recall the National Mapping Survey Bill which came before this chamber, I think, in 1969. That provided the right of entry and search without warrant. A number of us objected to it very strongly. We had increasingly objected to the inclusion of this type of power for bureaucratic administrative convenience. As Lord Denning said, one of the most fundamental basic rights for which the people in the United Kingdom-those people from whom we drew our legislative and constitutional heritage-fought over the years is that the Englishman's home is his castle. The Australian's home ought also to be his private preserve and not the subject matter of an administrative right to enter and search whenever it happens to suit the convenience of the administration. I have with me a book which sets out a large part of the American experience in relation to this matter. I refrain from referring to it in great detail but simply say that Search and Seizure by Polyviou which is in the Parliamentary Library, is a book worth reading by anybody who has any doubts on this subject. This is one of those very fundamental subjects. It is one of the rights which we need to preserve and about which the Senate, in particular, ought to be zealous in its preservation. I return to the National Mapping Survey Bill. When honourable senators were speaking about that matter and referring to the sorts of things that I have referred to we were told that the whole of the national mapping survey of Australia would be destroyed if we did not immediately pass that Bill and grant that power. We were told that virtually the whole of government would fall; the administrative facility of government would become impossible. I note that some 15 years later the mapping survey of Australia has continued. Governments might have fallen but they certainly did not fall over that matter. The national mapping survey administration has been able to continue and that Bill has never reappeared in this chamber. Yet at that time we were told that unless this power was given it would be absolutely impossible for this public purpose to be fulfilled. I simply indicate that the situation in relation to the Bounty (Two- Stroke Engines) Bill 1984 is likely to be the same. I do not imagine that there will be a great problem, in the event of its being necessary to check the books, for it to be done on any basis other than by arrangement. The number of people involved is very small indeed so far as the producers and the places are concerned. But the fact that there is probably only one particular premises which is likely to be involved does not excuse the infringement of the fundamental basic liberty of the citizens of Australia. I take this opportunity to express on behalf of the Opposition a view which has been expressed unanimously in this chamber at times, certainly strongly from both sides of the chamber both in government and in opposition. As Lord Denning said: Let us consider, then, the power to enter a man's house against his will for this is a power which has been greatly extended of late. It is a power which we must watch with care, because, next to our personal freedom, we value most the freedom of our homes. I add 'and our places of business and our other private areas of preserve from the general right which the public and other people have of entry into public areas of the community'. One small paragraph on page 361 of Search and Seizure states: Two things stand out from our study of Anglo-American doctrines of search and seizure. The first is their similarities. These are due partly to common historic origins, principally the 'general warrant' cases, and to the use of similar concepts and terminology that have been part of the common law tradition as early as Hale, especially the ideals that in general searches and seizures should not take place at the discretion of executive officers but only after the authorisation of independent magistrates, that such authorisation should only be given after there has been evidence of criminal complicity and of the location at the place to be searched of criminal evidence, and that executive power to search and seize should also be limited by stringent requirements of specificity regarding what is to be looked for and seized. The similarity of the two systems is also due to the similarity of the functions they must perform and of the questions and issues they must settle. Thus every system of search and seizure law must try to balance the same two interests-that of the right of the citizen not to be subjected to unjustified invasions of his privacy and security and that of the community to take adequate measures for the detection of crime and the apprehension of criminals. When one is administering such a scheme the argument is put forward that those who are to benefit from it are impliedly consenting to the limitation of their normal right to privacy. I accept that that could be so in relation to the Bounty (Two-Stroke Engines) Bill at the moment as virtually only one factory is involved. But that does not mean that there will not be two tomorrow or 10 next year. Simply because there is only one does not justify the precedent of this Parliament legislating in a way which it has said on many occasions in the past is totally and absolutely unjustified. For that reason I shall, at the Committee stage, move amendments, which have been circulated, to clause 15 which would require that the normal provisions-that is that the right of entry and search be on the issue of a warrant-which would apply in a criminal case should apply in relation to the Bounty (Two-Stroke Engines) Bill. I summarise the Opposition's attitude by saying that we welcome the steps taken by the Government to carry on measures which were originally introduced by us for the development of an Australian industry. As I said earlier, I believe that the manufacturers have done an exceptional research and development job in producing in world terms an extremely efficient engine which I hope will find a much wider market than motor mowers. I hope that it will in the relatively near future become a major export from Australia. I take the opportunity to wish the manufacturers well but I will not take any more time of the Senate to debate that aspect. I indicate that at the appropriate time in Committee I shall move the amendments which I have foreshadowed. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(10.27) —I thank the Opposition for its general support of the Bounty (Two-Stroke Engines) Bill. I note that Senator Rae will move amendments at the appropriate time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. (Quorum formed) The Bill. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.29) —As I indicated earlier in the second reading debate, I have certain amendments, which I have circulated, to clause 15 on page 8 of the Bounty (Two-Stroke Engines) Bill. Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to move the two amendments together. Leave granted. Senator PETER RAE —I move: (1) Page 8, clause 15, sub-clause (1), line 11, after 'reasonable times', insert 'with the consent of the occupier or in pursuance of a warrant issued under sub-section (1B)'. (2) Page 8, clause 15, after sub-clause (1), insert the following new sub- clauses: '(1A) An authorized officer may make application to a Justice for a warrant authorizing the authorized officer to enter the premises to which the application relates. '(1B) If, on an application under sub-section (1A), the Justice is satisfied, by information on oath or affirmation, that it is reasonably necessary that the authorized officer should have access to the premises to which the application relates, the Justice may grant a warrant authorizing the authorized officer to enter the premises for the purpose of exercising the functions of an authorized officer under this section. '(1C) A warrant granted under sub-section (1B) shall include- (a) a statement of the purpose for which the warrant is issued; (b) a description of the kind of things authorized to be inspected or copied or from which extracts may be taken; and (c) a date, not being later than one month after the date of issue of the warrant, upon which the warrant ceases to have effect.'. The two amendments are tied together, and it is for the convenience of the Committee that they be dealt with together. They are in a standard form. It is a matter of people supporting the idea of preserving the right of the individual in the community to be protected from unwarranted-I use that word in both the literal and metaphorical sense-interference in an individual's private affairs. I do not need to say any more than I have already said in the second reading debate. The history is that the Senate has been zealous in relation to this matter. I believe we are being consistent by adding these amendments to the legislation. I know there have been other pieces of legislation which have gone through without this sort of amendment being made. All I can say is that I regret that one or two of those escaped my notice during the years. On most occasions when there has been an attempt to put through legislation such as this , giving the right of entry and search without a warrant, I for one have taken objection and so have many others. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(10.33) —When I received notice of these amendments I thought: 'What a desirable thing to have in a Bill'. Then I pursued some investigations of my own and discovered that these novel amendments are suggested only when one is in opposition. I find that the provisions of the Bounty (Two-Stroke Engines) Bill, which is before us, in regard to the amendments are identical with the provisions of the Bounty (Printed Fabrics) Act 1981, the Bounty (Non-adjustable Wrenches) Act 1981 and the Bounty (Berry Fruits ) Act 1982, which were all introduced by the previous Government. Senator Peter Rae —If you go back to 1968, 1969 and 1970 you will find that I moved amendments such as these and spoke in relation to them many times. Senator JACK EVANS —That may be so, but that is not what has happened. The legislation before the Parliament now and which had been endemic in this Parliament, gives officers the right to inspect premises and not to provide a warning so that records can be destroyed before those inspections take place. We are either dinkum about this kind of legislation or not. I do not think the Opposition is dinkum in the amendments that are being moved. I think it is a gesture by the Opposition-I do not accuse Senator Rae; I accuse the Opposition-because they are typical amendments which are moved by whoever happens to be in opposition. The Australian Democrats are not going to put up with that sort of hypocrisy-that those sorts of amendments are put only when one is in opposition but when one is in government Bills are put through in exactly the way the Government has put the Bill down in this instance. We will not be supporting the amendments. We will be supporting the Bill as it stands because we believe that it is desirable legislation. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.35) —I object most strongly to the allegation of hyprocrisy. I can only say that it is one which is made out of ignorance and one which is made out of a failure. Perhaps it can be excused because of the fact that Senator Jack Evans is relatively new in this place, does not know anything much of its history and has not done much homework in relation to it. He wants some excuse to support the Government in relation to the amendments. I can go back to not just the Chicken Meat Research Bill and the National Mapping Survey Bill and all the rest of the Bills over which the battles were being fought in the late 1960s and the early 1970s which I thought established this thing. I said, and I emphasise this, that there were some which escaped my notice, for which I can only be apologetic; they got through at a time when I was concentrating more on statutory authorities than on some of the legislation that was going through the Parliament. When we were in government in the 1960s and early 1970s, I and a number of other senators opposed Bills, spoke against Bills and moved amendments similar to the amendments which I have moved today. For Senator Jack Evans to say that is something which is only done in opposition is to engage in what I regard as a totally unjustified attack. If he likes to do his homework he will find that that can be refuted by the history of processes which have taken place. I moved the amendments purposefully. I moved them not as an Opposition tactic. If the Australian Democrats are not interested in preserving the rights of the individual in the community then let that be seen and be known. I will call a division in relation to this to ensure that we see who is interested in preserving the rights of the individual and who is not. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(10.37) —I will be brief in response to that accusation. The Australian Democrats are not only interested in preserving the rights of the individual, but they are also interested in preserving the rights of the community at large. If people are not to be equipped to do a job properly then there is no point in legislating for that job to be done. Senator Rae claimed that one or two things slipped under his guard over the last year or so. I made it clear that three Acts of Parliament slipped under his guard in the last two years of his Government. I do not think that was an oversight. I do not think he can suggest that on all three occasions he was otherwise occupied. Let it also be quite clearly understood that the Democrats are being utterly consistent in our stance on this. We have supported whichever party was in government in giving it the tools that are needed to ensure that the bounty provisions are properly complied with. We have given those tools to the Liberal Party, of which Senator Rae is a member, and we are now giving them to the Australian Labor Party, which is in government at the moment. I believe that if a division is called we will be the only ones who will be seen to be totally consistent on this issue over the years. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(10.38) —I support the Opposition's proposed amendments to this Bill. This is a very simple but very important point that reflects on how the parties view the average citizen in the country-whether he has any rights or whether he will be ground under the heel of a totalitarian regime. This is a very minor commercial matter. It is a simple bounty on two- stroke engines. The Bounty (Two-Stroke Engines) Bill provides that without a warrant, an agent of the Government can search premises and other things like that. Is this a trifling little thing about which we are arguing, that someone's freedom and privacy is put at risk because of this totalitarian demand? Senator Jack Evans —Why do you say it is totalitarian, now? Senator MacGIBBON —I could understand it if national security was involved or if great matters-- Senator Jack Evans —Why was it not totalitarian under your Government? Senator MacGIBBON —Senator Evans should shut up. I have had enough of his-- Senator Jack Evans —You don't like the argument. Senator MacGIBBON —All right, I will turn to that. We have put a case for a reasonable attitude with respect to the rights of individuals and companies to conform with the law. After all, we trust people in this country. We do not believe, as a first approach to judging their moral or ethical characters, that they are dishonest. We believe that they are honest until we prove otherwise. It is eminently reasonable and fair for the Opposition to move this amendment. The fact is that the Australian Democrats have been bought off once more by the Australian Labor Party to support the legislation of the day and whatever clap trap Senator Evans might come up with about being ultimately consistent- Senator Jack Evans —Were we bought off by the Liberal Party when you moved the same amendment with the same provisions in it? Senator MacGIBBON —We would not introduce provisions like that. The Democrats are ultimately consistent in their support for the Labor Party. I wish they would sit with the Labor members and not the Liberals. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(10.40) —I thank honourable senators for their contribution to this debate. There are 19 bounty Bills containing similar provisions to those which Senator Peter Rae seeks to change by his amendment. Senator Rae's point was explained in personal terms by his having been here for so long-a virtue in itself, as it was put-and having been consistent on this issue. If only Senator Rae's point had not been supported by Senator MacGibbon, it might have had a bit of validity. But Senator MacGibbon was here at the time of the Fraser Government and voted again and again for the sorts of provisions contained in this legislation and did not utter a squeak about it. He was not concerned about civil liberties then. Senator Jack Evans —He discovered them yesterday. Senator BUTTON —He discovered them today, I suppose. He made a pious, silly speech about civil liberties. The issue concerning us is that this Government, as do all governments, hands out to people taxpayers' money as bounties in respect of their production activities. If Senator MacGibbon says that the taxpayers are not entitled to be protected by an appropriate audit conducted by officers of the Australian Customs Service in respect of those handouts of taxpayers' moneys, by some specious argument such as he has advanced this morning, I think he should say that publicly, and not just in the Senate. The fact of the matter, as I have said, is that this sort of provision is contained in 19 different pieces of bounty legislation, many of them introduced by the previous Government and supported by the then mute Senator MacGibbon. This Government does not accept the amendment. I understand Senator Rae's important legal argument about these kinds of provisions. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has looked at these matters. It is not particularly concerned about these issues, although it draws attention to them in its reports . All that this legislation does is to provide a provision consistent with that provided by governments of all political persuasions in order to protect taxpayers' money which is disbursed to particular companies. For those reasons the Government does not accept the amendment. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.43) —Senator Button referred to what the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has said. Senator Jack Evans referred to some inconsistency in behaviour. I say simply that I supported the introduction of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and welcome the fact that it does now assist all of us in drawing our attention to these types of matters. It means that we are more likely-if we have before us a vast volume of legislation and not everybody is able to study every piece of legislation to check what has been happening-to be able to pick them up than we were previously. I think that the claims of hypocrisy fall rather unfortunately into this debate. Let us take them out an talk about what the Scrutiny of Bills Committee said. It stated: . . . the Committee continues to draw this clause to the attention of the Senate under principle 1 (a) (i) in that such a right of entry without warrant or other specific authorization might be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. Principle (1) (a) (i) of the terms of reference of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee appoints the Committee to draw attention to cases where there is a possibility that legislation may trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. I am glad that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee has drawn attention to this matter and assists us by giving us a bit more forewarning of these matters. Senator Button —You would say it is unnecessary with you being here all these years. Senator PETER RAE —No. I just have to admit that I am not perfect and that there have been occasions when I have not read every piece of legislation. One of the only senators who probably ever read every piece of legislation that went through this place was former Senator Sir Reginald Wright. To Reg's eternal credit, he more assiduously read the detail of legislation than anyone I have known. One of the problems is that there is a vast volume of legislation. With all of the other things that happen it is very difficult to read every detail of every Bill that comes to the chamber. I quote again from the book to which I referred, Search and Seizure. It states: What is vitally important is not only to maintain control of police action in individual cases, but also to keep a check on general patterns of police searches and seizures in order to make sure that police powers are not systematically abused, either in general or with regard to the harassment of vulnerable groups, such as racial minorities. I could refer to many other quotes, but I will just refer to the balance of convenience argument which is always brought forward, that the bureaucracy, the police, or some other good public purpose would be better served by taking away some basic right. I think that is the fundamental issue here. That it has not been raised on every occasion is no reason for saying that two wrongs make a right. Therefore I have moved the amendments and will seek on every occasion I can to move similar amendments, whether we are in opposition or in government. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(10.47) — I can well understand Senator Button's anger and the vitriol with which he pours scorn on me when his integrity is attacked. Like his leader in the other place, Mr Hawke, he is very keen on his integrity and his consistency, despite his record of flitting from point to point and issue to issue on all things around the political spectrum. But as Senator Rae pointed out, the errors of the past are not to be enshrined in the future. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee brings to our attention the deficiencies of legislation. That Committee takes a bipartisan approach in scrutinising Bills . Certainly, we have made mistakes in the past; we do not deny that for one moment. But we should not go on in the stupid way Senator Button has and say that because we did something wrong in the past we should keep doing it in perpetuity. I know that is very much a Labor operational doctrine. That can be seen from the big fights Labor is getting into at present with respect to uranium, Timor and all the other things it cannot agree on. It is going down the same path it went down in the Whitlam years. Senator Button's argument about his concern about the expenditure of public funds is utterly false, sanctimonious and hypocritical. Who gave half a million dollars to the Foreign Minister to take a 707 to fly around the Middle East, the first Foreign Minister ever to get an overseas VIP flight? Who is proposing payment for de facto wives to go overseas? Who is proposing that this Parliament be allowed to expand at vast expense? Who wants over $1m to build offices in the rose gardens on the House of Representatives side of Parliament House so that the new members we do not need can be housed? That is gross malexpenditure of public funds. That is Labor policy in practice. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Peter Rae's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman-Senator Colston) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Martin, K. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J. Carrick, Sir John Rae, PeterChaney, F. M. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Crichton-Browne, N. A. Scott, D. B. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Lajovic, M. E. Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Button, J. N. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Coates, J. Macklin, M. J. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertElstob, R. C. Reynolds, M. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. Evans, Jack Ryan, S. M. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Hearn, J. M. Lewis, A. W. R. Tate, M. C. Collard, S. J. Chipp, D. L. Archer, B. R. Giles, P. J. Missen, A. J. Richardson, G. F. Hamer, D. J. Cook, P. F. S. Jessop, D. S. Georges, G. Question so resolved in the negative. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a third time. Debate resumed from 6 June, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.56) —Mr Acting Deputy President, may I suggest that these Bills not be taken cognately but rather that the Air Navigation Amendment Bill be taken first and the other two Bills be dealt with cognately. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —Is it the wish of the Senate that that course be followed? There being no objection, it is so ordered. Debate resumed from 6 June, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.57) —The Air Navigation Amendment Bill 1984 is supported by the Opposition. This Bill relates to the terms and conditions under which the voice recorders in the cockpit of aircraft are operated. I do not believe it is a matter of vital public interest for me to spend the time of the Senate in going through the detail of the amendments proposed in the Bill. Rather I simply say that the amendments are desirable. This matter has been debated in the House of Representatives where the reasons in support of the Bill have been put. The Opposition will support the Bill. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(10.58) —To put the matter into context I state that the Australian Democrats will support the Air Navigation Amendment Bill 1984 despite the fact that it may appear to contravene freedom of information provisions-a flag which we fly very high on our mast. I make it clear that this is an unusual matter which deserves to be treated as an exception to the normal freedom of information provisions. The Bill simply provides that what is known as the black box or the cockpit voice recorder is in place with the agreement of the pilots to provide safety measures and to give some opportunity to assess future safety measures that may come out of accidents in the air. It is not there for any other purpose as far as the pilots are concerned. They are happy with the black box being there. It records discussion and a lot of other factors which are important to civil aviation safety measures . Even under the provisions going through today the recorder can still be used for litigation provided the pilots themselves are not involved in that litigation. In other words, if for instance there was an attempted hijack, or if for some reason an airline company was subject to litigation, it might be possible to have the cockpit voice recorder used. But it is important that pilots be aware that they have that absolute freedom to speak frankly and to give all of the information which is likely to help in the event of an inquiry ever becoming necessary. That freedom will be ensured as a result of the passage of this legislation. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(11.01) —The Government thanks the Opposition and the Australian Democrats for their support. We regard this Bill as an important Bill for safety of and in our aircraft. It arises from extensive negotiations and consultations between the departments and those affected in the airline industry. The speedy passage of the Bill will assist in realising the Government's objective of maintaining a high standard of safety in Australia. (Quorum formed) Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 6 June, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(11.04) —Of the two Bills with which we are dealing, the Australian National Airlines Amendment Bill seeks to make a number of amendments to the Australian National Airlines Act, many of which are drawn from a Bill which was introduced originally in 1980 by the honourable member for Gwydir, the Hon. Ralph Hunt, when he was Minister for Transport. The Opposition supports in every way the general intent of this legislation, without supporting its detail, the general intent being to improve the efficiency of the operations of Trans Australia Airlines. When we were in government we introduced a number of these measures. The Australian National Airlines Commission Retention Bill 1984 is an expression of the present socialist Government's absolute opposition to the sale of Trans Australia Airlines. The Opposition will oppose the Bill. It repeals the legislation introduced by the former Government's National Party Minister for Transport, Mr Hunt. In 1981 the former Liberal-National Party Government introduced legislation which was designed to enable the consideration of the privatisation-to use the 'in' word-of TAA. That matter has quite a long history. I start by talking briefly about the two-airlines policy. After the Second World War the then socialist Government introduced legislation to establish what has become one of the world's greatest airlines- TAA. TAA has played a very important part in the development of Australia. Australian National Airways developed along with TAA and later merged with a small operator, Ansett, and became Ansett Airlines of Australia. Finally, a two-airline policy was developed . It was designed to give benefits and protection to each of the airlines-the government owned and operated airline, TAA, and the privately owned and operated airline, ANA, which became Ansett. I believe that the two-airline policy served Australia well. It served the development of Australia. Our very large distances and our need for speedy travel and the consequent need for the development of efficient and safe airline services were such that a form of government assistance and protection was justified at that stage. I do not have any quarrel with the existence for many years of the two-airlines agreement. However, I believe that when it was recently renewed there was room for very considerable debate as to whether it ought to be renewed at all and, if it was to be renewed, the length of time for which it was to be renewed. I believe that the reason a majority of the then Government members supported the extension of the two-airlines agreement was that they were led to believe that both airlines had made very major investment undertakings which would update their aircraft and airline operations, one with the introduction of the Airbus and the renovation of the DC9s, and the other with the introduction of new Boeing aircraft, the latest model 737s, the new 727s and the 767s. I was eventually led to believe that those investment decisions-I forget the exact figure involved, but it was something approaching $ 1 billion-had been made upon some undertaking given by the Government of the day that there would be a continuation of a form of protection for the airlines to enable them to recover the investment which they were encouraged to make. That, I suppose, could be regarded as a legitimate government decision to encourage the further upgrading and modernisation of Australia's domestic airlines and to give some quid pro quo for that purpose. The day is rapidly approaching when the justification for the two-airlines agreement and for the continued operation of a government airline will become thin if not untenable. By the end of this decade I do not think any government would be able to withstand the public criticism which would result if it were to continue the two-airlines agreement and the protection which the two-airlines agreement gives. The agreement has become almost a licence for inefficiency on the one hand and a licence for profitability on the other hand. What has happened with regard to TAA has been extremely unfortunate. In many ways TAA has been operated as if it were a sector of the Public Service. It has been operated in a bureaucratic way to the detriment of the performance of its function and the performance of the very large number of dedicated and competent people who serve it. I am in no way criticising the operational activities of Trans Australia Airlines, and I want to make that quite clear. I emphasise to the Minister at the table, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) , to all honourable senators in the chamber and to people elsewhere that I am not criticising the operational efficiency and safety record of TAA. But I do criticise the restraints put on it and the manner in which the business of the airline has to be carried out because it is operated as a statutory authority, a quango. I will give one very simple example of what has happened. In 1973 TAA was required to provide the opportunity for its employees to come within the Commonwealth employees superannuation scheme. The effect of that requirement was that by 1981 the employer's contribution to the superannuation scheme had amounted to a liability of some $240m, which was more than the total of all of the profit that TAA had made in its 37 years of operation, all of the income tax that it had paid in all of the 37 years of its operation and the market capitalisation of its assets at the time. In a period of eight years, in respect of only a percentage of TAA's employees who were subject to Commonwealth superannuation, liability greater than all of TAA's profits, income tax and assets was run up. To expect that business to be conducted on that basis is just absurd. The reason TAA had a liability and was not simply declared bankrupt was that statutory authorities do not go bankrupt. The taxpayer is the universal guarantor of statutory authorities. If we have a statutory authority which, for some reason, has to be bailed out-be it that a liability such as this has been imposed on it or, as has been the case with many statutory authorities, that there has been the case with many statutory authorities, that there has been sheer inefficiency-bail it out the taxpayer does. So, in respect of TAA, every person in Australia who pays tax over the next 20 years or so will be paying part of the accrued liability arising from its operation from 1973 onwards. Whilst socialist idealogues may think that it is highly desirable that we have a continuing government enterprise, I just ask the taxpayers of Australia to remember what that theory, that ideology, will cost them in dollars and cents out of their pockets over the years to come. The Government has had to acknowledge that it will accept the responsibility for what TAA's management said it could not and would not provide, which is the employer's contribution towards Commonwealth superannuation. The Commonwealth superannuation scheme is very different from most private sector schemes. The average employer's contribution to superannuation is from 1 1/2 to a maximum of 2 1/2 times the employee's contribution. Under the Commonwealth superannuation scheme the employer contributes nearly 4 1/4 times the employee's contribution. In other words, the employer's contribution is very high, somewhere between two and three times as high as the contribution which applies in the private scheme. One may say that perhaps that is necessary when one bears in mind the nature of the permanent Public Service and some of the opportunities which its members are denied and deprived of and which would be available to others, and that therefore they should be entitled to a better superannuation scheme than applies in the private sector. But how on earth that can be said to apply to the operation of an airline, an Australia Post courier service or whatever other business activity the Government decides to get involved with, I simply do not know. I find the story about the problem of superannuation to be the best way to sum up the whole of the problem of TAA's having operated, in financial terms, disastrously. It has cost the taxpayer and will continue to cost the taxpayer a very considerable amount of money. I am not talking about the injections of capital. I believe that the Government did the right thing by injecting a greater amount of capital into the airline so that it could operate at a better gearing ratio and one which would make it possible to compare its financial operational activities with those of its competitor, Ansett, and of some of its international competitors. The position is that TAA has been run as a semi-government business. It has been neither one thing nor the other. It has not been able to operate with the freedom, efficiency and efficacy of business decision-making and business operation which would apply to any publicly listed company. It has operated with the advantages of such things as government guarantees and special government protection and it has operated with the imposition of bureaucratic rules in relation to the recruitment of staff, the payment of staff, appeals and other provisions which are all regarded as appropriate to the Public Service Act but which are entirely inappropriate to the conduct of a business. To use a colloqualism, I dips my lid to those who have valiantly tried to run TAA on something approaching a business basis. Unfortunately, others have been content simply to continue to accept the benefits of TAA's being a quango. Being a quango has considerable advantages. In fact, if one establishes a committee of inquiry into some problem one will find almost certainly that that committee of inquiry will recommend the creation of a quango, a statutory body to overcome the problem. Strange as it may seem, the specification of those people who are to be appointed to the authority is likely to fall within the specification of the people who make the recommendation. It must be a good life in the quangos, otherwise we would not have so many and we would not have so many recommendations for them. Let me go on to say that any measures which can be taken and which are proposed in the current legislation to make TAA more like a publicly listed company, more like a private sector operation, will be supported by the Opposition. The idea that in no circumstances whatsoever must TAA ever be sold is an ideological position about which the parties are identifiably on absolutely opposite sides. That difference is identified as clearly as it can be identified. I understand that my colleague Senator MacGibbon, amongst others, will be speaking in relation to other aspects of that matter, and I will not spend a great deal of time on it. Let me simply put it this way. If TAA is able to be operated as a business, why should it not be operated subject to the Companies Act? Why does the Government have to have either whole ownership or even a majority ownership? Why, for instance, should not the employees of TAA have an opportunity to have an equity holding in the business in which perhaps they are spending their lifetime giving their service? Why should they not benefit from the efficiency which they are able to contribute towards the operation of that business? Why should TAA not have a public company structure, a structure in which shares are available to employees? Why should shares not be available to other Australian citizens who may wish to invest in one of the very good airlines of the world? Why do the taxpayers as a whole have to own TAA, unless we simply say that we want nationalised, centralised ownership of assets not only of airlines but also of other things such as banks and other institutions? The difference is between those who believe that the private enterprise system has been extremely efficient in the various parts of the world in which it has been permitted to operate and those who believe that centrally controlled, government owned enterprise is efficient. If we simply look at the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance as opposed to the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development, we will find the record of the success or otherwise of those two systems. The members of Comecon, the communist, centralised government countries, have an abysmal record of production, an abysmal record of economic growth, an abysmal record of trading practices, an abysmal record of individual rights and an abysmal record as nations. Member nations of the OECD have over a period, by and large, provided to their citizens the greatest freedoms and the greatest opportunity for the increase of wealth and the free participation of those people who are prepared to work a little harder to get a larger share, those who are a little more competent, those who are prepared to take greater risks to get a slightly greater share. The net result, of course, has been a huge difference in the growth rates of the two areas. Unfortunately, I have been suffering from a throat infection and my voice is weakening. There are many other matters in regard to these Bills to which I would have liked to refer in more detail. However, let me try to summarise what I have said. The sale of TAA is a commitment of the Opposition. It does not mean that we would sell it without conditions. It does not mean that we would sell it willy-nilly or for some ideological reason, simply saying that we need to sell it because that is our philosophical position. The reason that we would sell it is that we believe the employees of TAA, the owners, the people of Australia, the taxpayers of Australia and all the future air travellers in Australia will all be better off if it is operated as a public listed company in which the shareholding is available to employees and others and there is adequate protection to ensure that no monopoly situation arises. The scream which is raised regularly when one mentions this question of the sale of TAA is that within a short time we will have a monopoly. Well, we do have trade practices legislation and other forms of legislation which are designed to prevent or to limit monopolies. It would be extremely easy, when forming the public company TAA, to ensure that it could not be taken over by Ansett or by those with a majority holding in Ansett. That is a simple matter, the detail of which one does not need to go into. Anyone who raises that complaint does so only from ignorance of company law and structure, not from any other basis unless it is just simply a scare tactic. From an efficiency point of view I believe, from talks with employees of TAA, members of the Australian National Airlines Commission through to the various sections of staff, hostesses , pilots and others, that most of them would prefer to be free of the semi- Public Service restriction which is imposed on TAA at the moment. Most of them are happy to be free of the Commonwealth superannuation scheme, its huge imposition and its limitation on the way in which they are able to operate that airline. Again I indicate that the comments I have made are not by way of criticism of the efficiency, operation or competency of the general staff of TAA. I compliment them for running what I believe is one of the world's great airlines. I just wish they could have an opportunity to make it a greater airline. The way in which that could happen is by the privatisation of TAA, by enabling it to be operated as a public company, free from restrictions other than those imposed on all other operators of public companies or all operators in that sector of business activity. The Bill which goes some way towards introducing some of the measures which the former Government had in mind and which gives TAA greater freedom and greater opportunity to operate will be warmly supported by the Opposition. But the Bill which states that under no circumstances whatsoever should TAA ever be able to be sold-in other words, under no circumstances whatsoever should it ever be given a real chance-the Opposition will be opposing and voting against. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(11.30) —I hold the previous speaker, Senator Peter Rae, in very high regard. I believe that what he has just said was said in genuine innocence of the impact that his words will have on the management and staff of Trans Australia Airlines. Prior to my election to the Senate I was a management consultant. The task of some management consultants is to endeavour to resolve the problems, usually long term problems, of companies, corporate bodies and organisations. I can tell this Senate and Senator Rae that there is no more destructive force in any organisation than uncertainty-of not knowing where the organisation is going, of not having a corporate goal, of not having a structure which everybody understands and within which everybody can work harmoniously so that people can see ahead opportunities for their advancement and their future livelihood. Senator Rae has announced that the Opposition intends to keep TAA dangling between privatisation and its proposed status. Until an election several years hence, when the possibility looms of the Government changing, everybody in TAA will wonder what their future destiny will be. The threat that was made was not just an indication that the Opposition parties would have a look at it. To pretend that it was not put into ideological terms is complete nonsense. An analogy was drawn of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance vis-a-vis the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. If that was not an ideological concept I do not know what is. We are looking at TAA, an enterprise which, almost from the outset, or within five years of its commencement, had its arms and legs tied behind its back. It is an enterprise which had the faith and the confidence of the people of Australia. As Senator Rae has just said, it is one of the world's finest airlines, one of which we should be proud. But from 1951 on-bear in mind that it was only five years old then-steps were taken against it to ensure that it could never compete on its own terms with the transport industries around Australia, not just the other airlines but also other transport industries. In 1951 the two-airlines policy was introduced by the Menzies Government-many of us know the politics of that-which ensured that the airline which was to become Ansett Airlines of Australia, one of the Menzies' Government's great support enterprises, was given every possible advantage over the airline which was owned by the Government and the people of Australia. I think that a balance was subsequently reached. I am not suggesting that we now have a situation where one airline has a competitive edge given to it by this Parliament over the other airline. What we have now is something a lot less satisfactory as far as the travellers, the consumers of Australia, are concerned. We have a two-airlines agreement which was reinforced only a couple of years ago by the Fraser Government and which is to continue for another 10 years-- Senator Peter Rae —Eight. Senator JACK EVANS —I am sorry, to continue for another eight years. It will ensure that there will not be free and open competition. Incidentally, this threat of privatisation is not novel. It has been hanging over the heads of the management and staff of TAA since 1979 when back benchers of the Liberal Party of Australia started to put on the pressure for privatisation. In September 1980 , when the new airlines agreement was negotiated, it became evident that privatisation was not feasible. Legislation was prepared and introduced to this Parliament only hours before the Parliament was dissolved, as it happened, which could have given a degree of stability to TAA. Following the election and following the additional pressure that was put on by the back bench of the Liberal Party, legislation was introduced which was seen by TAA management and staff as the first step towards selling off Australia's national airline to the highest bidder. That highest bidder, of course, could have been an enterprise or an individual with very close links to the sole competitor that TAA has. This would have destroyed any possibility of reasonable competition in the airline industry in Australia probably for the next couple of decades. I know that Senator Rae will quote trade practices legislation to suggest that that could not happen but the things that happen, despite the trade practices legislation in this country, give one no confidence at all that it could not possibly happen when pressure is put on a political party in government by one of its strongest supporters. This debate should have much more to do with the major Bill-the Australian National Airlines Commission Retention Bill 1984-which is before us. The upgrading of management through restructuring TAA, through giving TAA the sorts of guidelines and the sorts of freedoms which have been given to Australia's shipping and Australia's national railway enterprise, will enable it to compete more effectively and to become more efficient and profitable. It has already turned that profit corner to indicate that the enthusiasm is there under a government which has expressed overly its 100 per cent support for the enterprise as it now exists. The proposed restructuring will change the role of government in its powers over the airline and that changed role will ensure that the airline provides the Government with its plans, short and long term, its budgets, short and long term, and its corporate plans for restructuring and even for extending its corporate body or functions. It will be given more autonomy as a result of which it will be held to be more responsible for its actions and thus it will become more competitive out in the market-place. That is a very desirable thing from the point of view of Australia's travellers. Whether we like it or not, air travel is already a major part of our economic system as well as our communications and transportation systems. We rely on it heavily and we will rely on it much more in the future. It has to be improved and this legislation gives the potential for that improvement. The sorts of improvements that can come about as a result of sound financial planning are the ability to set its own profit targets, its dividend targets and its own corporate plans. TAA will be given borrowing powers, powers which will enable the Government to provide guarantees and powers which will enable the new body to get the funds that it needs to build a substantial airline for this country's future. I believe the changes that will come about as a result of this legislation will result in a rejuvenated airline in TAA. I think that that will flow on to a more competitive Ansett, an airline for which I have great respect. Frankly, I think that Australians should be as proud of Ansett as they are of TAA because Ansett has proven to be one of the world's leading airlines. I think that Ansett and TAA are two enterprises for which all Australians should feel great pride. Sure, they let us down from time to time. That is inevitable with a major enterprise. One of the fascinating things that have been revealed over the years is that the totally private enterprise airline-Ansett-makes as many little errors along the way and as many major blunders along the way as does the public enterprise TAA. When people in this country talk about the virtues of private enterprise vis-a-vis the virtues of public enterprise that usually wraps up the debate. One is able to demonstrate quite clearly that it is the size of the enterprise which interferes with its competence, not whether it is a private enterprise or a public enterprise. I am sure that the people who work with and even those who work for Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd are as conscious of the handicaps from which that enterprise suffers as are the people who work for the Public Service and other major employers suffering from those kinds of handicaps. However, TAA and Ansett are similar sized enterprises and comparisons can be made. I take my hat off to both of them. I think that despite their size they are both admirable enterprises. I do not believe that anybody is in a position to say that one is better than the other and as a result to argue that therefore private enterprise is better than public enterprise or that public enterprise is better than private enterprise. This country has the benefits of both. It is important that we retain those benefits and that the people of Australia-every man, woman and child in this country-do have shares in one of those airlines and that every man , woman and child in this country has the right to purchase shares in the other airline. What better blend could one have for a country which is a mixed economy country? I support-I believe it has the support of the Australian Democrats-the Government not just for taking off some of the shackles from TAA with its new restructuring, with the new proposals that are coming through for TAA, but also for its endeavour today to take away the sword of Damocles that a lot of people see with TAA as the potential for privatisation. I guess we all know that if the Government changes in several years time that threat may be reintroduced because the legislation which is being repealed can be reintroduced at that time by a new government. However, that is something down the track; it is something that can be debated at that time. Do not let us leave that sword dangling for the next four years under the present Government, which has made it quite clear that it wants TAA to go along as it has up until now, unfettered and with the wholehearted support of whichever party is in government. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(11.43) —This morning in the Senate we are speaking on two Bills, the Australian National Airlines Amendment Bill 1984 and the Australian National Airlines Commission Retention Bill 1984. The second reading speech of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) has been dealt with most effectively in this place by Senator Peter Rae and the second reading speech of the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) has been dealt with equally as effectively in the House of Representatives by the honourable member for North Sydney, Mr Spender, who answered many of the fabrications in the argument put forward by the Government, particularly in respect of the repeal of the legislation on the conversion of Trans Australia Airlines to a public company. The speech we have just heard from Senator Jack Evans of the Australian Democrats lacked depth of knowledge of the commercial world and it failed to understand the historical perspective of airline operations in Australia since the Airlines Agreements Act came into force. The claim that there is an uncertainty about the future of TAA and that this has led to a fall in morale is not true. Uncertainty happens to be part of commercial life. Companies are bought, sold and taken over every day of the week. Companies rise and go to the top of the tree; companies go bankrupt and disappear from the commercial scene. There is nothing static about commercial life in any way at all. Because of that one must run a management system that provides incentives for people to perform and win the prize and one has to have an inbuilt censure scheme which the market -place provides, for failure. One of the great fallacies in the Democrats' argument of preaching parity between a government instrumentality, which is guaranteed against going broke, while competing in the market-place, and a public company is the lack of censure of the government instrumentality. The public company cannot take on a statutory authority which is guaranteed by the resources of the country against going broke. That is the fundamental point that is avoided in the argument by the Democrats. The details in the Bill and the second reading speech by the Minister were very adequately handled by Senator Rae, particularly the point about superannuation. That is a mess that the Labor Party got us into with Trans Australia Airlines during the Whitlam years. It is an enormous albatross around the Australian taxpayers' neck and something we will be working off for the next 20 or 30 years . I will deal with generalities since this is the second reading debate on this Bill. I pose the question: What is the place of the Government in the airline industry? I would argue very strongly that the Government has only two interests in the regulation of airlines in this country. The first is the maintenance of safety and the second is the preservation of the public interest in ensuring that the best deal is available for the travelling public, both with respect to the range of services offered and the fares paid. Australia is a very much overlegislated country. We have an obsession to legislate on and regulate everything we can. This is no more clearly demonstrated than in the regulation of the airline industry. There is no case at all for abandoning all government interests and involvement in the airline industry. If we go to absolutely unbridled competition, operators will run at a loss in the short term to drive their competitors out of business and the great fears that have been expressed by the Labor Party that we would end up with a monopoly situation will come about. On the road to that monopoly situation we would go through a period of unprofitability. I have been involved in aviation for the whole of my life and there is one thing I hold above all else, that is, that a profitable airline is a safe airline. The converse is hardly ever true. An unprofitable airline is not often a safe airline. The first thing an airline does when the profits go down is to cut its maintenance and operational costs. The relationship between the profitability of an airline and safety is absolute and linked inexorably. Therefore, the Government has a responsibility to see that no unbridled eighteenth century capitalism operates in the market place with respect to airlines; so some degree of regulation is required. I now move to another point-the promotion of the public interest. Probably, the very worst way of promoting the public interest is to design a monopoly situation in the market-place. That is what we have in Australia. We might have two airlines-Tweedledum and Tweedledee. We might call it a duopoly but essentially we have a monopoly in the airline system in Australia. There is an element to this monopoly that is not often appreciated and that element is unfair to TAA. Nearly every commuter airline, third level airline and other operator in the country is a sub-company of Ansett Airlines of Australia. Air New South Wales, Airlines of Western Australia and the other commuters around Australia are nearly all sub-companies of Ansett or beholden to Ansett financially in some way. The only two companies I can think of that are not part of the Ansett net are Sunstate Airlines in Queensland, the small south-east Queensland operator, and Air Queensland, although Air Queensland has a marketing arrangement with Ansett and it feeds into the Ansett net. This gives a very great advantage to Ansett over TAA. Although we have essentially a duopoly on the trunk routes, beneath the surface one partner has an unfair advantage. I would certainly like to see the Australian airline scene opened up so that at all levels there is competition in the market-place. There has been very little discussion in this place on deregulation of the Australian airlines. I believe that the place of deregulation is limited in Australia. It has worked very well in the United States of America because it has led to a shake-out on a rational economic basis. Small towns had big airliners going into them because of historical reasons or government directives that that should be the route served if the airliner wanted a licence to operate . All that has gone. The needs of the market dictate the type of aircraft and the frequency of service. It is an uncomfortable period for some operators. Certainly, quite a few airlines in the United States are in difficulties. Some have gone broke. But the net result, two or three years down the track, and certainly 10 years down the track, will be an efficient airline service in the United States at a fair market cost. It will serve the needs of the community at a cost that the community can pay. We are different in Australia insofar as our population is about one-tenth of that of the United States and we could not go to complete deregulation. But consistent with what I said earlier about this being a much over-regulated country, particularly with respect to aviation, there is a lot of regulation that we could look at and remove from the operations of the airlines. I would like to see, as much as possible, market forces enter into the airline structure of Australia. We always have a problem with remote areas. The classic case is western Queensland. The correct approach is not to allow a major airline to cross- subsidise within the major route structure the cost of running non-economic services. The correct approach is to subsidise directly, as we have in Queensland, the airline to provide that service. That way we know what it is costing the community. We can monitor the situation and there is no unfair transfer of an uneconomic route to the travelling public. The Opposition will not support the Bill which seeks to repeal the public company status of Trans Australia Airlines. The Government's view on this is very muddled. It is saying on the one hand that it wants TAA to be efficient, yet on the other hand it is making it a statutory authority, a body which simply cannot operate in the hard commercial airline world. I am at a loss to understand why it does not see what is going on in Qantas. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) talked proudly of the achievement of Qantas and its profit margin in the last financial year. That is a very great achievement but Qantas is a public company; it is not a statutory authority. By structuring TAA as a public company the management practices and the whole operation of the airline would be able to compete better with Ansett if that is the purpose that the Government seeks to attain. The problems with operating as a statutory authority are simply that there are no censures and rewards for its management. The manager of TAA gets a salary that the Remuneration Tribunal determines. It does not have the ability to go into the market place, find out what Ansett , or any other airline, is paying for its managers, and compete by buying the best people in the business to run the airline. It is tied up with Public Service rules. My experience, having talked to many pilots, hostesses and ground employees of TAA is that they would much rather be in some sort of company structure which allowed them to compete with Ansett. They do not want to be public servants. I have yet to meet an employee of TAA who wants to see the company run as a statutory authority. This is the point that the Democrats fail to understand-this business of censure and reward and of being able to operate in the market-place. The problem we have at the present time with the structure of airlines in Australia is cost. The airlines are not using the equipment they have, the aircraft they own. They are parked against fences or leased out to other airlines around the world simply because there are not enough people flying in Australia today because of the high cost of travel. That cost of travel in turn is so high because of a lack of direct competition between the airlines. The Airlines Agreement Act 1981, as it operates in Australia, provides that the fare structures will be set at the level that the less efficient of the two airlines needs to make a profit. That was why in 1981 I led the fight in the Senate against the Airlines Agreement Bill, because it did not provide for competition between TAA and Ansett. One can get competition only if there is parity between the airlines. One airline is a statutory authority and the other is a public company and both have to be placed on an equal footing. Either we have to have two statutory authorities-which means nationalising Ansett, which is absolutely impossible under the Australian Constitution-or we have to take the only alternative, which is to put TAA on a basis of parity with the public company. That means that TAA must become a public company and preferably it should be sold, and sold to its employees. But we cannot have a public company competing with a statutory authority which is guaranteed solvency, no matter how irresponsibly and how recklessly it is operated. That is the crux of the whole point. The Opposition will not agree to that. When I opposed that Bill in 1981 I foresaw that without competition costs would get out of hand. The government airline in this country must be put on a basis of parity with Ansett, or whichever is the private operator, and the need for a two-airline Act avoided. More than that, we have to have the opportunity and the ability for new airlines to come in to challenge them if the need arises. Until we do that we will be stuck with high air fares in Australia for as far as we can see into the future. We are a big country; we have big distances to cover. An efficient transport system, whether it is in the air or on the ground, is absolutely vital to us, from both a business point of view and a social point of view. In going back to creating TAA as a statutory authority we are getting the worst of all possible worlds. We are doing a very great disservice to the Australian community because we are guaranteeing that high costs are going to be an inherent part of the system. Like Senator Peter Rae, I have a very great admiration and respect for the way TAA operates, but if we look at the constitution of the TAA board we see it does not have the level of commercially successful people that the other airlines have. This is vitally important. It is very hard to promote public servants to the board of a statutory authority and then demand that they have the commercial judgment that takes a lifetime to acquire and which has to be exercised every day, because judgment is something that cannot be held in abeyance and used once every five or 10 years when major equipment comes along. An example is the problem which TAA has at present in relation to the Airbus. The Airbus is not a bad aircraft but blind Freddie knew at the time of its acquisition that the Boeing 767 was coming along and that it would be a far more economic aircraft to operate and therefore a far more profitable one. TAA bought the Airbus and it has two which it cannot use. The profitability of TAA's Airbus just does not bear comparison with the profitability of Ansett's 767, but TAA bought the Airbus in good faith. I believe it did that because in that field of expertise of commercial judgment the members of its board did not have the experience that the opposition board had. That is quite a distinct and different thing from the business of running the aircraft with respect to safe operating practices and running a good airline from the passenger's point of view. In summary, I reaffirm that the Opposition will support the first of these Bills but we will oppose the second Bill, for the repeal of the Australian National Airlines Act. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(12.00) —The Government accepts the need to place the government airline, Trans Australia Airlines, on an equal basis with that of the private sector airline. To that extent we make no apology for introducing both the Australian National Airlines Commission Retention Bill 1984 and the Australian National Airlines Amendment Bill 1984 and debating them in a cognate way. One of the Bills establishes the government airline on an equitable and commercial basis that will enable it to fulfil its important function as part of the existing two airlines arrangements in this country. The Government recognises that over the last 30 or 40 years, as we have moved into a very highly developed economy, airline travel, from the point of view of business, government and Australian citizens, has become an integral part of that economy. Therefore, it is in the interests of all citizens , and particularly of the government, to establish an environment in which the government airline can operate efficiently and can fulfil its statutory function . Unfortunately an ideological and philosophical approach by the Liberal Party and the National Party places them at variance with the Government's view. We have set about in the legislation to improve the effective management and function of TAA and at the same time to remove the threat that hangs over that airline as a result of the previous Government's legislation. The purpose of the legislation, in short, is to create an environment of stability and an environment based upon proper commercial practices. I appreciate the view that Senator Peter Rae expressed on behalf of the Opposition. It is a view that he has constantly presented over the years, but it is a view that leads us down the track of privatisation, of deregulation. The Government believes that ultimately this approach to the transport industry, especially airlines, would be detrimental to all Australian citizens. The purpose of the legislation is to put beyond any doubt the future of our publicly owned airline, to create a stable situation and to create a management and corporate plan that will result in TAA being an even more efficient airline that it is today. Of course, that is part of a policy commitment. It ought to be drawn to the attention of Opposition spokespersons that the Labor Government has an electoral commitment to defend, protect, enhance and strengthen the public airline. We are repealing the legislation that the previous Government introduced not only to fulfil an electoral commitment but also to place beyond any doubt in the foreseeable future any threat to the stability that is essential if the airline is to fulfil its public function. I think it has to be said that in most of the post-war years the public airline has been placed at a disadvantage compared to the private airline. Government policies have been designed to give favourable treatment to the private airline over our publicly owned airline, TAA. That has created problems from the point of view of the management, morale and efficiency of the organisation. The legislation seeks to establish an environment in which there will be complete equity between the operation of the public airline and the operation of the private airline. Of course, a whole number of complex matters are involved in the legislation. We are pleased that at least the Opposition concedes that the previous Government's injection of $28m and the subsequent $90m which this Government gave to TAA were steps in the direction of providing a capital base for the publicly owned airline that would enable it more effectively to carry out its statutory obligations not only on its own behalf but also on behalf of the Parliament and the people of this country. There is no doubt that the arrangements involving superannuation and all of the other management problems were affected by previous governments' legislative inhibitions in respect of TAA. The $130m improvement in the capital base of TAA gives the management an effective and responsible role in the day to day affairs of the organisation. It gives TAA the essential flexibility and the opportunity to fulfil the earlier hopes and aspirations that were held when the organisation was established in the immediate post-war years. Consequently, under the arrangements which are proposed by the Government, TAA will be able to operate on strictly commercial grounds. It will be able to compete with the private airline in the spirit to which, of course, Sir Robert Menzies gave credence, back in the 1950s. I think it is sad to see that the more important progressive concept about effective competition between the private and public sectors that Sir Robert Menzies had when he was leading the Liberal Party seems to have been thrown overboard by the Liberal Party in more recent years. The Liberal Party believes that all the problems facing the economy can be solved by the use of the magical word 'privatisation'. We have seen this happen in the United Kingdom where Mrs Thatcher believes that even the medical services of the armed forces in that country ought to be handed over to the private sector, that somehow or other this will make a contribution to the very difficult economic conditions that exist in the United Kingdom. So what we are seeking to do-and I am acting under a great deal of restraint in terms of time-is to give TAA a lot more commercial responsibility and not to put that organisation under the thumb of the Minister of the day. As we can probably anticipate that a Labor government will be around for a large number of years I think the uncertainty and confusion that the Australian Democrats' spokesman, Senator Jack Evans, spoke about will largely dissipate and disappear. That, itself, will be an important ingredient in the changes that are envisaged in the legislation itself. The legislation is designed to give TAA more freedom to borrow. It places less emphasis on the organisation in relation to budget income . It looks at the organisation's responsibilities on the same basis as those of the private sector. In other words, the Government has absolutely no input that inhibits the operation of the private airline. Therefore, if we are to have a proper competitive position, the same principle should apply in respect of the government airline and that has largely been achieved by this legislation. The Government accepts the underlying principle that we live in a mixed economy and that we should act in such a way as to remove all of the difficulties, obstacles, inhibitions and restrictions that would otherwise apply in respect of the effective operation of our national airways, our national railways, and our national sea transport and to place them at no disadvantage compared with the private sector. If we are to have a competitive society, surely it is proper for the government to take every legislative step available to it to create that sort of environment. I think it is a matter of pride that Australia can say that TAA has no peer in the world in respect of its safety record and its efficiency. I think that is a great testimony to those who have carried on the management of this organisation over the years particularly in the face of attitudes of governments which take a philosophical position different from that of the Labor Party and which have endeavoured to place some restraints and restrictions upon the way in which the organisation operates. The injection of funds will have the effect of creating confidence, commercial viability and a better staff environment in terms of an improvement in morale and a degree of certainty. In the final analysis all of this will add up to a more efficient organisation and that, of course, should be the objective of a government, whatever its political complexion. We have put forward this legislation not only as a means of realising those objectives but also as a means of putting our government airline in a position where it can compete with the private sector on the basis of equality, equity and fairness in its operations. A number of Government members who wanted to extend the debate to cover the private and public sectors have voluntarily withdrawn from the discussion on this Bill. We are endeavouring to expedite the business of the Senate so that we will not still be here at the commencement of the Budget session. The passage of the legislation before the Senate is assured because of the support of the Australian Democrats. However, I think that an opportunity will be presented at some other time if honourable senators want to continue the philosophical debate . The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —The question is: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator Peter Rae —Mr Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. I think the questions should be put separately because, as has been indicated, the Opposition proposes to support one Bill and oppose the other. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Is that the wish of the Senate? There being no objection, it is so ordered. Question put: That the Australian National Airlines Commission Retention Bill 1984 be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Bolkus, N. Haines, J. Childs, B. K. Hearn, J. M. Coates, J. Jones, G. N. Coleman, R. N. McClelland, DouglasColston, M. A. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Cook, P. F. S. Macklin, M. J. Crowley, R. A. Mason, C. V. J. Elstob, R. C. Primmer, C. G. Evans, Gareth Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Robertson, E. A. Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Martin, K. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J. Carrick, Sir John Rae, PeterChaney, F. M. Reid, M. E. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Scott, D. B. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Watson, J. O. W. Lajovic, M. E. Withers, R. G. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The PRESIDENT —The question now is that the Australian National Airlines Amendment Bill 1984 be read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bills. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(12.21) — We are dealing with the Bills cognately. I propose to speak briefly to the National Airlines Commission Retention Bill. I refer to the fact that a report is available in the Parliamentary Library by Price Waterhouse, Potter Partners and Blake and Riggall-accountants, stockbrokers and solicitors-all three of whom are among the most outstanding in their various fields. The report, which is dated December 1982, comprises some 376 pages. It is entitled 'The Practicalities of Selling Shares in TAA'. It deals with a large number of the issues to which some reference was made during the earlier debate. That public document, which is available in the Parliamentary Library, covers many of the questions which I thought were rather misguidedly raised by Senator Jack Evans. I also refer to the fact that Thomas N. Quinn and Associates prepared a document in October 1980-I have a copy; it is not a public document-which comprises some 300 pages. That was also an assessment of the practicality of creating Trans Australia Airlines as a public company. The report supports the conclusions reached by Blake and Riggall, Potter Partners and Price Waterhouse. I simply refer those reports to honourable senators. It is not as if consideration has not been given to this question. I do not raise the matter for the purpose of debate; it is for information on the record that consideration has been given by experts as to whether it is a practical proposition. What we are advocating is regarded as a practical proposition. We recognise that it will not happen during the currency of this Government. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(12.23) —I make a very brief comment in relation to a matter that was raised in earlier discussion. A claim was made on the other side of the chamber that there was a lack of expertise in the management of Trans Australia Airlines, particularly in relation to the replacement of aircraft. Ever since TAA's inception it has been recognised by those connected with airlines and the aircraft industry that TAA has, in many instances, set the pace with its innovative and sensible introduction of new aircraft types into Australia for the benefit of airline travellers. I think that its replacement program, when one looks at it since its inception, reflects very creditably on the management of those involved in the devising of replacement programs within TAA. It is true that the introduction of the Airbus, which was predicated on a very modest and moderate increase in airline traffic, coincided with the very dramatic downturn in the airline industry throughout Australia coincident with and part and parcel of the downturn in economic activity generally. That was an unfortunate coincidence in the introduction of that aircraft into that situation. I believe it ought to be said just by way of some balance that in general the replacement program pursued by the TAA management has been to the great benefit of airline passengers throughout Australia and, in my view, reflects credit on the TAA management. Bills agreed to. Bills reported without amendment; report adopted. Motion (by Senator Gietzelt) proposed: That the Bills be now read a third time. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(12.26) —I simply reaffirm that the Opposition opposes the Australian National Airlines Commission Retention Bill but does not propose to divide the Senate again. I make it quite clear that, in not dividing at the Committee stage, we were not doing anything other then saving time and that, in not dividing now, we are not doing anything other than saving time. We have expressed our views quite clearly. In summary, if the purposes and objectives outlined by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) for Trans Australia Airlines are to be most successfully carried through, that could be done by making it a public company and not a statutory authority. That is the fundamental difference. I indicate that the Australian National Airlines Amendment Bill is a regrettable second best in the opinion of the Opposition. However, we do not oppose it. We continue to oppose, but without dividing, the repeal of our 1981 Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a third time. Senator Peter Rae —May it be recorded that the Opposition voted against the Australian National Airlines Commission Retention Bill without dividing. Both questions were put together. So the record is clear, I want it noted that the Opposition voted against the Retention Bill and for the second Bill. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Senator Rae's comments are so recorded. [COGNATE BILL: LOCAL GOVERNMENT (PERSONAL INCOME TAX SHARING) AMENDMENT BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 9 May, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(12.27) —Am I to understand that there is to be a cognate debate on the States (Tax Sharing and Health Grants) Amendment Bill and the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Is that the wish of the Senate? There being no objection, it is so ordered. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — As I understand it, the cognate debate is simply for the purpose of handling the business of the Senate. The Opposition has no objection to debating these Bills in a cognate manner although there is very little relationship between them. The States (Tax Sharing and Health Grants) Amendment Bill has two separate purposes. It amends the States (Tax Sharing and Health Grants) Act 1981 under which is determined the amount of general purpose payments to the States in the form of tax sharing grants and identified health grants until 30 June 1985. It provides for the distribution of the total amount of those grants among the States. The history of the Bill is that, at the May 1981 Premiers Conference, the Commonwealth announced its intention to transfer to the States certain pathology laboratories which it operated and to increase the States' tax sharing grants by an amount representing the estimated cost of operating the laboratories. Except for Western Australia, the States have not taken over the laboratories, as had been thought at that Premiers Conference. At the June-July 1983 Premiers Conference, the Commonwealth indicated its intention to remove the anomaly. It was agreed with the States that an appropriate adjustment would be made to apply from 1 July 1984. Subsequently, it was agreed that the adjustment should be made by decreasing the amount of the identified health grants to which the affected States are entitled. This Bill puts that decision into effect. The Bill amends the tax sharing grants with the States to give effect to that agreement in relation to the 1984-85 financial year. The amount of the adjustment comprises amounts which were agreed at the June-July 1983 Premiers Conference as representing the value in 1983-84 of the 1981 increase in payments increased in accordance with the increase in the consumer price index in 1984-85 . The indexation arrangements applied are the same as apply to other amounts adjusted for price increases under the principal Act. The arrangements for tax sharing and identified health grants embodied in the principal Act cease to operate on 30 June 1985. The principal Act requires that the Commonwealth shall consult with the States to review the provisions of the Act. It is anticipated that new legislation to give effect to the results of those consultations is unlikely to be enacted until some time after June 1985. This Bill, therefore, amends the principal Act to allow the Treasurer to continue the regular payments to the States-in other words, it is a Supply type of Bill-until the new legislation comes into force. This amendment Bill allows for the payment to each State during the six months from 1 July 1985 of one-half of the sum of the guaranteed minimum amount of the tax sharing grant and the identified health grant payable to each State in 1984-85. The Opposition does not oppose the Bills that are before us. However, this debate gives us an opportunity to make some comments with regard to the tax sharing arrangements with the States and the provisions of the Medicare agreements. The basis of the arrangements between the States and the Commonwealth Government when Medicare was introduced was the that the Commonwealth would pay a substantial sum-about $700m-to the States if they would agree to provide free out-patient services regardless of people's means and to provide free hospital beds for Medicare patients regardless of their means. The bed day charges for privately insured patients were to be reduced from an average $120 a day to $80 a day for a bed in a public hospital. We argue that that is not a particularly fair proposal but it is a proposal that is embodied in the Medicare arrangements. The Commonwealth Government estimated that there would be an increase of about 4 per cent in out-patient services and a drop of about 4 per cent in the number of privately insured patients in public hospitals. Those patients are financially significant for hospital revenue. The State health Ministers estimated that the drop in revenues from privately insured patients would be in the order of 14 per cent or 15 per cent. Evidence available to us suggests that out-patient numbers in private hospitals have risen by about 15 per cent, as predicated by the State Ministers, and the number of insured in-patients has fallen by about 10 per cent. Medicare arrangements require, in relation to a privately insured patient who is in some great difficulty in a public hospital, a certificate at the end of 35 days-previously this was 60 days-declaring that the patient requires acute care. It is public knowledge that many doctors are reluctant to risk a $10,000 fine or five years in gaol by signing such certificates. The effect of that is that many patients who would previously have stayed for more than 35 days at the full reimbursement rate from the private funds have now had their rates of reimbursement reduced, further reducing the revenues of the public hospitals. The end result is that the public hospitals now have a larger proportion of non- paying patients and many more patients are sent out after 35 days who would previously have stayed a little longer and paid through private funds. The States are still incurring the cost of treating those patients but are losing revenue at a far greater rate than was estimated by the Federal Government under its Medicare plans. It is reported that State Ministers feel that they will be seeking greatly increased revenue grants from the Commonwealth over the ensuing year. The supply that is to be granted under this Bill will doubtless be insufficient for the full costs that they will incur. Of course, this is another instance of Medicare arrangements resulting in costings that have, perhaps, not been dealt with accurately in the first instance. We may find in the case of the States grants for their hospital arrangements that there will need to be further upward adjustments to cover the actual experience as against what had been thought would be the outcome of the changes. It has been said with regard to other Bills that the Medicare levy of one per cent is raising about 12.5 per cent of the cost of Medicare. It is nothing more than a contribution towards it, because health care costs are about $8 billion and the Medicare levy of one per cent is raising about $1 billion. So it can easily be seen that the Medicare levy must be increased so that it is a more realistic contribution, or the general tax must be increased, or other changes in financial arrangements must be made in order to make contributions relate more closely to the cost of health care. I think it is fair to say in regard to the Bills that are before us that one of the objectives of Medicare was to affect the private hospitals. This has been achieved by offering people a bed in a public hospital, without choice of doctor , free of charge, regardless of their means. It has also been achieved by charging privately insured patients $80 a day for a bed in a public hospital, which would cost an uninsured person nothing under Medicare arrangements. The privately insured patient is further disadvantaged by the Government's categorisation of all the private hospitals to reduce the refund a patient can obtain through insurance and, of course, the application of the 35-day rule that I mentioned earlier. There certainly has been in most cases a drop of some 30 per cent in occupancy rates in private hospitals since the introduction of Medicare. This has resulted in long waiting periods in public hospitals. It may be recalled that quite recently in Victoria the private hospitals were offering about 1,000 beds to the Government in that State to cover the difficulties that people were having in gaining admission to public hospitals in Victoria. I say on behalf of the Opposition that we do not oppose the tax sharing arrangements that are to give effect to the supply of funds to the States, pending the arrangements and consultations that must be held with them by the Government. But we use this opportunity to point out some of the difficulties, particularly in the private and public hospital systems as a result of the introduction of the Medicare arrangements. The other Bill that is being dealt with cognately on this occasion is the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1984. Quite shortly, the purpose of this Bill is to seek amendments consequential upon the introduction of the prescribed payments system to allow payments made under that system to be taken into account in the amount of personal income tax which formulates the basis of local government tax sharing. As I understand it, an extra $2m to $3m will be available for distribution to local governments as a result of the measures that are contained in the Bill before us. Again, the Opposition does not oppose the Government's measure which will share with the local governments in the States the effects of the prescribed payments tax system. But at the end of the second reading debate on the Bill I will move an amendment to the effect that the Senate notes the Government's failure to honour its pre-election promise in regard to the level of funding of general grants to local government. I commend that proposed amendment to the Senate as a statement of the disappointment of local governments at the failure of the Government to honour its pre-election promise and their expectations with regard to the level of funding that they would have secured after the change of government in view of the promises that had been made. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.40) —I do not intend to delay the passage of this legislation or to reply to anything that Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle has said, except in regard to the amendment which she will move. She did not explain why the Government is alleged to have broken its pre-election promises. But I recall questions being asked on this subject last year and, in the absence of any explanation, I assume that the Opposition is asserting that the Government failed to honour pre-election promises to maintain the level of funding to local government in real terms. In fact, that promise has been honoured. The Opposition used an inappropriate or false analysis in support of its assertion that the promise to maintain the level of funding in real terms had not been honoured. In fact, in 1983-84 payments to local government increased by 8.2 per cent. The Opposition used the consumer price index June on June figure, I think it was-June 1983 on June 1982 figure-and said that that was the appropriate deflator to apply to local government payments. Of course, the appropriate deflator to apply to payments to local government is the year on year change in the CPI or whatever other index is chosen to be used. The year on year increase in the CPI-this is for 1983-84 on 1982-83-cannot, of course, be finally determined at this stage because the year is not finished. But it will certainly be below 8.2 per cent. Looking further ahead to 1984-85, it is not possible to determine now what will be the levels of payment to local government in 1984-85 and therefore it is not possible to determine the percentage increase in those payments compared with those for 1983-84. However, it is apparent that the consumer price index year on year figure for 1984-85 on 1983-84 will be below 5 per cent. Even more appropriately, probably, to local government is the fact that the increase in wages-this is based on the assumption that the incomes policy holds, and there is every indication that that will be the case-which is a very important component of local government expenditure, as it is of State government expenditures, over the next financial year will be minimal. The reason is that, because of the Medicare effect, the CPI increase for the six months ended June will be very low and therefore the wage adjustment made next September will be very low. That wage adjustment will determine the level of wages paid for six months in the next financial year and the prevailing level of wages will apply for the first three months. So it is apparent that the consumer price index for 1984-85 on 1983-84 will be below 5 per cent. The wages index-probably a more appropriate index to use for local government-will be even lower. Therefore, although it cannot be positively determined now, there is every likelihood that payments to local government under these tax sharing arrangements will again be more than maintained in real terms provided that the appropriate and logical deflator is used. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 29 May, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(12.46) — I take this opportunity to move the amendment to the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill that has been circulated in my name. In view of time constraints, the Opposition does not propose to call a division on the amendment. I move: At end of motion, add 'but the Senate notes the Government's failure to honour its pre-election promise in regard to the level of funding of general grants to local government'. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Motion (by Senator Walsh) agreed to: That unless otherwise ordered, until 2 p.m. this day matters of public interest may be raised and discussed by senators, providing that no senator shall speak for more than 15 minutes. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(12.48) —On 3 May I asked a question without notice in relation to the use of in-line amusement machines which are being used for illegal gambling in Queensland. My question was not directed at the illegal gambling which is a responsibility of Queensland State Government authorities; rather, it was directed at the alleged tax evasion by the promoters of these machines. My question read as follows: My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer, relates to publicity about in-line amusement machines being used for illegal gambling in Queensland. Does this illegal but apparently officially condoned gambling involve a cash business with a turnover of several million dollars a year? Has the Australian Taxation Office investigated whether tax is being avoided by the promoters of these machines? If not, will the Taxation Office undertake the necessary investigations to determine whether taxation is being avoided by those associated with the machines? Senator Walsh, the Minister representing the Treasurer, replied to my question as follows: I have a note from the Treasurer about this matter in which I am told that he is unable-and therefore I am unable-to confirm whether there is an illegal, but officially condoned, gambling industry in Queensland, as Senator Colston suggests or believes. The Commissioner for Taxation has advised that he is unaware of any particular gambling activities involving amusement machines in Queensland, which may also be associated with tax avoidance. As a general rule, the Commissioner seeks to ensure that tax legally payable in relation to any activity is paid. If the honourable senator has any detailed information regarding allegations that tax is being evaded or avoided, the Commissioner will , of course, be pleased to receive such information. I add that I will be very happy to pass on to the Treasurer a request that he sees that the matter is investigated promptly, particularly if Senator Colston can supply some more specific information such as particular locations and activities. I first comment on the suggestion that I supply some specific information such as particular locations and activities. This seems hardly necessary. Any person in Queensland who has read the newspapers or watched television news over the past few months would know that the in-line amusement machines are being used in clubs throughout the State. They are as much a form of gambling as poker machines and, although illegal under Queensland law, are allowed to flourish almost unhindered. Tax officers in Queensland would not need to be provided with particular locations. They have only to walk into clubs in Queensland to see the in-line machines in operation. I am not sure what the Minister meant by activities. However, it is generally known that the promoters of these machines take a large percentage of the profits. The net profits made by the clubs are shown in their annual reports, but to my knowledge there is no record of commissions paid out to the promoters. Information I have received suggests that $3m is paid out annually to the promoters and no records are held of that $3m. If tax is being paid on that money, I would be surprised. The evidence to support what I have said is available in clubs' annual reports. Those reports outline what the clubs receive from their in-line machine operations. The answer which I received in reply to my question of 3 May was, at best, evasive. I do not attach any blame to the Minister for the supply of an answer which denied any knowledge of what is going on in Queensland. I do, however, blame the public servants who provided the information for the answer. The whole matter surrounding the amusements machines and the condoning of what is illegal gambling smells of corruption in Queensland. If the Australian Taxation Office does not follow up what could be significant tax evasion or avoidance in Queensland, the conclusion which will inevitably be drawn is that someone in that office is also on the take. I do not believe that this would happen in our Taxation Office, but to show its bona fides, some work in this area is obviously necessary. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(12.53) —I take this opportunity to talk briefly about Aboriginal teachers' aides. Aboriginal teachers' aides are, of course, those mostly young Aboriginal people who have had some training in teaching and are used quite extensively in the remote areas of Australia, in the bush, on isolated settlements and cattle stations, where Aboriginal teachers are used to teach not only the children of their own race, but also of their own tribe and clan. I understand that quite a problem is developing. I take the opportunity of discussing it today in the hope that the Federal Government will understand that it is most necessary that this project continue. I understand that a considerable number of Aboriginal teachers' aide positions in the remote areas, particularly in the Northern Territory, may be lost due to the lack of support, as it appears, of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Clyde Holding. The positions were originally created to fill vacancies created by Aboriginal teachers' aides moving away to teacher training colleges, such as the college at Batchelor. So, what has happened there is that the Aboriginal teachers have gone into Batchelor to the Teacher Training College, and to help to ensure some continuity in educating young Aboriginal children, teacher's aides have been brought in. Situations have been created for these people to come in to take the place of the Aboriginal teachers who have gone on to the colleges. At present, 40 teachers are involved. Their salaries have been paid through a Commonwealth Government grant. However, I understand that this grant expires at the end of June-this month. With the expiration of this grant, there will be a loss of these positions, which will severely handicap education in remote areas. I understand that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has been advised by the Northern Territory Government and that the Chief Minister, Mr Paul Everingham, wrote to Mr Holding on 10 May requesting an extension of the grant, which is a serious and urgent need. As yet there has been no response. Time is passing, and we are coming closer and closer to the end of the period, the end of June. The Commonwealth funding, until now, has paid the salaries of these teacher's aides, through the special grant. I understand that the Territory Government covers the operational expenses. The Territory Government contributes, for instance, on the operational expenses side, $302,000. It is seeking $388,000 from the Commonwealth Government to continue paying the salaries of these young Aboriginal teaching aides. The situation is becoming serious because the Northern Territory cannot afford to continue employing these aides without Commonwealth support. An extension of the grant would allow time for the Federal Government to decide whether it supports recommendations of the Australian Education Council regarding funding for outstations. As I understand it, those recommendations were contained in a paper prepared by the Council last year, before the working party which was chaired and co-ordinated by the Northern Territory Government. I am not sure whether the paper has gone to the Commonwealth Schools Commission, which ultimately could make recommendations to the relevant Minister. It was not a specific paper, I understand, regarding funding for outstations. It would have been mentioned only on a general basis. I do not think there is too much concern there that there would be some thought that education at outstations would not be funded. I do not think that anyone would go as far as that, because it is most necessary for Aboriginal schools to be funded and we must ensure that the funds continue to flow. Perhaps there has been an oversight. I do not believe that anyone would cut off funds for this essential educational work. If the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has decided that funding will not be provided, I call on the Government to review that decision. If Commonwealth funding is not forthcoming, it is obvious that this will mean cutting off this service to some Aboriginal communities. If that happened, it would affect the more remote and, therefore, the more needy communities in the Northern Territory. I should like to make a few comments about employment, comments that go a little further afield, too. I noticed the other day in a Dateline News Digest of Tuesday, 5 June, that it was said that the Federal Government was taking a number of steps to help remedy the high drop-out rate of Aboriginal students in Australian tertiary institutions. That comment was attributed to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Susan Ryan. That is excellent. But bearing in mind that action is being taken in relation to that, surely funds can be made available for Aboriginal people down at the grass roots in the remote areas, where it is essential that they get some basic education. This matter concerns me greatly, because if this scheme is not funded, a group of young Aboriginal people will not be employed. Like so many thousands of their kind in the remote areas, they will go on to unemployment benefits. As part of my work in representing the Northern Territory, I undertake a considerable amount of travel through the outback, to Aboriginal settlements, outstations, pastoral leases, and so on. I have done that over the last few weeks, during which I have covered many thousands of miles in visiting various people. I was very concerned to see the continuing trend of unemployment on Aboriginal settlements, particularly among young people. Vast sums of unemployment money have been going into these areas so that people can sustain themselves. Matters have reached such a point now that many of the younger Aboriginals-I have spoken about this problem before-believe that if they take a temporary job, that will be a threat to their receiving the unemployment benefit . They see that by accepting work now, that will cut them off from the unemployment benefit, and they believe that the Government does not really want them to work. When I say 'Government' I am referring not to the present Government specifically but to the authority which is the Federal government. I am not blaming a Labor government or a coalition government, or whatever; it is a Federal matter. The situation has been remedied to some degree. Under the community development employment projects scheme, a vote of money is put into an Aboriginal settlement and from there the people within the settlement get employment and are paid through their council. This is extremely good. It helps in projects such as farming, gardening, fishing, animal husbandry, and so on. It helps to give the people some work and some pride. The possible non-funding of these young teachers will put more on to the unemployed heap. That will not be nice to see. Government spends very many millions of dollars on Aboriginal matters. In some areas I believe that the money is wasted; but I shall not go into that matter now. I believe that there should be a review of government funding and that measures should be taken to see that it is better spent. There is considerable room for that. One area in which I am sure there should be continued funding is the salaries of Aboriginal teachers. I hope that I am making a mountain out of a molehill. However, there have been indications that the Government will not fund such teachers. I cannot believe that, so I have taken this opportunity of speaking today in the hope that if the Government decided not to fund the salaries concerned, it will reconsider the matter. If the Government decides to continue this funding, will it please tell all those authorities involved in the education of Aboriginal children? Otherwise, at the end of this month the whole scheme will collapse for lack of funds. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(1.05) —I have recently completed an operation in Western Australia which I have found very helpful to me in my political activities. I asked 5,000 Western Australians-a random sample of people right across the State-for their views on a variety of current issues either before this Parliament or likely to come before the Parliament in the near future. I have been delighted with the response. I take this opportunity of thanking those people who contributed by completing the questionnaire and who may be listening for taking the time to let me have their views. The invitation is issued here to all Western Australians to get in touch with me to let me have their views on current issues of concern to them so that as a senator from that State I can truly represent the whole perspective of views in Western Australia. I am introducing that point so that I can talk about a matter of great concern to me. One of the questions on the questionnaire related to people's opinions of Australian politicians. It may not be news to the public of Australia, nor even news to us as politicians, to know that we are unfavourably regarded by 74 1/2 per cent of the people who responded to my questionnaire. Only 17 per cent had a favourable impression of Australian politicians. A small group of 8 1/2 per cent had no opinion, which may be even worse than having an unfavourable opinion of politicians. My concern comes about because of the lack of understanding of politics and politicians in this nation. There is a lack of public awareness of what politics is about and of what we as politicians are endeavouring to do. This lack of awareness results particularly from the lack of public debate in any depth of the political issues in the community. I do not mean that nobody is involved in any debate. However, the great majority of Australians do not get involved in the political debates of the moment. I think that is easy to understand. As far as politics is concerned we have developed in this country a system of leave it to father. Here it is a case of going to the polling booth once every three years and electing somebody. I think most people would life that somebody to be a father figure. I am being deliberately sexist because it has been the pattern to elect a Joh Bjelke-Petersen, a Charles Court, a Malcolm Fraser or a Bob Hawke to let him solve all the problems for the next three years. I think Australians certainly are mature enough to be able to solve the great bulk of political problems themselves or at least to have some input to the solution of those problems. I think it is time that we, as a parliament, matured to the point of passing a Bill giving people the right to get into the debate on the issues of the day. I instance the citizenship initiative Bill introduced on a couple of occasions by Senator Mason which has been feared by major political parties in this country. Those parties voted against the Bill because they are afraid of the possibility of Australians being able to initiate legislation-even constitutional reform-through the process of citizens' initiative. This is simply an initiative which, for example, 100,000 or 200,000 people can take by signing petitions to the Parliament and getting a referendum on that subject. In that way everybody gets a chance to participate in a vote on that issue. This is not a mammoth or insurmountable task for the Parliament to undertake. The people of Switzerland have been doing that for years. The opportunity is provided to the people of Switzerland once every six months to put forward subjects for citizens' vote-a referendum. That matter then is voted on by people at large. That result has an impact on the Parliament in that the Parliament is forced to legislate in the way the people want it to legislate. The alternative is to stay with the status quo and let somebody else make all our decisions. With my short experience I have not met anybody in this Parliament who has the supreme, all knowing capability with the wisdom of the world, of saying: 'This is absolutely right. I know that the people of Australia support what I am saying and what I am doing'. We need the sort of input that I am getting from my people in Western Australia. More importantly, we need the sort of input involving all of the voters across Australia which a referendum would provide us with. The problem stems not from this Parliament which could alleviate the problem to a degree but from the whole system of political education in schools. I really should say the lack of political education in schools. In the United States training in politics is regarded as a responsibility of every citizen. That is a democratic approach. The system that we have is the sort of system we would expect in a totalitarian country. The system is so pathetically weak that it is left to a few educators to determine whether there will be any training in schools in the political system. Far worse is that this society and the pressure groups within it have made quite sure there is no way that schoolchildren will be allowed to consider, debate or discuss party politics. That is the tragedy. Party politics are taboo in our schools. It is verboten for a teacher to introduce debates on important issues in party political terms. A teacher does this at the risk of ostracism within the school or the community. It is very difficult in most schools to get debate going by inviting politicians from several parties, giving them the opportunity in front of children to raise issues and to speak in blatantly party political terms, and allowing those children to be inducted into the real world of party politics. As a result of this, immense social issues such as unemployment and the attitudes of governments to the unemployed, the whole social welfare system, for example, pensions for the elderly and benefits to unemployed people, and issues such as the mining of uranium are kept from debate by young people in schools. Of course , as honourable senators would expect, debates on matters such as proportional representation, which would introduce real democracy in the lower houses of parliament around Australia, are very rarely considered in a blatant party political manner within the schools. I make a plea to parliaments, communities and educators around Australia to let our children get into the political debate early. We should let them get an awareness of the issues, social and otherwise, that are being considered by the parliaments around Australia. We should encourage them to become involved, not just in the debates but in the political parties. We should encourage them to join political parties. They should not just leave it to the party hacks, the power brokers. They should get into political parties and use their influence within the political party system. If our young people are to have that sort of attitude, it has to be encouraged early in their lives-at the very latest at the secondary education level-so that we do not have this apathy which is becoming even more prevalent in the tertiary education system and the post-secondary era, whether it be in schools or out in the community at large. There is an apathy on the part of people towards politics and politicians. The only way that we will upgrade the status of politicians and politics in this country is by getting a wider cross-section of people involved. The only way to achieve that is to encourage them and facilitate involvement in party political debating and discussions at schools. Balance, I agree, is necessary, but balance not to the point of exclusion but to the point of inclusion of all points of view. My appeal is not just to parliamentarians; it is to the people of Australia. We should encourage our young people to get into politics, into the political debates of the day and have an influence on the decisions that are made in this Parliament and other parliaments around Australia. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(1.17) —An editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald this week headed 'Loud noises heard offstage' stated: Once again voices of alarm are being raised about the arts funding policies of the Federal Government and the Australia Council. This time the voices are those of Australia's major theatrical bodies, and in particular the Australian Opera and the Australian Ballet. In recent weeks the annual reports of both the Australian Opera and the Australian Ballet have been released. They have contained statements which have contributed to the publication of some views of fears for the future of the Australian Opera and the Australian Ballet. For some months now apprehension has been felt about the attitude of the Australia Council and what pressures the Federal Government may be putting on it in respect of our national opera and ballet companies. That apprehension has indeed grown to the point of alarm. It is not only the opera company and the ballet company that are feeling alarm. The rumours, as they have grown stronger, have fed public debate and a real concern at the possibility that we will see in Australia a downgrading of the standards of the Australian Opera and the Australian Ballet because of funding cuts. I believe all Australians who take any notice at all of things cultural are very proud of the standing that these two companies have both within Australia and overseas. Both companies have toured overseas with great success. All Australians who have read in the newspapers of their success have felt very proud that we have in our country companies of this standard. Of course, they are not the only artistic standards which receive international acclaim, but they are two which have received particular acclaim. In the 1983 Budget the Hawke Government determined that the Opera and the Ballet were no longer to be funded by one line appropriations; the money for them was to be included in the appropriation for the Australia Council. Of course, that was part of the Australian Labor Party's arts policy. It was something that I, and also Senator David Hamer, had advocated in the Senate on a number of occasions. Our reason for advocating it was that we believed the 'arm' s-length' principle ought to apply to funding of the arts. We did not believe that not having arm's-length funding particularly advantaged the Opera or the Ballet, and I think facts and figures show that out. There is a perception that as a result of one-line funding the Opera and the Ballet had a very lush time indeed with Government grants. Those are not the facts, and I will refer to some figures on that later. However, much as I supported the inclusion of funding for the Opera and the Ballet under the general funding of the Australia Council, I and others who supported it never dreamt that this would become what appears to be a way of getting at the Opera and the Ballet. The amount of money transferred into the Australia Council's vote was the money that those two companies were previously receiving, plus an allowance for inflation. Recently the Music Board published a report on the funding of music in Australia. In that report the Music Board points out that 79 per cent of the funds on which the Music Board made recommendations for 1983-84 went to the Australian Opera. I have not seen anywhere a statement that those are funds that the Music Board would not otherwise have had available to allocate if it had not been for the decision to put the Australian Opera's funding under the Australia Council. A similar position applies to the Theatre Board which has responsibility now for making recommendations for the Australian Ballet. In this context it is interesting to note the attitudes of the Music Board and the Theatre Board in the past towards State opera and ballet companies. During the 1970s when there was pressure on the Boards and on the Australia Council to find areas to cut and for a rearrangement of priorities of funding of different artistic organisations, the Music Board and the Theatre Board took quite different lines on the subject of State companies. The Music Board recommended to the Australia Council, which recommendation was accepted, that there be no funding through the Australia Council of State opera companies. The Theatre Board took a contrary view and recommended to the Australia Council, which recommendation was accepted, that in allocating the funds for theatre there should be some funding of State ballet companies. For whatever reasons, the Music Board and the Theatre Board have therefore given, in my belief, different priorities to opera and ballet. This is not to say that the Australian Ballet is sanguine about its fate at the hands of the Theatre Board in its deliberations, and the Australia Council; it is not. It has reason to be apprehensive. What is the source of the apprehension ? As part of the Labor Party's policy on the arts it said that it would raise the standard of community arts. It is in that context that the debate about funding for our national opera and ballet companies has been taking place. For the Australian Labor Party to implement its policy in relation to community arts , I do not see any necessary incompatibility with the principle of arm's-length funding of the arts. The Sydney Morning Herald editorial, however, makes this statement: The Federal Government is entitled to expect that the Australia Council, although an independent statutory authority, would take the ALP arts policy seriously, especially since the policy was put together after extensive consultation with the arts community. But what is open to question is whether this emphasis on community arts should be at the expense of the established arts organisations. For a variety of reasons the impression is strong that that is this Government's intention and the intention of the present Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen). A debate has been stimulated on the issue of excellence in the arts versus elitism in the arts. This is a phoney argument. I argue strongly that we should support excellence in the arts. I argue strongly that this is not an elitist policy. If it is necessary to justify that, the Australian Opera can make an excellent justification. It can point out that through such things as its free concerts in the park and its simulcasts, it has reached millions of Australians in areas where they are easily reached and without the expense of high cost tickets. The Ballet could point out that its problem is not one of support from the community, but a very practical one. Last Thursday the Australian Ballet opened its Canberra season. There was not one empty seat in the Canberra Theatre. The tickets cost $35. One would think that $ 35 would be the price limit of a single ticket but, as I said, there was not an empty seat. The Ballet could have sold more tickets for that performance; nevertheless, it performed at a loss, the reason being that the Ballet does not have venues which enable it to perform at a profit. The Australian Ballet will be transferring its Melbourne performances from the Princess Theatre to the new and very splendiferous Arts Centre. The Princess Theatre is hopeless for performing ballet. The Arts Centre will be excellent for that purpose. However, the Ballet will pay something like three times as much rent a week. Yet still that great Arts Centre does not have enough seats in its theatres to enable the Australian Ballet to put on performances at a profit. That is the bind in which the Australian Ballet is caught, and not because of a lack of community or public support. We face a hard decision on whether we want national companies with a standard of excellence. I refer to a letter that was written to the editor of the Australian, as this issue has been debated during recent weeks. It was written by Phillip Edmiston, who is the Artistic Director of the Queensland Marionette Theatre, a theatre organisation with which I am familiar. I also know well the value of its contribution to the arts. Mr Edmiston says: I am part of one of the smaller Australian arts companies (unfunded by the Federal Government, despite lengthy and costly submissions to the Australia Council) who battles on giving performances throughout Australia. To cut funding to the Australian Opera and Australian Ballet is madness. These companies don't need less, they need more. Access and participation in the arts by all sections of the community is a fine thing, but at the expense of our flagship companies it is a bizarre nightmare. The nightmare has been posed by inciting phoney rivalry between flagship companies and community arts groups. I reiterate: The Labor Party is entitled to implement its arts policy. That policy is to stimulate community arts. Well and good. But if it faces a situation, as I believe it will, whereby community arts do not receive the level of funding the Government would like under the present general level of funding, the Government must face the hard issue of either increasing funding to the Australia Council or putting pressure on the Australia Council to downgrade the Opera and the Ballet. It is my belief that the Government has chosen the second option. There is a need for excellence in the arts today. If the Australian Opera and the Australian Ballet are put in a position where they must decline we will once again see a talent drain of our most talented and inspired singers and performers overseas. We will lose the inspiration that those people give to younger, aspiring performers and the general standard of performance of opera and the dance in Australia will decline . The Chairman of the Australian Ballet, Sir Robert Southey, said: Any slackening in real terms of that support-- that is, Government support- must have most damaging effects, not only on artistic standards but also on employment within the company and in the orchestras and theatres throughout Australia on which we depend. The Australian Ballet and Australian Opera find themselves in a financial bind because they are labour intensive. During the last decade, the Ballet's total expenditure has increased by 310 per cent. Its earned income has increased by 360 per cent. Government support has increased by 170 per cent. The reasons that the Ballet cannot run at a profit and is still in deficit-a point I made before- are firstly, the lack of venues that would enable it to get enough people in its audiences to run at a profit and, secondly, that it is labour intensive. During the last six years the Australian Opera's total expenditure has increased by 118 per cent. Its box office takings have increased by 128 per cent. Contributions have increased by over 300 per cent. Any improvement has certainly been due to self-help. Government support has increased by only 47 per cent. So the Australian Ballet and the Australian Opera have not received lush Government treatment. They have tried very hard indeed to do the best they can. Of course, they have been further hindered by the absolutely inexplicable decision of the Victorian Government to cut out funding to both of them. In conclusion, I reiterate: The alarm that is felt at the prospect of the possible downgrading of those two great companies is not confined to members of the Australian Opera and the Australian Ballet. My final words are a quotation, once again, from the Sydney Morning Herald editorial, which states: The artistic standards achieved by the major companies over many years are too great a cultural heritage to be put in jeopardy by a sudden change in funding emphasis. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(1.33) —On 29 May a letter was sent to all honourable senators from a company called Red Ru Pipeline Construction Co. Pty Ltd attached to which was a brochure concerning the auction of a large amount of earthmoving equipment. The letter started: This letter is not a whinge . . . it is a cry of Protest! I believe that an Australian company that does the right thing: does not lie, cheat nor bribe; displays technical and business competency, and builds a magnificent company as had Red Ru-deserves a fair go. I believe that that letter is important. I shall outline the chronology leading up to the receipt of that letter by honourable senators so that they may have some understanding of what, in fact, has gone on. The story begins in 1981 when oil was discovered in south-western Queensland. Ron Nicholas, the Managing Director of Red Ru, had the idea that a pipeline ought to be built from the Jackson oil fields in south-western Queensland to Brisbane. The alternative, of course, was to pipe down through South Australia. He put the proposition to the Queensland Government, which was delighted and sought other proposals. At that stage, Red Ru was favoured to win the $100m job. In September 1982 Red Ru started discussions with Tubemakers-BHP regarding accelerated deliveries so that the pipeline could move on the proposed schedule. Red Ru then submitted its proposal for the project to the Queensland Government. It was accepted by that Government on 25 October 1982. Red Ru then applied for a licence to construct, own and operate the 700-kilometre pipeline from the Jackson oil fields to Brisbane. The licence was granted on 29 November 1982. At that stage, the Korean multinational ICC was approached and taken on to help finance and assure markets . ICC wanted to own and control the entire operation but Red Ru was unwilling to relinquish that to ICC. Tubemakers-BHP was also involved at that time, as were other companies. Interest was expressed by a number of other development companies in this area as this was seen as something which would get off the ground. In January 1983 Red Ru approached Tubemakers-BHP regarding a partnership to operate and build part of the pipeline. Then comes a very important event. On 29 January 1983 an article appeared in the Courier-Mail, the information obviously being leaked from the Premier's Department, regarding rumours about Red Ru. On 3 February 1983 at a conference between Red Ru and ICC, the Korean multinational, ICC agreed to take 25 per cent equity. On 11 February that year a second article appeared, which talked about Government worries, possible deadlines being unable to be met, and a variety of other matters which would obviously have concerned people involved in this area. On 13 February a meeting took place between Red Ru and Tubemakers-BHP, confirming their partnership for 50 per cent of the project equity. So we had the multinational, ICC, with 25 per cent and Tubemakers-BHP, controlled by the largest Australian company, linked in with Red Ru, taking 50 per cent. This agreement was the substance of a letter which was sent to the Premier on 14 February. It was not sent through the ordinary mail but was delivered personally , along with other documents. The Queensland Cabinet met on the following day and the Red Ru proposal was not tabled. This has been confirmed by two senior Cabinet Ministers present at the Cabinet meeting. In addition, a Treasury memo was tabled which said that Red Ru had applied unsuccessfully for a Department of Industrial Development loan. The Red Ru management has denied, and denied emphatically, that no loan guarantee had ever been applied for. At that Cabinet meeting, without the documents regarding the involvement of BHP and ICC and with a document saying that Red Ru had not got a loan, the Cabinet rescinded the 29 November 1982 invitation to Red Ru. On 16 February 1983 a telex from the Premier of Queensland to Mr Nicholas, the Managing Director of Red Ru, stated that there would now be four partners, each with 25 per cent equity. Invitations had been sent to a number of other possible partners, and they were given 48 hours to accept. The following day, 17 February , Red Ru acknowledged the situation, since there were no other options to the 4 x 25 per cent corporate structure. A telex noted the assumption that the 25 October 1982 proposal by Red Ru, accepted by the Government, remained, except for the change in its tariff agreement. Three hours later the Premier's Department replied saying that that assumption was not correct. The proposal of 25 October, as accepted by the Queensland Government on 29 November, had been totally rescinded. It took a telex from Red Ru to find out 48 hours later what precisely had gone on. On 18 February Red Ru wrote to the Premier accepting the conditions that were now laid down and reaffirming its willingness to take up the 100 per cent equity that it had originally been offered and granted. On 21 February the Queensland Premier telexed Red Ru and stated that after Cabinet reconsideration work on the Jackson pipeline would be shared in the following manner: Twenty-five per cent to ICC and Moonie Oil Co. Ltd and 50 per cent to Naccowlah Block Partners. Red Ru was mentioned indirectly as a possible participant in sub-contracts. There were no direct mentions to Red Ru as to the reasons or any negotiations. On 1 March a protest was made to a senior Government Minister about the matter. That Minister was astonished to find that Tubemakers-BHP had formed a partnership with Red Ru of which the Minister said he knew nothing. He advised that a letter be sent to the Premier, the Minister for Mines and Energy, the Treasurer and the Co-ordinator General. No reply to that telex was ever received . On 6 March, no reply having been received, Red Ru sought an interview with another senior Minister, who was also astonished by the events that had taken place. Of the other intervening movements, the important one occurred on 30 May when ICC, the Korean company, pulled out, leaving 25 per cent equity free. ICC was forced to pull out because the Federal Government had rejected the Korean firm's participation. So 25 per cent equity was now available. An offer was made to Red Ru of 8 1/3 per cent, to Bridge Oil Ltd of 8 1/3 per cent and to Westfield Oil of 8 1/3 per cent. Red Ru was encouraged to apply for a loan guarantee and did so on 30 August. On 2 November the Courier-Mail ran an article saying that Red Ru had been denied the loan guarantee. This was not confirmed to Red Ru until it received a letter on 8 November, six days later. Red Ru telexed the Premier and reinforced its claim to the 8 1/3 per cent equity and its desire to go to the marketplace. But this was ignored and the entire 25 per cent went to a shelf company comprising Bridge Oil and Westfield Oil. So what had happened was that Red Ru had started out with an innovative and go- ahead idea and with 100 per cent equity. The Premier had then intervened and Red Ru got 25 per cent equity. After the next intervention Red Ru had no equity, but the possibility of some contract work. Then the entire contract work was given out to others. Questions which are important for Australian companies have to be asked. They are important for companies which wish to get on and work for the development of Australia and which find operations such as that which I have just chronicled taking place. Those questions are: Why did a Queensland-based pipeline construction company investing in a $150m project and employing over 600 people get squeezed out totally? Why are documents which were vital to its interests not tabled? Why was misleading information which was detrimental to the commercial interests of the company circulated by government departments? These are matters of importance. They ultimately come down to a question which still has to be answered. The Queensland Government had accepted the idea on the development and had encouraged Red Ru to gear up, as every senator would have seen from that brochure which listed the equipment available to undertake that project. In two months it had gone from having a licence, the equipment and the commercial linkages to go ahead with that project, to having nothing. If that can happen to one company it can obviously happen to many more. I believe that we have not heard the last of this incident. I think it gives pause to many companies in Australia-companies such as the one to which I have referred, an Australian company which, as the Managing Director mentioned in the letter, has sought up and down the line to do the right thing and has found itself in a situation where everything is taken away from it. I think the question at the end of that letter to honourable senators is well worth repeating: Is this the way Australia expects to make it in this competitive world? Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(1.46) —Following the election we were told by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that he would be governing by consensus. The first action of his Government was to change the whole basis of the Constitution. The Chief Judge of the High Court of Australia warned us that the decision to override the powers of the Tasmanian Government in stopping that Government building the Franklin Dam would for all time interfere with the everyday freedoms of the individuals in the various States. That matter has not finished. A headline in the Canberra Times today states 'New fight begins over dams in South-West Tasmania'. The point is that once the conservationists got a taste of blood they would continue the fight. They will put much more pressure on the Government and, if they do not win, the Government had better look out. That is what that is all about. We know that the external affairs power will be used in many ways, particularly in association with my State. Tasmania has been told that it has two years in which to introduce a sex discrimination Bill and that if it does not the Commonwealth will introduce its own legislation. We have been told that if we do not introduce Aboriginal land rights even though we have no Aborigines living in their traditional state, Aboriginal land rights will also be introduced to our State. We are right back to the problems that we had during the Whitlam era. Whenever a Labor government takes control of the country the standards of the country deteriorate. We can perhaps start with the passage of the Family Law Act. The Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) decided that divorce by post would save the Government a lot of money. So he introduced divorce by post. Divorce by post, of course, means that a couple intending to divorce has to separate for only 12 months, that following that separation one fills a form in and in due course is told: 'Mrs So and So . . .' or 'Mr Jones, your divorce came through on such and such a day'. Now, with one in every two and a half marriages ending in divorce last year we find the Attorney-General suddenly becoming very concerned about the divorce rate. He is spending $100,000 in trying to overcome the problem. We have television series telling us that divorce does not do the family much good. But, of course, he introduced divorce by post. We then come to the Sex Discrimination Bill. While I am certainly in favour of a sex discrimination Bill because I believe there is discrimination in certain areas in Australia against some women, we do not want that sort of Bill. We were told by both Senator Evans and Senator Ryan that we were all being hysterical when they brought down their first Bill. You bet we were being hysterical! Eighty-odd amendments later, when the Bill had been rewritten, the Bill was passed-and it was a much better Bill. You bet I was being hysterical about a Bill that needed 80-odd amendments and needed redrafting! Every other Australian should have been equally hysterical. But the Bill as it is now discriminates against people with religious beliefs. It does away with some of the freedoms of religion that we in this country have held so dear, and rightly so. It is not so in other countries. We have a situation in which a person with very firm religious beliefs in the area of marriage, for instance, who owns and is renting a block of units, is not entitled to ask whether a couple wishing to occupy one of the units is married. That person has been told that it has nothing to do with him or her, that there must not be discrimination on the grounds of marital status, even though the matter interferes with religious beliefs. Let me refer to what Senator Giles said during one of the talk-back sessions that she and I had, before the 80-odd amendments, when I was showing concern that church schools would be discriminated against if they were not exempted from the legislation. She said: As I understand it, that particular part of the Bill that relates to those employees-- that is, the church school staff- may in fact be amended, simply to allow for a period of two years, cooling off, phasing in or whatever period . . . I would be very distressed if I thought this Government were to continue to support the very bigoted and biased approach that is still evident in some sections of our education system . . . What right has any government to call some religions bigoted and biased? What right has a government to interfere with our religious freedoms? It is not the place for governments to interfere and never will be but, of course, this Government does not see that in any way at all. We have now had affirmative action, and it was nice to see that the proposal has been watered down and that compliance has been made voluntary-for the present. The Prime Minister and the Cabinet have seen that Senator Ryan made such a hash of the Sex Discrimination Bill and, indeed, of her portfolio of Education in general, that they have watered down the affirmative action considerably. They say they are still committed to legislation in this area but that, of course, will not be seen until after the next election. We will certainly see what occurs then. Another standard that has been lowered in this country is in the area of videos . The Attorney-General told us very proudly that the barriers to hard core pornography have now been lifted. What wonderful freedoms! They are wonderful for whom? We have the Prime Minister, that great man of consensus, changing the national anthem. Not only did he change the national anthem but he also changed the words of the new song that he chose because he found those words to be too sexist. There was no debate in the country regarding this matter; no debate at all. It does not seem to matter whom I speak with, whether with people who really want a new anthem or otherwise; they all believe that there should have been debate, that there is no place in a democracy for one man to make such decisions. Again, we have the change of the oath of allegiance. In this country we have always recognised the Queen as the head of the Commonwealth and now as the Queen of Australia and she has been recognised as such in our oath of allegiance. But this man, this Prime Minister, who believes that this country should be a republic, that there should not be any State governments-he made that very clear in his Boyer Lectures before he was elected to Parliament-says: 'We will change the oath of allegiance and cut out all recognition of the Queen of Australia'. The oath has now become a pledge, nothing more than a pledge. Australia is the only country in the Western world to have such a short period in which people qualify to become citizens. They have to be in the country for only two years. That is the shortest such period required by any country in the world. Most other countries have very long qualifying periods. That is not all. As all honourable senators know, the Special Minister of State , Mr Young, who has been in trouble because he believes in telling his mates all about what is going on rather than keeping to himself matters of secrecy discussed in Cabinet, has made representations to the Remuneration Tribunal to the effect that members of parliament should be allowed to take de facto spouses overseas with them. One after the other, these are all ways in which this Government is lowering the standards of Australia. A decision has yet to be made on changing the Australian flag. Committees have been set up to look at the way in which we should change our flag. There must be some method of debate in this country which would enable us to find out what the people want. This Government has tricked the people. It said, on coming to power, that it would govern with a view to consensus. There has been less consensus under this Government than there has been under any government in the past. Indeed, this Government has been far more draconian in its actions than any other government. When this Government came to power its first action was to take the Tasmanian Government to the High Court of Australia in an attempt to take away its rights. This is hardly a good way for a government to start. It will be the undoing of this Government because, as we have said, the fight is not over. The fight is again depicted in the Canberra Times of today. It carries the headline 'New fight begins over dams in South- West Tasmania'. The Government has a lot to answer for. Fortunately, Mr Hawke is going to an early election, or so we are told. The sooner the better as far as we are concerned because he will then have to answer to the people of Australia. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(1.57) —The period between a quarter to one and two o'clock on Thursday is supposed to be set aside for non-controversial debate. I do not know what the definition of 'non-controversial debate' is, but today Senator Jack Evans, the Australian Democrats senator from Western Australia, introduced one of the most controversial subjects imaginable; that is, the politicisation of school children. I nearly choked on my carrots. I was not going to come into this chamber and talk about anything but that made me ask Senator Walters whether she would mind cutting short her speech to enable me to respond. As I understand it, Senator Jack Evans was decrying the fact that most schools do not permit the partisan indoctrination of students. He also advocated that school children should join political parties and become politically active . That is a most controversial subject. I would condemn such attempts to politicise school children. There is enough pressure on students at the moment to study those subjects which will equip them to get a job and contribute to society. They are experiencing enough problems in that regard without being politicised. I am sure that parents throughout Australia would object to the suggestion that officials of political parties should go into schools and indoctrinate students on any number of issues. Senator Jack Evans suggested that the students should become active in the debate against the mining of uranium. If that is what political parties are going to impose upon the education system, then best we look at all the proposals that are being put at present, including proposals relating to human rights issues, peace studies and the like. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 2 p.m., pursuant to sessional order, the Senate will now proceed to questions without notice. Senator REID —I refer the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs to the $250, 000 advertising campaign which has been launched by the Australian Teachers Federation and the Australian Council of State School Organisations and which claims that Government funding of private schools amounts to a rort and a rip- off. Does the Minister agree with Mr Van Davy of the Teachers Federation that non-government schools are responsible for the divisions in the community, or does she believe that the organisations behind this campaign are themselves guilty of a blatant appeal to sectarianism? Will this sort of campaign help the Government's professed desire to bring Australians together? Does the Minister believe that Mr Van Davy and Mrs Joan Brown of the Council of State School Organisations should remain as members of the Schools Commission, given their support for this virulent attack on the 25 per cent of children attending church and other non-government schools throughout Australia? Senator RYAN —I am aware that the ATF and ACSSO have decided to mount a campaign, I believe demanding a moratorium on private school funding. I understand that that campaign contains a number of criticisms of the previous Government's policies for the funding of non-government schools. I have not yet had the opportunity to examine the material in the campaign, so I cannot make any detailed comment on specific claims that might have been made. I am aware that, generally speaking, the Australian Teachers Federation, supported by ACSSO, believes that there ought to be a moratorium on school funding until matters of equity and so forth are worked out. They are entitled to run that campaign, just as any other group in the community is entitled to campaign for a particular cause. I suppose that the timing of that campaign has been planned by them in an attempt to bring some influence to bear on government at a time of budgetary considerations. As far as ATF and ACSSO are concerned they, as major national education bodies, have had access to me and to the Prime Minister to put their point of view about school funding in response to the Schools Commission's report, along with other major national organisations representing the non-government school sector and the Catholic school sector in particular. A range of national organisations had an opportunity to respond to the Schools Commission's report directly to the Prime Minister and to me and other organisations had the opportunity to respond to me. The views of all these legitimate national organisations are being considered by the Government in the context of its consideration of the Schools Commission's report. As to the position of Van Davy and Joan Brown on the Schools Commission, I have no intention of making any changes of membership in the short term. I do not think any expiry of membership is due for quite a few months yet. I have no intention of making any decisions before a vacancy arises. Then, in the normal course of events, I will look for a new commissioner. Senator JONES —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Treasurer been drawn to the Australian Bureau of Statistics recently published figures that show a strong upsurge in lending by banks on home loans for the purchase and construction of new dwellings? Do these statistics show that bank lending for housing reached a record $540m in April, an increase of 2.6 per cent on the March figure of $527m? Are home loans, totalling $2,035m in the first four months of 1984, up 34.6 per cent on those for the same period in 1983? Will the increase in home loans continue? What effects will this lending have on the building industry, other trades in this area and the economy generally? Senator WALSH —Without doubt the enormous increase in construction activity, particularly in residential building, has made a major contribution to the very high rate of economic growth that will be recorded this financial year, a rate of growth now expected to be in June this year about 10 per cent above what it was in June last year. The growth rate in even the non-farm sector is expected to be 8 per cent, or thereabouts, which is the highest rate of growth that has been recorded since certainly the 1960s and possible even further back. It is very pleasing to the Government, of course, that those growth rates have been achieved and that the housing industry has made a major contribution to them. I think it is worthy of particular note that, according to the most recent figures, housing investment for the March quarter is some 33 per cent-that is, one third higher than it was in the March quarter of the previous year. This demonstrates that the housing policies put in place by this Government have been far more effective than the housing policies of the previous Government. The policy of this Government has aimed public financial assistance at those marginal home buyers whereas the previous Government's approach was to spread, by way of tax expenditures-thereby hiding the real cost as well, of course-the largesse across the whole spectrum. Therefore any given amount of cost to the public, whether hidden as a tax expenditure or overt as a Budget appropriation, would have been less effective under the previous Government's inept policy than it has been under this Government's policy. Even more encouraging is the fact that home loan approvals for May this year are some 70 per cent in round figures higher than they were at the trough level of home loan approvals of March 1982. The stimulus to building activity, of course, has been assisted not only by the better perceptions of the future of the economy that have been generated since this Government has been in power and the specific assistance aimed at marginal home purchasers, but also by the significant fall in interest rates which has occurred in the last 12 months- something over one per cent on average for housing loans. The rate of activity now suggests that the Government's target for dwelling commencements, which was set a year ago at 130,000 to 135,000, will be exceeded in the first half of 1984. The economic stimulus of that will not be confined to the building industry; it will spill over to building supplies industries because the building industry has a fairly large multiplier effect on economic activity in general and therefore will generate substantial employment outside the building industry as well as very substantial employment inside it. Senator PETER BAUME —My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. I refer the Minister to the unprecedented national strike by more than 5,500 academic staff planned for later this month. I ask: Is this action the direct result of the Government's refusal to accept the original decision of the Academic Salaries Tribunal for a 5 per cent pay rise and a reflection of grave concern that the Minister will not be able to deliver on the Australian Labor Party's pre-election promises on education funding? Why did the Government go back to the Tribunal when it had a clear commitment when in opposition to accept the rulings of the Tribunal? Has the Minister seen today's statement from the presidents of the staff associations at Queensland's three universities which is headed 'Academic Morale Shattered by Government Duplicity'? Does she agree with the associations that Labor has kept one of its promises, namely, that it would change the Academic Salaries Tribunal because, according to the associations' presidents, the Government has 'brought the Tribunal to its knees' ? Senator RYAN —I find Senator Baume's series of questions quite extraordinary since he was sitting in the chamber yesterday- Senator Chaney —Try us on the answers. Senator RYAN —It is not unusual, of course, that one has to deal with these extraordinary questions from Senator Baume, who was actually sitting in the chamber yesterday when I explained, quite clearly, what the Government's response was to the Ludeke decision. I refer Senator Baume to that explanation recorded in yesterday's Hansard. He will see that the Government has accepted the Ludeke decision. The Government has accepted that there will be a 5 per cent increase in academic salaries and the Government has accepted the second part of the decision, which came after a further submission from the Government, that that increase will be phased in. The academics will be getting their salary increase. They will be getting a 5 per cent salary increase. The Ludeke decision is that they will get 2 per cent of it in the first 12 months and 3 per cent in the following 12 months. It defies comprehension that Senator Baume should start ranting and raving about rejecting the Ludeke decision. The Ludeke decision, in its two parts, has been accepted: The 5 per cent salary increase decision has been accepted by the Government and the phasing decision-a 2 per cent rise for the first 12 months and 3 per cent rise for the next 12 months-has been accepted . As to the views of the various unions representing academics, I can only tell the Senate that I had a very lengthy and very constructive session with the executive of the Federation of Australian University Staff Associations, the national organisation representing the staff in universities, just this morning. I cannot make any comments on wild claims about unprecedented industrial action. I believe that academics in this country have a lot of good sense. They understand that a decision has been made by a tribunal. Although they may express disappointment that they are not getting their salary increase straight away-that they are getting 2 per cent straight away instead of 5 per cent straight away-I do not believe that there will be any widespread disruption on campuses as a result. In conclusion, it really is an extraordinary performance by Senator Baume suddenly to profess sympathy for academics after the seven years of cutbacks, sacking and reductions for which his Government-the Government of which he was a member-was responsible. The reason higher education institutions in this country are in the difficult condition they are in is to be found if one examines the budgetary decisions in the seven years of the Fraser Government. In capital funding alone for higher education there was a 50 per cent real decrease and there was a 12 per cent real decrease in current funding at a time at which student numbers were increasing. Yet Senator Baume has the hide to come in here and criticise our Government because it has agreed to a two-part decision of the Academic Salaries Tribunal. Senator PETER BAUME —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. My question concerned the decision of the academic staff to go on strike this month. I ask the Minister: Why are 5,500 academics planning to go on strike later this month? Senator RYAN —I am not aware that 5,500 academics are planning to go on strike. That matter was not put to me this morning in my extensive consultations with FAUSA. If such a decision is made, I am sure the academics are quite articulate enough to explain to the world why they are taking that action, if indeed they take it. Senator TATE —Does the Minister for Social Security recall a recent industrial dispute at the Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd in Burnie, Tasmania, during which many workers were stood down for some 11 days? Is it a fact that the unemployment benefit was paid to these workers on a proportional basis which did not take account of the fact that they were rostered for weekend shift work? Is this due to a requirement of law or administrative discretion? In either case, will the Minister give consideration to altering the practice so that shift workers can receive the unemployment benefit in respect of days on which they would have worked had there not been a stand down? Senator GRIMES —Senator Tate drew my attention to the problems which are faced in Burnie and therefore are of great concern to him as the resident senator on this side of the House for the north west coast of Tasmania. First of all I think I should explain that the Social Services Act provides that generally the payment of unemployment benefit commences from and including the seventh day after the day on which a person becomes unemployed or after the day on which the person applies for unemployment benefit, whichever is the later. It also provides that when the period for payment is less than a week the amount to be paid will be one-fifth of the weekly rate for each day not being a Saturday or Sunday in the relevant period. That was introduced in 1976, I believe, because previously the payment was related to a six-day working week benefit and we now have a five-day working week. Following the dispute at APPM at Burnie the employer began standing down employees who were shift workers. The stand-downs commenced on Tuesday, 15 May, and work was resumed on Monday, 28 May. As a result of the seven-day waiting period some shift workers who may have worked on Saturdays and Sundays and had been paid wages for those days qualified for unemployment benefit, but they also qualified for rostered days off at the end of their shifts. The problem in Burnie arose because people at APPM frequently work seven-day shifts. Shift workers who were stood down progressively from 15 to 18 May and who lodged claims for unemployment benefit on the date they were stood down were entitled to payment for up to four days from 22 to 25 May. While a person who starts work on a Saturday or Sunday may be said to have an advantage over a person who starts work on a Monday and also, because he works a seven-day week, may seem to have been disadvantaged in that unemployment benefit week, the disadvantages which arise in that situation spring from the contract of employment and not from the provisions of the Social Security Act, which I do not believe discriminates against shift workers or operates in their favour in these circumstances. Both shift workers and non-shift workers are treated in exactly the same way. However, Senator Tate has put to me the case which arises when people who would have worked a seven-day week in the time they were stood down claim that they may be eligible for more unemployment benefit in those odd days off. I will put that matter to the Department but it seems to me on the face of it that the Act at the moment is fair and does not discriminate. But if it is seen to be discriminatory we will certainly look at changing it. Those people were paid as a result of legislative provisions and not as a result of an administrative action. Senator MASON —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Defence aware of media reports this morning concerning the prospect of up to 50,000 troops of the United States rapid deployment force being permanently based in Australia, most likely in Western Australia? While it is obvious that this proposal is still in the formative stages is it a fact that, firstly, the proposals were conducted under a contract for the United States Army and, secondly, very senior former United States Defense officials were involved? Has the Australian Government been informed of the study? Does the Labor Government support the permanent basing of foreign military bases, including troops, in Australia? Will the Prime Minister's recent statement on United States bases and its outright and unqualified acceptance of those bases act as a precedent for accepting further bases such as this proposal for the rapid deployment force? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am aware of some breathless reporting to this effect occupying the Murdoch Press this morning under the by-line of Peter Samuel in Washington. The answer to it was sufficiently expressed in the terms of a Press release put out by the Minister for Defence, Mr Scholes, today, the terms of which I now quote: The Minister for Defence, Mr Scholes, said today that no approaches have been made to the Government to base US troops in Australia. Commenting on media reports about a United States study suggesting the basing of 50,000 US troops in Western Australia, Mr Scholes said the Government would not agree to such a request if one were to be made. 'There is no foundation for any suggestions that the Government is giving consideration to such a plan', Mr Scholes said. 'There has not been any proposal along these lines and I would be most surprised if one were to eventuate. 'It seems the reports in today's media are based on a paper produced by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies at Georgetown University in Washington. 'Such a study has, of course, no greater authority than any other paper produced in an academic establishment there or elsewhere'. 'It is misleading to suggest that the study is the policy of the United States Government. I think that is a sufficiently comprehensive reply to demolish even the enthusiasm of Senator Mason on this subject. Senator COATES —I ask the Minister for Social Security about the criticism of the Government by a welfare rights group concerning amendments to the Social Security Act which it said take away privacy rights from clients of the Department of Social Security. Can the Minister tell us to what extent those assertions are true? Senator GRIMES —I read reports and had inquiries made about a resolution passed at a welfare rights meeting in the Australian Capital Territory at the weekend which claimed that, among other things, the Government had rushed through the Parliament new powers for officers of the Department of Social Security to investigate cases and that an Australian Capital Territory welfare rights representative said that in 20 cases in the Australian Capital Territory pensioners had been threatened that if they did not give information about other pensioners they would lose their pensions. First of all, I have ascertained since that the matter referred to was section 135TF of the Social Security Legislation Amendment Act, which was not rushed through this Parliament but which was passed by the Parliament unanimously last December. It was introduced in the normal way. There was no rush about it at all . In fact, this is the first time I have heard complaints about this legislation . The first thing to say is that the section is a standard information gathering provision used throughout Commonwealth Government legislation. Section 135TF is, in fact, a rationalisation and consolidation of former sections 16 and 141 of the Social Security Act which have been repealed and which had been in the Act since 1947. Senator Chaney —This explanation should ease their minds. Senator GRIMES —That will help them a lot. This legislation cannot be used to suspend the pension of a pensioner where he refuses to give information about another pensioner. I am amazed that if the welfare rights person who made this claim about the Australian Capital Territory had actually come up against cases like that he had not contacted either the Department or my office to make such a claim. In fact, inquiries with the Australian Capital Territory administration of my Department indicate no justification for such a claim. The difference between section 135TF of the new legislation and sections 16 and 141 of the previous legislation is that information provided in writing under section 135TF is no longer automatically confidential as it was under the previous section 141. This enables clients of the Department to obtain a copy of written information about themselves under the freedom of information legislation. The penalty for non-compliance with section 135TF is $1,000 or imprisonment for six months, which is consistent with similar penalties in other Commonwealth legislation. That level of penalty was set upon the advice of none other than the Attorney-General. Section 135TF extends to seeking information from the pensioner himself, whereas section 141 did not; section 16 did. Section 135TF finds the Crown in right of the Commonwealth and the States- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I take a point of order. I completely understand the wish of the Government senator to have this matter clarified but I suggest that the long, obviously prepared, technical explanation which has been given by the Minister will not help welfare recipients and will not answer the matter. It simply prevents people asking questions which might be of some use to the Australian people. I ask you to ask the Minister to shorten his reply. Senator Grimes —I am surprised that Senator Chaney did not take a point of order when Senator Baume asked a previous long question and a supplementary question. The PRESIDENT —Is the Minister speaking on the point of order? Senator Grimes —I am speaking on the point of order. This matter was raised at a legal conference at the weekend as though we had made technical changes to the legislation, which we had not. The minor technical changes I am now listing. I have only one more sentence. It is important that we make that explanation. The PRESIDENT —It is not for the Chair to rule as to how a Minister should or should not answer a question. He is entitled under custom and practice to answer a question in any way he so chooses. However, I ask Ministers to take on board the necessity to keep their answers brief. Senator GRIMES —I say finally that the persons who can exercise the powers in section 135TF are delegates of the Director-General of Social Security. In practice this was the situation under sections 16 and 141 where registrars could exercise powers under those provisions. In fact it was a consolidation and a technical change to improve the legislation. There were no new draconian powers. I suggest that if people, such as the gentleman concerned, make wild claims about what is happening in the Australian Capital Territory, they should be able to substantiate them; especially, they should make inquiries of the Department or the Minister to make sure that, if any such incidents are occurring, they are corrected. Senator LAJOVIC —I refer the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs to her comments in the Senate on Tuesday when she deplored the fact that only two per cent of professorial positions in Australian universities are held by women. Does the Minister agree that one of the principle limiting factors in improving the numbers of senior female academics is that the present system of academic tenure has locked up available positions for years to come? Is she therefore suggesting that, in order to increase numbers of senior female academics, the practice of tenure will have to be modified or even abandoned? Senator RYAN —There are a number of reasons why we have a situation in our universities where only a little more than 2 per cent of the professors are women. I welcome Senator Lajovic's implication in his question that that is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. Although it is true that in recent years the effect of the tenure system, as in place at the moment, has been to deny opportunities for promotion into the senior academic ranges of newly qualified academics-be they young men or young women coming through their postgraduate work or older women who went back to do their postgraduate work at a later stage in their lives-that is not the only reason why women are so desperately under- represented at the professorial level. I think one has to go back further, to the recent years when we had problems with the tenured system, to find some of the reasons. I suppose the average age of a person becoming a professor is 40, or perhaps a little younger. We have to look at the employment opportunities and promotional practices and decisions about postgraduate fellowships that were made perhaps 20 years ago. At that stage I think there was very widespread discrimination, direct or indirect, against women aspiring to academic careers within most of our universities. Some of those discriminatory practices have disappeared and others have remained; hence the Government's policy on affirmative action. I think there are a number of reasons that have caused the very unsatisfactory situation where only a little more than 2 per cent of professors are women. However, the current situation, where junior staff are untenured and senior staff are tenured, is certainly contributing to the problems of women at a more junior level who are aspiring for promotion through the academic ranks, women who have the research record and the reputation as scholars to be able to hold those aspirations realistically. For this reason the Government is looking seriously at the question of tenure. We have had many discussions since we have been in Government with the Vice-Chancellors Committee, with the Federation of Australian Universities Staff Associations and with the Federation of College Academics. We believe that some sort of change in the structure of employment could loosen up the situation. What changes would be desirable and what changes we would be able to negotiate agreement for with the universities and with the unions is a matter not yet resolved. But I would not deny that the present tenure arrangements are making it even more difficult for women and other young academics to pursue their aspirations towards achieving professorship. Senator CROWLEY —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. I have seen reports in today's papers about proposed industrial action by Family Court of Australia counsellors. Is the Attorney-General aware of the concerns that have led Family Court counsellors to begin a campaign of rolling stoppages? What is the Government's attitude to these concerns? Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes, I am familiar with what is happening with the Family Court counsellors. I make it clear at the outset that I am very sympathetic to their position and very appreciative, as is the Government, of the work done by them which is absolutely central to the success of the Family Court. We recognise the dedication with which they approach that difficult and demanding work. They play a great role in assisting the move towards conciliation and the pre-court resolution of marital disputes, a role which is expanded with the recent amendments to the Family Law Act passed by this chamber earlier this year . As such their position is very well understood. I have written to the Professional Officers Association today setting out the Government's position on the matters that concern the Association, acting as it is on behalf of the counsellors. In the letter I say that I am willing to meet them to discuss the issues in question. I will as briefly as possible describe what some of those issues are and the nature of the Government's response to them. The Public Service Board and the Attorney-General's Department have recently completed a review of the court counsellor structure and a number of improvements have been made. Many of the changes do accord with submissions made by the POA. It is proposed that there be a review of the Board's decisions on classifications and numbers in the light of operational experience. There are a number of matters that have been raised by the Association concerned with the safety of court counsellors and four other major concerns relating respectively to classification of positions, supervision of outlying registries, career structures and members. The main central issue and overriding concern is the pressure on counselling resources and in particular the backlogs in clients' access to counsellors. Anything more than short delays in obtaining access to counselling services is obviously counter-productive. I again repeat that I fully understand the Association's concern in this respect. We are regularly kept informed of the delays that are occurring in various registries. We are closely monitoring those delays and doing our best to overcome them. However, I think it has to be emphasised that we are operating in a financial and staffing environment which is quite significantly less than ideal. The staffing needs of the Family Court at various levels are verging on the critical, not only in the counselling area. I am presently engaged in pre-Budget discussions aimed at securing some degree of relief for the situation. I and the Government are firmly committed to the objective of staffing the Family Court to the level necessary for it to discharge all its vitally important social functions. It is a pity, but I do not think that can be achieved overnight. I think the matters raised by the counsellors could be appropriately considered in the review of the Board's decisions on classifications and numbers which is occurring. But I repeat that I am willing to meet with the counsellors' representatives to fully discuss their concerns. Senator HILL —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Does the Minister share the belief of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, as reported in today's Age newspaper, that there is very little prospect of the Australian Labor Party National Conference agreeing to lift the ban on uranium exports to France? Does the Minister believe that Mr Hayden is correct in assessing his position favouring lifting of the ban as a minority of one within the Party? If the French embargo should remain, will that threaten more than $ 100m worth of coal trade with France alone and potentially hundreds of millions of dollars of trade in other commodities with that country and member nations of the European Economic Community? What plans does the Government have to compensate Australians who would suffer from such trade retaliation? Senator WALSH —I have seen the report of Mr Hayden's comments. I also have in front of me now a Press statement from Mr Hayden, dated yesterday, in which he expressed his serious concern that France has exploded its third nuclear device this year at Muroroa Atoll. The statement went on to say: . . . this latest detonation could only add to the widespread indignation in Australia over the continuation of the French testing program in the South Pacific. I do not think that was widely reported. Indeed, as far as I know, it was not reported at all. It ought to be noted that Mr Hayden has also lodged a protest about what the French are doing. All of his remarks about trade were very carefully put in the context of his expressing a personal opinion. In condemning the detonation of the third nuclear device this year, Mr Hayden was fully in accord with the strong opinions which are held inside and outside the Australian Labor Party that the French behaviour ought not to be accepted by the international community as acceptable behaviour. Many people believe that that protest should be taken to the point where a gesture is made by way of maintaining an embargo on uranium exports to France for as long as that country continues to test nuclear weapons or at least for as long as it continues to test them in the South Pacific, and to do in the South Pacific what everybody knows it would not dare to do in Europe because of the protests from the rest of Europe. The rest of Europe certainly would not accept the detonation of atomic weapons in Europe by France as acceptable. Mr Hayden added, and I believe that this is a fair point to make, that there could, however, be consequences-trade consequences, economic consequences- flowing from a decision to maintain an embargo on uranium exports to France. I believe also that it would be foolish not to consider the possibility of that happening and that essentially was the main point made by Mr Hayden which was reported. The question then arises: Is that price-if there is an economic price- an acceptable trade-off for the protest gesture contemplated? That is a subjective judgment, I suppose, but I would certainly hope that if that ultimately happens those people who are expressing the most morally upright, or what they would claim to be the most morally upright, views on the nuclear industry in general will also be willing to participate in sharing the economic costs of such a decision, if indeed there were to be any economic costs, which is something which is yet to be demonstrated. Senator HILL —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I remind the Minister that I asked whether the Government has made plans to compensate Australians who have suffered and, if so, what are those plans? Senator WALSH —No Australians have suffered and there are no plans. Senator SIBRAA —The Minister representing the Minister for Territories and Local Government would be aware of the acute shortage of land and housing in the Australian Capital Territory and the consequent effect on housing costs. Can he inform the Senate what steps are being taken or are contemplated to ease this crisis? Senator GIETZELT —It is true that there is an acute shortage of serviced land and housing in the Australian Capital Territory. This has had an alarming effect on the cost of accommodation, particularly private rented accommodation. Rent is increasing disproportionately with the inflation rate because of the general shortage of land and accommodation. Of course, this Government inherited that situation which has concerned the Minister whom I represent in this place. Consequently the Minister convened a land and housing conference in March this year at which a number of propositions were put to him and the Government. As a result, more than 1,100 residential leases will be offered for sale at land auctions during June and July and a further 650 sites will be auctioned later this year. Also, the Government, in association with the Housing Industry Association, has approved the construction of something in excess of 550 standard residential and medium density houses. Construction is scheduled to commence in early 1985. It is the Government's intention and certainly the Minister's hope that these initiatives will have an effect upon the rising costs of land, rent and accommodation in Canberra and that during the ensuing 12 months an increasing amount of land will be available which will lead to a depreciation in the costs generally for those who need rented accommodation or wish to purchase land. Senator WALTERS —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In the Labor Government's view which is potentially more harmful to the environment and mankind, and why: A dam in the wilderness in a State with a Liberal government or a uranium mine in a desert in a Labor State? Senator BUTTON —There is a standing order that says that questions should not be hypothetical or seek a hypothetical answer. I wish that there was a standing order saying that questions should not be stupid either and then I would not have to answer this at all. I do not propose to offer any answer to the question in view of the Standing Orders. Senator ZAKHAROV —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware that the Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes Association of Victoria has distributed a leaflet relating to health insurance for long term patients, warning that health insurance funds do not cover patients after 35 days? Can the Minister inform the Senate about insurance arrangements applying to people who require longer than 35 days hospital care? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I have seen a copy of the pamphlet put out by the Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes Association of Victoria whose address is Industry House, 370 St Kilda Road, Melbourne. All one can say about this document is that it is misleading, contains lies and is typical of the scurrilous misrepresentation by this organisation which will do anything and stoop to any depths to denigrate the health insurance scheme. Senator Peter Baume —Which cannot answer back under privilege. That is the difference. Senator GRIMES —For Senator Baume's edification, the front page of the leaflet reads: The sorry story of Medicare and the acutely ill long term patient. Yet, in fact, the document has nothing to do with Medicare and has nothing to do with Medicare patients. It is certainly true that most private health insurance funds in Victoria do not pay supplementary benefits for acute care patients after 35 days. But this does not concern those people with basic private health insurance. People with basic private health insurance can be covered for acute care for 365 days of the year. If a doctor decides after an initial 35 days of acute care in a private hospital that a patient still needs acute care he can fill out a 3B certificate, as it is called, and the hospital will continue to be funded at the acute care rate. In fact, the doctor can continue to fill out 3B forms for patients regarded as needing acute care for as long as they need it- 365 days a year for the rest of their lives if necessary-and the basic rate will continue to be paid. What the leaflet refers to concerns only the small percentage of people with intermediate and top table cover. The Hospital Benefits Association Ltd has, on its latest figures, 36 per cent of the Victorian private insurance market. The Australian Natives Association has 15 per cent. But they both provide only intermediate and top table acute cover care for 35 days a year. Medibank Private , which has 32 per cent of the Victorian market, provides care cover for 75 days a year. So one may well ask people with private insurance at this level which company they should be with. I would like to point out, however, that although the 35 day limit is common in Victoria, many health funds throughout Australia pay acute care cover for at least 60 days a year and they are not suffering financially. The Government and the Minister, Dr Blewett, have been highly critical of the actions of these funds which are causing unnecessary worry and considerable financial hardship for patients. That the Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes Association of Victoria should join in defending these funds by putting out a document which is lying, which contains misrepresentations and which pushes the case of these private health insurance companies which are letting their clients down by not providing the benefits of other companies I think is disgraceful. Because of the concern about this document, Mr Jones, who was the Acting Minister for Health when Dr Blewett was away, wrote to the Voluntary Health Insurance Association of Australia-the association directly representing the private funds-in April urging the funds to amend their rules to increase acute care cover to at least 60 days. He stressed that, if the funds were not prepared to do anything about this, the Government was prepared to do what was necessary to protect the patients and the public. Since then Dr Blewett has met with the head of HBA and has again urged the company to change the rule. The problem in Victoria involves funds such as the HBA and the ANA, not Medicare. The problem has nothing to do with Medicare. The Private Hospitals Association in Victoria knows this. It knew this when it put out this document. It is a misleading and lying political document aimed at denigrating the national health insurance scheme which has, in fact, nothing to do with the problem it is talking about. Senator Jack Evans proceeding to address a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate- Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order, Mr President. The question does not go to the administration of any current portfolio. It is a hypothetical question dealing with the future and it should be ruled out of order. The PRESIDENT —So far the question has nothing to do with ministerial responsibility, but I will hear the rest of the question before I rule on the point of order. Senator JACK EVANS —Thank you, Mr President. Does the Minister believe that it is legitimate for a government whose legislation has been rejected by the Senate to abrogate the powers of the Senate by subsequently attaching identical Bills to a Budget Bill which cannot be amended in the Senate? If so, what would prevent this or any future government from effectively removing all powers of the Senate by including all the Government's controversial measures in its revenue or Supply Bills? The PRESIDENT —I am prepared to allow the second part of the question to go to the Minister on the basis that it relates to procedures in the Senate. I ask the Minister to answer it in his capacity as Leader of the Government in the Senate. The first portion of the question is hypothetical and I rule it out of order. I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Senator BUTTON —Mr President, I am sorry that you let the question go through in anticipation that I would answer it. I will not. The question started with an hypothesis. It asked me to make, in effect, a policy statement about what this Government would do when it was in opposition. I regard that as a hypothetical question of the highest order. I am grateful to Senator Chaney for making that point in this point of order. Having made that general comment, I find the question entirely too difficult for me to answer. Senator Jack Evans —And embarrassing. Senator BUTTON —No, not embarrassing, Senator. If we want to launch into a lengthy debate about this matter let us do it in August when we have a little more time than we have now. Senator REYNOLDS —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology been drawn to a Queensland news report which claims that overseas flights are regularly landing at the Cairns International Airport without any back-up from the Bureau of Meteorology because of serious staff cutbacks in regional offices over the past five years? Will the Minister take steps to have this report investigated urgently with a view to having an immediate review of weather bureau operations in north Queensland, where cyclonic weather conditions dictate that absolute priority be given to staffing and resources? Senator RYAN —I have no information available to me here from the Minister for Science and Technology; so I will refer Senator Reynolds's question to him and seek an early reply. Senator KILGARIFF —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Transport advise when background material used in the preparation of the report of the Hill Independent Economic Inquiry into Transport Services to the Northern Territory, requested by the Northern Territory Government by letter dated 24 May 1984, will be made available under the Freedom of Information Act? The Minister will understand that the Hill independent inquiry was based on the proposed rail link between Alice Springs and Darwin to complete the national rail network from south to north of the Australian continent. Senator GIETZELT —Senator Kilgariff is correct in referring to the importance of that report. He would also appreciate that the report is a matter for the Minister for Transport. It is not a report on which I can make any decision effecting its publication or otherwise. I will certainly draw Senator Kilgariff' s request that it be made a public document to the attention of the Minister for Transport. As to whether the request will be acceded to, that will be entirely a matter for him. Senator ELSTOB —My question, which is addressed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women, refers to the current abortion and birth rate amongst teenage women. Is the Minister aware that over 34,000 teenagers become pregnant each year and that around 20,000 abortions are performed? Given the effects of abortion and the implications that single motherhood is likely to have on the long term future of these young women, does the Minister feel satisfied that the direction of the Government's policy on women's affairs is giving enough attention to these needs of young women? Senator RYAN —I am advised that the figures in Senator Elstob's question are misquoted. They come from a booklet published by the Australian Medical Association called 'Adolescent Health in Australia' by David Bennett. The booklet cites figures estimated by Dr Stephania Siedlecki of the Commonwealth Department of Health. The total estimated number of pregnancies in married and unmarried teenagers is around 34,000. The estimates are that about 50 per cent of these pregnancies result in births and that 40 per cent, or 13,000 to 14,000, result in induced abortions. Other estimates place the number of teenage induced abortions closer to 20,000. The number of births among teenagers has declined by nearly 50 per cent in the last 10 years. About two-thirds of this decline has been due to better contraceptive use which has reduced the total number of pregnancies. South Australian figures indicate that the rate of abortions among teenagers in South Australia increased rapidly between 1976 and 1978, then flattened out, and has been declining in the last two years. The Government's policy is to promote the knowledge and practice of family planning, particularly among teenagers. Family planning associations throughout Australia have paid a great deal of attention to the needs of adolescents and this has been one of the contributing factors in the decline of teenage pregnancies and births. Clearly, with that very constructive record of family planning, I think that the best approach to the question of teenage pregnancies is indicated; that is, to prevent them before they are started. I expect that the Government will continue to increase support for family planning and similar agencies so that the tragedy of teenage pregnancy can be avoided. Senator WATSON —Can the Minister representing the Treasurer advise whether there is any truth in the report in today's Australian newspaper that Hugh Morgan will not be reappointed to the Board of the Reserve Bank of Australia when his term expires on 24 June? Is this not another case of Australian Labor Party vindictiveness against anyone who has the temerity to disagree with Labor Party policy? Is this an indication that public appointments will be undertaken on the basis of Labor Party preference rather than on the basis of a person's merit? Senator WALSH —Mr President-- Senator Grimes —Where have you been over the last seven years? What about Phil Lynch? Senator WALSH —Was he on the Board of the Bank? The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister will answer Senator Watson's question. Senator WALSH —Yes, I believe he was. I have just been reminded that the Stumpy Gully veteran, Sir Phillip Lynch, was appointed to the Reserve Bank Board by the former Government. I do not recall Senator Watson raising any objections that that appointment was based on political bias. To deal with his question proper, I do not know whether there is any truth in the story concerning Mr Morgan. It is not unusual, of course, to change the personnel on the Reserve Bank Board. Senator Watson insinuated that appointments made by this Government to boards such as that are determined by partisan political considerations. I can recall one case off the top of my head: Former Senator Bonner was appointed to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Board by this Government. Perhaps he has been disowned by the Liberal Party and, therefore, that is regarded as a partisan political appointment as well. I think that the record of this Government so far in appointments of that nature has been less partisan than that of its immediate predecessor, if not more distant predecessors. Senator GILES —Is the Minister for Education aware of the report in today's Canberra Times concerning the premature release and selective quotation by Senator Baume of extracts from the Australian Council of Education Research's monograph 'Sex Bias in ASAT?' Does she have any comment to make on it? Senator RYAN —I am aware of the report. I must say that it is regrettable that the Canberra Times article and its heading are misleading. No doubt this is due to the performance of Senator Baume in this place yesterday. In the first place it would seem that Senator Baume has been characteristically very selective in his quotations from and interpretations of the ACER report. Honourable senators will be able to judge that for themselves next week when the report is released. I am advised by the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority that the document, part of which was tabled yesterday by Senator Baume, points to the impact, among other things, of low levels of confidence of female candidates on their performance in the Australian scholastic aptitude test. That is an issue which anyone concerned with the welfare of all students would wish to address. Secondly, Senator Baume is wrong when he says that I was involved or that I intervened in the decisions to make an adjustment in the scores of the 1983 ASAT candidates in the ACT. That decision-this is well known by Senator Baume and I would have thought well known by the Canberra Times-was made by the ACT Schools Authority on the advice of its representative accrediting agency. The agency was in turn advised by an independent expert committee. The decisions resulting from the consideration of the ACER report are the responsibility of the ACT Schools Authority, which I remind the Senate enjoys statutory independence from the Government. I think it is unfortunate on two scores: That Senator Baume has yet again chosen to make wildly misleading statements in this chamber and that the Canberra Times has chosen to print them. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and relates to the ability of the Australian Labor Party organisation to change Government policy. I ask: Would a decision by the biannual conference rejecting the position adopted by the Government in Caucus with respect to the mining and export of uranium require the Government to change its announced policy in favour of that adopted by the annual conference? Senator BUTTON —If such a decision were arrived at, that would be a matter which the Government would have to consider at the appropriate time, which is not now. Senator COOK —What is the view of the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations of yesterday's decision by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission granting a 4.1 per cent national wage rise to Australia's 130,000 building workers? Is it a fact that the Bench commended the role of the Australian Council of Trade Unions in 'sponsoring the gradual and orderly development of occupational superannuation'? Is it a fact that the Bench described the building industry negotiations as seeking to achieve a genuine superannuation scheme? Do these comments and the outcome of the case reflect commendably on Minister Willis's handling of the serious problem in this industry and represent a case study in how the accord works to lower tensions in the previously strife-torn industry? Senator BUTTON —I am aware of the decision handed down yesterday. Senator Cook has drawn my attention to a number of important aspects of that decision and a number of important comments made by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. I will refer the question to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations for a more detailed answer. When there is a considered response to the judgment I will make that available to Senator Cook at the earliest possible convenience. Senator Withers —Refer it to Norm Gallagher. When are they going to put the lights on at the MCG? Why don't they turn on the lights? Senator BUTTON —I think if Senator Withers wishes to contribute to the debate I will refer him to Norm Gallagher and see what happens. Senator MacGIBBON —Did the Leader of the Government in the Senate see the front page of last Friday's Sydney Morning Herald where a Dr Charlesworth, a member of the Hawke socialist Government, boasted that he was running a medical practice in Parliament House to pay for his expenses at the forthcoming premature election? Is Dr Charlesworth's office at Parliament House a duly licensed premise under the relevant Australian Capital Territory health ordinance? Was Dr Charlesworth in breach of any parliamentary code of ethics in passing legislation to introduce Medicare and then financially benefiting from the public purse? Was Dr Charlesworth in breach of any medical code of ethics in advertising his practice in Parliament House in that way? Is Dr Charlesworth's immaturity, as shown by his actions and his utterances on this matter, of such a degree as to debar him from membership of the House of Representatives? The PRESIDENT —Before I call upon Senator Button to answer the question I point out that the administration of the affairs of the House of Representatives is in the hands of the Speaker. Senator BUTTON —I saw the article in the Sydney Morning Herald. I do not intend to pass any judgments on Dr Charlesworth. The wisdom or otherwise of the course of action he follows is a matter for judgment of individual members of the Parliament. If it is felt appropriate the matter should be raised in the House of Representatives and not here. Senator GRIMES —On 8 May 1984 Senator Missen asked me, as Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate, a question without notice concerning proposals to reform the committee system of the Parliament, particularly in the House of Representatives. I undertook to obtain further information on the Government's proposals from Mr Young. Mr Young has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Government has been considering a range of proposals to improve the Parliamentary Committee system, paying particular attention to that in the House of Representatives. This is in line with the Government's publicly stated objective of maximising the Parliament's effectiveness, including the operation of the Committee system. On 4 May 1983, I indicated the Government's recognition of the positive contribution that Committees can make to the work of the Parliament and, accordingly, moved to re-establish the Committees already in existence at the dissolution of the last Parliament. Since then, the Government has sponsored the establishment of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform which has undertaken the most comprehensive review of the Commonwealth's electoral system for several decades. While the government has not resiled in any way from its commitment to improve the Committee system, recent decisions which require a change in the size of the Parliament have suggested that the Government look more closely at the wider procedural problems of managing parliamentary business to ensure that the Parliament's time is spent in the most productive way. Consideration of these wider issues has, for the time being, overtaken the narrower focus of reform of the Committee system. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I seek leave to amend my notice of motion by leaving out paragraph 2 relating to the sitting of the Senate on Monday, 18 June 1984. Leave granted. Senator BUTTON —I move: That, unless otherwise ordered- (a) the Senate meet on Friday, 15 June 1984, as follows: 9.00 a.m. to 12.45 p.m. 2.00 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. 8.00 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.; and (b) the Sessional Order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at 10.30 p.m. on that day. In moving that motion I wish it to be construed as an indication of the Government's intention to pass its legislative program by Friday night or, if necessary, to continue through on Saturday in order to pass that legislative program. A number of considerations come to the mind of members of the Government in adopting this course, including a number of of comments by honourable senators on the other side of the Senate-as well as on our side of the Senate-who have arranged commitments next week. Another factor with which the Government must be concerned is the cost of flying 64 senators home and bringing them back again when clearly, in the Government's view and in the sensible view of any other senator, I would have thought, the program can be effectively completed by Friday night and, if it becomes necessary, on Saturday. The times of sitting on Friday night and so on is a matter which can be left for discussion between the parties. But the Government's intention is to complete the legislative program this week, and that includes Saturday. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.05) —I move: Leave out all words after '(1) That, unless otherwise ordered-', insert: '(a) the Senate meet on Friday, 15 June 1984, as follows: 9.00 a.m. to 12.45 p.m. 2.00 p.m. to 4.15 p.m.; and (b) the Sessional Order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at 4.15 p.m. on that day.'. I move that amendment because it has been the understanding for some time that, in sitting the extended weeks-and the Opposition has no objection to sitting extended weeks while the Government has business to put before the Senate-we could rely upon a schedule of sittings which was exposed to us early in this month. That schedule of sittings showed a completion of sittings at 4.15 p.m. on Friday. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) has indicated that people will have to break commitments if the Senate sits next week. It is equally true that if the Senate sits on Friday night, senators will have to break commitments which have been made on the faith of the Government's indication of intention given some weeks ago. There are a number of Opposition senators, to my knowledge, who are committed in distant parts of Australia. Those commitments certainly will not be able to be met. Government senators interjecting- Senator CHANEY —The caterwauling on the other side is a little hard to explain. It is the Government, after all, which has changed course yet again. Senator Tate —It is you who are filibustering. Senator CHANEY —Senator Tate, in his rather excited manner-which, I suppose, is typical of senators at this late stage of sitting-is now accusing the Opposition of filibustering. I remind the Senate that in the three days of sitting so far this week, we have had so far one and a half hours of non-government business. A foreshortened motion of urgency was brought by the Opposition. A motion is being put down today which will involve no more than two speakers from the Opposition. So I think any talk of filibuster is absolutely absurd. Senator Gareth Evans —We have two hours of rubbish to follow this. Senator CHANEY —So long as the Attorney-General carries on with his usual rudeness, I shall certainly remain on my feet and speak to this matter. I point out that this week the Senate has dealt with a vast number of Bills. We have dealt with two lots of income tax Bills; the Cocos (Keeling) Islands self- determination legislation; four pieces of legislation relating to education; three pieces of legislation relating to the Public Service; an Excise Tariff Amendment Bill; legislation relating to liquefied petroleum gas; a further income tax assessment amendment Bill; half a dozen Bills affecting rural industry-- Senator Martin —Eight. Senator CHANEY —I am sorry; I am corrected by Senator Martin. We have dealt with eight Bills relating to rural industry; three Bills which relate to air navigation; a couple of Bills relating to State tax sharing, and a Bounty (Two- Stroke Engines) Bill. Any suggestion that the Opposition is not doing its part to facilitate the proper working of the Senate is absurd. This suggestion comes at the end of a session in which there have been several periods when there has not even been a Minister in the chamber and when remarkably little Government attention has been given to the program that is required of this Senate. The fact of the matter is that we have been given a forward indication of a program which has enabled us to make some sort of arrangements to fit in with the Government's requirements. Now, at the eleventh hour, the Leader of the Government suggests that we sit on Friday night and possibly on Saturday. I stress again that the Opposition has no objection to sitting in order to deal with legislation. The point I am making is that the Government is totally incapable of doing any forward planning with respect to the program and of giving senators any indication of when they will be required in this place. I have no intention of allowing the Government simply to treat the Senate as something which is of no regard and as something which does not have to be taken into account. I suggest to the Government, when it gives us an indication, as it did in the Senate on 6 June, that we can rely on a certain program, it should leave it to us. I understand the Australian Democrats may be-- Senator Mason —We will speak for ourselves, Senator. Senator CHANEY —I would hesitate to speak for the Democrats, who change their position so frequently. But let me quote from Hansard what Senator Chipp said about this matter when it was last before the Senate. Senator Chipp has continuously lectured this Senate in terms with which I agree on the damage which is done to this place by having unnecessarily extended sittings and on the dangers to senators' health. The last time that Senator Chipp drew that to the Senate's attention was on 6 June. He made the point then that he would not inject any heat into the debate, and that is a very good thing. But he said: I am deeply distressed at the thought that we are going to pass a motion which makes the Senate sit three nights next week . . . So last week Senator Chipp said that he was deeply distressed that there should be a suggestion that the Senate should sit for three nights this week. Of course , the Leader of the Government has now moved a motion that we should sit four nights and five days this week. Senator Chipp went on to say: . . . with no guarantee that the Senate will complete its business for this session. I have expressed on repeated occasions in this place my concern about the health of senators, and I just seek clarification now. We have a frightening list of legislation before us. He went on to deal with the business as it was a week ago. He said: . . . as far as I am concerned, no hope in the world of completing all the business of the Senate next week-- that is, this week- even if we sit three nights. I cannot see the value of taking a vote on it at this time. This motion is brought forward on the basis that the Government is determined to have the Senate adjourn by Saturday, if not by Friday. We find that we are still to deal with a large number of Bills. On the list which has been given to us by the Government we are still to deal with a Bill concerning remuneration and allowances; the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill; the vexed unpaid company tax legislation which has been debated before, but which will have to be debated again in this place; two Bills relating to tertiary education; two Bills relating to life insurance; a Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill; repatriation and social security legislation; rural legislation in the form of the Loan ( Income Equalization Deposits) Amendment Bill and its related Bill; patents amendment and weights and measures legislation. In addition, and that in itself is a mouthful-- Senator Mason —We have an MPI on today, too. Senator CHANEY —In addition we have a Bill which is of major importance; that is the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill. That Bill will obviously attract a great deal of debate from both sides of the chamber. Certainly there are a large number of Opposition senators who believe they have something to say with respect to that legislation. It is legislation which has attracted hostile comment from a wide cross-section within Australia, including the State Government of Western Australia, which has said that it does not regard the legislation as necessary. That legislation alone will demand a good deal of time. I heard an interjection from Senator Mason, saying: 'We will have an MPI'. We have a four-day sitting week and Senator Mason seems to resent the fact that we spend a couple of hours on non-government business. It is an absolute absurdity that this Senate should sit for a four-day week without any time being allowed for Opposition business. I say simply that the Democrats may regard the Senate as a creature of the Government. I am surprised if that is their view. But we believe the Opposition is entitled to bring forward matters for consideration, too. In fact, we have shown enormous restraint in the amount of time which we have spent on such matters. Senator Cook —Let's get on with it. Senator CHANEY —What we have is an attempt to pressurise the Senate. We have a call from Senator Cook: 'Let's get on with it'. I suggest to Senator Cook that he should keep quiet and go away and talk his Leader into sitting sensible hours in this Senate instead of suggesting that we sit five-day weeks, including Saturdays, which is an absurdity. The fact of the matter is that the Government has been unable to make up its mind about when we will sit. It is now, at the last minute, suggesting that we sit on Friday night and Saturday. That will cause massive inconvenience with respect to arrangements which have been made by senators in their constituencies. For those reasons we oppose the motion as it has been moved by the Leader of the Government and I put the amendment which I moved a moment ago. This Senate has something of a reputation for treating its legislative role seriously. I suggest that if we are to have some element of the Parliament which seriously examines legislation-I pick this Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill as a classic case of legislation which deserves proper parliamentary examination-we must not rush through debate. I remind the Senate that in the other place the Aboriginal heritage legislation was guillotined through without an opportunity for proper debate. Even the amendments which were put by the Government were put through by guillotine without proper debate in the House of Representatives. I say to this Senate that if we reduce this Senate to the point where we do not have proper and sensible debate on the legislation which the Government is putting before this country, we are effectively destroying the role of Parliament. I suggest to the Senate that we go back to the program which the Government itself last week indicated it would follow; that is, we should sit four day weeks and three evenings a week , but we should at least deal with the legislation in an orderly and sensible manner. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(3.16) —The first point I make is one of agreement with Senator Chaney. The Government had a deplorable record early in the session. We sat here for days and weeks on end without any legislation being brought forward. Now, at the end of the session, we have this problem. Opposition Senators-Hear, hear! Senator MASON —I hear agreement from people on my right. I recall that the Liberal-National Party Government had a very similar type of operation. That, however, is not the situation at present. It is now the Labor Government's responsibility. Perhaps we can put it down to inexperience. It may be that sooner or later the Government will learn how to handle its business properly. We hope that happens in the next session. The Australian Democrats will not support the Liberal Party's amendment. It is our belief that a public interest matter is involved here. It is our responsibility to get our business done. Have honourable senators thought that it would in fact be a great and expensive charge on the community if we were to break for the weekend and come back next week for perhaps one or two days. I am not prepared and the Democrats are not prepared to incur that amount of public expenditure. It may be perfectly all right for people to think that we are here with unlimited amounts of public money at our disposal. In fact, that is not the case. I think it is high time we in this place thought about saving the taxpayers' money as well as spending it. We will, I think, have no difficulty in getting through our business by Friday night. We can do that if honourable senators restrain themselves. Certainly they should put their points of view; I believe they have every right to do so. Those points of view should be able to be put in reasonable periods of time and they do not have to be reiterated over and over again. I would have thought that the situation that now obtains, that the Opposition might like to think about, is that we have a problem in getting through the business tomorrow without going too late tomorrow night. I suggest from past experience in this place over the last six or seven years that once we bite the bullet on this matter it would be quite possible for honourable senators to accommodate themselves to that. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.18) —The Senate has yet to debate quite a large number of Bills. Many of those Bills are matters of great substance. It is not possible for the Senate to discharge its proper review function the rest of today and tomorrow in order to get through all this legislation. It is just not possible to do that. I anticipate that for this chamber to review the legislation properly would take at less another three or perhaps four days. There is the important repatriation legislation, about which a great number of us have received representations from veterans and veteran organisations. There is the social security and repatriation legislation and the life insurance legislation about which we have also received massive representations. There is the very important matter which Senator Chaney adverted to and a number of other matters which will need to be properly canvassed if we are to discharge our responsibilities. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) gave guarantees to this Senate that there would be consultations about this matter. I have not been consulted about the matter. I have not even been asked by the Leader of the Government whether I would prefer to sit on Saturday or Friday night or Tuesday or whenever. Senator Button —Oh, yes you have. You told us you wouldn't sit on Monday. You made it quite clear to everyone. Senator HARRADINE —I indicated that it is a problem for every member of parliament in that they have to discharge not only legislative functions, but also electoral functions. Whole lists of people want to see every one of us. We have not been able to see them for the last two and half weeks. That was the reason that I hoped to see that we had Monday free. I was not asked at all about Saturday. I have personal commitments to discharge on Saturday, as probably a large number of us do. Senator Robert Ray —You were going to go to the races. Senator HARRADINE —I was not going to go to the races. It happens to be the ninth birthday of one of my boys. I was not going to take him to the races, because I will not introduce him to them that early. But I do say that on these matters there are proprieties to be followed. We had an example yesterday when the order of business was changed very suddenly without consultation, certainly not with me, about a matter about which I had some interest. I do not criticise in any way the very efficient work that is performed by the Government Whip and the Opposition Whip and their staff. I think that they do an absolutely magnificent job. They tell us what is going to happen, as is their function. But I believe it is the function of the leaders of the various parties to consult with other people who are vitally affected. I hope that that message is received -it has certainly been given-and acted upon in future. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(3.23) —in reply -I am sorry that what we thought was a very constructive suggestion aroused so much concern. We did try to take into account the views of a number of people, those who would not sit on Monday and those who did not want to come back on Tuesday, those who wanted the program to be completed-- Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —Those who like being here. Senator BUTTON —And those who like being here, as Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle says. All those views have been taken into account. Of course, we indicated earlier in the week when I gave notice of this motion that we were concerned to get the program finished this week. Since then we have been told by people that a Monday sitting is not on and that other people have engagements during next week. There are very important questions of cost and so on involved. Senator Watson —Who increased the size of the Parliament? Senator BUTTON —I refer to the cost of this Senate and the cost of Senator Watson. If one looks in a constructive way at the list of business which remains , one can see that it has probably been somewhat blown up in importance and length of time required when we look at what else has been happening. For example, this afternoon we will debate videos for, I think, the fifth time. Senator Durack —That's because the Attorney-General doesn't understand them yet. Senator BUTTON —Pornographic videos are Senator Durack's big go, I know. But I do not see why the Senate should be delayed yet again in order that he might indulge himself with his favourite topic. Some of the other Bills which must be dealt with will be of very short duration . There may be one or two which the Government can remove from the program. I shall discuss that; but that will be a matter about which we shall be able to advise the Senate in due course. At this time of year there are always difficulties about programs. One always gets reactions of one kind or another. If we approach the program with goodwill, there is no reason why the Senate should not complete its deliberations on Friday night. But, if that is not possible, on Saturday night. Senator Chaney —And if that is not possible? Senator BUTTON —If that is not possible, on Monday. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Chaney's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Martin, K. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J. Carrick, Sir John Rae, PeterChaney, F. M. Reid, M. E. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Scott, D. B. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Withers, R. G. Lajovic, M. E. Bolkus, N. Hearn, J. M. Childs, B. K. Jones, G. N. Coates, J. McClelland, DouglasColeman, R. N. Macklin, M. J. Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Mason, C. V. J. Crowley, R. A. Primmer, C. G. Elstob, R. C. Ray, RobertEvans, Gareth Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Richardson, G. F. Foreman, D. J. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Gietzelt, A. T. Ryan, S. M. Giles, P. J. Sibraa, K. W. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Haines, J. Lewis, A. W. R. Georges, G. Collard, S. J. Tate, M. C. Archer, B. R. Chipp, D. L. Missen, A. J. Button, J. N. Hamer, D. J. McIntosh, G. D. Jessop, D. S. Walsh, P. A. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question put: That the motion (Senator Button's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 23 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Bolkus, N. Hearn, J. M. Childs, B. K. Jones, G. N. Coates, J. McClelland, DouglasColeman, R. N. Macklin, M. J. Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Mason, C. V. J. Crowley, R. A. Primmer, C. G. Elstob, R. C. Ray, RobertEvans, Gareth Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Richardson, G. F. Foreman, D. J. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Gietzelt, A. T. Ryan, S. M. Giles, P. J. Sibraa, K. W. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Haines, J. Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Martin, K. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J. Carrick, Sir John Rae, PeterChaney, F. M. Reid, M. E. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Scott, D. B. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Withers, R. G. Lajovic, M. E. Georges, G. Lewis, A. W. R. Tate, M. C. Collard, S. J. Chipp, D. L. Archer, B. R. Button, J. N. Missen, A. J. McIntosh, G. D. Hamer, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Jessop, D. S. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-Mr President, during the recent debate some concern was expressed that we may not finish the business of the Senate on Saturday evening. With a view to assisting the process I indicate at this stage that three Bills will be removed from the Government's list. These Bills are the Australian National University Amendment Bill 1984, the Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill 1984 and the Patents Amendment Bill 1984. I do this in the spirit that if concessions are made on all sides I am sure we can finish the program. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I remind the Senate that a few minutes ago the Leader of the Government in the Senate ( Senator Button) made the point that a number of Bills would not require a lot of the time of the Senate. I simply point out that if the Government genuinely wishes to shorten the program in any substantial way it will have to look to more substantial Bills than the ones just mentioned by the Leader. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Durack proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: Community concern about the widespread availability of x-rated video material and the need for a Joint Committee of the Parliament to be established without delay to report on the problem created by the Federal Government's precipitate action in liberalising the former regulations before introduction of a nationally acceptable system of classification and distribution after proper consultation with the States and interest groups. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.37) —Mr President, you have read aloud the matter of public importance that I put down for debate this afternoon so I do not propose to delay the Senate by re-reading the matter. I appreciate the fact that it is a subject to which the Senate has given a lot of attention during the session. I raise the matter for further consideration because of the total inability of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) to understand the nature of the problem. Despite the extensive debates on the subject in this chamber in recent weeks he still reveals an inability to understand the extent of community concern about the availability of X-rated video material. The Attorney-General has given a very unsatisfactory response to the proposal to establish a joint committee of the Parliament to consider the problem. He seems to have completely misunderstood the matter and to have misled the Senate about the extent to which the States are prepared to go along with the new dawn of his complementary Federal-State legislation which, when this matter was first debated in this chamber some weeks ago, I described as a shambles. What has happened in recent weeks, of course, confirms that statement and emphasises the even greater shambles into which the Attorney-General's whole new scheme has fallen. I do not think it is necessary to emphasise the degree and extent of the concern in the community in regard to this situation. As a result of the new legislation which the Attorney-General introduced on 1 February amending regulations and ordinances-I do not need to go over them again -there has been a virtual explosion of video material available in this country. People are acting on the basis that that legislative change of a State and Federal nature is in force. Of course, it is not in force. Distributors, importers and others have been acquiring this material and making it available. Indeed, I think it could be said that the floodgates have been opened. Over the months of February, March, April, May and now June it has become quite clear that there is a very grave fear in the community about what has happened and whether this will be the general situation in Australia. One of the first people to express concern about the subject was none other than Mr Wran, the Premier of New South Wales and President of the Australian Labor Party. Admittedly, he expressed this concern when he intended to have an early election. The New South Wales Women's Advisory Council expressed concern to Mr Wran as early as February this year, I am referring to comments made by Mr Wran which were reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of 20 February this year. The article stated that Mr Wran's comments 'followed a meeting . . . with members of the Women's Advisory Council which argued strongly against any NSW legislation that allowed the sale or hire of videos depicting sexual exploitation or humiliation of women'. Mr Wran said that his concern was about films showing things such as pack rape and extreme violence. The article went on : The Premier, Mr Wran, said yesterday that despite the Government's commitment to non-censorship, ''there are certain things that are beyond the pale''. . . . . But Mr Wran made it clear yesterday that the New South Wales Government would act independently if it thought the restrictions imposed in other States were not sufficiently strong. Here we had Mr Wran, back in February this year-admittedly, he had an early election in mind-giving very clear expression to a concern which has mounted dramatically in recent weeks. The latest position is that the New South Wales Parliament, I think fairly recently, passed a motion of a Labor member of parliament acknowledging the powers of the Commonwealth Government in respect of video movies being brought into the country but calling on the New South Wales Government to examine closely the type and nature of certain classes of such movies becoming available under an X-rating with a view to action being taken to protect women and children from exploitation. Here we had the Premier of New South Wales, one of the key States in regard to complementary legislation, expressing the same concern as is being expressed throughout the whole of Australia. I mention that simply to emphasise the nature of the problem. The Attorney-General, despite the amount of community concern and despite the debates we have had in this chamber on a number of occasions, persists in going on with his own plans as though nothing has happened. Certainly there have been some amendments to his plans-I will come back to these later in my speech. Nevertheless, the fact is that nothing that the Attorney- General has done, nothing that has been done in the States, has in any way allayed that very widespread concern. It is absolutely incumbent upon us in the Senate, even though this is a late stage of the sitting-after this sitting the Parliament will not be sitting again for some weeks-again to emphasise the problem. We need to do so because, as I said, the Attorney-General and this Government seem to be totally unable to do anything about the situation. Last week, before the House of Representatives rose for the winter recess of some weeks-until 21 August-I proposed to the Senate that a joint committee, consisting of members from both this chamber and the other place, be established . The proposal states: (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: That refers by and large to those which are to be given an X-rating. It continues: (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; It is quite clear that it is a most important task to examine the nature of the legislative controls and the degree of such controls, particularly in the States . It continues: (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 consideration of public policy in relation to such material. We co-operated with the Government on this matter. We did not debate the matter last week because we felt it had been pretty fully debated. As other legislative matters needed to be considered, we did not want to take up any further time of the Senate. So we co-operated with the Government in putting that through without debate. But the response of Senator Evans was very discouraging indeed. He made this statement: . . . 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. He went on: We indicate our opposition to the course proposed. That is what the Attorney-General said. The proposal was a positive proposal to do something about the community concern, about which there can be no doubt. It was intended to do something about the inadequacies of the Government's legislation, with which it has backed and filled, already amended twice and may do so again. The proposal sought to do something about the problems arising from the absence of any complementary State legislation. It was a positive proposal which the Attorney-General simply spurned. However, the motion was agreed to last week because the Australian Democrats supported it. They do not seem to be supporting it here today-they seem to be opposed to it being discussed again today-but last week they supported it. Of course, a few weeks before that, they sold out on their own motion. There are no Australian Democrats in the chamber at the moment, but last week they were happy to support the motion; so the proposal went to the other place. There, the Special Minister of State, Mr Young , took a somewhat different attitude. I have just read what the Attorney-General said. But a few hours later his colleague in another place said: . . . the Government is very sympathetic to the proposal now that we have a joint committee to look at these matters. . . . The matter will be treated with some urgency by the Government. What does this Government believe? The responsible Minister in this chamber wrote off the proposal; yet within a few hours his colleague in another place was saying that the Government would give urgent and sympathetic consideration to it. We are entitled to know the Government's view. We are not prepared to wait until 21 August before something is done and for the Government to give us its view on such an important proposal, supported by the Senate only a few days ago. In view of the great concern about this matter by people including a number of State Premiers, it is certainly a matter of major public importance and urgency today. The Government should clearly indicate what it intends to do about the problem and our proposal for a joint committee to monitor the problem. The Government agrees, despite its legislation which is in a shambles, that the problem needs to be monitored. In fact last week the Attorney-General indicated that he agreed that some monitoring process was required. His colleague the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, who is the Minister assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women, made it very clear, in answer to a question I asked her several weeks ago, that she is very sensitive to this problem. She is very concerned about it and believes very strongly that the new legislation needs to be closely monitored. Let us turn to the state of play with this legislation. As I have said, on 1 February the Attorney-General rushed in, in his usual headlong bull-at-the-gate fashion, with new legislation which he no doubt believed would establish a new complementary Federal and State system of laws and regulations to control the problem. The legislation was to introduce a new X-rating. Very little was to be intercepted at Customs barriers. Instructions would be given to Customs officers to let most material in. Under those regulations the Film Censorship Board was to be very much hamstrung in what it could ban completely. The message out from the Attorney-General and the Federal Government was more or less that all constraints were off and people could see, hear and read what they liked in their own homes, with X-rated videos freely available. That may not actually have been the wording of the legislation, although the drafters of it had done their best to convey that. The Attorney-General can say that it can be interpreted in different ways. But the fact is that the message from the Attorney-General, and presumably the Hawke Government-although Ministers are now saying other things, or seeming to-was clearly that in future there would not be any controls for private viewing of what in many cases is highly offensive material. As I said, one of the first people to express grave concern about that was the Premier of New South Wales. I have quoted what he said. The most recent expression of concern is very interesting. The Labor Premier of Western Australia, Mr Burke, and his Minister responsible for this matter, announced last week, on 7 June, that Western Australia would not permit any X-rating in that State from 1 September. He said there would be an absolute prohibition on any X-rated material in Western Australia. Senator Walters —I thought it was only the Festival of Light that was protesting ! Senator DURACK —This is part of the complementary scheme. It has been completely banned in Western Australia. The Western Australian Minister for Administrative Services, Mr Dans, is quoted in a news release as follows: Mr Dans said he would not be surprised if the Western Australian Government's decision to ban X-rated movies hastened a review at national level of whether such material should continue to be so readily available throughout Australia. We know already that the Queensland Government has said that it will not have a bar of this sort of thing. The Tasmanian Government has said that it will not have a bar of this sort of thing. Mr Wran has made all sorts of promises in his election campaign that he will not do anything that will create any degradation or humiliation of women. Three States have said no absolutely. One can bet one's bottom dollar that New South Wales will not be in the scheme after what has been said by the Premier of that State and the commitments he has already made. He would not dare to repudiate those commitments on which he has been elected, unlike what the Hawke Labor Government has done. Mr Wran made that quite clear in the New South Wales Parliament only a week or so ago. I understand there was a debate in that chamber in which no New South Wales Minister defended anything to do with this scheme. They know what a hot political problem it is. They will not touch it. I have read that the Labor Victorian Government was supposed to be coming into the scheme and has passed some interim legislation. I read somewhere that the Attorney-General in Victoria was to introduce some complementary legislation. But will he do so now? Will he do so in the light of what the Premier of Western Australia has said and done and what South Australia has said and done? As I have said from the word go in this debate, the schemes of the Attorney- General, the Hawke Labor Government's plans, are now in a complete shambles. We have the worst of all worlds. We have the relaxing of controls at the Federal level because it was thought that there would be adequate controls at the State level, forgetting the amount of the X-rated video material. Such was the nature of the scheme that is now in complete disarray. It is a complete shambles. The Western Australian Minister is saying that he would not be surprised if there were to be a review of the whole scheme. I am sure that there will be such a review; there certainly should be. The Attorney-General and this Government should think again about this whole problem. The Opposition believes-and the Democrats have supported this-that the proper course to take is to set up a joint parliamentary committee. Unfortunately, we cannot do so now. Time has been lost. The House of Representatives has adjourned . At least the Government could say: 'Yes, we will support the setting up of such committee'. The Attorney-General could at least give some support for what his colleague Mr Young has said. Then at least we could leave this chamber for the winter recess with some hope for the future, with some assurance that an adequate response will be made by the Government to tackling this widespread problem, to allaying this widespread concern. The Government should abandon the policies of the Attorney-General, which are in total shambles and disarray. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(3.57) —The interest being shown by the Opposition in pornography is becoming positively unhealthy. For some considerable months now it has been bordering on the obsessive but today's debate, occupying as it does some two hours of parliamentary time at a time when all of us are anxious to wind up the session, demonstrates that the Opposition's pre-occupation with this subject is becoming a matter of almost clinical concern . At least Senator Durack spared us the dirty words, unlike his colleague Senator Walters, who can never resist on these occasions uttering a few contributions from the lexicon of the censors, and similarly his colleague in the other place, Don Cameron, whose idea of good, clean, non-degrading fun is to have a half-naked woman jump out of a cake at a Liberal Party bucks night. These are the sorts of people who are belabouring us with such passion on this subject at the moment. A Labor member, Mr Baldwin, I think, captured the concern of the House of Representatives in this respect when he identified in a recent notice of motion what he described as the 'clear, recent propensity of Opposition members to vicariously live out their unusual sexual fantasies under the guise of debating legislation and ordinances in this House.' It is getting to the stage where one almost has to be wearing a dirty macintosh to feel comfortable coming into the Senate chamber. I simply hope that with a bit of good, clean, fresh air over the recess we will be able to resume our responsibilities as legislators with slightly less preoccupation with this subject matter than the Opposition seems to be asserting. The nub of this proposal seems to be two-fold: The need for a joint committee to be established, more or less forthwith, in the view of the Opposition, and the complaint, most unusual, given the belabouring I have been getting recently, if I can describe it as such, from the Opposition shadow Attorney-General about my apparent sluggishness in introducing certain measures. On this occasion the complaint is about the precipitate character of the Government's legislative response to the undoubted social problem of video material coming into this country and being sold. As to the question of the establishment of a joint committee, the position was made clear, both by me and by the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), last week in this Parliament. As Senator Durack pointed out, Mr Young expressed his sympathy for the proposal for a joint committee, said that the Government would look at it seriously, and undertook to bring on the motion in question early in the life of the Budget session. My own response in the Senate was that it was, in my view, premature to bring on the creation of such a committee at this stage -and Senator Durack accurately quoted my words, although he hardly emphasised them-because the effectiveness and operation of the new legislation could simply not be gauged, given the earliness of its implementation. Nonetheless, I indicated-and I quote from my own statement-the acceptance of the Government 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 . . . The reality is that that is exactly what will happen. Early next session we will consider the appropriate role for a parliamentary committee. There are, of course, many views in this place as to the utility of creating more and more parliamentary committees to do more and more jobs. All of us, I think, accept the utility of parliamentary committees as such, but it is one thing for the Democrats to express enthusiasm as they do so often for parliamentary committees and another not to be able, by reason of the paucity of their numbers, to man them and to throw the responsibility for doing so onto other members of this chamber who are already gravely overburdened. Senator Mason —We will be better equipped to do it after the next election. Senator GARETH EVANS —I can assure the honourable senators that whenever it is it will not be early in the Budget session that the Democrats will be better equipped, even on the unreal assumptions that the honourable senators offered me in his interjection. The reality of the matter is that we will certainly consider whether a parliamentary committee is the best way of dealing with the problem. I share Mr Young's sympathy and affirmative response to the usefulness of parliamentary committees. They are a way-and have been historically-in which some hot potatoes, as Senator Durack has described them, can eventually be dealt with in a calm, rational and non-partisan way. It may well be that the establishment of a joint parliamentary committee is the best way of doing it and that the resources can be found to man and staff it. If so, after we have had a further opportunity to consider it, that is the way we will go. So there is no foundation for the kind of churlishness we have heard expressed yet again on that subject by Senator Durack today. As to the precipitate action alleged in relation to this matter, one really has to draw breath at the effrontery of such a characterisation and the grotesque inaccuracy of it. The reality of the matter is that the Government, and all the governments of Australia, fully put before the public what was contemplated in response to the issue of video censorship which was becoming a lively issue early last year in terms of Press reports and so on about it. As early as 13 July last year, Commonwealth and State Ministers with censorship responsibilities met in Brisbane and agreed in principle-subject, of course, to reference back to respective governments-to a uniform system of video tape censorship classification, the basic elements of which were subsequently advanced and put into place by the Commonwealth. At that stage it was not a commitment to a compulsory system of classification, because that was thought to be unnecessary, but all the other elements of it were there, articulated, announced to the public and run quite extensively in the media. For the record-I do not want to waste time reading it-I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard my Press release immediately following the Ministerial Council on 13 July last year which indicates what was in the public domain at that stage. Leave granted. The document read as follows- PRESS RELEASE BY THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL Senator Gareth Evans Q.C. 13 July 1983 New Uniform Video Censorship System A new uniform system of video tape censorship classification was today agreed to in Brisbane by a meeting of Commonwealth and State Ministers with censorship responsibilities. It is designed to ensure maximum freedom for adults to view what they wish in the privacy of their homes and at the same time give guidance to consumers as to what they are buying or hiring and place some limits on what can be openly displayed or sold to children. The main elements in the system, which were unanimously agreed to by the Ministers present for recommendation to their respective Governments are: (1) Imported video tapes for home use to be no longer subject to compulsory registration by the Film Censorship Board; (2) Video tapes for sale or hire to be classified at the request of the importer, distributor or retailer by the Film Censorship Board; (3) The classification standards to be applied to be the same as for cinemas- vis. ''G'', ''NRC'', ''M'' and ''R''-but with a further category ''X'', to be added for stronger material which would be refused cinema showing. Only child pornography and similar very extreme material would be refused classification altogether; (4) The States to pass laws imposing appropriate points of sale restrictions ( in particular no sale to minors) and for ''R'' and ''X'' classified material; (5) The existence of a classification to be a complete defence for retailers against prosecution under State obscenity laws; (6) Classification recommendations by the Film Censorship Board to be subject to review by the Commonwealth Films Board of Review. Uniform Literature Censorship System The meeting also confirmed the agreement reached in principle in 1981 to establish a uniform classification system for publications. Uniform classifications would be applied by Commonwealth censorship officers to both imported and locally produced publications. The system will involve two basic categories of both ''Restricted'' publications, roughly corresponding to the ''R'' and ''X'' categories for video tape classification, with appropriate point of sale controls. It will be up to each State to legislate the system into effect. All States- with the exception of Queensland (which wishes to continue with its own system for the forseeable future) and Tasmania (which wishes to adopt a ''wait and see' ' approach) undertook to implement the necessary legislation, following a model Act now in operation in South Australia. Film Classification Categories The meeting resolved in principle to replace the existing ''NRC'' classification with a more appropriate and descriptive one, possibly approximating the ''PGR'' standard now familiar in television. This matter is to be further considered by the Ministers. The meeting was chaired by the Commonwealth Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans. The other Ministers present were: Mr Paul Landa, Attorney-General, New South Wales; Mr John Cain, Premier and Attorney-General, Victoria; Mr J. A. Elliott, Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and the Arts, Queensland; Mr Chris Sumner, Attorney-General, South Australia; Mr David Parker, Minister for Employment and Administrative Services, Western Australia; Mr Max Bingham, QC, Attorney-General, Tasmania; and Mr Brian Martin, QC, Solicitor-General, Northern Territory. Also present were Mrs Janet Strickland, Chief Censor, Film Censorship Board and Sir Richard Kingsland, Chairman, Films Board of Review. Mackay/Canberra Senator GARETH EVANS —The Ministerial Council was followed by action on the part of the Commonwealth to implement its side of the arrangement by way of the amendments to the Australian Capital Territory Classification of Publications Ordinance and, more particularly, the Customs regulations. At the time of the implementation of the ordinance and the regulations in the first instance, on 31 January, a further Press statement was issued. Again the matter received considerable attention from the media. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the text of that Press statement. Leave granted. The document read as follows- PRESS RELEASE BY THE ATTORNEY-GENERALSenator Gareth Evans Q.C.31 January 1984 New Censorship Classification Scheme for Publications and Videotapes Central elements in a new national scheme for the censorship of publications and videotapes will come into effect tomorrow, 1 February 1984. Commonwealth and State Ministers with responsibility for censorship agreed in principle to a uniform system in July last year. As a model for the States, the Commonwealth has introduced a new Classification of Publications Ordinance for the ACT, covering the sale and hire of printed matter and videotapes, and this begins operating tomorrow. Also commencing operation are complementary amendments to the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations, designed to clarify the rules and procedures governing imported films, videotapes and printed matter. Legislation similar to the ACT model is already in force in South Australia, is imminent in Victoria, Western Australia and the Northern Territory, and is under active Government consideration in New South Wales and Queensland. Under the new scheme, any person can apply to Commonwealth censorship authorities for classification of printed matter and videotapes: normally such applications will be made by importers and distributors. As to printed matter, apart from the limited categories-child pornography and similarly very extreme material-that would be refused classification altogether, publications will be classified as either: Unrestricted Restricted (Category 1) or Restricted (Category 2). Special conditions will apply to the display, sale and hire of publications that are classified as Restricted Category 1 (no sale to minors, sealed packages , etc.) or Category 2 (limited access sales area, etc.). There will be an effective prohibition on the display, sale or hire of those publications that are refused classification altogether. Videotapes will be classified, in accordance with current cinema classifications (but with an additional 'X' category), as either: ''G'' (General) ''PG'' (Parental Guidance, replacing ''NRC'') ''M'' (Mature) or ''R'' (Restricted) ''X'' (New extra-restricted category). For videotapes there will be in addition a new category, ''X'', covering more explicit material that would be refused cinema showing. As with printed matter, videotapes containing child pornography and similarly very extreme material will be refused classification altogether. Again as with printed matter, videotapes that are classified ''R'' and ''X'' will only be able to be displayed, sold or hired in accordance with special conditions. The object of the restrictions is to prevent children gaining access to material that might be harmful to them and adults being exposed to material that might be offensive to them. In the model law, penalties ranging up to $10,000 for corporate bodies and up to $2,000 for individuals are provided for any breaches of the conditions of display, sale or hire. I emphasise that while importers, distributors and retailers are under no compulsion to apply for formal classification, clearly it is in their best interests to do so: purveyors of unclassified material are subject to the full range of sanctions in their State's or Territory's obscenity laws for the sale, display or hire of material not in accordance with the required provisions for publications and videotapes which would be classified Category 1, Category 2, '' R'' or ''X''. In addition, consumers will expect to have a guide as to what they are buying or hiring. Provision has been made for appeals against classifications under the Ordinance . In the case of printed publications, an appeal will be to a specially constituted Publications Review Board; the appeals body for videotapes will be the Commonwealth Films Board of Review. The scheme reflects the Government's policy that adults should have the right to read or view what they choose in the privacy of their own homes while they and those under their care are entitled not to be exposed to material that may be offensive or harmful. Canberra Senator GARETH EVANS —I am indebted to the Senate. (Quorum formed) That meeting was followed on 6 April by a further much publicised meeting of the censorship Ministers at which further decisions were made about modifications to the original scheme, in particular to have the classification on a compulsory basis for reasons of better consumer guidance and easier enforcement. That too was made the subject of very wide publicity. Just to complete the record, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the text of the Press release of 6 April, laying out the results of that meeting. Leave granted. The Press release read as follows- Ministers Reach General Agreement on Video Censorship Commonwealth and State Ministers with censorship responsibilities meeting in Sydney today expressed general support for making the new uniform national videotape classification system compulsory. This would represent a change to the voluntary scheme agreed to in principle by Ministers last July and which is already operating to varying degrees in the A.C .T., South Australia and Western Australia. It would involve requiring all video tapes for sale or hire to be classified, with a penalty (possibly graded according to the nature of the material) attaching where this does not occur. This compares with the present voluntary system, where dealers are exposed to prosecution under existing obscenity laws if they sell unclassified ''R'' or ''X'' type material. The Commonwealth Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, said that the Commonwealth would support the compulsory classification system in any State or Territory which adopted it, provided that the costs incurred by the Film Censorship Board would be recovered by appropriate fee charges. The advantages of the compulsory system were that it could give additional consumer guidance, and made for easier administration and law enforcement. The agreement reached by Ministers on this and other matters today was subject to various reservations, and in each case to consideration by the Ministers' respective Governments. Standards The Ministers agreed generally to the draft guidelines which the Film Censorship Board has used since February in classifying videos into the ''G'', ''PG'', ''M' ', ''R'' and ''X'' categories. These correspond closely with existing cinema classifications, except for the ''X'' rating, which is for stronger material not appropriate for public screening. It was agreed that the categories of material which should be refused classification altogether (and therefore not subject to any protection against the ordinary operation of obscenity laws) should be: Sex: child pornography, bestiality; Violence: explicit violence against non-consenting persons, detailed and gratuitous depictions of acts of significant cruelty; and Other: instruction ''manuals'' for terrorist-type weapons and acts, and abuse of hard drugs. The meeting expressed particular concern at the sexual violence and other forms of extreme violence now appearing in videos, as compared with the more traditional explicit erotic material, and agreed that-particularly at the border line between ''R'' and ''X'' ratings-the Film Censorship Board should give primary emphasis to this material. Other Matters General agreement was also reached on a number of other practical and machinery matters, including slight variations to the standards for uniform literature classification, the need for trailers attached to main features on videos to be classified (so as to ensure that only compatible material remained on each tape), and the need for prohibitions on the advertising of materials so extreme as to be refused classification altogether. The meeting deferred without decision for 12 months consideration of a proposal to introduce ''X'' ratings (subject to very restrictive screening conditions) for ''hard-top'' cinemas. Ministers present at the meeting were: Mr Paul Landa, Attorney-General New South Wales; Mr J. H. Kennan, Attorney-General Victoria; Mr C. V. Sumner, Attorney-General South Australia; Mr D. K. Dans, Minister for Administrative Services Western Australia; Mr P. R. McKechnie, Minister for the Arts, National Parks and Sport Queensland; Mr K. Lowrie, Leader for the Government in the Legislative Council Tasmania. The Northern Territory Attorney-General was represented by Mr S. Bailey, Director Policy Unit, Department of Law. Also present were Mrs Janet Strickland, Chief Censor, Film Censorship Board and Sir Richard Kingsland, Chairman, Films Board of Review. Sydney/Canberra Senator GARETH EVANS —That process of ministerial consultation occurred simultaneously with very extensive official level consultation between members of all governments. It occurred in the context also of very elaborate and extensive consultation, as would be expected, with the video industry. It occurred in the context of consultation with the Australian Council for Children 's Films and Television, and it occurred also in the context of consultation by me with the women's-- Senator Harradine —That Council objects to X rated videos being imported and sold. Senator GARETH EVANS —It may object. I am not saying that every single person we consulted with fully accepted every last element of the particular proposal, any more than is ever the case when one engages in a process of consultation. What is important is that it is being alleged that the Government acted precipitately , in haste, without consultation, without discussion, without listening to contrary views. What I have said is a clear demonstration that we did consult, among others, with one very well-known prominent and effective organisation that has gone on record expressing very vigorous opposition to these things. So that is the lie to one of the allegations that is the subject of this motion before us today. With all of those consultations, there was a discussion with the women's advisers from all the respective governments. Notwithstanding Senator Durack's snide references to alleged votes and decisions of the Women's Advisory Council of New South Wales, there have been active consultations with the representative of that group which advises the New South Wales Government. In addition, of course, there have been endless debates over the last three months, particularly in this Parliament. Debates were held twice on 4 April, again on 5 April, again on 10 May, again on 29 May, again in the context of Appropriation debates and again in the context of numerous questions addressed to me on this subject by the various obsessives on the other side. So the notion which underlies this matter of public importance is that somehow surreptitiously, sneakily, quickly, recently, this scheme of reaction or response to the video tape issue has been brought into operation by the Government simply fails to withstand even the most cursory scrutiny. I believe it ought to be withdrawn rather than pursued and repeated over and over again as it has been by the spokespersons for the Opposition. Let me just repeat for the umpteenth time, the elements of this system that the Commonwealth in consultation and in co-operation with the States and the Northern Territory has been seeking to introduce. The basic elements of the system are fivefold: First, an acceptance of the basic principle that adults are entitled and should be entitled to see and read what they want to in privacy, particularly in the privacy of their own homes, subject to their not being exposed involuntarily to material offensive to them and subject further to limitations on material which can be properly regarded as dangerous or exploitive particularly of children. That is the basic principle which has been reiterated over and over again and accepted by all governments, including not least representatives of the Liberal Party in the way in which they approached these issues in their years in office federally. Certainly, acknowledgment of that principle has been made even by those governments which have been very much more cautious than some others in the way in which they have implemented it, but at least they have accepted that that was what ought to be the prevailing consideration. Senator Harradine —How long ago? Senator GARETH EVANS —At the meeting of Ministers on censorship matters we do discuss, naturally, not just the nuts and bolts but the conceptual framework within which a scheme is being erected. In regard to the ministerial meetings, each time there has been an articulation of those principles as being the appropriate underlying principles upon which a scheme of censorship ought to be erected. People's perceptions of what is dangerous or exploitative or what constitutes involuntary exposure to offensiveness will differ in practice. People's willingness actually to apply from State to State all the standards in all their full force of liberality differs, and I will come to that in a moment. But in terms of the acceptance of the basic principle, there is no wish that I can discern at any government level in Australia to return to the dark old days of the 1950s and previously, when there just simply was not an acceptance of the basic force of that principle. As to the rest of the elements of the system, the second element is a general acceptance of the propriety and the sense of an outright prohibition on certain categories of extreme materials. It has taken us some time to get to a generally acceptable definition and to get a list of what that outright prohibited material should be, but we have now got there in the context of the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulations (Amendment) and the standards which are supposed to be applied by the full Film Censorship Board. The categories of material which are restricted outright are: Child pornography, bestiality, and then we have the most controversial categories, which refer to material which contains: . . . detailed and gratuitous depictions in pictorial form of acts of considerable violence or cruelty, or explicit and gratuitous depictions in pictorial form of sexual violence against non-consenting persons. That is the area that all the controversy is about, and people get most anxious about, when the subject of video porn is raised. That is prohibited outright, as is material relating to the promotion or incitement of terrorism-- Senator Walters —Did you see Four Corners? Senator GARETH EVANS —Or the promotion or incitement of misuse of drugs specified in the Fourth Schedule to the Regulations. So there is agreement, both at the customs barrier and in terms of what is to be classified and allowed-that is sale or hire at all-that there ought to be an outright prohibition of material in each one of those categories. Senator Harradine —Does that include possession too? Senator GARETH EVANS —Not possession, but in terms of sale, hire and import, which hitherto in the whole history of pornography legislation in this country have been the only ways, that I can recall, in which regulatory sanctions have applied in relation to pornography, and there is an acceptance of it. Senator Walters is bleating away about the Four Corners program and the way in which these standards are being applied. I say to her before she gets too well into her speech that I am told that that censorship exercise in relation to that film took place before the current guidelines were in effect. On what I saw of the program, I would have some doubts as to the appropriateness of the classification that was given to that material. I find it difficult, of course, without having seen the film as a whole to make a judgment about whether or not the rape material in it was actually gratuitous but on the assumption that it was gratuitous, to the extent that it depicted non-consenting persons engaged in sexual violence, I would have thought it was the sort of material that should have been refused classification. We are into a stage of developing and working out the proper application of these guidelines and I am sure that in due course this will occur in a way that is understood by and is satisfactory to every reasonable person in this community. The next element in the system that we are endeavouring to introduce is, of course, the recognition of the reality of the sale and distribution of erotic video material falling short of these descriptions and, accordingly, the recognition that that material ought to be available to be sold or hired on an X -rated basis. It was always appreciated that two, maybe three, States would not be prepared to go as far as to actually allow X-rated erotic pornography which fell short of those categories I have described to go on sale. That has been the case and Senator Durack has made much of it, but it does not undermine the basic rationality and coherence of the scheme that has been adopted. The fourth element in the generally agreed system was that there be effective consumer guidance in relation to this material. That was always the case at the hard end, the M and R ratings and so on. It has been accepted that that guidance be compulsory and it is right through all the appropriate classification levels, not only at the hard end but also at the softer general exhibition end. That has been universally accepted and it will in due course be universally put in place. Finally, the element in the system which Senator Durack and everybody who has participated in this debate conveniently tend to ignore is the agreement by all the participating jurisdictions to introduce what has been conspicuously lacking in the past; that is, effective point of sale controls directly related to the nature of the material in question such that the material at the hard core end is completely denied sale to minors and cannot be displayed in public, and various other kinds of control going down the scale to get into the area of general exhibition material. It will take some time for the new system to settle down, to work properly, to be understood, but it is a system that will work effectively because it is a rational balance of principle and practicality and certainly does not deserve the kind of endless sniping that it has been getting from the Opposition in this place. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(4.17) —Mr Acting Deputy President, I think it appropriate that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) be mildly rebuked for the line he took at the beginning of his speech, which I thought was not terribly much to the point. It seems such a pity that a middle-aged man of such accomplishments as the Attorney-General should indulge himself in that kind of rhetoric, which I do not think got anywhere. Senator Durack and I have crossed swords on this matter before but I concede him the point that this is an important matter in the community. He perceives that and the Australian Democrats perceive it as well. That is why the Australian Democrats supported the establishment of the Committee that the Opposition has proposed. I think that Committee has a very big task ahead of it and that the Australian community might have considerable expectations of it. Whether it can fulfil those expectations is another matter, as I shall shortly mention again. I recall that when I spoke in our last lengthy debate on this topic, which concerned whether the current apparatus controlling X-rated videotapes should or should not be disallowed by regulations and an Australian Capital Territory ordinance, I made the comment that whatever the outcome of that issue, the whole question of R and X-rated videotapes must remain a matter of continuing debate in the society. I believe the matter is one which must closely concern the community at large and I think family people particularly would agree that it is something that certainly concerns them. I think they have a right to have some control over what children of tender ages are exposed to in the community. Unfortunately, there has been evidence in other countries and, indeed, in Australia that children, by their very nature, tend to want to do things that they are not supposed to do. For example, they may be forbidden to look at a particular brown paper wrapped videotape which mum or dad brings home to show at 11 o'clock at night after the kids have gone to bed. When mum and dad go to work the next day if the children can get their friends together, get the tape out and put on the video machine, they will do so. I think that is a very real point of human nature which perhaps escapes the attention of lawyers of the eminence of the Attorney-General but which needs to be taken into account. As I said, this is something that closely concerns the community at large. In decent societies, electorally speaking, such as those in California and Switzerland, such matters can be put to referendum through an initiative by the citizens. This is certainly one of those issues that the Australian Democrats would like to see put to referendum in Australia so that the community itself could make an input. As honourable senators may know, I have a Bill before the Senate which allows citizens' initiative in Australia in line with the Swiss or Californian model. This would mean that if any issue-indeed, it could be the one we are discussing today-attracted a petition of a quarter of a million signatures, that matter would have to be put to a referendum of all Australian voters together with other matters brought forward that year. A referendum would have to be held, as is the case in California, on a set day each year. In other words, if enough people felt strongly on this matter of X rated videotapes and the standards that ought to apply to get together a quarter of a million of their fellow Australians to put their signatures on a petition to either House of Parliament, that matter would be brought forward to referendum and the results of the vote of the Australian people would become the law. I strongly recommend to the Government that it give more serious consideration to this as a means by which this sort of issue particularly could be considered by the Australian people. These issues, in a sense, are too big for parliaments. This has been shown time and time again. I suggest that issues such as this one, abortion control and marihuana control are being ducked out of by parliaments year in and year out because they do not want to stand the electoral flak of a decision one way or another. It is proper and reasonable that an appropriate vehicle should be provided to the community itself so that it can take an initiative and then decide what it wants to do. I conclude that point by saying that I know that honourable senators will be delighted to know that with every week that passes I get more and more letters on that matter of citizens' initiative. It is steadily gaining in public knowledge and support and it will continue to do so as long as I am in this place or as long as there is an Australian Democrat in this place. The issue we are debating today is clearly that kind of community issue in relation to which this extension of democracy to the people could be used. Much energy has been expended by some people who ought to know better in an attempt to obfuscate the earlier Senate debate on this issue. I think it is worthwhile looking briefly at what we actually have now, at what has been achieved. The Democrats have been properly concerned for some time about the whole area of imported videotapes. We decided quite early that we wanted to get some changes. We went through the operation of moving disallowance of the existing regulations so that the Government would make concessions. Indeed, it did so, at the point of the gun we pointed at it. I will deal with that a little later. Of course, the very extreme material which is now causing so much concern throughout Australia came into Australia under those old regulations which, had we disallowed the new ones, would have come back into operation. Those old regulations had proved to be imprecise and unworkable. To allow them to replace the new ones would have only renewed a situation that those worried about this matter would have least of all desired. Is that simply my opinion? I suggest not . I shall quote from an editorial in the Canberra Times of 4 June which addresses this point directly. It refers to the attempts by Mrs Bev Cains, the Family Team member of the House of Assembly, to get the regulations and the ordinance disallowed. I agree that Mrs Cains is probably sincere in this matter, although I think, as I have said, and as this editorial in fact says, that she was not pointing her gun in the right direction and may well have caused a situation which, had it come about, she would have deplored. The Canberra Times editorial states: The real problem is not the scheme itself, as Mrs Cains might think, but its enforcement. Mrs Cains has rightly drawn attention to the laxity of enforcement of the law with respect to children. If she succeeds in getting the law better enforced, she is to be applauded. But if she had succeeded in getting the ordinance disallowed the result would have been quite the reverse of her intention. It would have resulted in a return to the old law and all the uncertainties about what is obscene and the legal difficulty for the prosecution in proving its case. Prosecution is easier under the new law because it avoids the complicated issue of proving obscenity with the rating. The offence is simply hiring a video of that rating to a child. With a decent amount of will on the part of enforcement authorities the protection of children under the new law should be easier. I agree with the Canberra Times. The Government should do everything it can to see that the regulations as they stand now are enforced and are enforceable. The Canberra Times editorial continues: Any attempt to ban video movies that would attract an X rating would be fruitless. They would be brought in, hired under the counter and screened in private houses with very little prospect of anyone being caught. It is better to recognise that fact, and have a system which gives an incentive to importers to get their movies rated legally so that the really evil ones, depicting child- pornography and incitement to terrorism, can be weeded out. The vast majority in the community takes X-rated movies for what they are worth -boring, badly made junk of little or no artistic merit. None the less there is a question of balance. On one side are the questions of whether violence on video leads to violence in life, whether most pornography demeans the role of women, and the protection of women. The editorial concerns the Australian Capital Territory ordinance. The Customs regulation applies to the whole of Australia. The Government has accepted the Democrats amendments to the Customs regulation applying to the admission of the material to any part of Australia. It has been changed in two important particulars. First, it prohibits entirely the entry of any material which depicts considerable violence or cruelty. During my discussions with the Attorney-General I made the point that the Democrats would have preferred even the word 'considerable' to have been omitted from the regulation. However, the Democrats eventually accepted the Attorney-General's view that the definition would effectively exclude significant violence but, at the same time, it would not seek to impose a ludicrous ban on what might be termed 'slapstick'. I took the Attorney-General's point there because it is bad law which cannot be enforced because of its extremism. We would have been in trouble again had we adopted such an approach. The second change in that regulation-it is a very important change which I think needs to be listened to carefully by anybody in Australia who is interested in this matter-prohibits 'explicit and gratuitous depictions in pictorial form of sexual violence against non-consenting persons'. As the regulation stands now and as it is being enforced, it effectively bans from Australia any material which concerns itself with rape or any other sexual violence shown as being forced on an unwilling victim. So the Canberra Times in its editorial, with respect to it, missed that point. It did not appreciate at the time it wrote that editorial that it was no longer the case that X-rated material which gratuitously dwells on both sex and violence could enter this country. Another important change has been made-the Attorney-General has mentioned it-to the Australian Capital Territory ordinance. Classification-indeed I suppose in popular parlance one might call it censorship-of X-rated and R-rated material, which was to have been purely voluntarily originally, is now compulsory. That is the second change the Democrats insisted upon which the Attorney-General and the Government agreed to in the end. If people want to sell this material or hire it out they cannot now choose whether they want it classified; it must be classified. The worst material cannot be classified at all. That means it will be illegal to sell or hire material that is not classified, with appropriate penalties. The Democrats are supporting the committee. This matter should be one of continuing debate in society. The level at which this material is not acceptable, in the broad opinion of the Australian people, is a very hard point to decide on. The key point at which the majority of people in Australia say that the material ought not to be sold at all is very difficult to determine. This has to be a matter of guidelines which are accepted and publicly discussed and which are, as I have said, a matter of community consensus-not pushed by an excessively libertarian point of view on one side or an excessively sensorial point of view on the other side. I think it is very much in the interests of the Australian people that that should happen. That takes me back to the comment I made earlier. The Democrats wonder whether the committee will be able to fulfil the expectations that the Australian people have of it. I doubt that it will because I do not think this is a matter on which any committee could come to any sensible conclusions. If there is anything at all on which we should have community consensus it is this. Here again, without even the opportunity of initiative, I think it is something the Government ought to consider at some time putting to a referendum. I think the Australian people would appreciate something as important as this being put to a referendum in view of some of the trivia that has been put to them in referenda in the past. This is something on which I think everybody would have a view, which everybody would like to see settled. It is probable, if it were settled by a referendum, that the Australian people, and the extremists on both sides, would be much more inclined to accept the decision of their peers, of the people at large, than they would the decision of any government. If any government makes the decision one side or the other will argue with it. I suggest to the Attorney-General, who I see is no longer in the chamber-I have no doubt that he is away somewhere smartening up the Government's action on its business-that that is something the Government might consider. This is a matter which is serious enough to be decided by the Australian people themselves. It affects every family and the standards on which we think our children should be brought up. What could be more important to people than that? I do not propose to canvass the motion extensively. I agree that it is important. I agree about the need for the committee. The Democrats have already indicated their support for the Opposition on the need for the committee. I tend to think that Senator Evans had a point when he complained mildly and said that the Federal Government had not acted precipitately in this matter. We have had a lot of debate on this matter. A lot of changes have been very slowly and with the utmost difficulty wrung out of the Government. I think it is hardly a precipitate action. To say that it is precipitate action tends to prejudge the issue. I would prefer to think that this debate is part of a continuing process and that there will be no basic end or solution to this matter until the people themselves have established what material most people do not want any risk whatsoever of being available and accessible to their children. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.32) —That is an extraordinary speech to come from the Australian Democrats. The Democrats voted for legislation to introduce for the first time hard core pornography. This is a very grave matter for every Australian family. It concerns the basic rights of all parents to bring up their children in this country and protect them from noxious influences. The United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child states: The child shall enjoy special protection, and shall be given opportunities and facilities, by law and by other means, to enable him to develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually and socially in a healthy and normal manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity. In the enactment of laws for this purpose, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration. I stress that the interests of the child should be the paramount consideration yet we are allowing this sort of regulation. What do we have? We have the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), that great libertarian, that great reformist, that defender of civil liberties, freedom of information and open government, the first law officer of the Commonwealth, who intends to make his mark in the annals of history, who has again introduced one of his high priorities of reform. Let me quote from a memo sent out by his Department, which states: Barriers to the importation of hard core pornography . . . has been lifted. He made three exceptions in what may be depicted-child pornography, acts to incite terrorism and extreme violence. This is his great reform! They are wonderful reforms and wonderful freedoms! But for whom-the families or the parents? Not on your life. The Attorney-General, in his usual style-this is real vintage Evans-said: 'People should be able to read, hear or see anything they want to in the privacy of their own homes'. So his Department sent out that memo . He then introduced a regulation to abolish the barriers at the Customs level. He found that the States had not caught up; they were unaware of the situation. No legislation was in place. This is true vintage Evans; it all seemed a good idea at the time. The Attorney had all the evidence he needed that screamed: ' Caution. For heaven's sake, look at what you are doing'. The Victorian Psychologists Association, in its interim report to the Attorney- General, said that new evidence was coming before it. That Association pleaded with the Attorney-General not to go ahead with this regulation. The Association said that there was grave concern that adults who looked repeatedly at violent pornography or violent videos would be affected by them; their reactions were no longer sympathetic to the victims. There is a large report from the United Kingdom. Mr Acting Deputy President, you will remember that I mentioned this in the Senate some time ago. It said that over half of 13- and 14-year-old children had seen at least one of what we class as X-rated videos. It was found that they had been viewed in the children's friends' homes, not at their own home where their parents knew about it. The report found that these children preferred videos to television because they could stop and replay the gory and worst scenes in slow motion time and time again. Some 90 per cent of the parents had no idea their children were viewing this stuff and pleaded with the society to help them control their children's viewing. What was the result of my bringing that report to the Senate? Senator Gareth Evans tried to discredit it. He had not done what I had done, spoken to Lord Swinfen who is Chairman of the working party on the Report of a Parliamentary Group Video Enquiry. He tried to discredit the report from odd little bits of news reports, nothing of substance; only odd bits of gossip. Senator Durack —That is the way he assesses evidence. Senator WALTERS —That is the way he assesses all the stuff he brings before us. He relies on grubby little bits of newspaper reports. Another report from the European Parliament verifies everything stated in the United Kingdom report. What did Senator Evans do? He did not like the message that the Victorian psychologists, the United Kingdom report or the European Parliament gave him, so what did he do? He set out to kill the messenger and discredit the reports completely. He then had his own Australian Labor Party senators on the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances bringing down a unanimous report stating: 'The regulations you have introduced do restrict the Government in its responsibilities where children are concerned'. What did the Australian Democrats do? They too ignored the report. I wonder why? Senator Harradine —They didn't know what it meant. Senator WALTERS —I had to withdraw when I said that they did not have the brains to understand it. However, the Attorney-General, in his usual fashion, went straight ahead and ignored all the indications that he had been given. He said ' Adults should be able to read, see or hear anything they want to in the privacy of their own homes' and that he would not go into homes and police what children were viewing; he would leave that to the parents. And 90 per cent of parents in the United Kingdom are pleading with the Government to help them control what their children view when they do not have any control over them after school. I asked the Attorney if we could have a free vote on this matter and he said no. I wonder why he said no, Mr Acting Deputy President. I will tell you. I know why he said no. It is because there are decent family men in the Government and a considerable number of feminists, and he was dead scared that they would dump him and vote against him. At the time he claimed that only Senator Harradine, Senator Walters and the Festival of Light objected to his legislation. Let us look at who is objecting to it. The whole of the Opposition is objecting. Certainly Senator Harradine is objecting. Every feminist organisation I know is objecting strongly. Senator Durack —Has he got the Democrats? Senator WALTERS —Oh, the Democrats are with him. Every women's group is objecting, every church organisation is objecting and the Queensland Government, the Tasmanian Government and the Labor Government of Western Australia are all objecting. Mr Wran said he believes that the matter ought to be reviewed, an election is coming up. So he says we ought to look at the matter again. Tens of thousands of people have signed petitions which have been sent to this place and the other place. So much for his saying: 'We have only got Senator Harradine, Senator Walters and the Festival of Light objecting to this legislation'. Some of us would have seen the Four Corners program the other night. Senator Gareth Evans misled the Senate today in saying that he believed the program was made before the new regulations came into force. Indeed it was, but the members of the Film Censorship Board knew that the new regulations were to be in place and made their decisions in accordance with those new regulations. For the Attorney to try to mislead this place is a despicable act and he should be ashamed of himself. Those of us who saw the program would also have seen how these moderating amendments worked. The Democrats also saw the program and the Attorney-General gave in to a few amendments that have not worked, as was seen in the program. To use his words, he bought the lousy vote of the Democrats. Mr Acting Deputy President, you will remember that very clearly because we all remember those words of the Attorney-General: 'If that is what it takes to buy your lousy vote'. Senator Durack —His third most famous saying. Senator WALTERS —Yes. Another is: 'I thought it a good idea at the time'. We have several such sayings from the Attorney-General. So he bought the Democrats' lousy vote, and we saw what happened on Four Corners the other night. We heard a video explicitly depicting a violent rape. We saw a bound and gagged woman, and she certainly was not consenting. We then saw the problems that the Film Censorship Board faced because it had to interpret the new regulations that this Attorney-General has brought down. What did it do? The majority of the members of the Board said: 'That video is all right. That is an X-rating. It might be a bit on the border but it is an X-rating'. I thought that was appalling. I am quite sure that every other mother in Australia will be on my side. Every mother in Australia would have said: 'That is not suitable'. What is the effect on children who have seen that program? Do not forget that we are no different from the United Kingdom. Over half the 13- and 14-year-olds will now see this trash no matter what the mothers do about it. What will be the effect on the 13- and 14-year-olds who view that material, their very first introduction to any sort of sexual activity? We may well ask. The Attorney- General will certainly go down in the history of Australia. But while he is prepared to go down as a great libertarian prepared to do anything to allow adults to be able to see, read or hear anything at the expense of their children , the rest of Australia, the rest of the parents of Australia, will certainly put him in his place as they see his place in the history of this country. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.43) —The Senate is considering a matter of public importance, namely: Community concern about the widespread availability of x-rated video material and the need for a Joint Committee of the Parliament to be established without delay to report on the problem created by the Federal Government's precipitate action in liberalising the former regulations before introduction of a nationally acceptable system of classification and distribution after proper consultation with the States and interest groups. We in the Senate have been advised of community concern through the thousands upon thousands of signatures to petitions which have been presented in this Parliament-in this Senate and in the House of Representatives. Those petitions have been rolling in every day. I do not think a day has gone past in the last two months when there has not been a petition which has been expressed in the following terms: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: Then the petitioners talk about the regulations of the Government. These regulations, which are described later, have so much potential for damage. They say that they are now before the Parliament, that they amend legislation and supersede existing legislation in such a manner as to be harmful to society by removing from the existing law-that is what the regulations and the ordinance did-the power to prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography, including X-rated videos, and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs. I pause there to say that the Government had to amend the regulations in order to fix up the hard drugs question, but it has not fixed up the hard core pornography question. The petitioners state that the regulations and the ordinance remove from existing Commonwealth law the power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications, including those associated with blasphemy. The regulations again amend the law by removing from the Commonwealth law the power to require videos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Film Censorship Board before release from Customs. Thousands upon thousands of electors have urged the Parliament to reject the subordinate legislation brought into the Parliament by the Government. The Democrats' spokesman, Senator Mason, said that what we need on this issue is a citizens' initiative. He said we need a referendum. He would not take any notice of a referendum. He did not take notice of the thousands of electors who petitioned the Senate to disallow these regulations and the ordinance. What has his action, together with the action of all Labor Party senators, achieved? It has legalised for the first time in Australia, the importation of all types of hard core pornography, including child pornography, and all publications, which include videos, no matter how violent, cruel, blasphemous, indecent, obscene or likely to encourage depravity or incite a crime, except for terrorism, provided that in the opinion of the Attorney-General they do not depict a child in such a manner as would cause offence to a reasonable adult person or depict considerable violence or cruelty. That is what the Government senators and the Democrats have done to Australia. Furthermore, they have opened the way for the first time in the Australian Capital Territory for the legal commercial exploitation of hard core pornography . That is what Australian Labor Party senators and the Australian Labor Party members in the House of Representatives and the Democrats have done to this country. I believe that the Democrat senators did not know what they were doing. I think Senator Mason is a nice fellow but from examining his speeches on this matter I do not believe that he has understood what has happened. I believe that Government members have not understood what has happened. Furthermore, they have been told lies by their Minister. That is a very serious charge but let me quote what Mr Duffy said in the House of Representatives in defence of the Government' s action. I do not blame Mr Duffy. He obviously did not know what he was talking about. He had been given this line. I quote from page 2851 of Hansard. He said: In summing up, the censorship legislative package under debate will have the following results: The Government will have acted on the recommendations of the Mahony report and brought into conformity the law and practice relating to the importation of publications. I refer the Opposition to the Mahony report. Anybody would think that this matter came from nowhere. The fact is that the matter was closely examined and the implementation of that report is a significant factor in this area of law. That is absolutely false. Let me quote what Mr Mahony said about this matter. Mr Mahony, in his report on the review of customs administration and procedures in New South Wales, made a recommendation at paragraph 5.75. This is the one, presumably, that the Government and Mr Duffy were relying upon. He referred to the conflict between the regulation and the Customs direction. What he said was this: In my view it is quite improper that the responsibility placed on Customs officers by the direction should continue. He was referring to the ministerial direction which emanated from none other than Senator Lionel Murphy in 1973. Senator Durack —What about the new one of Senator Evans? That is even worse. Senator HARRADINE —That is true. We will have to resort to the freedom of information legislation to get that. That statement by Mr Mahony does not say that the law should be brought into conformity with the direction. All it says is that there is a conflict. Mr Mahony recommends that the conflict be resolved without delay. He did not say whether the law should be brought into conformity with the practice or whether the practice should be brought into conformity with the law. What the Government did was to bring the law into conformity with the practice, namely the practice of the Attorney-General in not enforcing the law. Mr Mahony quoted from the report of the Willett Task Force into allegations about the Customs Service in New South Wales. He said at paragraph 5.73: 'The Task Force is of the view that the administrative difficulties caused by the inconsistent policy and treatment of pornography should be remedied by the issue of clear and precise instructions to officers. It is the Task Force's view that the only instruction that could be issued consistently with present legislation is one to the effect that officers should detain any goods coming to their notice which appeared to them to fall within the terms of the regulations, for referral to the Attorney-General's Department. It can be seen that Labor senators and Labor members of the House of Representatives have been snowed by their Minister in respect of this matter. What the Minister said in the House of Representatives was absolutely false. The charge, and the burden for that, is laid fairly and squarely upon the Minister who gave Mr Duffy that advice. I hope that the Labor members of the House of Representatives and the Senate recognise that they have been snowed by their Ministers. They ought to have a good look at what has occurred and what ought to be done about it, because for the first time people can legally import into this country hard core pornography. As Senator Walters said, according to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) the barriers to that importation have been lowered. As Mr Barry Taylor said on the Four Corners program: Private screenings was the first company to actually go out in full colour in the magazines and come out in the open. The interviewer asked: But previous to doing that, according to the letter of the law, . . . not what actually happened, but the letter of the law, were you operating illegally? Taylor said: 'Yes'. The interviewer asked: Like many other people? Taylor said: Now it's legal. In most States. This is a man who allegedly has a business association with an American with heroin connections. This what he said on Four Corners: Well I mean this was what we started off as, and as the government-pressure came on the government to turn it into a legal product, we moved in that direction. How much pressure was put on the government and where did that pressure come from? Senator Walters —And at what price? Senator HARRADINE —I will not go into that, but where did that pressure come from? This Government is supposed to be a government of consensus, yet it rammed through the Senate and rammed through the House of Representatives major changes in the law relating to this material which is, according to the thousands of people who signed the petitions, harmful to society. The Government has not given this Parliament adequate opportunity to examine these matters thoroughly. Indeed, unknown to many of the members of the House of Representatives, the Government brought this matter on in the dead of night, at five minutes to midnight, when all members of the Press had gone to bed and when nobody was listening. The House of Representatives argued it out for an hour and then had one hour of divisions. The Government gagged the debate time and time again. Six times the Government gagged the debate and as many times it voted in relation to motions that were before the Chair. I believe this truly is a matter of public importance. I sincerely hope that the Senate adopts this motion. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —Order! Senator Harradine, your time has expired. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(4.59) —This is a quite extraordinary matter of public importance. It is really nothing more than a third run through of the same debate. I draw honourable senators' attention to the fact that if they want to know what is being said today they can do so by going to Hansard of 4 April as fairly much the same thing is being said by members of the Opposition over and over again. At least they have added a few variations to the substance of the debate in raising this matter of public importance. For instance, they have suggested that we have a precipitate Attorney-General in Senator Gareth Evans. At the same time, on many occasions in this place they have said that the poor Attorney-General is unable to pass any legislation; he is always being forced to put it on the back burner. I ask them and the people of Australia to contemplate how the same argument holds; how the Opposition believes it has an Attorney- General who is bound to put his legislation on the back burner but somehow is able to sneak precipitate pieces of legislation through with nobody looking. I suggest that that part of the Opposition's matter of public importance is a farce. Secondly, the Opposition has talked about the problems created by the Federal Government's action. One of the points that I wish to establish today is that the problem is being created by the hype and fearmongering of the Opposition, and its debates and contributions in this place this afternoon are high cases of illustration of that point. The rhetoric and slogans of the Opposition and the continual concern it voices has done nothing by way of education or information for the people of Australia; they simply highlight the concern creating and perpetuating the problem. It is nothing novel. It is the Opposition's perpetual style and it has been highlighted since it became the Opposition. As I have said, this debate is a third run on this issue in the Parliament this session. As I also have said, if honourable senators want to find out more about it they should go to the Hansard of 4 April of this session and read all about it again. It would seem to be much more useful for the people listening to this debate to be provided with the assurance that the legislation concerning the point of sale control and X-rated videos in association with the total ban on child pornography involving minors under 16, publications that promote, incite or encourage terrorism and those that gratuitously depict extreme cruelty, particularly when combined with sexual element is an important step towards providing just the sort of protection and information that those concerned people have been asking for. The matter of public importance has been raised as though this concern is something the Opposition has just discovered. That is not true. In fact, this concern has been an issue in the community for a considerable time. The Attorney -General has said that in July last year the Attorneys-General gathered to meet and address this point and discussions have been under way since then. He has made that point and I just reiterate it, but it is clearly too much for the Opposition to understand. It is not a matter of new concern; it is a matter of continuing concern and it is a matter of concern that this Government has addressed with these changes in regulations and legislation. It was after recent discussions with the Attorneys-General that we had the report that the women's advisers to the Premiers of the States had considered the current proposals for changes in the legislation and found them acceptable. I can assure the Senate that women's advisers do not come to such a decision without much discussion amongst themselves and the women in the women's groups to whom they are responsible and answerable. That is the way that women in such positions operate. Besides, it is a discussion in the women's community and the women's movement broader than just with those women who are in positions to inform government. It is precisely because of the women's concern about pornography that it is an issue of great concern to them. It is not a novel issue and it is certainly not something that has arisen as a result of this legislation. In fact, I reiterate that the women's advisers to the Premiers have appreciated that some of that concern has been addressed by the legislation introduced by this Government. I return to Senator Walters's contribution-an extraordinary vintage piece of Senator Walters-and just say once again that honourable senators should go back to her speech in Hansard of 4 April earlier this year and they will have almost a rerun. One way in which she added to her speech today was that she drew on evidence from a report in the United Kingdom. However, I would like to draw the Senate's attention to a report on the report. There was an article by Peter Smark in London in the Melbourne Age of 6 April 1984, headed 'UK warning for our video law makers'. The most important part of that article refers to the fact that the research paper put out in Britain had been hastily rushed to the Press, and it states: This report was rushed into print with maximum speed and resulted in shock and some incredulity. It goes on, and I think this is very important for the Senate to note: But the Roman Catholic and Methodist representatives on the group's sponsoring committee withdrew when researchers at Oxford Polytechnic's television research unit claimed Dr Hill- who produced the report- had misused their data. Last month, a Catholic official spoke of 'dubious correlation'. In other words, this evidence has been discredited. I think it is very important to know that the evidence that Senator Walters has been putting and referring to is unreliable. Senator Walters went on to say that she watched the Nationwide program which addressed the problem of video classifications. One of the things that I feel is quite appalling is her claim that every mother would be appalled at that material. I say to Senator Walters, to the people listening to this debate and to the Senate chamber that every reasonable Australian would be appalled. I think it is a disgrace that Senator Walters assumes that only mothers would be appalled at the material. Every reasonable man and woman, married or single, parent or not, would be appalled at the material. That is why most of us are very grateful that we have a classification group which actually performs the task of watching material and providing either an X classification or no classification-that is, rule it out altogether and save us the horrible business of inadvertently from time to time having to watch it. It is not only mothers who are appalled; it is every reasonable Australian. I think that point needs to be understood. The legislation put into place by this Government has presumed that reasonable Australians do exist. The Government acknowledges that there are reasonable people, that there are people with community attitudes that are other than those of Senator Harradine and Senator Walters. It is not that all of us are madly into pornography, that we approve of it or that we rush around promoting it. Indeed, exactly the opposite is the case. We say in the legislation that we want to provide information about the classification of this material so that people can be in a position to make an informed choice. People should be given educational material, information and consumer protection so that they can make this choice. This Government promotes information and discussion. It promotes participation by people in the decisions which affect their lives. Where possible, it does not work by the heavy hand of censorship. As some honourable senators have already pointed out, the Government also appreciates that reasonable people's community standards would not tolerate the material that I mentioned earlier, the classification of which has been totally banned or which is not allowed entry to this country. Following Senator Walters's arguments about censorship, the wrong evidence she quoted pointed to parents needing help; so I presume she would censor, for example, sweet biscuits and sugar to help parents protect their children's teeth rather than provide support, information, encouragement and education to help them help themselves by making informed choices, by relating with their children and by supervising what they eat. I think the analogy is rather good. I think that Senator Walters would prefer to ban things rather than to encourage people to make informed choices and to give them the support they need. I have talked about the proposals being a matter of not recent concern but continuing concern. I certainly am aware that the Attorney-General, Mr Chris Summer, in my State of South Australia, has long addressed this problem. In fact , he was one of the early Attorneys-General to address himself of the matter. Therefore, South Australia is well placed to co-operate with the Federal legislation. In fact, I would say that if anything distinguishes the Labor Government from the Liberal Opposition and independents like Senator Harradine it is the way this Government has approached the question of dealing with that community concern. The legislation was amended as it was for reasons of providing information, of providing the classification, so that people can be in a position to make an informed choice. People cannot properly make choices if they do not know what is to hand. Senator Walters in her previous speech alluded to how people would have to ask the seller or the renter of the videotape: 'Is this all right for my family to watch?'. This is an entirely inappropriate decision for the sales person to have to make because presumably most sales people would not have watched the material and would not know what was in it. I have referred previously to complaints that have been given to me by people who have hired or bought videotapes for family or children's viewing, particularly those who have hired them, and have found attached to the end of the tapes advertisement segments featuring pornographic films. As I recall, Senator Mason alluded to this in his speech earlier. It is for those reasons too -to guarantee that no such pornographic trailers could be attached to videotapes designed for family viewing-that the Government introduced its classification code. To suggest that classifying information or videotapes was a way of wildly rampaging through the community and encouraging the spread of pornography is, I think, a dangerous way of addressing the problem. I think that in some ways both Senator Harradine and Senator Walters could be described as destructively mischievous in their approach to this debate. I wish to address another point that is of considerable concern to the women's movement. It is an issue to which I have alluded before and which I think is of continuing concern to feminists-I include under the word 'feminists' all women of concern and care and that is just about all of us. Those women are very concerned that the pornography films perpetuate stereotype roles for men and women, stereotyped expectations that women enjoy violence and stereotyped expectations that men enjoy doing it to people and watching it being done. I think that all of those are crassly insulting to the men and women in our society. It is not true of most of us. But the feminists have had to address this question in terms of whether or not a censorship approach is more appropriate than a classification one. I quote again the interesting comments that were made by women in America. I refer to an article which appeared in the National Times on 30 March 1984, which reads: In the US, where the First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees free speech , the Women Against Pornography are more cognisant of the dangers of censorship than their Australian sisters. 'We do not advocate censorship. We respect the First Amendment stricture against imposition of prior restraint on any form of speech,' their leaflets state. Feminists here-- meaning in America- concede that banning pornography will not even begin to attack the reasons why so many men hate and oppose women. And they work on many other fronts to end sexism and violence against women. Again, I think that that point needs to be stressed and I take this opportunity to stress it. I think everybody in this place would be in general sympathy about pornography. We do not like it; we disapprove of it. But the difference is whether we ban it totally or classify it under the strict guidelines that have been proposed by the Government and allow people to make informed choices. We cannot use censorship to try to address the problem of changing society's attitudes that are sexist and deeply inbuilt in our community. I believe that either banning or classifying pornography is only one small part of the answer. I suggest that censorship is not the way to change attitudes at all because that denies people any knowledge from which they can develop their attitudes. But sexist attitudes in our society are not built in from pornography. They are built in from all sorts of things-from magazines and daily advertising on television, from things that we regard as not pornography at all. Perhaps the most pornographic feature of our society is the perpetual regarding of women as sex objects in advertisements, sales promotions and so on. I again commend the Government for its legislation in this area. I once again feel that it is a great shame that we have had to waste time rerunning this argument for the Senate this afternoon. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to make a short statement correcting an unfortunate error in the report of the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs entitled 'Freedom of Information Act 1982-Annual Report by the Attorney-General on the operation of the act for the period 1 December 1982 to 30 June 1983'. Leave granted. Senator TATE —The Committee's report was tabled in the Senate last Wednesday, 6 June. At paragraph 5.7 on page 10 of the report the following statement appears: It is interesting, though, that six of the seven conclusive certificates granted by the Attorney-General have been for 'internal working documents'. This sentence is incorrect in stating that conclusive certificates have been granted by the Attorney-General. In fact, the Attorney-General has granted no conclusive certificates under the Act and the seven conclusive certificates referred to were granted in one case by a Minister in the previous Government and, in the remaining six cases, by principal officers of agencies. It is a matter for regret that this error occurred in the Committee's report. The Committee is aware of the Attorney-General's personal view-I certainly am having served with him on the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs when it drew up its report on the freedom of information proposal-that the granting of a conclusive certificate under the relevant provisions of the Freedom of Information Act should be avoided if at all possible. The Committee hopes that he has not been unduly embarrassed by the error in our report. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —by leave-For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Australian delegation to the seventy-first Inter- Parliamentary Union Conference held in Geneva, Switzerland, in April 1984, together with a document entitled 'Results of the 1984 Spring Session of the Inter-Parliamentary Union'. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator WATSON —I seek leave to make a statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Senator WATSON —I thank the Senate. The original venue for the seventy-first Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference was Jakarta, but because the Indonesian authorities were unable to accommodate the delegation from Israel it was necessary, under the rules, to seek an alternative centre. Reasons, including the shortage of time for preparation of the conference, the increasing cost to the host country, sensitivities because of security and other world pressures, caused many countries to be hesitant in offering to host the conference. Therefore, the organising committee arranged for the IPU Conference to be held at its headquarters in Switzerland. The atmosphere of the city of Geneva, a place steeped in history for peace and international co-operation, was such that Geneva was a most appropriate venue for delegates from the 102 member countries to meet. After all, Geneva is considered to be the humanitarian capital of the world. In Geneva there is a real sense of an international community. It is also a major international conference centre where many a country's foreign policy is on display, being a window to the world of both its domestic and foreign policies. Geneva is the headquarters for United Nations disaster relief, refugees, human rights, the International Red Cross, the International Court of Jurists, the World Council of Churches, the world centre of the International Labour Organisation, the World Health Organisation, world patents, trade, and many other international bodies. Switzerland, being a land locked country, has no unity of language and no binding ethnic origin. Yet despite its diversifying elements, it manages a cohesion within its 23 cantons-the sort of cohesion that the world is seeking to attain. The IPU brings together parliamentarians representing different ideologies and countries for the objective study of political, economic, social, judicial and cultural problems of international significance. Its aims are to promote personal contact between members of all parliaments and to unite them in common action to secure and maintain the full participation of their respective states in the firm establishment and development of democratic institutions and in the advancement of the work of international peace and co-operation, particularly by supporting the work of the United Nations. Many speakers at the IPU Conference emphasised that isolated problems, capable in the past of resolution by unilateral action, nowadays require a global solution. Others warned that statesmen must not be blinded by their immediate interests. However, all agreed that the main challenge was the prevention of nuclear war. The IPU is a very representative body and one of the very few world forums in which parliamentarians of a wide variety of political opinion can work to maintain the often divergent objectives of national sovereignty and international solidarity. It is to be hoped that on returning home delegates can adapt internationally inspired resolutions into national determinations. It is a regrettable fact that in this sophisticated twentieth century, with the growth in the technological power bases, the collective wisdom has not kept pace but has, in fact, tended to diminish. Nowadays world leaders tend to take notice of events, including imbalances in trade resources, war threats and destabilising population growth, without necessarily finding remedies. Unfortunately, throughout the world there is war, terrorism, abrogation of civil and political rights, torture and, because of the drought which is affecting 24 African countries, a major refugee problem. In too many countries population growth is leading to reduced living standards, particularly in developing countries. For the developed countries this means that recovery will not be as complete, as strong or as sustainable. The admission of China and the re-admission of Argentina were met with widespread applause from the assembled delegates. Delegates appeared to acknowledge that the changes in the development of international technology will continue despite changes in the disposition of power. Such advances mean that, from a communication viewpoint, the world is effectively shrinking. That factor is probably less evident in Australia because of our isolation and distance to major centres. I believe it is essential for politicians to go overseas to witness and to debate at first hand the problems of a world in transition to enable a proper perspective of the structural changes taking place to be obtained by them and to be understood by Australians. I draw to the attention of the Senate five brief extracts from the debate to show to the Senate and the Australian community the concerns of their colleagues from other countries. The first is: The world has defeated smallpox with a smaller budget than was necessary for the development of one super bomb. From Venezuela: Destiny of developing countries could not be left to the superpowers, nor even on regional co-operation; each country had to be responsible for itself and had to respect the opinion of others. From Zambia: To Africans, small arms were more dangerous than a nuclear weapon. From Bolivia: Bolivia had a heavy debt burden, which used up more than 40 per cent of its export income in repayments. The Bolivian delegate said that he saw an indirect relationship between the program indebtedness of the developing countries and the arms expenditure of the big powers. The delegate from Sudan stated: The rate of desert encroachment on fertile and arable land in Africa was between four and five kilometres per year. This relentless destruction of Africa 's resources must be stopped. Desertification threatened the loss of about 35 per cent of the world's arable land, half of which was located in Africa. I take this opportunity through the airwaves of giving a cheerio to our leader, Ralph Jacobi. I regret that the leader of the Australian delegation was unable to present this report because of the time constraints of the other House. The Australian delegation to the Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference was again led by Ralph Jacobi from South Australia. In Geneva, as in Seoul and Helsinki, Mr Jacobi was a great fighter for justice and democratic principles in both the Ten Plus forums, the IPU executive and council and the open debate of the IPU. His knowledge of Middle East affairs was of such a high standard that it enabled delegates to reduce the gulf of divergent opinions in this very sensitive area. Therefore, it was not surprising that he obtained the respectful title from his colleagues both here and abroad of 'the fearless leader'. Senator Cook's contribution benefited from the counselling of Australia's Ambassador for Disarmament, the sincere Richard Butler. He displayed a knowledge a cut above the average and a sincerity which was lacking in speeches by some other delegations in the debate on disarmament and arms control. Peter Coleman and Dr Klugman showed their courage in attacking a number of sacred cows that generated both applause and criticism. Dr Klugman's concluding remarks are worth repeating. He said that war and aggression go hand in hand with dictatorial regimes because only they can start them without having to justify them to their people. The Clerk of the Senate, in his normal role at the Senate table, appears a sombre, humourless but sage mediator. However, as secretary of the delegation we found a different kind of person-a person full of wit, great energy and a dedication to supply the needs of the members with timely and relevant information. Evan Adermann, John Dyer and Foreign Affairs adviser Fred Peppinck all made significant contributions which all helped to enhance other countries' respect for Australia. I also wish to acknowledge the help from Australia's Ambassador for Disarmament , Richard Butler, and an ex-Tasmanian, who is now Ambassador for Australia in Berne, Mr Hutton. Especially I would like to mention David Sadlier, our Ambassador in Geneva. No other Foreign Affairs official has done quite so much in our experience as David Sadlier who arranged for delegates to be fully briefed and informed. At times some of our Foreign Affairs officers tend to brush off politicians overseas and treat them as an unfortunate interruption to their other duties. But not so David Sadlier. For example, at one significant dinner party the guest list included many distinguished international people. It included the Deputy High Commissioner for Refugees, the Director of Operations for the International Red Cross, and so on. Also among the distinguished guests was Christine Elstob, the daughter of South Australian Labor Senator, Ron Elstob . The pride that she has in her father at this time is significant. When family unions are tending to lessen, the bonds between Christine and her parents are particularly strong. I come back to David Sadlier. Maybe in his earlier career as an Inter- Parliamentary Union Foreign Affairs adviser he learned of the needs of foreign delegates. Indeed, as a window to the world, our diplomatic representation in the whole of Switzerland gives Australia high status in the international community. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory)(5.28) —On behalf of Senator Sibraa, I table further additional information received by Estimates Committee E and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. Debate resumed from 12 June, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(5.30) —This omnibus Bill, which refers to changes, in part, to the Distillation Act 1901 and the Spirits Act 1906, has particular relevance to my State of South Australia as it touches the area of brandy excise and the quality of brandy as well as the quality of wine. For that reason I have risen to discuss this matter on behalf of my colleague Senator Rae who, as the shadow Minister for Industry and Commerce, would otherwise do so. This legislation follows a detailed review of legislation relating to wine and spirits undertaken jointly by the Food Standards Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council and Commonwealth government departments. The changes will bring both Acts into line with new National Heath and Medical Research Council standards for wine and spirits which have been adopted by State governments. These matters have caused considerable concern within both the brandy and wine industry in South Australia in particular. The concern is based mainly on the speed with which the Government has moved to introduce these new standards. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, foreshadowed the legislation on 4 May 1984 in his news release No. 32. In that release he referred to changes in the definition of brandy and wine as well as foreshadowing changes to abolish the excise duty on wine made with added sugar. No timetable has been given for the enactment of that last change. We recognise that these changes have resulted from a consultative program conducted by the National Health and Medical Research Council which has involved all State governments and the industry. However, the fundamental concern of industry on this matter is the quality of the product. Quality, obviously, is absolutely vital to the continued viability of the brandy and wine industry. Australia does produce fine quality wines and brandies but needs to be able to continue that way in the future in order to ensure its viability and to continue its expansion, particularly on the overseas markets. In the past a considerable number of matters have troubled the brandy industry in particular. I do not exclude the wine industry from that. However, we recall the activities of the Whitlam Government between 1972 and 1975. That Government reduced the differential between Australian and imported brandy by increasing the excise on brandy. The figures speak for themselves. In 1974 Australian brandy accounted for 29 per cent of the market whereas imported brandy accounted for 7 per cent. By 1983 Australian brandy had fallen to 19 per cent of the market while imported brandy had risen to 26 per cent. In other words, there was a total reversal of the position. That was as a direct result of the increase in excise. In effect, a very substantial and important industry in South Australia has been largely destroyed as a result of government activity. In the 1983 Budget the Hawke Government levied a new wine tax through the excise legislation which was expected to produce some $13m by March 1984. That has produced less than $500,000. That has been raised at the cost of crippling the fortified wine industry. This has been exemplified in recent days by the announcement by Yalumba Wines that it will no longer make fortified wines, therefore giving away some of its great port industry. Names such as Galway Pipe will go by the board in future. Only in the last few days or so another winery in South Australia, Hoffman's wines of Tanunda, has also announced its intention to close its fortified wine section. People engaged in the wine industry recognise the dangerous position into which the Government has thrust the industry and the hardship that has been caused, not so much to the wine makers or their employees but to the grape growers, the small block owners in the Riverland and other parts of South Australia, particularly in the Barossa Valley, who rely on the fortified spirit and wine industry for the sale of their surplus products. That has been the traditional way in which the industry has taken care of its surplus products over the years. By turning its surplus grapes into spirit it preserves it in a form that can be utilised for later production of brandy and fortified wines. In that way the industry has been able to maintain its stability without having to rely on government support by way of social security or otherwise when times are hard. It is no doubt quite obvious that there is great concern in South Australia about the current position of the industry. That has been exemplified by a great deal of newspaper editorial comment and other matters that have been raised in the media in South Australia. Even the Government has given some acknowledgement to the nature of this problem. In the March edition of the Stock and Land newspaper, the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, was reported as having said: The wine decision was out of my control. It sure was- To some degree it is not a wine tax; it's an excise levy-- he should explain the difference to me- which particularly affects the most vulnerable end of the wine industry. I think it was a wrong decision. It certainly was a wrong decision and the people of South Australia understand just how wrong it was. About 7,300 growers and labourers are employed in those two industries in Australia. There are as well 5,600 employees in the distilling and winemaking industry. There is some misapprehension that the wine and brandy industry pays very little taxation. A lot of it, of course, goes to the State governments as distinct from the Federal Government and perhaps that is where some of the misapprehension comes in. But even by the 1982-83 estimates of brandy excise that was paid, an amount of $36.5m came into Federal coffers. The excise on grapes also raised another $6.2m. But the amounts paid to the State governments by way of liquor taxes reaped $62.1m, while it is estimated that sales tax on brandy will bring in $15.9m in the current financial year. All in all State and Federal governments reap some $120m a year from the wine and brandy industries. These matters should be brought home, as there is some kind of misapprehension and common view in the community that these industries do not pay their way in taxation. Turning to the legislation that is before us, and the amendments to the Spirits Act, Mr Acting Deputy President, I draw your attention to the use of the term in the definition of brandy. The changes that have occurred by way of this amendment lead us to the conclusion that products other than wine made from fresh grapes will be used in the future manufacture of brandy and will be acceptable according to the health standards. That is the major point at issue in this legislation. I foreshadow that I intend to move an amendment during the committee stage which will seek to redefine brandy as a spirit which is distilled wholly from wine which is the fermented juice of fresh grapes, so as to make it quite clear that this product is derived from wine and is not adulterated by other products. It is a vital quality issue, as I have stated earlier. The concern of the industry, which has been made quite clear, I believe, to the Government as well as to the Opposition, follows a meeting of the Australian Wine and Brandy Producers Association in Adelaide about a fortnight ago when this matter was raised. Certain views were put as to the amendments which I believe would be satisfying to the industry if they were carried in the form that I have mentioned. I ask the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs ( Senator Ryan) whether she would give us an undertaking that, with regard to the argument that I have raised here today, she would be able to take the matter forward on behalf of the Opposition to the National Health and Medical Research Council in order to see whether it is possible to re-think this position. I seek her assurance to that effect. I hope she may be able to satisfy us when she winds up the debate, otherwise I will be forced to move my amendments. Some sections of the wine industry have also expressed concern about the definition of wine under changes to be made to the Distillation Act and, as well , the foreshadowing of changes to the Excise Tariff Act. It is felt that those changes may lead to the possibility of wine being made from dried grapes through the addition of water and sugar. While this may not seem a terribly important matter, I point out to the Senate that this is particularly important when we consider the quality of Australian wines and the desire of the industry to further develop its markets on the world scene. It is fairly clear that if Australian wine loses its reputation, which is very high in terms of quality, consequently our opportunities on world markets will diminish. Other people in the industry have pointed out that State government provisions allow only for the addition of 3 per cent of water to wine. Concern about that matter is not so great, but it is also argued that the liberalisation of definitions will possibly allow greater use of technology in the methodology and production of wine. That is a matter of great concern. If one refers to wine in relation to fresh grapes, the term 'fresh grapes' would have to be defined. Some winemakers prune their vines and leave grapes hanging for some time before picking them. Would they be technically classed as fresh grapes? I believe we need to make that point clear. Mr Acting Deputy President, I believe you have heard enough from me on this matter. I know other senators wish to speak on this matter which is of very great concern to my State. I reiterate in conclusion that it is a matter of very great concern to the industry, as it is vital to the question of quality of our wine. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.41) —I will speak now rather than in the Committee stage since the item that I wish to raise is connected, at least tangentially, with that raised by Senator Messner. It is a point that I have raised every year for the last three years and hopefully some action might finally start to be taken on it. It does not concern a large industry; in fact, it concerns a very small, struggling industry-that is, the wines which are made from fruit other than grapes. The whole sorry episode goes back a long way. Wine made from grapes is, of course exempt from sales tax. Wine made from fruit other than grapes attracts at the moment sales tax of 20 per cent. It arises from an interpretation of the Commissioner of Taxation, who has taken it upon himself to declare that wines made from anything other than grapes are not wines, and certainly not Australian wines, despite the fact that the technology of wine making and every other reference book that one can find states: 3. the juice, fermented or unfermented, of various other fruits or plants, used as a beverage, etc.: gooseberry wine . . . Undoubtedly, wines made from fruits other than grapes are wines, are Australian wines, and are made by Australians who are attempting to develop an industry in this country, particularly in my State, from tropical fruits. While they are trying to establish an industry, the Government is trying to tax them out of existence. It will not touch wine made from grapes; but it will try to destroy people who are trying to make wines from any other fruit and trying to do so commercially. This was first brought to the Government's attention in 1977 and intermittently thereafter. I took it up in 1980 and tried unsuccessfully through the Department of the Treasury to get a reply to my requests. I finally wrote to the then Treasurer. I received a letter from Senator Messner, who was then the Minister Assisting the Treasurer. He stated that the granting of a sales tax exemption had to be taken into account in the overall economic strategy. Since the total amount of money that had been made in the previous year was about $3,500, I assumed that the letter was a joke sent by somebody because it was around about April. I did not believe the entire economics of Australia were about to fall to the ground because we were not going to put sales tax on something that had created a $3,500 profit. So I tried again. This time my query must have gone to some other person in the Department or the Minister's office who also fancied himself as a practical joker, because this time the response was that it would destroy GATT. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade would collapse about our ears if we did something to assist this small, struggling Australian industry. I thought that that was a joke and I put it in the waste paper basket too. I then decided on a different tack and that was to take it up in the debates on the amendments to the sales tax legislation. I will not go on with the story, but the next time I took up the matter was in 1982 and again in 1983. In 1983 Senator Walsh gave a totally different response which was even more confusing than the last one. He suggested that there was a valid case and that movement ought to be made towards a greater degree of tax neutrality than presently existed. I thought that we would get somewhere, but he then said the Government was not going to do anything about it. That brings us again to 1984. I expect that the next chance I will have to raise this will be during the Budget session when, in fact, I do intend to raise it if I cannot get any assurances that this particular problem will be considered with some sympathy and genuine understanding. A small group of people are being driven out of what could be a very useful business. There are only about three of these wineries established around Australia. Only one winery producing commercially from tropical fruits operates in my State. I understand that one winery in New South Wales produces from other fruits and one produces mead from honey. Those wineries are all in the same position. In every case those commercial wineries are a tourist attraction. The one in Queensland, for example, is in Bundaberg. It is set up as a tourist attraction. It is attempting to operate as part of the tourist sector in Bundaberg. I would have thought that the Government's new-found interest in tourism might also have led it to think that these wineries might be considered useful tourist attractions. The Government's rhetoric in relation to small business might also lead it to look at this, because this is small business. Almost inevitably, only one or two people are involved in these wineries, yet they are paying 20 per cent sales tax when all other wineries are not paying any tax at all. Surely this is a matter of discrimination against a few small people. The world will not stop if nothing happens about this, but I can assure the Senate that those businesses will go out of business. They are just scraping by now. They are hoping that some sanity may appear on the horizon to rescue them and to assist them to make at least some profit in what could be a useful trade and a useful developing industry for Australia, particularly given our wide range of tropical fruits. I hope that the Minister may be more sympathetic than the Ministers to whom I have previously addressed this problem. It might give at least a glimmer of hope to the small business people if they believe they can make a living out of this. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.47) —I wish to speak on the Statute Law ( Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and refer to the provisions on page 28 of the Schedule to that Bill. They involve an amendment to section 44 of the Family Law Act. The amendment clarifies the responsibility of an appropriate officer of a Family Court of a State in respect of required reconciliation counselling for marriages, where the application for dissolution of the marriage is filed within the period of two years after the date of the marriage. Under section 44 of the principal Act, in that case the application shall not be filed unless it is accompanied by a certificate in the prescribed form- (a) stating that the parties to the marriage have considered a reconciliation, with the assistance of a specified person or organization, being- (i) a marriage counsellor or an approved marriage counselling organization; (ii) another suitable person or organization nominated by the Principal Director of Court Counselling of the Family Court; or (iii) an appropriate officer of a Family Court of a State; and (b) signed by that person or on behalf of that organization, as the case may be . There has been some question as to whether the appropriate officer of a Family Court of a State could refer for counselling those partners to the marriage to a marriage counsellor or an approved marriage counselling organisation or some other suitable person, or whether it had to be done by an appropriate officer of the Family Court. This amendment to the statute law clarifies that situation and enables the appropriate officer of the Family Court of a State to appoint another suitable person or organisation to nominate another suitable person or organisation to perform the counselling service. As such, I think it is an appropriate clarification of what was intended in that section when the matter was discussed in October 1983. Court counsellors in the Federal registries are at present overloaded. Incidentally, those court counsellors-I would think the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) could correct me if I am wrong-are mainly engaged in separation counselling rather than reconciliation counselling. By and large, they counsel on matters of custody, access and division of property. A degree of opportunity is there for reconciliation counselling, but because of the substantial number of divorce applications, which place a burden on the Family Court, the counsellors are very much overloaded. We should examine that situation and enable counsellors to engage more in reconciliation counselling which would, of course, prevent the need for separation counselling. The recent annual report of the Institute of Family Studies has described clearly the devastating fact facing Australian society today, namely, that 40 per cent of marriages entered into will end up in divorce. That is a devastating statistic, one of which we as a society and as a parliament can hardly be proud. It is my view and that of very many people that the law has an educative role. Amendments that have been made to family law legislation-indeed, the Family Law Act itself, initially-have had an educative role to the detriment of society. I believe it is fairly generally recognised that people do not truly accept the obligations willingly entered into upon marriage. A covenant made between two people can be disregarded almost at will after 12 months' separation. That is the only ground. Of course, great concern and distress are felt by the partners to the marriage in those circumstances. Any law which is increasingly not founded upon the consensus of the whole of the community is destined not to be observed. We have a number of manifestations of that, in that persons have expressed their disenchantment with the Family Law Act in ways which are not acceptable to society and cannot be condoned in any shape or form. But again, in my view, we as a parliament must at some stage have a really good look at the family law legislation. Senator Gareth Evans —Spare us that now. Senator HARRADINE —I would be out of order if I dealt with that at length now. I want to get at the particular point that is made, which widens the scope- Senator Gareth Evans —It does not even do that; it just restores it. It was an inadvertent omission. You have had a pretty long string so far. Senator HARRADINE —I am drawing a long bow. But it restores the situation with regard to the persons who are able to provide counselling. I remind the Senate that not only are there costs involved to the individuals concerned but there are great costs to the community involved in the dissolution of marriage. Just to update the figures, I should like to mention that the figures that have been provided to me show that 68.6 per cent of those receiving the supporting parent' s benefit, at a cost in 1982-83 of $727.7m, are separated wives or de facto wives. Senator Gareth Evans —On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. I hate to interrupt Senator Harradine, because he is dealing with an important matter; however, it really is stretching an extremely long bow to diverge, as he is doing, on to these matters, with what is essentially an amendment of very narrow scope, a very technical amendment, which is doing no more than reinstating the status quo. It is not a policy matter that is before us now. I suggest that Senator Harradine be asked to confine himself to the particular matter before the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Senator Harradine, you have been straying a little wide of the Bill. I ask you to return to the Bill and to remain relevant to it. Senator HARRADINE —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I acknowledge the point of order and I accept your ruling. I hope that the Attorney-General will, at some future stage, give consideration again to my proposal in relation to the need for required reconciliation counselling for the purpose of getting the partners to the marriage together to consider the legal, social and financial consequences of the dissolution of marriage and, in particular, the effect of that dissolution of the marriage on any children of the marriage and, having regard to the consequences and effect referred to, the possibility of reconciliation. I acknowledge that, as a result of the debate that we had, the Minister gave an undertaking to expend a certain amount of money in an advertising campaign. I see that that campaign has now been launched. I endorse that and I congratulate the Minister on that, if the Standing Orders will allow me to do so. I hope that this will be continued and that when the Minister is preparing his bids for the Budget he will look at the amount of money available for pre-marriage counselling as well. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.00) —This piece of legislation amends some 51 Acts covering almost the whole legislative universe which allows honourable senators to range pretty widely in what they talk about. I express my gratitude to the 61 honourable senators who exercised self- restraint and did not speak on this piece of legislation. I turn now to the matters raised by Senator Messner. He has foreshadowed amendments to the definition of brandy, which he will move in the Committee stage. Perhaps I can anticipate that motion and reply to it now, without the need for further debate. These amendments relate to the representations made, essentially at the eleventh hour, by the Australian Wine and Brandy Producers Association. They were raised in the House of Representatives by Mr Andrew. A full answer was given by Mr Duffy, the relevant Minister in charge of the Bill concerned, on 4 June-as reported in Hansard at pages 2835 to 2838. I shall not reply in repetition of that here now. It is a little curious, perhaps, that these representations were left until the last minute when the definition was, after all, part of a standard adopted by the National Health and Medical Research Council in 1983, after several years of discussion and examination. However, the Government recognises, of course, the importance of a successful and viable Australian grape and brandy industry. I am certainly prepared, on behalf of the Government, to give the undertaking sought by Senator Messner; namely, that representations and the foreshadowed amendment will be referred to the NHMRC for study and report. I do that after consultations with the relevant section of the Department of Industry and Commerce, so I say with some confidence that that will be attended to in the way sought. As to the matter raised by Senator Macklin, it was, essentially, to similar effect. The States and the Commonwealth are implementing definitions on a wide cross-section of legislation. In relation to the definition of wine, which was the subject, as I understand it, of Senator Macklin's contribution and proposed Committee stage amendment, I again undertake, on behalf of the Government, to ensure that that question is referred to the NHMRC for study and advice. I hope, accordingly, that it will not become necessary for Senator Macklin to carry out in the Budget session the course of activity that he mentioned, and that the matter will be attended to to his satisfaction. As to the matters raised by Senator Harradine, he was speaking to a provision in this miscellaneous amendments Bill which, as I said by way of a point of order earlier, simply reinstated in its appropriate place a provision concerning the machinery of counselling which had been inadvertently omitted in the revisions of the legislation which took place last year. But Senator Harradine took the opportunity to express views about the role, significance and utility of counselling, and particularly reconciliation counselling, which I fully endorse. I only wish that the resources were available in the family law courts to make possible the provision of that counselling on the scale that we would all like. I am glad that Senator Harradine referred to the $100,000 campaign that is now being set in train to draw the community's attention to the services in this respect provided by the marriage counselling organisations and the private sector organisations. I also draw his attention to the proposal, which I hope to be able to get moving this year, for family law centres attached to, or in vicinity of, certain of the family law courts in various areas, whose primary function will be that of mediation and, in anticipation of family law disputes, to try to get people back together again and stop matters which might otherwise get to court and occupy court time. It is, again, a variation on the counselling theme-not just in the context of after-the-event division of the spoils or division of custody of children; it is a matter of trying to anticipate and head off those problems arising in the first place, and to get people back together again as far as is humanly possible, rather than just clean up the wreckage afterwards. I fully endorse the sentiments expressed by Senator Harradine. I shall continue to bear actively in mind the sentiments that he has expressed during the-- Senator Harradine —Will you give us an opportunity to have an input about those family law centres? There are a couple of problems about them. Senator GARETH EVANS —I shall be happy to do that. They are only in a very early stage of formulation. The particular concept will depend on my being able to get some resources out of the current Budget. If Senator Harradine will allow me to sit down and conclude the debate I will be off to see Mr Dawkins in a matter of two or three minutes in order to do just that. With those remarks, I commend the Bill to the Senate and wish the Bill a speedy passage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. [COGNATE BILL: DIVIDEND RECOUPMENT TAX BILL 1983 [No. 2] (1984)] Debate resumed from 10 May, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(6.08) —The Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Amendment Bill 1983 (No. 2) [No. 2] 1984 and the Dividend Recoupment Tax Bill 1983 [No. 2] are re-presented to us, having initially been presented by the Government on Budget night 1983. It is claimed that these Bills are identical to the Bills presented previously. It is also claimed that the Bills amend the unpaid company tax recoupment law to extend the scope of the legislation so that personal tax avoided by former owners of companies stripped of pre-tax profits will be subject to recoupment in relation to revenue profits in the years in respect of which company tax was evaded. They will also, as is described, ensure that liability for recoupment tax will not be escaped by reason of an ultimately unsuccessful post-sale or pre-sale tax avoidance scheme. The Bills authorise the Commissioner of Taxation to do a number of other things, as they did on their first introduction. As far as the Opposition is concerned it stated its opposition to these Bills the first time they were presented, as it did to the Bills introduced by the Government claiming recoupment of tax on other occasions. We have to ask why this Bill is the one re-presented to us and why not the Dawkins Bill, that was the Government's first introduction of tax avoidance legislation. I think what ought to be said at the time of dealing with these Bills tonight is that tax avoidance in Australia is a dead issue but an issue which the present Government wants to keep alive. The Fraser Government, after years of determined and consistent action and legislation in this area, laid the tax avoidance industry in its grave. That is the conclusion of all recognised experts in the taxation field and even in a rare moment of honesty, of the Federal Minister for Finance, Mr John Dawkins. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in his own desperate search for some sort of election issue, is trying to deny the coalition's unparalleled record in smashing the tax avoidance industry. The Australian Labor Party myth machine, having manufactured the claim that the Fraser Government lacked the resolve to tackle tax avoidance head on, is now cultivating the lie that the Liberal and National parties are friends of the tax cheats. Those are the terms used by the Prime Minister when speaking to his own Labor Party faithful in Adelaide shortly before Easter. He said at that time that the Liberals and the Nationals and the Australian Democrats will not be able to move away from the fact that they are the friends of the tax cheats in Australia. He said: 'They will be labelled as the people who have cost Australians half a billion dollars by their refusal on three occasions to pass through the Senate legislation dealing with unpaid tax'. It will be well known through the debates held in the Senate, at least, that the truth of the matter is that the Fraser Government, in a campaign against tax avoidance waged over five years, effectively closed down the tax avoidance industry in this country. The Labor Government, in its desperate attempt to breath life back into the decaying corpse of the tax avoidance bogy, has resorted to insidious retrospective legislation to deal with practices and schemes which have already been wiped out as a result of the legislation of the Fraser Government. Labor is simply trying to manufacture a phoney issue for electoral purposes. The nature of Mr Hawke's campaign, particularly the language that he has used with regard to this matter, sits very uneasily with the admission of his own Minister for Finance, Mr Dawkins, who told a meeting of chartered accountants in Sydney on 14 April that tax avoidance in Australia was 'dead as an issue'. That is the impression and the understanding of the experts, the professionals, and those who deal with tax legislation in any depth. I take this opportunity at this time when we are dealing with Bills re- presented to us to state something of the record of action of the Liberal Party when in government and the way in which we quite unashamedly dealt with the tax avoidance industry over a number of years. I recall that it was early in 1978 that the Fraser Government waged a war of exposure and legislation against the tax avoiders and eventually closed down this industry which had grown and expanded under the Whitlam Government and which had received encouragement from several High Court of Australia decisions. Even the present Treasurer, Mr Paul Keating, has admitted that the tax avoidance industry sprang into life during the days of the Whitlam Government. He stated on a 4BC talk back program in September 1982: When we were in government between '73 and '75 the tax avoidance industry started to move into sophisticated contrived schemes. Schemes that were artificial devices to avoid tax. It is fair to recall that decisions of the High Court during the 1970s, especially the 1974 decision on the Curran-type tax avoidance schemes and the 1977 judgments in Slutzkin's case and Cridland's case, effectively destroyed the anti-avoidance provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act. Those decisions eroded the standards of conduct in the community generally on tax liabilities. That was understood by the Fraser Government when in office. It signalled the start of its fight against tax avoidance in the 1977 Budget Speech when the then Treasurer, Phillip Lynch, said: The Government is well aware of the activities of tax planners who, increasingly, are promoting tax avoidance schemes and arrangements throughout the business and professional community. We propose to crack down hard on such practices. From early 1978 onwards the Fraser Government followed a steady pattern of outlawing specific tax avoidance practices as they came to light. A string of amendments to taxation laws were announced and subsequently implemented. By the start of 1982 the Fraser Government had introduced over 22 pieces of legislation closing down over 50 tax avoidance schemes. That sits very uneasily with the Prime Minister's assertion that the Liberal Party and the National Party-he also singled out the Democrats in this place-are the friends of the tax cheats. That is the record-all of those pieces of legislation to deal with contrived schemes to ensure that the proper tax was paid by those receiving income and making profits from their corporate ventures. The two landmark pieces of legislation in this area were the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act, passed in December 1980, which prospectively created a criminal offence for bottom of the harbour transactions, and the new Part IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act which was a general anti-avoidance provision replacing section 260 which had lost favour with the High Court. The new Part IVA came into operation in May 1981. Tax avoidance became a topic of major public debate in 1982 after the release of two reports-the McCabe-Lafranchi report commissioned by the former Liberal Government in Victoria, which detailed the activities of promoters of bottom of the harbour schemes before these were blocked by the introduction of the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act in 1980, and the Costigan report of the Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, which exposed bureaucratic delays and improper behaviour within the Public Service in tackling this problem. However, the total tax avoided in the bottom of the harbour schemes of about $ 500m was relatively small compared with the enormous amount saved by the Fraser Government's massive anti-avoidance legislation which was needed to arrest the growth of the tax avoidance industry, mainly resulting from High Court of Australia decisions unfavourable to the Commissioner of Taxation. In a table in September 1982 the Commissioner of Taxation gave particulars of deduction claims involving tax avoidance for the years 1974-75 to 1980-81. That showed the extent of the claims, starting with $1.2m in the first year of 1974, $47.9m in the next year, $151.9m in the following year, through to $1,859m in 1977-78, diminishing in 1978 to $400m, in 1979 to $400m and 1980-81 to $122m. The Commissioner of Taxation believes that he will successfully collect all of those sums that were in the table that he released. However, the bottom of the harbour schemes received more public notoriety than the successful fight against avoidance because of the fraudulent conduct of some of those involved, and the colourful and sensational treatment of the issue in the McCabe-Lafranchi and Costigan reports. When these reports were received the Fraser Government quickly and decisively framed legislation to empower the Australian Taxation Office to recoup the taxes evaded through these schemes from 1972 to 1980. That package of legislation, centred on the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Act, was passed in the Parliament in late 1982. This is the point that has to be made in dealing with these retrospective tax Bills that are before us tonight. Although that legislation had a retrospective element in it, it did not create a new tax liability. It was designed to recover a tax liability which had always existed by shifting responsibility for that tax from defunct companies without assets to pay the tax to former owners of the companies who had financially benefited from the non-payment of the tax. This was a vastly different approach from the Hawke Government's legislation, which retrospectively creates a totally new taxation liability. That is the point that needs to be made. The Fraser Government's legislation was recoupment of tax. It recouped tax that had been unpaid. The legislation that is before us today creates a new liability and applies it retrospectively. That is the reason why, when these Bills were presented to us previously, we said that we were unable to support them. We cannot support retrospective legislation creating a new liability, in some cases on people who did not even exist as shareholders at that time. The Prime Minister said that this is to be an election issue and that he would hound the members of the Opposition again and again as being friends of the tax cheats. We ought to have an explanation from him of how one can place that sort of a tag on people who refuse to deal with retrospective legislation which creates a new liability. The Commissioner of Taxation has made many comments with regard to the position of his requirement for anti-avoidance legislation. He advised the Fraser Government that legislation had wiped out tax avoidance in Australia. On 3 March 1983, only days before the change of government, the Commissioner sent a detailed letter to the then Treasurer, Mr Howard, assessing the tax avoidance minimisation issue in the wake of the recoupment legislation. That letter from the Taxation Commissioner to Mr Howard stated: The evidence available to this office suggests that the introduction on 27 May 1981 of Part IVA (of the Taxation Act) with effect from that date effectively put a stop to the promotion of new tax avoidance schemes of a blatant, artificial or contrived nature. When tabling this letter in the Parliament in March 1984, Mr Howard said: There could be no more telling judgment on the quality and effectiveness of the action taken by the last Government on that issue than that judgment of the Commissioner of Taxation. The Commissioner had said that it had been effectively blocked out. It seems to me that the Hawke Labor Government is searching for some issue. But it should also search for some credibility on some of the statements that it has made, particularly the statements it made prior to being elected to government. In August of 1982 the Labor Party released its policy on tax avoidance and called it 'A Fairer Taxation System'. This promised a tough, uncompromising stance against tax avoidance and evasion. No one would argue about that, if the Government could find some schemes against which it had to act. At that time Labor estimated that losses from tax avoidance and evasion were well in excess of $6 billion a year. It kept quoting that figure and terrifying the Australian people with it. During the election campaign of 1983 Mr Hawke pledged that he would wipe out the tax evasion and avoidance industry and the loss of untold millions of dollars. That was part of his policy speech. After the election, the new Minister for Finance, Mr John Dawkins, continued this myth of the lost millions when he announced: . . . the Government will, as necessary, employ retrospective legislation to ensure tax sought to be avoided under any blatant tax avoidance scheme that comes to light during our term of office will be collected, irrespective of when the scheme was entered into. That was what he said. It was when Mr Dawkins was in charge of taxation for the Government that he introduced the first Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Amendment Bill. It was a very cynical attempt to keep tax avoidance alive as an issue because it went back to areas already covered by the former Government's actions. It invented new cases of illusory avoidance and retrospectively created new taxation liabilities which had never previously existed. We rejected that first Bill that Mr Dawkins brought in as Minister for Finance. In that Bill he went much further than the Government has gone in any of the subsequent Bills which it has introduced. In fact we heard very little about the Bill after it was rejected because the Cabinet did not understand the provisions of the Bill, was not prepared to support it and was not prepared to talk about it after it had been rejected by the Senate. It was insidious; it was draconian; it was legislation aimed retrospectively to impose penal additional tax on schemes which had already been blocked by the Fraser Government's legislation. It contained penalty rates of about 1,000 per cent in some cases. It was retrospective legislation which would have cost some 26,000 people their jobs and probably closed down their businesses by confiscating their working capital. That legislation of Mr Dawkins amounted more to an introduction of a capital gains tax, or perhaps even a wealth tax, because it sought to tax not only notional dividends but also capital profits and reserves which, if the company had been wound up lawfully, would not have been taxed at the time. The Dawkins Bill could be described only as one which introduced a capital gains tax. Perhaps that is why we have not heard any more about it from the Hawke Labor Government, particularly prior to the next election. That Bill disappeared. We had another couple of attempts to introduce legislation, but retrospective legislation creating new liabilities. The Bill before us creates liabilities that did not previously exist. It creates liabilities which ignore provisions that exist in the Income Tax Assessment Act. It ignores completely the provisions that exist with regard to retention allowances and the fact that ordinary companies are not required each year to dispose of all their after tax profits to the owners of the company. It deems that these have been distributed. It imposes retrospectively a tax on them . I think that I need say no more about the Bills before us than simply to assert again that members of the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia will not pass legislation that imposes new taxes retrospectively and which is misleading in the description of the Bills and the measures that are put before us. It is extremely misleading to talk of recouping tax as if it were tax that had been due and had not been collected when really the Bill will create a new tax. The Bill ignores the provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act and ignores completely the fact that there is such a thing as sufficient distribution. Even if the Bill were to require the payment of tax it could not do so under the present Income Tax Assessment Act. So, on behalf of the Opposition, I strenuously assert once again that we will reject the retrospective legislation before us. We abhor the fact that it will create a new liability and apply it retrospectively, ignoring the provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act, and that it will serve as the election issue with which the Prime Minister wishes to confuse the Australian people. I mentioned the consistent program of legislation that was introduced by the Liberal-National Party Government over five years which every professional and the Minister for Finance acknowledge has closed down the tax avoidance industry. The Fraser Government's recoupment legislation will collect over $500m. That legislation has been acknowledged by the Commissioner of Taxation to be working satisfactorily. The money will be recovered from the so-called bottom of the harbour schemes. The Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act and Part IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act have effectively wiped out tax avoidance. For the present Minister of Finance to acknowledge that the tax avoidance industry is dead when speaking to a professional body, surely leaves Mr Hawke without the election issue that he wishes to use, in his own words, to 'hound the members of the Opposition as being friends of the tax cheats'. There is only one reason why Mr Hawke would try to fight the election on this contrived and manufactured issue; that is, he wishes to divert the attention of the Australian people from the real election issues-the economic problems, the level of taxation which individuals will have to pay, the cost of Medicare, the assault on the elderly through the assets test, the lump sum superannuation legislation which has passed through this place and all the other things that have affected the living standards of Australians. It sits very uneasily on Mr Hawke to describe this legislation as legislation which will solve the problems of the Australian community by creating an artificial and retrospective tax law to be applied to people who, under existing law, would not have been required to pay in the manner this legislation prescribes. So, on behalf of the Opposition, I indicate our total opposition to and rejection of these Bills. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.28) —in reply-Listening to Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle's glowing account of the alleged anti-tax evasion and avoidance record of the Fraser Government has reminded me of a Stalinist rewrite of history. According to Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, the Fraser Government waged an unremitting campaign against taxation avoidance and evasion. Let us try to reconcile that with the facts. So far as the bottom of the harbour schemes are concerned, the fact is that for years the former Treasurer, Mr Howard, received increasingly desperate entreaties from the Commissioner of Taxation to take action against those schemes because of the enormous leakage of corporate tax and other taxation revenue that the Commissioner had identified or believed existed. The reaction of the Fraser Government as far as the Treasurer was concerned was to do absolutely nothing until the scandals were fully exposed in the McCabe-Lafranchi report and one of the reports of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. Only then, only after their exposure through completely independent bodies and because of the former Prime Minister's intention to have a quick election, did the Fraser Government move to take action against the perpetrators of the bottom of the harbour frauds. I note that even Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle has acknowledged that the conduct of some of the people involved in those schemes was fraudulent. So far as the former Attorney-General was concerned, he presided over the notorious five-year bottom of the drawer case. He sat on his hands for five years while his Department took no action whatsoever under the existing law which some people in the investigative branch of the Australian Taxation Office believed could have been used against the bottom of the harbour schemes. So on the one hand we had an Attorney-General who did nothing for five years and, on the other, a Treasurer who did nothing in response to the desperate entreaties of the Commissioner of Taxation which continued for more than two years. Finally , after those scandals had been publicly exposed by independent sources, the Fraser Government, facing a desperate election, decided to take action. That is a fact. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator WALSH —I do not intend to delay the passage of these Bills any further. Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I responded briefly to Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle's apologia for five years of inertia. I think the fate of these Bills is fairly well known. Half of the members of the Senate will again, as they have done on previous occasions, prevent the Government from recovering hundreds of millions of dollars in taxation which ought to be paid. No further comment or debate, no matter how compelling or how rational, will make any difference to the way in which the members of the Senate will vote; they will vote the same way as they have before. Therefore, I suggest that the vote on the second reading be taken, Mr President. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 0 —— Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. McIntosh, G. D. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J. Cook, P. F. S. Primmer, C. G. Elstob, R. C. Ray, RobertEvans, Gareth Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Richardson, G. F. Foreman, D. J. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Gietzelt, A. T. Ryan, S. M. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Hearn, J. M. Zakharov, A. O. Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Macklin, M. J. Carrick, Sir John Martin, K. J. Chaney, F. M. Messner, A. J. Chipp, D. L. Rae, PeterCrichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Haines, J. Townley, M. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Withers, R. G. Georges, G. Lewis, A. W. R. Tate, M. C. Collard, S. J. Button, J. N. Archer, B. R. Sibraa, K. W. Missen, A. J. Crowley, R. A. Hamer, D. J. Grimes, D. J. Jessop, D. S. Question so resolved in the negative. Debate resumed from 6 June, on motion by Senator Ryan: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(8.07) —The Opposition will oppose the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill. Our major objection is that this ill-considered and dangerous legislation does not primarily relate to sacred site protection but has much broader application. We believe that land rights are being pushed in this Bill at the expense of civil liberties and to the detriment of the individual rights of all Australians, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. Not only will this Bill erode the goodwill built up by the positive initiatives of the previous Government but also it will erode the broad bipartisan approach favoured by all Australians towards the justifiable needs of Australia's Aboriginal people. The Government is antagonising otherwise sympathetic Australians with the production of this confrontationist Bill. As my colleague the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, James Porter, has put it, Australia's future unity is being jeopardised for the sake of political expediency. The truth is that this is the only legislative move that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) has made in an attempt to fulfil just one of the extravagant and ill-considered promises he has made over the last 18 months. It is the Minister's own political future that he is worrying about in rushing through this Bill now, not the future of the Aboriginal people or of the nation as a whole. Someone has mentioned to the Minister that there will be an election at the end of the year and has woken him up to the fact that he desperately needs to get something through the Parliament at least to get a run on the board . The Minister's late haste reflects this. This was evident to all of us last Friday week when the debate in the House of Representatives was brutally suppressed and the legislation rammed through. Important implications of the Bill have not been discussed. This Government has proved once again that consensus and consultation will involve only those who enjoy the Hawke Government's favour. Much less has there been consultation with the many Aboriginal groups. Quite extensive groups, contracts and concerns have been flowing into honourable senators' offices in the last few days. In fact, it can be confidently stated that the Minister has misled the Parliament as to the extent of his consultations with the Aboriginal community. In a letter to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), concerning other consultations that the Minister has claimed he has made and obviously has not, the National Farmers Federation Executive Director, Mr John Whitelaw, said: The introduction of the Bill to Parliament has been conducted in an atmosphere of urgency. The NFF can see no reason for this great haste. I urge your support for deferral of any resolution of this Bill in the House until at least the Budget session of Parliament, to allow more time for the Government to consider the views of all interested parties. Senator Cook —When are you going to talk about what really is in it? Senator MESSNER —I will talk about the Bill if the honourable senator promises not to talk about economics and show us his rubbish from time to time. Similarly , although the Bill is of legitimate and vital importance to, for example, the mining industry and the thousands of Australians that that industry employs, we have the Australian Mining Industry Council saying: There has been no effective consultation with the mining industry despite the Minister's statements to the contrary. Not one comment by the mining industry on an earlier draft of the Bill has been recognised by the Bill now before the Parliament. That letter, which was sent to members of Parliament and senators, is dated 23 May. So far opposition to the Bill has come not only from the Australian mining industry but also from the Primary Industry Association of Western Australia Inc ., the National Farmers Federation, the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association Ltd, Aboriginal communities, the Australian Archaeological Association and many others. Moreover, the State governments, regardless of their political colours, have expressed deep concern about this legislation. The Liberal Government in Tasmania, the National Party Government in Queensland, and the Australian Labor Party governments of both New South Wales and Western Australia have all expressed grave concerns about this Bill, and well they might . Although clause 13 of the Bill obliges the Minister to consult with the States , sub-clause (4) guarantees that any failure to consult will not invalidate a ministerial declaration, thereby making the State consultation clause almost meaningless. I hope that Government senators are listening to that particular aspect. It is a total denial- Senator Elstob —Read it again. Senator MESSNER —I thank the honourable senator very much for his invitation. I will. Sub-clause (4) of clause 13 guarantees that any failure to consult with the States will not invalidate a ministerial declaration as a result. That is absolutely absurd. Mr Wilson, the Labor Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and a member of the Burke Government in Western Australia, said in Parliament on 8 May : The State Government was not convinced, and it remains unconvinced of the need for the legislation. It continues to have doubts and concerns about the lack of consultation between the State Government and the Commonwealth with respect to this matter. Senator Hill —Who said that? Senator MESSNER —This was the Western Australian Labor Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. That Minister is not alone on that issue. Senator Hill —That is Senator Cook's State. Senator MESSNER —That is Senator Cook's State. I see that he has left the chamber; he cannot take the heat. Since that Minister made that statement the Western Australian State Labor Caucus has voted for the withdrawal of the legislation. A Labor government caucus has voted against the legislation in the State of Western Australia. Indeed from the West Australian of 8 May we know that the Western Australian Premier, the Hon. Brian Burke, has sent a telegram to Mr Hawke complaining about the lack of consultation over the legislation and appealing to the Prime Minister to delay the Bill. If the Minister cannot convince his political mates in the Labor States of the need for the Bill, why is he introducing this ludicrous piece of legislative lunacy in this chamber right now? The original legislation introduced into the Federal Cabinet by the Minister was rejected as being totally inappropriate and the Minister was sent away to have another go at it. Obviously when he came back the second time he had not done much better. What is more, this item was sneaked into the Cabinet room not as part of the Cabinet agenda but as an unlisted item. It is obvious that the silver haired saviour gave him a tip-off that he had to get something before the Cabinet before the forthcoming election and this was his big chance. Other departments had no prior opportunity to consider the contents of the Bill and its wide ramifications for all Australians. If they had, it is clear that this Bill would have been sent back for more rational consideration. Already, as a result of this, the Minister has had to tag on to the Bill amendments to clauses 22 and 24 to ensure that the legislation would even include the very basic convention that a person is innocent until proven guilty-a very basic premise of Australian and British law. I find it extremely objectionable that this Bill can be drafted with such disregard to begin with. That is but one example of the irresponsible haste that has led to the production of this ill- considered legislation. As I said earlier the Bill does not relate to sacred sites, as the Minister tries to imply. In fact the Bill offers no definition for sacred sites even though the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act of 1976 does offer such a definition. That was an Act which I remind honourable senators was introduced by the Fraser Liberal Government. Senator Chaney —And the Western Australian heritage legislation. Senator MESSNER —Indeed, as my colleague Senator Chaney says. It is important to note that the Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act of 1976 specifically relates sacred sites to a spiritual association between Aboriginal people and the land in question. The closest this Bill comes to anything approaching a sacred site is in the phrase 'significant Aboriginal area'. What does that mean? There are several definitions of that in the Act. The following definition is set out in the Bill: (a) an area of land in Australia or in or beneath Australian waters; (b) an area of water in Australia; or (c) an area of Australian waters, being an area of particular significance to Aboriginals in accordance with Aboriginal tradition . . . Obviously that significance is broader than just the question of spiritual significance which was set out in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory ) Act. Clearly the looseness of the definition broadens the application of the Bill far beyond the preservation of sacred sites and objects. We are going far beyond the question of Government action to preserve endangered sacred sites. Indeed the proposed legislation does not even confine itself to the protection of Aboriginal sites but has application specifically to areas, any area, which the Minister believes is of particular significance to Aborigines in accordance with their traditions. This means that a traditional land area could be the subject of a declaration under the Bill regardless of whether it is private or public land. Further, of course, there is no limitation on the size of the area which may be declared under this legislation. Even if this Bill were limited to sacred sites, which it is not, enormous difficulties remain unresolved in determining where the sacred sites are. Aborigines are loath to point them out until these sites are actually threatened believing it important to maintain the secrecy of their locations. Nothwithstanding this, in a submission to the Seaman inquiry into Aboriginal land rights in Western Australia the State Museum in Western Australia proposed that more than 750,000 areas within that State alone could be registered as Aboriginal sites. The Acting Director of the Museum, Mr Peter Randolph, said that the equivalent of 20 sacred sites could be registered for each Aboriginal. Under this Bill we can add to that Lord knows how many significant areas that the Minister may choose to designate. Worse yet, there is no requirement for an applicant under this legislation to establish any relationship with the area or the site. As bizarre and inequitable as it sounds, under this legislation a person with no relationship with an area in question, a person who is not in any sense a traditional owner, may seek a declaration from the Minister which may openly conflict with the interests and wishes of the area's traditional Aboriginal owners. I am told that there is to be some amendment to the Bill in that respect and I look forward to the Government saying something about that in the course of the debate. We would like to hear the Government's remarks on that matter in particular. Not only has this Bill raised enormous concerns amongst non-Aboriginal Australians but also it could allow control to slip from traditional Aboriginal owners and land councils. There is no requirement for the Minister to bring interested parties together to resolve conflict regarding the threat of desecration of an Aboriginal area. There is no requirement under this Bill for the Minister even to consider the national interest. I remind the Senate that that is a key element of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. The thrust of the emergency declarations in the Bill as a whole is toward confrontation rather than the resolution of conflict. To demonstrate this, my colleague in the House of Representatives, Mr Porter, has already outlined a dispute that occurred last year in our home State of South Australia regarding an access road planned to cross the Cane grass swamp to service the Roxby Downs mine. The Minister was quoted at the time in the Sydney Morning Herald as stating that he would introduce legislation to cope with that kind of situation. Let us briefly compare what happened in that dispute under the existing laws with what may have happened had this legislation been in force. Let us not forget that the Minister said that he was hampered at the time from active Commonwealth intervention because there was no relevant Commonwealth law protecting Aboriginal sites. What actually happened was that negotiations were commenced under existing State legislation with the participation of the Roxby Downs management and the affected Aboriginal community. Through that consultation the issue was resolved. I repeat that the issue was resolved under the existing State legislation. The dispute was resolved to the satisfaction of all parties through consultation. Under clause 9 of this Bill an application could be made to the Minister claiming that an area was a significant Aboriginal area which was under serious threat of injury. Undoubtedly, given the Minister's public statements on the issue he would then have made a declaration prohibiting entry into the area which could have lasted for up to 60 days. The Minister could have then sought a report from a person nominated by him and that person could have been one of the people seeking the declaration in the first place. He could have then prohibited entry to that area for up to two years. Those are the very wide powers, the almost dictatorial powers, given to one man-the Minister-under this Bill. If this legislation had been in force at the time of the Roxby Downs problem the dispute could very easily be still going on right now. This confrontationist piece of legislation ignores one very important point: In essence it is unnecessary because the States have legislation to protect sacred sites, as my colleague Senator Chaney has pointed out, and some are in the process already of reviewing their legislation. It is one of the ironies of Australian political life that this Government, which crows about its readiness to negotiate and consult, has failed to do so in a critical area such as this, and has resorted to the shotgun and overkill of this Bill. It is not just access roads to mines, or mines themselves that would be affected under this Bill; all land in Australia is subject to claim under this Bill. It could be Crown land, private land, urban land or rural land. It might not just be land; it could be lakes, creeks, rivers and waterways within the country and all Australian waters in toto-everything from the Coral Sea and the Great Barrier Reef to the Murray, from the central Australian deserts to the city suburbs. Indeed, because the Bill covers all land and water, whether occupied or not, all existing mines, farms, homes and so on are subject to this Bill, which could be rightly called retrospective. Under this legislation the Minister can not only make a declaration prohibiting people from entering their own land, but he could also demand that the owner of the land fence the area in question to stop others going on to it. Property owners and persons or groups with major investments in land improvements can be, by declaration, deprived of access to their land; all this without any compensation being payable unless the courts consider the Minister's declaration amounted to an acquisition. But then the problem arises that the courts could not decide that since it is not an acquisition in the true sense of the word. The Commonwealth would merely be limiting the use of the area. As a result it is highly likely that compensation would not be payable in such a case. Companies could face losses due to existing contractual obligations, farmers stock or crop losses and employees wages or job losses, because compensation is payable only when there is acquisition, not deprivation of the use of the land, which is one of the key elements of this Bill. This Bill seizes a level of power and control and places it in the hands of one man in a way unprecedented in our country's history. I believe we have to make that point very clear. It is the central point of the legislation. As I have pointed out, this is not necessarily for the benefit of Aborigines or the traditional owners of the land. The discretionary powers that it is proposed to confer on the Minister under this legislation are extraordinary. The Bill proposes that the Minister should have virtually unfettered discretion in determining which areas or objects are significant and the restrictions or conditions that will be applied under any declaration. The Minister says that the Bill is 'not meant to close off huge areas' but the fact remains that this Bill would allow just that to happen. Regardless of what the Minister says he means by this Bill, the truth is that its passage would place tremendous powers in that single man. That is the central question for the Senate in this debate. The Bill as it stands betrays not only an unbounded and naive faith in human nature, particularly of politicians, but more sinisterly it also betrays the Minister's apparent belief in his own infallibility. Maybe he has been infected by his great Leader in that. Lest this seem too hyperbolic a statement, let us examine some of the mitigating factors. The review provisions in the Bill are hopelessly inadequate. It is a gross understatement when the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills says of the so-called review provisions in this Bill: The Senate may wish to consider whether parliamentary scrutiny is the most effective means of reviewing the merits of what may be highly complex and contentious decisions. It went on in another part of its report to state: The Committee draws these clauses to the attention of senators in that they might be considered to make rights, liberties and/or obligations unduly dependent upon non-reviewable decisions. I think that makes the point very clearly. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee, a joint committee of this Parliament, makes the point that the review mechanism as set down in this proposed law, that is, the review of that decision by the Minister and the Parliament, is totally inadequate, ill-thought out and inappropriate in those circumstances. Senator Macklin —Why is that? Senator MESSNER —I have just quoted the report of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. This clearly is the signal that such a mechanism is totally inappropriate and needs rethinking. On that ground alone the Government should withdraw the Bill and have another go. If the legislation were to be passed by the Senate this week-and let us just quote a hypothetical case-how would such a mechanism work? Let us say that the Minister makes his first declaration tomorrow. That decision would not be reviewable until Parliament resumed sitting on 21 August. As the Minister said in his second reading speech: Review by the Houses of Parliament will, in effect, be the only review of the merits of the Minister's decision to make a declaration. A declaration could be in force, then, up to three months before it was subject to review. In that time individuals could be subject to the draconian penalties of $10,000 or five years imprisonment or both. For companies, the fine is $50, 000. Even at the end of three months the Parliament would have to come to terms with how to review a Minister's declaration based on an application that may never have been in written form. Consider the further complication under this legislation that the original application need only be filed orally. Clearly the discretionary powers available to the Minister are too wide and the opportunity to review is absolutely meaningless. The Bill is an exercise in omnipotence that will give the Minister such powers of intervention that he could dictate the future of virtually any land or waterway in Australia. The Minister's declaration could prevent the occupation, use and development of any area for up to two years. I must remind the Senate that this can be done without giving any compensation. Although, as the title of the Bill states, the legislation is intended as an interim measure, there are so many fundamental flaws of this nature that the Opposition has no other responsible alternative but to oppose the Bill. That is what we will be doing when the Bill comes to a vote. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia)(8.33) —I just say at the outset that Senator Messner has demonstrated an ignorance of things Aboriginal in discussing the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill 1984. Senator Kilgariff —Steady. Senator COLEMAN —I will get to Senator Kilgariff in a minute as well. If other Opposition senators want to get in it they should just start interjecting and I will perhaps teach them a few things about how Aboriginals feel and what they look to Federal governments to do. Senator Walters —I don't think you could teach Bernie Kilgariff much. You could teach me, but not Bernie Kilgariff. Senator COLEMAN —We know what has happened to Aboriginals in Tasmania so Senator Walters need not come in here and tell us just how marvellous her governments have been over the years. Mr Acting Deputy President, I say through you, because it is obvious that the Senate is in a slightly raucous mood having just returned from dinner, that it is 16 years since we have had a referendum on Aboriginals in this country and 12 of those years have been under Liberal governments. Might I just say that very little was done by those Liberal governments to protect Aboriginals in any way, shape or form. Now, when the Labor Government attempts to bring in legislation which fulfils an election promise to the Aboriginal people of Australia we find the Opposition getting up in arms and saying: 'This is totally unfair legislation; it is unjust; it will infringe the rights of other people'. Even though Senator Messner spent just on half an hour reading his entire speech, he was unable to demonstrate to my satisfaction where the legislation will infringe anybody's rights. The legislation will do a number of things. Before I get on to those let me say that I understand Senator Messner to suggest-I hope that he is not leaving the chamber; I would hate him to miss this-that it was sneakily put on to the Cabinet agenda; it was an unlisted item. Being a member of the Labor Government, I would not be aware of the truth of that statement and I would question as to how he could possibly be aware of it. Senator Watson —He reads the papers. Senator COLEMAN —If Senator Watson believes everything he reads he must have rocks in his head. Senator Messner —Just tell us what they are saying in Western Australia in your Labor Caucus. Senator COLEMAN —I am not privy to the Labor Caucus in Western Australia either, Senator. Senator Chaney —That is fairly obvious. Senator COLEMAN —My attitude to Western Australia and the Aborigines in Western Australia has never deviated. Senator Chaney should be well aware of that. He has been a Minister in this place representing the Aboriginal people. I would like him to demonstrate at a later stage-I notice that he is on the speakers list-some of the things he has done. Let me talk about what this legislation does and how it will form that protection. Senator Messner seemed to find some difficulty with the terminology 'significant Aboriginal area'. I do not find any difficulty with that. Surely the term 'significant Aboriginal area' means a site that has some significance to the Aboriginal people. Senator Messner —What sort of significance? Senator COLEMAN —That is something that would be determined by those people. If they were able to demonstrate that they had an awareness of a site it would be significant. Let me tell honourable senators why this legislation is so necessary. We are now seeing a number of things happening in Australia. I mentioned Senator Kilgariff a little while ago. Let us consider what is happening in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory has legislation to protect Aboriginal artefacts, sites of significance and-I use that lovely phrase -a 'significant Aboriginal area'. But the Northern Territory Government has not chosen to protect those sites. In December 1982, on the order of the Northern Territory Government, part of the Caterpillar Dreaming that runs through the town of Alice Springs was bulldozed to make a road through to the casino. The Caterpillar Dreaming site is registered with the Northern Territory Government as a site of significance to Aboriginal people. Yet that Government ordered the bulldozing of the road through a registered sacred site. This legislation will prevent such a thing happening again. Let me give another example of the actions of the Northern Territory Government. The Northern Territory Government deliberately contravened its own legislation when it announced its intention to build a recreational lake which would have taken in one of the most significant Aboriginal sacred sites in the Territory. The Northern Territory has sacred sites legislation. The legislation which is before us tonight will prevent such a thing ever happening again. What is happening in the other States? The Victorian Government found, when it prosecuted under its own legislation, that the legislation was not adequate to cover the objects that were at that stage being sold by auction. The Victorian Government has had to amend the legislation to provide the necessary coverage. If the Federal Government's proposed legislation had been in operation at that time the Federal Government could have taken action. If in actual fact the Federal Government wants to take action at this point to do anything, it cannot. It cannot go to any court and say: 'We want an order to stop people selling those sacred objects and displaying those sacred items. We want an order to stop the bulldozing and whatever else those people are doing'. There is no way that the Federal Government can go before any court of law at this stage. This legislation will correct that situation. I remind the Leader of the Opposition ( Senator Chaney), who is a Western Australian, that with this legislation there will never be another Noonkanbah situation. There will never be another Ringers Soak situation. Senator Chaney —Will there be another Stephen Hawke? Senator COLEMAN —Senator Chaney had better get his facts right because the person who started the whole shemozzle at Noonkanbah was his colleague the Liberal Premier of Western Australia at that time, Sir Charles Court. Not only did he insist that he had the right to determine who would get exploration licences, but also he determined where that right would be exercised and he forced a mining company into a situation in which it had to take a drilling rig into an area and mine there although it knew that there were not going to be marketable quantities of anything to be found. Sir Charles Court did so by threatening to take back its licences. Senator Chaney knows that as well as I do . Sir Charles Court was going to cancel the exploration licence of Amax Exploration (Australia) Inc. if it refused to take in that drilling rig. Senator Chaney knows that. He was the Minister at the time, I believe. He has to accept some responsibility for the debacle on Noonkanbah. The interesting thing about Noonkanbah is that, without the heavy hand of Sir Charles Court in Western Australia, there is mining on Noonkanbah. Agreement was reached with the Aboriginal community which saw that land as its sacred land with its sacred sites and which was determined to ensure that anyone who came there to explore would do so where the Aborigines said it was safe. That is exactly what is happening. Mining is going ahead on Noonkanbah today. It is not going ahead where there are any sacred sites. No roads have been constructed where there are sacred sites or sacred objects. No roads have been constructed in any part of the Noonkanbah property where the Aboriginal people have not agreed to it. Let us not have all this nonsense about that not being the way things were. That is exactly the way things were. Sir Charles Court was determined, at that time, that mining would take place so that he could demonstrate how powerful he was as a white man over the Noonkanbah people. He was determined to show just what a big man he was. All he demonstrated was that there is a very fragile community in Western Australia. It was not only the Aboriginal people whom he upset. That is partly recognised by the fact that we now have a Labor Government in Western Australia. I am sure that the people of Western Australia were wise enough to recognise that they should not be prepared to allow a situation such as the one at Noonkanbah to arise again. Nor were they prepared to accept a situation such as applied at Ringers Soak, Hall's Creek or any stations outside that area. This legislation will prevent that from happening again. That is why the Government has seen fit to bring it in now and that is why it is necessary to pass this legislation before this Parliament rises. It might be said that, this being the third sitting week of the four-day weeks, we do not want to come back next week. I am certainly one of those. Together with Senator Chaney, I travel to Western Australia and back each week that the Parliament sits. It costs the Australian taxpayer a lot of money. Quite frankly, I do not care if I have to sit here until Sunday fortnight as this legislation is required by the Government and it will be obtained by the Government. The Opposition can keep padding out its speakers list as much as it likes, but we will say what we have to say on this Bill and we will insist on the matter being given due consideration prior to the rising of this Parliament. Senator Messner said there has not been sufficient consultation. We have all read the mining companies' concern about that. We were approached by them. I have a great deal of sympathy for some of the matters they raised at that time. I said to them at a dinner here and I will repeat it now that I have a concern for development in this country because I think that in that way the Aboriginal communities will advance as well as the mining companies. I have already related what has happened at Noonkanbah. I believe that with the co-operation of the miners, the pastoralists and the Aboriginal people there will be no halt in the development of this great country of ours. I am always very concerned that the opposition will endeavour to make something more out of government legislation than is really the case. I was interested that in every speech that was made in the House of Representatives it was constantly being pushed that this was in actual fact land rights legislation. I make this point because it is obvious that the people on the Opposition benches have some difficulty in reading words containing more than four letters. Senator Chaney —You should not have drafted it in this form, then. Senator COLEMAN —Senator Chaney must have had some difficulty in reading the second reading speech of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), in which he said: I must make it clear from the outset that this is not interim land rights legislation nor is it intended to be an alternative to land claim procedures. Senator Chaney —It is the Act that counts, not the second reading speech. His speech is irrelevant. Senator COLEMAN —As I said, if Senator Chaney cannot read words containing more than four letters, let me interpret it for him because that is exactly what it means. If we are to look at land rights legislation, let me assure the honourable senator that as a member of the Government I will be pushing for something much more than is contained in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (Interim Protection) Bill. I want much more for the Aboriginal people of this country. The Minister's second reading speech continued: The Minister will not be making declarations with respect to vast areas of land in de facto recognition of a claim which Aboriginals may wish to make later under another law. Surely to goodness if the Opposition has any comprehension of legislation it must recognise that what the Minister is saying is that he does not see that legislation as being adequate for land rights legislation. I certainly would not consider it adequate for land rights legislation. The Aboriginal people would not recognise it as land rights legislation. Senator Chaney would be totally aware of their feelings with regard to land rights. Whether he would be able to demonstrate a caring for that feeling is another matter. But at least he would be able to recognise that they would want more than is contained in this Bill in land rights legislation. I repeat: It is 16 years since we had a referendum in this country which gave the Commonwealth Government the power to do a number of things for Aboriginal people, very little of which has been done after 12 years of Liberal governments , and only four years of a Labor government. At a time when we are introducing legislation which in a very small way will take some action to protect some small things on the part of Aboriginal people, the coalition Opposition is now saying: 'You cannot have this legislation. We will keep padding out our list of speakers until we bore you to death. We really don't have any arguments to put against it. We will, like Senator Messner, read our speeches and we will delay the Senate until you are all so dog tired that you don't know what we are doing' . I say to Senator Messner that that will not be the situation. Senator MacGibbon —We have heard your speech. We have heard a diatribe about Noonkanbah and all sorts of irrelevancies. Senator COLEMAN —I do not need to read my speeches. Senator MacGibbon would have heard me explain that if he had been in the chamber. I am sorry if he was delayed in the dining room. Senator MacGibbon —I said you did not prepare it. Senator COLEMAN —I am sorry if the honourable senator was delayed in the dining room. Senator MacGibbon —Mr Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. I have been misrepresented. I did not say- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! Senator MacGibbon, you cannot take a point of order on that. If you claim to have been misrepresented you can make an explanation at the end of Senator Coleman's speech. I ask Senator Coleman to direct her remarks through the Chair. Senator COLEMAN —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I was simply expressing my regret if Senator MacGibbon had been delayed in the dining room. But it was not my fault. I do not accept any responsibility for that. I simply draw his attention to the remarks that I made at the beginning of my speech, when I said that unlike Senator Messner I would not be reading my speech. Senator Messner —Mr Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. I point out that I know the honourable senator has very good eyesight, but I was not reading my speech. I was referring to very copious notes. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator COLEMAN —I suggest that perhaps Senator Messner was reading from copious notes. At the outset, I said that he had demonstrated his ignorance of matters Aboriginal. I stand by that remark. I just hope that there are sufficient people on the Opposition benches who recognise that this is necessary legislation and will give it a speedy passage through the Senate. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(8.50) — The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill has caused an enormous amount of discussion and debate within the wider Australian community. It is unfortunate indeed that much of that debate has not concerned itself with the legislation that is before us. It is reasonable to expect that when one seeks to right a wrong, to remedy an injustice which has lasted for over 200 years, undoubtedly there will be concerns. Undoubtedly, many people will be fearful. At such times it is important to provide to the community information which is clear, accurate and based upon the legislation before us, not upon legislation that people think might be there or upon legislation they think that the Government might wish to put in place. A document given to me by the National Aboriginal Conference states: The National Aboriginal Conference has watched in amazement as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill 1984 has been attacked from all sides. The Aboriginal people of Australia, represented through the National Aboriginal Conference, support this legislation but only for what it is-a limited scheme for the protection of sacred and significant sites and objects. This legislation does not go far enough to protect the inherent and legitimate interests of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. It does not restore ownership of sacred and significant sites and objects to Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islander communities. Yet we do support this urgent legislation. It provides crucial protection for indigenous cultural heritage where existing State and Territory legislation is inadequate or non-existent. The Australian Government is obligated to provide that protection, both in the interests of justice to the original inhabitants of this continent and by its own commitments to international standards. We compromised our position to ensure that the legislation would be adopted by the Australian Parliament. We anticipated opposition from mining industry and large landowners, but not the extent of their influence with certain members of the Australian Parliament. Our message is clear. Our support for the legislation, and the reasons for that support, are clear. We, the National Aboriginal Conference, call for the immediate passage of this legislation. I think that that letter ought be contrasted with the hysteria that has gone on in many places throughout Australia. The National Aboriginal Conference is to be commended for the way in which it has attempted over the last few weeks to bring some sanity to this debate. It is a pity in 1984 that the hysteria and the racism that have been spread about in relation to this Bill have been supported by so many people who ought to know better. I turn now to the Bill itself. We see that what it does it does in only a very limited way. We are talking about objects which are of extreme importance to the Aboriginals of Australia. I say to the non-Aboriginal communities and people who might be listening that if there were a desecration of a church in the Australian Capital Territory, the penalty would be life imprisonment. For an offence under this Bill, it is a fine of $10,000. It is not penal servitude, as is the penalty required under the New South Wales penal code which applies here. So let us have some respect for other people's heritage, other people's understandings and other people's beliefs. If we had some of that in this country and could show some of that respect now, we might be able to understand the deep feelings of so many Aboriginal people about what has happened to them and to those things that are sacred to them. I turn to the Bill and look at what is required under it. If there is a site which is significant to Aboriginal people or an object which is sacred to them they can go to the Minister and seek a declaration that it is, indeed, of significance. At that point the Minister is required to undertake action which one cannot but accept, if one reads the Bill carefully, is fair. Upon this type of request being made by an independent person, clause 10 (3) states: Before a person submits a report to the Minister for the purposes of paragraph (1) (c), he shall- (a) publish, in the Gazette, and in a local newspaper, if any, circulating in any region concerned, a notice- (i) stating the purpose of the application . . . It goes on in technical language and then says: inviting interested persons to furnish representations in connection with the report. Then it says that after due consideration of any representations so furnished and then submitting the report, the person shall attach to it these representations. In other words, these representations will not be put aside; they will be attached to the report. Where does that report go? That report goes to Parliament. A lot has been spread around that this gives the Minister dictatorial powers. This Bill is controlled by this House. Every declaration is a regulation and can be disallowed by this House. This House is the appropriate House in this country to engage in that activity. This is the appropriate House to review those declarations. Indeed, if this Bill had come in without that in it we would not have supported it. We would not have accepted a review by any other organisation except this House, and I will say why. It is because of the nature of the item that we are dealing with. It is not possible to define a term such as sacredness. Many people in the community are waving their arms around and saying 'Define this'. I do not know if anybody else here has bothered to undertake any studies in order to try to understand the nature of sacredness, but I can inform those people here who may not have done so that it is an extremely complex matter. One would need to draw on volumes, indeed libraries, to understand the nature of sacredness as it is applied in cultures throughout the world. Hence it is not appropriate for the Administrative Review Council or some other organisation to be involved in that. It is a discretionary judgment, but not a judgment that the Minister should make. There is only one other body in this country that can make discretionary judgments, and that is this Parliament. This Parliament ought to be the body which makes that discretionary judgment as to whether or not a matter is significant or sacred to Aboriginal people. It is not enough. If one has listened to the debate that has gone on in Australia over the last few weeks one knows that it is not enough for the Aboriginal people themselves to exert their own sacredness. It is not enough for so many non- Aboriginal people around Australia to say: 'If you say something is sacred, we will not accept that but you must accept that if we say something is sacred, it is'. Since that is not acceptable to so many people in Australia somebody must be given that unenviable task of deciding whether something is sacred to another person. I believe it is important for me to state on behalf of the Australian Democrats what our view will be when we are called upon to make those judgments. I turn now to Clause 10 (4) of the Bill which relates to the report that will be before us when we are asked to make that judgment. Clause 10 (4) defines the matters that must be contained in the report. Clause 10 (4) (a) relates to: the particular significance of the area to Aboriginals; On this point we expect that the report would cover the significance not only to the person or persons making the application but also to the traditional owners of the objects or areas. This is a point that was raised by Senator Messner. Indeed, it is a point that has been made by a number of Aboriginal people. In some ways it is a point which belittles the intelligence of Aboriginal people and calls into question whether they would be senseless enough to take into their hands or possession objects sacred to other Aboriginal tribes or people. Anybody who understands anything about Aboriginal people would realise that to suggest that they would do that is an insult to their intelligence. Because that problem exists we have gone to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and sought from him an assurance in relation to this matter. The Minister has responded by saying that he is willing to make an amendment to the Bill in the Budget session to require that where traditional owners are connected with those sites or objects then those traditional owners will be consulted. We will require that consultation to be stated in the report. We will require an explanation of seeking out those traditional owners. Clause 10 (4) (b) refers to : the nature and extent of the threat of injury to, or desecration of, the area; We believe that under this heading it is necessary that the report state quite clearly what the threat is and whether that will affect the area in any signifcant way. In some instances mere trespassing may be desecration. I simply ask again, as a result of the things that have been said in this debate, that people may have at least some respect for other people's traditions and sacredness. I am quite sure that people understand that in many of the churches belonging to our Western tradition there are areas that they may not walk in unless they are consecrated persons. To do so would be a desecration. If people try to take their own religious traditions and transpose them they might come to some understanding of these types of matters. They are not too difficult to understand. They simply require people to look at their own traditions and accept that other people have traditions which, although they might differ in material ways, in essence are identical. As I have said, in some instances mere trespass may be desecration and this will have to be indicated. In other areas this may not be so. Hence, obviously the report will have to detail the nature of the threat and the possible desecration that could occur in those areas. Clause 10 (4) (c) states that the report would deal with 'the extent of the area that should be protected'. This is of concern. It is a concern which unfortunately has been magnified out of all proportions. But a concern does exist about the extent of some of these areas. I believe that is certainly a legitimate concern for many people in rural areas. At the moment most places which might be able to be identified as sacred sites in areas likely to be populated are already known. In many areas-certainly, from my experience, it is the case in Queensland-there is a working relationship between those people who hold pastoral leases, or freehold leases, and the Aboriginal groups. So those sites have already been protected. Those sites are already treated in the proper way. It is fairly obvious that we are not talking about those. So we are not talking about a large number of areas. We are talking about areas which may come under threat from some new activity. That is much more likely to be the instance that is covered by this Bill, not the continuing activity. Where there is new activity, obviously that must be addressed. We believe that the extent of the area also involves the issue of compensation. I am sure that Senator Messner read the Minister's second reading speech which was incorporated in the Senate Hansard and which differs in some respect from that which was incorporated in the House of Representatives Hansard. In the Senate Hansard there is a more detailed discussion of compensation, which was inserted in that speech at our request. It does not add anything new. It merely explicates what was always the Government's intention with this aspect, and I think it is an important point. In paragraph (c) which deals with the report we would require that any move the Government intends to make in relation to compensation should be rehearsed. It may not be possible at that stage actually to detail it but the compensation moves can be rehearsed. Therefore, the Senate would have them before it. If it did not accept them, it then would have a case for disallowing that regulation or declaration which would then return the situation to the status quo. The protection is there and I am quite sure that every member of this chamber will take that as a serious consideration. The only way much of this argument can get a foothold in the community is by suggesting ill-will and maliciousness on the part of so many people. I do not believe that that would be the case with honourable senators in this chamber. Therefore, they have the possibility in all good will to address themselves to the compensation issues in that report. On behalf of the Australian Democrats I say that we would require rehearsing of those compensation details. Clause 10 (4) (d) states that the report would deal with 'the prohibitions and restrictions to be made with respect to the area'. Again, we believe these must be set down clearly so that there is no possibility of misunderstanding or misinterpretation. This may sometimes be difficult. Although the Bill does not require a report to be made on sacred objects, we believe such a report should be made on sacred objects in almost identical terms as it will be made on areas, with necessary changes made. In regard to some sacred objects, it is not appropriate to rehearse before the non-initiated, who sometimes may be women and sometimes men, the exact nature of those objects. I hope that members of the Senate can respect that tradition. There may have to be a certain amount of acceptance on the part of members of the Senate with particular regard to sacred objects. I think that as far as is possible the report should set down clearly the prohibitions and restrictions to be made. Clause 10 (4) (e) states that the report shall deal with 'the effects of the making of a declaration may have on the proprietary or pecuniary interests'-that section was amended in the House of Representatives-'of persons other than the Aboriginal or Aboriginals referred to in paragraph (1) (a)'. For many people in this chamber, and indeed probably for most people who object to this legislation , this is the most important point of all. I will spell out in a little more detail what the Democrats expect of the report. Firstly, we believe that it should set down the traditional use of the land or the object by non-Aboriginal people or Aboriginals other than those making the application. It is an interesting part of this debate that Aboriginals are never seen as being the owners of the mining company or companies. Let us get it very clear: Many of these applications may very well be made by Aboriginals and the people who are currently in possession of such companies may be Aboriginals. I think that the implied racism that has gone on during some of the debate I have heard-that is, that it is whites on one side and Aboriginals on the other-has not accepted the current and new situation which is that Aboriginals now have many flourishing and productive businesses in Australia and own considerable amounts of land in their own right. Where an object is being used, the use by Aboriginals or non-Aboriginal people other than those making the application, including the amount of expenditure made and profit derived from the land or object, should be set down in the report. Secondly, the report should set down any special use of the land, including such things as mining exploration by non-Aboriginals or Aboriginals other than those making the application, corporate bodies and the like, and the expenditure involved in such special use and the expected profits. Thirdly, the report should set down the broader community interests in the land or objects, including any expected government involvement or any other expenditure. Fourthly , the report should set down any possible future use of the land or object, including mining and the merits thereof. Fifthly, the report should set down submissions from all interested people, as is required by the Bill in relation to land but not required in relation to objects. We do not believe that such distinctions ought to be made. Where objects present a more significant problem, to the extent that they are able to be included we believe that they should be included. Clause 10 (4) (f) states that the report shall deal with the duration of any declaration. We believe that the majority of these declarations, by their very nature, will be indefinite. But where they are not to be indefinite, we expect that there should be clear reasons as to why a declaration would need to be made for a short period and the implications of that declaration being made for a short period. However, I do not see that as being likely to be the case very often. One would imagine that any declaration made under this paragraph would be of an indefinite nature. One can see, of course, that where State law is sufficient this may in itself be a reason why the duration of such a declaration is limited. Clause 10 (4) (g) states that the report shall deal with the extent to which the area is or may be protected by or under a law of a State or Territory, and the effectiveness of any remedies available under any such law. That is spelt out very clearly in the legislation. I simply say in addition that we would require and would believe that the Minister should include the discussions that have taken place with the relevant States in regard to the application of their laws and the problems that the Commonwealth Minister sees in the actions which the States have taken or have not taken in that regard. This Bill states quite clearly that if there is a law of sufficient extension in a particular State to cover a particular area or object, that law ought apply unless there are special circumstances. So we believe that it is incumbent on the Minister in reporting to this chamber that those special circumstances be spelt out. It is a pity that the debate in the community has gone on the way it has. It seems to the Australian Democrats a pity that in 1984 Aboriginal people should be called upon yet again to defend their legitimate interests in seeking to remedy what they see as a wrong that has extended over such an enormous period. I say to those people who cannot feel personally such concern: Can they merely accept that if they travel around Australia and talk to Aboriginal people they will meet time and again Aboriginal people whose parents have been shot and whose parents have been murdered? These are things which have happened in the living generation of Aboriginals in Australia. I believe, and I am quite confident, that this is not something that anyone in this chamber would in any way believe we should be proud of or should look up to; indeed, it is something which we must all be ashamed has occurred in this country. If that is the case, could not people find it in their understanding of this issue at least to say: ' Yes, this has occurred to a group of people and we must give something'. It will be a sacrifice on the part of some people, but that sacrifice ought to be borne by the entire Australian nation; hence I have spoken at length about our requirements for the report. It should not be borne by individuals, and I believe it is up to this chamber to make sure that that cost and sacrifice, which will have to be made on behalf of the wider Australian community, is borne by the wider Australian community in the interests of restoring to Australia what I believe we all want; that is, harmony between the original inhabitants of this land and those who have settled here since then. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(9.18) —I rise to speak briefly on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill 1984 which is now before the Senate. I do not need to speak at length because Senator Messner spoke very capably for the Opposition when he spoke on the Bill this evening. However, there are several aspects, although certainly not all of them, that I wish to refer to specifically. I preface my contribution to the debate by stating at the outset that I feel the way the Bill has been hastily presented to the Parliament is to be condemned. It certainly has been rushed through the other place and is being rushed through here as well. Such an important and far- reaching piece of legislation needs time to be analysed critically, not just by members and senators but by all Australians-black and white-who, after all, I would say, have some legitimate land rights themselves. I do not believe that the average person has been allowed sufficient time to digest the magnitude of the Bill and I place on record my condemnation of the abuse of individual rights by the Government. Senator Robert Ray —But you get a lot of time in Queensland to consider Bills. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I have had deputations from some Christian Aboriginals and they have told me that there is a great deal of discontent even amongst some of the Aboriginal people themselves. In fact, they went so far as to tell me that it was splitting the Aboriginal people, favouring the tribal Aboriginals. I was given the figure of 2,000 Aboriginals in the Northern Territory alone being against the Bill. Senator Robert Ray —Who gave you the figures? Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —What they cannot understand is the inordinate haste-- Senator Reynolds —Joh gave them to you! Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —It certainly was not Joh who told me about the 2,000 people in the Northern Territory. It was the people who came to see me yesterday who live in Canberra. They would like to know-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator will refer to the person concerned in his official capacity. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Thank you, Mr President. What I would like to know is why there has not been enough time for consultation with these Aboriginal people who came here and told me the facts of the matter as far as they see them. They cannot understand why the Minister and his staff are to make all these decisions without reference to all the people who have been involved. I feel that that is very important indeed. This is a complex Bill; there are no two doubts about that. When it is enacted it will give extraordinary powers. The Bill virtually says that it is up to the Minister alone to decide what areas or objects are significant and what restrictions or conditions will apply. As well as that, the Minister may appoint authorised officers who will have the power to make emergency declarations without prior reference to him. Nobody tells us who the authorised officers are. The Government is introducing this legislation to give Aboriginals a greater claim to land rights. Any area, not necessarily a sacred site, which the Minister believes is of particular significance to Aborigines in accordance with their tradition, regardless of whether it is on private or public land, could be the subject of a declaration under the Bill. I listened with interest to some of the speeches that have been made here about how all these declarations are to be brought before the Parliament. I read in one paper that was sent to me that 750, 000 sacred sites have been listed in the museum in Perth. Goodness me, if the Parliament is to deal with 750,000 sacred sites we will certainly be here on Saturdays, there are no two doubts about that. We will never be able to get through them all. How would we as members of parliament be able to decide in our own minds about a sacred site somewhere in Western Australia? Perhaps Senator Cook or somebody like that could tell us about it or bring a special report to the Parliament. Senator Cook —I will be very happy to, Senator. I will take as much time to tell you all about it as possible. Don't worry; you will be safe if you rely on me. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I am not too sure about that after some of the things I have heard the honourable senator say in this Parliament. I believe that the definition of 'area' is totally inadequate. In these circumstances all land owners, including pastoralists, farmers and the urban populations, are at risk. A declaration could be made depriving them of access to or the use of their properties without compensation. I think that all traditional Aboriginal sacred sites should be listed. Queensland has a list of sacred sites. Such sites have been listed in Queensland for many years. That is where we are miles and streets ahead of the other States. This Bill would be better designed to protect only Aboriginal sacred sites, definite sacred sites that are listed. I think we should all accept that there are many sacred sites throughout Australia about which Aboriginals feel very strongly. I instance bora rings, caves that have paintings in them and trees that have been specially marked, such as in the Bunya mountains. One can go up there and see the Bunya pines that the Aboriginals used to climb in the early days. They probably do consider some places to be sacred sites. It seems to me that every time a new project goes ahead in Australia more sacred sites appear. Any area which the Minister believes has particular significance to Aborigines could be the subject of a declaration. I do not agree with that at all. Senator Jack Evans —Subject to this Parliament. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —As I said earlier, if 750,000 applications will be coming before this Parliament, I am not quite sure how we will get enough time to deal with them all. Furthermore, the Bill has the potential to be retrospective in that existing rights and investments are at risk. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Minister from making a declaration over an existing mine, farm, tourist resort or even adjacent waters. That is in the Bill ; honourable senators can read it for themselves. Any Aborigine-honourable senators should note that no specific definition is given of what constitutes an Aborigine-or anyone acting on his behalf, regardless of whether he has any association with the area in question, can apply to the Minister for a declaration. Regrettably, the Minister does not indicate how he will satisfy himself that the area is significant under the provisions of the Bill and he does not require any verification. The Bill implies that prosecutions against ordinary citizens could result from inadvertent breaches which may occur through bushwalking, camping or touring through one of these so-called areas. Even though a person did not know that a declaration had been made, I understand that he may still be convicted and fined up to $10,000 and receive five years in gaol . The Australian Labor Party is always talking about human rights. I do not think this is an example of human rights. Many representations have been made by various groups that are gravely concerned about the implications of the Bill. I have received and I know that most honourable senators would have received numerous protests from bodies such as the Australian Mining Industry Council-honourable senators opposite probably would not be too interested in that body-the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association, the Queensland Chamber of Mines Ltd and the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia Inc., as well as from ordinary Australians who are concerned about their heritage and that of their children. The Aboriginal people who came to see me yesterday are concerned also. There is a lot to be said for the notion that legislation of this kind will stir up more racial hatred. An editorial which appeared in the Australian recently summed up the situation quite succinctly when it stated: As an exercise in the preservation and protection of sites and objects of significance to Aboriginal and island people, the Bill has been noticeably successful in creating yet more antagonism towards the justifiable needs of Australia's original inhabitants. Some honourable members in the other place have gone so far as to say that this is really breeding apartheid in reverse. I must admit that I find it difficult to accept that all Australians who have as great a love and respect for this land of ours as Aborigines will not be afforded the same privileges that this Bill gives to our Aborigines. If it had not been for the white and black Australians who fought in the last war with the Americans and saved Australia from invasion, there would not be any rights for anybody. There would not be any sacred sites at all. That is a point that people sometimes forget about. It also seems as though ordinary Australians will be heavily penalised for appreciating God's beauty when they are on a bush walk or a camping trip. This land and all that is in it, under it or above it belongs to God. We are really on this earth for only a little while and should look after it while we are on it. This Bill is the most authoritarian piece of legislation to be introduced by this Government. It is gravely ill-considered and I believe that the majority of Australians are genuinely concerned about its enormous ramifications. The very disturbing lack of consultation with the mining industry, the State governments and even the Aboriginals themselves has been deplorable. Not one comment by the mining industry on an earlier draft of the Bill has been recognised in the Bill that we have before us now. It is very difficult not to see this Bill as yet another attempt to destroy our democratic free enterprise system and to replace it with a centralised socialist bureaucracy. I fear it is the type of legislation which will cause an unnecessary backlash in the community and ultimately will destroy community goodwill for Aboriginal advancement. In fact I would go so far as to say it could set Australia's race relations back a very long time. I cannot support the Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Notice of Motion Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia) — by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, Senator Chipp will move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to prohibit the manufacture of nuclear weapons in, and the introduction of nuclear weapons into, Australia. Debate resumed from 4 June, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.32) — The Opposition supports this measure and hopes it has a speedy passage. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(9.33) — When I approached my Whip about speaking on the Remuneration and Allowances Amendment Bill 1984 I did so in the hope that I would follow Senator Harradine in the debate because I know that he has certain comments to make. Senator Harradine —You could seek leave to continue your remarks later. Senator COLSTON —It has just been suggested to me that I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage so that I might speak after Senator Harradine. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —I will explain the situation. Senator Colston, if you seek leave to continue your remarks later it will have the effect of adjourning the debate, so I ask you to resume your seat now and when you wish to speak later in the debate to seek leave to do so. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.35) —The purpose of the Remuneration and Allowances Amendment Bill is to vary the rates of expenses of office allowances and electorate allowance determined by the Remuneration Tribunal and to implement the Tribunal's recommendations with respect to the salaries of the judiciary and offices of the President and members of the Inter-State Commission and for related purposes. We are faced with two very difficult circumstances, one of which, of course, is that the House of Representatives has packed up for the winter recess. I had distributed to honourable senators on 4 June a letter advising that the Bill was scheduled for debate in the Senate on 7 June, last Thursday, when the House of Representatives was still sitting. At that stage, on 4 June, I distributed an amendment which is in the hands of all honourable senators. I said that the proposed amendment concerned the question of de factos of parliamentarians and advised senators that the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) had written to the Tribunal recommending a change in the provisions for overseas study allowances of members of parliament to give recognition to de facto relationships. On that occasion I made a response to the Remuneration Tribunal. It was circulated to honourable senators and it is dated 17 February 1984. However, I was advised last week that the Tribunal's determination on that matter will be made after the Parliament rises for the winter recess and therefore it could operate for two months prior to effective parliamentary scrutiny. Honourable senators will understand that determinations of the Remuneration Tribunal are laid on the table of both Houses of the Parliament and are subject to the disallowance procedures of both Houses. My advice from the Tribunal was that its determination would not be made until perhaps the end of this month and in those circumstances the proposed amendment becomes necessary if Parliament is to accept its responsibilities in respect of this important matter. This matter is of considerable concern to the people of Australia. The letter that was written to the Remuneration Tribunal Chairman, Mr Justice D. L. Mahoney , by the Special Minister of State recommended a change in the provisions for overseas study allowances for members of parliament so as to give recognition to de facto relationships. I am opposed to the granting of a direct or indirect equality of status to de factos compared with married spouses in Tribunal determinations concerning the entitlements of members of parliament. Such attempts to grant equality, whether or not they carry with them an eligibility for financial subsidy by the taxpayer, involve a great matter of principle and strike at the existing legislative recognition of marriage. We, as legislators, do have a responsibility to uphold the law. Members of parliament have a further responsibility to give example in matters of principle underlying the laws which they pass. We have passed a number of laws in this Parliament relating to marriage. I quote from the Marriage Regulations Form 14A referred to in regulation 39A which states: Marriage and family life have been basic to the strength of our society for a long time. The Parliament, in the Family Law Act 1975, has placed great stress on their importance. As I said, they are not my words; they are the words contained in the document which, under the Marriage Regulations, an authorised celebrant must give to persons intending marriage. The Parliament, in the Family Law Act, refers to: The need to preserve and protect the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. And further on: The need to give the widest possible protection and assistance to the family as the natural and fundamental group unit of society, particularly whilst it is responsible for the care and education of dependents. Under section 46 (1) of the Marriage Act we as legislators, insist that the authorised celebrant must, in the presence of witnesses, remind the couple of: . . . the solemn and binding nature of the relationship into which you are now about to enter. It is clear that marriage, as defined by legislation, is quite different from a de facto relationship. To point to the obvious, the de facto relationship is not solemnised by an authorised celebrant in the presence of witnesses, and by its nature is not a relationship which is intended and proclaimed to be entered into for life. It has been suggested by a number of people-the Special Minister of State made reference to these matters in his letter to the Tribunal-that provisions made for de factos in respect of social security, taxation and in certain areas covered by the Public Service Board affecting staff in the Department of Foreign Affairs are somehow relevant to this consideration; that is to say, the consideration of whether the study allowances for parliamentarians should be extended so as to include their de factos. Nothing that I have said should be regarded as necessarily opposing the provisions for de factos in social security, taxation and certain areas covered by the Public Service Board. It could well be argued that these provisions are the tolerant and charitable gestures of society towards those who have not yet grasped the vision of beauty of marriage and its unique and essential value to the stability of the nation. However, Mr Young's proposal which was put to the Tribunal to allow de factos to accompany members of parliament overseas is an entirely different matter. It publicly demeans the institution of marriage. It strikes at its legislative recognition. It flies in the face of the responsibility of parliamentarians to give an example in matters of principle underpinning the laws which they pass through the Parliament. No national leader , no legislator, can logically support Mr Young's suggestion. The granting of equality or the provision of a discretionary power for travel by de factos of members of parliament by the Tribunal would represent a major public development in this area and could have a far-reaching influence on the public perception of this subject and its treatment in other areas of Commonwealth and State laws. In fact, what Mr Young is asking the Tribunal to do is to play the role of legislative pace-setter, something akin to a controversial law reform commission but, in the Tribunal's case, with more direct power and without the usual public consultation and distribution of discussion papers, et cetera, which occur from time to time with the Australian Law Reform Commission and similar bodies. For the Tribunal to acquiesce in Mr Young's proposal and to fashion the discretionary power which enables equality to be granted and, at the same time, to include this within a determination covering other unrelated matters, would be to deny parliamentarians a practical opportunity of rejecting this specific contentious decision. I am not sure whether the Tribunal will bring down a determination in respect of this issue so that the matter can be determined adequately by the Parliament; in other words, that it can be disallowed as such and not affect other matters such as, for example, increased stamp allowance or this, that or the other. It should not be confused with those sorts of issues. I am therefore in a most difficult situation tonight in that, if I amend this piece of legislation as it has been distributed, whilst requiring the Tribunal not to determine the matter in relation to a de facto spouse of a member of the Parliament or of a Minister of State, it would, of course, have the effect of holding up the other matters in this legislation which affect not only members of the Parliament, but also certain judges and, I think, senior public servants. It should be stressed-I do stress it-that I am not talking about the de factos of anybody else except those of members of parliament because of our responsibility to uphold the principles underlying the laws that we pass. Senator Colston —So it is all right for a judge to have a de facto, is it? Senator HARRADINE —Judges, of course, are not responsible for passing the laws which we are responsible for passing and particularly in respect of the laws that I previously mentioned. As I have pointed out to the Senate, this is a matter of great public importance. I am concerned that the Government has chosen to have this matter debated this week when the House of Representatives is not meeting. As has been mentioned, this matter was scheduled for debate last Thursday when the House of Representatives was meeting. Were I to move in the Committee stage of this Remuneration and Allowances Amendment Bill the amendment that I am proposing, and were it to be carried, of course, either the House of Representatives would have to be brought back-the Government has clearly indicated this will not happen-or the other provisions of this legislation would have to wait for consideration until the House of Representatives returns in late August. Under those circumstances, this would be of considerable concern and possibly an injustice to the others who are affected by this legislation. I believe that the Government has not acted properly in this matter. It was aware of the fact that I desired to move this amendment. It may not have been aware that I was aware that the Tribunal's determination on this matter would not be made until after Parliament had risen. I again repeat the concern that the Parliament will not have an opportunity to consider this matter until August. Under all of the circumstances, recognising the dilemma in which the Parliament has been placed by the Government's action and recognising that if I were successful in having this legislation amended it would not pass into law and other people would be dramatically affected- particularly those people who are not parliamentarians who are affected by this measure in respect of their allowances-I find it necessary to state that reluctantly I will not be able to move that amendment at the Committee stage. I foreshadow, however, that I intend to examine carefully the determination when it comes forward from the Tribunal. Should that determination seek to be a social pace-setter in this very important area, of course the remedy for disallowance that we have available to us will be exercised. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.53) —This legislation appears to be quite uncontroversial except for the matters raised by Senator Harradine. I thank honourable senators accordingly for their expedition in dealing with it. In relation to the particular issue of de facto spouses which has been raised by Senator Harradine, although as he has indicated he will not push the matter to the point of a Committee amendment, it ought to be appreciated at the outset that nothing in relation to de factos is being changed by the terms of this legislation. All that is happening is that, quite outside the framework of this amending legislation, but in accordance with the procedures under the existing parent legislation, the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) has written to the Remuneration Tribunal, asking it to give consideration to making a determination so far as certain entitlements are concerned and, in particular, possibly to extend to de facto spouses certain privileges in relation to overseas travel that are presently expressed by the determination to apply only to members of the family properly so described. It is the case, as Senator Harradine acknowledged, that elsewhere in other determinations it is provided that de facto spouses can be beneficiaries in one way or another, so the principle to that extent has already been recognised. It seems simply to be the putative or possible hypothetical future extension of it that is exercising Senator Harradine. As such, I do not believe this is an issue that ought to detain the Senate for very long on this occasion, but perhaps a couple of quick points can be made. The concept of a de facto relationship is essentially that of a bona fide domestic relationship- Senator Durack —Are you shadow-boxing, or something? Senator GARETH EVANS —What is that supposed to mean? Senator Durack —There are no amendments now. Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not know whether Senator Durack had a good dinner tonight, but the reality of the situation is that this is the Parliament of the nation. A member of this Parliament has raised points perfectly seriously and he deserves a serious reply. He is getting a serious reply and there is no necessity for that kind of interjection to be made. Senator Walters —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. We put up with a lot from Senator Evans in this place and he overrode the bounds of acceptability in his previous statement. I ask him to withdraw it. I take strong exception to what he said to Senator Durack and I ask him to withdraw his statement. Senator GARETH EVANS —I wish to goodness Senator Walters had a good dinner on occasions; she might be a bit more tolerable in this place than she is at the moment. But if the remark is offensive to Senator Durack, I withdraw it. I will continue, if I may, with what I hope is my reasoned and moderate response to some reasonably and perfectly understandable points made by Senator Harradine, even if I and, I suspect, the majority of honourable senators fundamentally disagree with him. The reality of the matter is that de facto relationships, defined one way or another, but most commonly as bona fide domestic relationships, are recognised not just in odd bits and pieces of social security , income tax or Public Service legislation. On the quick review that my Department has done, they are recognised in at least 48 Acts of the Commonwealth Parliament, not to mention innumerable pieces of legislation at State level. Moreover, as a practical matter, the evidence is, as acknowledged in particular by the very substantial and thorough report on de facto relationships recently prepared and brought down by the New South Wales Law Reform Commission, that there has been a very substantial increase, whether or not anybody is taking notice of parliamentary pacesetting in this respect, in de facto cohabitation. The New South Wales figures for 1971-76 indicate something of a four-fold increase. Figures for 1976-82 indicate a doubling again of de facto cohabitation relationships known to exist and which were capable of being sampled and reported upon by that New South Wales report. As the New South Wales report points out on the basis of surveys and things that it did, this increase has been accompanied by quite evidently changing community attitudes. There has been in recent years a much greater community acceptance of de facto cohabitation, again for better or worse, than has been the case in the past. More particularly still, and perhaps explaining some of these considerations I have just mentioned , there is evidence that a very significant proportion of de facto relationships these days, perhaps more than previously, are a prelude to either marriage or remarriage. There is the further point that it has been recognised by this Parliament-again , I suppose, as a response to what has been perceived to be changing community attitudes in this respect-by the passage of the Sex Discrimination Act that there should not be discrimination in the provision of public goods and services and so on on the grounds of marital status, which includes its negative, the absence of a formal marital status. I simply conclude with these remarks. A de facto relationship may not be a sacrament of the kind that would be acknowledged by someone such as Senator Harradine. It may, however, in a great many instances, bear a lot closer an approximation to Senator Harradine's vision splendid that he shared with us than a formal, solemnised, marital relationship in which one partner is in the habit, for example, of battering the other and in which a variety of very unhappy relationships may exist. We take the view that there is nothing which ought to put parliamentarians in a position that is different from that of members of the community generally. There are some, like Senator Harradine, who would rather wistfully take the view , perhaps, that we ought to be standard bearers or pace setters for some particular vision or view of morality. The point is that parliamentarians are and should be a cross-section of the community at large. They should not be disadvantaged by the application to them of standards, rules or principles which are simply not applicable to the rest of the community as a whole, in terms of either actual attitudes or the way in which the statute law presently relates to them. For all those reasons, I suggest that the points raised, whilst they should be taken seriously, ought not to be pursued at any stage, even when we resume, to the extent of some formal leglislative prohibition on these matters. With those remarks, I commend the Bill and wish it a speedy passage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.02) —Mr Acting Deputy President, we would like some indication from the Government as to whether it wishes to proceed with the Dividend Recoupment Tax Bill 1983 [No. 2] 1984. The first Bill has, of course, been defeated. It may be, therefore, that we do not need to proceed with the second Bill and that it will be withdrawn because of the fact that the Senate has dealt with the other Bill. In any event, if the Government is not clear, perhaps we could have a motion to move to the next item, which is the Insurance Contracts Bill 1984. In any event, we would like someone on the Government side to let us know what the Government wishes to do, so that the Opposition may respond. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.03) —I had the handling of that Bill, Mr Acting Deputy President. I had overlooked the fact that we had not taken a vote on the second Bill, which is consequential on the first one, so I think it would be appropriate to withdraw it. Motion (by Senator Walsh) agreed to: That consideration of the Bill be postponed till the next day of sitting. Consideration resumed from 5 June on the House of Representatives amendment- Message No. 272 Clause 76, page 32, lines 3 to 8, omit the clause, insert the following clause: Contribution between insurers '76. (1) When 2 or more insurers are liable under separate contracts of general insurance to the same insured in respect of the same loss, the insured is, subject to sub-section (2), entitled immediately to recover from any one or more of those insurers such amount as will, or such amounts as will in the aggregate, indemnify him fully in respect of the loss. '(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) entitles an insured- (a) to recover from an insurer an amount that exceeds the sum insured under the contract between the insured and that insurer; or (b) to recover an amount that exceeds, or amounts that in the aggregate exceed, the amount of the loss. '(3) Nothing in this section prejudices the rights of an insurer or insurers from whom the insured recovers an amount or amounts in accordance with this section to contribution from any other insurer liable in respect of the same loss.'. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.05) —I move: That the amendment contained in Message No. 272 from the House of Representatives be agreed to. Senator HILL(South Australia)(10.06) — The Opposition does not oppose the amendments to the Insurance Contracts Bill 1984 although we wonder why they are necessary. What appears to be happening is that the old section 76 is being divided into three parts. In fact, section 76 has been divided into sub-section (1) and sub-section (3) of the proposed new section. An additional sub-clause is added as sub-clause (2) which states: Nothing in sub-section (1) entitles an insured- (a) to recover from an insurer an amount that exceeds the sum insured under the contract between the insured and that insurer; We would have thought that in any event that would be obvious. Therefore, the addition of that extra sub-clause is unnecessary. If it is the Government's wish that that be included, the Opposition will not object. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.07) —In order that Senator Hill is not left with any feeling that we are doing anything unnecessary I remind him that the reason this amendment was made was that the Opposition amendment, which got itself into a muddle through some, with respect, fairly careless drafting-which is perfectly understandable in the circumstances-needed to be fixed up in the other place. Clause 76, as it was drafted before the addition of the amendment, is ambiguous and could be interpreted as permitting an insured who is insured with two or more insurers to recover the full amount of his loss from any one of those two insurers. This would be so even if the sum insured under the contract of the insurance was less than the amount of his loss . If that has clarified the matter-I am not sure that it has-I hope-- Senator Hill —We see no such ambiguity. Senator GARETH EVANS —I acknowledge the neurosis being expressed by the Opposition. However, since we are both in agreement that the matter ought to be corrected, whether it deserves to be or not, I wish the amendment a speedy passage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Debate resumed from 7 June, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator HILL(South Australia)(10.10) —I will deal firstly with the Insurance ( Agents and Brokers) Bill 1984. This Bill has arisen from report No. 16 of the Law Reform Commission which was tabled in 1980. It resulted from a reference of the former Liberal Attorney-General, the Hon. Bob Ellicott, QC. The report dealt with the regulation of insurance intermediaries. The Senate will be aware that the Commission published a subsequent report on the law relating to insurance contracts, a report which we dealt with recently. In its report No. 16 the Law Reform Commission recommended regulation of insurance brokers in the form of financial controls and compulsory professional indemnity cover. Very real concern has been expressed at a number of financial collapses of insurance brokers which left those who thought they were insured without cover. This has occurred where premiums have not been paid to the insurer and the broker has not been acting as an agent for the insurer. In fact, in law the broker is in a somewhat unusual position in that he should owe his responsibility to his client, the insured, although normally he is paid by the insurer. So in these cases potential exists for a clash of interests. Furthermore, what the insurer does with the premium has not been regulated, unlike in the case of solicitors and other professionals who as we know are obliged to place clients' money in trust accounts and otherwise deal with such moneys only in accordance with the instructions they receive from their clients. The Law Reform Commission recommended an amendment which has been adopted in this Bill that insurers should be responsible for the conduct of their agents, who should operate only under written agreements. Broadly, all insurance intermediaries will be treated that way under this Bill unless they are registered under Part III of this Bill as brokers. Registered brokers are then regulated in their dealings with premiums. The Bill also contains a notification regime so that a prospective client is aware of fees charged or upon request any commission received from an insurer and any association that exists between the broker and the insurer. This is aimed, it is said, at ensuring that the client is adequately informed of relevant information. It will be recalled that the previous Government did not propose to act on the Commission's report. The Senate will remember that it opposed a private member's Bill which was moved by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) when he was in opposition. It was a private member's Bill to implement the recommendations of the Commission's report. The previous Government did so because it believed- the Opposition still believes-that on balance the need for greater intervention and greater regulation has not in fact been proven. Losses of premiums referred to by the Commission amounted over a period of 10 years to $7.25m which, on the face of it, seems a considerable amount of money. But when one investigates further one finds that that amounts to less than 0.1 per cent of business turnover. The view of the Opposition is that in many ways our society is already over- regulated. The onus must be on those advocating further intrusions to justify the need. Further regulation means further costs, which mean higher premiums. That the Opposition seeks to avoid. That does not mean that the Opposition is not concerned about the relatively small losses resulting from insolvencies. Losses hurt individuals and, as I indicated, that does cause the Opposition concern. But the Opposition believes that for that small evil to the remedied the better course to be advocated is that of self-regulation. The facts of life now, however, are that the industry became aware that it was to be regulated and negotiated with the Government on the Insurance Contracts Bill 1983, which was brought down in the Senate, I think last November. The Government accepted many of the representations that were made by the industry and, in fact, took the somewhat unusual course of action of, rather than amending its Bill of last year, introducing a new Bill into the House of Representatives incorporating what otherwise would have been amendments to the original Bill. So in this case we are not sure exactly how many changes have been made. We recall that recently in relation to the Insurance Contracts Bill 1983 we had some 60 to 70 amendments. To one who has tried to make a comparison between this new Bill and the one that was put down last November it appears that there have been just as many amendments in this case. Unfortunately for senators, the way the Government has decided to proceed with this matter makes it almost impossible to find out exactly what has been changed. Some of the changes that can be perceived, however, appear to be improvements. There were areas in the November Bill in which the Opposition believed it saw shortfalls to which it would have moved amendments during the second reading debate. However, many of those aspects have been taken up. The Opposition commends that. Obviously, therefore, there will be no need for the Opposition to move those amendments during this debate. In other instances it appears that the Government has accepted advice from the industry, which has surprised the Opposition because in some ways it has not really done justice to those who argue for regulation of this industry. What it has amounted to is a watering down. That is a process that is now familiar to us because it is exactly what occurred in relation to the Insurance Contracts Bill 1983. I remember that some of us spoke when that Bill was being considered only a few weeks ago and said that in many instances the small business person and the consumer, who was to be particularly protected by that legislation, had in fact been sold out by the Government's amendments. It appears that this Government is simply taking the reports of the Australian Law Reform Commission, putting those reports down in the form of a Bill in the Parliament, then seeking representations from industry and determining with industry what changes will be necessary to avoid major objection. In some ways that can be said to be a sensible process of consultation, but in other ways it results in legislation that amounts to the lowest common denominator. It means, in fact, a watering down as the Bill no longer serves the purpose for which it was introduced. I think that later during this debate my friend and colleague Senator Watson wants to take up a number of instances of where that has occurred in this Bill at the expense of those who were to be protected by its introduction. Apart from that methodology which we criticise, we are concerned by other aspects. In particular, we are concerned that State insurance companies will not be covered. We know that it is not possible simply to regulate to cover State government instrumentalities in this way. However, the result can mean unfair advantage to State government bodies at the expense of private enterprise. That, of course, is something which we in the Opposition oppose. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has said that he is negotiating with the States. We received that assurance also with regard to the Insurance Contracts Bill. Whilst we are pleased to hear that he is negotiating, we express cautious concern because it may well be the case that such negotiations continue for a long time and simply do not produce any worthwhile result. As I have indicated, the amendments which we were going to move are now no longer necessary. In summary, therefore, although we would not have taken this course of action and we would not have proceeded with this Bill, we are resigned to its inevitability. We do not support the Government's action but we will not be dividing on the issue. I will make one further point. We on this side of the chamber do not accept that the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission must be accepted in all cases. We say that the Commission must not replace the role of government or of this Parliament. However, in saying that, we do want to indicate that it does not mean that we do not recognise the major contribution to the subject matter of this debate that has been made by the Commission in its report No. 16 and the contribution that has been made by all those who contributed to that report. That is all I wish to say in relation to the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Bill . In relation to the Life Insurance Amendment Bill 1984, we in the Opposition accept that this is a Bill to amend the Life Insurance Act of 1945 to effect a number of changes consequent upon the provisions of the Insurance Contracts Bill 1984. As the Senate knows, we have lost that debate already and therefore there seems to be no point in opposing the simple consequential amendments that are contained in this Bill, and the Opposition will not oppose them. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(10.22) —I direct my remarks to the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Bill 1984. I remind the Senate that when the present Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) introduced his private member's Bill back in October 1981, relating to insurance agents and brokers, it was largely modelled on one proposed by the Law Reform Commission. At that time it had my support. In fact, I was only one of the few senators, including Senator Missen, who at that time gave their support to that Bill. Last year the Government introduced another Bill, called the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Bill 1983. I believed that that was a very good Bill and so did my colleague Senator Alan Missen. Unfortunately, Senator Missen is unable to be with us tonight and he has asked me to convey to the Senate his support for the present Bill. I cannot give my support to the Bill before the Senate as I could have given my support to the 1983 legislation, because this Government has sacrificed principle for expediency. What has happened is that the insurance gurus have got to the Australian Labor Party. The Government did not even bring in amendments; it introduced a completely new Bill. It is really a disgrace to the Government. So the Government is really trying to get some legislation on the statute book. This Bill will increase the amount of red tape and paperwork but will not effectively help those who are really in need and those to whom the 1983 Bill was directed to protect. I just wonder why we are wasting our time in having to debate a Bill which has so little substance and so many loopholes that it will not catch the very people it is designed to catch. We have heard high-falutin stories about the way the Labor Party intended to wipe out tax avoidance. We have heard the rhetoric of honourable senators opposite about trying to clean up the insurance industry. I pointed out in the debate on the Insurance Contracts Bill that they have miserably failed to do that. They have failed to give the protection where the protection was needed. They have simply put something on the record book to say they have an interest; they have done something. But they have not gone far enough. They have not done much at all. The rhetoric sounds good. 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. Its purpose is to seek to ensure that these agents and brokers meet professional standards. We all agree with this, but the mechanisms for achieving that are not provided in this Bill. I think it is important in any legislation of this kind to make sure that the average Australian is not being ripped off by unscrupulous operators who give the decent people in the business a bad name and a damaged reputation. The supposed tenet of this Bill is to protect those in society who are unable to do so themselves in relation to insurance business. All this Bill is doing is presenting to the people and to the Parliament further red tape, further government intrusion. I would have welcomed that intrusion had it been adequate, had it been designed to meet the purpose for which the rhetoric says it was designed. Senator Robertson —Amend it. Senator WATSON —The Government was not even game to amend it. It completely re- wrote the 1983 Bill. That 1983 Bill would have had a wide measure of support on this side of the Senate. I think people in the industry, people outside, will really despise the Government for what it has done. The public will receive little assistance as a result of this Bill. Let us look into the background. I think this is important because the background indicates the need for proper legislation in this area. We are not getting proper legislation tonight. The history of events in the insurance industry has, I believe, contributed to the need for proper legislation in this area. In recent years the insurance industry has undergone periods of crisis and uncertainty, the effects of which have been to disrupt what would have been almost a monolithic structure in every sense of the term. Britain suffered from some insurance company failures during the 1950s and 1960s largely because the body responsible for serious supervision of the industry, the British Board of Trade, was an inadequate mentor and monitor of the trends within the general insurance industry. The insurance company failures occurred largely because of the undercutting of premiums in order to attract custom. The end result, of course, was that income failed to cover expenditure. Coupled with poor investment, it often ended in insolvency and bankruptcy for some companies. But in Australia in the post-war era insurance was a boom industry, the growth of which was quite amazing. The market expanded at a rate greater than that with which the industry could really cope. A large untapped market existed for overseas insurance companies to tap if they so desired. The first overseas insurance company to set up in Australia was the Insurance Co. of North America. It did so at a time when there was virtually no limitation on companies setting up in Australia. Insurance companies in Australia had generally maintained a fairly close liaison with one another and on the basis of historical knowledge, gained industry wide, completed a catalogue of recommended premiums to be charged for the various insurance risks. This system worked relatively well and helped to keep the industry stable. The influx of overseas companies served only to disrupt the industry. In their eagerness to be competitive they laid the foundations for their own inevitable collapse. What happened was this: Quite erroneously, a feeling arose among some companies about the universal schedule of recommended fees. It must be remembered that the recommended fees constituted a monopoly, a contravention of some sections of the Trade Practices Act. This led to a dismantling of the fee structure based on a century of knowledge and was, in my view, an absolutely catastrophic move. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator PRIMMER(Victoria)(10.30) —I wish to make some further remarks on the subject of the corruption and mismanagement in the Department of Foreign Affairs . In my speeches on 8 March and 9 May I indicated that I would be pursuing the question of the conduct of Mr John Ryan, ex-head of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service and former Deputy Secretary to the Department of Foreign Affairs. But first let me say again that I was satisfied, and remain so, that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, did have new information concerning Mr Ryan and other foreign affairs wrongdoers before him when I made my speech of 8 December and that he chose to turn a blind eye to that information both in his ministerial statement on 29 February 'clearing' Mr Ryan and in his sharp rejoinder to my speech of 8 March. As Mr Hayden knows full well, the 'new' information concerning financial corruption-I doubt that much of it would have been new to the Secretary to the Department, Mr Henderson-was submitted in the course of a Public Service Board inquiry involving Mr Witheford and Mr Henne last year despite strenuous efforts by the disemployed mandarin in charge of that inquiry, a man called Pryor, who seems set to continue on the public payroll beyond maximum retiring age, to frighten off those giving unpalatable evidence. This was done in collaboration with Messrs Henderson and Ryan. I may need to return to that particular subject in the Budget session. I note that Mr Ryan has resigned from the Public Service and I have no great desire to pursue him in his retirement. But I want to make it clear that I have been continuing my own inquiries into his activities and, in the light of these, I wish to confirm the oft-quoted assessment I made of him in my speech of 8 December. I would add that it is generally known around Canberra that a recent attempt to give Mr Ryan an ambassadorial appointment overseas was rejected by the receiving country. Furthermore, most believe that, had Mr Ryan not resigned, he would inevitably have faced charges over the Sheraton Hotel fiasco and his abortive efforts to cover it up. I would remind honourable senators that the Sydney Morning Herald, the National Times and the Bulletin have all made allegations of dishonesty against Mr Ryan to which there has been no response, as has Mr Justice Hope in his recent report on the Sheraton raid. Mr Ryan's incompetence shines through Mr Justice Hope's report. Clearly promotion to high office in the Department of Foreign Affairs is based on factors other than efficiency. I welcome the news release on 8 May that Mr Peter Henderson will be resigning from his position as head of Foreign Affairs on 5 September. In this connection it occurs to me that some honourable senators may have overlooked an interesting exchange which took place between Senator Tate and Mr Henderson in Estimates Committee E on 3 May. When Senator Tate showed his concern about the Witheford prosecution, Mr Henderson, in the course of a lot of ducking and weaving, sought to leave the impression that the prosecution was the work of the police. That was contrary to the facts as determined by the Acting Chief Magistrate, Mr Kevin Dobson, who on 16 March said in part that the 'prosecution was conceived in prejudice and born in bias on the part of some officers in the Department of Foreign Affairs', and not-I stress not-by the police officers concerned in the case. This was not the first time that Mr Henderson had wilfully misled an Estimates committee. I draw to the attention of honourable senators, and to that of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in particular, Mr Justice Murphy' s recent remarks on the Professor Harry Messel case: Legal proceedings, especially criminal ones, can be an instrument of oppression by governments against their citizens: They can ruin an individual despite the fact that he or she is ultimately acquitted. Even a relatively minor charge can have this effect. The mind boggles at the injustice of Mr Witheford's prosecution when one contemplates the sustained range of criminal activities undertaken by those, such as Mr Henderson, who conceived and pressed these charges against him. But thanks to the support of the unions, the honesty and competence of the Australian Capital Territory magistracy, the anger of the people of Canberra and elsewhere, thousands of whom have signed petitions about the case, the sympathy of the media, not to mention the interest expressed by a number of honourable senators and those in another place, I am confident that Mr Witheford will not be ruined. The remaining charge is being used as a pretext to keep him out of his job from which he was suspended almost five months ago. A further disgraceful aspect of the affair has been the interception by Mr Henderson of personal mail from Mr Witheford and two of his sympathisers to other departmental colleagues. That constitutes a further violation of civil liberties which I believe not a single honourable senator would condone. I suggest that not even Senator Jessop would condone that. So far as Mr Ivor Bowden is concerned, and Mr Bowden is in a sense the man who started it all, I have not yet received a reply to my message to President Zia of Pakistan concerning Mr Bowden's obvious unsuitability to serve as an Australian Ambassador there. Senators Georges, McIntosh, Sibraa and perhaps other honourable senators will not have forgotten the debate on 16 November 1982 about the Senate Estimates D Committee report. It emerged, without a shadow of doubt, that Mr Henderson had lied to that Committee in maligning Mr Don Witheford and Mr Karl Henne, thereby seeking to cover up the Teheran affair. In his confrontation with the Senate, Mr Henderson may have lied just once too often. He certainly abused parliamentary privilege on those two occasions. It is an open secret that many Government parliamentarians now regret that people so indelibly linked with the coalition parties, as is Mr Henderson, were not moved from sensitive positions without delay. The information that has only recently reached me concerning Mr Henderson's apparent role in tampering with Prime Minister Whitlam's correspondence with the Palace in November 1975 more than proves my point. I add that I continue to be determined to pursue Mrs Van Dartel's allegations about Mr Henderson's blatant breach of Customs and quarantine regulations in importing Sri Lankan jewellery, expensive perfume, a riding saddle and the like through the diplomatic bag. Sooner or later, Mr Hayden's office will have to answer for its disgraceful attempt to dissuade Mrs Van Dartel from exposing corruption and incompetence within the Department. Concerning the prosecution of Don Witheford-persecution would perhaps be a more accurate term-I note that a second charge has now been dropped but the third and final one which directly relates to the Teheran Embassy affair is to proceed on 16 July. In my opinion Mr Bowden should not have been allowed out of Australia while charges remained pending against Mr Witheford. Mr President, as you know, I have made strenuous efforts to expose a range of malpractices in the Department of Foreign Affairs, including a variety of frauds , tax evasion, perjury, nepotism and the misleading of Parliament. I have put a further series of questions on notice designed to elicit further information on these matters. With particular reference to the Sunday program in which I appeared on 3 July, I believe I used the privilege I enjoy as a senator in an entirely proper manner. My only regret is that sanction has rarely followed exposure. I am glad to note that my parliamentary critics in this respect have modified their attitude, or even withdrawn from the conflict, presumably in reaction to the Acting Chief Magistrate's stinging judgment on 16 March. Perhaps they had also drawn the obvious conclusion from their failure to answer the scores of questions asked with and without notice on these issues. My offer remains open to provide copies of the transcripts of that trial to any honourable senator inclined to look deeper into this affair. I have been involved in these matters for too long to expect that the departure from the scene of two of the major operators, in the form of Mr Ryan and Mr Henderson, will solve matters overnight, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.40) —Senator Primmer has just stated that he believes that on this occasion, as on others on which he has canvassed the same topics, he has not abused parliamentary privilege. Others will be of a different view. I would find that position understandable in my position as Deputy Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, which Committee recently, this week, tabled an exposure draft report dealing with matters of this kind. We made a recommendation that citizens, non- parliamentarians, who are the subject of stinging attacks in this place, well founded or otherwise as those attacks may prove to be, ought to have more formal opportunity than they get at the moment to reply to them. I think Senator Primmer's allegations on this and on other occasions give extra point and weight to that recommendation. I am not in the position tonight, any more than I have been previously, to respond in detail to the particular allegations that have been made, or at least the bulk of them. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, has been concerned on each occasion that they have been raised to ensure that proper inquiries have been made. A number of inquiries, have, of course, been set on foot through the Department of Finance, the Ombudsman and, more recently, by Mr Pryor at the direction of the Public Service Board. Certainly those reports that I have seen or that have been reported to me do not lend credence to the kinds of allegations that have been made in the past. What the status of the new allegations is must await further investigation, report and response but I do not think Mr Hayden will appreciate the way in which his attitude to this matter has been characterised on this occasion, as on others, by Senator Primmer. The one matter raised again by Senator Primmer on which I am in a position to make some short response tonight is statements made by Mr Henderson in the Senate chamber when appearing before the Estimates Committee at which I was the responsible Minister on 3 May. An exchange occurred between Mr Henderson and Senator Tate which has been the subject of some pamphleteering by Mr Witheford, or at least those who support his position. The statements of the events, in particular as to the persons responsible for actually initiating the prosecution by Mr Witheford, made by Mr Henderson on that occasion are perfectly accurate and he simply does not deserve the charges that have been levelled against him of telling lies or in some other way misleading either the Senate or the public as to the circumstances of initiation of those proceedings. As I understand it-my Department certainly had an active role in this-the facts are as follows: The police were called in to the Foreign Affairs Department in order to investigate the unofficial disclosure of official documents some days before Mr Witheford was charged. As is normal police practice, they decided that action be taken once they had been asked to investigate that matter. It was the Deputy Crown Solicitor's decision, on the basis of evidence collected by police, to proceed against Mr Witheford under the Crimes Act. Mr Henderson's statement of 3 May to the effect that the Department of Foreign Affairs was not responsible for the legal action that was decided on by the police in conjunction with officers of the Attorney-General's Department is perfectly correct. It is also the case that the two outstanding matters following Mr Dobson's dismissal of the first matter were referred to Mr Ian Temby, the Director of Public Prosecutions, who considered very carefully the weight of the evidence and the justification for further charges continuing. As a result of that review by the DPP the prosecution of one of the two remaining charges will continue. So some of the more extravagant language that has been employed, not only by Senator Primmer and those supporting Mr Witheford but also gaining considerable colour from the magistrate himself, Mr Dobson, it would appear is not justified. Probably much more can be said about this matter. On previous occasions I have expressed my respect for the good faith and motivation of Senator Primmer in bringing these matters forward. I must confess, as with each passing week, month or parliamentary day still further allegations are made which appear, as their investigation is brought to my notice, to have no more solid a foundation than those preceding, one begins to doubt whether that characterisation is as entirely apt as it might have been at the outset. Nonetheless, I will, giving the benefit of the doubt where it ought to be given, to parliamentarians acting under cover of privilege, note what Senator Primmer has said. I will refer the substance of his comments, to the extent that they raise new matters, to Mr Hayden and ask him to ensure that such response as is appropriate is made as soon as possible. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.46) —Mr President , I wished to hear the response of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) before making any comment on what Senator Primmer has had to say tonight. I note the Attorney-General's continuing charity towards Senator Primmer, albeit confessing to growing doubts. I want to make a couple of comments and would ask the Attorney-General to consider them. Tonight we have had, on the part of Senator Primmer, a series of allegations, many of which are simply repeats but some of which may be fresh, against a series of individuals-Mr Ryan, Mr Henderson and Mr Bowden. There can be no doubting the seriousness of the charges which are made by Senator Primmer. He has described Mr Henderson, I think I recall him correctly, as having indulged in a sustained range of criminal activities-a pretty serious thing to say about a very senior public servant who has given Australia very long service. I do not wish in any sense to repeat the range of allegations which have been made, but I remind Senator Primmer and the Senate that some time ago Mr Ryan wrote to newspapers around Australia and made the point that he was in a poor position to defend himself against charges made in this place, and asked Senator Primmer to make those charges outside this place. As I recall, I read that letter into the record here, and I am sure it has come to Senator Primmer's attention. It can be of little consolation to the individuals who have been named that the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, of which the Attorney-General is Deputy Chairman, is doing what is undoubtedly valuable work in getting into what is a vexed and difficult area, because I suppose any changes that are effected by the Parliament following the work of that Committee are unlikely to be retrospective. We are in a situation where it is, I suppose, the duty of all of us to try to see whether there is anything we should do with respect to the allegations which have been raised by Senator Primmer and what can be done to bring some fairness into the position from the point of view of those individuals. I know none of them well. I know Mr Henderson, not well, but I know him. I can only say that everything Senator Primmer says seems highly unlikely to me on what I know of Mr Henderson. There is a further aspect to this which I think gives a different colour to the remarks which have been made tonight by Senator Primmer, because tonight he has extended his attack beyond public servants and has really implicated the Government of which he is a supporter, in a very serious way. Again I do not have an exact transcript of Senator Primmer's remarks. We will all have that available to us when the Hansard comes out tomorrow. But early in his remarks and before I came into the chamber I heard on the speaker a suggestion that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, had in his possession information which was relevant to his response. I think the meaning of Senator Primmer's words was that he had not taken that information into account when he made the response to Parliament. I would need to examine those words more carefully, but it seems to me that Senator Primmer has made an allegation of recklessness or carelessness on the part of Mr Hayden, if not an allegation that he has misled the Parliament . Later in his speech it was quite clear that Senator Primmer is alleging quite significant wrongdoing on the part of Mr Hayden's office. Senator Primmer used words to the effect that Mr Hayden's office will have to answer for its disgraceful attempt to prevent some individual, whom he named, from exposing some wrongdoing. I believe that the comments which have been made about Mr Hayden's role in this affair really do throw up an entirely new aspect of the matter. We have now a back bench supporter of this Government alleging conduct on behalf of the Government itself, which I would have thought was most serious and which, if true, would be a basis for the resignation of the Minister. Senator Gareth Evans —Oh! Senator CHANEY —I can understand the Attorney-General, late in the third week of sitting, being very easily irritated. I suggest to him that the sorts of allegations which have been made by Senator Primmer against Mr Hayden are allegations which are extremely serious and which go to My Hayden's conduct of office and, indeed, to the integrity of his office. On that basis I ask the Attorney-General to give consideration to that aspect of what Senator Primmer has said and advise the Senate, not now but after giving the matter reflection, how the Government proposes to deal with this matter. I earlier made the comment that Senator Primmer has access to the Government, I would assume, as a supporter and member of it, and it ought to be incumbent on the Government to deal with Senator Primmer-by deal with him I mean to talk with him and find some way of satisfactorily laying this matter to rest. Senator Primmer raises more and more murk and more and more dirt. It seems to me the Government either has to satisfy Senator Primmer and silence him through satisfying him or has to take some firm action which will indicate, once and for all, that these men are cleared or, if they are not, that they are being properly dealt with. I think it is entirely unsatisfactory that, for well over a year now, these allegations have been made. The Attorney-General pointed out that each attempt makes it harder to say that Senator Primmer is acting in good faith. I ask the Attorney-General to give consideration to this additional element of the matter which has been raised by Senator Primmer tonight and for the Government to let the Parliament get a considered reply to the serious allegations which have now been made against one of the senior Ministers of this Government. Let me say, on behalf of the Opposition, that what I say in no way endorses any reflection on the Foreign Minister. I do not wish to be heard or interpreted as suggesting that Mr Hayden or his office have behaved improperly. I simply responded to what I think are significant statements to that effect by Senator Primmer by saying that I do not believe that they can simply be let rest. I believe that the Government must respond firmly and clearly. If it is unable to do so it has to put some mechanism in place which will enable the matter to be cleared up once and for all. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.53) —I wish to speak in entirely different terms in relation to the passing from the political scene of one of the people whom I believe to have been one of the great contributors to parliamentary democracy, to liberalism and to statesmanship in Australian politics. I refer to Max Bingham. Max Bingham, the Deputy Premier of Tasmania, has just resigned; he is to leave politics. He entered politics in 1969 as the Liberal member of the House of Assembly for Denison and was immediately made the Attorney-General, a position which he carried with great distinction. This might be expected from someone who had been a Tasmanian Rhodes Scholar, who was a QC and a Bachelor of Civil Laws from Oxford, who had an honours degree in law from the University of Tasmania and who had studied at Berkeley in the United States of America at the University of California. Max Bingham is, I think, probably the person with whom I could say I have had one of the closest associations in my political career. I have felt a great affinity for him. I regret that he finds that the time has come for his resignation from politics. I think, probably, I could summarise by saying that one of the greatest disasters to befall my State of Tasmania has been the fact that Max Bingham never became the Premier of that State. Max Bingham is a man of extraordinary humility, a man of extraordinary ability, a man of extraordinary capacity capable of hard work and of seeing both sides of a question and a man who was probably not cut out for the rough and tumble of politics as it is so commonly played. I take the opportunity in this chamber to note the passing from the political scene of a man who contributed statesmanship to what is otherwise known as gutter politics. I believe that this is one thing that ought to be recognised on the rare occasions on which it does happen. So that I am not just giving my own view, I will quote from the Mercury newspaper of 15 May 1976. An article by Wayne Crawford about Max Bingham stated: Of the rough-and-tumble row-making he says: 'I do it reluctantly' only because it's expected. It is not the way I operate. I have not been used to shouting and raving about things. I have never thought it necessary to conduct affairs at that level of decibels. I commend those words to members of this chamber as an approach which I think is probably reflected here far more than it is in a place which is sometimes unkindly known as the monkey house. The same article continues: Another difference Mr Bingham says he sees between the two parties is that of image and appeal. With the aid of a young State Liberal president, Don Wing, and a young ticket- leading Senator, Peter Rae, he set out to broaden the appeal of the party to more than one of the Wilmot-dominated farmer's party and an organisation of silvertails. He believes the appeal has been broadened to include a good cross-section-age, occupation, background, sex. 'I think the team of candidates will bear this out' . The fact is that Max Bingham was one of those who set out to reform the Liberal Party from a position where it was as low as one could possibly get, holding four Senate seats out of 10 and no House of Representatives seats and being in opposition in the State Parliament. We needed to do something to reform the Party. Max Bingham played an extremely significant and important role in that reformation which led to a situation within a relatively short time of the Party having sufficient appeal, sufficient dynamism, sufficient forward movement and attraction to the voters to be able to win the greatest number of Senate seats and a majority of the House of Representatives seats-a majority which cannot be beaten, and that is all of them. Senator Kilgariff —A tremendous effort. Senator PETER RAE —I thank Senator Kilgariff. Max Bingham's contribution to that should never be overlooked. We sometimes hear people talk about what people did at a Federal level with regard to what happened in Tasmania in 1975. I pay tribute to what Max Bingham did in regard to what happened so far as the Liberal Party in Tasmania is concerned. The attitude which he portrayed, the frankness, the capacity to be a real person, an understanding person, a compassionate person, a real Liberal, were extremely important. I quote from a profile by Russell Schneider published in the Australian of 29 July 1979: Perhaps it is his legal background which lets him see all sides of the question : He can see his own mistakes, he is a nice guy. I would like to use those words to describe a man with whom it has been my pleasure to work over a period of years in politics. Together we developed what became known as the Tasmanian policy package. Tasmania has benefited, I believe, very greatly. Success has many parents; failure is an orphan. I believe that Max Bingham is one of the people who have received far too little credit for the success of the Tasmanian policy package and what was done for Tasmania in the period following 1975. I have among my records the relevant documents. I have Max Bingham's original document setting out the basic policy package for Tasmania. Many people have subsequently claimed the credit for what was done for Tasmania. But I simply say that I have the original document, signed by Max Bingham, much of which is in his own handwriting. Max Bingham's humility allowed a situation to develop whereby others took credit for a lot of what he did, which was of tremendous advantage to Tasmania. I pay credit, at the time of his resignation from politics, to what he achieved for Tasmania. He achieved more than any other person I have known in my long period of association with politics in Tasmania. As I said earlier, I regard the fact that he never became Premier of Tasmania as one of the misfortunes which have befallen our State. I do not wish to take an undue amount of time in this Federal chamber speaking about what amounts to a State matter, but I think that in the Senate, which is, after all, the States House, it is not inappropriate to recognise the termination of the political participation of one of the great State statesmen. I use those words very deliberately. I hope that they will be words which, as history eventually records this era, will be applied to Max Bingham-a great State statesman. I thank the Senate for the opportunity to speak. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —by leave-The Senate is indebted to the remarks Senator Rae has just made about Max Bingham. Although he was, of course, a political opponent of the Australian Labor Party, I have the highest respect for him based on my quite considerable contact with him over a number of years, more particularly in his capacity as Attorney-General of Tasmania and my dealings with him at ministerial council meetings of one kind or another. I fully endorse everything Senator Rae said about Max Bingham being a highly competent and effective politician, and a thorough gentleman. He has been an absolute pleasure to deal with, which cannot be said of all his colleagues in the Tasmania Government, any more than it can be said of the just departed Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) in this place. But certainly to the extent that it is possible to have respect for, and indeed a measure of friendship with, people across party lines, even in the midst of such controversies as the dams affair and so on last year, about which there can hardly have been a more spectacular ruction in Federal-State relationships in recent decades, it is possible to have it with Max Bingham. God knows who his replacement will be as Tasmania's Attorney-General to represent Tasmania on the various ministerial councils we attend, but I cannot imagine that anyone would be as co-operative and gentlemanly as Max Bingham. I do not know what particular afterlife he is now going to, but I certainly mourn his passing as a politician. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.05 p.m. The following paper was presented: Public Service Act-Determination 1984- Nos 5, 6 and 14. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 539) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 18 November 1983: (1) What new authorities, committees, bureaus, or other such groups: (a) have been established; or (b) are proposed, by or within this Department, since 5 March 1983. (2) How many additional staff: (a) have been, or are being, appointed; or (b) are proposed to be recruited, as a result. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) (i) The Committee of Review of the Special Broadcasting Service; (ii) The Broadcasting Planning Task Force within the Department of Communications is being expanded to review the current use of the very high frequency (VHF) band and to develop an allocation plan for VHF-FM radio and VHF television services. (b) Nil. (2) (a) (i) 3; (ii) 0. (b) (i) 10; (ii) 9. (Question No. 831) Senator Chipp asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 2 May 1984: What are the names, dates of appointment, terms of appointment and salaries of all persons appointed to the boards and commissions of statutory authorities under the jurisdiction of the Minister. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The requested details on persons appointed to statutory authorities under my jurisdiction are as per the tables below: STATUTORY AUTHORITIES APPOINTMENTS LIST Note: Except where indicated all appointments are made by the Governor-General. Appointment dates are current and are not necessarily the date of first appointment. Albury-Wodonga Development Act 1973 Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation-Chairman, 2 Deputies, 2 ex-officio, 3 members. Appointment Office Status Name date Term Salary $ Chairman F G. F. Craig, O.B.E. 1.7.84 5 years 66,557 Deputy Chairman, NSW F L. T. Muir 1.7.79 5 years 56,840 Deputy Chairman, Vic. F M. K. Read 13.8.79 4 yrs 10 mths 56,840 Member P V. J. Mendham 16.2.84 2 years 7,899 Member P R. A. McLean 1.3.83 3 years 7,899 Member P G. N. Lant 23.11.82 3 years 7,899 Plus the Mayors of the City of Albury and the Rural City of Wodonga Albury P J. L. Roach ex-officio 7,899 Wodonga P I. J. Macaulay ex-officio 7,899 Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973 (1) Industries Assistance Commission-5-9 Commissioners (incl. Chairman). Appointment Office Status Name date Term Salary $ Chairman F M. H. Codd 26.3.83 5 years 70,846 Commissioner F J. L. Sheaffer 1.1.84 2 years 61,129 Commissioner F J. C. Carey 2.4.84 5 years 61,129 Commissioner F G. F. Johnson 1.7.81 5 years 61,129 Commissioner F D. L. McBride 1.7.81 5 years 61,129 Commissioner F R. G. Mauldon 1.1.84 5 years 61,129 Associate Commissioner P Dr C. Gellatly 30.9.83 for the duration of the IAC Inquiry into the Dried Vine Fruits Industry- expected to report 13.9.84 (Ministerial appt) 223 PD* Associate Commissioner P N. Sturgess 21.12.83 for the duration of the IAC Inquiry into Southern Bluefin Tuna-expected to report 30.6.84 (Ministerial appt) 223 PD* (2) Temporary Assistance Authority-1 full-time member Member F A. W. Mumme 30.4.84 8 months 61,129 * Salary increases to $233 per day if presiding. Australian Industry Development Corporation Act 1970 Australian Industry Development Corporation-Chairman, 3 ex-officio, 4-8 Directors. Appointment Office Status Name date Term Salary $ Chairman P Sir Gordon Jackson 21.12.83 5 years 23,507 Chief Executive P J. R. Thomas ex-officio 70,846 Director P Sir Leslie Froggatt 19.11.81 3 years 9,826 Director P D. McLeish 14.4.83 3 years 9,826 Director P W. D. Ferris 28.7.83 3 years 9,826 Director P J. G. A. Davis 3.11.83 3 years 9,826 Director T. P. Hayes (Secretary Department of Industry & Commerce) ex officio . . Director A. J. Woods (Secretary Department of Resources & Energy) ex officio . . Steel Industry Authority Act 1983 Steel Industry Authority-3 members. Appointment Office Status Name date Term Salary* $ Chairman P M. J. Roberts 1.1.84 2 years 272 PD Member P C. H. Fitzgibbon 1.1.84 2 years 233 PD Member P F. R. Somes (Department of Industry and Commerce) 1.1.84 2 years . . * Salary is per day. Senator Walsh —On 7 May 1984 (Hansard, page 1623) Senator Chipp asked me a question without notice concerning the nature of the atomic tests program at Maralinga. I undertook to provide further information on two aspects of Senator Chipp's question. My Department has recently sought further information from the United Kingdom Government on the nature of the minor trials conducted at Maralinga and Emu. When additional information is received I will make it available to the Senate. On the basis of information currently available, I understand that the devices used in the minor trials were either on the ground or on small towers. Senator Chipp also asked me whether the Government had received advice from either the Department of Foreign Affairs or the Department of Defence that the British Government must not be offended at any cost. I confirm my response that no such advice has been received. Senator Walsh —On 10 May 1984 (Hansard, page 1937) Senator Elstob asked a question without notice concerning the atomic testing program of the United Kingdom at Maralinga. In answering on my behalf Senator Grimes undertook to obtain from me information on the nature of any legal agreements with the United Kingdom and whether the Australian or British Governments would be responsible for Australian personnel affected by the testing. The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: There was no treaty entered into between the United Kingdom and Australian governments concerning the testing program at Maralinga. A memorandum of arrangements between the United Kingdom and Australian Governments concerning the atomic weapons proving ground at Maralinga was entered into on 7 March 1956. That agreement contained an indemnity provision on the part of the United Kingdom Government in respect of all valid claims arising out of the death or injury of any person or any damage to property due to tests carried out on the site except for claims made by any employee or servant of a Government other than the United Kingdom Government authorised to be within the prohibited area. By a further memorandum, the original memorandum of arrangements was terminated as from 21 December 1967. The indemnity provisions were, however, continued by express wording contained within the terminating memorandum. There are presently five common law actions which have been taken against the Commonwealth of Australia arising out of the atomic testing program by the United Kingdom Government. Senator Walsh —On 31 May 1984 (Hansard, page 2227) Senator Maguire asked me a question without notice concerning amounts of plutonium recently discovered at the Taranaki site at Maralinga in South Australia. I undertook to check whether the material was found inside or outside the fenced area, and provide the following answer: Fragments of material contaminated with plutonium were found in the surface layers both inside and outside the fenced area at Taranaki and at TM 101. There are also indications that similar material is located in unfenced areas at TM 100 and Wewak. I am awaiting a full report on the recently concluded radiological survey during which the plutonium was found, 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.