Friday, 15 June 1984 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 9 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Australian Capital Territory: Local Government To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action or legislation in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Peter Baume (from five citizens), Haines (from 150 citizens), Lajovic (from 59 citizens), Macklin (from 168 citizens) and Watson (from 45 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That Regulations and an Ordinance now before the Parliament amend the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations and supersede the A.C.T. Objectionable Publications Ordinance in such a manner as to be harmful to society by removing from existing Commonwealth Law The power to prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography (e.g. X rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; The power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications including those associated with blasphemy; The power to require videos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board before release from Customs. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should dissallow the new Regulations and Ordinance and ensure; That the Attorney-General enforce existing laws; That the Censors more appropriately reflect reasonable and responsible community attitudes; That further measure be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; That, because of the importance of this issue to the whole community, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Harradine (from 278 citizens). 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 Senators Dame Margaret Guilfoyle (from 240 citizens) and Missen (from 117 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens shows that: 1. the Hawke Labor Government's retirement income policies are piecemeal, inconsistent and make no provision to encourage people to save towards their retirements; and 2. the Government's proposed assets test legislation is iniquitous and, if enacted, its effects would be discriminatory. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: 1. scrap its proposed assets test legislation; 2. either institute a broad enquiry into Australia's retirement income and taxation systems or await the outcome of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare's work on this matter; and 3. following the report of such a wide enquiry institute a retirement income policy which is fair and equitable, that encourages self-provision and which will be non-discriminatory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Bjelke-Petersen (from 34 citizens) and Martin (from 1,384 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: That we are totally opposed to any legislation which allows video films, films, and books dealing with sex, drugs, crime, cruelty and revolting phenomena, to be imported, produced and dealt with commercially in Australia. For this is promoting evil, 'Satan and all his works'. We, the undersigned request the Government to abandon its 1983 decision to alter the A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinance forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bjelke-Petersen (from 160 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned students of St. John's College, University of Queensland, respectfully showeth: 1. A college residence does not only provide the necessary accommodation, but also essential academic and pastoral assistance. It is for these purposes that the recurrent grant is used and the result of the Government's decision will be that students will either have to pay more, or see a fall-off in the academic and pastoral services offered by the residence. 2. By and large the students in residential colleges are from the country. The Australian Government's commitment to broaden educational opportunities has made it more difficult to live at a college. We, the undersigned, would have faced great difficulties in both finding accommodation and settling into university studies if coming to college was not feasible. 3. That the current method of funding (i.e. that each college receives a lump sum based upon the number of residents) should be continued since- (a) this is the fairest and simplest method of distribution of available funds; and (b) the administration of individual student subsidies would be unreasonably and unnecessarily burdensome on the college offices concerned. We call on this Government to review the decision taken to reduce the recurrent grant and restore the funding to the 1983 level. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bjelke-Petersen (from 157 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully shows: 1. that governments have responsibility to maintain standards acceptable to society's wishes; 2. that 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 79 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we believe that tertiary students and their welfare are critical to the economic and cultural future of Australia and that students are currently condemned to living at little more than half the poverty line. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That members acknowledge that an increase in higher education participation and in the quality of the learning process will not be achieved without an overhaul of the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme. 2. That, as a consequence of item 1, a substantial rise in the level of T.E.A.S ., at least to the level of the single adult unemployment rate, be a primary priority in the 1984 Federal Budget. 3. That instead the principle of student dependency on parents to the age of 25 currently at the foundation of T.E.A.S., students be recognised as independent of parents from age 18. 4. That the regulations surrounding T.E.A.S. which make the allowance amongst the most difficult of all Government payments to obtain, be overhauled significantly as soon as possible in consultation with student groups. 5. That tribunals, consisting of student and community representatives be empowered to grant T.E.A.S. in cases of particular hardship which may fall outside the T.E.A.S. regulations. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator McIntosh (from 242 citizens). Petitions received. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I give notice that, on the next sitting, I shall move: That the Senate calls upon the Government to provide a full and authoritative response to the further allegations by Senator Primmer against named members and past members of the Department of Foreign Affairs and the allegations with respect to the Foreign Minister, the Honourable Bill Hayden, made during the adjournment debate in the Senate on 14 June 1984. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the Prime Minister's statement that the United States bases in Australia are not military bases; (b) calls on the Government to undertake a comprehensive public debate on all aspects of the United States bases in Australia, rather than the one-sided and limited statement of the Prime Minister which ignored some roles of the bases and the many implications of those roles; (c) demands that all foreign military bases in Australia are totally controlled by Australians or by Australia in association with an international authority; (d) demands that all foreign military bases in Australia do not contribute to the planning for, or fighting of, a nuclear war. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate condemns the Government for its failure to consult properly with the people of the Australian Capital Territory on the matter of self- government for the Territory and calls on the Government to ascertain the views of the people of the Territory not only on the matter of the recommendations of the Task Force on Self-Government but also on whether or not they wish to proceed to self-government. Senator HAINES(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That in the opinion of the Senate- (a) the Government is failing in its responsibility to provide adequate income support for Australian families in need and to ensure, in particular, that children are not deprived of basic necessities, and (b) the Government should consider the following remedial measures as a matter of urgency but no later than in the 1984-85 Budget: (i) increase child allowances for pensioners and recipients of benefits from $ 12 to $15 per child; (ii) provide guardian allowances for children of lone parents who are in receipt of unemployment or sickness benefits; (iii) increase all guardian's allowances from $8 to $15 per week; (iv) provide supplementary rent allowance to all recipients of unemployment benefits after 6 weeks' unemployment; (v) increase all supplementary rent allowances from $10 to $15 per dependent child of beneficiaries eligible for the allowances; (vi) redirect the current spouse rebate, costing $1,000 million per annum, to families with dependent children via increased family allowances; (vii) increase unemployment and sickness benefits for people aged 16 and 17 from $45 to a mid-point between $45 and the adult rate of $78.60 for young people living at home, that is, $61.80, plus $15 for people living away from home; and (viii) increase the Low Income Family Supplement from $12 to $15 per child per week. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the Government for the introduction of an assets test that will stifle the incentive for individuals to prepare for their own retirement and will throw more people onto the welfare system; (b) notes that this test: (i) discriminates against Australia's 170, 000 farmers and thousands of small business people, (ii) will cost the Australian taxpayer $30 million in its first year of operation, and (c) calls on the Government to withdraw this proposed legislation. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that: (i) energy security is crucial to the well-being of nations and the avoidance of international conflict, (ii) nuclear power cannot provide energy security given that it cannot physically replace 90 per cent of the world's oil consumption which is used by the transport and chemical industries, (iii) the excessive cost of nuclear power makes it totally uneconomical in any application, and (b) agrees with a principal finding of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry that the nuclear power industry is unintentionally contributing to an increased risk of nuclear war; and (c) calls on the Government to develop and promote renewable energy resources and an efficient technologies industry which would create many valuable jobs in Australia; make appropriate energy resources available to satisfy legitimate demands for energy security; and result in minimal environmental impact and drastically reduce risk of nuclear proliferation. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) commends further limited involvement of private sector land development in the Australian Capital Territory by the Master Builders' Association in addition to that already being undertaken by the Housing Industry Association as recently announced by the Minister for Territories and Local Government; (b) commends to the Government the further involvement of the private sector so as to relieve the Government of the responsibility of having to provide funds for land development in the Australian Capital Territory which will free taxpayers' funds for the maintenance and provision of those services properly the responsibility of the Government. Motion (by Senator Jones) agreed to: 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 Robertson) agreed to: 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.'. Motion (by Senator Chipp) agreed to: 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. Bill presented, and read a first time. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(9.11) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill will place Australia in a role of giving strong moral leadership in the world on the most urgent issue of our time-disarmament and arms control. The world situation in 1984 is testimony itself to the need for arms control and disarmament. Superpower relations are abysmal. Communication is non-existent. The potential for crisis is great. Waiting for a total breakdown of superpower relations is a stockpile of some 50 ,000 nuclear weapons in the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics alone. Britain, France, China, India, South Africa and Israel are also nuclear armed. Other nations are on the same devilish path. The destructive capacity of this stockpile is horrifying. The bomb that obliterated 200,000 people at Hiroshima in 1945 had a destructive capacity of 12 kilotons, 12,000 tons of TNT. Today, one 'average' nuclear bomb is equivalent to 42 Hiroshimas. The entire stockpile is equivalent to one and a half million Hiroshimas, and growing. The United States plans to build another 29,000 nuclear warheads in the next decade. The Soviets will undoubtedly match this insanity. The nuclear arms race not only makes the extinction of humanity a probability, it wastes enormous sums of resources every day that could be put to humane use. For example, for the cost of one MX missile system every single person on this planet could be provided with food, water, clothing, housing and health care for three and a half years. It is time for those of us who can see a better way to say 'enough' to our leaders and demand action. This Bill would give the world a clear signal that Australia has had enough and wants the arsenals of death reduced drastically. This legislation is the first step towards declaring Australia a nuclear weapons free zone. The Bill would prohibit the development, testing, manufacturing, transportation, storage or importation of nuclear weapons into Australia. Australia is defined in the Bill as being the land mass down to the lower-water mark including external territories. Territorial waters, harbours and airspace are thus excluded. The Democrats are considering making those areas subject to similar prohibitions in a future Bill. The prohibitions in the Bill apply to the Commonwealth; a person on behalf of the Commonwealth; a corporation; the Government or Defence Forces of a foreign country or any person on their behalf. The Commonwealth is prohibited from entering into an agreement with a foreign country that would allow that foreign country to import, store, test or transport nuclear weapons within Australia. Remember that when we refer to Australia we are referring to the land mass of the continent and the external territories. The Bill does not propose any penalties. It is not the Democrats' intention on issues of this kind to create vast systems of draconian penalties. Our interest is in preventing those actions we have labelled as prohibited. Thus the Bill sets out a system of injunctions to halt any activity that would breach the provisions of the Bill. An injunction can be taken out by a member of the Senate or the House of Representatives; or a person whose ordinary place or residence or work is situated in the vicinity of the place where the provisions of the Bill have been breached. The injunction would be taken out in the Federal Court. The concept of nuclear weapons free zones can make an enormous contribution to disarmament initiatives. The absence of nuclear weapons from various regions increases the threshold between the use of conventional and nuclear weapons. Decision-making time in case of a conflict is increased, reducing the prospect that an outbreak of fighting would automatically escalate to a catastrophic and global holocaust. All these reasons would lead to an increase in confidence and stability. The East-West border in central Europe is the region that most needs to be a nuclear weapons free zone. Australia will not have a great deal of direct influence on that issue. However, if we ourselves are a nuclear weapons free zone our diplomatic influence would be vastly increased because we would be an example of what we are asking for. This Bill would put our domestic affairs totally in line with our international concerns. If, as a unilateral initiative, Australia moved towards being a nuclear weapons free zone through the proposals contained in this Bill, we would be able to exert considerable influence towards establishing similar zones in the South Pacific and the Indian Ocean. Nuclear war would be a more distant prospect if these zones were to be established. This Government has renounced any desire for Australia to have a nuclear weapons capability and reaffirmed their commitment to the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty. The Democrats have welcomed that commitment, particularly given the publication by the National Times of the strategic basis documents. Such a commitment however has to be backed by concrete steps. This Bill is the guarantee that Australia needs to repudiate a nuclear weapons option for all time. As Australia moves towards being a nuclear weapons free zone the risk of nuclear proliferation in our region would be all but removed. Given recent concerns and the increasing spread of sensitive nuclear technology in South East Asia all moves to remove the impetus to build nuclear weapons would be a major advance for peace and stability. The nuclear arms race has been going on for nearly 40 years, resulting in the stockpiling of 50,000 nuclear bombs. People have done nothing to date because the problem has appeared too large. It is an enormous problem, but the consequences of doing nothing could be catastrophic. Hard, courageous decisions are needed. The passage of this Bill would be one such decision. Australia would be taking a position of strong moral leadership as we become a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone. Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received letters from the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition requesting that Senators Bolkus, Button, Jessop and Missen be discharged from further attendance on the Standing Committee of Privileges and nominating Senators Coates, Cook, Peter Rae and Withers to be members of the Committee. Motion (by Senator Grimes)-by leave-agreed to: That Senators Bolkus, Button, Jessop and Missen be discharged from further attendance on the Standing Committee of Privileges and that Senators Coates, Cook, Peter Rae and Withers be appointed members of the Committee. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate calls upon the Hawke Government to honour its obligation to protect Australia's children, by reversing its decision to remove barriers to the importation of hard core pornography. Motion (by Senator Tate)-by leave- proposed: 1. That the time for the Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge to report to the Senate be extended to the first day of sitting of the Senate in August 1984. 2. (1) That, if the Senate be not sitting when the Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge has completed its report, the Committee may send the report to the President, or, if the President is unable to act, to the Deputy President , and, in that event- (a) the report shall be deemed to have been presented to the Senate; (b) the publication of the report is authorised by this resolution; (c) the President or the Deputy President, as the case may be, may give directions for the printing and circulation of the report; and (d) the President or the Deputy President, as the case may be, shall lay the report upon the table at the next sitting of the Senate. (2) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, insofar as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.14) —I am opposed to this motion. The matter under consideration was referred to the Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge by the Senate. Of course 1 August will be a non-sitting day-- Senator Jack Evans —No, it is the first sitting day in August. Senator HARRADINE —In fact, my opposition to the motion is based on the fact that the report could be made on a day that the Senate is not sitting. In view of the fact that this matter has been referred to a Committee of the Senate which has been delegated to examine the evidence and report back to the Senate, I believe that it would only be proper for the report to be made to this Senate and be in the hands of all honourable senators prior to the matter being published. This would enable all honourable senators to take note of the statement and make any reference to it that they deem desirable at the time. To have the matter reported publicly prior to it being in the hands of the honourable senators who delegated the Committee to undertake this task would in fact be a denial of the rights of honourable senators to examine the report first and to make their comments in view of their responsibility to represent their constituents adequately. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 14 June, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(9.17) —The Senate is debating the Life Insurance Amendment Bill 1984 and the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Bill 1984. The agents and brokers Bill is the third such piece of legislation to come before the Senate. It is a very hollow piece of legislation compared with its two predecessors. It fills up the statute book with rhetoric but lacks all the substance to achieve the purposes for which it was originally intended. The Attorney-General, (Senator Gareth Evans) and law reformers must be very disappointed. The members of the public will never know of the sort of protection which they could have received and to which they are entitled from the operations of unscrupulous persons who, in the past, have caused millions of dollars worth of financial loss. I am referring to companies such as the notorious Bishopsgate Insurance Australia Ltd. The Attorney-General when he was in Opposition introduced a far better Bill and the Government in 1983 introduced a far better Bill. We have to concede that there should have been some amendments to this legislation. But what did the Government do? It decided to scuttle the legislation. It resembles a burnt-out building, with the exterior shell remaining, with the new internal figuration bearing very little resemblance to its former design and the new construction not really properly fitting in an architectural sense. with its external enclosure. At best, I think we could describe it as a step in the right direction. I think the Attorney-General now with all his successive defeats must really feel very much like a Minister in opposition. Last evening before the Senate was adjourned I was giving a background of the difficulties, problems and crises which had been faced by the industry in recent years largely as a result of the entry of foreign cut-throat operators who caused a situation in Australia in which companies suddenly became more intent on cash flow rather than profits and market share rather than financial stability. I think it was somewhat regrettable that the Trade Practices Act led to the dismantling of a free structure which was based on a century of knowledge . It was, in my view, a catastrophic move. The overseas companies that had established themselves more often than not operated out of very small offices and worked very much on a brokerage basis. Effectively, they ignored the effects upon the domestic market and they commenced a price cutting war. The weaker companies, instead of resisting, as did some of the larger companies, capitulated under this pressure and significantly reduced their prices. Ultimately even the larger companies were forced to follow suit, and brokers really came into their own in an environment which they had been instrumental in creating. To cut a long story short, the parasitic fly-by-night brokers instigated a price cutting spiral which eventually led to the collapse of such companies as Bishopsgate. Unscrupulous brokers, who bore no responsibility for their actions, effectively started an era of crises for insurance companies in Australia. I acknowledge that this Bill is a step in the right direction, in that its aim is to implement a degree of uniformity of legislation throughout Australia. Wherever there is a multiplicity of laws, as in the case of the insurance industry, there exists an opportunity for some people-not all-to escape certain of the obligations and penalties of individual State laws. This is one area in which we need a governing Federal law. In recent years we have seen a proliferation of fly-by-night companies; in other words, insurance brokers whose sole ethical code was the furthering of their own financial situations. A broker can line his pockets with money from a client basically in two ways. He can, on receiving moneys from a client which are the premium on the insurance sought, not lodge that amount with the insurance company but, rather, invest it for periods varying between say, 30 and 90 days, or maybe more, on the short term money market effectively robbing both the client and the insurance company. He robs both in that the insurer and the insured could have likewise used that money for investment. In addition-and this is by far the most serious offence, as well as being immoral-the broker so investing the moneys of the client knowingly and deliberately misleads him because the client believes himself to be so insured for a period when in point of fact he may not necessarily be insured at all since the company has not received the premium payable to it. I view this type of activity as being deplorable. The Bill goes some way to overcoming this type of situation, but it must be totally prevented, in spite of the problems. The original clause 24 raised some difficulties and it needed amendment. I think that we on the Opposition side had amendments to that clause. We now have a new clause 27 which provides that the broker lodge the moneys of the insured with the insurance company within 90 days-not 30 days. Ninety days is far too long a period. The 30 day period suggested earlier would be much more practicable. But under clause 27 (2) (b), if 90 days is not enough, there is even a further escape clause, which will certainly help the unscrupulous. The clause goes on to say: if it is not practicable for him to pay the amount within the relevant period- as soon after the expiration of that period as it is reasonably practicable for him to do so. That is making it pretty easy for the unscrupulous. As there are time limitations, perhaps that illustration will prove my point: That this Bill is but the beginning, and there is still a long way to go to give the public proper protection. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.25) —in reply-Were I a naive and gullible soul I would be indebted, I suppose, to Senator Watson and Senator Hill for suggesting that the private member's Bill which I introduced into this place a couple of years ago was a far better Bill than the one now before us. Of course, suggestions to this effect are merely mischievous and I am perfectly satisfied that the negotiations with industry and others carried out by the Treasury Ministers, Messrs Keating and Hurford-whose legislation this now of course is, rather than the Attorney-General's-have produced a package which is perfectly workable in practice while at the same time retaining all the key elements of the original package. I remind the Senate to the extent that the forest might have been lost sight of in the debate about the trees, or the saplings, from the evangelical Senator Watson and others, that the basic Bill is aimed at strengthening the financial stability of the insurance industry overall and protecting the insuring public against the negligence or misconduct of an agent or broker and encouraging practices consistent with the interests of the insuring public and the maintenance of standards of conduct and the quality of advice offered by agents and brokers. The main provisions of this Bill, which are exactly the same as the main provisions proposed originally by the Law Reform Commission and advanced in the original versions of the legislation debated in the past in this place, are these: Establishing the responsibilities of insurers for the conduct of their intermediaries-a massive and very important reform; determining the arrangements concerning the discharge of financial obligations between an insured and intermediaries; dealing with questions of misrepresentation by intermediaries; requiring the annual registration of brokers and permitting the suspension or cancellation of that registration; establishing financial controls and requirements for insurance which indemnifies brokers in respect of liabilities arising out of their business operations and establishing measures to minimise the risk of compromise of a broker's impartiality. There is always a difficulty in satisfying everybody when one brings forward regulatory legislation of any kind. Certainly it was impossible to satisfy the Liberal Party of Australia when it was in government that any legislation of any description was necessary in this area. Although there were some honourable exceptions to that approach in the Liberal Party when it was in government, including honourable senators from the other side of the chamber who have spoken in this debate, it is the case that the mainstream of the Party wholly set its face against any kind of legislation in this area in a wholly irrational way. Equally, when it comes to the task of drafting such legislation reasonable men and women will differ on the extent and variety of the particular controls that are necessary or appropriate and the kind of cost-benefit analysis that needs to be done to determine whether the apparatus that is being proposed is in fact necessary or justifies the beneficial return to the persons whose interests are supposed to be being protected. All of these equations and calculations have been done in the context of the preparation of this legislation. A lot of discussion obviously has taken place with the insurance industry in the refining of the details of this legislation. We do not believe there has been any sell-out at all of the basic principles that were so well articulated by the Law Reform Commission. We believe this is good legislation, powerful legislation, and effective legislation, that will be of real advantage to Australian consumers and to those within the industry whose desire is to clean it up and rationalise it in this area. On that basis I commend the legislation and the accompanying Life Insurance Amendment Bill, which has attracted no attention in this debate, but which is merely consequential on the recent passage of the insurance contracts legislation. I commend these measures to the Senate. I wish the Bills a speedy voyage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 10 May, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(9.30) —The Dividend Recoupment Tax Bill 1983 [No. 2] (1984) is on the Notice Paper. During the time that the Senate was dealing with the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Amendment Bill 1983 (No. 2) [No. 2] (1984) last night, the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, as Minister in charge of that Bill, made the comment that, as has happened on previous occasions when we debated these two Bills, this Bill would be withdrawn. I understand that it is on the Notice Paper for that to be done formally by the Government this morning. I understand that, following the non- passage of the other Bill last night, the Dividend Recoupment Tax Bill is to be withdrawn formally by the Government. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.31) —There was some suggestion last night to that effect but I understand it is the Government's desire that the question be put on this Bill and that whatever happened last night should be regarded as no more than a postponement of the consideration of this Bill. It is a matter for argument as to the utility of this enterprise but, in order to clear the record and have it formally recorded in the Journals of the Senate as having been dealt with without any ambiguity or confusion, it is the proposal of the Government that the question be now put. Question resolved in the negative. 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)(9.33) —The Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill 1984 provides for substantial changes to the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. The Bill has the support of the Opposition. I was going to say in my remarks that I wish it a speedy passage. I notice that, when Mr Howard was dealing with the Bill in the other place on 10 May, he said: I am very happy to offer a speedy passage to the Bill through this House and undoubtedly my colleagues in the Senate will also give it a speedy passage. An honourable member there called Mr Wells said: 'They would not know how'. I think we ought to take this opportunity to show that the Senate does know how to give a Bill a speedy passage. I simply make the comment that the provisions of the Bill will change the name of the Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia to the Commonwealth Bank, establish the Commonwealth Savings Bank as a subsidiary of the Commonwealth Bank and provide for the reserves of the Savings Bank as at 30 June, less $20m, to become the share capital of the Savings Bank and for the share capital to be vested in the Commonwealth Bank. It provides further for the injection of $15m by the Commonwealth Government to the capital of the Commonwealth Bank and provides for the transfer of $27m from the reserves of the Commonwealth Development Bank to the capital of the Commonwealth Bank. It also contains provisions with regard to promotions of debt profit and removes the present exemption from company income tax of the Savings Bank, the Development Bank and the Commonwealth Banking Corporation. It will allow for a more flexible management and board structure by removing the statutory general manager positions for the Trading Bank, the Savings Bank and the Development Bank and the statutory executive committees of those banks. They are all important provisions in the financial structure of Australia at a time when there is considerable interest in this area. There is an interest in the change to the Commonwealth Bank and in further deregulation of the whole financial system. Of course, there is considerable interest in the entry of foreign banks as that would take into account some of the recommendations of the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System. We believe that it would have the effect of creating a much more effective, efficient and competitive banking and financial system within this country. The Opposition supports the changes in the Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill. We wish the Bill a speedy passage. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.36) —in reply-I am indebted to Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle for her speedy contribution. I join with her in the same wish. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 4 May, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(9.37) —My colleague Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle referred to the fact that it is possible to put through with expedition legislation which is not controversial. I wish to show that not only does that apply in relation to the non-controversial Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill 1984 but that it also applies to the non-controversial Weights and Measures ( National Standards) Amendment Bill 1984, the purpose of which is to update the hierarchy of standards of physical measurement in accordance with modern practice and to put down a clear definition of the functions and powers of the National Standards Commission. The Commission is responsible for establishing and co-ordinating the use in Australia of a uniform system of units and standards of measurement of physical quantities and for approving the pattern of measuring instruments for use in trade to ensure accuracy and reliability in service. Trade measuring devices presented for patent approval have increased in complexity and are often integrated with other devices, such as computers. The purpose of the National Standards Commission has become more complex and important. The Bill also provides for transfer to the Commission of responsibility for any residual metric conversion activities, for instance, in aviation, and will repeal the Metric Conversion Act of 1970. The Opposition supports the Bill. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.39) —The Government is indebted to Senator Peter Rae for giving his and the Opposition's blessing to this measure. We are also indebted to him for the brevity of his contribution on this occasion. 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 Gietzelt: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(9.40) -I rise to address the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1984. Although it is somewhat unusual to support the legislation of a socialist government when one believes in a quite different political philosophy, on this occasion it is my determination and the determination of the Opposition to support this very important repatriation legislation. The Bill before us is a response to a review of the Repatriation Acts and this response is directly relevant to a matter of great concern, extending right across the repatriation area. I refer to the matter of determining claims for disability and service pensions. Gross delays have been building up in this area over a considerable period. The need for decisions has become greater as the number of people of an age to seek pension assistance has significantly increased. Over a considerable period we have been confronted with delays and confusion which has been confusion generated in no small measure in the discussion of this legislation. On the basis of information I have on various organisations on an expedition for support, it is my belief that they have been put into a confused position largely because this legislation applies significantly to the determining system and is not referable to a future Bill, a Bill on entitlements , which will be a vastly more complex piece of legislation which will need to receive significantly more intense discussion by all the people involved. It is to be brought down some time in the next session of this Parliament. The determining legislation has resulted from delays averaging eight, nine and 10 months and extending to the almost unbelievable period of four or five years, which have brought about a desperate situation amongst ex-service men and women in this country. It has been determined to try to get a quicker and more effective system. This Bill is the result of investigations carried out in depth , in the first place by the Administrative Review Council and then by the Advisory Committee on Repatriation Legislation Review which comprised the heads of ex-service organisations in Australia. It was established during the time of the Fraser Government and under the auspices of the then Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Messner. It delved in great depth into the problem of finding a method or mechanism by which this great matter of delay could be overcome. I must say that the current Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt), in pursuing the matters that were begun by Senator Messner some time ago, deserves great commendation. He has pursued vigorously a solution to this problem. This Bill is the attempted solution and all people of goodwill would hope that it is indeed a solution. There is no doubt that the cluttering up of claims has been due to a whole range of things over a period. Not the least of these may be the efficiency or lack of efficiency in the controls and the methods within the Department of Veterans' Affairs itself. These, of course, are under review. A number of other matters have become evident in the course of the inquiries of the Council and the Committee to which I have referred. I believe we should recognise that the results of the investigations of the Review Council and the Advisory Committee have been available to and studied by a very wide spectrum of ex-service organisations for a very significant period. Indeed, in the last month or more departmental people have had well-advertised meetings in every capital city in Australia and in Townsville. They have sought to identify any problems that relate to the proposed legislation and, as I understand it, they have found a generally satisfied reaction. I have been anxious to check with the major ex-service organisations of this country as to their consideration of the proposed legislation. It is my view from the information I can get-I have pursued the matter diligently-that the National Executive of the Returned Services League unanimously approves the proposition which is before the Senate today. I understand that it also has the support of Legacy in Australia, the War Widows Guild, the Totally and Permanently Incapacitated Association and so on. One of my regrets is that it seems to me that the opposition to the Bill which has surfaced significantly only recently and has a similar thread or line through it is related to specific organisations or even people. That may well be so, but the wider problem is that that type of perhaps ill-informed opposition, coming from a misunderstanding of the purpose of this legislation, tends to create divisions in the great Australian ex-service community. That is something we can ill afford because ex-service organisations in this country cover a very large number of people. There are extremely large numbers of ex-service men and women and their dependants in Australia. There are still in excess of half a million veterans from World War II alone. From memory there are 160,000-odd recipients of disability pensions, 240,000-odd dependants and 370,000 or 380,000 recipients of service pensions. We are looking at three-quarters of a million people. Any sort of exercise that tends to confuse and distort their approach to an enormously important problem is a mischievous, if not ill-informed, operation . I think it is to be very greatly regretted that this type of circumstance should have arisen. Briefly, let me refer to the legislation before the Senate and examine its intent and its mechanics. As I have indicated, this legislation obviously seeks to implement government decisions on the repatriation determining system. It is important to remember in the first place that we are talking about the determining system and not entitlements legislation which is not yet available. When the entitlements legislation is available it will cover a much wider spectrum of circumstances and will be much more complex. This Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill very significantly follows the decisions of report No. 20 of the Administrative Review Council which has been overviewed by the Advisory Committee on Repatriation Legislation Review, created by Senator Messner for the specific purpose of looking across the whole spectrum of repatriation legislation with a view to bringing it together, consolidating it, simplifying it and matching it with 1984 since its birth was in 1920, some 70-odd years ago. The legislation seeks to introduce a more logical process of applications and reviews aimed at overcoming the enormous backlog to which I have referred. One of the most significant requirements, expressed clearly in this legislation, is that there should be as much information as possible at the initial determining stage. This will enable the initial determination to be arrived at with full knowledge of the full facts. That alone should significantly reduce the number of appeals and reviews of recent times. Unacceptable delay might indeed be removed. The legislation before us amends a number of Acts: The Repatriation Act 1920, the Interim Forces Benefits Act 1947, the Repatriation (Far East Strategic Reserve) Act 1956, the Repatriation (Special Overseas Services) Act 1962 and the Seamen's War Pension and Allowances Act 1940. The Council identified as a significant deficiency the fact that primary decisions were being made on incomplete evidence. This legislation seeks to overcome that problem. Primary investigation will take place of the maximum possible evidence available. The other matter to which I wish to refer concerns the inadequacy of reasons for decisions. That too is an enormously important matter with which we have to come to grips. Indeed, if proper explanations are available in written form, quite a few of the reviews that have been made and the claims that have followed that have helped to delay and clutter up the system will be avoided. That is the purpose of that reference. Briefly, the purpose of the Bill is to abolish the three member repatriation boards which are the first level of inquiry at the moment. They will be replaced ultimately by some 75 single delegate inquiries. Quite clearly, if this can work on proper and full evidence it will speed up the whole process very significantly indeed. These single member inquiries will be looking at both disability and service pension areas and claims for increases in disability pensions. The Veterans' Review Board will be established as the area of intermediate review for disability pensions at this stage and whilst in the past there has not been an intermediate review for service pensions they will be reviewed by single delegates, senior delegates as individuals, in the future. It is hoped that that too will be a step in the right direction. The Repatriation Review Tribunal will be abolished and in its place a special repatriation division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal will be established , in the formation of which there will be consultation in considerable depth with ex-service organisations. Of course, a service member will be present on the Tribunal. That is the structural change. Very briefly, it envisages 75 single member primary investigatory boards. It envisages a veterans' review board at the second level and a repatriation division of the AAT at the third and final level on the merits with the existing capacity to extend on matters of law to the Federal Court of Australia and, if necessary, beyond. The repatriation system in Australia is over 70 years old. It has been reviewed on only a number of occasions but there has been virtually no overall legislation in all the years that have transpired since it grew out of the War Pensions Act of 1914 and the Repatriation Act of 1917 into the Australian Soldiers' Repatriation Act of 1920. In 1943, there was a joint parliamentary committee related to certain aspects of the legislation. In 1973 the Senate Standing Committee on Health and Welfare was established and in June 1975 there was an independent inquiry into repatriation by Mr Justice Toose. But as I have said, there has been no overall legislation following these inquiries although a number of Mr Justice Toose's recommendations are incorporated in the proposed legislation which is before us today. In my view-I have sought diligently to establish the measure and area of support-the legislation does have a very significant measure of support across a wide cross-section of ex-service communities. It is important to remember that it seeks to establish a new and quicker system of determining disability pensions and service pensions. It is an area in which it is necessary for speed to be established because a backlog of nearly 30,000 claims is an intolerable situation. The ex-service organisations to which I have spoken more than once are of the opinion that it is necessary to get this matter on the road, that it is necessary to establish it as quickly as possible in order to recruit the type of people who will be necessary and who have the necessary qualifications and capacity to carry out these jobs at the primary level. In order that that can be done in time to start by 1 January it seems to be the almost unanimous view of organisations that the legislation should be passed in the shortest possible time, that it should come into operation and that the Department should start the immense task of establishing a group of people with the qualifications and capacities that will be necessary to make it a successful operation. That is the purpose of this debate in the Senate this morning. The legislation seems to have the support of a very wide-ranging group of ex-service people. I believe it needs the support of the Senate. It has my support and the support of the Opposition. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.01) —The Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill is obviously the first of a number of pieces of legislation arising out of the Administrative Review Committee report which reviewed the entire repatriation system. To that extent, it is welcomed by the Australian Democrats. Our original intention was to seek to delay the legislation until the Budget session. However , it has been made clear by the Opposition that it would not agree to such a course and hence I will move a number of amendments in the Committee stage. I would have moved more except for the short time that has been available to the Senate actually to digest this legislation. That essentially is the problem with the legislation. Regardless of the consultations beforehand, it is recognised that this area has been a matter of contention and legal argument for a long period and that many of these arguments turn on words or phrases in the original Act. It is not a matter of semantics or legal jargon. We are talking about people's entitlements; we are discussing their livelihoods. It seems to me in those circumstances that some time might be given to mature consideration of such dramatic changes. Over one and a half million people in Australia are affected by such legislation, and I would have thought more time would have been given to allow all concerned to view the legislation in detail and consider its merits or demerits. That is essentially what we were seeking, but obviously the numbers are against us. It is very difficult at the moment to discern in the veteran community what veterans' concerns are. We have heard from the national executive of the Returned Services League, as the previous speaker, Senator Scott, said, but there is a considerable number of other organisations in the veteran community. It is probably not well known that Australia has more veterans' organisations than any comparable country. The reasons for that are numerous, but at least one of them is that many people have felt dissatisfied over the years with the major organisation in the area, that is, the RSL, not in terms of the type of work it has set itself but in the type of work they see as being left aside, mainly in the welfare area. I believe that in that area, regardless of the comments made in letters and publicly by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) and other people denigrating these organisations, they actually work on the ground and in the hospitals. They do visit the various people in their homes and they do support them before the Repatriation Review Tribunal and the Repatriation Commission as advocates, and they do it unpaid. They do it out of regard for their former comrades and their widows and children. It seems to me that one ought to be very careful about the types of comments made about such people. I am referring here to the Air Force Association, the Australian Legion of Ex-servicemen and Women, the New South Wales Ex-Prisoners of War Association, the Federated TB Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen's Association, the Partially Blinded Soldiers Association of Australia, the Vietnam Veterans Association, the Regular Defence Forces Welfare Association, the Rats of Tobruk Association and so on. These people give up enormous amounts of their time and energy and have done so for years. I think it is reasonable if those types of groups come forward and ask: 'Can we have some time-eight weeks-just to go through this legislation to satisfy ourselves that it is in the interests of the people we are looking after?' That is all they have requested, just that short period to be able to do that. That does not seem to me to be too much, because after all, this Bill will pass only the Senate in this session; the House of Representatives is not here to pass it so it cannot become law. We are being pushed into a situation where the Government is saying: 'Once it has passed the Senate we do not have to worry about the House of Representatives. We are not concerned with the House of Representatives and its views on the matter because that would simply be a number crunching operation'. I think that is a pity. That short period should be allowed so that those people can satisfy themselves that this piece of legislation is in the interests of their members. There are a number of concerns with it, not the least of which is that it abolishes the Repatriation Review Tribunal. The equanimity with which the Opposition has accepted the destruction of that organisation I find intriguing, particularly as it was the Opposition which established it in 1979. In looking at the annual report of 1982-83 we note a very interesting fact in terms of Commission decisions set aside or affirmed. Thirteen per cent were affirmed and 87 per cent were set aside-87 per cent of appeals to the Repatriation Review Tribunal were set aside. That is the body which is being abolished by this legislation. I do not think, with the best will in the world, any people who work with veterans could say that they could face the abolition of that Tribunal with equanimity. They have to trust in the Minister on this one . Essentially what is being abolished is the best part of the whole repatriation system, the part which has worked for the veterans. Looking beyond the Repatriation Review Tribunal at how its judgments have survived at higher courts , one finds tremendous support in the Federal Court in terms of its upholding the Tribunal's judgments. This is not so, of course, with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which is going to take over this type of operation. In the Committee stage I will go through a number of the judgments which have been made recently in which some of the AAT's operations have been castigated severely by the courts. It may be that the new organisation will work better, but all we have at the moment are promises on that. Undoubtedly, the system does not work and has not worked for some time. There are people who have been in the system whose medical condition and status in life have been destroyed, not by war service but by the system which was established to help them. They have been in the system sometimes for up to 11 years. Every time they get to a point where they feel they will get some justice, there is a new round of doctors to be seen, a new round of psychiatrists and a new set of dates for more medical opinions. Everybody has known for a long time that it is vitally necessary to update the system and improve it for the benefit of the people for whom it exists. In many ways, many veterans-one would think, when one goes around the annual conferences of the various organisations in Australia, that maybe the overwhelming number of veterans-feel that the system is set against them, not set up for them. It seems as though they are battling the system rather than having the system battle for them. That is essentially why the system was put in place and why it was established. What we have now is a new system based on identical process lines. Why one would believe that it will work when the old one did not I have no idea because the lines of process are identical. There are no innovative approaches to determine those. All we have is a changing of the numbers, and a moving around of bodies and giving them new names, but essentially, the operation of the system will be identical and the system will crunch the people in it in an identical fashion. However, there are ways of moving that system around. There are ways of improving the system for its clientele. It seems to me that, ultimately, when this system fails, as unfortunately I believe it will fail, those other process systems will have to be tried. Some of them have been attempted overseas and have worked well. Of course, that is absolutely no reason why they should work in Australia. But at least it may give us pause to look and consider the other types of systems that might be available to us. In particular, if one looks at the success rate of many of the individual areas of claims, one is struck by the fact that one can pick out certain groupings which have a very high success rate at the initial level of the system. This new method will probably treat those in almost the same way. A large number of claims, indeed, the overwhelming number of claims which are put in, are satisfied at that initial level. That is probably the best aspect of the system. But it is the people who have to go on from the initial element who really become the concerned because they are the difficult cases. They are the cases which do not fit, as it were, like a suit off the peg; they do not fit in precisely and, therefore, more judgments are needed to be made about their cases . Each claim that goes on involves an individual and probably a family and children. It is those people about whom I am concerned and I know the Minister is concerned, as have been previous Ministers. But it is a matter of how it is organised and treated. It seems to me that the Act is a tremendously strong supporter of the veteran community. This Parliament traditionally has been an extremely strong supporter of the veteran community. The Parliament has not been remiss in this matter. It has been made very clear in what was probably the most celebrated case of which most people are aware-the High Court case concerning Nancy Law-that what was going on was not the wish of the Parliament or the legislation. My worry is that what may occur under the new system, as occurred under the old system, is a backsliding into an area where veterans feel that they have to prove yet again that they are worthy. The veterans have to be able to show that they are not bludgers. The specific problems which arise out of each war have to be treated in a sympathetic way, so that the community understands why it has chosen to take on an obligation to those veterans and why it wishes to support those veterans. It is extremely important in a debate such as this that we make very clear that the Parliament re-affirms its attitude on this matter and that the Parliament's attitude is that it is not the responsibility of the veterans to be able to prove that their disability is war-caused; it is the responsibility of the determining organisations to show that it is not war- caused. It has been an essential ingredient of this legislation since it was first enacted that the onus of proof is on the community; it is not on the individual veteran. That must be retained, and retained at all costs. But it must be retained not only in the broader philosophical sense but also in the sense that each level of the system operates with that view in mind; that it is not the veteran's obligation to present voluminous material and medical records; that the system should make sure, if it wishes to raise doubt, that it can prove that doubt. I believe that when one reads through the various determinations, particularly the determinations of the Repatriation Review Tribunal and the 87 per cent of the Commission's decisions that it tossed out last year, one sees time and again at that level that the medical officers simply made the statement, 'this is not war-caused', and that is accepted as proof. It is not proof at all. That is why the Tribunal had to do what it did last year. That is why the year before, for example, it set aside only 67 per cent of the decisions and the year before that it set aside only 34 per cent. It became more and more aware that the Commission was not operating for the veterans, but was operating in an antagonistic way towards the veterans and in a way which was not in their interests. There is no other way to explain why the Tribunal threw out 87 per cent of those decisions. I am concerned that we do not have all the veterans' groups now on side with this new legislation. I believe that given eight weeks we could have had them on side. But we have not been able to have that opportunity. I think that is to be regretted. It is extremely important in this area that we not only make sure that we are doing the right thing, but also that we assure every veterans' group and every veteran in Australia that we are doing the right thing. That is important, because it is their perceptions of the system which will make it work . We are dealing with a very difficult area which in many ways is intractable. Since we are to have this system, the way to make it work is to convince every group that it will work. We can do this by getting them on side prior to the passing of the legislation and by making sure that every clause that they might be worried about is not to their disadvantage. If we can do that we will give this system a chance of working. If we start as we are now by being offside with significant groups in the veteran community-whether they be the majority or not is not to the point-we are not giving the legislation the best chance possible. I appeal to the Minister that this legislation, if at all possible, be held over to the Budget session to allow the Minister to meet each of those groups personally and to assure them that their worries about the legislation are unfounded. Having watched the Minister's performance to date, I believe that he has the capacity to get those groups to agree that the legislation can work and will work in their interests. His personal approach to these groups, rather than one made by his Department or any other group, would satisfy them on each point. I believe that when we come back in the Budget session the Bill could pass, probably in a form very similar to that which is now before us. I understand that the Minister has problems in getting the legislation operational by the beginning of next year. Overriding the arbitrary choice of 1 January next year as the starting date for the operation of the legislation is a far more important principle; that is, that every group in the veteran community be in support of what the Minister is trying to do. If they support the legislation, the Minister has a very good chance of overcoming the problems that are likely to occur. One knows that this legislation will not be a panacea. Indeed, I believe only a change of philosophy or an increase in the administration in such a way as would make it entirely unacceptable in terms of cost would ever solve the enormous backlog. But I hope that we can get everybody to agree to give this legislation a go and to give it his full support. But we do not have that as yet. If we start on this foot, this system will end up looking very similar to the previous system. The Minister gave an undertaking about the legislation which would be brought down as a result of the recommendations of the Administrative Review Council report that there would be a delay. Fairly obviously, the guarantee given at that time was in response to a total package. Therefore, I for one believe it would not be fair to hold the Minister to the promise that he gave in terms of the total package by applying it to this matter. However, I believe it would be in the spirit of the Minister's original guarantee, although I do not accuse him of breaking any specific promises made in respect of consultation with various veterans' groups, to give sufficient time to groups to go over the fine details of this legislation. This undertaking ought to apply to this legislation as well , even though it deals only with the determining aspect. Since it seems this matter will not be delayed-the Minister seems to be intractable on this point and has the support of the Opposition-I make one last request that the Minister, between now and the Budget session, meet with the groups which are still concerned and, if there are any outstanding points that the Minister feels ought to be changed, he undertake to change them, first up in the Budget session. That probably is the second best approach but at least if we are going to get the system going, as undoubtedly now we are, we ought to have everybody behind it and everybody supporting it to give it the best possible chance of success. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.28) — I will be brief because I understand there is a problem in regard to the time that will be needed to deal with substantial pieces of legislation that will be brought before the Senate. I simply express my concern that the good work that has been done by a number of people, including members of the Administrative Review Council, should not be dissipated by disaffection which may be able to be overcome by adequate explanation or, indeed, by more appropriate consultation. Obviously this legislation, insofar as it relates to the determining of matters which affect the interests of veterans and their families and the review procedures in respect of matters that are so determined, is important to many people. It is important to the veterans concerned and their families. It is also important to those people who are, as it were, voluntary workers in the Returned Services League of Australia and other organisations and the professional workers who either are involved in the appeals system or, indeed, are the advocates before it. I do not wish to canvass all of the matters that have been mentioned in this debate by Senator Scott and Senator Macklin. I have received representations as well about many of the matters that have been raised. I simply put on the record that the subject matter of those representations are well known, probably to all honourable senators, and certainly to the Government. I hope that if the Government intends to pursue this measure and not delay it so that consultations can take place it will, in the period leading up to the Budget, have further consultation with those persons and those organisations which have expressed some degree of doubt about some aspects of the legislation. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(10.30) —in reply-The Government asks for support for the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill because it is the culmination of a considerable number of discussions and consultations designed to overcome all of the difficulties to which Senator Macklin referred. It has to be said that all governments accept to the utmost their responsibilities and support for the veteran community. In no way does this legislation disadvantage any veteran who desires to have an application for a benefit determined by the determining authorities. This Government continues the same policies with respect to its obligations as the previous Government. I think I can say that in respect of all past governments. The purpose of the legislation is to simplify and speed up, in other words to facilitate, the opportunity of veterans to have their applications for a benefit or pension or an increase in their pension dealt with in a satisfactory way and in a manner conducive to their application being dealt with in a sympathetic way. It was always my intention that this legislation be dealt with in the autumn session. The veteran community requested that not only this legislation but also the veterans entitlement legislation be dealt with in the autumn session. I have to say in response to Senator Macklin that only one organisation requested a delay in respect of this piece of legislation. On the contrary, the veteran community-the veterans themselves and the veterans organisations-has been as near unanimous as any group of men and women can be in suggesting that the Government's obligation was to have the legislation in respect of the determining system and the legislation in respect of repatriation entitlements dealt with in this session of Parliament. It was always my intention to accede to that request. Finally, I was able to convince the Government, despite its heavy legislative program, that we should at least get the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill, which deals with the determining system, dealt with in this session. The Bill was introduced into the Senate because I happen to be the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and also a senator. Because of the complexities involved in the legislation and the intimacy of relationships and discussions that I have had with the veteran community, I believe it is logical and proper that I should have carriage of the Bill in this place. When the legislation is passed by the Senate it will be transmitted to the House of Representatives when it resumes for the Budget session. This will enable us to perform the important function, which does not seem to be understood by a small minority of persons, including some people in this chamber, in regard to the changed emphasis that the legislation provides to assist the veteran community. We can have views about the old system and what will happen when a matter reaches the final tribunal, but the purpose of the new legislation is to put in place a new process which will avoid the processes, when an application goes through the system, which are too long and too cumbersome and which disadvantage the applicant. The emphasis in this legislation will be to have a single delegate, a specialist officer, dealing with the initial determination. The aim will be to train an adequate number of suitable men and women who will, on the basis of an improved administrative structure within the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Repatriation Commission, be able to carry out their responsibilities at that level. We do not envisage the numbers of appeals going through to bodies such as the Repatriation Review Tribunal that existed under the old system. We will place emphasis on having those applications dealt with sympathetically, compassionately and efficiently at the primary level, as Senator Scott referred to it. If the Government's strategy in that respect is achieved, we will not have the long delays that appalled my predecessor, Senator Messner, and that prompted him to initiate the administrative review of the determining system. Such delays appalled me when I read my brief on the weekend after I was appointed Minister and saw what was happening under the existing appeal system. Therefore, a common aim that my predecessor and I had was to bring about changes to enable applicants under the repatriation system to be dealt with in a satisfactory way. When we put the emphasis not on the various appeals that existed under the old system but rather on the single delegate that will be a feature of the new system we will achieve the objectives which the major ex- service organisations and the veterans want. It is suggested that because one or two individuals have been active in opposing the legislation we should delay it even longer. That would mean that the present average time in which applications are dealt with would remain, probably into 1986 rather than 1985. The veteran community, whose average age is now 65 years, would suffer still further from the old system if we were to leave the legislation until the Budget session. We know well the pressures that come upon the Parliament at that time. The very fact that the Government has taken on board the major recommendations of the report of the Toose Independent Inquiry into the Repatriation System and the Administrative Review Council's recommendations indicates that the system we are proposing in this legislation will be beneficial to all concerned-veterans, the administration, veterans' families and the community at large. The Government has seen fit to change the name of the body proposed in the ARC report, the veterans appeal board, to the Veterans' Review Board because we do not want to create the impression that there may be any likelihood of the single delegate being difficult in respect of an applicant's case because of the limited scope of appeal rights. The previous Government set in train the review of both the determining system and the legislation. This Government has carried on in the same environment, with the same principles and with the same degree of sympathy which encouraged the previous Government to set in train those inquiries. We have moved in the same direction to consult and confirm with the principal ex-service organisations in respect of this legislation. I place on the public record my thanks to the previous Minister for initiating those reviews because they have enabled us to fulfil his objectives and this Government's objectives in respect of our obligations to the veteran community. I certainly thank the staff of the Administrative Review Council for the work that it put in to preparing the report. Of course, we have not adopted all of the recommendations. It is up to the Government to put into legislative form what it believes are the motivations and the principal recommendations of that Council. I also want to thank the veteran community at large. I believe that the support that has been given to me by the National Executive of the Returned Services League has been very useful. I am appreciative of that support. I am also appreciative of the communications which have reached me in the last few days from the National President of the War Widows Guild. She expressed her support for the early passage of the legislation. I have also communicated with Alan Robertson, the former National Convenor of the Legacy Club who represented Legacy on the Advisory Committee. He expressed his personal view on the matter. He stated: . . . satisfied that the Bill contains the spirit and intention of the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Repatriation Legislation Review concerning the determining system. Of course, I also thank other members of the Advisory Committee for their tireless effort over the last 18 months which has culminated in the introduction of this piece of legislation. I am sorry that a degree of confusion has been creeping into the debate in recent times. I feel I am obliged to comment upon that. I believe it has had its origins with some of the members of the Repatriation Review Tribunal who fear that their future membership of any of the review bodies may be in jeopardy. They have commenced a campaign of some pressure which has been directed to members of all political parties. I believe that it is to be regretted that they have placed their own personal interest against the interests of the veteran community. As I say, I received a proposal on only one occasion that the legislation should not be proceeded with in this session. I think it can be described as grossly improper behaviour for Commonwealth statutory officers of such a Tribunal to campaign in the way that they have regarding their own particular interest and not the interests of veterans generally. A member of a particular organisation has written to me several times about his view of the legislation. I respect his view but he is not speaking on behalf of the great majority of the veteran community. In response to some of the questions raised by Senator Macklin, it is just not true that there have been no innovations in the proposed legislation. My Department has established a task force which has been working for the last six months to establish new procedures that will enable this system, when it is passed by the Parliament, to operate on 1 January 1985, so that we can reduce the alarming delay of, on average, almost a year for most applications, and sometimes three to five years on many others. New computer systems have been introduced and claim management and pension and allowances systems reviewed. These new systems will bring about major improvements in the administration of the new determining system. They will provide for more information to be obtained by the single determining officer and there are to be more opportunities for appearances before the Veterans Review Board. We have even taken the extra step of establishing such innovations as telephone hearings to assist the applicants. It seems to me that some people have not been able to distinguish between the legislation that deals with the determining system and the veterans' entitlement Bill which is scheduled for introduction later in the year. This system in no way affects the rights of any veteran already in the repatriation system. This system, which I hope Parliament will approve in this legislation, will be designed to improve the procedures under which the applications are being dealt with. It in no way affects section 47 and all of the other aspects of the Repatriation Act which have been a source of some contention in the veteran community for most of the post-war years. One could talk at length of cases before the Repatriation Review Tribunal and about the independent statutory role under which the Repatriation Commission operates by the authority of this Parliament. It has a statutory obligation to the Parliament. It makes decisions which do not necessarily accord with the views of government, whatever its political colour. It is an independent organisation and, of course, it is subject to its own discipline. It is also subject to criticism in the veterans' community. That aspect of the work of the Repatriation Commission is dependent upon the later legislation, not the legislation that we are debating today. So whatever may be the misgivings of some members of the veteran community, those misgivings are not justified so far as the Repatriation Commission is concerned. Some of that criticism of the legislation we are currently debating is that it is somehow associated with a cost saving exercise. In point of fact, if we speed up the processing of applications and provide the means by which applications can be dealt with quickly and sympathetically, clearly it will cost government money rather than save it. One does not have to be a mathematician to appreciate that in order to deal with the large number of applications we are currently receiving the system has to be improved. If we improve the system, which is the basis of the legislation, the Government, of course, will be required to make even more money available in the Budget as a result of those decisions. Time does not permit me to deal with every point that was raised by Senator Macklin. Perhaps in the Committee stage I will deal with some of his specific questions about the way in which the new system will operate, how the Veterans Review Board will be constituted, about its delegates and about the repatriation division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I urge the Senate to give the support that we believe is essential to improve the capacity of the Government to meet its obligations to the veteran community. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.51) — by leave-I move: (1) Page 30, clause 19, after proposed section 107VZC, add the following new section: Qualifications for appointment '' ' 107VZCA. (1) A person shall not be appointed as the Principal Member unless he is enrolled as a legal practitioner of the High Court, of another federal court or of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory and has been so enrolled for not less than five years. '' ' (2) A person shall not be appointed as a Senior Member unless- (a) he is enrolled as a legal practitioner of the High Court, of another federal court or of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory; or (b) he has obtained a degree in law of a university or equivalent institution. '' ' (3) A person shall not be appointed as a member unless he is a medical practitioner or has, in the opinion of the Governor-General, other special knowledge or skill which is of substantial relevance to the duties of a member.' '. (2) Page 30, clause 19, proposed section 107VZD, leave out sub-section (1), insert the following sub-section: '' ' (1) Subject to this Division- (a) the Principal Member holds office until the date on which he attains the age of 65 years; and (b) a member other than the Principal Member holds office for such period, not exceeding 7 years, as is specified in the instrument of his appointment, but is eligible for re-appointment.''. The amendment inserting proposed new section 107VZCA essentially seeks to restore to the new organisation, The Repatriation Commission, the structure of the old organisation, the Repatriation Review Tribunal. In particular it seeks to establish a legal status of sufficient status and standing for the Veterans' Review Board to make its determinations and views stand at later stages of appeal. Since the RRT began operating in 1979 almost 50 decisions on repatriation matters have been handed down by the High Court of Australia and the Federal Court. It would seem that it is important, because of the amount of activity in the past and, undoubtedly, the resurgence of activity that will follow the new repatriation Act-when it is brought in at the Budget session next year-that the Review Tribunal be of sufficient calibre that we do not have flowing from the new Board such a large number of cases as would cause further concern and unrest in the veteran community. If we look at the recent full Federal Court decision in the O'Brien case, in which the Commission's view of the standard of proof under the Repatriation Act was said to be demonstrably fallacious and inconsistent with the legislation, and the decisions of the High Court, surely we must take some pause. Likewise in the Perrot case when Mr Justice Kirby said that the earlier views of the court which gave some support to the Commission's views sought to: . . . resuscitate precisely the two stage process that Aickin denied and for which the Act gave no warrant. Undoubtedly the legal complexities of the Repatriation Act as it currently stands will be simplified in the new Act. Nevertheless I believe that the Board will undoubtedly be pressed on matters of law. I think that the prospect now exists under the Act for the Veterans' Review Board, with no legal expertise, to decide appeals contrary to the decisions of the Commission. One can certainly speculate as to what might happen in those circumstances. I do not think that would be very fruitful. I think that surely the best way to go is to ensure that the Veterans' Review Board has sufficient standing-indeed identical standing to that of the Repatriation Review Tribunal that the previous Government established. Indeed, my amendments are taken directly from that previous Repatriation Review Tribunal's organisation. They are identical to what the previous Government, now the current Opposition, established when it established the Review Tribunal. They seek to establish an identical operation. We believe it ought to be established in a way which will give it that same type of legal standing. Amendment (2) looks at a slightly different matter, but I have moved the amendments together because both refer to the qualifications of members. It refers to the principal officer holding office until a date on which he attains the age of 65. That provision was in the previous Repatriation Review Tribunal. It is not in the Veterans' Review Board. That, coupled with part (b) of my amendment, which changes the period from five years to seven years-which after all was the recommendation of the Administrative Review Council report which the Minister says he is seeking to implement-will give that Board the desired degree of independence that is necessary. It is not absolutely vital in terms of the operation, but rather it is vital in terms of the perception of the operation, that that Board be seen to be independent, as the RRT was independent, and as the previous Government saw that that Board ought to be independent and ought to have that perception of independence. So my second amendment is taken directly from the current Act and seeks to restore the principal member holding office until the date on which he attains the age of 65, and to provide that a member other than the principal member shall hold office for such period, not exceeding seven years, as is specified in the instrument of his appointment, but is eligible for reappointment. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(10.57) —The Government does not accept the amendments moved by Senator Macklin, for some very good reasons. Firstly, the appointment of members to the existing processes , from the Repatriation Commission right through to the Repatriation Review Tribunal, are for a three-year duration. It is true that the Administrative Review Council recommended a seven-year appointment. But it was felt that, certainly in the initial stages there ought to be a period between three years and seven years, so the Government decided on a five-year period, particularly as we wanted to accommodate the ex-service community's capacity to nominate a person in that important area of the Veterans Review Board. Bearing in mind the age of many veterans we did not want to be put in a position in which those who served in World War II or Korea would automatically be excluded because of the seven-year determination. We have agreed, in consultation with the veteran community and their organisations, that they will have the right to nominate a person to the VRB. I am afraid Senator Macklin sees the role of the VRB in somewhat the same way as he saw the role of the RRT. As I said in the second reading debate, it is a review board. It is not the final court of appeal, which is at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal level. At the direct request of the National President of the Returned Services League, Sir William Keys, the Government agreed to have a special repatriation division. The matter was raised with me during the discussions I had with the representatives of the veteran community. The Government was not persuaded at that stage to have such a division of the AAT. But, as part of our consultative and consensus approach to this legislation , the Government finally agreed to establish a third tier of the AAT and a special division of it. What Senator Macklin is referring to largely relates to the AAT rather than the VRB. We see the VRB as being an intermediate review board. If an applicant has not been able to present a case to the satisfaction of the delegate there will be an appeal to the VRB in the immediate sense. To that extent, the Veterans Review Board is not to be seen as having the same role as had the final court of appeal of the Repatriation Review Tribunal. We believe that a five-year term will also give the Government, and the Minister in particular, the opportunity to review the activities of the members of the Veterans' Review Board which the Minister has appointed. We are talking here of a large number of appointments. I remind the Senate-and it stands to reason-that not every appointment necessarily will be proven, beyond all reasonable doubt, to be a good appointment. So to appoint someone for seven years not only restricts the Government's capacity to appoint veterans who have served in war but also restricts the Government from rectifying a difficulty should one arise. I urge the Senate to support the recommendation that is encompassed in the legislation, particularly as it enjoys the near unanimous support of the veteran community. I remind honourable senators that this legislation is the result of extensive consultation and agreement. Whilst I do not take away the right of the Senate to change legislation during the Committee stage, I point out to honourable senators that doing so may well have greater repercussion than they imagine if, in fact, the purport of the legislation is altered as a result of the agreement to a considerable number of amendments during the Committee stage. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.03) —Is the Minister for Veterans' Affairs ( Senator Gietzelt) saying that at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal level the Government is seeking to establish a panel similar to the Repatriation Review Tribunal in terms of its composition and legal expertise? Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(11.04) —As the honourable senator knows, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is the final court of appeal for most administrative decisions that arise from Government decision making. As I indicated during my second reading speech, the Government has agreed that there will be a special Repatriation Division of that organisation because we are dealing, and will be dealing obviously, with a great variety of cases that require specialised knowledge of war service and war disability. Consequently, it was on that basis that the National President of the Returned Services League was able to convince the Government that that was an essential prerequisite to having the determining system accepted by the veteran community. Amendments negatived. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.05) —I move: (3) Page 35, clause 19, after proposed section 10VZU, add the following new section: Annual report ' ''107VZUA. (1) The Principal Member shall, as soon as practicable after each 30 June, prepare and furnish to the Minister a report of the operation of the Board during that year. ' ''(1) The Minister shall cause a copy of a report of the Board to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is received by him.'. This amendment seeks to add new section 107VZUA and requires that there be an annual report from the Veterans' Review Board. The procedure here is identical to that which was required previously and had been of use to the veteran community. It seems to me that, regardless of whether the Board will be seen in much the same light as the Repatriation Review Tribunal, a report would be useful to the veteran community. An annual report of the Board's operations, particularly the statistical breakdown that could be provided, would go a long way towards giving the community confidence in the operation of the Veterans' Review Board. It would be a useful operation if the Board were to report to Parliament and Parliament could review its operations by looking from year to year at the annual reports. I see no reason why this ought not to be so. I certainly understand that similar bodies do not necessarily have that obligation and I do not know what that has to do with it, but that has been one of the reasons given to me as to why the Board should not produce an annual report. It seems that in this area the provision of as much information as possible to the veteran community about the operation of the various levels of the reviewing system would be beneficial and could only add to its smooth operation. By not issuing an annual report one would certainly create difficulties. By issuing an annual report one would do nothing but add to the effective operation of the Board as well as allow Parliament to have the opportunity of commenting each year on the new procedures as they are put in place and as they start to operate. I have therefore moved the amendment circulated in my name, which is in identical terms to that provision which required a report from the RRT. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(11.08) —The Government cannot accept the amendment. Perhaps Senator Macklin will accept an assurance that I can give him. The Committee will be aware that the Repatriation Commission presents an annual report to Parliament which details the activities of the Commission and its associated authorities and bodies. The Chairman of the Commission has indicated that he is prepared to approach the Principal Member of the Veterans' Review Board about providing information and statistics for inclusion in the Repatriation Commission's annual report. This would meet the requirement of providing the Parliament and the community at large with details of the activities of not only the Commission but also the VRB. I think that assurance from the Chairman of the Commission would surely meet the requirement, without necessarily supporting the changes that are suggested in Senator Macklin 's amendment. I am prepared to give that assurance to the Committee. It should meet the point that has been raised by Senator Macklin, because the information he quoted in respect of the Repatriation Review Tribunal is provided by the Repatriation Commission. We therefore indicate that we will apply the same principles and processes in respect of the new determining authority in all of its activities so that the Parliament, the community and in particular the veterans' organisations will be able to judge the success or otherwise-I am sure it will be the success-of the new determining system. Senator Macklin —Can the Minister say whether the Principal Member of the Veterans' Review Board will be able to have independent comment included in the Commission's report if he feels that is necessary? Senator GIETZELT —Yes. Amendment negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Motion (by Senator Gietzelt) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(11.11) —I rise not to delay the Senate but merely to thank the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) for his kind remarks in the course of his discussion of the matters before us and to thank him for acknowledging the part that I had, small as it was, in establishing the original committee for the investigation of this legislation. I also commend the officers of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, who I know have worked diligently on this matter. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.12) — Mr Acting Deputy President, I do not seek leave to divide the Senate on the third reading but I ask that the dissent of the Australian Democrats at the third reading be recorded in the Journals of the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 12 June, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(11.12) —The Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill comes as a series of amendments of a relatively minor kind to the social security and repatriation legislation. It touches all of those Bills which are administered by the Department of Social Security and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The points I wish to make are fairly brief, so I will not delay the Senate for a great length of time. The Opposition will move an amendment to the motion for the second reading, which amendment I shall read out in a few moments. I shall concentrate on that matter in the course of my remarks. Before coming to that, I wish to refer to two other matters which are the subject of the legislation, one of which we will oppose in the Committee stage. The item which we will oppose is the amendment set out in clause 41 of the Bill, which seeks to change the requirement in respect of the postponement of the payment of unemployment benefit for a period of six to 12 weeks in certain circumstances. The Government is seeking by this legislation to place discretion in the hands of the Director-General to mitigate that postponement, that waiting period, for the unemployment benefit with the consequence that the statutory limit of six to 12 weeks will not be required. Of course, under the present legislation the Director-General has some discretion in granting dispensation in certain circumstances. We see that as an unsatisfactory arrangement whereby power is transferred directly to the Director-General to assess individual cases and to allow benefits to be paid in any circumstances, which are not subject to any statutory guidelines. We believe that to be a wrong direction. As a consequence the Opposition will oppose that clause of the Bill during the Committee stage. The second matter in the legislation to which I refer is of a more general kind . I refer to the matter of respite care, which is an initiative of this Government in its aged people care program. In short, a new benefit will be paid to nursing homes and eligible hostels that are providing respite care and there will be a subsidy of some $10 a week for a period of not more than 14 days in each 28-day period. If that period is longer than 14 days a $50 a week subsidy will be paid. We welcome this initiative as being a step towards the introduction of a very necessary development in the care of the aged; that is, the provision of some kind of assistance to nursing homes to take the loads off those families who find themselves in difficult situations with aging parents or relatives. Obviously respite is an important consideration and has the connotation of eventually saving the Commonwealth money by virtue of giving some short term assistance to families in these situations. The Opposition does, however, have one concern. I wonder whether the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) might care to explain to us why the Government has chosen to offer a $ 10 a week subsidy for a relatively short period of respite whereas a rather larger amount of money is to be made available by way of subsidy where that period goes beyond 14 days. It seems to me that with the rather large disparity between $10 and $50 in these two cases, there is a maximum incentive to ensure that people are seeking respite care beyond the 14-day limit. I acknowledge the humanitarian aspect. Indeed, the people who are most likely to be in need of respite may be the ones who need the longer term arrangement. Nevertheless, I would like to hear from the Government why it has chosen a figure which is so considerably different from the shorter term arrangement. The third point I wish to make concerns the Opposition's amendment to the second reading motion which reads as follows: At end of motion, add 'but the Senate expresses its concern at the plight of pensioners and beneficiaries whose incomes will be reduced as a consequence of the artificial reduction in the consumer price index caused by the introduction of Medicare'. All honourable senators are aware of the recent crowing by the Government about its so-called policy to control inflation. This has largely stemmed from the fortuitous arrangements that have been made in respect of the cost of health care having been excised from the consumer price index in recent times. This has been replaced by a one per cent levy on incomes for the payment towards the cost of Medicare. That has had the effect of reducing the CPI very significantly. The Government has acknowledged that the last quarter's figures were less than one per cent. This means that pensioners who may not have the same concerns about health costs-to a large extent they would more particularly be concerned about the cost of food, clothing or other daily necessities rather than medical and insurance costs-may find that costs are rising around them when they go the supermarket or when they go to buy some clothes at a rate far beyond the one per cent inflation rate or less which this Government claims is applying to the community. For that reason we sought to raise the matter with the Government. We seek an assurance from the Government that it will undertake a program to compensate pensioners for that potential loss. I will, therefore, be moving at the second reading stage the amendment which I read out earlier which seeks to draw attention to that matter. I hope that it will have the support of the Australian Democrats in order to-- Senator Haines —Yes, and that was my speech. Senator MESSNER —I thank the honourable senator very much. I hope that the Government will take some action in this regard during its Budget deliberations. In summary, the Opposition does not oppose the Bill. It seeks to amend the motion 'that the Bill be now read a second time' in the manner I have foreshadowed. I indicate to the Government that the Opposition will be opposing clause 41 of the Bill at the Committee stage. I move: At end of motion, add 'but the Senate expresses its concern at the plight of pensioners and beneficiaries whose incomes will be reduced as a consequence of the artificial reduction in the Consumer Price Index caused by the introduction of Medicare'. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(11.21) —I thank the Opposition for not opposing the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1984 which, as Senator Messner has said, makes small but important amendments to the Social Security Act. I will deal with the various matters that he brought up. As far as the proposed amendment is concerned, this matter has been raised in this place many times by Senator Messner and Senator Sir John Carrick. I also have said many times that, of course, we are aware of the Medicare effect on the consumer price index as it will affect pensioners, particularly as most of those pensioners are already covered through the pensioner health card for the equivalent of the Medicare card as far as medical costs are concerned. The Government is well aware of that matter; I am well aware of it. Of course it will be considered in the Budget. I cannot pre-empt the Budget discussions. I cannot announce here and now, as Senator Messner well knows, what moves we will be taking to counteract that effect. I certainly would not bother to divide on the amendment although it is quite incorrect in stating that pensioners incomes will be reduced as a consequence of the reduction in the consumer price index caused by the introduction of Medicare. Up until now pension increases have been made-as they were by the previous Government-on the basis of CPI increases which occurred before the Medicare levy was introduced and before the Medicare effect occurred. If the aim of the exercise is to draw the Senate's attention to that aspect of the calculation of future pension increases, I have no objection to it. Senator Messner may be surprised to know that we will not oppose the amendment in a division even though we think it is unnecessary. I think I should explain and clear up two other aspects that Senator Messner raised. The first is his foreshadowed opposition to clause 41 of the legislation which removes the six weeks minimum period before the payment of unemployment benefit for those who, for various reasons, are deemed to be either deliberately out of work or who have lost their jobs through misconduct. Senator Messner's main argument seemed to be that what we are doing is giving a discretion to the Director-General of the Department of Social Security which was unwise and unnecessary. I point out that this aspect of the legislation-the minimum of six weeks and maximum of 12 weeks-was introduced by the previous Government. Prior to that there was no limit on the duration of time for which the unemployment benefit could have been withheld from a beneficiary; the discretion then was without limit. At that time it did not seem to worry the previous Government. But suddenly, now that members of the previous Government are in opposition, they have become concerned about discretions given to the Director-General, and many discretions are given to the Director-General. The reason for the removal of the six weeks penalty is, I think, perfectly explicable. To remove the unemployment benefit from a single person is to impose a fine on that person of $480. To remove it from a married couple is to impose a fine of over $1,000. That is the minimum fine under the legislation that exists now. That is a very heavy fine. I ask honourable senators to think of the sorts of offences heard in the courts that draw a fine of that type. The second and very practical matter, if one wants to look at it this way, is that with such a minimal withdrawal rate officers of the Department are very reluctant to apply such a fine at all. I understand that the Opposition from its previous activities considers this is a worthwhile part of the Social Services Act but officers of the Department, realising the enormity of what they are doing, will not apply penalties like this and therefore they become pretty ineffective. For that reason we believe that the removal of that six weeks minimum is a reasonable step to take. To argue that by removing it we give too much discretion to the Director-General when, under the previous legislation, he had very much more discretion is a bit rich. I now refer to the problem with the new respite care bed subsidy. I can understand people's difficulties with the very great difference between the short term subsidy and the long term subsidy. The 15-day minimum occupancy service requirement was introduced first of all to ensure that a minimum level service standard is provided to each resident in these circumstances and that the subsidy is received for services given. The rule which was introduced deterred hostels from accepting potential respite care residents for a period of less than 15 days and negated the spirit behind the legislation which was to enable respite care to be provided for periods ranging from a few days to a few weeks. In recognition of this and other anomalies which have arisen with respect to respite bed care residents in the implementation of the previous decision to provide a subsidy for respite care beds we decided, as Senator Messner has said, to provide for the payment of a hostel care subsidy for approved respite care beds where the beds are occupied for 14 days or less during a period and to provide a hostel care subsidy and a personal care subsidy where the beds are occupied for at least 15 days during a 28-day period. This decision was taken by the Government on the basis of advice from industry representatives which indicated that most longer stay respite residents of two weeks or more occupancy tend to require a higher level of care than do those with shorter periods of occupancy. Data we obtained from surveys which were conducted from the subsidies information system on respite bed usage in hostels over a four or five month period from 1 January this year confirmed that advice. In beds occupied for 14 days or less, 63.5 per cent of residents were in receipt of hostel care subsidy compared with 36.5 per cent who were in receipt of personal care subsidy. The ratio of personal care subsidy patients to hostel care residents is markedly greater in beds occupied from 21 to 50 days. These percentages were based on a careful survey because we wanted to ensure, in introducing respite care beds, that hostels were able to provide care for these two groups of clients, the short term and the long term patients, so as not to cause economic difficulties for those hostels. Of course, we will continue to look at the situation. If we find that a greater percentage of short term residents need more than basic care-that is a relatively low level and less expensive form of care-and if a high percentage of people in the longer term need less care than the personal care subsidy on top of the hostel care subsidy we may have to change the situation. At the moment it seems that the system will work pretty well. It seems that it will encourage the development of respite care beds in hostels. I think we need that aspect of care , otherwise we will end up with more long term hostel patients and more long term nursing care patients. All in all I think the industry accepts that the situation will work pretty well. I think that the personal care subsidy should be part of a general age care package which will assist us to keep people out of the more expensive forms of care, in particular nursing home care and also long term hostel care. I think the rest of the legislation has been well accepted. I have no qualms about not dividing on the second reading amendment moved by the Opposition. We certainly cannot accept, for the reasons I have stated, the foreshadowed amendment by Senator Messner at the Committee stage. I thank honourable senators for their co-operation. I am sure that this, together with other social security amendment legislation in future years, will get us into the situation where we end up with a more equitable and reasonable piece of legislation than we have had in the past. I commend the legislation to the Senate. Amendment agreed to. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 40-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 41 (Postponement or cancellation of unemployment benefit in certain cases). Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(11.33) —For the reasons that I outlined in my remarks at the second reading stage of the debate, the Opposition will be opposing this clause. However, I would like to answer some of the remarks made by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes). He drew attention to the fact that there had been a wider discretion available to the Director-General prior to amendments which were enacted by the former Fraser Government. It is pretty clear that the line we are now following is consistent with the amendments that we put in place while in government. We now acknowledge that this is the right and proper course; so we will be pursuing our opposition to this clause. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(11.34) —For all the reasons that I gave during the second reading debate, we will oppose the opposition to this clause by the Opposition parties. I well remember when the previous legislation was changed. I commend to Senator Messner that he look at the debates at that stage. The reason given for changing the legislation in those days was not to limit the discretion of the Director-General. It was in fact to oppose a minimum fine or withdrawal period on those people who had their unemployment benefit withdrawn for that purpose. I urge the Committee not to support Senator Messner in his opposition to this clause. Question put: That the clause stand as printed. The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman-Senator Haines) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasChipp, D. L. McIntosh, G. D. Coates, J. Macklin, M. J. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Crowley, R. A. Mason, C. V. J. Elstob, R. C. Ray, RobertEvans, Gareth Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Richardson, G. F. Foreman, D. J. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O. Hearn, J. M. 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. Colston, M. A. Lewis, A. W. R. Primmer, C. G. Collard, S. J. Georges, G. Archer, B. R. Button, J. N. Missen, A. J. Cook, P. F. S. Hamer, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Jessop, D. S. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Remainder of Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a third time. Debate resumed from 10 May, on motion by Senator Grimes. That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(11.41) — The two Bills before us relate to the income equalisation deposits scheme. This scheme was introduced by the previous Government and it gave great assistance to many Australian primary producers by allowing them the needed facility of averaging or equalising their incomes over a period. It took a lot of work over a long period, with many representations, before the IED scheme was introduced. I will be brief in my remarks. I say at the outset that the Opposition will not ultimately oppose the Bills, but I propose to move an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bills which puts forward our point of view with regard to a number of matters. What must be said is that the Bills before us will virtually destroy the income equalisation deposits scheme as a useful aid to Australia's primary producers. The legislation reflects the Government's attitude towards rural people or rural industries, in that is has removed a benefit that was welcomed and used by them in the conduct of their business. The Opposition does not oppose, in principle or in any other way, any Government measure that would prevent abuse of the schemes. The interaction between the averaging provisions of the existing legislation did lead in the past to some abuse. We believe, along with the Government, that that was not the intention of the scheme and that that should not continue. But it is a fact that the changes that have been made to the averaging provisions have achieved the prevention of abuse that was able to occur. We do not believe that there is any need to take the further step that has been taken in bringing in changes to the IED scheme. What has resulted from the changes of the Government is that what was a valuable income equalisation deposits scheme has been converted into nothing more than an alternative form of holding government paper or securities. The deposits are now glorified savings bank deposits and they provide no incentive in the way in which the original scheme did. The scheme is useless and is not now used by the rural sector in the way that it was. One can see this quite readily from the figures that show that about $160m was deposited in it when the changes were announced in May. That figure has fallen, on the last occasion that I extracted figures, to about $3m. The Opposition recognises that some of that reduction would reflect the fluctuating fortunes of primary producers. But we still maintain that the reduction in deposits in the scheme reflects that in the future it will be virtually useless. The Opposition would propose three changes to the proposals that are presently before us. These changes are listed in the amendment that has been circulated in the name of the Opposition. I take this opportunity to move: Leave out all words after 'That', insert 'the Bills be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for: (1) deposits to be deductible in full, (2) interest to be payable on the investment component only of deposits where the investment component is equal to the balance of the deposit as if tax had been payable in the year of deposit at the rate applicable to a producer's average income, and (3) interest to be payable at the rate of 9.5 per cent per annum'. The Opposition's amendment reflects our views about what ought to be the continuing nature of the income equalisation deposits scheme. We ask for the support of the Senate on this amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bills. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(11.46) —The Loan (Income Equalisation Deposits) Amendment Bill and the Income Tax Assessment Amendment (Income Equalisation Deposits) Bill are very important Bills. They will have the effect of destroying the concept of the income equalisation deposits scheme. The concept, originally introduced, as I understand it, for drought assistance, has certainly been very beneficial and valuable to some people in the farming community for a variety of reasons. Those reasons are known to all Australians. People in farming communities suffer from cyclical and seasonal changes. As a result of drought or other disasters they can find that one year they pay massive taxes at the top tax rate and the following year have absolutely no funds left in the kitty to survive. The concept was, I believe, well thought through. I understood that it had the support of all parties at the time. It gave the opportunity to farmers to defer their tax liabilities in a good year and to use their surplus funds so that they could be averaged out with their bad year returns. The scheme became the epitome of a tax averaging system which could have been spread right across the business community. In fact, in the past the Australian Democrats have recommended that such tax averaging provisions should be spread to all small businesses. I think that it needs to be recognised that the limits that are set on the scheme do now advantage small farmers and do not provide for a tax rort for the larger St Georges Terrace or Pitt Street farmers. I put the proposal to the Government that it is time for all Australian small businesses to have the opportunity of sharing the benefits of tax averaging. A classic illustration of the unfairness of the Act as it now stands is that people in the same community, the same farming town and district, are treated differently. One, a farmer, gets tax averaging benefits, but people servicing that very same farmer do not get the benefits. The people providing transport services, machinery, grain and vehicles and many other small businesses, even the local delicatessen, the grocer and other suppliers in that area, suffer when that region suffers. They may have been through their good times in the same way that the farmers have in previous years, but they have had no opportunity to be part of the tax averaging system which this legislation provides. The Australian Democrats will propose amendments to this legislation to allow small businesses to participate in the tax averaging system. This will provide a massive benefit, not necessarily massive to individuals, but right across Australia it will give small businesses a breath of life when they bump into a cyclical, seasonal or economic downturn, provided they have made that provision when things have been good for them. Tax averaging has cash flow benefits. Obviously there are benefits in terms of tax payments. Businesses would pay an average amount of tax over a period of years rather than high taxes in some years and lower taxes in other years but perhaps still have to pay taxes in those years when they are having a bad time. Tax averaging will have the effect of alleviating a lot of the liquidity problems of small business. Liquidity and financial problems are endemic in small business simply because, as a general rule, such businesses do not have massive assets behind them against which they can borrow. Even if they do have some assets they lack the leverage to obtain low interest loans. I am appealing to the Senate to support the Australian Democrats' proposal to help to save a lot of small businesses by giving them the opportunity to participate in Australia's tax averaging system-the income equalisation deposits system. This proposal will not just save jobs-it will have that effect-but overall it will assist the general economy. It will even take out some of the highs and lows for government because it will have the effect of averaging out government's tax revenue. Instead of all revenue being collected in the good years, government in turn will benefit from having its revenue averaged out over a period to a greater degree. The extension of the system of tax averaging to small businesses has obvious benefits for small businesses. I believe that those benefits will flow on to the whole of the Australian community because of increased stability in small businesses. Small businesses that are not constantly at risk will be able to reduce prices to consumers. Of course, there will be a higher degree of competition if more businesses stay in business and this will help to reduce prices paid by consumers. I appeal to the Senate to support the Australian Democrats in this proposal. I appeal to the Government to take our proposal on board and to accept that it is time for small businesses to be allowed to participate in the tax averaging system which exists in Australia today. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(11.53) —The Senate is debating the Loan (Income Equalization Deposits) Amendment Bill 1984 and the Income Tax Assessment Amendment (Income Equalization Deposits) Bill 1984. The proposals contained in these two Bills are of very great concern to me, as they are to so many rural members of my electorate. Indeed, they should be of great concern to all rural interests within Australia. In seeking to remove the tax deductibility of income lodged in income equalisation deposits accounts, this Government will not only reduce very largely the incentive of primary producers to utilise the income equalisation deposits scheme but also wipe out the original objectives of the scheme itself. The income equalisation deposits scheme was introduced in 1976 following a recommendation from the Industries Assistance Commission inquiry into rural income fluctuations. The intention of the income equalisation deposits scheme is clearly set out in the second reading speech made on its introduction in December 1976. The speech stated: The income equalisation deposits scheme will encourage primary producers to make deposits in years in which their incomes are high and thus provide funds to draw on when incomes fall. In this way the scheme will have a stabilising effect on the levels of rural incomes and expenditure. The incentive for primary producers to make financial provision under the scheme is to be found mainly in the income tax deductions that will be allowable for moneys deposited. Primary producers, to a far greater degree than any other sector of industry, are subject to enormous fluctuations in their incomes from year to year. This instability arises both on the supply side, because of variations in climatic conditions, and on the demand side, due both to changes in demand on the domestic market and changes in the demand and supply of agricultural products on international markets. Therefore, agricultural prices are extremely volatile. There is very little that a primary producer can do to offset these fluctuations . Farmers cannot destock or restock overnight. For this reason I believe it is essential that farmers have mechanisms available to them which enable them to compensate for these factors at an individual level so they can achieve some degree of income stability. To this end the previous Government introduced the income equalisation deposit scheme. This scheme provided that in a year of high income farmers could deposit a certain portion of their income into an account and withdraw it to supplement their income when necessary, whereupon it was included in their taxable income for that year. The income so deposited was deductible from taxable income in the year it was lodged and received interest at the rate of 9.5 per cent. Thus the income equalisation deposit scheme not only provided a means for farmers to stabilise their incomes but also fulfilled the function of diminishing the taxation inequity otherwise faced by farmers on fluctuating incomes. It is self- evident that under a progressive taxation system those on incomes which vary widely from year to year will pay more tax on their earnings than those on stable incomes. The tax averaging provisions, which allow farmers to average their income over five years to determine the tax rate applicable in a particular year, do not totally remove this inequity, especially for those primary producers on extremely unstable incomes. The income equalisation deposit scheme was intended to complement the tax averaging provisions in providing some degree of fairness in the taxation treatment of primary producers. By removing the tax deductibility of income deposited under this scheme, in my view this government is really stripping away its value and is turning it into some sort of simple savings account. Senator Jack Evans —It kills the scheme. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —As Senator Jack Evans says, it kills the scheme, and with no concern for its original objectives. When the Minister for Housing and Construction, Mr Hurford, introduced the Bill he claimed that the aim of the amendments to the scheme was to remove the inequity of the old arrangements whereby 'producers on the highest marginal tax rate, that is, on the highest incomes, benefited most'. Yet it has been pointed out to the Government how that inequity could be removed without wrecking the whole scheme. That, of course, is the subject of our amendment. The amount of the deposit could be split into an investment component and a taxation deferral component; the investment company being that part of the deposit left, were the amount subject to taxation at the rate of the tax applicable to the particular producer. The total deposit would be deductible from the producer's taxable income, but only the investment component would be paid interest, thereby removing the anomaly under the old arrangement whereby those producers on a higher income received a higher effective rate of interest. The Opposition put forward an amendment to this effect during the debate on these Bills in the House of Representatives on 9 May. When Mr Hurford rejected the amendment on behalf of the Government he said that apparently it would do ' nothing more than return to the bad old days'. Mr Hurford introduced the Bill. I suspect that a great many primary producers saw the return of the 'bad old days' , as Mr Hurford called them, upon the return of a Labor government. They must be left with the conclusion that this Government has no understanding of the difficulties-at least, it is not prepared to acknowledge and accommodate them- which arise from income instability or the need to encourage individual farmers to avail themselves of a scheme which will offset these difficulties to some degree. The benefits of such a scheme accrue not just to the individual farmer. A policy document which was released in 1981 by the National Farmers Federation entitled 'Farm Focus: The 80's' stated: Widespread use of the (income equalisation deposit) scheme in above average income years would enable withdrawals in below average income years thus reducing the calls on, and need for, government funding in other areas, such as for drought relief. In other words, the income equalisation deposit scheme allows farmers to help themselves to a certain degree during difficult years before seeking assistance from the Government. Widespread use of an income equalisation scheme to stabilise farm incomes has other benefits. The Industries Assistance Commission report of 1975 entitled 'Rural Income Fluctuations-Certain Taxation Measures' pointed out that income fluctuations could impair the efficiency with which resources are used in the rural sector. Witnesses to the inquiry said that income instability itself may induce farmers to undertake irrational investments in high income years, and one of the advantages of an income equalisation scheme is, to quote the report: . . . the deposits can serve to smooth the bunching of investment expenditure which now occurs in high income years. Some witnesses submitted that steady farm investment behaviour has external benefits on rural towns and supplying industries. In my view the Government should be doing all it can to encourage farmers to use the income equalisation deposit scheme and I simply do not accept that the increase in the interest rate offered will in any way provide sufficient incentive for primary producers to do so. The crux of the income equalisation deposit scheme is the tax saving associated with it, which reduces the inequitable effects of a progressive tax system on taxpayers with fluctuating incomes. The Industries Assistance Commission stated in its report on rural income fluctuations: Savings deposits or conventional bonds cannot reduce an inequitable tax burden. Frankly, I find it incredible that the Government should be disadvantaging farmers by these changes to the income equalisation deposit scheme when the rural industry is in the grip of what can be described only as appalling long term problems. I can assume only that the breaking of the drought and inflated accounts of the rural recovery have obscured the true picture of Australia's rural economy. It is true that this past year has seen record wheat production worth $3,000m, though of course that has not been an Australia-wide success. In Western Australia, where some wheat belt areas have been suffering drought for eight years, the value of last year's wheat crop was down by over $200m compared with that of the previous year. Many sectors of the rural economy have not fared nearly so well as the grain sector. Beef and veal production fell by 13.5 per cent in 1983-84 and is expected to decline by a further 2.7 per cent next year. Production of lamb and mutton fell markedly in 1983-84, by 20 per cent down to 420,500 tonnes. Perhaps even more indicative of the appalling state of the rural economy are the low levels of farm profitability. At the National Outlook Conference the Bureau of Agricultural Economics estimated that for all sectors of the rural economy taken as a whole, the average rate of return on investment including real capital appreciation over the period 1976-77 to 1983-84 was only 0.6 per cent. Even if one takes out the disastrous drought year of 1982-83, when the average rate of return was minus 9.5 per cent, the average rate of return is brought up to just 2 per cent. While one can argue about the integrity of using that formula in calculating return, particularly taking into account real capital appreciation, it does give a fair assessment of the rate of return that has been received in the hands of the farmers. Of course, it will take many more good seasons before the rural sector recovers from the effects of the drought on long run real returns to investment. Farm income has certainly improved this year from the horrifying levels of 1982-83. Last year the average family income was $542. This year it will be $21,159. However, it should still be remembered that farm income per man year of family labour represents only $11,499. Dr Stoeckel of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics stated: Coming after a year severely affected by drought . . . this recovery may, in isolation mask an important fact. This year's performance . . . has raised real aggregate income only to its long term trend level. This trend is still downward . Furthermore, the latest quarterly review of the rural economy by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics has forecast a fall in the net value of rural production or, put another way, aggregate farm income of 28 per cent in real terms in 1984- 85. Of course, the major underlying cause of declining farm incomes and profitability is the cost price squeeze and declining terms of trade experienced by farmers over the last 30 years. The Australian Bureau of Statistics issued a statistical summary showing an index of the prices received by farmers for their produce and an index of prices paid for inputs by farmers. Using 1980-81 as the base year, the index of prices received by farmers for the average of the three years ended 1953-54 was 37. By 1983-84 this index had risen to 113, an increase of just over 200 per cent. During the same period, the index of prices paid by farmers rose from 19 to 133, an increase of 625 per cent. In essence, while income went up 200 per cent, costs went up 625 per cent. Another way of looking at the cost price squeeze is to compare the index ratio of prices received to prices paid, which in 1953-54 stood at 191 index points. In 1983-84, the same index ratio is 85. Therefore, agriculture's terms of trade had declined by 55 per cent over the past 30 years. This steep decline in agriculture's terms of trade has placed enormous pressure on farmers to improve their productivity. The achievements of the rural sector in the face of this harsh economic environment have been quite remarkable. The volume of rural production doubled between 1952-53 and in 1975-76, indexed at 56 and 113 respectively. In the last 10 years the volume of rural production has risen by a further 25 per cent. Rural exports in the last 10 years have increased by almost a third in volume from an index of 97 in 1973-74 to 119 in 1983-84. The primary sector has achieved these productivity increases because, as is well recognised, it is one of the most efficient industries in Australia. Indeed, it is one of the most efficient industries in the world. However, the Balderstone report entitled 'Agricultural Policy; Issues and Options for the 1980s' stated: In the economic environment of the 1980s, farmers will continue to be faced with strong pressures to increase productivity. Unless this Government recognises the seriousness of the long term problems faced by the rural sector and comes up with some policies to assist farmers to meet the high and increasing costs of improving farm productivity, many farmers will simply be forced to leave the industry. In reality a number of farmers in Western Australia see this year as their last prospect. In the event that it is not a good season many farmers in parts of Western Australia will simply have to leave the land. In its recent submission to the select committee on rural hardship in Western Australia, the Primary Industry Association of Western Australia stated: It cannot be stressed too strongly that the adverse terms of trade facing agriculture . . . combined with successive droughts in many areas throughout the State is threatening the survival of many producers. I find it very disappointing, to say the least, that in the face of this situation the best the Government can do is to tamper with the income equalisation deposits scheme in such a way as to remove the role it has played in reducing the inequitable tax burden suffered by primary producers. I remind the Senate that in my own State of Western Australia alone, the 13,500 farms have an average level of debt of $101,700. This legislation is the latest of a series of anti-rural policies that this Government has increased. Export meat inspection charges have been increased by 200 per cent. It abandoned the bicentennial water resources program. The automatic increases in excise tax on fuel and heating oil hits the rural sector especially hard. The Government has also taken a number of other measures which clearly indirectly disadvantage the rural sector. Senator Walsh —On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. I have been very restrained for the last 10 minutes in listening to this monologue on matters that have no relevance to this Bill. The honourable senator is straying even further from the Bill. I suggest that he address himself to the subject of the Bill or terminate his speech. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —There is no point of order. However, I ask you, Senator Crichton-Browne, to keep within the confines of the Bill. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I think that it goes without saying that any measure introduced by the present Government which financially disadvantages the rural sector finds relevance in everything that I have said so far and everything that I intend to say in the next 30 seconds of my speech. It might be unpalatable to the Government, particularly Senator Walsh , to hear me say it, but it is a reality; it is the truth, and it is a fact of life. This Government simply seems unaware of the importance of the rural sector to the Australian economy. Despite the loss of traditional markets and continually worsening terms of trade, exports of rural origin still account for over 40 per cent of Australia's export income. The truth of the matter is that this Government's changes to the income equalisation deposits scheme represent yet another attack on farm incomes, which the rural sector can ill afford. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(12.11) —I apologise to the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) but I shall have to speak at this stage since it seems that we shall not be having a Committee stage on the Loan (Income Equalization Deposits) Amendment Bill and the Income Tax Assessment Amendment ( Income Equalization Deposits) Bill. I wish to speak to the Opposition's second reading amendment. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle said that the Opposition would not be opposing the Bills, but the effect of the amendment is to do precisely that. Hence I shall have to speak to the amendment now. Although it is not the option that the Australian Democrats would prefer, we shall, nevertheless, be compelled to support it, for reasons I shall now discuss. The effect of the first part of the Opposition's amendment would be to restore tax deductibility to the money invested by a primary producer. This would enable primary producers to use the scheme to minimise the tax effect of fluctuations in their income. The second part of the amendment would have the effect of causing interest to be payable only on that amount of money invested that remains after the effect of tax deduction is taken into account. Hence a farmer who invests, for example, $100 and attracts a $60 deduction would have the interest paid only on the $40 remaining. A farmer who invests $100 and attracts a $30 deduction would have interest paid on $70. The merit of this approach is that it overcomes the equity problem inherent in the scheme as it has operated since 1976, since interest was then paid on the total amount invested. The actual interest benefit received was dependent on the marginal tax rate, and the higher the marginal tax rate, the higher the interest rate benefit. It was this inequitable situation that led the then Opposition to move-I think it was the Minister for Resources and Energy who is at the table now who moved it-a motion of disallowance, in November 1981, to disallow the increase in the rate of interest applying to income equalisation deposits from 7 per cent to 9.5 per cent. Senator Walsh then attacked the scheme as a tax haven for Pitt Street farmers. When Senator John Siddons, speaking on behalf of the Australian Democrats, informed the Senate that the Democrats would be supporting the then Government, he recognised the possibility that the scheme could be abused by the wealthy. He made the point then, however, that the bulk of the IEDs were relatively small. At that stage, 75 per cent of the deposits averaged a little over $6,000, and therefore the scheme was not being abused by the wealthy. The latest figures available are for 1982-83. They show that of the 187,702 taxpayers involved, 8,683-4.6 per cent-were in the higher marginal tax rate. Of course, we cannot assume that these people are abusing the scheme. But it shows that basically the middle or low income earners are using the scheme to assist them with fluctuations in the rural sector. That was the original intent of the scheme, and it still remains the intent of the scheme. Therefore, we believe that demonstrably the scheme is being used in a reasonable way. In any case, the Opposition's amendment, most of which is supported by the National Farmers Federation, would remove the avenues of abuse. In discussions with us the National Farmers Federation argued that the rate of interest ought to be linked to the bond rate. For example, it should be 2 per cent below the going bond rate so that the interest paid would not, from time to time, become a matter of political controversy. I think it appropriate at this stage to seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the amendments circulated in the name of the Australian Democrats so that these may be on the record. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Group 1 (1) Page 2, clause 2, paragraph (a), definition of 'Class A interest rate', line 10, leave out 'above', insert ''below''. (2) Page 2, clause 2, paragraph (a), definition of 'Class B interest rate', line 16, leave out '3', insert '5'. (3) Page 3, clause 2, paragraph (b), after the proposed definition of ''income from property'', insert the following new definition: ' ''investment component'' in relation to a person in relation to a year of income, means the investment component ascertained in relation to the person in relation to the year of income under section 4BA;'. (4) Page 5, clause 2, paragraph (b), proposed definition of 'relevant income amounts', line 24, after 'income' (first occurring), insert 'and taxation'. (5) Page 5, clause 2, paragraph (b), proposed definition of 'relevant income amounts', line 29, at end of proposed definition, add the following new paragraph: '(c) the amount of the taxable income of the person in respect of the year of income; and (d) the marginal rate of tax applicable to the deposits made by the person in the year of income or the marginal rates of tax applicable to different parts of those deposits, as the case requires;'. (6) Page 7, clause 4, proposed paragraph 4A (2) (b), lines 28 to 31, leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: '(b) in respect of the investment component of so much of the amount of the deposits (other than conversion deposits) as does not exceed the Class A interest deposit limit in relation to the person in relation to the year of income-the Class A interest rate; and'. (7) Page 8, clause 4, proposed sub-section 4A (8), line 18 leave out '3%', insert '5%'. (8) Page 9, clause 4, after proposed section 4B, insert the following new section: Investment component ' ''4BA. (1) For the purpose of this Act, the investment component in respect of deposits made by an eligible primary producer in a year of income, being deposits (other than conversion deposits) not exceeding the Class A interest deposit limit applicable to the eligible primary producer is an amount ascertained by subtracting from an amount equal to the amount of those deposits an amount calculated by multiplying an amount equal to the amount of those deposits by the marginal rate of tax applicable to the eligible primary producer in respect of that year of income. ' ''(2) Subject to sub-section (3), the marginal rate of tax applicable to an eligible primary producer in respect of a year of income is the rate at which income tax would, if his taxable income for that year had been increased by an amount equal to the amount of the deductions allowed in respect of the deposits referred to in sub-section (1), have been levied on the amount of that increase. ' ''(3) Where income tax would have been levied at different rates on different parts of the amount of the increase, each of those rates shall be treated as the marginal rate of tax in respect of so much of the deposits as is equal to the part of the increase to which the rate applies and the amount to be subtracted for the purpose of sub-section (1) shall be the sum of the amount ascertained by multiplying those parts by the marginal rates applicable to them.'. (9) Page 9, clause 4, proposed paragraph 4C (1) (b), line 23, after 'income', insert 'and taxation'. (10) Page 9, clause 4, proposed paragraph 4C (2), line 29, after 'income', insert 'and taxation'. (11) Page 9, clause 4, proposed paragraph 4D (1), line 37, after 'income', insert 'and taxation'. (12) Page 10, clause 4, proposed sub-section 4D (6), line 13, leave out 'either of the relevant income amounts', insert 'any of the relevant income and taxation amounts'. Group 2 (13) Page 3, clause 2, paragraph (b), after the definition of 'eligible primary producer', insert the following new definition: ' ''eligible small business'' means- (a) a company that carries on in Australia a business, other than a business of primary production, otherwise than as trustee of a trust estate; or (b) a beneficiary of a trust estate the trustee of which is a company that carries on in Australia a business other than a business of primary production, being a company- (c) that has at least one employee at all times during the relevant year of income; (d) that does not, at any time during the relevant year of income, employ more than 100 persons; and (e) the gross receipts of which from the business so carried on by it does not in the relevant year of income exceed $2,000,000;'. (14) Page 7, after clause 2, insert the following new clause: '2A. After section 3 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted in Part I: Small businesses ''3A. (1) This Act extends to and in relation to deposits made by an eligible small business in like manner as it applies to and in relation to deposits made by an eligible primary producer. ''(2) For the purpose of the application of this Act in accordance with sub- section (1), unless the contrary intention appears- (a) a reference in this Act to an eligible primary producer shall be read as including a reference to an eligible small business; and (b) a reference to primary production shall be read as including a reference to the business (not being the business of primary production) carried on by the eligible small business.''.'. Senator MACKLIN —I thank the Senate. We have accepted the merits of the arguments of the National Farmers Federation. In group 1 of the amendments circulated in the name of the Australian Democrats we have sought to follow that line. Therefore, it is now a question for us as to whether it is better to support the Opposition's second reading amendment-- Senator Walsh —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of clarification. I ask Senator Macklin whether he wants to incorporate also amendment No. 68 which is separate from the amendments in group 1 and group 2. Is amendment No. 68 included in the amendments to be put on the record? Senator MACKLIN —Only amendments in group 1 and group 2 have been incorporated. Senator Walsh —What are you going to say about amendment No. 68? Senator MACKLIN —Amendment No. 68 is consequential upon the ones I have just incorporated. I wish to incorporate only group 1 and group 2 amendments in terms of the two aspects I am discussing in relation to the second reading amendment of the Opposition. The task for the Australian Democrats is to decide whether it is better to support the Opposition's second reading amendment, which would have the effect of leaving the scheme in place, at least until the Budget session, or whether we seek to go into Committee on the Bill. I am assured by the Opposition that if we did that there would be no support for what we are attempting to do. Hence that leaves us with no alternative except to support the Opposition's amendment and to hope that the amendments which have now been incorporated in Hansard showing the position we would like to take might be considered by the Government in the interim. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.18) —The longest speech in this debate on the Loan (Income Equalisation Deposits) Amendment Bill was that of Senator Crichton-Browne. His speech was notable for three features: Firstly, for an extensive list of alleged agricultural statistics which had little if any relevance to this Bill; secondly, for its anti-Labor prejudice; and thirdly, for its profound ignorance on the subject of primary producers' taxation under the past system and the Government's proposed new system. Senator Crichton-Browne made a strong point about the effects of fluctuations in primary producers' incomes. It is well documented that primary producers' incomes do fluctuate. He then condemned this Government for changing the previous system. This is the point at which his profound ignorance was most profoundly displayed. I think even Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle acknowledged that the previous system ensured that taxpayers who made income equalisation deposits in years of high income ultimately paid more tax than they would have paid if they had not made IEDs. Conversely, those who made deposits in years of very low income and withdrawals in years of high income paid less tax than they would have done in the absence of IED transactions. In other words, the previous system which Senator Crichton-Browne is defending provided a distinct tax incentive to use IEDs to destabilise income, not to stabilise it. I suggest that if he is going to contribute to these debates in future he should spend more time learning the fundamentals of the subject matter of the Bill instead of collecting reams of statistics of little if any relevance . Senator Crichton-Browne also mentioned that it was very necessary to maintain small country towns. I can understand why he wants to maximise the number of small country towns because they had a habit, when he was running the Liberal Party in Western Australia, of producing dud Liberal Party branches from which he collected all the credentials for Liberal Party conferences and thereby had the numbers. Senator Crichton-Browne —On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President, that is a reflection upon me. It is not the truth. It is another diabolical untruth that seems to be becoming a way of life with Senator Walsh. I ask him to withdraw it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Senator Walsh, it is advisable at this late stage to keep to the Bill. Senator WALSH —I defer to your request, Mr Acting Deputy President, and withdraw . Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle acknowledged-she being better informed on the actual subject matter of this Bill than her colleague, Senator Crichton-Browne- that the interaction of the old income equalisation deposits and the tax averaging system provided scope for abuse. That potential has been removed by other changes made by the Government. The proposal which the Opposition has put up by way of a second reading amendment does not address the second area in which there is potential for abuse of any income equalisation deposits system linked to the taxation system and independent of taxation averaging. It may be possible to devise a system which does not have that linkage, but the past system certainly had that linkage and I have not had put before me any system which removes it. The second potential for abuse is that, by careful timing of deposits and withdrawals, it is possible effectively to defer the payment of taxation for anything up to two years. That has certainly been an innate flaw in the previous and any proposed system of income equalisation deposits that I have seen which is linked to the taxation system. The other effect of the Opposition's amendment, to which Senator Macklin has drawn attention, is that it would effectively defeat the Bill. It will be opposed by the Government for that reason and also for other reasons. I address the Senate's attention to the terms of the second reading amendment. It proposes that the interest paid on deposits be paid only on the investment component of the deposits, the investment component being determined by the total deposit less the amount of tax which would have been payable at the producer's average income. I will say more about that later. It then goes on to provide for a rate of interest of 9.5 per cent per annum on the investment component. It is clear that nobody will make a deposit with an interest rate of 9.5 per cent, unless there are other reasons for making such a deposit, since the bond rate is some 5 points or thereabouts above 9.5 per cent. In other words, acceptance of the Opposition's amendment would still leave scope to manipulate the timing of income equalisation deposits and withdrawals to defer taxation liabilities for anything up to two years, but would not provide an attractive investment from the primary producer's point of view because the interest rate is limited to 9.5 per cent. It is unacceptable on those grounds. There are further defects in that it opens up the potential-although this may not be entirely clear from the amendment and perhaps is open to some doubt-to affect, again by the careful timing of deposits and withdrawals, not only the time at which tax payments must be made but also the ultimate tax liability. It also has a potential, admittedly limited, to return a higher effective rate of interest to higher income farmers than to farmers in general. So for all of those reasons the Opposition's amendment to the motion for the second reading is not acceptable to the Government and will be opposed. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle said in her speech that since the Government had changed the system on 1 September the amount in deposits had declined from $ 160m to $3m. That is not correct and should be clarified in this way: It is correct that some $3m in round figures has been deposited under the provisions which have applied since 1 September. Since 1 September there has been no provision for deposits made under the previous arrangements. The balance under the previous arrangements, I think did stand at about $160m on 1 September and that has declined to about $132m. So if it is worth making a comparison at all, the correct figures to use for the comparison are $160m to around $135m. Of course, a number of other factors are involved apart from changes to the scheme itself. Since the Australian Democrats have indicated that they will be supporting the Opposition's amendment to the motion for the second reading, the Bill effectively will be killed. So I think I should put on the record a couple of comments about the Democrats' proposals and also about the effects of deferring the Bill or, as Senator Macklin put it, 'leaving the scheme in place'. I am not sure what scheme he has in mind. The previous scheme was terminated by regulations issued by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) as from 1 September last year. The present scheme is operating but the Government has received advice from the Attorney-General's Department that it would be highly desirable to get legislative backing for the present scheme as soon as possible. It is regrettable that the Opposition and the Democrats combined have indicated their intention to take a course of action which will make legislative backing for the scheme impossible at least until the Budget session. I do not believe that the Government will accept in the Budget session either, the sorts of schemes that the Opposition has proposed, for the reasons I have already outlined. I make a couple of other brief comments on the Democrats' amendment No. 68, which has been circulated and about which I asked Senator Macklin by way of a point of order when he was speaking. The amendment seems to have been put in as a sop to small businesses, and is inadequately defined, as are other amendments that the Democrats have put forward. But more importantly, it is technically inadequate when taken in conjunction with the other amendments to which Senator Macklin has referred because amendment No. 68 opens up the IEDs for participation by small businesses. But when that is taken in conjunction with the linking of the IED scheme with the tax averaging provisions, the unresolved question is that the tax averaging provisions make no allowance for small businesses, only for primary producers. So that amendment would have to be rejected on purely technical grounds. There are also technical inadequacies in the definition that the Democrats have given of marginal income. Senator Jack Evans —Amend it then. Senator WALSH —We will not amend it because the Government's view is that the entire scheme if linked with the taxation system provides the potential for abuse by the careful timing of deposits and withdrawals in a way that defers tax liability. That is particularly likely to happen when the rate of interest paid on the investment component, leaving aside the technical doubts about the adequacy with which that component has been defined, is, under either the Opposition's proposition or the Democrats' proposition, below the long term bond rate. Neither of the schemes proposed by the Democrats and the Opposition-and they are very similar-provides an incentive for investment but they will provide an incentive for manipulation of the timing of deposits and withdrawals. I regret that the Democrats and the Opposition have again chosen to embark on a course of action which is ill-considered-I think that it is probably fair to say that it is ill-considered rather than innately malevolent-in a way that has made it more difficult for any scheme to continue. Amendment agreed to. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women) —by leave-Mr Deputy President, I have pleasure in tabling the National Women's Advisory Council's annual report for 1982-83. Honourable senators will be aware that last year the Government decided to phase out the National Women's Advisory Council, and this is therefore its final annual report. The extent of our commitment to women and the range of our policies make it appropriate for us to develop a more ambitious consultative structure. We have instituted a new multi- tiered system of consultation with women to broaden the range of views coming to the Government on the status of women matters. In tabling this final report of the Council I would like to place on record my deep appreciation of its work and of the women who served on it. I would like to pay a special tribute to the two convenors of the Council-Mrs Quentin Bryce, who is now heading the Queensland Women's Information Service which I opened in Brisbane on 19 April 1984, and Dame Beryl Beaurepaire, who constantly highlighted status of women matters when they were not a priority with the previous Government. Outstanding research work undertaken by the National Women' s Advisory Council will be published over the next few months. I have today written to all members of the Council to express my appreciation of their contribution and commitment to raising the status of women. As part of the Government's new strategy for consultations with women in the community I am announcing today the membership of the National Women's Consultative Council. Members of the Council are being drawn from women's organisations and other organisations with large numbers of women members who are committed to raising the status of women. Mrs Edith Hall of Victoria will be the convenor of the National Women's Consultative Council and membership of the Council will be as follows: Joyce Thurgood (New South Wales) Association of Civilian Widows Marie Tulip (New South Wales) Australian Council of Churches Jennie George (New South Wales) Australian Council of Trade Unions Faye Lo Po (New South Wales) New South Wales Women's Advisory Council Beryl Ashe (New South Wales) Australian Council of Trade Unions Diane Alley (Victoria) National Council of Women of Australia Lee Reid-Smith (Victoria) Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia Margaret Wirrpanda (Victoria) Federation of Aboriginal Women Gail Pritchard (Victoria) Disabled Peoples International Patricia Harper (Victoria) Victorian Women's Advisory Council Beverley Perel (Queensland) Australian Federation of Business and Professional Women Joan Ross (Queensland) Union of Australian Women Margaret Mallard (Western Australia) National Aboriginal Conference Dorothy Goodrick (Western Australia) Western Australia Women's Advisory Council Lesley Yates (South Australia) Australian Union of Students Stephanie Key (South Australia) South Australia Women's Consultative Committees Vera Norris (Tasmania) Country Women's Association Jo Moylan (Northern Territory) Women's Electoral Lobby Wendy James (Northern Territory) Northern Territory Women's Advisory Council Joyce McConnell (Australian Capital Territory) Australian Federation of University Women Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(12.35) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement and paper. I do not have a copy of the final report of the National Women's Advisory Council, which the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) has just tabled, so I shall be very brief. At the end of my remarks I shall seek leave to continue my remarks later. I hope that the Senate will have a chance to debate this report at some time in the future. I wish to make a couple of comments on what has just been said. First of all, on behalf of the Opposition, I join with Senator Ryan in expressing appreciation of the work of Dame Beryl Beaurepaire and Mrs Quentin Bryce, who were convenors of the National Women's Advisory Council. Dame Beryl Beaurepaire had the important job of establishing the Council and having it accepted Australia-wide. She also had the important job of establishing the research record and program of the Council. As has been said in previous debates in the Senate, particularly when reports have been tabled, the contribution of the reports and research commissioned by the National Women's Advisory Council has added a dimension to government consideration of policies in a number of areas and has undoubtedly improved those policies. Mrs Bryce, who succeeded Dame Beryl, carried on that work and was very successful in achieving a high public profile for the National Women's Advisory Council. Mrs Bryce is now with the Queensland Women's Information Service and will have the opportunity to continue to contribute her expertise in the affairs of women. As I said, on behalf of the Opposition, I thank them and all the women, very distinguished women with a wide variety of skills, who served on that Council. I wish briefly to reply to one comment which is made time and time again and which the Minister made in her statement, highly inappropriately. I would have thought it was the most inappropriate thing one could say when tabling a report of the National Women's Advisory Council to say that the previous Government did not have a priority on women. I want to place on the record some of the more outstanding things that the previous Government did in this area. I do it because Senator Ryan's comment is made time and again and I think the reply should be made time and again if only to stop this misinformation. First and foremost, of course, the previous Government established the National Women's Advisory Council to provide the Government with advice on matters of concern to women and to act as a channel of communication in presenting to government the views and needs of women. It established through the Office of Women's Affairs the Shopfront Information Service to provide information on government policies, programs and services which affect women and their families and to collect women 's views and ideas about the relevance and effectiveness of such policies. It was responsible for Australian participation in Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development high level conferences on women's employment. It launched the National Labour Consultative Council's guidelines on equal employment opportunities for women and it launched the open doors campaign to promote apprenticeship opportunities for young women. The previous Government signed the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women at the World Conference of the United Nations Decade for Women in Copenhagen. Under that Government, Australia had membership of the Preparatory Committee for the World Conference of the United Nations Decade for Women, contribution was made to the Voluntary Fund for the United Nations Decade for Women and Australia was elected to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. In addition, the Fraser Government introduced family allowance and established, amongst other things, the Women's Film Fund. The record is one of which I think we can be proud and of which we are proud. I thank the Senate for the opportunity to place those things on record. In conclusion, I offer the new members of the National Women's Consultative Council congratulations and the very best of wishes in the work that they are to undertake. There is a very broad range of talents in these women. Some of the appointments show a political bias, one may say, but that is not surprising. I suppose when we were in government we did not fall over ourselves to appoint women from the Communist Party or some such organisation to the National Women's Advisory Council. For all I know there was one but I am not sure of it. I wish the Council luck in the task that it undertakes. The trail blazing has been done by the National Women's Advisory Council. I particularly wish Mrs Edith Hall luck. She is the Convenor of the National Women's Consultative Council. I look forward to debating in the Senate reports from the Consultative Council. I seek leave to continue my remarks later, Madam Acting Deputy President. I am not trying to stop anyone else speaking in this debate, but I did say that I wanted to speak on the report when it is available. I understand that other speakers can seek leave if they wish to speak. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator HAINES(South Australia) —by leave-I did not intend to speak on the statement made by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women (Senator Ryan) because, like Senator Martin, I had not received a copy of the report of the National Women's Advisory Council. I am grateful to Senator Martin for seeking leave to continue her remarks so that at a later stage we can all comment on what is contained in that report. From the Australian Democrats' point of view there are one or two things in the statement that are worth commenting on. First of all, I endorse the Minister's comments about both Mrs Quentin Bryce and Dame Beryl Beaurepaire and I fully endorse the points made by Senator Kathy Martin. Those two women have done a tremendous amount for the women's movement in this country and in improving the status of women. Their strengths and achievements, both at a personal level and in their capacities as convenors of the National Women's Advisory Council, have to be admired by us all. I hope that Edith Hall is able to follow in the footsteps of those two very brilliant and very committed women. Like Senator Martin I wish her and the rest of the members of that Council the best of luck. Without wishing to make any personal criticisms or reflections on the members of the Council whom Senator Ryan has named today, I would have to express some disappointment at the range of representatives. Fairly obviously we cannot put everybody on that Council; that goes without saying. Senator Martin said she detected just a slight bias in the area- Senator Ryan —She didn't say which way. Senator HAINES —No, she did not say which way but I do not think it would take a genius to work it out. She also pointed out, quite rightly, that governments of all persuasions have a tendency to be biased in the appointments they make to various statutory authorities, boards, councils and so on. It would have been strange indeed if this Government, in changing from the National Women's Advisory Council to the National Women's Consultative Council, had not taken the opportunity to be selective, shall we say, in its choice of appointments. However, one group of people I think is significant in its absence from this list. I ask the Minister at least to consider in the future whether a very large group, a group which represents a significant number of women in the community, could ultimately be given a position on the Council. The group I refer to is the Nursing Mothers Association of Australia. Senator Giles —They have all been nursing mothers, or most of them have. Senator HAINES —Senator Giles speaks for herself. Senator Giles —Most of the members of the Council have. Senator HAINES —I am not quite sure whether when one appoints women to this sort of council one ought to go around asking them whether they ever have been nursing mothers. Leaving that point aside, while I recognise the contribution of , say, Beryl Ashe from the Australian Council of Trade Unions, or Lesley Yates from the Australian Union of Students, or any of the others on the list, it does not alter the fact that a group such as the Nursing Mothers Association has a very significant grass roots contact with suburban women and suburban women's problems. We have quite a significant number of representatives from professional organisations on this Council and I think that is to be applauded. I simply reiterate: Will the Minister in the future consider looking at groups which actually represent suburban women, women who are in the home looking after children on a full time basis-they are entitled to do that and are proud of doing it-and are aware of the problems that those women face. Like Senator Martin I wish the new Convenor and her Council the best of luck. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —by leave-While endorsing everything that Senator Martin has said on behalf of the Opposition, I too am very concerned-Senator Haines indicated her concern also-at the bias shown by the Government in its selection of member of the National Women's Consultative Council. I am delighted that the National President of the Country Women's Association, Mrs Vera Norris, from my State, is on it. I am delighted at many of the other members who are on the Council. However, there are two members from the Australian Council of Trade Unions, while there are not any members from the more conservative groups, as Senator Haines indicated-the women who represent mothers who are at home. For instance, the Women's Action Alliance has been specifically excluded; the Nursing Mothers Association of Australia has also been specifically excluded. This is the attitude of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women (Senator Ryan). People whom she has chosen are from organisations which employ large numbers of women and which, as she says, are committed to raising the status of women. In other words, she says that the nursing mothers are not committed to raising the status of women and that, in her view, the Women's Action Alliance is not committed to raising the status of women. I object very strongly to that inference. In answer to a previous criticism I made when the Minister left out similar organisations from an invitation to Canberra, the Minister said that the people she had chosen were 'from organisations which had shown, over a number of years, that they were prepared to be constructive and co-operative with governments which are prepared to improve the status of women'; she said there was no point in consulting women's organisations if those organisations have a record of negative participation in public debate. That is the Minister's opinion only and should not be the opinion of the Council. When in government we included the ACTU and the Women's Electoral Lobby in our national advisory council. If the Minister is not prepared to include groups supporting women in the home I think the bias is really appalling. I thank the Senate for the time it has given me to speak. Sitting suspended from 12.48 to 2 p.m. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —I inform the Senate that Senator Button is absent today. Any questions which would normally be directed to him should be directed to me. RESIDUAL LINKS WITH GREAT BRITAIN Senator DURACK —I remind the Attorney-General of the agreement which was reached at the 1982 Premiers Conference concerning the abolition of residual constitutional links between Australia and Britain, other than with the Crown, and, in particular, the abolition of Privy Council appeals. I also remind the Attorney that on 22 June last year he announced that the British Government had confirmed its willingness to include in its legislative program towards the end of last year or early this year the necessary United Kingdom Bill to give effect to the Premiers' agreement. I also remind the Attorney that following a meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in mid-July last year he announced that substantial progress had been made in regard to this matter which would be followed up quickly with consultations at the Prime Minister and Premier level. As it is now nearly two years since this agreement was reached at the Premiers Conference and there has been no announcement by the Attorney following the matters I have referred to, I ask, firstly: Does he not agree that there has been an intolerable and unjustified delay in implementing the Premiers ' decision? Secondly, will the matter be raised again at the Premiers Conference next week and, if so, what will be done about it there? Thirdly, in any event, what does he intend to do to abolish appeals to the Privy Council which become more anachronistic every day? Senator GARETH EVANS —I appreciate that not many people will talk to Senator Durack any more to tell him what is going on, including his friends in Queensland, Tasmania and elsewhere with whom he has no doubt been in touch in the past on this matter. The reality is that were he willing to curb his impatience he would find that the matter he referred to is listed on the agenda for the Premiers Conference next week. The Commonwealth will be putting to the Premiers a revised proposal which we confidently believe will meet the outstanding concerns of the States. Senator Durack will find also that the reason for the delay has not been anything attributable to the Commonwealth but, perhaps inevitably given the sensitivity of the matters concerned, a desire on the part of the States to be completely satisfied as to the mechanisms and machineries that are proposed and a certain degree of unwillingness on the part of a couple of States to reply to correspondence from the Commonwealth that would have enabled us to wrap together some final proposals. The particular matter that has been causing difficulty has not been so much the Privy Council appeals, about which, so far as I am aware, there remains unanimity of approach between the Commonwealth and all the States, notwithstanding some occasional blips suggesting the contrary; rather the problem zone has been the lingering question of imperial honours and the desire on the part of two States, whose identities will be familiar to all of us, to maintain a system of imperial honours and to ensure that no arrangements that are made for the removal of residual links generally and the exercise of power of any specific kind by the British Government in respect of Australia will interfere with the capacity to award miscellaneous gongs of the kind that some people still find attractive and fascinating. That has been the problem area. We think we have seen now a way through it and I remain reasonably confident that the agreement in principle of two years ago will be consolidated and carried through to legislative form. Senator Chipp —Sir Gareth doesn't sound too bad. Senator GARETH EVANS —I was not named after him; I was named after Gary Cooper. I think my mother thought he was a Welshman. Gawain I think might have been a bit posher, but never mind. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator GARETH EVANS —I am sorry, Mr President. Let me return to the business at hand, which is that of residual links. I am fascinated to discover that Senator Durack is concerned that we should accomplish the removal of the Privy Council appeals, apparently at all costs, even if it means riding roughshod over the understandable concerns of the States. I would be interested to hear from him, should he be minded to express a view in a supplementary question, as to whether he would approve the use of the external affairs power by the Commonwealth in the form of some adventurous unilateral legislation, should it be the case that my optimism is unfounded and the co-operative approach that we are proposing does eventually fall through. Senator DURACK —Mr President, I am happy to accept the invitation of the Attorney-General to ask a supplementary question. Is it not a fact that at the Premiers Conference two years ago the Premiers put aside from their agreement this fascinating question about honours, governors and so on and that their agreement in fact related to matters of substance such as the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council and the removal of the repugnancy provisions of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865? Is it also correct that they had agreed to a mechanism for the abolition of these anachronistic restraints upon States and Australian sovereignty without resort to the external affairs power and that, if that agreement had been given effect to, these matters would have been achieved by now? Senator GARETH EVANS —I appreciate that not all of us are capable of the kind of bounding athleticism that Senator Durack brings to his law reforming tasks and for which his record is famous, but the reality of the matter is that it was not quite as simple as that. Those were the terms in which the agreement was expressed, but when it came to- Senator Chaney —So you can play a new tune on an old fiddle. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Chaney is incapable of appreciating that there are certain things that the Commonwealth can do unilaterally and do very well and effectively. There are certain things which it is much less possible to do quickly if one adopts the approach to federalism which the Opposition, in its palmier ideological days, was anxious to foist upon us. The PRESIDENT —Order! We have had eight minutes and only one question. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am working on it, Mr President. If one adopts the kind of approach to the Federal compact that, as I say, has been urged upon us by the Tories in the past, it is necessarily a very slow business not only getting the sheep into their pens but also keeping them there for long enough actually to legislate. We are trying to do that. We are very close to it and I hope we will be able to accomplish it, and I hope we will have the Opposition's support in doing so. Senator ROBERT RAY —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. To what extent has Treasury raised the preliminary estimates for fixed investment by business in the April figures? To what extent have these figures in the past been clouded by the treatment of the Australian Bureau of Statistics of sale-leaseback transactions between State governments and the private sector? Senator WALSH —I am not able to give a definitive answer to that, but it is a fact that sale-lease back transactions have distorted the figures in the past. I did read a minute on this some days ago. I believe the forecast investment for the next year is some 12 per cent above what it was in the previous year, but I am really not certain about that. I will have to refer either to the Treasurer or to the documents which the Treasurer has already provided me to give Senator Ray a more definitive answer. One thing can be stated quite unequivocally as a result of more recent statistics. There has been a significant increase in capital investment in recent months. It had been claimed by the Jeremiahs of the Opposition-I do not know whether they should be called dismal Jeremiahs or hopeful Jeremiahs of the Opposition-that the very strong economic growth which has been apparent for some time was illusory because there was no evidence of increased capital investment. The Opposition has been told consistently that until a few months ago it would have been quite consistent with previous economic recoveries that capital investment does not pick up until a year or perhaps 18 months after the initial impetus to economic growth in general has taken place. The fact that there has been a recession clearly entails a good deal of surplus capacity and the initial reaction of business to economic recovery is to utilise the surplus capacity rather than to embark on new investment programs. The most recent statistics show that the investment has turned around. Private investment is rising appreciably. That is consistent in timing or in terms of lags with previous economic recoveries. It is an additional indicator that the Government's economic policies are successful. I believe it has now been generally accepted that those policies have been successful and will continue to be successful, with the one very important proviso, that the prices and incomes policy continues to be observed by those who ought to observe it. Senator HARRADINE —Has the attention of the Minister for Social Security been drawn to an article in today's National Times which gives the impression that the future of the spouse rebate is under attack from certain quarters. Does he agree that ill-considered action in this area might be regarded by the trade union movement as having serious implications for the future of the prices and incomes accord and would be contrary to indications in the Prime Minister's election speech when he promised a general increase in the spouse rebate? Senator GRIMES —I briefly skimmed the article in the National Times today, which claimed that the Government was considering changes to the dependent spouse rebate. In answer to Senator Harradine's question, first of all I would say that any ill-considered action in any area of income support would not be viewed, I dare say, with great glee by the trade union movement and may or may not affect the accord. Secondly, I have no knowledge of the alleged paper referred to in the article this morning although I did make inquiries about the statement in the article that there had been a meeting of heads of departments this week to consider such a paper. I have been assured by at least two heads of departments that they were not told of such a meeting. If such a meeting was held they were not there and I believe that in any such consideration they should have been. Other than that, I would not comment. I believe that, in all of the areas of income support, such as dependent spouse rebate, family allowances, guardians' allowances, allowances for pensioners' children, consideration will be given during the Budget. All I can say is that under no circumstances will the Government take action about this or any other section of the taxation or social security system which will lower the incomes of low income families. Senator HEARN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Why has the importation of cancer therapy iscador, which has been available to cancer patients and other patients-some three hundred-on a doctor's prescription for quite some time now been stopped? What explanation has been given to those patients by the Department of Health for this action? Is the Minister aware that iscador therapy used at the Lukas Clinic for Cancer Therapy in Switzerland is, after a legal battle, now available under medical benefits in Germany? Is the Minister aware that 2,000 doctors around the world are currently using iscador and 40 doctors a year are doing post-graduate training in the therapy, including Australian doctors? Senator GRIMES —The entry of iscador, which is a herbal preparation, has been refused in Australia because, to date, adequate data to establish its quality, its safety and its efficacy in therapeutic use have not been provided by its sponsors as is required by the legislative provisions of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations. Products which have not been approved for marketing in Australia may not be considered by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee for listing under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. The product is available in West Germany, but the health authorities there have proposed that, for herbal-type remedies such as iscador, data to establish their safety and effectiveness for recommended indications must be generated and must be produced by 1990. I point out that in West Germany there is available not only a broad range of substances on its equivalent of our pharmaceutical benefits scheme or medical benefits scheme, but also a large range of physical therapies, such as visits to spas and all sorts of alternative therapies. But that policy is at present under review in West Germany. One of the things it is reviewing is the provision of preparations like iscador, remedies whose safety and effectiveness have not been established. I understand that a group of interested persons will be seeing the Minister for Health and officers of his Department in the near future to seek definition of the type of information that is required on iscador. Subsequently, the group will endeavour to obtain the information from the manufacturer. When it becomes available it will be reviewed by the appropriate expert committee. I remind honourable senators that in this country we have strict legislative provisions about the importation, use and sale of various drugs. There are good reasons for this. One wishes that the present stringent provisions had been in place, for instance, when the drug thalidomide was introduced into this country. I believe it is worth while maintaining those provisions so that we do not have the introduction of drugs whose efficiency, effectiveness and safety are unknown. I believe that is to the benefit of the community as a whole. I know of no indication of a relaxation of those provisions in the legislation at the moment. Senator CHIPP —Can the Minister for Resources and Energy give a concise and unequivocal assurance that Australia will not export uranium to France, given that nation's continued detonation of nuclear bombs in the South Pacific? Does the Minister consider that the equivocation of this issue by Mr Hayden seriously damages the opposition Australia must show to the detonation of nuclear bombs in our region? If the Government is not prepared to maintain a permanent embargo, how will this country ever be able to take a principle stand if the world believes we will buckle at the mere threat of losing some dollars? Senator WALSH —I have made clear my views on this question here, in other places and also directly to both official representatives of the French Government and French journalists that I have met in the last year. More importantly, however, the Government made its view very clear in a Cabinet decision taken last year, which was subsequently endorsed by Caucus, the last paragraph of which reads: the existing suspension on uranium exports to France will remain and will be further considered in the light of the report of the inquiry or any progress towards cessation of French nuclear testing in the Pacific. The purpose of that decision is to put pressure on France to cease testing in the South Pacific. Senator Chipp sometimes appears to share the naive, simplistic or even mystical belief that withholding Australian uranium will overcome all the problems which concern not only him but the Australian Labor Party and every responsible Australian. With regard to the major concern, the possibility of nuclear war-and since he referred to Mr Hayden, I think it ought to be noted that no Minister in any Australian Government has done more than Mr Hayden in an attempt to stop that happening-he has made his own views on it very clear. As I indicated a couple of days ago, I have had preliminary discussions with Mr Hayden regarding the possibility of using Australia's influence on the International Atomic Energy Agency with a view to having all nuclear power plants under continuous IAEA surveillance. So if any nuclear power plant is used for any purpose other than the production of electricity in the most efficient way, that would be immediately detected and reported. The offending country would then face wide-ranging sanctions from a number of countries. I think it would be more realistic to acknowledge that action by one country in isolation is not likely to be terribly effective. The important thing is to maximise the degree of international pressure which can be brought to bear on France. It is towards that objective that the decisions the Government made on uranium exports to France and all other government policies are directed. Senator CHIPP —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I was interested in the document from which the Minister quoted. I think he said it was a Cabinet minute or a decision of the Government. Senator Walsh —It is the same as a Caucus decision. Senator CHIPP —I thank the Minister. As I heard him, the document was certainly not unequivocal. That was some time ago. I am asking him now in very simple terms whether the Government can from today, 15 June, give an unequivocal assurance that Australia will not export uranium to France while France continues to detonate nuclear bombs in the South Pacific. Senator Tate —That is not a supplementary question; it is repetition. Senator WALSH —Yes, I think Senator Tate is correct, Mr President. That is repetition rather than a supplementary question. I do not think I have anything to add to my previous response. Senator COATES —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware of the claims made by Sister Teresa Plane of the Mount Carmel Private Hospital in Seven Hills, Sydney, that funding provided since hospital categorisation was introduced is so inadequate that it will force her to close the hospital? Is he aware that Sister Teresa claims the hospital's losses have reached $48,000 a month? Is this the same hospital supported on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program, Pressure Point, last night by the Federal Secretary of the Australian Association of Surgeons, Mr Michael Aroney? What has the Government done about these claims? Senator GRIMES —I am aware that a great deal of publicity has been given to the Mount Carmel Private Hospital as a result of the attempts of Sister Teresa Plane to pressure the Government to recategorise this hospital under the health insurance program. I know that there has been a considerable amount of misleading information given about this case. Just before I came into the chamber this afternoon, I was asked, for instance, what the Government would do about the unfortunate situation of this nun who, apparently, is running this hospital. I had better clarify what it is all about. First, despite the inferences that have so frequently been made, Sister Teresa is not a nun; she is a nursing sister. From here on I think I had better refer to her as Ms Plane. She kept the name Ms Plane from her marriage to her second husband, Mr Jack Plane, who is a director of the hospital. Her first husband, Mr Roy Williams, is an administrator at the hospital. Her third husband, Dr Carl Spencer, also works at the hospital. Another misnomer is the name of the hospital, Mount Carmel. Although this name gives the impression that it is a religious hospital, it is in fact not a religious hospital. It is run by a private company for profit. Last year it made a profit of $90,441, which included a gift of $10,000 from Mr Jack Plane. Ms Plane is Chairman of the Board of Directors of Mount Carmel Hospital Pty Ltd. The other directors are Mr Jack Plane, private company director, of Elizabeth Bay, Mr John Martin of Warrawee, and Mr Arnold Barton, a chartered accountant, of 65 York Street, Sydney. A company declaration dated 6 December 1983 and lodged with the Corporate Affairs Commission in New South Wales shows that the Andamooka Pastoral Co. Pty Ltd holds about three-quarters of the issued capital of Mount Carmel Hospital. That company's registered address is 65 York Street, Sydney. Its directors as at December 1983 were Mr Jack Plane, Mr Arnold Barton, and Mr Hercules Billjoen Hefer, of Johannesburg, South Africa. Its major shareholder is Springbok Holdings Ltd, care of Douglas, Isle of Man. Andamooka Pastoral Co. also figures prominently in Mount Carmel's profit and loss accounts which show that, after salaries, wages and allowances, interest payments to Andamooka are the hospitals biggest expense. For the year ended 30 June 1983 the hospital paid interest of $190,000 to Andamooka Pastoral Co. compared with $130,000 in the previous year. This followed borrowings of $1.25m to upgrade facilities at the hospital. According to Corporate Affairs, the other quarter of the issued capital is owned by Ms Plane. In other words she owns a quarter of the hospital which is estimated by the New South Wales Department of Health to be worth about $3.5m. Because she owns a quarter of the hospital she also received a quarter of the dividend of $80,441 declared last year-more than $20,000 on top of her salary of $27,500. Her claim that the hospital is losing $48,000 a month is hard to reconcile with the information she supplied to the Federal Department of Health. Mount Carmel is an 80-bed hospital, with 60 beds for surgical patients and 20 for palliative care, or care for the dying. Statistics show that occupancy rates at the hospital have been declining for several years because other hospitals have been opened up in the area and because there has been a general reduction in the post -operative stay of surgical patients. In the seven months to 31 January the hospital had an occupancy rate of 52 per cent. In February and March this year, the first two months of hospital categorisation, the rate was 48 per cent and averaged 37 1/2 patients a day. Half of those were palliative care and the other half were surgical. It is true that occupancy was lower in April but that is normal in a month split by extended public holidays when people opting for elective surgery do not wish to be confined to bed. There are 39 patients in the hospital today. Ms Plane's campaign to have the hospital put in category 1 is based on claims about the cost of the palliative care provided, not because of any expensive surgery provided. Yet, the figures she has provided to us show that, in the six months to 30 June 1983, the costs for running surgical beds were a third higher than for palliative care. She stated that the average cost of running a surgical bed was $163 compared with $120 for palliative care. Benefits paid at the time were $136 a day for non-surgical patients and $148 a day for surgical patients. As a category 2 hospital, Mount Carmel now receives $130 a day for each patient. I would remind honourable senators that categorisation is based on providing benefits related to costs, not to what the hospitals wish they could charge. The previous Government's decision to end cost sharing in 1981 initiated massive increases in public hospital charges. Without any need for comparison to relevant increases in costs, private hospitals were able to ride on the coat- tails of public hospitals as bed charges soared from $50 a day in August 1981 to $120 a day shortly before the introduction of Medicare. That meant that the best private surgical hospitals in Australia, equipped with the most expensive and highly sophisticated equipment, were being reimbursed at the same rate as hospitals-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I just draw your attention to the length of this answer and the relatively small number of questions we have been able to ask. Senator GRIMES —I will not be a minute. It follows a campaign-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I have pointed out consistently that I cannot direct Ministers to answer questions in the way in which the Chair might like them answered. But I would ask Ministers to be as brief as possible. Senator GRIMES —I finish up by asking why in fact Ms Plane has mounted such a media campaign using patients as tools in an attempt to have her hospital recategorised. If the hospital were put in category 1, its value would go up and she would make a greater profit when she sells it. The second reason can be gleaned from reports in the Press that she wishes to open a 20-bed hospice at Penrith which she wants the Federal and New South Wales governments to fund. This Government and the New South Wales Government believe they have been more than generous in funding Mount Carmel Hospital. We do not believe, on any facts or figures, that recategorisation is justifiable. We are concerned about and deplore the attempts in the media falsely to depict the situation at Mount Carmel through the use of means which can create only great anxiety for the hospital patients. I hope those few words will put a bit of perspective into the situation. Senator MacGIBBON —My question to the Attorney-General arises from the joint Press release by the Attorney-General and the Special Minister of State on 12 June this year on the National Crime Authority. Can the Attorney confirm that the National Crime Authority will continue to explore all matters that the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union is investigating and will the personnel and all the records of the Commission be transferred to the new body? Will the Nugan Hand bank inquiry continue after Mr Justice Stewart's transfer to the National Crime Authority? Has the Attorney seen the article in this week's National Times by Brian Toohey in which he said, in relation to the Nugan Hand inquiry: The latter point is of considerable interest to a number of New South Wales Labor Party figures who were involved with the bank. The New South Wales Premier, Neville Wran, who has been extremely keen to limit the powers of the Crime Authority, has been an enthusiastic supporter of the Stewart appointment. Can the Attorney categorically deny the inference in Mr Toohey's article that the Labor Party had ulterior motives in the appointment of Mr Justice Stewart to the National Crime Authority? Senator GARETH EVANS —The last part of the question is offensive and beneath anyone's dignity to reply to, but lest that should be misconstrued I do offer the categorical denial that Senator MacGibbon has sought. I do so contemptuously because it was a contemptible question. Senator Chaney —I take a point of order on the use of that language by the Attorney. An article has been referred to. If the Attorney had said there was something contemptible about the article he might have been in order, but the fact is that an inference from the article has been raised with the Attorney and he has been given an opportunity, which he has taken, to categorically reject it . I suggest that is all that was required. Senator Chipp —Mr President, in your ruling on the point of order. I ask you to take into consideration the fact that this Parliament has just passed legislation instructing an authority to fight organised crime. An honourable man of total integrity has been appointed to head that body. I suggest that any reflection in this Parliament under privilege on the integrity of that man must go to the integrity that the public holds of that authority. Senator MacGibbon —Speaking to the point of order, my reason for raising the question was that I was outraged at the inference in the article. I gave the Attorney-General, the top law authority, the opportunity to clear Mr Justice Stewart's name on the public record. The PRESIDENT —Ruling on the point of order taken by Senator Chaney, I think that the Attorney-General has used, if I might use the expression, exaggerated language. I ask him to temper his reply. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator MacGibbon's expression of outrage then was as hypocritical as his original comment was outrageous. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Attorney-General to withdraw that remark. Senator GARETH EVANS —The remark that it was outrageous or that it was hypocritical? The PRESIDENT —The remark which the Attorney has just made. Senator GARETH EVANS —In deference to the Chair, I so withdraw. Senator Crichton-Browne —Not in deference to the Chair. Senator GARETH EVANS —Certainly not in deference to Senator Crichton-Browne. As to the other matters raised in the senator's question-I refrain from using the expression 'the honourable senator'-the answer in brief is this: As to the records of the Costigan Commission, yes, provision has been made in the legislation, as any honourable senator who had half an appreciation of the terms of it would recall, for all the records that the Commission wants to hand over to be handed over to the new Crime Authority. As to the personnel, that is a matter for negotiation and discussion in the weeks ahead. I do not pre-empt the role of either the Minister or the new Authority itself in putting those arrangements in train. It should be said, however, that there is no foundation for the speculation I have seen in the newspaper that the whole enterprise will be shifted lock, stock and barrel to Sydney simply by virtue of the appointment of a Chairman from that State. Obviously it makes sense to maintain the core of the operations, at least so far as it concerns the computer analysis and so on, in Melbourne. Beyond that, I do not commit the new Authority to anyone running it to any particular course of action. As to the particular matters currently the subject of investigation by the Costigan Commission, obviously it is a matter for discussion between both the Costigan Commission and the new Authority as to which of those matters are appropriately the subject of continued investigations. That is exactly why a transition period has been established in order to enable that process to take place and those investigations which justify formal references being shaped up around them being so treated. The Nugan Hand inquiry presently being conducted under separate letters patent, a separate commission by Mr Justice Stewart, will certainly continue to fruition . Whether that continues as a separate inquiry or whether it too becomes part of the terms of reference of the National Crime Authority itself is a matter still to be resolved. The odds at this stage are probably in favour of allowing that to continue as a separate reference in its own right under the existing letters patent but that is not something about which the relevant governments have yet made a final decision. Senator McINTOSH —Has the Minister for Resources and Energy seen reports of a speech delivered yesterday by the Executive Director of the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association in which he criticised the Government's rent tax policy and its consultations with industry on that issue? Are Mr Orchison's comments accurate? Senator WALSH —Yes, I have seen copies of those Press reports. I also have a copy of the speech, most of which I have read. Not many of Mr Orchison's comments are accurate. A number of quite important comments are inaccurate either conceptually or factually. I will detail just four of them. Mr Orchison argued that return on funds for investment ought to be assessed on an after-tax basis, incorporating in his exercise the same assumption that the industry as a whole put to the Government on 18 May; that is, the assumption that the source of all funds invested in oil exploration and development is equity capital, which of course is not the case. Quite a small proportion of total investment in exploration and development is equity capital and for the proposition put forward by Mr Orchison to be valid it could be a requirement that all funds be equity capital funds. That matter was put up by the industry at the meeting held on 18 May and answered by me. He also argued that the cost of capital to the industry was 25 per cent after tax-I have dealt with the conceptual error in the after-tax assumption-and that that rate of return should apply to all funds, including those expended on exploration activity which has failed. It is quite clear that the possibility of exploration activity failing has already been built into the 25 per cent which it is claimed the industry needs as a return on funds. The risk factor has been incorporated in that very high rate of return on funds which the industry looks for. In other words, the proposal involves some double counting in that the very high return on funds, which incorporates a risk factor, should accrue to the industry not only on investment which is successful but also on investment which has failed. Hence the double counting factor. By the way, Mr Orchison said in that passage that he is not a tax expert, which I think can be deduced from the comments he made. He also criticised the Government for having suggested at one stage that there would be built into the proposed tax some allowance or offset for failed exploration expenditure. Of course it is correct that that proposition has been put to the industry. I had a strong personal preference for that to be incorporated in the policy but I announced to the industry at the 18 May meeting that the Government would not be proceeding with that in view of the response which had come from the industry, which was that 19 companies were not in favour of that option which had been offered and one company was in favour. Given that sort of overwhelming response from the industry I think we could have been validly criticised if we had persisted with that suggestion in spite of the overwhelming majority of the industry not favouring it. The final point, which I mention briefly, is that Mr Orchison complained about the Government for what he called thinking aloud on aspects of the resources rent tax, and argued that the RRT should be delayed because of that. I believe he cannot have it both ways. He cannot validly complain that the Government is thinking aloud, as he put it-that is, canvassing with the industry at the various meetings which have taken place, both on a collective and on an individual company basis, options which could be considered-and simultaneously complain that there has been a lack of effective consultation. Senator TOWNLEY —Is the Attorney-General aware of comments by the former Commissioner for Community Relations and former Labor Minister, Al Grassby, that he would not seek Australian Labor Party pre-selection for the seat of Fraser because he expected to be appointed to an important government position? Is there any basis for widespread speculation that the post under consideration for Mr Grassby is that of Chairman of the Human Rights Commission when that position becomes available later this year? Does the Attorney-General agree that Mr Grassby's provocative and one-eyed shoot from the lip style would do more harm than good in such a sensitive and important post? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have not heard the comment attributed to Mr Grassby. It would be highly inappropriate for me either to confirm or deny anything about the proposed appointment to that position or indeed any other before it takes place. All I can say is that if that speculation is as accurate as Mr Grassby's estimate of his chances of winning the Fraser pre-selection, I am not sure that it deserves the kind of attention that Senator Townley has given to it. Senator BOLKUS —My question is also directed to the Attorney-General. It is prompted by reports recently of comments by the Chairman of the Australian Law Reform Commission, Mr Justice Michael Kirby, on the lack of decisive government response to reports of that Commission. When will the Government respond to one of the Commission's most important reports, that being the report on privacy? Senator GARETH EVANS —I know this will be a great disappointment to Senator Durack which is, no doubt, why he is leaving the chamber, but the Government is not yet in a position to decide the exact nature of its implementation of the Australian Law Reform Commission report on privacy, which is a thumping great report which took some seven years to prepare and has a massive array of recommendations. What is happening though is this: My Department is consulting other departments . I hope to be able to introduce legislation in the near future with respect to a number of aspects of the ALRC proposals relating to, for example, the giving of privacy functions to the Human Rights Commission, secret surveillance, information privacy and access to, and amendment of, personal records. Some aspects of the report may be the subject of separate specific legislative proposals because when the report was received progress had already been made on matters such as body cavity searches-my apologies to Senator Walters-and a review of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act. We had to also take into account developments since the report was completed, such as the upsurge of requests under the Freedom of Information Act. If new rights and procedures for access to such records are introduced as recommended by the privacy report, they must not confuse the public or complicate administrative arrangements already in place under the FOI Act. In the private sector the setting up of electronic funds transfer systems by major banks highlights the increase in holding of personal information credit and other financial records and the increasing transmission of it across territorial boundaries. These developments give greater weight to the urgency of settling privacy principles governing use of personal information and access to personal data banks. It is a matter of regret that the private sector has not produced any particular visible reaction to the report. This may be because the significance of the ALRC proposals has not been fully appreciated. Therefore, I asked my officers to take specific steps to consult with representative private sector organisations. I hope if any of them are listening they will respond accordingly . Finally, might I say this: The Law Reform Commission stressed the importance of a national approach to privacy protection, particularly in relation to information practices. In order to achieve agreement on the setting and enforcement of privacy standards throughout Australia my colleagues on the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General agreed to the privacy report being considered by officials for further study by the Standing Committee. I do expect some progress to be made in that respect. Senator Chaney —Mr President, could we ask the Attorney-General to table the paper from which he has quoted? I am sure he made the insults up, but we might as well see the source of the rest of it. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister has tabled the paper. Senator PETER BAUME —My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. I refer her to her extraordinary answer in the Senate yesterday when she feigned ignorance of academic staff outrage at the Government's decision to oppose the original Ludeke salary decision and, in classic newspeak style, tried to suggest that the Government had supported something it had in fact opposed. Has she seen reports in today's newspapers of the Sydney march by more than 300 academic staff protesting about the Government's attitude to the salary tribunal? Is she aware of meetings in Lismore, Armidale, Newcastle, Wagga , Albury, Canberra, the University of New South Wales and other places at which staff showed what they thought of the Government's action? Is she aware that academics at the South Australian College of Advanced Education intend demonstrating against her when she visits there next week? Will she now admit that the Government has broken the pre-election promises it made to tertiary academic staff about their salary structures? Finally, what more will academics have to do before the Minister becomes aware of their protests? Senator RYAN —I do not know whether the roll-call of names of cities and towns of Australia that Senator Peter Baume has just inflicted on us represents an assessment of industrial action that academic unions are taking or will be taking. I saw a news report in the Sydney Morning Herald of a march in the streets of Sydney of academics dressed in their academic gowns. But quite clearly, unions have the right to express their views about decisions taken by the Academic Salaries Tribunal and by the Government. I do not know what sort of response Senator Peter Baume expects me to make about the news that academics will protest when I visit the South Australian College of Advanced Education next week. They are entitled to express their views to me, as the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, and to the public. All that I can say is that they know, as the general public will come to know very quickly, that they have had an increase above what wages and salary earners in the rest of the community have had. They are getting the 5 per cent national wage increase that every other wage and salary earner is getting. They are also getting an extra 5 per cent increase awarded by the Ludeke decision. The fact that the Tribunal agreed with the Government's submission that that 5 per cent could be phased in still puts the academics who are now in receipt of a 10 per cent increase, a 7 per cent increase this year, ahead of the increases that most wage and salary earners will receive. Overall, as everyone knows, academics are extremely well paid. I have a salary scale here. At the top level it shows that a professor receives now, under the 2 per cent increase, over $52,000 a year, whereas average weekly earnings are only something in excess of $18,000. There is a question of public relativities here. If the academics decide that the fact that they have got a 5 per cent increase in addition to the 5 per cent increase that they are getting under the national wage case is not good enough, they are entitled to take what action they see fit . But I do not believe that there will be a great deal of public sympathy for such action; nor do I believe that they will be acting in the interests of their students, the purpose of their being there, if they engage in industrial action which involves withdrawing any services from students. However, we live in a democracy. If the academics believe that the 5 per cent increase that they have just been awarded from the Ludeke decision on top of the 5 per cent national wage and salary increase is not enough, given the salary scales they already have, they are entitled to say so. Senator RICHARDSON —I direct my question to Senator Grimes, the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Last year the New South Wales Government came under fire for failing to spend its 1982-83 allocation for job creation programs under the wage pause program. Has the New South Wales Government now spent or committed all of its allocated Federal funds? Further, have the administrative problems that caused the cessation of funding under the Special Employment-related Programs Act in July last year been overcome? Senator GRIMES —The New South Wales Government has committed all its allocated funds under the wage pause program. As of 5 June this year, New South Wales has spent $62m of the $69.9m allocated to the State under the program. In answer to the second part of the question I can say yes, the administrative difficulties which did hold up some functions last year have been overcome. At the moment there is no problem. There is no difficulty in New South Wales in expending this money which, of course, will assist the unemployment situation considerably. Senator HAINES —I direct my question to the Attorney-General. Given that many members and senators are, or will be, visiting foreign countries in the coming months and therefore could find themselves in potentially hostile situations I draw the Attorney-General's attention to an excerpt from the South Australian Country Hospitals 'Emergency Manual' with regard to the behaviour of hostages. It is headed: Hold up-Immediate Action. The manual makes the following recommendations: If confronted, remain calm and obey their instructions. . . . . If a female staff member is taken hostage, she should pretend to faint. Does the Attorney-General believe that either or both these instructions is appropriate behaviour in all circumstances? In particular, could he comment on whether, if given the choice, male hostages as well as female hostages should elect to faint rather than obey? The PRESIDENT —If the question comes within the ministerial responsibility of the Attorney-General I will allow it. I call the Attorney-General. Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr President, you said a little earlier on in Question Time that you could not require questions to be answered in the way you would like them to be. Perhaps you would like to answer this question for me. Strong silent men and fainting women does seem to be your sort of thing. The PRESIDENT —See me at your football game next Sunday. Senator GARETH EVANS —As I think about the matter, it is really a job for the police to resolve. I think a Minister such as Mr Young might be the best person to refer this question to, particularly since as a fellow South Australian he can no doubt share the results of his researches with Senator Haines. Senator COLEMAN —My question to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs relates to the announcement he made earlier this year of a review of the repatriation hospital system. I ask: Because of the wide public interest in this area can the Minister advise what progress has been made with this review? Senator GIETZELT —It is true that about two months ago I announced the establishment of an inquiry headed by Dr Ian Brand into the repatriation hospital system. That arose as a result of my inspection of repatriation hospitals during 1983. The inspection was not for the purpose of conducting any sort of inquiry other than one to establish whether the hospitals were capable of fulfilling a proper function in respect of the medical care of veterans who rely substantially on that system for their health care arrangements. Dr Brand who heads the inquiry has written to 250 organisations and individuals. A special questionnaire has been prepared for patients to answer on a confidential basis. In that questionnaire they may indicate to the inquiry their views on what they consider to be deficiencies or otherwise in respect of the treatment available to them. Already we have established beyond any doubt that there is a deficiency in specialised equipment within the repatriation hospital system. In other words, in comparison with our State hospital systems there is much to be desired. Consequently we will await the result of that inquiry with a great deal of interest. I add that if any person who has an interest in the repatriation system has a view on this matter then the inquiry is quite happy to receive any such submission which will be treated on either a public or confidential basis. Senator CHANEY —I preface my question to the Attorney-General by congratulating him for the fact that he actually devised that joke about Senator Walters himself. It appears that that was the only part of his answer in respect of the Law Reform Commission which came out of his own mind. My question is addressed to him in his capacity as guardian of the public interest. Is the Government bound to follow the dictates of the Federal Conference of the Australian Labor Party? Is it a fact that State branches and delegates are currently challenging the Government's policies on a range of matters, including foreign bases, uranium, East Timor and financial deregulation? I ask the Attorney-General, as the guardian of the public interest: What is the effect of decisions already taken by the Government if decisions adverse to the Government's decisions are taken by the Conference of his Party? Senator Bolkus —I raise a point of order, Mr President. This matter is in no way under the responsibility of the Attorney-General. I think Senator Chaney, in trying to be mischievous, is failing. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I wish to speak to the point of order. I prefaced my question by reminding the Attorney of what he has agreed with in the past, that as the Attorney-General he is guardian of the public interest. It is a matter of considerable public interest where political power lies in this country. Does it lie in the hands of the elected people who make up the Government of Australia, or does it lie in the hands of people who are not accountable to this Parliament or to the people of Australia? My question to the chief law officer of the Commonwealth is: Can he tell us whether this Government is able to make decisions on these matters or whether it can be overruled by a body which is not responsible to the Australian people, which is not elected and which in the good old days was known as the 36 faceless men? The PRESIDENT —I will allow the question in sofar as it relates to any effect that such a matter might have on Government policy. Senator GARETH EVANS —With respect, Mr President, it is an absurd question because, were we to accept Senator Chaney's question at face value, it would mean that any of us could be asking each other for the whole of our duration in government how each of us is contributing to the public interest in various ways outside our portfolio. We would be delighted to answer such questions and to demonstrate how we are contributing a darned sight more by staying in government than by relinquishing the reins to people like those opposite. While I may be a guardian of the public interest, and while I respect that appellation, even coming as it does from Senator Chaney, I am not the Minister for guarding the public interest, although I sometimes have delusions to that effect, and as a result I think it is quite inappropriate to answer the question. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question of the Minister. Can the decisions of the Government of which he is part be overruled by a non-elected section of the community, namely, the Federal Conference of the Australian Labor Party? As a matter of fact, is that so? Senator GARETH EVANS —I made it perfectly clear that, to the extent that that question has any legitimacy, it is not better directed to me than to anyone else , and in fact rather less so. It is, of course, a matter of public record what the relationship between the Labor Party in government and its conference is. I do not propose to lecture Senator Chaney on that subject, much as he might like one. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security and refers to the consumer price index and private rent increases. Is he aware of the recent research by the Institute of Family Studies into the latest census statistics which show that private rents have increased in all capital cities by much more than is shown by the consumer price index. Does he agree that these findings suggest that private renters, particularly those on social security benefits and low income families, could be facing much more financial hardship than previously indicated. Is the Government planning to review the level of rent allowance and the methods of indexing it and of deciding who is eligible to receive it? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I am aware that in the last couple of years private rents have increased at a greater rate than the consumer price index. As a result of that, of course, low income families and pensioners, in particular, who are in private rental accommodation and who are the poorest people in our community, have been left behind. Certainly, the Government is considering the level of the supplementary rent allowance. Mr Hawke and I have both announced that in the forthcoming Budget the level of the supplementary rent allowance will be a prime consideration because the group of people in private rental accommodation is so badly off. As Senator Foreman will know, the Government also gives a high priority to the construction of public accommodation and, in particular, public rental accommodation and, through the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, assists the States to provide houses for low income people. We are well aware that the three great determinants of poverty in this country are low income, access to health care at a reasonable price and access to housing and that housing is a key parameter in the determination of poverty, as was demonstrated by the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty. Senator Foreman asked about the indexation of the supplementary rent allowance. At the moment that allowance is not indexed, as the honourable senator would know. Whether it should be indexed will also be considered in the budgetary context. However, I assure Senator Foreman that this very important group of people has not been forgotten. Senator REID —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Communications confirm that, consistent with this Government's attempts to republicanise Australia by stealth, it is now the practice of Australia Post to remove the Sovereign's logo 'E II R' from all its vehicles and mail boxes as they are being repainted? Senator GRIMES —That is a typically devastating and sharp question for, I hope, the last question of Question Time this session! Senator Withers —Aren't we having questions tomorrow? Senator GRIMES —Senator Withers should not anticipate that-not at all. Ignoring the political nonsense that Senator Reid went on with about the republicanisation of Australia by stealth, I have no knowledge as to whether Australia Post is to remove 'E II R' from its vehicles. I will seek that information from the Minister for Communications. However, I assure Senator Reid that if she thinks that is the first step towards the republicanisation of Australia we will all be waiting for a hell of a long time. Senator GARETH EVANS —On 9 and 10 May Senator Messner asked me questions about the alleged stealing of certain Commonwealth property from Pine Gap which has been the subject of a police investigation. As I promised, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard relevant parts of the letter from the Special Minister of State which records the outcome of that investigation. Leave granted. The document read as follows- I have now received a report on the matter from the Australian Federal Police ( AFP). I am advised that on or about 13 November 1983, the AFP Officer in Charge of the Pine Gap Station reported that female demonstrators at Pine Gap had removed the perimeter gate bearing a number of signs. Police recovered the gate but the signs had been detached and were missing. Inquiries made by the AFP have failed to identify the person or persons involved in removing the signs. However, based on media reports, the AFP understands the signs were apparently subsequently auctioned or raffled on 27 November 1983 at an Australian Labor Party meeting at Collingwood Town Hall, Melbourne. Further media reports suggest that this 'auction' was organised by the Hon. Joan Coxsedge, MLC, as part of a fund-raising effort on behalf of the Anti-Uranium Group. Considering the circumstances surrounding the removal and the difficulty involved in identifying the person or persons who removed the signs, and having in mind the considerable expense that would be incurred, I am advised the AFP decided not to pursue the matter. This decision does not, of course, preclude the AFP from taking further action in the future should information be received indicating the identity of the person or persons involved. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —Mr President, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a two-page letter which I received just a few minutes ago from Mr P.G.F. Henderson, the Secretary to the Department of Foreign Affairs, which represents a response-perhaps only in the nature of a preliminary response -by him to at least some of the allegations that were made last night during the adjournment debate by Senator Primmer relating to events which were alleged to have occurred within the Department of Foreign Affairs. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Department of Foreign Affairs Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 15 June 1984 Senator The Hon. Gareth Evans, Attorney-General, Parliament House, CANBERRA. I have the following comments to make on points made by Senator Primmer: (a) Mr Pryor was appointed by the Public Service Board to conduct an enquiry into a complaint by Mr Witheford that he had been unfairly disadvantaged in his career as a result of his early withdrawal from the Embassy in Tehran. The decision to appoint Mr Pryor was a Board decision. The question of '' collaboration'' with me and Mr Ryan does not arise. (b) Appointment of Mr Ryan to an Ambassadorial post overseas was at the planning stage when the Sheraton Hotel incident took place. Mr Ryan's name was never submitted to the Governor-General or to a foreign Government as a prospective Head of mission. It follows that there is no substance whatsoever for asserting that he was ''rejected'' by a receiving country. (c) I am not aware of any allegations of dishonesty against Mr Ryan by any newspapers other than in their reporting of those made by Senator Primmer himself under Parliamentary privilege. (d) I have never undertaken a ''sustained range of criminal activities'' as alleged by Senator Primmer, nor indeed any criminal activities. (e) Senator Primmer claims that the remaining charge against Mr Witheford under the Crimes Act is being used as a pretext to keep him out of his job from which he was suspended in January. The decision to proceed with one of the two remaining charges was made by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Temby, QC, after a close examination of the evidence, Mr Witheford's suspension is in accordance with the provisions of the Public Service Act. (f) Mr Witheford attempted to use diplomatic bags to disseminate in bulk pamphlets and printed material. This was not in accordance with the rules governing officers' use of diplomatic bags for personal mail. (g) In the November 1982 Senate Estimates hearing, I was asked how many people had complained to the Ombudsman. I replied there had only been one, Mr Witheford . The correctness of my response at that time was subsequently confirmed by the Ombudsman in his letter to Mr Hayden which was subsequently tabled in the Senate . (h) I have not lied on any occasion to the Senate and I certainly have not abused Parliamentary privilege on any occasion. (i) Mr Whitlam can recall sending only one letter to the Queen in the period October/November 1975. That letter related to the revocation of Sir Colin Hannah 's dormant commission as Administrator of the Commonwealth. Mr Whitlam signed the letter in Canberra on 20 October. It reached the Queen in time for her to act on it on 24 October and a public announcement was made on 26 October. I did not tamper with any mail. (j) I deny absolutely that I am guilty of any breach of Customs and Quarantine Regulations in importing Sri Lankan jewellery, expensive perfume, and a riding saddle through the diplomatic bag. I have never brought in jewellery through the diplomatic bag. I did buy my wife a not very expensive garnet when I was in Colombo in the early seventies. I brought it back myself and it formed part of my own duty free allowance. The only item of jewellery that I had brought in as a passenger which exceeded the duty free allowance was our diamond engagement ring that I had remodelled in Bangkok in May 1980. I declared that to the Customs and paid $141.20 in duty. As a passenger I have never brought in more than small items of perfume. I have never brought in a riding saddle either as a passenger or through the diplomatic bag. P. G. F. HENDERSON The PRESIDENT —I present the third report of the sixty-first session of the Standing Orders Committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned. The PRESIDENT —In accordance with the usual practice, I table the list of parliamentary committee reports to which the Government has not responded within the prescribed period. The list has been circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, the report will be incorporated in Hansard. The report read as follows- PRESIDENT'S REPORT TO SENATE ON OUTSTANDING GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO PARLIAMENTARY REPORTS 1. Australian Capital Territory, Joint Committee. Retail Trading Hours in the A .C.T. Tabled 21 October 1982. Interim Response 15 December 1983. 2. Constitutional and Legal Affairs, Senate Standing Committee. Constitutional Qualifications of Members of Parliament. Tabled 2 June 1981. Interim Responses 24 August 1983 and 15 December 1983. Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings. Tabled 25 November 1982. Interim Responses 2 June 1983 and 15 December 1983. Feasibility of a compact, or 'Makarrata', between the Commonwealth and Aboriginal People-'Two Hundred Years Later'. Tabled 13 September 1983. 3. Education and the Arts, Senate Standing Committee. Tenure of Academics. Tabled 9 September 1982. Interim Response 15 December 1983. 4. Finance and Government Operations, Senate Standing Committee. Statutory Authorities of the Commonwealth: Fifth Report. Tabled 16 September 1982. Interim Response 15 December 1983. Certain Annual Reports. Tabled 2 June 1983. Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and the Commissioner for Superannuation- Annual Reports 1980-81. Tabled 1 December 1983. 5. Foreign Affairs and Defence, Joint Committee. Some observations of Australia 's diplomatic representation in Africa and adjacent Indian Ocean Island states. Tabled 8 December 1983. 6. Industry and Trade, Senate Standing Committee. Development of the Australian Fishing Industry. Tabled 21 April 1983. Interim Response 15 December 1983. 7. National Resources, Senate Standing Committee. Development of the Bauxite, Alumina and Aluminium Industries. Tabled 25 November 1981. Interim Response 15 December 1983. Commonwealth's Role in Rural Research and Extension Services. Tabled 30 November 1982. Interim Response 15 December 1983. 8. Science, Technology and the Environment, Senate Standing Committee. Preservation of the Abbott's Booby on Christmas Island. Tabled 2 November 1983. Interim Response 7 March 1984. 9. Social Welfare, Senate Standing Committee. Another side to the Drug Debate-a medicated society? Tabled 14 May 1981. Interim Response 15 December 1983. 10. Statutory Authority Financing, Senate Select Committee Report: Volumn 1 Tabled 8 September 1983; Volume 2 Tabled 13 October 1983. Interim Response 15 December 1983. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria) —I lay on the table further additional information received by Estimates Committee A and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia) —I present the eleventh report of the publications Committee. Report-by leave-adopted. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(3.06) —by leave-I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of Australian Embassy complex at Beijing, People's Republic of China. The proposal to be referred to the Committee is for the construction of a permanent embassy complex to replace the present inadequate leased accommodation . The embassy is to be constructed on a site in the San Li Tun diplomatic quarter, which is about five kilometres from the city centre. The main elements of the proposal are: A four level chancery building; a three level head of mission residence; terrace houses for staff; recreation facilities ; and ancillary facilities including a health centre and amenities for locally engaged staff. The design solution for the complex has regard to climate and local building practice and is based on simple low buildings grouped about a series of open landscaped courtyard spaces. Construction will be undertaken by the Chinese Government Construction Authority, with a high level of Australian professional and trade supervision. Local materials and building technology will be utilised wherever possible but where imported materials and equipment are required, those of Australian origin will be given preference. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $33.8m at April 1984. I table plans of the proposed work and commend the motion to the Senate. In bringing forward this motion, I apologise to honourable senators, particularly Opposition senators. From the amount of work that has been done, and from the careful preparation of this work, it is clear that these proposed works have been under consideration by the Department of Housing and Construction for some months, if not some years. The Government Ministers in the Senate received this reference today. I believe this happens too often. There is no reason for a department suddenly to rush in on the last day of the sitting and present us with a proposal for the Public Works Committee, without being able to give proper notice of motion, as we should in this place. I have informed that Department and other departments that if I have anything to do with it, if they do this again they can wait until the start of the next session . Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —I table a report concerning certain information provided to the New South Wales Special Commission of Inquiry headed by Mr Justice Slattery and seek leave to have the text of the document, which is a short, informal one, incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Sub-section 7A (8) of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 requires the Attorney-General to report to Parliament concerning certain information communicated to the N.S.W. Special Commission of Inquiry and I have previously tabled reports of information provided to Mr Justice Cross. 2. As honourable senators will know, Mr Justice Slattery succeeded Mr Justice Cross as Special Commissioner, and I subsequently corresponded with Mr Justice Slattery. Whilst the substance of that correspondence is not, in my view, such as requires me to report to Parliament, I take the view that it is proper for me to do so. 3. On 23 January 1984, I communicated, subject to specified conditions, information to the Hon. Mr Justice R. F. Cross, constituting the Special Commission of Inquiry concerning the circumstances surrounding the Early Release of Certain Prisoners, pursuant to the provisions of sub-section 7A (6) of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979. 4. On 7 May I supplied to Mr Justice Slattery the tapes, and certified transcripts, of the information referred to above. I imposed the following conditions on its use- (a) Transcripts and tape recordings should not be copied otherwise than with his express approval and for a purpose necessarily incidental to the conduct of the inquiry. (b) Transcripts and tape recordings, and any copies thereof, when not in use should be suitably secured. (c) Transcripts and tape recordings, and any copies thereof, should be delivered to the Australian Federal Police for destruction at the completion of the inquiry. (d) No iformation contained in the transcripts or tape recordings which would disclose the identity of any person should be made public, whether in a report of the Commission or otherwise, unless the conduct of that person was directly relevant to the purpose of the inquiry. 5. In respect of specified conversations, I impose an additional condition, that the names of the persons mentioned therein be not made public, in any hearing, or in any report, without my agreement. 6. I also approved that he might- (a) communicate the information, or any part of it, to Counsel and other staff appointed to assist the Commission; (b) communicate such parts of the information to such witnesses appearing before the Commission as may be required to enable the evidence of witnesses to be tested; and (c) cause the information to be published in a Report of the Commission; provided that any such communication or publishing was in accordance with condition (d) above, namely, that no information contained in the transcripts or tape recordings which would disclose the identity of any person should be made, or allowed to become, public unless the conduct of that person was directly relevant to the purpose of the inquiry. 7. I also approved that in any situation where the judge was considering recommending the bringing of an ex officio indictment against a person who had refused to give evidence before him, and wished to be addressed on that question by that person's legal representatives, he might communicate to those legal representatives such parts of the information, supplied by me, which were relevant to his consideration and which, in his opinion, should be necessarily communicated in order to allow appropriate argument to be put. 8. On 11 May, I approved that Mr Justice Slattery might communicate information , in the form of copies of the transcripts of legally intercepted telephone conversations, supplied by me, to counsel appearing for the following persons: Mr Rex Jackson Mr Keith Harris Mr Howard Hilton Mr Frank Hakim Mr Salvatore Falvo Mr Angelo Romeo Mr Tony Giofrelle subject to each counsel giving an undertaking that the copies of the transcripts would not be copied; the copies of the transcripts, when not in use, would be suitably secured; the copies of the transcripts would not be shown to any person other than counsel's instructing solicitor and his client, and then only in conference and in respect of preparation for participation in the Inquiry; the copies of the transcripts would be returned to the judge upon completion of the hearing; and any person with access to the information contained in the copies of the transcripts would not in any way disclose the identity of any person, or allow the identity of any person to become public, unless the identity of that person had been made, or allowed to become, public as a consequence of the hearings being conducted by Mr Justice Slattery. Motion (by Senator Childs)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That, for the purpose of the inquiry and report by the Committee of Privileges on the publication of a purported report of evidence taken by and documents submitted to the Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge: (a) the Committee and any sub-committee have power to send for and examine persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, and to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives; (b) the Committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any such sub-committee any of the matters which the Committee is empowered to consider, and that the quorum of a sub- committee be a majority of the senators appointed to the sub-committee; (c) the Committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public; and (d) the Senate authorise the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge to appear before the Committee of Privileges and to produce such documents and to disclose such information in relation to the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge proceedings as he or that Committee thinks fit. (2) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —Mr President, I claim to have been misrepresented. The PRESIDENT —Does the honourable senator seek leave to make a personal explanation? Senator PETER RAE —Yes, Mr President. The PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. Senator PETER RAE —Thank you, Mr President. In the House of Representatives Hansard for 1 June, page 2736, there is a report of an answer by the Minister for Communications, Mr Duffy, in relation to certain criticisms alleged to have been made by me of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I refer to the fact that Estimates Committee A produced to the Senate a unanimous report which criticised the ABC in a number of ways. I will not delay the Senate to go through the points that were set out in that report but simply point out that it was not a personal matter as far as I was concerned but rather a Senate committee report to which Mr Duffy should have been adverting. Debate resumed from 14 June, on motion by Senator Ryan: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator JONES(Queensland)(3.11) —I wish to make a few comments in relation to some of the points raised last night during this debate on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill. It seemed to me that the Opposition was using the debate to misinterpret the legislation that had been introduced by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding). It seemed to be using its position to denigrate the Bill, to put before this Parliament ideas that the legislation would not be carried out in an effective or democratic manner, which I believe was very dishonest. Some sanity came into the debate when Senator Macklin of the Australian Democrats started to speak. He certainly put forward a realistic point of view in relation to the legislation introduced to support the Aboriginals in the problems that they have suffered for a long period. Opposition senators, particularly Senator Bjelke-Petersen, said that we were bringing in the Bill in haste. They also said that we were discussing land rights, which was very far from the truth. They said that we did not allow any co-operation or discussion with the Aboriginal and Island people in relation to the legislation, which again was very far from the truth. As to the first claim, the claim that we were bringing in the legislation in haste, I suggest we go back to the 1967 referendum, a referendum in which the people of this country gave the Commonwealth the constitutional power, a clear responsibility, to do something about the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people. It is only now that we have a government and a Minister who are sympathetic to the cause and who have brought down effective legislation. I believe that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill will start to move the Commonwealth to a position in which it can deal with some of the State legislation which works against the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people and has worked against them for over 20 years or, I should say, since the States concerned brought it down. The Bill was brought down by the Minister after consultation with the Aboriginal people. There was direct consultation and discussion with these people before the Bill was brought before the House of Representatives. The claim by Opposition senators that the legislation was about land rights indicated to the Senate very clearly that Opposition senators had not read the legislation. It is not about land rights. I think even the Aboriginal people understand the difference between a heritage Bill and land rights legislation. It is very clear that the Australian Government will have discussions with the Aboriginal people before it brings down land rights legislation. It is also very clear, if one looks at a couple of the introductory statements made by the Minister in the House of Representatives, what this legislation is all about. If Opposition senators had read the Minister's second reading speech in the House of Representatives, they too would have had some understanding of what it was about prior to their coming into this chamber and opposing the legislation. In a very small paragraph relating to State and Territory law on page 2132 of Hansard dated 9 May the Minister said: As I have already said, this Bill provides the legal basis upon which the Commonwealth can act where the law of a State or Territory does not provide the necessary protection. The lack of protection may arise from either an absence of effective legislation or an unwillingness to enforce the provisions of legislation capable of meeting the goals of this Bill. I believe that that is one of the main principles contained in the Bill brought down by the Minister in the House of Representatives. In another paragraph on the same page of Hansard the Minister states: It will be clear . . . the Commonwealth wants to encourage States and Territories to use such legislation as they have in the interests of the Aboriginal and Islander people for whose benefit it was passed. Where that legislation is inadequate the Commonwealth will, through this legislation, encourage changes to be made. The Bill before the House is intended to meet those situations where, for whatever reason, local law is inadequate. The Commonwealth has a clear constitutional responsibility to act. This Bill will give it a legislative base on which to act. Those are points that members of the Opposition underrated or forgot to mention during the debate last night. We need to look at the sort of legislation that exists in some of the States. In particular, we should look at legislation brought down in the Queensland Parliament supposedly to do something for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. The Community Services (Torres Strait) Bill and the Community Services (Aborigines) Bill were passed by the Queensland Parliament in April 1984. In essence, that legislation does nothing. That legislation does not change the legislation that existed previously in Queensland. Aboriginal and Islander people in Queensland are understandably disturbed at the prospect of a continuation of this institutionalised assault on human rights. As with the previous legislation, community councils are being set up and incorporated, with councillors being elected for three-year terms. Councils are now to be trusted with a few local government functions but subject to special provisions under the legislation brought down in the State Parliament . The Director of the former Department of Aboriginal and Islander Advancement, Mr Pat Killoran, has become Under-Secretary of the new Department of Community Services, and will continue his reign of white supremacy as the great white chief, with the unusual minimal accountability to the Parliament. I will say something later about what the chairmen of the various committees within the Torres Strait Islands have said about the appointment of Mr Pat Killoran as the Under-Secretary under this legislation that has been brought down in Queensland supposedly to change what has been happening in that State. The extent of his oppressive role is reflected in section 73 of the Act, which enables him to administer the estates of Aborigines and Islanders. He is entitled to a grant of probate and is given priority over all other persons. Senator Boswell —Madam Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. With due respect to Senator Jones, I fail to see what his speech has to do with the sacred sites legislation. Senator Cook —You don't understand it. Senator Boswell —I do understand it. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bill in front of us. I draw your attention to the fact that we are dealing with sacred site legislation. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —I understood that Senator Jones was bringing into his contribution to the debate on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage legislation mention of the situation as it exists in Queensland. At this stage I intend to permit him to continue along those lines. Senator JONES —Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. The point of order taken by Senator Boswell, a senator from Queensland, certainly shows very clearly that members of the Opposition do not understand what the Bill is about. In my first remarks on the Bill I clearly outlined what our Minister said in the House in relation to the Commonwealth Government acting if the laws within a State were inadequate or were not being applied to the best interests of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in that State. Very clearly the new legislation brought down in the Queensland Parliament cannot act in the best interests of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in Queensland. In some circumstances Mr Pat Killoran is empowered to determine which persons are entitled to benefit from the estates of deceased Aboriginals and Islanders. Under section 74 of that Act he is entitled to determine whether a community will be permitted to sell and supply beer. This is a provision to entitle community residents to take marine products or fauna by traditional means providing it is for consumption by members of that community. There are no provision for water rights, timber or quarrying rights, fishing, honey or foraging rights. Unlike the previous legislation, there is no provision relating to the veto of mining activities or for sharing in royalties or even profits from mining. There has been much continuing discussion about the effects of the Queensland Government's attitude towards its Aboriginal population. Not enough response has been forthcoming to the pleas for help that have been coming out of the Torres Strait Islands for years. There have been pleas and petitions from Islanders, backed up by the Thursday Island Hostel Superintendent, for something to be done about the shocking rate of venereal disease, sometimes reaching an estimated 50 per cent. These pleas continue to fall on deaf ears. The State Government in Queensland continues to take no notice of what is happening in the Torres Strait . Because of the cost of bringing food to the islands to feed the young people, there are even cases of malnutrition. Education of Islander children is disregarded by the Queensland Government. Teachers in island schools have not even met the educational qualifications of the teachers in normal State schools throughout Queensland. What the State Government has done is allow people to have some training under the Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement Department and then move them into schools which teach Aboriginal people. It has then tried to move them to the Queensland mainland, where it expects them to compete with the white community. The Queensland Government has deliberately done nothing either to assist or to encourage the establishment of viable industries in the Torres Strait Islands. Instead it has condemned Islanders to subsist within an economy based on social welfare alone. But the damage is not only economic. It has meant that many young Islanders have succumbed to the Queensland Government's long term policy of integration. What that means to the Queensland Government is not immediately clear. What it has meant to the islands is the disintegration of families and the subsequent destruction of their foundation and unique culture. Senator Boswell —Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. We have been through venereal disease, malnutrition and just about everything to do with Aborigines and Islanders except sacred sites. I ask you to bring the honourable senator back to the Bill. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill 1984 is before this chamber at the moment, Senator Boswell. I can only presume that you have not been listening to Senator Jones who, as I understand it, has been demonstrating the need for legislation in relation to a State. I am not having any difficulty with the honourable senator. Senator JONES —Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. I repeat for Senator Boswell what the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs stated: The Bill before the House is intended to meet those situations, where, for whatever reason, local law is inadequate. I add, or not being applied. The Minister continued: The Commonwealth has a clear constitutional responsibility to act. I believe that this shows very clearly that the State Government of Queensland is not acting in the best interests of the Aboriginal or Torres Strait Island people. For centuries Torres Strait Islanders have enjoyed the benefits of the traditional extended family. That tradition is now faced with extinction thanks to the State Government's concept of integration. Integration has forced more than half the population of the Torres Strait Islands to seek refuge on the Australian mainland from the oppressive, bureaucratic rule of Killoran's Department. Disappearing also from the islands are the traditional arts and crafts passed down from generation to generation. During my recent visit to the islands we found one elderly gentleman carving combs and trying to teach the children. That was the only example I noted of an elderly person trying to teach younger people some art. The art and culture of those people is being completely destroyed by the attitude and legislation of the Queensland Government. Even the Islanders recognise that it may already be too late. Most of the young men and women have gone from the islands. On Thursday Island integration has left an acute social imbalance with women far outnumbering men and all the social and economic consequences of such an imbalance. Almost all the food and general supplies have to be imported as there is little local industry. The cost of living, combined with an abnormal freight component is staggering. Few fresh fruits and vegetables are grown on the Islands and they are a rare luxury in most Islander households. The effect on the health and nutrition of the Islanders is only too evident. Thursday Island still has an inadequate and unreliable supply of clean fresh water. It has one of the highest per capita rates of alcohol consumption in the southern hemisphere. The people are still there; they simply have nothing to do. No provisions have been made by the State Government to give them a worthwhile style of living on Thursday Island or, for that matter, on the other islands in the Torres Strait. Basic amenities on the island are scarce and recreational facilities are virtually non-existent. The former Department of Aboriginal and Islander Advancement, now the Department of Community Services-both are insulting terms-is in total control of health, education and what little commerce there is The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —I draw Senator Jones's attention to the fact that he is now ranging very wide of the legislation before the Parliament. I would appreciate it if he would bring his remarks back to the Bill before the Senate. Senator JONES —Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. I will bring my remarks back to the Bill before the Senate. In doing so I will say something in relation to the Under-Secretary who was appointed by the State Government and who is not approved by the councils of the islands in the area. Mr Pat Killoran was appointed the Under-Secretary to the new Department under the new legislation. He has certainly left a taint in everyone's mouth in relation to what is happening on the Torres Strait Islands. One needs to go back only to the last State election. Senator Boswell —Madam Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. We are now going through the character assassination of a public servant. I cannot for the life of me see what that has to do with sacred sites legislation. I think Senator Jones is totally out of order. I ask you to bring him into order. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I have drawn Senator Jones's attention to the fact that he is ranging a little broad of the legislation. I would be grateful if he would bring his remarks back to the Bill before the chamber. Senator JONES —I was going to refer to a telex I have which refers to the Torres Strait Islands and the legislation before the chamber. It is a telex to members of the Queensland Government and to the Queensland Premier. It reads as follows: That result does not reflect a lack of confidence in your Government or the National Party of Queensland, but in Mr Killoran personally. To enable the proper and successful operation of the New Community Services ( Torres Strait) Act- that refers to the Act being governed by the legislation which is to be passed by this chamber- . . . we earnestly request that you do not appoint Mr Killoran as Under Secretary, Department of Community Services. If we are talking about Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders we have to look at every island or every island community. That telex is signed by every chairman of every island community and it requests the State Government not to make that appointment under the new legislation brought down in the State Parliament. If that is the case, surely the legislation we are debating today should recognise the points of view of those Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. A meeting of the councillors of the Torres Strait Islands was held on 17 and 18 August 1981, and a survey was undertaken in those areas. That survey points out very clearly that all the communities in the Torres Strait area say they want inalienable freehold title on their land. Ninety-five point five per cent of the people voted for inalienable freehold title of the land, and 3.8 per cent voted for freehold land. A survey was carried out on the control of islanders' affairs and 99.5 per cent said that they believed the Islanders should control their own islands and 0.5 per cent said that they were against it . I think, firstly, that that shows very clearly that the Torres Strait Islanders believe that Pat Killoran should not be the Under Secretary and, secondly, that they believe, as Islanders in that areas, that they should control their own destiny. I believe that the legislation before the Senate, which went before the House of Representatives, is the sort of legislation that the Commonwealth Government should have in place, along with that concerning land rights, so as to allow it to undertake the responsibility given to it, following a constitutional referendum, of meeting some of those requests by the Torres Strait Islanders. Madam Acting Deputy President, I am not sure that my next matter really refers to the Bill. If not, you can rule on it. A circular of the Cooroora Electoral Council of the National Party of Australia states: On 9th May the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Hon. Clyde Holding, introduced the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill 1984 into the House of Representatives. The circular certainly refers to the Bill. It seems to me that members of the Opposition, including Senator Boswell, got their points of view from the National Party in Queensland, which seems to be very much influenced by the League of Rights. It states: That the Cooroora Electoral Council NPA denounce in strongest possible terms, opposes by every means at its disposal and exerts total energy to maximise opposition to each and every section and provision of the proposed 'Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill 1984.' That position is put very clearly. It seems to me, Senator Boswell, that the National Party is totally opposed- Senator Boswell —It has nothing whatever to do with rights. Senator JONES —Has it not? Let us look at the back of it. It states: 'Aboriginal Land Rights'. That has nothing to do with the Bill? It is confusion. It continues: 'A Threat to All Australians-Speaker Mr Geoff McDonald Author of '' Red over Black''.' Then there is a little message from the Premier which states: 'I think that Geoff McDonald's message is extremely important to Australia's defence and sovereignty. All Queenslanders should take the opportunity of hearing him' Joh Bjelke-Petersen. Mr Geoff McDonald speaks with unique authority on communist efforts to exploit 'land rights'-- Senator Kilgariff —Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I was just saying that we must get back to the debate. As you say, this has nothing to do with land rights. Senator Boswell —On the point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President, the Bill states: An Act to preserve and protect places, areas and objects of particular significance to Aboriginals, and for related purposes. I suggest that that has not come up in this debate once. The debate has ranged over all questions relating to Aboriginals. If Senator Jones wants to debate the Aboriginal question, I am quite happy to accommodate him. But he has not addressed the Bill once. I draw your attention to that. Senator Robert Ray —On the point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President. My colleague, Senator Jones, has been clearly showing the reasons and motives for such hostile opposition to this Bill. He has been demonstrating that all sorts of cretinous right wing groups in this country are stirring up the people sitting opposite. He is entitled to do that. He is entitled to reflect on the motives of those sitting opposite for opposing the Bill. Right throughout the debate, they have made no actual objection to the Bill itself. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —On the point of order, Senator Jones related to the House the contents of a telex which had been received. I understand that it is due to an interjection that he then turned that telex over and proceeded to detail other messages that were contained on the back. There is no point of order. Senator JONES —If we go a little bit further in relation to this circular we find, as I said before, that it was by the National Party of Australia. It puts the same proposition forward as the Opposition put up last night in relation to its opposition to the heritage Bill. If we go down the circular we find that what is said-this is what was said last night-is that this Bill puts the property of every person in Australia at risk of expropriation or alienation of their rights in relation to land. That is the sort of false argument that was put forward by the Opposition last night. It is the sort of argument that has been put forward by people from the National Party of Australia who have written this circular and who support Geoff McDonald, speaking at an Aboriginal land rights meeting. He is an ex-communist who spoke about a communist plot for land rights throughout Australia. Senator MacGibbon is sitting there. He has not said a word; nor should he. It seems to me to be quite unfair that Senator MacGibbon had to stab in the back former Senator Neville Bonner who was a member of this House, who was defeated in preselection, and who, if he had been in this House, would have spoken with some authority on this Bill. Senator MacGibbon —I raise a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President. That is a completely outrageous and incorrect assertion for the honourable senator to make. I ask him to withdraw it straight away. Senator Grimes —On the point of order, I think the expression used by Senator Jones was that Senator Bonner was stabbed in the back. Senator Bonner was defeated by Senator MacGibbon. It is a very common expression in political parlance in this country that someone in those circumstances is stabbed in the back. I think Senator MacGibbon is being a little bit sensitive if he expects that to be withdrawn. Senator MacGibbon —I wish to speak again to the point of order. Senator Grimes is just fooling around the point and adding to Senator Jones's insults. I ask for Senator Grimes to withdraw that allegation, too, because he knows that it is basically and absolutely untrue. Senator Chaney —I rise on the point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President. It seems to me that the debate is degenerating into abuse rather than debate. A statement has been made about Senator MacGibbon to which he clearly objects and which I believe to be objectionable. A few moments ago Senator Robert Ray referred to cretinous right wing groups. Perhaps a little later in the debate I will quote a State Minister from Western Australia who made some considerable criticisms of this legislation. Perhaps he is in one of those cretinous right wing groups. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —On the point of order, Senator? Senator Chaney —On the point of order, we are debating a significant Bill which has considerable public interest. The sorts of comments which have been made by Senator Jones are out of order and do nothing to dignify or to improve the debate on this important matter. The remarks should be withdrawn. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Jones, there has been a request for a withdrawal of the comments which you made about the stabbing in the back of the former Senator Bonner by Senator MacGibbon. I ask, under those circumstances, that you withdraw the remarks. Senator JONES —I will withdraw the remark. I am not sure where he was stabbed. Senator MacGibbon —Madam Acting Deputy President, that is not acceptable to me in any way at all. I ask him to make an unqualified withdrawal. The point was that a selection process was carried out by the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party organisation selects its candidates, not the candidates themselves, least of all Senator Jones who has never gone before a preselection committee of the Labor Party in his life. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Jones for an unqualified withdrawal of the statement that he made. Senator JONES —Madam Acting Deputy President, I withdraw. Members of the Opposition are interjecting and taking points of order. The Leader of the Opposition has said that the debate has degenerated. I do not think that the debate has degenerated. We have moved it to the level to which the members of the Opposition tried to put it last night. Their opposition of the Bill shows clearly where they stand. Some of the references that I made in relation to the Torres Strait Islanders-they related to documents, telexes, et cetera-are very true. The information that I have available to me shows very clearly the attitude of the Opposition and where it stands in relation to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia. Finally, I say that the sooner this legislation is passed by this House- Senator Grimes —The earlier we will get home. Senator JONES —The earlier the better, as my leader says. The sooner this legislation is passed, the sooner it will be that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people start to have some constitutional base for their claims and some constitutional base on which to stand- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(3.42) —I say, in speaking to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill 1984, that I was sorry to hear Senator Jones say, with regard to Queenslanders and Torres Strait Islanders, that in a visit to that area he found that the culture of those people had been lost. All he found, I think he said, was one old man making a comb. He seemed to find that the Government of that area was responsible for this. I point out to the Senate that the Aboriginal people retain considerable culture, particularly in the outback of Australia. But there is no doubt that their culture is under attack. I am speaking of the culture of the traditional owners, the tribes that live in the remote areas today. But it seems to me that the attack on their culture comes particularly from Aboriginal people who live in the towns and who are without Aboriginal culture. It absolutely amazes me that we have heard no voice from the Aboriginal people in the towns regarding this legislation; yet the poor, unfortunate traditional owner in the outback has not seen the legislation and is only now coming forward to ask: 'Can the Bill be adjourned until I have a better understanding of it?'. The Bill is a remarkable piece of legislation because it gives the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) almost unlimited discretionary powers. It is also remarkable, as I have indicated, that the people to whom it is directed, or who it is supposedly protecting-the traditional owners, the people with culture- have not been consulted. They had not even heard of the legislation until the matter was raised in the Australian media in the last two weeks. I find this amazing because the Aboriginal people, who are involved in organisations-and, as I say, who are not traditional people-who have been aware of this legislation and who, on other occasions have been the first to voice what they say is what the traditional people are thinking, in this particular case are silent. They are silent because this legislation originated from a proposal first made by the National Aboriginal Conference. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) then picked up that proposal. Aboriginal people in remote areas say that the NAC in its present form does not relate to them. It does not represent the traditional owners. Any honourable senator who does not believe me can sit down with these people and be told the same thing. Dr Coombs, following the review- with which I think the Government had some involvement-of the role of the NAC, has recommended that the form of the NAC be changed. Thus I think there has been indecent haste with this legislation. There has to be legislation to protect sacred sites and sacred objects, but there also has to be an understanding of what that is all about. The people themselves have to be consulted. Fancy having legislation brought in and pushed through with indecent haste with the people to whom it relates hardly having heard of it nor having been consulted about it. Many people in this Senate today have had approaches from these people asking that before we pass this legislation we consult with them to ensure that the legislation does what it is supposed to do. Of course, the legislation does not do that. The frame of the legislation is such that sacred sites can be abused. It is said that governments and everyone else must heed Aboriginal law and work in with it. Judge Else- Mitchell and various other people working on law reform say that we must work in with Aboriginal law. Honourable senators need not heed my words; if they wish and if they are interested they may talk to the Aboriginal people. They will then find that this legislation, as it is now framed, is against Aboriginal law. The clause headed 'Declarations in relation to objects' is against Aboriginal law. Under that clause a person, not necessarily Aboriginal, can orally make application regarding a specific object or class of objects. The person does not have to be Aboriginal; as is often the case, that person can be a non-Aboriginal claiming to speak on behalf of Aboriginal people. If one sits down with the people, as I did two Saturdays ago with the Aranda people, one discovers that they disagree with this legislation with respect to access to sacred objects. They themselves cannot speak of their ceremonial things, the churingas and the like, nor can anybody else handle their ceremonial things. They are not in a position to be able to do so, yet by this provision anybody can say: 'Look at this churinga from the eastern MacDonnells. I think we ought to do this or that about it'. I tell the Senate quite truthfully that the Aboriginal people are absolutely horrified. If the Minister has good intentions in regard to this matter I ask him not to act with this indecent haste, to go back to the people first an then come back here in August, September, October or whatever and report to the Parliament. He should consult with the people first. I can assure you, Madam Acting Deputy President, that if this were done, the legislation that is before us today would be in a much different form. Many organisations such as the Mbantarinya, a traditional group of Aranda people, and the Choritja of the eastern MacDonnells who had a big meeting recently at Alcoota, say that not hundreds but absolutely thousands of people who still retain their culture and their traditional ways are against and horrified by what we are doing here in the Senate today. I am absolutely amazed that we see fit to carry on in the way we are today. As I say, it was not I who approached the Aboriginal people some two Saturdays ago. It was not I who sought them out and nor have I done so since. However, I have known them for very many years and they are in despair about what they can do to stop this business of opening up their ceremonial objects to the world. I am speaking about only one aspect of this legislation. Please understand that the churinga and other sacred things are not just valuable to them, they are their whole life. As I have said before, no one can speak on their behalf regarding their sacred things nor can they speak to other people about their sacred things. Yet, this legislation does exactly the opposite-it opens up the situation. What can one say and what can one do about this problem? I could go on for ages just on that point. Senator Cook —You have not said anything yet. Senator KILGARIFF —I am sorry if the honourable senator feels that way. Can I just get on to one particular point? I ask honourable senators not to think I am being dramatic when I say that this legislation as it is framed now is seen by the traditional people as dabbling in their sacred things and Aboriginal law-as I say, I am not being dramatic so I just say this quietly-and can bring about what is called pay-back. Do honourable senators think that pay-back is a thing of the past? It is not a thing of the past. In the remote areas of Australia where much of the traditional way of life is still carried on, very few white people would recognise an act of pay-back. Neither would I. I would not be able to recognise it. I have been assured by the Aranda people that legislation of this sort will bring about such a confused situation that, getting down to the nitty-gritty of the tribal situation, interference with churingas will lead to a situation in which someone in amongst the Aboriginal people will, perhaps deliberately, do something that contravenes Aborignal law. Whatever form it takes, there will be pay-back. Where do we go now regarding this legislation? I can speak, as many honourable senators have, about the various approaches that have been made by various people-not only Aboriginal organisations but also the Australian Mining Industry Council, the National Farmers Federation, the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association Ltd and the Australian Archaeological Association. Those people and organisations have tried to have their voices heard. They have said many things, but basically what it really adds up to is that they want something that will do the work that this legislation is supposedly trying to do, but which it will not do. I repeat that the Aboriginal people have asked me-at least those in central Australia-why they cannot be heard. Why has the legislation not been referred to them? No one has spoken to them about the legislation. They know nothing about it other than what they have gained themselves. They did gain the knowledge that under clause 12, which relates to declarations in regard to objects, that the Minister has a wide-open go. The legislation gives him incredible powers. The most incredible thing, when one considers this matter, is that a person-as I have said, he may not necessarily be an Aboriginal person-can make an oral application. I can well imagine that in many cases an application could come from a white person. These days there are many white people who see their way, whether with good intentions or not, to speak on behalf of the Aboriginal people. The Aboriginal people are quite capable of speaking for themselves regardless of the people who attach themselves to them. I make the point that a person who attaches himself to the Aboriginal people can speak as if he represents them when he does not represent them. That is one of the biggest faults that I see. Let us consider the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association. We must admit that over the last few weeks endeavours have been made to solve the problems which have occurred. I will not get on to the topic of Aboriginal land except to say that there have been problems regarding licences. Negotiations never seem to get to the point where something is accomplished. The APEA has voiced its concerns under the following headings: 'The Broader Community Interest', 'Land Tenure Subject to Declaration', 'Existing Rights to Land', 'Compensation for Loss', 'Status of Applicants' and 'Areas of Significance'. Why is time not taken to understand the difference between a sacred site and an area or site of significance? It is not explained in this legislation. If people want to dabble in such legislation why on earth are proper definitions not provided so that people can clearly understand what is a sacred site and what is something of significance? For God's sake, we know that our church is a sacred site. Senator Withers —Oh, now! It may be consecrated but that does not make it sacred . Senator KILGARIFF —It depends on whether one is a Christian. I presume that a church is a sacred site, but we have other things which are of significance. There is clearly a lot of misunderstanding about the whole situation. I would like to say a lot more about this matter but I will just read to the Senate one media report which was in the Northern Territory News of 6 June. It is headed ' Aborigines seek delay in Heritage Bill', and says: Northern Territory Aborigines are mobilising against a controversial Aboriginal and Islander heritage legislation. Representatives of Central Australia's 5,000 strong Aranda and Choritja communities have telexed their concern to Federal Aboriginal Affairs Minister, Clyde Holding, and the Australian Democrats, asking them to delay the passage of the Bill until amendments are made. Spokesman Alderman Bob Liddle- the first Aboriginal alderman in Alice Springs, who is a member of the Aranda people and whose ties are with that group- said the legislation could cause death among Aborigines and divisiveness among the general Australian community. Mr Liddle, the first Aboriginal alderman elected in Alice Springs, accused Mr Holding of bullying traditional Aborigines, many of whom he claimed had no knowledge of the legislation. 'It is a potentially dangerous piece of legislation, particularly the clause which stipulates that any outsider can advise the Minister of areas which are sacred sites', he said. 'It goes against the traditional decision-making process. Traditionally no Aborigine can speak on behalf of owners. Even present day people can be killed because of talking about other people's sacred sites.' That is another reference to Aboriginal law. The report continues: Many traditional people in rural areas don't know about the Bill. It gives the Minister immense power and we can't have a white Minister in Parliament deciding what's sacred and what's not.' That is a rather pertinent point. It goes on: He is being regarded as a bully. I've been out to many rural communities and they're saying this man's a bully. He is being influenced by the NAC and the National Aboriginal and Island Heritage Organisation who have nothing to do with tribal people. We have called on the Minister to withdraw the Bill until proper consultation has taken place with rural people. I suppose even Aboriginal people should be consulted, particularly in regard to legislation such as this. Senator Messner —But he claims he has consulted with them. Senator KILGARIFF —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is misleading Parliament if he has said that. If he did not say it in the Federal Parliament but said it in other places, he is misleading the people of Australia. The report in the Northern Territory News continues: 'We would like to see clauses giving the Minister power to receive information from organisations and white people amended or omitted.' That is very interesting. The article goes on even further: Mr Liddle said a representative of the Hermannsberg community, Mr Helmut Parourltja- He has an outstation near Gosse Bluff, about 200 miles west of Alice Springs. Senator Cook —What's his address? Senator KILGARIFF —I have to acknowledge that foolish interjection of the honourable senator opposite. His address is out in the remote areas of South Australia where Aboriginal people and their law and culture still abound despite , as I have indicated, attacks on their way of life. I return to the article: had also telexed Canberra, stating the consequences to Aborigines if the Bill stands as it is. Mr Liddle said he did not trust Mr Holding not to override the NT Sacred Sites Act if he felt like it. 'It is only his word that he won't and he can turn around and just do it.' Mr Liddle and the prominent central Australian Aboriginal, Mrs Rosie Kunoth- Monks, will be meeting with other Aborigines . . . My understanding is that because sufficient information could not be obtained and no communication was had with these people, nothing has really occurred even though these people wanted to come to Canberra in strength to meet the Federal parliamentarians who had received a communication from them saying that they would like to come here. Who acknowledged that and who encouraged them to come to Canberra? That is a very interesting point. I do not think the Aboriginal people would have got much encouragement. Finally, I have a copy of a telex dated 29 May 1984 which was sent to Mr Holding, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, by Paul Everingham regarding the proposed national Aboriginal heritage legislation. It reads: In your telex of 30 April you asked for my comments on the draft Bill which had been separately dispatched to my Department on the same day. I suppose all other governments and everyone else who actually received a copy of the legislation might have had it for four or five weeks; the Aboriginal people did not. The telex continues: You sought my reaction by May 4. It is extraordinary that after discussing such legislation for months with Aboriginal groups-- as I understand it, the Aboriginal group was the National Aboriginal Conference- without any reference at all to the relevant State and Territory authorities you should suddenly produce the Bill and seek my considered opinion on it in less than a week. I gather that you placed my State counterparts in the same position . Apparently, you have forgotten the assurances you gave at the last AAAC meeting in Melbourne when the subject of national sacred sites legislation was raised that you would give all governments ample opportunity to consider the legislation and comment on it. So far as the protection of significant or sacred sites and areas is concerned, the Territory Government sees no need for Commonwealth legislation in this field . I might remind you that Judge Toohey also felt that the matter was best covered by Territory Legislation. I agree that there is a need to empower either the sacred sites authority or the relevant Territory Minister (and my preference is for the Minister) to take immediate action when sites are threatened. I am quite prepared to amend the Territory Act to provide the kind of rapid protection you envisaged in your Bill. Nonetheless, it should remain Territory legislation. So far as significant objects and remains are concerned, this is quite a different matter. Our native and historical objects and Areas Preservation Act is little changed since it was passed in 1955, and is out of date. Completely new legislation has been under consideration by my Government for over two years . However, unlike sacred sites and areas of land, sacred objects and human remains are easily movable, and I am aware of the problems which have arisen with the removal and sale of objects across State borders. In this field, I believe that complementary Commonwealth legislation is justified. To summarise, therefore, the Territory Government reaction is that your Bill should not proceed. Protection of sacred sites should be left to the appropriate State and Territory authorities. Commonwealth legislation should be introduced to protect sacred objects and remains. In closing, one can only be cynical about the way in which this legislation has been introduced. I, like many other senators here, do not support it. I note that there are many government advisers in the Senate chamber. Their advice could not have been heeded, considering the way in which the Bill has been framed. I ask the Government to take the legislation back from where it came and to produce it again in a way that will help the Aboriginal people and not hurt them. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(4.08) — The Senate is debating the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill 1984. I recited the full title of the Bill to draw to the attention of the Senate what this debate is really about. It is unfortunate that people who listened to the contribution of speakers on the other side of the House would not have gained much of an idea of what it is really about. The operative words in the title are 'interim protection' and 'heritage'. The Bill itself goes out of being in two years. In that period the Government hopes to bring in legislation on land rights and a number of other things to protect the rights of Aboriginal people in Australia, to allow them a decent place in Australian society and, at long last, to give them due recognition as original owners of this country. The other important aspect of the title, which seems to have been ignored by many speakers in the debate, is the word 'heritage'. We have heard from the Opposition that this is a land rights Bill. We have read advertisements to the effect that it is a land rights Bill. It is explicitly a Bill to protect heritage. As much as honourable senators opposite might try to contort and pervert the English language, that is what this Bill is about. It is not about land rights. That is a matter to which this Government is committed, about which it will consult later, and on which it will eventually bring in legislation. However, there is a campaign in the community, a campaign which has started by attacking this legislation. It is in the form of an ambit objection to any legislation dealing with Aboriginal rights in Australia. It is an ambit objection so that when legislation eventually arises on land rights, the campaign organisers hope to have built and stoked an emotional anti-Aboriginal campaign and, therefore, on the basis of that, they hope to defeat the legislation on land rights. I want to bring this debate right back to what it is really about. It is important, and unfortunate, to note that Opposition senators have lent their names and their speeches in support of an emotional and damaging campaign against Aboriginal people. I would caution honourable senators opposite that that is an extraordinarily dangerous course. It is a course that leads to division on a matter about which we ought to be unified. It is a course that puts Australians against Australians on a matter about which we should all stand together decently, at long last, to respect and acknowledge the rights of Aboriginal people in this community. I make that appeal. I hear the interjections. If honourable senators want to persist with the interjections that they are on the side of division and disunity, let them persist and be identified as objectors. But if they want to put their names to some unity of purpose about what this Government stands for and what is the due right of the Aboriginal people, they should support the legislation. I want to take the Senate back briefly to events that occurred in Australia on 8 August 1980. On that day 50 trucks assembled in convoy at Eneabba, a small town near Geraldton in Western Australia, and had loaded on them an oil drilling platform. The trucks were then driven 1,500 kilometres north to a place called Noonkanbah in Western Australia. They were escorted by an extensive police escort, and they were escorted as well by a traffic escort. It is important to make the distinction, because one escort was for police purposes and one was for traffic purposes. These trucks had had the number plates removed, and new number plates had been issued by the State Government in order that the identity of the owners of the trucks or their drivers could never be traced. Put into those trucks were individuals who had been recruited by an organisation known as Assistance and Security Corporation, an organisation publicly dedicated to strike breaking and other anti-Australian activities. These individuals then, in explicit defiance of a ban, proceeded as scab drivers to drive that convoy. What that convoy met was a series of objections and picket lines in the towns of Karratha, Roebourne and Port Hedland, and near Strelley station, north of Port Hedland, and in Broome, Derby, and Noonkanbah itself. It was a divisive act . It was an act that polarised the Australian community. The whole purpose of this quasi-military operation was to conduct a drilling exercise in an area of sacred significance for the Yungora community at Noonkanbah in Western Australia . It was conducted, moreover, to require the company that had the licence issued by the Western Australian Government, Amax Exploration (Australia) Inc., against the advice of the Museum in Western Australia, the organisation charged with protecting sacred sites, to drill on that particular site, when Amax did not want to drill on that site and had made it clear to a number of people and to the Noonkanbah community that it was required to drill because the Western Australian Government at that time had blackmailed it with the threat that if it did not drill as directed by that Government, all rights to prospect anywhere else in Western Australia would be withdrawn. Then the roughnecks, the people who operate the drill platform, put a ban on the activities of that rig in response to a request from the Aboriginals in the area to protect their sacred sites. Under cover of night, during the time when the community was away from its traditional land at Fitzroy Crossing, the State Government, again with the aid of the Assistance and Security Corporation, organised scab labour to come in on a back road and take over the rig-which overnight was nationalised by the Western Australian Government-and drill on and desecrate a sacred site. There had been extensive negotiations to prevent this. I repeat that the company concerned did not want to proceed. However, the Western Australian Government at the time, under Sir Charles Court, threatened that if the company did not proceed it would lose its right to drill or prospect anywhere else in Western Australia. Who was this action taken against? It was taken against the sacred needs of the Yungora community in Western Australia. This community had constituted itself on Noonkanbah station and was running a successful pastoral operation. The community had banned alcohol and a number of other European practices from that station in order to reconstruct the community and allow its members to drag themselves back from being fringe dwellers to a functioning respectable Aboriginal entity. At this community a dignified and gentle people was reconstructing itself on the land that it associated with. We have talked in this place about religion. What we need to understand in terms of Aboriginal culture is that it is related to the land. Aboriginal culture is related to occupancy of land. The special features of that land give the Aboriginal culture a special meaning. Without an intact and inherent culture there is no base on which to form a community or to establish a proper Aboriginal organisation. If their cultural objects and sites of sacred influence are taken away their cultural base is destroyed and they are destroyed as a people. I cited the Noonkanbah event because that occurred less than four years ago in Western Australia. It occurred at a time when the Federal Government had power under the Australian Constitution to do something about it. But the Government sat on its hands and did nothing to prevent that desecration. This caused sickness and ill health in the community. The operation was aimed at undermining an established and functioning Aboriginal society. This legislation is to protect Aboriginals and to prevent a repetition of those events. If anyone says that there is no need for this legislation then I ask them to go back to 1980 and argue the case in relation to Noonkanbah. If we had had this legislation and a government with the will to act, the damage that was done could have been prevented. Senator Messner —Why does the State Caucus in Western Australia not agree with you? Senator COOK —The State Caucus in Western Australia has another view. Since Senator Messner has raised the question of the State Caucus in Western Australia -I anticipate that maybe even Senator Chaney will wish to throw that objection at me-I set the record right. The position in Western Australia is quite simple. The Burke Labor Government, when elected last year as a result of the defeat of the remnants of the Court era, was elected on a comprehensive platform to do something about Aboriginal rights in Western Australia. It has public approval to do that. Senator Messner —To be seen to be doing something. Senator COOK —If Senator Messner does not want to listen to the explanation I ask him not to interject in future. The Western Australian Government constituted an inquiry, headed by Paul Seaman, QC, into land rights. The inquiry moved immediately to that question of land rights. There is an honest difference of view between the Western Australian Government and our Government as to whether land rights should come first or the heritage legislation should come first. That is the difference. If one wanted to deal immediately with land rights, one would side with the Western Australian Government and the findings of its inquiry. But if one believed that we should move to protect heritage immediately and them move to land rights over time, one would support this legislation and the way in which we have proceeded. The next time a South Australian senator tells me, a Western Australian senator, what Western Australian interests are, he should be better informed. That is the situation. To move back to this legislation, as I have said, four years ago those horrendous and dissipative events occurred in Australia at a time when a Federal government was in power with a constitutional authority to do something about it . But it did not do anything. This legislation will enable a government to do something. No one can say that there is not a need for this legislation. There is a demonstrated need for it by events that have already occurred. In 1967, as several speakers on our side of the chamber have pointed out, a referendum to clothe the Commonwealth with powers on land rights was carried. Not all referendums put to the people are carried but this was a distinctive and important referendum. It attracted a 92.7 per cent Yes vote. It attracted support by a majority vote in all States and in all electoral divisions. It was a resounding and overwhelming authority to the Australian Government to move. But it has taken until now for a government to make those moves, and to make those moves after due and adequate consultation. Some honourable senators opposite have argued that the principles of this legislation are wrong. If one looks around this country, most State governments in some form or another have on their statute books legislation which would enable them to move in the ways set out in this Bill. So Opposition senators cannot say that this legislation is wrong when in a majority of States in Australia the principle is already in existence. What this legislation does is to provide a Federal mechanism by which, in the event of special need nationally , the national interests of the country can be protected if the measures open to the State government are not taken up for particular reasons. Therefore, what is being proposed is nothing more than what a number of States in this country already have in the way of powers. It provides the Federal Government with a safety net that is necessary to give voice to its constitutional obligation as carried by the referendum in 1967. I turn now to some of the objections made to the legislation. As I said at the beginning, essentially an ambit objection is being developed for political reasons, aimed not directly at this Bill but at any legislation to advance and protect Aboriginal rights in Australia. That objection is couched in the most emotional terms and we have now heard the bleating dismay and cry of no consultation. I am advised that full and adequate consultation has been undertaken. There may be some people who will object to the decisions made, after the consultations, and demand continuous consultation in order to obstruct any progress and to prevent anything being done. That is always a way of protest . When one's objections have all been listened to and considered, but the Government in the interest of the nation chooses to proceed, a demand of no consultation is a pretence at opposition. As I have said, there has been full and adequate consultation. However, I am dismayed to see that the Australian Mining Industry Council has moved to advertise a need for consultation in an advertisement that appeared in a number of newspapers. The interesting thing about the Mining Industry Council's advertisement is that, if it were sent for examination, it would be proven to be a misleading advertisement, a frankly distorted and misleading advertisement, containing a distortion of the truth. The heading 'A Need for Consultation' denies the fact that the Mining Industry Council has met with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke); Senator Walsh, the Minister for Resources and Energy; and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Clyde Holding; and discussed fully with those three people, the three principal officers concerned with this matter in the Government, all of the matters about which the Mining Industry Council is concerned. One cannot have an argument that there is inadequate consultation when the highest officers in the Government have made themselves available to consult. It is just a contortion of words. Let us go to the advertisement and look at some of the other misleading comments made. The advertisement states that the Bill: could give the Government almost unlimited power to declare an area or object to be of special significance to Aboriginals. I do not find anything in that statement objectionable. Why should not the Commonwealth, in proper circumstances and with proper protections all round, have that power given by 92.7 per cent of votes in the referendum in 1967? It is not the existence of the power that anyone would argue about; it is the way in which the power would be exercised. That is where this advertisement is again misleading. The second point the advertisement states is that the Bill could: Adversely affect landholders without providing them with proper rights for compensation. That is just not true. What the Bill provides, and it is there in black and white for those who choose to read it, is that where a sacred area is to be considered, the Minister, upon receiving a request, will depute someone to make an inquiry and, in making that inquiry, that person will, of course, take into account the views of all of those who have been affected. I do not need to say that. It is in the second reading speech. It is in all of the statements that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has made. It is a clear and very obvious interpretation of what, in fact, the procedure would be. Of course, there is also a provision in the Bill for compensation. This advertisement cannot argue in the terms it does without attracting the label that it is directly misrepresentative. The advertisement makes another point. It states that the Bill could: Apply to large areas, not simply specific sites. That, of course, is an attempt to scaremonger about a massive takeover of all lands in Australia in terms of land rights. It is just not true. We are talking about sacred areas and areas of special influence or objects and artifacts in this legislation. We are talking only about such things. As I have said several times, we are not talking about land rights. The subject of land rights requires further consultation and that is something that will come later. I could advert to a number of other points which are made in this advertisement . The reason I am spending some time on it is that it seems to be the debating script for senators opposite who have not read the Bill but only the advertisement. I recommend that they read the Bill. Last night we heard from Senator Bjelke-Petersen something about people who might unwittingly wander on to Aboriginal areas and disturb Aboriginal sites. Of course, in the advertisement-the script for her speech-there is a reference to that as well. The advertisement says that such people could be subject to heavy penalties. Again, that is just not true. There is a clear provision in the Bill which provides that if a person did not know and can reasonably demonstrate that he did not know, that person has mounted a successful defence. However, what this advertisement and the speakers on the other side have tended to talk about have been the rights of everybody else. That has been the problem in Australia. We have always talked about the rights of everybody else. It is about time we talked about the rights of the Aboriginal people. This Bill tries to protect their heritage by giving them a right to appeal to the Minister who has the power to declare their areas of sacredness be protected. Rather than fall for the emotional claptrap and inherent incipient racism of the campaign that is being mounted, we in this place have a duty to look at the rights of the Aboriginal people and to provide by this legislation relevant protections. I return again to the fundamental proposition: Aboriginal culture is based on the land. If that culture is not protected, Aborigines do not have an identity. This Bill tries to provide a mechanism-I believe a successful one-which will enable their culture, and thus their identity, to be protected. Once their identity and culture are protected they can move with greater dignity in this community and start to deal with the other matters of grave concern to them. I commend this Bill to the Senate. I believe it should be passed. I hope, having seen the list of speakers that will follow me, that we will not hear the scaremongering racist claptrap that has intruded in the speeches of honourable senators on the other side. I hope that by carrying this Bill we can move towards doing something which will dignify the Aboriginal people. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(4.31) —Having listened to Senator Jones, I wish to make this observation: It is no wonder that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) had to interfere to place Senator Reynolds, a relatively new girl, above Senator Jones on the Queensland Senate ticket. It is quite obvious from Senator Jones's contribution that he just did not have the faintest idea of what he was talking about. I wish to say at the outset of my contribution to the debate on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill that we on this side have no qualms about declaring sacred sites, sacred relics or sacred objects. We go along with it; we support it, but we differ from the Government in our attitude to the Bill. It is no good talking about the second reading speech of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) or of what the Minister or the Government intends to do. The legislation is in the form of this Bill and it will be interpreted by some public servants. We disagree with the Government because the Bill clearly takes away a number of rights from graziers and farmers. It is a very draconian piece of legislation. It has terrible implications for graziers, farmers, rural dwellers and miners. The mining industry provides many jobs for Australian people and the Government does not consider them at all. I am happy to say that in Queensland a number of miners support our side because they see that the Australian Labor Party puts barriers in the way of development and does not contribute anything to the growth of this nation by providing jobs. This legislation illustrates my point very well. I want to make a point quite clear because people might misunderstand , having listened to Senator Jones's speech. We have legislation in Queensland to deal with sacred sites and sacred relics-the Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act. It has been enacted for a number of years. I wish to illustrate how this Bill affects people's rights. It gives the Minister total power to interfere and to declare a sacred site. If the Minister does not do so he may nominate a person to do so, and the only qualification his nominee is required to have is a 30c or $2 plastic card with his photo on it. That is the only qualification that person needs. Anyone can write to the Minister regarding the declaration of a sacred site. People do not even have to take the trouble to write to him; they can ring him up and make an application verbally. The Minister has total power to declare sacred sites on some person's property. he could declare a whole farm, a whole valley, a river, a waterhole or a creek as a sacred site and no one would then be allowed to use that site. That is what we are opposing. The Government should appoint a judge, a magistrate or some person who is not biased or politically motivated, someone of whom we can say: 'There is a person appointed by the Government who is unbiased'. Then we would probably be prepared to go somewhere down the track of this legislation with the Government. But the Government does not do that. I take the case of a mining company that has gone through all the precautions, has got every permit and all the things that are needed. It gets out with great expensive machinery, stuck out there on a site 200 or 300 miles from anywhere. What does it do? Someone who might have some intention to hurt the mining company rings up the Minister and says that there is a sacred site there. The Minister can then hold up that mining company for up to 60 days. The Government may think that is fair play, but this side of the Senate does not. What does the mining company do? Sit around and twiddle its thumbs for 60 days, at great expense. If the Australian Labor Party thinks this type of legislation will encourage mining companies to develop the national resources of this country, it has another think coming. Of course they will not do that. The Bill gives no rights to the farmer or grazier. The Minister does not even have to notify a grazier that a sacred site has been declared on his farm or a mining company that a sacred site has been found on its lease. Under the Bill-I am quoting from the Bill, unlike most honourable senators who have gone off on some emotional tangent-all the Minister or his deputy has to do is to publish in the local newspaper an announcement that the site has been declared sacred, stating the reasons. If people want to protect their land or their mining rights they have 14 days in which to make an objection-that is, if someone happens to tell them that their site or their farm has been declared a sacred site. No one even has to tell them. The Minister does not have to say so and his deputy does not have to say so. A site can just be declared a sacred site without anyone having to notify the owner or the lessee. What is wrong with putting in the legislation a provision that the Government has 30 days, 60 days, or something like that, in which to notify a person that a sacred site is being declared on his property? It is just ludicrous that someone can say: 'There is a sacred site on that farm; we do not even have to tell the owners that a sacred site has been declared on their land'. It is another example of what honourable senators opposite do to the rural dwellers of this country. I do not know why they hate them so much. I ask the Senate: What constitutes a sacred site? Under this legislation, as far as I can see it, it is anything that the Minister or his card-carrying deputy thinks is a sacred site. There is no definition of a sacred site. Any person can phone, write or just talk to the Minister. It is no good saying that is not what the Minister intends and that we should look at his second reading speech and at the debate that took place in the other House. The fact is that the legislation is in the form of this Bill. The facts will be interpreted out of this Bill, not out of the Minister's second reading speech. One of my basic objections is that the Minister's deputy or nominee can be heavily politicised. He can be biased. That is what this Bill brings down. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) purports to support all sorts of human rights. I do not know how he can possibly put his name to this legislation. As the first law officer of this nation, he should have had a look at this Bill. It is a terrible travesty against human rights. I for one cannot understand how members of the Labor Party could put their names to it. I know their intentions. They are probably quite honourable, but the fact remains that the legislation completely overrides the human rights of the people in the rural areas of Australia. Senator Chipp —What about Aboriginal rights? Have you thought about them? Senator BOSWELL —Yes, I have. Senator Chipp just came into this chamber. Before I went into my speech I made the proposition that no one objects to sacred sites , objects or relics being declared. This side of the Parliament fully supports it, but we do not support doing it by taking other people's rights away. We then have the question of States' rights. This Government has never concerned itself terribly much with States' rights. But it says in this Bill that there will be consultation. Consultation by this Government means: 'You do it my way or we'll do it for you'. The legislation states that, if the States have legislation, the Commonwealth will implement that legislation providing it is more draconian than the Commonwealth legislation, as is the situation in Victoria. But if the State governments have some sort of sacred sites legislation that will protect the rural dwellers of this nation this Government will completely override it with the Bill that I have in my hand. A person can be fined up to $50,000 and can be gaoled, yet his case has to be heard in camera under the provisions of this legislation. What sort of star chamber attitude is that? These are the sorts of human rights this Government wants to take from the Australian people. No one is saying that the Aboriginals do not have rights. Of course they have rights. But the rights of the rest of the people of Australia should not also be taken away. Clause 24 of the Bill takes the onus of proof and completely reverses it. This is contrary to all the principles of our common law. It reverses the onus of proof for anyone charged with an offence. The Bill reeks of human rights being taken away from one section of the community. The Bill tells me that we are guilty for what someone did to Aboriginals 200 years ago. I am not proud of the way our pioneers treated Aboriginals; I am not proud of the way they treated convicts either. But the fact remains that that happened. It is no good looking back in the past and saying: 'Because something happened 200 years ago we should have a guilt complex . We have to fix this up and we have to compensate people'. We did not treat our convicts terribly well either but let us not go down that track. There is one Australia and there is one Australian people. We all have to live as Australians . I believe that this legislation will promote racial discrimination. This will happen if we take away rights from one group of people and give them to another group of people. We will drive a wedge into the community. That is what this legislation does. It will promote racism. No one in this House wants to see this happen in Australia but that is what will happen if we take one person's human rights away and give them to another person. I believe that this Bill is an embarrassment to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I have asked myself: Why would people who obviously understand the law and obviously stand up for human rights bring in legislation such as this?' I have asked myself: 'Is it a sop to the left wing of the Australian Labor Party'? It could well be. I have asked myself: 'Is it because the Minister wants to get something up for the next election'? I cannot see why anyone would support this type of legislation. I cannot support the Bill. I think it is a shocking piece of legislation. I cannot understand anyone wanting to vote in support of it. Senator Reynolds has just come into the chamber. I would be very interested to hear what she has to say about this legislation. She purports to stand up for the people of north Queensland. She will have to defend this legislation in north Queensland. I can tell her now that she will have to go out and sell what she says today to the rural people, the people who dwell outside the Townsville area and in the rural zones of north Queensland. I hope she can do that. Senator Robert Ray —He has run out of puff. Senator BOSWELL —I am going quite well, thank you. I cannot support the Bill; I think it is a shocking piece of legislation. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland)(4.45) —I am very happy to accept Senator Boswell's challenge. I remind him that in north Queensland 10 per cent of the population is Aboriginal and Islander. I am sure that they will be most interested to hear that Senator Boswell and members of the Opposition are not interested in rights for Aborigines. I am very confused about the way members of the Opposition are handling this debate. I think it is probably because they are confused. Last night we had a concerted attack on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill 1984 by Senator Messner who, apparently, is the newest political hatchetman, similar to Michael Hodgman on the immigration issue. Obviously Senator Messner is being used to stir up racial antagonism on this piece of legislation. Senator Chaney —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. It is thoroughly objectionable to suggest that Senator Messner is stirring up racial antagonism. He made a careful speech; he made a speech which went to the technical aspects of the Bill. That is an offensive statement which should be withdrawn. Senator Grimes —Mr Acting Deputy President, on the point of order, frequently accusations of that type are thrown around this place in debate. Senator Chaney —They should not be. Senator Grimes —Maybe they should not be but plenty of honourable senators on the other side throw that sort of accusation around. I believe it was a reasonable criticism made in the heat of debate. If we take points of order every time anyone makes that sort of criticism in this place we will never get through a debate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! The hour is late and the session has been long and I ask speakers on all sides to concentrate on the Bill . At this moment I will leave it at that. Senator REYNOLDS —Last night Senator Messner mentioned that this was a dangerous Bill, a confrontationist Bill, and that 'it was ludicrous lunacy'. I use those descriptions to back up my previous remarks. Yet earlier this afternoon Senator Chaney acknowledged that this was a significant Bill. Senator Kilgariff also acknowledged that there was need for legislation and that this was well-meaning legislation. Apparently the Opposition is considerably divided as to what its attitude should be to this legislation. The response of critics and some Opposition spokesmen indicates an urgent need for the re-education of some Australians in their own history. Opponents of this legislation fail to acknowledge the reality of the fact that this country built its very foundations by overriding Aboriginal and Islander heritage. Senator Messner, in his enthusiasm to condemn this legislation last night, said that the Government has 'resorted to the shotgun and overkill'. I find it most unfortunate that he opened this debate by saying that. It is tragic irony that the Opposition in opening this debate should condone such an intemperate description on Aboriginal heritage, for it is indeed an historic fact that it is this very same shotgun and overkill mentality which led to more than 20,000 Aborigines being killed defending the heritage that this legislation refers to. Half that number were in Queensland. Now, nearly 200 years later, we sit here debating whether Aboriginal heritage-what remains of it-can be preserved. After 200 years the Liberal and National parties are still not sure whether Aborigines are entitled to some small measure of interim protection. Senator Bjelke-Petersen and others have said that this legislation is being rushed through the Parliament. However, as several speakers have already pointed out, some 17 years ago the Australian people gave the Federal Parliament power to legislate on behalf of Aborigines and Islanders. After 17 years we finally have a piece of interim legislation. Members of the Opposition in this place and the other place dare to talk about legislation being rushed through. Surely only ill-informed or reactionary interests could deny Aborigines some opportunity to salvage what remains of their ancient culture. Criticism of hastily conceived legislation rushed through Federal Parliament has indeed a hollow ring when it is obvious that Aborigines recognise the Heritage Bill as a promise made by the Australian people in 1967. Surely by 1984 it is not asking too much of affluent Australians, including Senator Boswell's graziers and mining interests, particularly given their past treatment of Aborigines and Islanders, to have a little thought for a dispossessed race which seeks some form of justice before our bicentenary. I want to speak particularly about the need for heritage legislation in Queensland. We heard today that there is legislation that protects Aboriginal relics and objects. It is totally inadequate legislation. Queensland has an appalling history of government policy which has overridden the Aborigines' and Torres Strait Islanders' tradition for many years. Any student of Queensland history will be aware of the open confrontation between early settlers and Aborigines and that conflict has persisted into race relations today because of the attitudes of the National Party Government in that State. Last night we heard Senator Bjelke-Petersen talk about consultation. We also heard Senator Kilgariff speak about consultation with Aboriginal people. Particularly in relation to Senator Bjelke-Petersen's reference to this very important consultation, which she apparently supports, I will quote from a document from a group of concerned Palm Island citizens about a visit by the State Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs, Mr Bob Katter Jnr, to Palm Island. It states: On Friday, 16th March, Mr. Bob Katter, Jnr met with us in the Alf Palmer Memorial Hall. We would like to go over the things Mr Katter told us. He started off by saying that he can't tell us what is in this new legislation- that is, the new community services legislation- It was drawn up before the Minister consulted with us . . . That is the sort of consultation that takes place in Queensland. As I have said before in this place, I have some sympathy with Mr Katter Jnr because I understand that his intentions were honourable and he wished to consult Aboriginal and Islander people in his State. However, unfortunately, he is blessed-if that is the word for it-with a very paternalistic departmental head, about whom Senator Jones spoke earlier in the debate. Queensland Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders presently dispute the recent community services legislation which perpetuates a number of injustices, discriminating against their people. The Minister proposes certain amendments, but I guess those amendments will be overridden by Mr Killoran, assuming Mr Katter is still Minister when the Parliament resumes in August. The Queensland Government will not listen to the views of 29 Aboriginal and Islander communities who met on Palm Island recently and totally rejected that legislation. Yet we have Senator Bjelke-Petersen, the Premier's wife, talking to us about consultation. I tabled recently in this place a document setting out the statement of concern of the Aboriginal and Island people from all over Queensland. If the Queensland Government will not take any notice of Aboriginal and Island people in that State, not even the 16 Torres Strait Island chairman, it is obvious that that Government cannot be trusted to implement protective heritage legislation. The Queensland Government has not even got any of its own heritage legislation to protect buildings and sites. It has been promised for years, usually around election time. But still we see buildings bulldozed. It is obvious that the Queensland Government is not interested in heritage of any kind . Aboriginal heritage would have even less chance of recognition by a State government more concerned with tearing down National Trust buildings. Queensland Aborigines and Islanders therefore need their sacred sites and objects to be protected under Commonwealth legislation because there is no equivalent protection under State law, not is it likely to exist under the present State Government. If Senator Bjelke-Petersen and Senator Boswell are so concerned about this heritage legislation I suggest they go back to Queensland- they obviously both have the ear of the Queensland Premier-and suggest that he draft his own heritage legislation. Senator Boswell —They have got the legislation. Senator REYNOLDS —They have not got heritage legislation. The Queensland Premier , Senator Boswell and Senator Bjelke-Petersen are obviously going to perform and posture about States' rights and individual freedoms, ignoring once again the double standards that they support in regard to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. They do not seem to be concerned about individual freedoms when it comes to foreign interests in that State. Whenever the question of legislation affecting Aborigines and Islanders is raised, the Queensland Premier is voluble in his hysterical reactions about apartheid, rights for whites and land grabs. Senator Boswell talks about rights for graziers and rights for mining companies . I think that the graziers and mining companies are doing very well in Queensland, thank you. I am particularly concerned-obviously unlike Senator Boswell-about Queensland. I will quote some facts that are generally not known by Queenslanders when they are stirred up about land rights and heritage legislation in that State. In Queensland Aboriginal reserve land comprises less than 2 per cent of the State. I repeat that: Less than 2 per cent of the State is Aboriginal reserve land. These reserves date back to the early twentieth century and by and large occupy land which is remote and which was unattractive to early settlers. While the Queensland Premier strenuously opposes Aboriginal freehold he has enthusiastically welcomed overseas land speculators. Of course, that is different! The 1982 report of the Foreign Investment Review Board indicates that in Queensland 3.2 million hectares, or an area twice the size of Wales in the United Kingdom, has been sold to overseas buyers in just six years. Compare that with Aboriginal land, which totals just 2.4 million hectares. If Senator Boswell can do his sums he will see that Aboriginal land in Queensland is considerably less than the land that has been sold off to foreign investors. In fact one Brazilian investor owns the 'Lawn Hill' station which alone covers one million hectares. The supportive attitude of the Queensland Government to Japanese investors is well known. The Premier's own family benefited by selling bits of Queensland to Japanese speculators, yet he and his Government and National Party of Australia representatives in this place dare to question the rights of Aborigines and Islanders to protect their sites of significance. That attitude indicates that the National Party in Queensland has considerable double standards. Anybody who has any doubt about the need for heritage legislation in Queensland need only read the series entitled The Mapoon Story according to The Invaders. It should be recommended reading for Senator Boswell and Senator Bjelke-Petersen before they travel around western Queensland during the recess. The Mapoon Story according to The Invaders traces the events of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s when mining interests led to the dispossession of Aboriginal reserve land on Cape York. This account clearly indicates just how negligent the Queensland Government was in protecting traditional Aboriginal land. I will summarise some of the points. The Comalco Bill of 1957 gave the company over 2,000 square miles of Aboriginal reserve land on the west coast of Cape York and nearly 2,000 square miles on the west coast. Again the land was owned by Aborigines although not protected as a reserve. Nothing is protected for Aborigines in Queensland. Comalco was also given all cattle, grazing, timber, water and farming rights over the mining lease with a right to perpetual leases over the area used for the requirements of the mining town. Government aid was also given to cover the cost of building the harbour and some mining town facilities. It amounted to #8. 5m. Comalco paid under $5 a week for its 1,370 square mile cattle station. No compensation was paid to the Aboriginal owners of that land. Let us look at what happened in 1965. Under the Alcan Act the Government gave Alcan a mining lease over 536 square miles of the Mapoon Aborigines land to hold until 2070 with all the same rights and concessions obtained by Comalco. In the debate on the Bill awarding Alcan the Aboriginal reserve land, Aboriginal rights were not so much as mentioned. I suppose, like now, members of the National Party were not aware of what Aboriginal rights meant. Why should they be mentioned? The Mapoon people were evicted from their homes and from tribal land by armed police in 1963-64. I point out to Senator Boswell, whom I note has now left the chamber, that we are not talking about what happened 200 years ago. At that time homes were burnt to the ground. That was sanctioned by the National Party in Queensland. Finally, the Aurukun Associates Act of 1975 gave away nearly 735 square miles of Aurukun Aboriginal land, again without compensation. The Queensland Government does not believe in compensation for Aborigines. It only believes in assisting overseas investors. The legislation was rushed through the Queensland Parliament despite opposition from the Aurukun people and from church mission authorities. I notice that quite often in debates in this place certain people are very keen to mention their Christian attitudes. Yet it seems that when we discuss important measures affecting Aborigines and Islanders we are not as concerned to mention Christian views. I am extremely disappointed in the Oppositions' contribution to the debate today and last night. There have been conflicting views, empty arguments, distortions and a total lack of understanding of the Aboriginal experience. Aborigines in this country are essentially displaced persons in their own country. All this legislation attempts to do is to start to right a wrong and to start to recognise Aboriginal and Islander heritage. In an interjection last night, Senator MacGibbon indicated his attitude to Aboriginal heritage when he said to Senator Coleman: We have heard a diatribe about Noonkanbah and all sorts of irrelevancies. I suppose it is not surprising that Senator MacGibbon should regard Aboriginal heritage as irrelevant. After all, it was the Queensland Liberal Party that regarded former Senator Bonner as irrelevant to the Australian Parliament. I would have expected this evening a reasonable, bipartisan approach to this debate. This issue, like immigration, is too important to be politicised by the Opposition in the irresponsible and confused way that we have heard this evening . I know that on the Opposition benches there are some people who have a commendable record and a genuine regard for Aboriginal issues. I know that some members of the Opposition are sensitive, and I am sure that many of them have been highly embarrassed by the comments of their so called colleagues. I hope that, for the good of race relations in this country, those genuine people on the Opposition benches will begin a re-education campaign of their colleagues so that this Parliament can start to see greater unity of purpose in overcoming the effects of 200 years of European dominance and arrogance. I hope we can see some change at least by the bicentenary. I am very pleased to support this historic legislation. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(5.06) —The Senate is debating the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill 1984. Let me say at the outset that we in the Liberal Party and the National Party have no quarrel with the purposes of the Bill. The purposes are defined on page 3, clause 4. For the benefit of the Senate I will read the clause which states: Purposes of Act The purposes of this Act are the preservation and protection from injury or desecration of areas and objects in Australia and in Australian waters, being areas and objects that are of particular significance to Aboriginals in accordance with Aboriginal tradition. We support, and have always supported, the preservation and protection from injury of all aspects of Aboriginal society and culture. Aboriginal objects, their remains and relics, and places of spiritual significance, have all been looked after by the Liberal-National parties at a federal level, because it is inherent in our philosophy and in our practice. We believe in the importance in society of both the individual and minority groups. We believe in the importance of minority groups and the individual over the State and over the agents of the State. We believe in their personal freedoms and the right to their individual religious and cultural practices. That is why Australia is a free society today. It is a consequence of the 62-odd years that the Liberal Party has governed Australia since Federation, as against the 21-odd years that the Australian Labor Party has been in government. Our record of government attests to our concern for minority groups and for all that is associated with their cultural values. That is why we would be very happy to support this Bill if it were drafted in such a way that it could fulfil the noble purposes that are enshrined in clause 4. Alas, it falls very far short of those ideals. It falls short in a dangerous way, and in a way that we simply cannot support. What is more, we cannot even see a way of modifying it by way of amendments to make it workable. Earlier speakers on this side of the Senate have drawn attention to some of the principal defects of the Bill. Since time is short, I will not go through all the problems of the Bill, but I wish to draw attention to a few things that concern me, a few things that, in the pursuit of the protection of Aboriginal culture, worry me more than a little. I think the principal point is that this Bill gives very great powers to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to intercede in the attaining of the goals contained in the legislation. The legislation does not clearly define where those great powers to intercede will be used. The Bill provides very great penalties for breaches of the Act and, just as it does not clearly define where the Minister can act, it does not clearly define on what grounds those great penalties can be levied. Beyond that, we have an emergency clause in the Bill. It is rather hard to see the need for emergency powers. They really give not only the Minister but also any of his designated agents the right of enormous immediate action. The powers that are granted there are without restraint. It is most unusual for such powers to prevail in the legislative pattern that has existed in Australia since Federation. I mention the offences and penalties clause, clause 22 of the Bill. The Bill is concerned with two divisions, Aboriginal areas or sites and Aboriginal objects. There is a $10,000 fine or a five year period of imprisonment for offences committed by individuals against Aboriginal areas. The penalty for bodies corporate is $50,000. The penalty for an offence against Aboriginal objects committed by a person is $5,000 or two years imprisonment. If the offence has been committed by a body corporate, the penalty is $25,000. I believe that laws must have penalties that deter. If we have minor penalties, we are wasting our time because people will breach them at will. But I just wonder whether these penalties are not draconian if we consider the rest of Australia. Senator Cook —They are maximums. Senator MacGIBBON —That is true; they are maximums, but by the same token if somebody desecrates a grave in a city in some States, the penalty is only $40 or three months gaol. I am conscious of a very great disparity between other penalties and the penalties provided for in this Bill. The Bill is concerned with both areas and relics. A couple of specific points in relation to areas or territorial claims concern me greatly. The Bill fails to relate how we are to define an Aboriginal area. It does not outline what methods will be used to define the significance of a nominated site. The Bill gives no consideration at all to the vast difference between areas which are of religious significance-that is, genuine sacred sites-and those that are of traditional significance. The Bill has no method of consultation with the traditional owners of the area. In the absence of that, one is entitled to ask to what authority the Minister will refer. We know full well the incompleteness of the ethnic history of this country. In fact, most of that history is undiscoverable at this point. Conversely, the civil rights of property owners at present are not protected in any way. They can be denied access to or use of their own land. In that sense, the Minister is given extraordinary powers over the property rights of all Australian citizens. In short, this Bill is totally confused as a consequence of its very bad drafting. It has draconian powers and powers that are at such a level that they are more compatible with the martial law powers of a banana republic than with Australia. Our argument is that there is an infinitely more fair, just and more effective way to legislate for the Aboriginal culture than what is embodied in this Bill. Over and above everything else, this is bad legislation because it is sectional legislation. It sets one section of the Australian community against another. There is no question at all that the section of the community most desperately in need is frequently the Aboriginal community. We all want to help that community. There is no question at all of the corporate will in Australia to help, but most of us want to help on the grounds of humanity. The basis of help should be on the basis of need, not on the basis of race or religion. We want to help Aboriginals because they are fellow Australians. This Bill does not do that . It is a sectional Bill. It is ill-conceived, ill-drafted and totally unworkable. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(5.15) —The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill 1984 is a small piece of legislation of 14 pages containing only 32 clauses. As a matter of fact it is unambiguous in intention and simple in application. Its intention is to create uniform de facto land rights and the effect of its application will be, in a practical sense, to place in the hands of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs almost unfettered power to implement unilaterally the setting aside of land exclusively for the use and benefit of Aboriginal Australians. The legislation overrides any and all State legislation and it is inhibited in its effect only by any obligation of Australia under international law, including obligations under any agreements between Australia and other countries; in other words, external treaties of the type which made the Tasmanian dams case and the sex discrimination legislation possible. Such treaties are likely to strengthen, not weaken, this legislation. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) tells us in his second reading speech: This Bill is the first part of a legislative scheme which this Government intends to enact to ensure the preservation and protection of the cultural heritage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. He goes on: That scheme will give the Commonwealth Government a legislative framework in which to exercise the constitutional power and responsibility clearly given to the Commonwealth by the overwhelming majority of Australians in the 1967 referendum. This Government has shown itself willing to take on that responsibility and to act seriously in exercising it. The Bill before the House is further evidence of the Government's acceptance of that responsibility. The Bill provides for de facto land rights to the extent that it is holding position, if I might use the pun, until after the next Federal election in the event that Australia is unfortunate enough to be visited for a second occasion by a Labor government. To again quote Mr Holding: Model land rights legislation is being prepared in consultation with Aboriginals throughout Australia. In the same way, the Bill before the House today has been prepared in response to requests from Aboriginal people and following consultation with them. This is the first step by the Federal Government to take unto itself all questions of land rights in Australia. This should come as no surprise because Mr Holding has asserted that position before. It is totally compatible with the State Labor Party policy in Western Australia. The wording of the two policies is almost identical. I repeat the words used by the Minister in his second reading speech: That scheme will give the Commonwealth Government a legislative framework in which to exercise the constitutional power and responsibility clearly given to the Commonwealth by the overwhelming majority of Australians in the 1967 referendum. I remind the Senate of what the Yes case said in 1967: It will make it possible for the Commonwealth Parliament to make special laws for the people of the Aboriginal race, wherever they may live, if the Parliament considers it necessary. That is unexceptionable. It goes on: This would not mean that the States would automatically lose their existing powers. What is intended is that the National Parliament would make laws, if it thought fit, relating to Aboriginals-as it can about many other matters on which the States also have power to legislate. The Commonwealth object will be to co- operate with the States to ensure that together we act in the best interests of the Aboriginal people of Australia. Yet Mr Holding is now saying-and I quote him again: It is the case that the Commonwealth Government takes the firm view that it has a primary constitutional responsibility in the field of Aboriginal affairs. Despite some progress in individual States, none is in a position which satisfies completely our policy objectives. I ask: Where is the compatibility between what the referendum proposal of 1967 said and what is now being asserted by Mr Holding? There is absolutely none. Of course, Mr Holding is using the recent High Court of Australia decisions, which are quite unrelated to the spirit and the intention of the referendum, to impose his own rather diabolical will upon the great majority of Australian people against their will. I put it to the Senate that if the same referendum question as was put in 1967 were again committed to the Australian electorate it would without question be ignominiously defeated. Yet Mr Holding dares tell us that he is using the 1967 referendum as his imprimatur. What deceit, what contempt, what disregard for the truth of the matter and what a distortion of the real facts! The Bill will have the effect of providing for the laws, customs, religions and traditions of Aboriginals to override, suspend and subjugate the intrinsic rights under civil and common law of all other Australians. Sadly, and so very tragically, this legislation is the first major step by this Federal Labor Government of dividing our community, of creating bitterness, anger and frustration, not only on the part of white Australians but also on the part of Aboriginal Australians. Ironically, I do not believe that this legislation has the support of the great majority of Aboriginal Australians any more than the National Aboriginal Conference has their support. If anybody questions that proposition I suggest he read the voluminous evidence given to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs when it inquired into a makarrata. Most of the Aboriginal communities which members of the Committee visited seemed more intent on criticising and condemning the NAC than they did discussing the proposed makarrata because the NAC was quite divorced and removed from their wishes, aspirations, desires and ambitions. Mr Holding tells us with a certain sense of contempt and impertinence that State governments and the mining and pastoral industries have been given an opportunity to comment on the Bill and then proceeds to acknowledge that there have been criticisms of the time period in which comments were sought. In answering a question in the House of Representatives on 7 May Mr Holding rejected industry calls for more consultation. In fact, he showed impatience with industry over the issue. He said: I find it extraordinary that the highly paid executives of mining companies, who are trained to make large and important decisions, find that they need a great deal more time to make a decision about interim emergency legislation containing a sunset clause than do the Aboriginal people of Australia. He conveniently ignores the fact that this legislation is probably the most crucial ever to face the mining industry. The industry was not consulted, of course, prior to instructions being given for the Bill to be drafted. I quote the Minister's own words: . . . the Bill before the House today has been prepared in response to requests from Aboriginal people and following consultation with them. He said that they were instrumental in its preparation. He was talking there about the NAC and a small group of Aboriginal lawyers; not the wider Aboriginal community of Australia who I believe will have no truck with this legislation. The truth of the matter is that consultation was conducted in a state of fait accompli as far as industry is concerned. As the Minister so proudly boasts in his second reading speech, in an exclusive sense: . . . the Bill . . . has been prepared in response to requests from Aboriginal people and following consultation with them. Honourable senators will note that the statement is exclusive and absolute. The Bill was prepared without consultation with industry or commerce or 98 per cent of the Australian population. It was prepared without consideration of their views, their concerns and their contemplations. I think that is a disgusting disregard of the vast majority of people not the least being those who will be directly financially and socially disadvantaged by this draconian and sectarian legislation. At least one has on this occasion to give the Minister some credit for his honesty. Further he told us in his second reading speech: It is an interim measure which will be replaced by more comprehensive legislation dealing with Aboriginal land rights and heritage protection. He enforced that threat by saying: As evidence of the Government's intention to legislate more comprehensively, the Bill before the House is expressed to have effect for no more than two years from the date of its commencement. The only thing he did not say was that this Bill, even in its fullest and most fearful reality, is a watered down version of that which was first submitted to Cabinet. Of course his more pragmatic and perhaps less politically myopic colleagues in Caucus rolled him because of the votes it would have cost the Government at the next election. The decision was taken to leave out other even more unpopular provisions proposed by the Minister and the NAC and to incorporate them in legislation after the next election in the event that a Labor Government is returned to office. The Bill is described as having two main purposes: 'To preserve and protect areas in Australia and Australian waters which are of particular significance to Aboriginals or Islanders in accordance with their traditions; and to preserve and protect objects, including Aboriginal and Islander human remains, which are of particular significance to Aboriginals or Islanders in accordance with their traditions'. If the legislation had, with sensible, proper and practical definitions, been drafted in a more suitable way, one could describe it as having fine ideals. Of course Western Australia has its own heritage legislation which existed during the period of the Liberal Government and in fact was amended and improved. To begin to understand the extent and reach of this legislation it is useful to look first at the definitions. By definition, the area to be included in this legislation applies to all land within Australia and its external territories, the territorial sea of Australia and the territorial sea of our external territories and of course the sea and the continental shelf of Australia. There are no exclusions. All land and sea is included, whatever its tenure, irrespective of what title is held and by whom, and naturally includes pastoral, farming, mining, rural, urban and metropolitan land. What is the definition of ' significant area'? It means an area of land in Australia or in or beneath Australian waters, an area of water in Australia or an area of Australian waters being an area of particular significance to Aboriginals in accordance with Aboriginal tradition. Having learnt that 'significant Aboriginal area' includes all land and water without exclusion over which Australia has jurisdiction, we look to see what 'Aboriginal tradition' means. We are told by the Bill that it means: . . . the body of traditions, observances, customs and beliefs of Aboriginals generally or of a particular community or group of Aboriginals, and includes any such traditions, observances, customs or beliefs relating to particular persons, areas, objects or relationships. That definition is so wide that it encompasses anything that an Aboriginal has ever done, for whatever reason and at whatever time. It is absolutely absurd. Like all cultures, the Aboriginal culture, in every sense of the word, is dynamic, evolutionary and far from understood. Many of the preconceived notions of even the more basic fabric of their structure have now been found to be incorrect and the fixed views of earlier anthropologists are more and more questioned. Dr Gumbar, a highly proclaimed anthropologist who was recently awarded his doctorate in anthropology from the Sorbonne University in Paris for his thesis 'Neither Justice nor Reason', has called into question the validity of research carried out by Professor Radcliffe-Brown, long revered as the founding father of British anthropology whose theory was that before white invasion Aboriginal society was composed of small groups, or hordes, whose membership was determined by patrilineal descent. Professor Radcliffe-Brown's treatises on the subject earned him fame and became the basis for further anthropological studies, and, eventually in Australia, the basis for land claims . In other words, the very premise of land rights claims of the Northern Territory enshrined in the Northern Territory land rights legislation has been found, based on his proposition, to be wrong. As Dr Gumbar says: Anthropologists are really quite a cloistered bunch. They are sometimes not amenable to new ideas. The reason I raise these matters of conflict is to demonstrate the absurdity of providing 'Aboriginal tradition' with such a wide definition as to allow every real and perceived notion of the ordinary functioning of the pre-1788 Aboriginal life- style to be embraced when some of these rather quaint notions are the conceived notions of poor, incompetent anthropological assumptions. I quote Lesley Maynard, area anthropologist for the northern region of the National Parks and Wildlife Service in New South Wales. She gives an example from the Pilbara region of Western Australia: I have been doing some work on prehistoric rock engravings at waterholes. There are also artefacts scattered and these cover the general range of domestic occupation and even more interesting there are smooth abraded patches on the same outcrops as the engravings and these have been used for grinding seeds. As if people were carrying out very, very domestic behaviour. It's undoubtedly women who were grinding the seeds and here you have these engravings around the periphery-this is a little contradictory to a general tendency to regard rock art as religious, set aside, sacred. If there is rock art there is goodness, it must be a sacred site, a special place, a set aside place. She concludes: And I think that would indicate something about the role of rock art in the prehistoric culture that made it. Pat Vinycombe of the University of Western Australia stated: Its important to stress that not all Aboriginal art, now or long ago, is necessarily sacred. As Lesley Maynard has found sometimes pictures have been found right next to living sites and seem to be part of everyday life, not hidden away in secret or sacred places. He goes on to say: The accent on the religious aspects of Aboriginal art was part of the earlier notion that Aborigines- the word is used in the correct sense, the noun, for a change- were a relic people, their lives ruled by, in the words used in those days, sorcery and superstition. In this sense by playing up the mystical aspects of all art, Aboriginal cultures were distanced from European rationalism. I labour this question of the distinction drawn by the various anthropologists and archeologists of the notions of what is mystic, sacred, religious or simply a drawing, doodling or evidence of a past presence to show not only how embracing the definition is, but also the wide interpretation by many would-be experts as to what represents Aboriginal tradition within the meaning of this Bill. One could go on for hours giving examples and exploding myths of what in the past or perhaps even in contemporary terms has been suddenly found to be sacred for the sake of convenience. There are countless documented cases where those myths have been exploded. Senator Peter Baume —You would acknowledge that there are some sacred sites, wouldn't you? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE — Absolutely; without question. I acknowledge that there is a vast number of genuine sacred sites without question. This Bill's definition, with enough diligence, has the capacity to cause the setting aside of literally millions of sites and enormous parts of Australia from all but Aboriginal Australians. It has been said before in this debate that the Museum of Western Australia can identify over 750,000 sites. I think that is one for every three hectares in Western Australia. This land will be denied to many white people. They will be denied access not only to their own land for commercial or economic purposes but also to many parts of Australia for pleasure and leisure purposes. The definition clearly is purposely all-embracing so as to include not only areas which have no physical evidence of significance but also all areas which have any signs of a previous Aboriginal presence. Given the Minister's committed views on these matters and those of his advisers , the National Aboriginal Conference and so many anthropologists that he is likely to surround himself with in terms of consultation, I have no doubt that vast areas of Australia will be annexed from most Australians. It ought to be remembered that the areas which may be proclaimed by the Minister have no limits ; they can be of any size. I well remember the Noonkanbah case that was referred to by Senator Cook, except I have a different memory of it. Unfortunately, time prevents me from going through the differences. I remember how the Amax Mining Company-we agree on that, Senator Cook-sought through consultation with the real traditional land occupiers to drill an exploratory oil well under a mining tenement upon a pastoral lease which had been held in white hands for over 100 years but had recently been purchased with taxpayers' money for an Aboriginal group under the Western Australian Land Act for the purpose of pastoral pursuits . That station originally had contained upon it one particular significant sacred site identified as 'P' Hill and recorded as such since 1976, if my memory sequence serves me correctly. Without going through the whole sequence of events, in a matter of months that small site radiated out as an area of influence to sit perfectly and compatibly on the boundaries of that station. An area of 400,000 hectares of land suddenly took on a whole new dimension, a whole new relevance, for the Aboriginal community. Originally when Amax wanted to drill some miles from 'P' Hill that was acceptable. Every time it moved its drill another sacred site was found. Of course, what happened was that the original traditional owners were removed and Dicky Skinner and the de facto owners came along, distorted the whole debate and debased the whole matter. Under Mr Holding's definition, that station could become a declared area-not because the real traditional owners sought such a declaration, but because of an application by an Aboriginal who has no inherent relationship with the land. Clearly, that is the situation that could occur right now, at the Argyle diamond mine, where an arrangement and a contract has been entered into between the traditional landowners and Conzinc Riotinto of Australia Ltd. In that area there is a sacred site called the Barramundi Sacred Site-right on top of the main pipe . An agreement has been entered into between those two parties. But if the Kimberley Land Council, which never wanted that operation, which never approved the agreement and which refused to give legal advice to the Aboriginal community group, now made application, we would find that that whole operation could be closed down and the land could be set aside by way of declaration, notwithstanding the fact that the traditional landowners had entered into, knowingly and willingly, a legal agreement with the mining company. Clearly, the areas of declaration will not be small but will, under the definition, by any standard, embrace enormous tracts of land. The applications need not be made in writing but may be made orally-by a phone call. They need not be made by Aboriginals or Aboriginal groups who have any inherent or intrinsic relationship with the land the subject of the application. They may be made by any Aboriginal, any Aboriginal group, or by anyone else on their behalf. The application could come from someone with absolutely no relationship whatsoever with the land in question. Senator Kilgariff —Or the people who live off them. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Or the people who live on the land. Senator Kilgariff —Live off them. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —That is right. When considering an application for an area to be set aside as a declared area, the Minister is not required to notify the owner of the land of the application. In fact, the Minister is not even compelled, after setting aside the declared land, to notify persons likely to be affected by the declaration. The Government is not compelled, upon setting aside land, to compensate any landowner or any other person or any company who has previously had title over the land. The basis upon which a Minister will make a declaration in respect of land will be if an area or object is or is likely to be injured or desecrated and, in the case of an area, if it is to be used or treated in a manner inconsistent with Aboriginal tradition; secondly, if by reason of anything done in, on or near the area, the use or significance of the area in accordance with Aboriginal tradition is adversely affected; or, thirdly, if passage through or over, or entry upon, the area by any person occurs in a manner inconsistent with Aboriginal tradition. Recalling the definition of 'Aboriginal tradition', as we must, in the case of an object, the basis is if it is used or treated in a manner inconsistent with Aboriginal tradition. It ought to be remembered that for the purposes of this Act an area or object shall be taken to be under threat of injury or desecration if it is, or is likely to be, influenced or desecreated . When one recalls the definition of 'Aboriginal tradition', it is obvious that any such declared land will be, to all intents and purposes, out of bounds, even of entry, to all white Australians. With the exception of one House of the Parliament disallowing a declaration-a highly unlikely proposition-there is no right of appeal from the Minister's decision. An emergency declaration may be granted by authorised officers who have been so designated by the Minister in writing. They are not required to have any qualifications at all, other than that the Minister shall cause to be issued to each authorised officer an identity card in the prescribed form containing a photograph of the officer, who is required to produce his identity card for inspection where possible. It almost sounds like Matt Dillon and a posse going out on a vigilante exercise somewhere-just give them a badge and they are off, and they have the authority. The legislation makes no automatic provision for the people directly affected by the declaration to object, to argue their case, or to receive compensation. In many cases, just the entry on to declared land will constitute an offence. The penalties for such a breach are as follows: (a) If the person is a natural person-by a fine not exceeding $10,000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 5 years . . . (b) if the person is a body corporate-by a fine not exceeding $50,000. In the case of significant Aboriginal objects, the penalty is a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years, or both; or if the person is a body corporate, a fine not exceeding $25,000. It is not without significance that in Western Australia the desecration of a church carries a maximum penalty of $500 or six months imprisonment. Senator Macklin —It does not here. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Well, with respect, I am worried about Western Australia. I represent Western Australia. Senator Macklin —That was a Liberal law. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —In Western Australia we have been afflicted with the disease of a socialist government for the last 18 months, and nothing has changed. The penalty for the desecration of a grave is $40 or three months imprisonment. Draftsmen and governments in setting down penalties of course look to comparable penalties for similar offences elsewhere. We can assume only that the Labor Government has taken the view that desecration of Aboriginal symbols of religious significance or Aboriginal graves is much more serious than a similar offence to a non-Aboriginal religious symbol or grave. Finally I refer to clause 25 which rests responsibility for acts of servants and agents on a body corporate. Clause 25 (1) is a reflection of the general law provisions between master and servant. However, I would have thought it totally inappropriate for legislation of this nature. For instance, if an agent or employer operating for a mining company in an isolated part of Australia acts in defiance of specific instructions to the contrary that unlawful act is irrevocably and unassailably imputed to the body corporate. Clause 25 (2) is perhaps even more draconian. It reads: Any conduct engaged in on behalf of a body corporate by a member of the governing body, director, servant or agent of the body corporate, or by any other person at the direction or with the consent or agreement (whether expressed or implied) of one of the first-mentioned persons, shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to have been engaged in also by the body corporate . The effect of that provision is that if in a remote part of Australia an employee of a mining company, acting in defiance of specific instructions to the contrary, incites an independent contractor-quite unconnected with the company other than on a contractual basis-to a wrongful act the corporation is defined to have committed an offence. In fact, as I understand it, the offence need only be undertaken in the presence of an employee by someone quite unrelated to the corporation. The corporation is then also deemed to have committed an offence. Many of us on this side of the Parliament who have worked closely with Aboriginals and lived with them in many ways, understand their needs, their wishes, their aspirations and their desires. In my view, this legislation is in no way a reflection of the needs or wishes of the wider community. I do not believe the legislation has the imprimatur or the support of the great majority of Aboriginals within the community. I apologise to Senator Grimes for not showing him the document which I wish to have incorporated, which is a short summary of events at Noonkanbah and which is in contradiction of the statement by Senator Cook. I seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- THE DRILLING AT NOONKANBAH A Report to Parliament by the Premier of Western AustraliaHon. Sir Charles Court K.C.M.G, O.B.E., M.L.A. THE ISSUE The time has come to report to Parliament, as promised, on the drilling of an exploratory petroleum well at Noonkanbah. In making this report, I propose to show why and how the Government became involved. I also propose to discuss a number of key aspects of that involvement. The Government became involved for five main reasons: Firstly, because the lawful right to explore on Noonkanbah was unlawfully obstructed. Secondly, because the search for petroleum was and is of national importance, and the national interest demands that it must not be unreasonably obstructed. Thirdly, because obstruction at Noonkanbah was clearly intended to become a precedent for further obstruction over vast areas of the State that would have gravely disrupted essential exploration, as well as denying many people their lawful rights. Fourthly, because the obstruction was carried out with the clear intention of challenging, and even replacing, the lawful authority of elected government. Finally, because the community of Western Australia clearly wanted lawful order maintained on an even-handed basis, without privilege for any-on grounds of race , or for any other reason. At all times during this episode, the rights of all citizens were given equal respect and protection by the Government-including those of the Aboriginal community at Noonkanbah. At no time were the lawful rights of anyone violated by the Government or by explorers. But, over and over again, the right of the Aboriginal community at Noonkanbah to live in peace was violated by activists- Firstly, by inciting the Aborigines to physically obstruct explorers, contrary to law, and contrary to their own best interests. Secondly, by bringing onto Noonkanbah pastoral station large numbers of Aborigines from elsewhere to reinforce obstruction. Thirdly, by marshalling members of the community and others to stage demonstrations which were organised to create an impression for visiting media. When the activism failed to prevent the drilling from getting under way, and failed to stop it from proceeding, the activism slowly subsided. And since the activism has subsided, there has been no disturbance caused on account of the drilling because the activists have given up causing a disturbance. The drilling, of itself, causes no disturbance to the life of the community at all. Honourable Members need to hold in their minds the true position concerning the physical relationship of the drill to the community. The drill location is as separated from the Noonkanbah community as Parliament House is from Inglewood. Even if it were as close as Hay Street, it would create very little disturbance . There is the sound of drive motors, and the sound of occasional vehicles arriving and departing. These sounds do not prevent drillers, right on the drill site, from getting their daily rest, and-at close quarters-represent little more than the sound of heavy traffic experienced by residents living on busy suburban streets in Perth. But, when those sounds are as far away as Inglewood, and when there are no other sounds in between, one must concede that the element of disturbance is so small as to be negligible. To this, one must add the established fact that explorers were under the control of strict requirements as to their behaviour. They were not permitted to have contact with the aboriginal community, except through any representative chosen by that community. Despite this arbitrary ban on normal contact, they were also required to bring no liquor on site, and no firearms. Again, the potential for disturbance was as minimal as the actual disturbance. I therefore come back to the activists who were the real cause of the disturbance on Noonkanbah. They realised they had no legitimate grounds for challenging lawful authority or for obstructing the rights of others-so they invented reasons for doing what they did. They made the false claim that the drilling violated sacred sites. They made this claim repeatedly for the sole purpose of justifying their unwarranted and unlawful actions. I therefore draw the attention of Honourable Members to three more important basic facts: Firstly, sacred sites have not been violated. Secondly, the nearest recognised sacred site is 1.25 kilometres from the drill location. Thirdly, the Government and the explorers have consistently recognised and respected the genuine sacred sites on Noonkanbah. Despite these indisputable facts, the mythology of sacred sites violation was propagated in a virulent fashion. The way it was done brought strongly to mind the dictum of Adolf Hitler that '' the bigger the lie, the more easily it is believed''. Without question, the lie of sacred site violations was not only a big lie. It was also the base of a big propaganda campaign to spread the lie around Australia and around the world. That lie has certainly damaged the well-deserved good name of this State and of Australia. And because of that lie, and because of the damage it caused, we experienced a great deal of pressure from time to time to give ground to the activists so that the damage done by that lie could be abated. However, the State Government looked beyond the lie and its substantial damage to the even greater damage that would be done to Western Australia and Australia if pressure group power was seen to have destroyed the protection of individual rights on an even-handed basis by lawful order under elected government. For these reasons, neither the lie, nor the obstruction which it sought to justify, nor the enormous public pressure brought to bear in support of it-were allowed to intimidate the Government or influence the Government against doing its duty. Let us now consider both the attitude and the actions of the Government in doing its duty. THE PHILOSOPHY OF PERSUASION In doing its duty, the Government recognised the importance of trying to achieve respect for equal rights and for lawful order by persuasion, rather than by force. The need for a tolerant approach-even though the issues were grave-was influenced by the long-established precedent of giving special consideration to relations with Aboriginal communities. The need for such consideration did not exist in respect of certain union executives who became involved through the organisation of obstruction on roads and elsewhere, and through threats of black bans against individuals and firms. This undesirable behaviour could not be justified on any grounds, nor could there be any excuse raised in defence of those involved. The Government's special efforts at persuasion were therefore directed towards those who deserved it, namely the Aboriginal community at Noonkanbah. At first, the Government stood back from the issue in the belief that, when the first obstruction of explorers occurred, the matter would be resolved by persuasion directly between the parties concerned. The Government's expectation of a peaceful settlement through such a process was based on past experience of the natural good sense of the vast majority of Aborigines. But, over a period, it became clear that this natural good sense was not going to prevail at Noonkanbah, and that other influences imposed on the community would take over their will in this matter. As a consequence, the explorers were both obstructed and intimidated on location. Both the explorers and the Government were told that White law would not be recognised and that Black law would take its place. A similar attitude was taken by union executives seeking to reinforce the stand taken on the station through threats of union black bans. They declared, in effect, that ''union law'' was superior to the laws of our society, and must be obeyed first. As time went by, it became clearer and clearer that the use of union power was closely linked with events at Noonkanbah, and that some union leaders were directly involved in planning the strategies of action on the station. I remind Honourable Members that, in support of its policy of negotiation, the Government twice authorised a deferment of drilling on Noonkanbah by the explorers, even though they had an obligation to carry out the drilling under the terms of their exploration permit. The first time was at the end of June last year, after representatives of the explorers had been stopped by a road block at the station gate. The second time was in early April this year, when water drilling and other drilling contractors preparing for the main drill were terrorised by the presence of an estimated 150 Aborigines, causing them to leave the station, and there were indications that similar obstruction would continue. It was after the second deferment of drilling, on grounds of obstruction, that the Government found it absolutely necessary to declare a firm stand. Three simple declarations were made. The first was that the Government would ensure that drilling proceeded- according to national interest, according to right, and according to law. The second was that the Aboriginal community at Noonkanbah must respect the rights of explorers under the terms of their pastoral station lease, and must refrain from obstruction contrary to law. The third was that union threats would not prevail. Under the terms of this declaration, the explorers were obliged to return to Noonkanbah station later this year, and complete the required drilling before the onset of the wet season in the Kimberley. Despite the firmness of the declaration, the Government still persisted with its hope that it would be possible to win the co-operation of the Aboriginal community at Noonkanbah by persuasion. I remind Honourable Members that, before the contractors were terrorised and obstructed in early April, three Ministers of the State Government had flown to Noonkanbah for talks aimed at settlement. The fact that such blatant obstruction occurred after such talks indicates that the Government was not lacking in patience when it continued to try to get results by persuasion. Persuasions which followed the obstruction included a specially prepared tape recorded message which was also committed to writing and sent to the people of Noonkanbah by the Minister for Cultural Affairs, Mr Grayden, whose lifelong interest in the welfare of Aborigines is known on both sides of this House and throughout Western Australia. The persuasion also included a special visit to the Noonkanbah community by me. I spent five hours in talks at the station, conveying an offer of unusual protection for the sacred sites. I said the sites could be converted into properties and placed under direct Aboriginal control. Not only did the Aboriginal community at Noonkanbah refuse to accept these persuasions of this offer-they later told me in writing I was wrong to assume that they recognised State Government control of the pastoral station. This declaration by the Noonkabah community, made in June, was reinforced in August when a white activist, Mr Don McLeod, read a proclamation at Noonkanbah, allegedly in the name of the Aboriginal people, asserting that they had resumed the property from the Commonwealth of Australia. Five days earlier a convoy carrying the Noonkanbah petroleum drilling rig had arrived at the station. It had reached its destination from a previous drill site south of Geraldton despite union-organised attempts to prevent the movement-by physical obstruction the roads, by threats of lifetime black bans against individual drivers and private firms, and by threats of industrial reprisals by which some firms were warned they would suffer heavy financial damage. These threats hung over the erection of the drill. Union members of the drill crew were withdrawn after being subjected to heavy persuasion in the form of threats that they would be banned for life, and in the form of offers that they would be paid about $1 100 a fortnight each for up to six months if they refused to work the drill. The drilling company and the explorers were also placed under heavy pressure by elements of the union movement, including the Western Australian Trades and Labor Council, the A.C.T.U., the Transport Workers' Union and the Australian Workers' Union. The weight of these pressures increased as the erection of the drill moved to completion. The obvious aim was to defer the start of drilling long enough to make it impossible to carry out a programme before the onset of the wet season, as required under the terms of the exploration permit. The Government recognised that it must now repeat a step it had taken earlier when union pressure was used in an attempt to stop the transport of the rig to Noonkanbah. When that happened, the Government stepped in, and took the brunt of this pressure by organising the transport. As the deadline for starting the drill programme approached, the Government stepped in again to take the brunt. It took control of the drilling rig and began the drilling. The drill went into the ground at noon on Friday, August 29. The programme of drilling was successsfully completed last Sunday, November 23. It is still a matter of great regret to the Government that the implementation of this programme was unlawfully obstructed, and that persuasion could not remove that obstruction. We have used authority sparingly, but we have used it without hesitation in the face of one of the worst examples of confrontation with lawful order this community has ever known. For the information of Honourable Members I will now turn to some important specific aspects of this unfortunate episode. THE EXPLORATION STORY The drilling, just completed on Noonkanbah, was the culmination of four years patient effort. It began when exploration permit 97 was granted to Whitestone Petroleum Australia Ltd. on September 17, 1976. This was just one week before the right to occupy the Noonkanbah pastoral lease was transferred from private interests to the Aboriginal Lands Trust, which holds it on behalf of the Noonkanbah community. Before Whitestone started work, its manager met with about 20 community elders led by a recognised traditional occupant of the land, Mr Friday Muller. After the location of the survey lines was explained, the community asked that one of the lines be moved to avoid an area considered ''important ground'' by some of the elders. This line was moved, as requested, and the Aborigines made no complaints at the way the survey was conducted. In December, 1976, after a joint venture had been formed to continue the exploration, Amax became the operators on behalf of the group and worked harmoniously with the Aborigines for nearly two years. The consistent practice was for exploration programmes to be discussed on the spot with the Noonkanbah community so that their approval could be obtained for the making of seismic lines. The aim was to ensure that there was no unintentional offence given to the members of the community in respect of any sites which were important to them. After the surveys were done, any disturbance was made good and community was always approached to see whether it was satisfied with the way this work was done. As part of the procedure, a record of community approval was obtained in the form of a statement signed by a community representative. The same procedure was followed when a survey was completed. A signed statement confirmed that any disturbance had been made good to the satisfaction of the community. In each case, a copy of the signed statement was given to the community by Amax , as operators for the exploring consortium. In order that Honourable Members can gain a proper understanding of the situation, I propose to give a synopsis of what happened in respect of the seismic survey which led up to the decision to drill an exploratory well at Noonkanbah. The survey was authorised by the Government in February 1978. The explorers sent advice of the authorisation to the Aboriginal Lands Trust, owner of the station, and then, on April 17, visited the station to discuss the survey programme and received a signed approval. On July 22, after the survey had been completed and any disturbance made good, another signed statement of satisfaction was received. At that time, plans for future drilling were also discussed, although at that stage analysis of seismic information had not proceeded to the point where a specific drill site could be selected. However, with the aim of avoiding any conflict between a drill location and any site of significance to the Aboriginal people, the community were asked to point out any places of significance. The community co-operated and, with their help, the names and locations of several places were plotted on a map. Copies of the map were later sent to the Under Secretary for Mines, the Aboriginal Legal Service, the Acting Registrar of Aboriginal Sites, and-by request-to an anthropologist in Derby, Mr Kim Akerman. On October 17, representatives of the explorers and the contract drillers went back to Noonkanbah with the map to discuss possible drilling locations. A number of suggested drilling locations were on the map. Community representatives said at that time that the proposed drill sites were not on any sacred place. But they did ask that one proposed location-being near to what they referred to as ''Bundarra Goodun'' site-should be moved to another place. This was done, and the new site became known as drill location No. 1 because it was firmly agreed on. Early in 1979, firm preparations for the drilling got under way. Early in March, the community was given three months notice of the intention to start drilling, and were asked for the use of their access road and airstrip. They were told that the road and the airstrip would be upgraded and left in improved condition, and that a water well required for the operation would be left for station use. Early in April, representatives of the explorers and the drillers visited the station to make inspections of the airstrip and drill site. To their surprise, they were called to a meeting of the community councillors and told that the community was not happy with the drilling, but, as it was legal, would accept it on certain conditions. These conditions included the cleaning up of the existing airstrip, the building of a second airstrip, and the provision of more than one water well. They also included the reasonable requirements that all gates be shut, no alcohol or firearms be allowed, and no persons were to visit the homestead except the one in charge of the drilling. As Honourable Members will know these latter requirements are imposed on explorers as a condition of their permit. In fact, the permit conditions are a little more strict. The community's councillors presented these conditions to the representatives of the explorers and drillers in the form of a draft letter which they said would be officially conveyed to them through the Aboriginal Legal Service in Derby. However, when an Aboriginal Legal Service telex came seven days later, it was in the form of a point blank refusal to agree to drilling on the station, and claimed that the proposed No. 1 drill location was a sacred area. I shall return shortly to the role of the Aboriginal Legal Service as well as to other elements in what became a major confrontation. But, for the moment, I will simply complete the basic record leading up to the drilling by saying that, on March 18, this year, representatives of the explorers and the Mines Department reached agreement with representatives of the community to shift the site of the drilling location No. 1 to another site, which became known as location No. 2. It was on this location that the drill went down on August 29. However, this simple outline of events leading to a drilling is not the real story of the Noonkanbah episode. The real story is how a strategy emerged to stage-manage a confrontation. ANATOMY OF A CONFRONTATION The first sign of an emerging confrontation came in June, 1978 when the Aboriginal Legal Service entered the picture. Up to that time, matters between the explorers and the Noonkanbah community had been worked out directly between them. Up to that time, also, the recognised key figure in all matters concerning important or sacred locations had been the traditional custodian of ''P'' Hill, Mr Friday Muller, the head man of the Gudji group within the community. He is the only head man recorded as being descended on both sides from groups that lived in the area before the progressive invasion by Walmadjeri people made them the dominant group in more recent times. He consistently confirmed that sacred sites were not threatened by the exploration programme. Under his influence, the relationship between Aborigines and the explorers was as sensible and reasonable on Noonkanbah as it had continued to be elsewhere. For example, the first seismic survey in 1976 covered 378 kilometres, of which 255 were on Noonkanbah, and 123 elsewhere. In the second survey, covering 313 kilometres, only 83 were on Noonkanbah and 230 elsewhere. When, in the second survey, an Aboriginal adviser said it appeared that one seismic line had crossed a car dump area used by visitors to the Noonkanbah station, the matter was discussed with Mr Friday Muller. He told the contractors his main concern was about the effect on grazing areas. When a review of the location of the survey line showed that the main grazing areas would not be affected, he agreed to the work. However, with the entry of the Aboriginal Legal Service, the pattern changed in two ways. Claims related to sacred areas were progressively escalated until the whole station was declared out of bounds. And the authority and influence of Mr Friday Muller was progressively destroyed and replaced by hard-line activists, including white advisers, and an emerging Aboriginal leader, Mr Dicky Skinner. This chain reaction began with a letter from the Aboriginal Legal Service to the explorers in June, 1978, expanding the concept of sacred sites to sacred areas-and claiming that there had been violation of some areas. Another facet of the letter was the request that the explorers should develop a close liaison between themselves and the community to avoid sacred area violations, as if such a relationship had not already existed. The letter was written by a solicitor for the service, Mr Philip Vincent, and he referred the explorers to an anthropologist at Derby, Mr Kim Akerman, as one who could advise them on sacred areas entitled to protection under the Aboriginal Heritage Act. In this way, the ground was clearly being laid for final authority on what was sacred and what was not sacred to be shifted from the traditional custodian, Mr Friday Muller, to outsiders. In their reply, the explorers explained the care they had taken not to cause any problems, and pointed out they would willingly avoid sacred places if they were told about them. They followed up the request to consult with Mr Akerman and, because he was not immediately available, he suggested they consult the Community Welfare Department at Fitzroy Crossing. This they did, and meetings were arranged there with representatives of two groups affected by seismic surveys-the Noonkanbah community and the Millajiddee community. Neither expressed any complaint about the surveys, and both said they were satisfied-and this was in conflict with the claims in Mr Vincent's letter. In fact, when Noonkanbah representatives were asked at the meeting about any places special to them, the places they nominated were those already made known to the explorers. This position was confirmed on July 22, when Mr Friday Muller signed a statement certifying that disturbance caused by the survey had been made good to the community's satisfaction. The explorers then talked about plans for drilling arising from the seismic survey, and Mr Dickey Skinner and others helped them locate important Aboriginal sites so they could map future drillings without disturbance. Soon afterwards, a map was prepared, and copies were sent to Mr Akerman, and to the Under Secretary for Mines, the Aboriginal Legal Service and the Acting Registrar of Aboriginal Sites. As a matter of interest, in a Warden's Court hearing three months later concerning a completely separate issue at Noonkanbah, the report of an anthropologist, Mr Kingsley Palmer, identified sacred sites, and these were the same as those plotted by Amax on behalf of the explorers. The map accepted as authentic at the Warden's Court hearing confirmed that the drilling location later chosen on Noonkanbah was remote from any sacred site. However, the build-up to confrontation was under way. Four days after Mr Friday Muller certified that the seismic survey had been completed to the satisfaction of the community, a damaging report appeared in the Press, saying the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Viner, had been told that fences had been cut, allowing cattle to escape, during the exploration for gas and oil on Noonkanbah. Then, questions were asked in the Legislative Assembly on August 9 and on August 22 1978, echoing the Aboriginal Legal Service letter. And the Legal Service echoed itself again in October, in a statement published in ''The Australian'' alleging that Amax had violated burial and ceremonial grounds in an area which they said was now the focus of attention in what they described as ''the massive West Kimberley search''. Then came a critical shift in the posture of the Aboriginal community at Noonkanbah. Although, in October, 1978, they helped Amax fix drill location No. 1 as being clear of any sacred sites-they were telling Amax on April 5 1979, they would accept the drilling only because it was legal. This was a significant change of attitude but it still recognised their lawful responsibility to permit exploration. This respect for law and the rights of others disappeared a week later when the Aboriginal Legal Service telexed what became the official position. This marked the shift to total confrontation. The letter, written by Mr Vincent, said ''the community totally and unequivocally opposes exploration and mining in all forms and by all persons or companies upon its station property''. The letter then injected the message of land rights campaigners, saying-that the station was the traditional country of the Aboriginal occupants, that exploration was an unacceptable intrusion upon their traditional lands by Europeans, and that the land had deep religious and cultural significance to the community. In other words, the whole station was out of bounds. Destruction of topographical features or meddling with undersoil was said by Mr Vincent to constitute sacrilege. Mr Vincent then made two more important statements. He said the area on which Amax wish to drill was a sacred area called ''Minal'' -a replenishment area for goannas, frogs and fish. As Minal is 15 kilometres away from the drill location, this was clearly a forerunner of the ''area of influence'' claim which emerged later. Mr Vincent also made a very significant statement about Mr Friday Muller. He said Mr Muller was not empowered to speak for the community in regard to the implications of the Amax programme. Mr Muller was clearly on his way out. From this point, the confrontation escalated into what became, in effect, a land rights war. A month after the Aboriginal Legal Service letter, Mr Dicky Skinner was in Perth petitioning Parliament against all mining or exploration on the station. Mr Skinner was no longer the same person who, ten months beforehand, had helped Amax plot significant and sacred locations which were accepted as authentic by a Warden's Court and clearly showed the proposed drilling would not affect any of them. In a television interview, Mr Skinner made the first of a series of threats that company representatives entering the station would be punished under tribal law. A few days later, at Noonkanbah, he warned an Amax representative that, if he ever came back to the station he would suffer the consequences. He declared that tribal law now prevailed on Noonkanbah, and the Amax representative would be detained and punished if he came back. Not unreasonably, Amax complained to the police, to the Community Welfare Department, and to the Aboriginal Legal Service. The Legal Service replied the same day, May 23, 1979, ignoring the serious complaint and threatening Amax with legal action if they attempted to drill on the station. The Legal Service letter also made the false claim that Amax, in its letter, had said it was proposing to drill ''next week''. In fact, Amax had not at that time received permission to drill because investigations were under way, through the museum, concerning sacred sites claims. Furthermore, a Museum representative had been on the station for this purpose two days before, when the Amax representative had been threatened. It is of interest that the Legal Service, on the same day that it sent its letter, also telexed the Amax Petroleum Exploration Headquarters in Houston, warning that the Noonkanbah community would oppose their drilling programme-and claiming that 40 000 years of culture were at risk. The following day, Mr Dicky Skinner told the Press the community were working on ways in tribal law to stop Amax drilling. A separate statement by an unnamed spokesman in Fitzroy Crossing said the community were prepared to lock their gates against Amax. Hoping to defuse the situation, the Government sent representatives to go with Amax representatives to Noonkanbah for talks. But when they arrived on May 30, 1979, Amax were barred by the community from attending the talks on behalf of the explorers. At these talks, the Aboriginal Legal Service focused on a new enemy-the Mines Department. It claimed the Mines Department representatives at the talks was applying unreasonable pressure because he was trying to find out whether alternative drill sites were acceptable. The Legal Service complained about the Mines Department in a statement to the Press and claimed that any alternative site would require time for a new survey and a new report-indicating determination to keep the matter out of the hands of responsible Aborigines and under the control of outsiders. It was at this stage that the union movement made a decisive entry into the confrontation, via the Western Australian Trades and Labor Council. Mr Dicky Skinner came to Perth again early in June, 1979, put a case to the T.L .C., and won their support. The T.L.C. asked Amax to observe A.C.T.U. policy declaring extensive support for what it described as ''communal and inalienable land rights for Aboriginal communities'', including all minerals and resources, extending even up to 10 kilometres out to sea. Meanwhile, the Museum had made its report, reflecting the newly-emerged area-of -influence philosophy. The vagueness of this philosophy can be gauged from three indicators. The first indication was that the Noonkanbah community, in the conditions they laid down in April, said Amax's offer of one water well was not enough and asked for more to be drilled in what was later claimed to be an ''area of influence'' too sacred to be touched. The second is that the Aborigines had no objection to plans for a new housing settlement at Noonkanbah within this alleged ''area of influence''-even though it will (to quote the Aboriginal Legal Service) destroy topographical features and meddle with the undersoil because of the required earthworks, foundations and septic systems. The third indicator came soon after the Museum lodged its report when the Aboriginal Legal Service took out an injunction to ban drilling within three kilometres of ''P'' Hill because of the alleged ''area of influence''. When it was pointed out that ''P'' Hill was more than three kilometres away from the drill site, the alleged area of influence was extended to five kilometres. Understandably, the Government-while firmly respecting the established sacred sites-rejected the ''area of influence'' argument against drilling. The Government's decision to permit drilling was published on the morning of June 15, 1979. By the afternoon, the Press were reporting that Aboriginals from all over the Kimberley were asked to gather at Noonkanbah, and an unnamed Kimberley Land Council spokesman was saying: ''We've chained and padlocked all the gates, but going on past performance we expect Amax to break through''. Considering Amax's real performance, this was typical of the exaggerated and unfair statements so frequently made. However, when representatives of Amax and the Mines Department came to the station that day to inspect the drill site, they were stopped at a locked gate by 35 Aborigines and their Press Officer, Mr Stephen Hawke. By now, time was beginning to run out for Amax to get its drilling done before the 1979 wet season. Possibly sensing this, the Aboriginal Legal Service applied on June 18 for a temporary injunction restraining Amax from drilling. Although this was refused by the Supreme Court on June 27, the Legal Service had already lodged, the day before, an application for a permanent injunction, for which a hearing date of July 11 was fixed. Realising that it was now going to be beaten by the calendar, Amax asked the Government for relief from the obligation to drill on Noonkanbah in 1979, and was given permission to defer the drilling until the 1980 dry season. Amax then transferred the drilling activity to Ellendale, about 70 kilometres to the north, where Aborigines did not obstruct the drilling. 1980-PHASE ONE With 1979 out of the way, new confrontations were organised for 1980. There were two phases. In the first phase, intimidation by Aborigines and unions drove contractors from the drill site, and drilling was again delayed. In the second phase, intimidation-mainly by unions-was overcome, and drilling proceeded. Phase one followed the now well-established confrontation pattern. Its organisers took advantage of the open intentions of the Government and the explorers. The Minister for Mines, Mr Mensaros, had made it clear-when he granted deferment of the drilling in 1979-that it must proceed under the terms of the exploration permit in the 1980 dry season. It was on this basis that Amax made plans to begin site preparation on March 12 this year, on behalf of the exploring consortium. As far back as December 4, it advised the Aboriginal Legal Service of the intention to drill-offering to consider alternate sites, and also offering to bring the head of Amax Petroleum to discuss terms with the Noonkanbah community. The Legal Service did not reply. Yet, on March 10, when the Press reported about 300 Aborigines would camp at the gates of Noonkanbah station to block the entry of Amax, a Legal Service spokesman was reported as saying: ''People at Noonkanbah are agreeable to talks. That is what they have been trying to arrange all along''. There was similar distortions in a letter from the principal officer of the Legal Service, Mr Philip Vincent, to the Government on March 12, when he claimed Amax intended to drill on the sacred site of ''P'' Hill-saying that was why Aborigines were gathered at the gate to prevent the explorers from entering. On the same day, Mr Dicky Skinner was quoted as saying it would greatly upset the elderly people of Noonkanbah if ''P'' Hill was touched. Yet, both Mr Vincent and Mr Skinner knew that ''P'' Hill was 3.5 kilometres from the drill location. Both these statements indicated a willingness to stop at nothing to invent reasons for unreasonable actions. In fact, Mr Vincent's letter described the Aborigines as shareholders in the land-and Mr Skinner said Noonkanbah was important to the far-flung Aboriginal communities living under tribal lore, implying a vast extension of the ''sphere of influence'' mythology. In a bid to reach the Aborigines direct, the Government sent three Ministers for talks at Noonkanbah. They were the Minister for Mines, Mr Jones, the Minister for Cultural Affairs, Mr Grayden, and the Minister for Community Welfare, Mr Hassell. They were given assistance by the Chairman of the Aboriginal Lands Trust, Mr Ken Colbung, who cut short a Canberra visit to fly to Noonkanbah on March 13. The Ministers went up the following day and a long meeting was held at the station. The visit was intended as a very strong gesture of conciliation, in a bid to resolve the confrontation. But despite the immense effort, the attempt at reconciliation proved fruitless. Mr Skinner, acting as interpreter, said the Noonkanbah community were not prepared to allow Amax or any other mining company on any part of the 400 000- hectare station. Once again, it was clear that the real objective behind all the talk about sacred sites was the seizure of control and ownership over all the land on Noonkanbah. Mr Ken Colbung revealed at this time that a white Pilbara activist on Aboriginal affairs, Mr Don McLeod, had urged Aborigines on Noonkanbah to form a resistance army, and take formal possession of the station by raising a flag and firing a volley of shots into the air. Five months later, just before the arrival of the drilling rig, Mr McLeod was the key figure in such a ceremony. Other evidence of the desire to seize the land came in suggestions that the Noonkanbah community should receive mining royalties. These suggestions strongly contradicted the claims that sacred sites were the real issue. They were made at the meeting between the three Ministers and the community. They were also made by an intermediary who telephoned the Minister for Cultural Affairs, Mr Grayden, during a visit to Perth of two community representatives, Mr Ivan McPhee and Mr Nipper Tabagee. Mr Grayden was later obliged to reveal that the intermediary was Professor R. M . Berndt, Professor of Anthropology at the University of Western Australia. He said Professor Berndt had told him that, if the State Government would be prepared to delay drilling for several days, permission would be granted to drill at an alternative site-and suggested that royalties could be involved. Professor Berndt told Mr Grayden the matter could be followed up through an officer of the Museum, who was present at a meeting with the community representatives. When Mr Grayden telephoned the officer, he confirmed that the deal involved royalties. Against this background, it can be understood why, after the visit of the Ministers to Noonkanbah, I saw the need to make a public statement, with strong emphasis on three basic principles. The first was that drilling would go ahead, as it should, in the national interest. The second was that the Noonkanbah community were not entitled to exclude explorers or miners from what was a normal pastoral lease, on which exploring and mining could take place under lawful authority and with respect for sacred sites and the community. The third was that, if the Noonkanbah attitude persisted, no Government could in future take the risk of giving further pastoral leases in the names of Aborigines. Nor could it give reserves. In keeping with these principles, the request for royalties, to which there is no legal right, was rejected. No such right is available to any other pastoral leaseholder, black or white. Responding to this declared position, the Aboriginal Legal Service said the Aborigines would take a stand, adding: ''If that involves confrontation, so be it''. It was in this atmosphere that Amax representatives went back to Noonkanbah on March 18 to come to final agreement about the drill site and prepare for drilling on behalf of the explorers. In view of past experience, the police quite properly decided to give them protection on request. A television crew was present, and under the guidance of the Press Officer for the community, Mr Stephen Hawke, film was taken of Aboriginal people signing letters to such persons as Mr Gough Whitlam, Mr Don Dunstan and others before getting down to discussion. Eventually, after three hours of meetings, the Aborigines asked for an alternative site which became known as location No. 2-the one on which the drilling was finally done. The Aborigines then shook hands with the Amax representative. It is important that Honourable Members should know that, although it was not publicised at the time, it was reliably reported to the Government after this decision that there was a general feeling of relief in the community that the matter was resolved. In fact, there was some evidence of this when contractors arrived to begin earthworks next day. They offered work to the Aborigines but Mr Dicky Skinner said it was not necessary to offer employment. He added that contractors could go anywhere they needed for gravel-a point that Honourable Members should keep in mind. They should also be aware that, while the meeting to select a site was actually in progress, someone was telling the Trades and Labor Council and the A.C.T.U. about the possibility that agreement would be reached. Both took an anti-agreement attitude the same day. The T.L.C. said it would back the Aborigines in confrontation. A.C.T.U. President Bob Hawke-father of Noonkanbah's Press Officer, Mr Stephen Hawke-said his organisation would take industrial action against Amax if the company continued drilling on the station. Notwithstanding the fact that a firm agreement on a drill site was actually being reached while he spoke, Mr Hawke was demanding in Canberra that Amax should stop until a ''satisfactory agreement'' had been reached with the Aborigines. The following day, the Trades and Labor Council issued its own version of the talks at Noonkanbah, and this tallied with one given by Mr Stephen Hawke. In effect, the T.L.C. and Stephen Hawke said the Aborigines were driven to accept a hard bargain which was the lesser of two evils. T.L.C. Secretary Peter Cook declared that his council would try to prevent Amax drilling on Noonkanbah. So much for conciliation. The T.L.C. called a meeting of unions with members involved in the drilling work and persuaded them to declare a ban on the movement of equipment needed by Amax for the project. It is also worth noting that, on the day Amax and the Aborigines reached agreement on drill site No. 2, the Aboriginal Legal Service released to the Press a museum report containing a map showing the alleged ''area of influence'' which was supposed to be violated by the drill site. Publication of this report was strictly prohibited by the Museum on grounds that it contained material of ritual significance to the Aboriginal people-and was therefore strictly confidential. Clearly, the co-ordination of confrontation took precedence in the mind of the Aboriginal Legal Service. Despite the agreement with the Aborigines on a new drill site, the Legal Service sought yet another injunction against Amax. With perfect timing, the Transport Workers' Union simultaneously black-banned the movement of the exploratory drilling rig that would be needed at Noonkanbah, and was then at Beagle Bay. The T.W.U. said that any company attempting to move a drilling rig onto Noonkanbah could face Australia-wide union bans. This was typical of many threats issued by unions, T.L.C. and A.C.T.U. spokesmen up to the time of the drilling in August. It was in this atmosphere that, on March 24, the State Government directed the Museum to approve drill site No. 2 chosen by the Noonkanbah community. The Government rejected the Museum's request for more time to study the matter. It seemed far more correct that the decision of the community should prevail above the decision of the Museum. In a statement explaining the Government's position, I said: ''We believe that enough time has been spent on the matter. ''It has been the subject of discussion for a long time. ''We believe that there is no valid reason why approval should be withheld.'' Two days later, the Opposition in this House declared that it would move to have the will of the Museum prevail over the will of Government in the future. On the same day, the head of the Museum indicated his belief that there could be several hundred thousand sacred Aboriginal sites. Also on the same day, the Australian Workers' Union warned that, if drilling started at Noonkanbah, drilling would stop on five off-shore and four on-shore rigs in Western Australia. Also on the same day, Mr Justice Wallace rejected the Aboriginal Legal Service request for an injunction against Amax. In the course of the hearing, the Judge rebuked Mr Philip Vincent for not telling the Court that the move to location No. 2 had been at the community's request. With the injunction lifted, Amax prepared to move in-and the Aborigines at Noonkanbah geared up to stop them. On March 29, ''The West Australian'' said a camp had been set up at the drilling location, a group were on watch at the gate, and land rights flags were flying at both places. The previous day, water drillers, after harrassment from 25 Aborigines, withdrew from the station-but came back next morning with police protection. While water drilling preparations went on, talks took place all morning between an Amax representative and the Aborigines, led by Mr Dicky Skinner, who warned the Amax man and his family of retribution under Aboriginal spirit law. It was at this critical stage, on March 31, that I held a meeting with the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Senator Chaney, the State Chairman of the National Aboriginal Conference, the Reverend Cedric Jacobs, and the Chairman of the Kimberley Land Council, Mr Jimmy Bieundurry. I made it clear that the Government wanted the present limited drilling programme to proceed smoothly, but I willingly accepted an invitation from Mr Bieundurry to visit Noonkanbah-and said I would do so during the drilling programme. Although this meeting was friendly, the confrontation at Noonkanbah intensified . By the following evening, April 1, nearly 100 Aborigines had gathered, and vehicles had been used to create a road block cutting off the drilling location. A corroboree was then held until 3.30 the next morning. After daylight, the number of Aborigines increased to an estimated 150, accompanied by the Federal Labor Member for Fremantle, Mr John Dawkins, the Federal Labor spokesman on Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Stewart West, and the Federal Labor candidate for Kalgoorlie (now the member) Mr Graham Campbell. As ''The West Australian'' correctly reported, the Amax representative and the contractors were held in a virtual state of seige. Claims were made that, in getting gravel, contractors had violated sacred areas -even though Mr Dicky Skinner had said earlier that gravel could be taken from anywhere in the vicinity. They were firmly told by a community spokesman, Mr Ivan McPhee, to leave the site by 2 p.m., otherwise the Aborigines would pull everything down. The contractor told them that pulling out would mean a loss to him of between $ 30 000 and $50 000. He told reporters: ''I don't want to see my gear smashed. There is a big show of people here and they are pretty stirred up. If we leave our gear here and it was destroyed, who would pay? If the police have to take strong action, what happens then? If we retaliate there would be open warfare.'' The Amax representative decided not to call on the police, but to withdraw, out of consideration for the contractors, who were of the opinion that a dangerous situation had developed. On behalf of the Government and the public I felt it necessary to issue a statement condemning what had happened. I said the Aborigines had dishonoured their word and taxpayers would be bitter that such irresponsible behaviour was made so easy by public funds given to Aborigines. I said the Government was deeply concerned that Aborigines had allowed themselves to become so closely associated with the strategies of industrial anarchy sponsored by the Trades and Labor Council. I also said the true objective was obviously land rights and royalties. The Government authorised Amax to defer drilling on behalf of its consortium till later in the year-and so ended phase one. 1980-PHASE TWO Phase two began on April 6 with the Government's announcement of an extension of time for Amax and a declaration that, next time round, drilling would take place. When I issued the statement, I expressed sympathy for company employees and contract teams, saying they had been ''subject to an unconscionable ordeal of frustration, on-the-spot intimidation by Aborigines, and direct standover from union representatives''. I pointed out that any white group who gathered and behaved in the way Aborigines did in large numbers around the drill crew camps would be rightly regarded as deliberately intimidating, and deserving of condemnation by the community as a whole. I said then-and I say now-that Members of Parliament associating with such tactics-as Federal Labor Members did at Noonkanbah-must be regarded as ''having desecrated their public trust''. In this statement, I said the Government would take steps to make it clear to the Aborigines that they were damaging their good name, casting a shadow over the future of all their people, breaking laws binding on all Australians, breaching their written agreement covering the pastoral lease, falsely claiming land and mineral rights, and bringing into grave discredit the whole question of sacred sites. I said the Government would also undertake a major appraisal of activist behaviour. I pointed out that the union movement had been engaged Australia-wide in a campaign of threats related to Noonkanbah-using intimidation to challenge community law with union power. I said that under no circumstances could elect Government allow an unelected dictatorship to prevail over the people in this way. It is now a matter of record that the declaration made by the Government was both honoured and sustained, despite massive industrial, political and other pressure throughout Australia and overseas. In this final phase, the Government and the organisers of the confrontation moved about their separate business. The early priority for the Government was to take its promised initiative to communicate and negotiate with the Noonkanbah community. Late in April, the first important initiative was taken. The Minister for Cultural Affairs Mr Grayden, sent a special message to the community, and committed it to tape so that it could be heard by those who could not read. The taped message was an unusual initiative and was well received by the Noonkanbah community, but not by activists who were incensed by its simple clarity. The message made clear what has been made even clearer since the drilling started and the activism stopped. In essence, it said that the drilling would cause no disturbance if the Aborigines stopped allowing themselves to be disturbed. It strongly urged the community to live by the law which applies equally to all , because it would do them no harm, and because it would protect their legitimate rights, their sacred sites, and their right to occupy the station for as long as they needed to stay there. It told them of my desire to visit them for direct and private talks, and urged them not to repeat the unlawful action by which they had frightened away the explorers and contractors. About ten days later, a taped message from the community to Mr Grayden said they would agree to meet me. However, parts of the message were not particularly friendly. Mr Dicky Skinner said: ''If you don't go along with the law-without law-well, that means we can't help you''. Mr Skinner also warned Mr Grayden he was in personal danger from Aboriginal law if drilling went ahead. ''You probably get into trouble from between your own teeth'', the recording said. Notwithstanding the tone of the message, I replied warmly and, on May 30, flew north for the talks. I was at Noonkanbah for seven hours in all, including an inspection of the proposed No. 2 drilling site and five hours of talks with the Noonkanbah people. The following extract from my statement after the meeting is worthy of very careful consideration in the light of all that has happened since. I said: ''We canvassed all points of view painstakingly and at length. ''I offered increased protection of the identified and genuine sacred sites through conclusion of special leases under the Land Act for Aboriginal purposes specifically covering 'P' Hill and the five identified sacred sites closer to the proposed drill site. '' 'P' Hill is 3.5 kilometres from the drill site. The nearest of the five other sacred sites is 1.25 kilometres.'' I pointed out that these special leases would give the community greater direct control over the sites than was possible under the Aboriginal Heritage Act. In addition there would be- Complete fencing of the drill and campsite. No alcohol or firearms permitted. No contact with the local community except through a pre-arranged liaison officer. One exploration hole to be drilled this dry season and negotiation to take place after it was evaluated and before any further holes were drilled. The drill and campsite to be made good after its use was completed. Any improvement to water supply, roads and other things on the station by Amax to revert to the community when the programme was finished. My statement then went on to say: ''The community insists that protection of the identified sacred sites is not sufficient. ''They want the whole of the area protected as 'areas of influence' flowing from the sacred sites. ''This, in practical effect, would mean no drilling on Noonkanbah's 400,000 hectares. ''I made it clear that no responsible Government could accept such a proposal and that I hoped that wiser counsel would prevail.'' Although I was disappointed, I said I would go on trying to win the community's co-operation. On my return, I sent a long official letter to the community, setting out in detail all that had been laid before them in the discussion. It also emphasised again that I was willing to re-open negotiations if the community decided to reconsider its decision to ban drilling. In my letter, I said: ''I am sure your community will understand that the Government must allow the drilling to proceed. ''I would be failing in my duty if I did not remind you of the damage your stand on this matter could do to the Aboriginal cause. ''There are many people in the community, including myself, who want to help you but you make it very difficult if you adopt an uncompromising attitude by demanding what you claim are your rights but refuse to acknowledge that other people might have some rights and needs also.'' While keeping the door open for negotiation, the Government realised that confrontation was more likely to itensify than diminish. Already, in mid-April, there had been a rally at Noonkanbah of 200 Aboriginal law men from 26 communities in the Kimberleys, Pilbara, and the Northern Territory. Then, on June 10, the Minister for Mines, Mr Jones, received information that a party of contract surveyors had been surrounded and virtually held prisoner for some time by 25 or 30 Aborigines on Noonkanbah station. They were told no more Europeans were to enter the station. Two days later, the Press reported a letter being sent to the Prime Minister and to me by eight tribal leaders declaring that, if drilling took place, it would place the people at Noonkanbah and the people of the rig in great jeopardy . They added: ''We do not know if we can protect the lives of our people or the men on the rig''. Their letter went on to say that Amax did not consult local Aborigines before it first entered the property-an extraordinary statement in view of the real history of careful and patient consultation by the company with the Aborigines- and clearly indicating that the message had been manipulated. I responded by pointing out that the Noonkanbah community could not be in any physical danger from drilling or from police, if any were required. I said: ''Not only will crews and police have no interest in violence, they will also be securely fenced in to ensure that they have no unnecessary contact with the local community. If there is any danger of physical violence it can only come from the Aboriginal community at Noonkanbah''. It was at this time that I felt the need to make it clear that the Government was making a detailed assessment of the responsibilities it would have to face to ensure that drilling could proceed at Noonkanbah. I pointed out that this assessment was needed because of the possibility of physical disruption or even violence by the Aborigines, and threats by the A.C.T .U. and the Trades and Labor Council to impose black bans and subsequent punitive actions on people involved in the transport or operation of the drilling rig. The Government knew by this time that it would have to be prepared to take the brunt of assaults against lawful order, and against people going about their lawful business and subjected to the tyranny of threats and obstruction. Despite legal counter moves by the Aboriginal Legal Service, the Government proceeded to resume the road into Noonkanbah and a four hectare site for the drilling so that they would be under public control and protection. When union bans made it impossible for private contractors to provide a water drilling rig to go to Noonkanbah to prepare the way for exploratory petroleum drilling-the Government provided a Mines Department rig on a contract basis. It left Perth on July 16, arrived at Noonkanbah on July 24, and the crew did their work efficiently and well before moving on to another job in the Kimberley. They were paid $59 568.88 for their work-by Amax. However, the water rig's departure from Perth evidently triggered a new wave of confrontation tactics. An eight-point proposal in the name of the Noonkanbah community asked for all mineral leases to be cancelled while it carried out a programme of mapping of sacred areas in two stages-the first lasting six months and the second eighteen months. The Government sent a letter explaining in detail why this delaying tactic could not be accepted. The next move was a letter from the community to the Managing Director of C.S.R ., Mr Gordon Jackson, saying that, as his company owned the big petroleum drilling rig, through Richter Drilling, he should prevent it from being used on Noonkanbah. Meanwhile, the Government had been advised that the firm selected to transport the big rig from Woodada, south of Geraldton, to Noonkanbah station, had become unable to do so-because their employees, being members of the Transport Workers' Union, were not prepared to break bans imposed by the T.L.C. and the A.C.T.U. In support of the drilling programme, the Government took over the organisation of transport for the rig, advertising for drivers, and providing co-ordination. Recognising that the T.L.C./A.C.T.U. ban could be carried to the point of obstruction on the roads, the Government advised the police who, in due course, provided men to ensure that the drivers and their equipment were not molested. To make union disruption more difficult, transport for the rig was organised on a convoy basis-recognising that A.C.T.U./T.L.C. obstruction could well be organised on a paramilitary guerrilla basis over more than 2 000 kilometres of roadway between Woodada and the drill site. The Government's anticipations were borne out as soon as the convoy left Perth for Woodada. The Transport Workers' Union immediately threatened to stop the movement of the rig. As the rig left Woodada amid a welter of media coverage, the Secretary of the T .L.C., Mr Peter Cook, said the full weight of the trade union movement in Australia would be used if bans on the transfer of the oil drilling platform to Noonkanbah were broken. The President of the A.C.T.U., Mr Hawke, said Mr Cook and the T.L.C. had the A. C.T.U.'s unanimous support and endorsement. Not unnaturally, all outsiders including media were kept away from where the rig was being loaded onto trucks in order to protect the identity of individuals from threatened union vengeance for defying unions bans. Disregarding this important aspect, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Davies, chose to describe the operation as a cloak and dagger affair. Mr Peter Cook was more direct when he accused the Government of using the police as a military force to support scab labour in an attempt to move the rig. With respect, the Government and the public did not regard these men as scabs- but simply as citizens with the courage to decide not to obey political instructions from Mr Cook, or to pander to his desire for his authority to be recognised as being above the law. Nevertheless, to make his point, Mr Cook flew to Port Hedland in his role as paramilitary commander, to make sure that his guerrilla forces were in readiness for the convoy. In this role, he was careful to sustain his campaign to instil fear into anyone who might not obey an order from the T.L.C. ''If people break union rules,'' he said, ''we will take action against them''. He also said that if the convoy got through, ''it will mean retaliation by us'' . He claimed he was doing all this in support of the Aborigines. Not unreasonably, the Deputy Premier and Minister for Labour, Mr O'Connor, said the T.L.C. and the A.C.T.U. had apparently decided they were a law unto themselves, above the authority of democratically elected Government-willing to use force to compel others to go along with their lawlessness. He added: ''Mr Cook's assertions that he is acting in the interests of the Aboriginal community is a phoney excuse to ride roughshod over the law''. Mr O'Connor said threatened individuals would be given protection. Predictably, the Chairman of the National Aboriginal Conference, Mr Jim Hagan, expressed the belief that this was a good time-with the rig on its way-for the explorers and the drillers to pull out so that everyone could get back to some negotiations-notwithstanding the fact that negotiations have been virtually in progress for over two years. Meanwhile, Mr Cook was not rallying too many soldiers for his army. Attempts to blockade the convoy at Karratha and Port Hedland by obstructing the roadway were carried out mainly by union officials paid to do the job-while a large number of ordinary citizens came out to cheer the truck drivers on their way. Apparently to stiffen morale, Mr Hawke made a public statement that drilling was unlikely to go ahead. I felt it necessary to assure the public that drilling would proceed according to plan. While the convoy moved north-Mr Don McLeod had his flag-raising ceremony at the drill site, with the help of Mr Dicky Skinner and others; a large group invaded the Amax office in Perth and stayed there waiting to be arrested in order to create an incident; and Mr Cook's guerrillas continued their obstruction at Broome. Of more significance was the action of the Australian Workers' Union in forcing 15 of its members, recruited for the Noonkanbah drilling, to stand down under threat of lifetime bans if they did not. There is ample evidence that the bans were issued on the instructions of the President of the A.C.T.U., Mr Hawke, who also warned that any bid to drill without union labour would bring international repercussions as well. Apparently pleased with the enforced stand-down of his men, the A.W.U. Secretary, Mr Gil Barr, said that if I wanted any drilling done on Noonkanbah I would have to go up there myself and take the Cabinet with me. On August 13, the first trucks in the convoy completed the 2 240 kilometre journey to Noonkanbah. The Trades and Labor Council welcomed the achievement by declaring a total ban on all Amax operations, and asking the A.C.T.U. to make the ban Australia-wide. The T.L.C. also placed a ban on companies, organisations and individuals who took part in the convoy-as previously promised by Mr Cook. Mr Hawke confidently asserted that, although the rig had arrived, there would be no drilling this year. This promise was repeated 10 days later by Mr Cook after several more enforced votes by the union drillers who had been made to stand down finally with the offer from Mr Hawke that they would be paid about $1 100 a fortnight for up to six months if they did not work. This offer reflected the resistance of the men to the pressure they were under- a pressure publicly revealed by the Minister for Mines, Mr Jones. He said that, on one crucial vote, out of 18 present-9 voted to go to work, 7 voted against, and 2 abstained, although they said they wanted to work. This majority decision was not accepted by the union. Interestingly, when the final enforced vote in favour of the ban was taken on August 22, there were 21 present-indicating that three freeloaders had joined in to collect the $1 100 a fortnight. After the final vote was taken, the Minister for Mines, Mr Jones, indicated that the Government would be prepared to manage the needs of drilling in the same way as it had managed the needs of transport. Incidentally, although it was never publicised, the offshore drilling crews whom the A.W.U. Secretary, Mr Barr, said would be pulled out on strike, held a special meeting in Perth where they refused point-blank to comply. They threatened to form their own union if the A.W.U. did not stop involving them in political actions. During the wrangle over the drifters, work had continued on the erection of the rig. By August 28, it was ready for work. At the same time, the first of several important shifts of opinion among Aboriginal leaders took place. The Chairman of the Aboriginal Lands Trust, Mr Ken Colbung, issued a call for the A.C.T.U./T.I.C. and union ban at Noonkanbah to be lifted. He said sacred sites were not at risk. He sent a telex conveying his views to the A.C.T.U., the T.L.C. and the A.W.U. on August 27. He said he had done so after Mr Hawke had refused to have a reasonable discussion with him in Melbourne. Mr Hawke, he said, gave him no reason to alter his opinion. Mr Colbung also found no reason to change his opinion after discussions with Mr Peter Cook, or with Mr Stephen Hawke who telephoned him in Mr Cook's office from Fitzroy Crossing, or after receiving information from the Secretary of the Noonkanbah community, Mr Ivan McPhee. Mr Colbung then informed the State Government of his statement, and faced the predictable onslaught from Mr Hawke, Mr Cook, and Mr Dicky Skinner. Mr Colbung was not to know that, while he was deciding to make his statement and checking it out with those concerned, the Government was once again preparing to take the brunt of nation-wide union threats aimed at preventing the start of drilling. On August 29, the Government took possession of the rig and, at noon that day, the drill bit into the ground while Mr Hawke and Mr Cook were singing a chorus of threats across the country. D-Day-or Drill Day-was a Friday. Two days later, on Sunday, the Minister for Mines, Mr Jones, and I visited the drill site to ensure that everything was proceeding as it should, and that the strict provisions for protection of Aboriginal interests were being observed. The Noonkanbah community refused to receive a visit from us. While this was going on, the Chairman of the National Aboriginal Conference, Mr Hagan, was telling the United Nations in Geneva that Australia's 400 000 Aborigines were a dying race-and he was doing this with the assistance of Mr Philip Vincent from the Aboriginal Legal Service. And three days later, the Press reported that a meeting at Derby of all Aboriginal Land Councils followed the A.C.T.U./T.L.C. example by imposing a ban on negotiations with explorers and miners in the North-apparently imagining, like their union counterparts, that their word was law. A party of them also raised the land rights flag at the Noonkanbah drill site. And, the following day, Mr Cook and Mr Barr of the A.W.U. were there also, trying to find out the names of the men who were manning the drill so they could be dealt with at a later date. A week later, Mr Hawke sang his swan song when he gave the A.C.T.U. endorsement of Mr Cook's T.L.C. plan of action against Amax, C.S.R., the Government, the drillers, and others. Early in October, Mr Hawke's successor, Mr Dolan, called off the action against C.S.R. And, on the Aboriginal side of the story, three more significant statements were made. The Director of the Victorian Aboriginal Health Service, Mr Gary Foley, said in a television interview that he was involved in establishing a propaganda network in Europe with a permanent office in London, and that it would be extended soon to the Middle East, Africa and Latin America. Mr Foley said the network's activities were based on the ''propaganda tactics of Southern African and Palestinian Liberation groups'' and would receive overseas funds. In Perth, the Western Australian Chairman of the National Aboriginal Conference , the Rev. Cedric Jacobs, called for a re-examination of the role of white advisers to Aboriginal communities. He said he was concerned about the motivation behind their involvement. He expressed grave concern that politicians were indiscriminately using Aboriginal communities for political gain. Also in Perth, a month later, the former Chairman of the Northern Land Council, Mr Galurrwuy Yunupingu, said the intervention of white activists at Noonkanbah had complicated the Aboriginal land rights issue to help force a confrontation. To this extent, he said, Noonkanbah did a disservice to the land rights cause generally. He added: ''Aborigines are being manipulated by the same people all over Australia''. And now, with the completion this week of the Noonkanbah drilling, phase two of the 1980 confrontation has come to an end. It now remains to explain to the House how the Government undertook the drilling. THE DRILL When the Government took over the drill at Noonkanbah, it created a precedent. Never before had it been necessary to take such a step. Such a step could have been avoided on this occasion if the law had been respected, and certain union leaders had not wasted so much union time and money on what so often looked like personal power play. However, what should have been was not to be. And, finally, because of the threats of the A.C.T.U. and the T.L.C., the Government saw the need to step in once more and take the brunt. It did this by taking over the interest in the drilling contract held by Amax on behalf of its consortium. Having taken that interest, the Government then became the operator under the terms of the contract. As the operator, it was entitled under the contract to exercise the right to take over the drill on the grounds that the contractor was unable to provide a full working crew because union members were being forced to withhold their labour. On this basis, the Government, as operator, took over the drill. In case this move proved to be necessary, the Government had already held discussions with private individuals who were willing to put a crew together. When agreement was reached, these people formed a company called Omen Pty Ltd. They were in existence, and ready, when the Government found it necessary to move in and take the brunt in order to get the drilling started. Let me say at this stage that the men who formed this company and worked for it have been subjected to the usual A.C.T.U./T.L.C. character assassination-on the grounds that they are supposed to be scabs. This malicious claim is totally untrue. Whether we accept the scab concept or not, it originated in traditional union terms to refer to people who went to work for less money when union members were on strike, or even sacked for fighting for what they believed to be a just wage. Wages were not the issue here. The issue was the right to work. And Mr Hawke and Mr Cook-despite their pretensions-have no legal, moral or industrial grounds for presuming to take that right away from anyone. Under force, some men chose not to work on the drill. Despite the force, some men chose to work. I think they deserve the strongest commendation of all Members of this House. They were men with courage that is rare in these days-when union leaders like Mr Hawke and Mr Cook use intimidation on such a grand scale to force workers to support actions that have no industrial base, are entirely political, and are subversive of lawful order and community interest. In making these comments, I want them to apply not only to the drill crew but also to the drivers who took the convoy to Noonkanbah. They all deserve our heartiest congratulations and our thanks for having the courage to support the role of Government in upholding the law. I come now to the question of the cost of the drilling. The drilling did not cost the Government anything. Although the Government took a total risk when it took over the operator's position and the rig, it took that risk with the sole objective of getting drilling started. Three weeks later, after negotiations with Amax, the Government was able to transfer back to them the operator's interest in the drilling contract. When Omen's first monthly account for its work went to the operator-the operator was Amax. To enable Omen to carry its day-to-day costs, the Government provided a guarantee for its bank account. Again, this has been provided at no cost to the Government, because the funds employed were provided by Omen's private bank. The same applied to the transport costs of moving the rig. The bill went to Amax. However, the Government did face other associated costs. After taking over the road through to Noonkanbah, $66 332 was spent on upgrading it, of which Amax paid $11 000 towards heavy-duty cattle grids at station gateways. Backup services were also provided to the convoy by the State Emergency Service . This was seen as a valuable opportunity to engage in a practical exercise providing new experience of importance to the future in long-range logistical support which could be needed without warning in various parts of the State and for a variety of reasons. I did, in fact, provide new insights into requirements for ensuring that the State Emergency Service can function effectively in a highly mobile situation. State Emergency Service operations are not, of course, a charge against private individuals or organisations. However, as a matter of interest to Parliament, the net expenditure, after allowing for durable stores kept for future use, was $173 000. This will most probably lead to an overrun in the State Emergency Service 1980/ 81 Budget, but the extent of it will not be known until the end of the financial year. If no other emergency occurs, existing provisions may reduce substantially the final amount required to cover any extra State Emergency Service expenditures over 1980/81 Budget provisions. I return now to the Noonkanbah Well. The correct name of the Noonkanbah drill hole is the Fitzroy River Number One Well. It has been completed at a depth of 3 134 metres. The rig is being returned to the Perth Basin for further drilling on the encouraging Woodada structure. The Fitzroy Well revealed a show of hydrocarbons between 2 095 and 2 130 metres , but this was in sandstone, with very low porosity, and no apparent permeability. Minor gas shows occurred intermittently in similar sandy beds below 2 130 metres, but again they proved to be tight. Two such zones just above 2 800 metres were tested, and produced a weak flow of gas at a rate too small to measure. Although no major discovery has been made, the well has shown the presence of hydrocarbons varying from liquid to dry gas over a section of more than 800 metres. In our opinion, this provides further encouragement for the search for those areas in the Fitzroy Basin which could provide the necessary reservoir conditions to store such hydrocarbons. The search for oil is essentially a search for information. Through the painstaking collection of information-often at great cost-petroleum discoveries are made. Most of the world's wells are dry wells. But without the information they give us there would be no oil production at all. The well drilled on Noonkanbah was an essential part of exploration for petroleum which must proceed with all the encouragement we can give it in Australia's interests. In becoming involved in the way it has in the drilling of the well on Noonkanbah, the Government has shouldered its responsibilities to serve the community interests and will continue to do so. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I thank the Senate. I conclude by saying that the fundamental intention of the legislation, if it were carefully drafted in such a way as to embrace nothing other than the preservation and protection of Aboriginal heritage and traditions in a refined sense, would have the support of many of us. The legislation is not intended for that purpose. It is intended to provide the Minister, Mr Holding, with some token of achievement prior to the next election and prior to the July conference of the Australian Labor Party. As I said, the legislation is a disguise for de facto land rights. It is not about setting aside land for sacred sites; it is the first foot in the door of uniform land rights which we have been promised and with which we have been threatened. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.44) —I welcome the chance to contribute to the debate on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill 1984. I must say that one of the welcome features of the debate has been the universal affirmation by honourable senators from both sides of the chamber that they are in favour of the protection of sites which are sacred to Aboriginal people. I was asked a while ago by Senator Peter Baume, who is addicted to crossword puzzles: 'What do you call a list of saints?' I told him that I thought the answer was a litany. If that is true, I want to join a litany of saints. I want to join Senators Boswell , MacGibbon and Crichton-Browne in their affirmation of the importance of the protection of Aboriginal sites. I welcome the fact that so many Opposition senators have put that view on the record. The difficulty that the Opposition has with this legislation is that, like many Acts of Parliament, it could be used to do good, but, like many other Acts of Parliament, it could also be used for purposes which would not achieve good. It is the view of the Opposition that the legislation in this form at this time is not in the interests of the Aboriginal people of Australia, nor is it in the interests of the broader community. We have had many suggestions made during this debate about how we should all behave. Senator Cook said that this was an issue on which there was division when we should be unified. Yet when it was raised with him, by way of interjection, that there were differences of view even between the Federal Caucus and the State Caucus of the Australian Labor Party in Western Australia, he was quick to categorise that as an honest difference of view. I hope to be able to put down what I regard as some honest differences of view with this legislation. I believe they are views which cross party lines and which cross even the lines of race in this country, with some Aboriginal people being concerned about this legislation and others being very actively desirous that it be passed. I believe there is room for honest differences of view but on this occasion the Opposition is right and the Government is wrong. I will try to explain why. As far as the debate is concerned, I would like also to remind the Senate that Senator Cook, in that same speech, having made that plea for more unity, went on to describe critics of the legislation as indulging in scaremongering, racist claptrap. I will try to avoid that sort of pejorative expression in describing some of the views that honourable senators opposite have expressed. To comment on a couple of other contributions to the debate, Senator Macklin last night made an excellent speech but with which I strongly disagree. I hope during the course of my speech to be able to indicate why I differ from what I am sure on his part is a most honestly and sincerely held view. As I may not have time to get back to it in the time available, I say that Senator Macklin's satisfaction that this Parliament should sit as the final arbiter of whether a particular Aboriginal site should be protected is a proposition which I find very hard to support. Having had some experience of the conflict which can occur about the extent of sites and protection which should be afforded them, I can say only that the Western Australian view that such matters should be vested in a body such as the Western Australian Museum finds more favour with me. I believe that matters of such complexity, where so many issues can arise and so many examples can be brought forward for examination, are beyond the physical capacity of this Parliament. With the greatest respect for the views put forward by Senator Macklin, I have to say that I think they ignore the realities of the work load of this Parliament and the amount of time that can be devoted to any particular issue at any particular time. It is not possible for the Parliament of the Commonwealth to become an executive body. We are a legislative body. We can inquire and we can put some fetter on the Executive. But for us to be the final arbiters in this way in respect of the protection of sites is unrealistic. If I have to time discuss the issue of Noonkanbah, which seems to be raised very often, I hope to be able to demonstrate that view. I would also like to disagree with a point made by Senator Coleman in her speech last night. She said that this Bill should not be regarded as land rights legislation and referred us as authority for that to the second reading speech. I merely wish to say, in response to her comments of last night, that we cannot, in determining the ambit of this legislation, rely on the second reading speech where that speech is not in accord with the words of the Bill. In particular, the Opposition would be most reluctant to rely upon the limitations which the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) has laid down for himself in his second reading speech when in fact the Bill would permit him to go further than that speech indicates. Our objections are not based on the second reading speech. Our objections are based on the wording of the Bill which we think is too broad and gives rise to the sorts of fears which I think are destructive of Aboriginal and non- Aboriginal relations in this country. I wish to say one other thing about the question of scare tactics. I say very seriously to the Labor Government that I think one of the principal difficulties that we have in Aboriginal affairs at the current time is that for many years now Labor has promised too much. I have raised this matter with the Labor Party, both privately and, occasionally, publicly. I believe that in the Northern Territory, for example, the sensible operation of Aboriginal affairs has been hindered by the fact that the Labor Party there has tended to embrace each Aboriginal demand and to run with it. In an area where we had substantial bipartisanship that has really made bipartisanship extremely difficult. The truth is that the resolution of issues in Aboriginal affairs essentially requires an accommodation of different demands, viewpoints, needs and rights. There has to be compromise; there has to be an accommodation. I believe that the Labor Party has overpromised and made satisfactory resolution of some of these difficult issues almost impossible. There has been great criticism of my Party in this place by members of the Labor Party because it has campaigned very vigorously against the Labor Party's land rights proposals in Western Australia. Let me try to put that very quickly into context. Before the last State election in Western Australia, the Labor Party made promises to the Aboriginal people of Western Australia which I believe are incapable of fulfilment and will not be fulfilled. The Labor Party of Western Australia, to the face of the Aboriginal people who came before it, made promises that it would introduce legislation which would apply to Western Australia provisions similar to those of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill. I do not believe that that will or can occur. I am not sure whether the Labor Party understood the difficulties that it was laying for itself and the community when it made that promise. But let me say to the Senate that all of us who have taken an interest in this subject over the years know that the land rights legislation in the Northern Territory has given rise to difficulties. By saying that, I do not wish to recant from the importance or the positive gains that were made by the enactment of land rights legislation in that Territory. However, I think that any honest observer will say that the Act has proved to be more open-ended than it was thought to be. Firstly, it has certainly embraced greater areas than were predicted by the responsible Liberal Minister of the day. Secondly, the mechanisms which were meant to resolve the conflicts of land use which were inherent between mining and Aboriginal interests have not worked satisfactorily so far. They have not totally failed; good and positive things can be pointed to. But there are significant problems which have resulted in an enormous concern on the part of the resource industries that if there is an extension of similar legislation there will be massive economic damage to Australia. The truth is that if one goes back to Mr Justice Woodward's Second Report of the Aboriginal Land Rights Commission, one finds that he showed a becoming modesty in putting forward his recommendations. He said: 'Those are my views after careful inquiry'. But he also said: 'This is going to be novel legislation and we should be prepared to examine its import after a few years, think about it and perhaps adjust it'. I do not quote him exactly but I think that is the spirit of one of the comments that Mr Justice Woodward made in his second report . The reality is that that sort of re-examination is appropriate. Changes could and should be made. The sad thing is that the Labor Party in Western Australia has made promises in terms which suggest that the Northern Territory model is there to be followed. If that model is followed, of course, any deficiencies which exist in the Northern Territory will be transplanted to Western Australia. It is that fear, that concern, which lies at the heart of the really heated debate which is occurring in Western Australia and which is giving rise to great depths of adverse feeling between Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals. There is a diminishing support for the interests and the advancement of Aboriginals because of that debate. The reality is that if one translated precisely the Northern Territory Act to Western Australia it would, of course, immediately translate 8. 7 per cent of the State, the existing Aboriginal reserves, to Aboriginal land. Vacant Crown land makes up, I understand, nearly 40 per cent of Western Australia. In theory at least that would be open to claim. Pastoral leases make up another 37 per cent of Western Australia. In theory, those pastoral leases, if purchased by Aboriginals, could be open to claim. There is a reality about that possibility because, after all, the Government did make certain promises, which lie at the heart, in my view, of the difficulties that have arisen in Aboriginal affairs over recent years. Senator Crichton-Browne —They are attracted to their platform. Senator CHANEY —That is right. What I am saying to the Senate, and I am saying with very great seriousness, is that there is really a great onus on the Labor Party to ensure that what it holds out for the Aboriginal people of Australia is realistic and compatible with the sort of accommodation of interest which I tried to describe very briefly before. In the case of the Western Australian Government, I understand there have been some statements which indicate that the Federal Government will limit the extent of what it proposes. I put the view that unless it is made quite clear that the difficulties which have arisen in the Northern Territory will be avoided and unless it is made quite clear that there will be limitations imposed which go beyond the limits of the Northern Territory legislation, we will see the continuance of a very difficult debate which could become a very ugly debate in my State of Western Australia. It is within that context that what the Government is now doing federally is being considered. We all know, of course, of the conflict between the Federal and State governments on these issues. We know that the Federal Minister would like to move more quickly even before the State Government of Western Australia had a chance to complete its investigation and inquiry. In all these matters, I seriously urge the Government to show much greater caution than it has shown to date, not in the interests of some sort of party politics or party advancement, but in the interests of getting some working solutions. The Opposition is opposed to the Bill because, as I said, we think it is bad for Australia, bad for the Aboriginal people and, in particular, I would say, potentially bad for the relations between Aboriginals and other Australians. What we do not oppose is the protection of sites of special sacred significance, sacred objects or matters of archaeological significance or interest or matters of cultural or artistic interest. There is a whole range of things which, in the interest of Australia generally, we would wish to see protected and which because of the particular interest to the Aboriginal people we want to see protected. A wide range of objectors to this legislation approached the Opposition. I will quote again from a statement of the Western Australian State Minister responsible for Aboriginal Affairs in the Hansard of Tuesday, 8 May. I do that to remove the smear which has been used in parts of this debate to the effect that anyone who opposes this legislation is some form of extreme right winger. I will quote only part of page 8055 of the Western Australian State Hansard. Mr Wilson said: 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. A little later he said: Quite frankly, we believe that the Federal legislation is unnecessary. We shall continue to insist on prior consultation at all times with the State Government. Still later he said: We believe that the legislation which we have, which is to be reviewed as part of the Seaman inquiry, is already more wide-reaching than the interim legislation, which for some reason is to apply for two years---- He went on to say: . . . we shall continue to make vigorous representations to the Federal Government to ensure the State's prerogatives, particularly with respect to the mining industry and locally administered industries are fully accounted for. I could quote the representations of the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association, the Australian Mining Industry Council, the farmers and private individuals, including many Aboriginals, who sent messages to us, but many of them have been quoted already in the debate. The key point I wish to make is that there is a range of concern about this Bill which would have made it prudent for the Government to have stood the legislation over to the Budget session. It was requested to do this by various representatives in the hope that the common ambition of every representative who I have come across that we find some satisfactory mechanism for the protection of what we all believe could be protected, could be achieved, rather than that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs should ram through legislation which has such widespread opposition. There may be safeguarding procedures in this legislation. There are procedures for advertising and calling for reports and what reports shall contain, but there are real deficiencies, which most speakers have already dealt with and I do not have time to deal with them again. The central deficiency is that the Minister may act with respect to any area of land-I now refer to the Bill-which is 'an area of particular significance to Aboriginals in accordance with Aboriginal tradition'. The definition of 'Aboriginal tradition' is very wide. It reads: 'Aboriginal tradition' means the body of traditions . . . and beliefs of Aboriginals generally or of a particular community . . . and includes any such traditions, observances, customs or beliefs relating to particular persons, areas, objects or relationships . . . Those words are very broad and they leave very squarely in the hands of the Minister the difficulty-it is not a privilege that he has; it is an enormous difficulty-of making judgments about claims, which are unlimited as to area; about whether those areas are of particular significance to Aboriginals within the meaning of that definition. On my understanding, traditional Aboriginal communities, people who are still traditionally associated with their own land, have beliefs which relate to the whole of their land. An explanation of the form of that land is contained in their mythology, beliefs or whatever we might choose to call it; in other words, the landscape with which they are associated will be explained by the stories, mythology, or whatever it might be called, of the group in question. If that is the situation, it can be argued that all land has significance for the Aboriginals who are traditionally associated with it. I believe that the breadth of the definitions in this Bill will put the Minister in a totally impossible position in terms of denying or acceding to particular claims. Unless the Bill is meant to protect the generality of land which is of significance to living Aboriginals, there is no way one can spell out from it the particular thing that gives land significance which would demand attention. Of course a person of goodwill could administer this legislation in a satisfactory way. A person of ill will could administer it in an unsatisfactory way. But even a person of goodwill will, I believe, be faced with claims which go beyond that person's capacity to make a final judgment. I think this Bill is simply not definitive enough. Let me illustrate that matter by talking about Noonkanbah, which was mentioned in the beginning of the second reading speech of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs as one of the key examples of why the legislation is needed. Let me say just a few things about Noonkanbah. Noonkanbah is a pastoral lease purchased for Aboriginal people by the Commonwealth to enable them to re-establish themselves. A community did re-establish itself at Noonkanbah. When miners wished to drill at Noonkanbah they went there in large numbers. The situation arose in which it was clear that the Aboriginal people wished to withstand the entry of the miners. That is the reality. I visited the people of Noonkanbah on a number of occasions. Clearly, that was their view. The one means that those Aboriginal people had for resisting mining of a pastoral lease was to claim the protection of the heritage legislation. That became the focus of the resistance to the entry of miners on to Noonkanbah. The question went before the Western Australian museum, which has responsibility under the heritage legislation. The museum had a couple of cracks at it. It identified sites-initially simply locational sites, points on the map. Subsequently there was an identification of areas of influence around those sites. The real issue was whether drilling should be allowed not on a sacred site but on an area of influence which was relevant to a sacred site. I can only assure the Senate that I examined that case as carefully as I think a Minister in office can do. I visited Noonkanbah several times. I spent the whole of Good Friday-I remember it very well-of the Easter before the Noonkanbah conflict with Dicky Skinner and a man called George, whose second name I forget, who was working for the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. They came to my home and we spent the whole day talking about the question of sites. I still have in my Perth files the brown paper on which they made marks as we talked about what was concerning them. It interested me that they identified sites as we talked and marked that piece of paper in the same way as the museum had done initially. In other words, they identified locational sites which were important . The whole day's conversation was at a reasonable level of sophistication; I mean that in terms of religious sophistication. I remember early in the day making a joke about the ox having fallen into the pit. George immediately said: 'Yes, and Noonkanbah is the pit'. He happened to be a Christian and I think Dicky Skinner probably is too. The thing that came out of that day was that they were determined that there should be site protection and they identified sites in a specific locational sense. I think we all agree that a site can have an area of influence. We would all agree, for example, that the large protection given to something like Mount Brockman in the Northern Territory is an example of that. But I must say that, in all my conversations, both on Good Friday and on my other visits, it never seemed to me that we were talking about an area which really had the sort of significance that much of the debate attributed to it. I also had the benefit of long discussions with Professor Berndt. Professor Berndt made a series of public statements at that time which you, Madam Acting Deputy President, would remember. I think it is very important to note that Professor Berndt made a clear distinction between areas which are of special sacred significance and areas which have a significance in a traditional sense but which are essentially part of the living areas, the areas of land used by the general community, used for hunting, living, eating, sleeping and for all the general purposes and used, in fact, for economic production. It was my very clear view at the time as a Minister who was concerned with the issue that we were dealing with a situation where there was not a matter of infringement of special sacred, secret sites, places of high order, but rather there was to be an intrusion on land for which there was certainly a traditional significance but which was traditionally used for living purposes, production and so on. Really, my conviction on that was complete when the Aboriginal people of Noonkanbah said to me-and here reflect something Senator Crichton-Browne said, but in slightly different terms: 'We don't just want that site protected. We don 't want anyone on this station. We want no mining at all'. I would have to say that I think there is a great deal of fiction about the Noonkanbah episode. I wish to say publicly that I believe the ultimate conflict need not have occurred and indeed would not have occurred had my efforts to achieve some reconciliation not been frustrated, in part, I believe, by State officials initially but principally by Mr Steven Hawke who actively worked against everything that I sought to achieve and who, I might say, misled me very badly in my dealings with him. The important point I want to make is that I do not believe that, if we pass this legislation, the issues which arose at Noonkanbah can be satisfactorily settled by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs under the terms of this legislation or by this Parliament. The issues are just too difficult and require a far more complicated manner of dealing with them. I think there has to be some objective criteria available where people are charged with the responsibility of determining what the facts are and where there is something other than a ministerial discretion and a parliamentary control involved. I cannot think of anything worse for Aboriginal affairs and indeed for this Government, come to think of it, if we are going to have a situation where issues of the sort which arose at Noonkanbah are sought to be solved within the political arena. I think that is totally crazy. On that basis I think this legislation is fundamentally flawed and ought to be avoided. We are not dealing with circumstances which involve only people of good will. We are dealing with circumstances where motives are complex and, I think, multifaceted and where we need to look much more to the model of, say, the Western Australian heritage legislation than to the sort of model which has been adopted in this place, but I do not pretend that either model will have any complete answer to the problem which we have. I know this is a request to which it is too late now for the Government to accede but I say to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) who is sitting at the table: I think it would serve all of Australia well, and Aboriginal Australians well, if the Government took up the offer which has been made by so many of those who are concerned to delay this legislation and enable it to be recast in a form which would be more workable and more suitable. I think that the tone of the contributions from Opposition senators indicates that that would be a course which would meet with widespread approval because after all a variety of viewpoints have been put forward in those speeches. I think this legislation is a mistake and will add to the difficulties which are rampant in Aboriginal affairs at the moment and which, I think, are doing a great deal of harm. My assessment of this legislation is that perhaps it is well intentioned but it will give a Minister, who I think is too impetuous for the role in which he has been placed, an impossible burden. There is nothing in his record as a Minister to suggest that he, in particular, would carry that burden with wisdom. I am sure he would carry it with sincerity; I do not believe he would carry it with wisdom. I ask the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) to exercise her authority and let this legislation lie on the table so that it can be properly examined and commented on and the consultation which has not occurred in the past can occur in the future. The only other thing I wish to say is that I know that would be a matter of disappointment and rancour, and that the National Aboriginal Conference in particular has called upon the Government to pass this legislation without delay. But I think in a sense the NAC is locked into that position. Over recent weeks I have talked to a number of Aboriginal people. They are as alive as anyone to the very real problems that are developing in the Australian community because of the demands being made on behalf of Aboriginal people which go beyond the perception of Australians as being a fair go. I think they are aware of the damage which is being done and they have trepidation about it. This is unwise legislation, being handled unwisely and, as I used to say of the Whitlam Government and will say again: It is one thing to have good will; it is one thing to have generosity; it is one thing to want to do the right thing; it is quite another thing to do it. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(6.13) —in reply-I rise to conclude the second reading debate on behalf of the Government. A number of issues and criticisms have been raised by the Opposition in the course of the debate which could be answered at this stage by me but the answers would be somewhat gratuitous since they would be repetitions of criticisms and objections that were raised in the House of Representatives and which were thoroughly dealt with by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Clyde Holding. So I will not delay the Senate by going over those criticisms. Senator Withers —Rubbish. Senator RYAN —It is interesting that Senator Withers has chosen to join the debate at this stage and by interjection starts to attack legislation of which he had no coherent or sensible criticism to raise at the proper time. Most of the criticisms and most of the reservations that have been expressed about the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill 1984 are unfounded and relate to the debate about land rights that is going on in the community generally, and in Western Australia in particular, and do not relate to this legislation. Let me address some of the major matters. This legislation, first of all, is interim legislation. It is legislation that has a two-year sunset clause. Thus we are admitting to the Aboriginal community, in the first instance, to the general public and to the Senate that there will be room at the end of those two years to review it and to move on to legislation which is appropriate to take a permanent form. So any predictions about land being locked up forever, or rights of other members of the community being violated forever, are totally ludicrous. We are dealing with short term legislation designed to give the Government power to act in emergency situations. That is the other important character of this legislation to be stressed. It is emergency legislation. It will provide the Federal Government with the power to act in an emergency to protect Aboriginal sites or sacred objects or remains. It is not designed to introduce land rights by stealth, which has been claimed by many of the less informed more hysterical speakers on the Opposition side. It will not lead to a mapping of the whole of Australia to establish and protect sacred sites. Such legislation may come in the future-I hope it does-but this legislation certainly will not do that. The powers of this legislation will be initiated only when there is an emergency or a complaint, only when an Aboriginal community or person goes to the Minister and says that a site or a sacred object is about to be damaged or relics are about to be desecrated. Only in such an emergency situation will the powers of the legislation be instigated. It is totally misleading to do as many Opposition speakers in this debate have done; that is, to present the legislation as attempting to encompass the whole of the sacred sites throughout this land. It certainly does not do that. It is emergency legislation. It has also been said in the course of the debate that this legislation ignores existing State legislation or will put us on a collision course with State governments, that it will override satisfactory legislation and things of that kind. It will do none of those things. Both the legislation itself and the second reading speech set out very clearly the way in which State governments will be consulted and the possibility of using State legislation will be examined in every case before this legislation is used. This legislation will be used where existing State legislation is defective for the purpose in hand. Where there cannot be an effective protection of a sacred site, object or relic under existing State legislation the Commonwealth legislation will be used. The case at Noonkanbah has been discussed at great length in the course of this debate, particularly by Senator Chaney, who was the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs when the trauma occurred. What was wrong there, as Senator Chaney himself has admitted in his remarks, was that the State heritage legislation was inadequate and ineffective and so trauma ocurred, a trauma which has been regretted by most people in Australia and by Senator Chaney himself. The legislation can sit happily with existing effective State legislation. Another criticism of the legislation is that it places enormous powers and discretion in the hands of the Federal Minister and that that is wrong. That criticism was most ably rejected by Senator Macklin from the Australian Democrats when he spoke the other night. It will not do those things. In fact, this legislation, unlike a great deal of the legislation passed in the Parliament, places the onus back on this chamber or on the House of Representatives to disallow any determination made by the legislation with which the Parliament does not agree. Again, that period of disallowance, similar to what is provided for regulations passing through the Parliament, emphasises the emergency character of the legislation. If a decision is made under this legislation by the Minister to take steps to protect a site and it is afterwards decided by the Parliament or by this chamber that the decision is not justified and the threat is not there the decision can be disallowed. That is the greatest protection of the interests that will be involved in the decision made under the legislation. Senator Crichton-Browne —Will those contemplations be made in respect of 750,000 identified sites in Western Australia alone? Senator RYAN —In deference to honourable senators and because of the hour I will refrain from commenting on the interjection of Senator Crichton-Browne. His contribution to the debate was one of the worst in a series of very bad contributions made by many members of the Opposition. Senator Chaney —Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. The Minister seems to be under the misapprehension that she needs to be in a tearing hurry. The Government has put down a motion which has us sitting after dinner. It has indicated it is quite happy for us to sit on Saturday. As this is important legislation I think the Minister should give us a full and substantive reply. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —That is not a point of order, Senator Chaney. I call the Minister. Senator RYAN —The Opposition knows that its attempts to obstruct this legislation will fail. This legislation will pass, it will not be delayed any further. The Government will not permit it to be delayed any further. The Australian Democrats will support us in our commitment to the Aboriginal community of Australia to pass this legislation. There will be no further deferral on spurious grounds or even on some of the genuine grounds which Senator Chaney raised. There will be no further deferral as none is called for. All of the genuine points that have been raised in the debate on this legislation have been met time and time again. As I said, most of the criticisms that have been made are totally unfounded because they relate to things that will not happen under this legislation, that were never envisaged as happening. This is emergency legislation. The least we can do is give the Aboriginal community security for a two-year period during which time their sacred sites, their sacred objects and their remains will not be desecrated either deliberately or unknowingly by mining companies or any other agencies that constitute a threat to Aboriginal heritage. Senator Chaney in his contribution to the debate took time to set out very clearly his interpretation of what occurred over Noonkanbah. In doing so he reminded the Senate that he had attempted to play a conciliatory role, that he had attempted to achieve a reconciliation which would have made unnecessary the ultimate trauma of the invasion of the land by mining companies at Noonkanbah. I am aware that Senator Chaney did sincerely seek a reconciliation of that issue, that he did make all of the efforts that he saw as being possible to avert the disaster that finally occurred. I have no criticism of his motives during that period. But the fact remains that he was unsuccessful. His attempts at reconciliation failed and a most regrettable event occurred. We are going beyond that. It is not good enough for Senator Chaney at this stage of the debate to say that there are too many defects in this legislation, that he does not like it and that it is not the right way to solve the problem of the desecration of sacred sites. That is clearly his view. But he was the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and he had a genuine desire-I believe and accept that-to protect sacred sites from desecration. He failed to do so. So the methods that he advocated did not achieve his stated objective. We are taking a further step and legislating in response to extensive consultation with Aboriginal communities. We are legislating in a way which will provide the opportunity for further consultation and for an ultimate strengthening of the legislation. I reply very specifically to one point raised by Senator Macklin. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has asked that I publicly clarify one aspect of this legislation which he understands is causing concern to some Aboriginals. The Australian Democrats have drawn to the Minister's attention the objection of those Aboriginals that the Bill does not require the Minister to consult the traditional owners of areas and objects being considered for declaration under the Act. In the Minister's opinion this objection is ill-founded. However, as some Aboriginals are genuinely concerned about this matter the Minister has asked that I give an assurance that where there are traditional Aboriginal owners or custodians of an area or object which is the subject of an application those people or their recognised representatives will be consulted before any declaration is made. The Government will amend the Act in the Budget sitting to give effect to this assurance. In conclusion, it is to be regretted that the Opposition has seen fit to oppose this legislation, which is both unique and historical in that it is the first Commonwealth legislation dealing with important Aboriginal issues which will have application in all States and Territories of the Commonwealth. It is the first such legislation since the 1967 referendum. It is legislation drafted in direct response to and with the support of all Aboriginal communities in Australia. It is legislation that takes account of State and Territory interests . It is legislation that, for the first time, recognises the Commonwealth's ultimate constitutional responsibility for Aboriginal affairs in this country. It is legislation that not only will provide security for Aboriginal members of our society but also will enhance the cultural heritage of all Australians. Senator Chaney, in his concluding remarks, made a very serious criticism of the Labor Government's performance in the area of Aboriginal affairs. It was a very wide-ranging criticism and a criticism which, I believe, embraced not only the Federal Government but also the State governments, and certainly the State Government of his State. He said that we have offered too much. Senator Chaney said that the Labor Party has offered too much to the Aboriginal people. He predicted that we will not be able to deliver and, as a result, that we were not acting in the interests of Aboriginal people. I would like to respond to that. What we have offered to the Aboriginal people we have offered genuinely and after years of consultation with Aboriginal people. We have not drawn offers out of the hat to attract votes or to provide short term solutions to immediate problems. We have made genuine offers. If they are a little idealistic, we do not resile from that. After all, we are a party of idealism. We are a party with a very deep philosophical commitment to restoring to Aboriginal people some of the things they were deprived of by the European colonisation of this country. We do not believe we have offered too much. We may not be able to deliver everything we have offered in our first term of government. However, we are intent on delivering as much as we can during the first term. I believe that what we have offered is not too much for a determined reformist government to deliver. I certainly do not believe that it is too much to offer to the Aboriginal people of this country who have lost so much. I believe that this piece of legislation is a major step towards fulfilling what we have offered Aboriginal people. It is a step which will be followed by many others. But it is certainly an historic and important step towards fulfilling the commitments we have made to the Aboriginal communities of Australia. We will not delay the legislation further. We will deliver this part of what we have committed ourselves to deliver. I believe that Senator Chaney's predictions and pessimisms on this point will prove very quickly to be ill-founded. I commend the legislation to the Senate. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator CHANEY —I wish to make a personal explanation with respect to a point just made by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) that I said that the Australian Labor Party had offered too much. I certainly made a comment that the Labor Party offered too much. However, in the context of this question of land rights, I referred to that specifically in my speech. I make it quite clear that I am certainly not suggesting that the Aboriginal people have been offered too much in terms of health care, housing, education or anything else. I do not suggest that a lot has not been done. But I certainly would not wish the record to suggest that I was of the view that too much had been offered and too much had been done in any of those related areas. My concern was quite specifically that, in offering far beyond what, in fact, the Government is capable of delivering or will deliver, and in offering far more than the rest of the community would regard as fair, damage is being done to the attitudes to Aboriginal people. That is something which causes me very great concern. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Bolkus, N. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Coleman, R. N. Ray, RobertElstob, R. C. Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Richardson, G. F. Foreman, D. J. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Gietzelt, A. T. Ryan, S. M. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Jones, G. N. Zakharov, A. O. Baume, Peter 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. Hill, R. Teague, B. C. Kilgariff, B. F. Watson, J. O. W. Lajovic, M. E. Withers, R. G. MacGibbon, D. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Sitting suspended from 6.34 to 8 p.m. Clauses 1 and 2-by leave-taken together. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(8.01) —I make an observation with respect to clause 1, the short title of the proposed Act, which reads: This Act may be cited as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage ( Interim Protection) Act 1984. I would say that this is a misnomer in real terms. It gives the impression that it is simply an interim protection measure for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage matters. The thrust of the legislation is that it provides for de facto land rights. It would be better described as something other than that. The provisions of the Bill as one goes through them one by one clearly demonstrate that the Minister by declaration is able to set aside land for a whole range of purposes, again by definition. Those definitions fall within the ambit of what might normally be described as land rights. The title in no way in my view is a reflection of the intention of the Bill. The intention of the Bill, as the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) has said, is that it is to be an interim measure until such time as uniform land rights are introduced into the Parliament after the next election. We are told that further consultation is required in respect of uniform land rights. I understand that legislation has been drafted for some time now. It has been negotiated with the National Aboriginal Conference. In my view it in no way reflects on the greater and wider Aboriginal community. But it has been prepared and is subject to wider consultation with members of the Australian Labor Party who have an interest in these matters. In the meantime, the Minister has simply taken this Bill as a fallback position rather than gone ahead with legislation which he knows will be totally unacceptable to the community. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Elstob) —Order! I think the honourable senator should address his remarks to clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —With respect, Mr Temporary Chairman, I was trying to demonstrate to you that the short title of the Bill is not a reflection of the intention of the Bill. I sought to demonstrate that by proceeding through the steps of what the Bill does in real terms and its relationship to further legislation. I was only using the words of the Minister who himself said that this was an interim measure, axiomatic upon uniform land rights being introduced . This Bill would then be incorporated into that legislation. That legislation is uniform land rights legislation and in no way intended simply to be restricted to heritage legislation. As a result of that, of course, one has to draw the conclusion that this is a holding position, to use the pun used earlier , in respect of uniform land rights which are intended to embrace all responsibilities for Aboriginals within Australia. So it is my view that the short title is not a reflection of the content of the legislation, nor is it a reflection of the intention of the legislation or a reflection of the clauses that describe the Bill as one moves through them one by one, even up to clause 32. Clauses agreed to. Clause 3 (Interpretation). Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(8.05) —Mr Temporary Chairman, I address myself to the definitions incorporated in clause 3 of the Bill, in particular, to the definitions of 'Aboriginal tradition' and 'significant Aboriginal area'. First and foremost, I note that the definition of 'Aboriginal tradition' is extremely wide as it is set down in this Bill. I am at a loss to know how that definition interlocks with the definition of 'significant Aboriginal area', insofar as those areas are supposed to be declared by the Minister in accordance with what he deems or decides to be in accordance with Aboriginal tradition. It seems to me that one of the main criticisms of this legislation is that there is very little specific detail as to how the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs might go about deciding what is Aboriginal tradition. I think we can see the significance of that problem if we read that definition alongside other clauses of the Bill which give, if you like, almost total power to the Minister to decide how and what kind of tradition ought to be taken into account. This is added to by the fact that anybody, be he an Aborigine or any other person, can make an application to the Minister to seek a declaration by the Minister in this circumstance. Yet, there is absolutely no premise that I can see in the Bill that gives us any guide as to what is an Aboriginal tradition. Those two things, as we have drawn out during the course of the second reading debate, are very closely intertwined. Of course, the broad question that has to be addressed is the difference between this legislation and the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 which attached some spiritual connection to sacred sites and this kind of declaration. In that respect, it seems to me that the Bill is terribly deficient in terms of guidelines. I would like to hear the Minister for Social Security ( Senator Grimes) tell the Committee how he expects that kind of association can be more closely identified. Perhaps he could give us some kind of reference to a body of Aboriginal tradition to which the ordinary person could refer in order to determine whether or not actions conflicted with Aboriginal practices of the past. The last point I would like to make in respect of this clause is that the wide definition that is set down in respect of Aboriginal tradition, quite apart from guidelines, needs some sort of closer definition in law. Therefore, I believe that this clause has not been given proper thought insofar as the Minister might leave himself open to the charge that he is adopting a view given to him orally- not necessarily in writing-as the Bill already defines, by a person who is not necessarily an Aborigine. The Minister can then make a decision in favour of a particular activity without reference to any kind of background at all in Aboriginal lore or tradition. I would like to relate clause 4, which we have not dealt with yet and which contains the words 'particular significance', to the clause before the Committee which contains the words 'significant Aboriginal area'. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(8.09) —I would also like to raise a number of matters arising from this interpretation section which I think is a centrally important part of the legislation which is before us. Certainly, the definitions give rise to a number of concerns which the Opposition has expressed in debate. I just express some regret that Senator Ryan is unable to be here tonight, given her long history as shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in this place. However, I have no doubt that Senator Grimes will pick up where she left off. The matters I wish to raise touch initially on the definitions mentioned by my colleague Senator Messner. First, I wish to mention the definition of 'area'. The clause provides that 'area' includes a site. I assume that is of some importance because the definition of 'area' as including a site makes it clear that the Bill is meant to go beyond the protection of what I might call a specific location and is, in fact, capable of providing protection to what might be described as broad acres. In terms of the debate which took place earlier at the second reading stage, it potentially would include in, say, the Noonkanbah situation areas of influence and areas which have some relationship to a site. Given the definitions of 'Aboriginal tradition' and 'significant Aboriginal area ', it may well mean land generally with respect to which the traditional Aboriginal beliefs are known and with respect to which the Aboriginals to whom those traditions are significant are still living. What I would like to do is to make a number of comments about how I read these definitions and seek from the Minister some indication as to whether the Government agrees with my reading and, if not, how it reads the definitions. I understand that the Minister at the table, Senator Grimes, cannot give us a legal opinion, but on the other hand we are responsible for the final form of this legislation and I would like to put down what I read from these definitions . I start with the proposition that the definition of 'area' means that the Minister is capable of protecting more than simply some specific identified site . It is something wider than that. The definition of 'significant Aboriginal area' refers to areas of land or areas of water being an area of particular significance to Aboriginals in accordance with Aboriginal tradition. So that definition does not take us very far. Again, it simply makes it plain, I think, that the Bill is dealing with undefined-in terms of quantity-areas of land or areas of water. In terms of which areas are protected, one has to look to what areas are of particular significance to Aboriginals in accordance with Aboriginal tradition and one is thrown back then to the definition of 'Aboriginal tradition'. In my speech at the second reading stage I raised the point that the definition of 'Aboriginal tradition' seems to me to be so wide as to include any Aboriginal tradition or belief which relates to a piece of land. The point which I raised at the second reading stage which is relevant to the inquiry which I am now making in this Committee is whether the definition of 'Aboriginal tradition' is so wide as to cover the explanation which a traditional Aboriginal community might have for the form of landscape. That might mean that one could have an Aboriginal tradition which encompasses the form of landscape over a very large area which is considered to be land which is traditionally owned or with respect to which there is a traditional association by a particular Aboriginal, individual or group. All that might seem fairly complicated, putting it in words, but I suppose the gravamen of my inquiry is whether the combined effect of those definitions means that any land with respect to which the traditional Aboriginal explanation is available-and where there are those who are associated with that traditional explanation of the form of the land-is effectively encompassed by the meaning of those definitions. In other words, given the definition of 'area' and the definition of 'Aboriginal tradition', can a 'significant Aboriginal area' include any land for which the traditional explanation for its form is known? The Minister is being assisted by officers of some experience in this area and officers whose knowledge of this matter is certainly superior to my own, but I would simply say, because I may be under some misapprehension in the matter, that it would be my understanding that in an area like Arnhem Land it could be said that the whole of the country had some traditional belief relating to it; in other words, that that could be so wide as to encompass the totality of an area in respect of which the traditionally associated community was still extant . I hope I have made that inquiry clear. Concern has been expressed by the Opposition about the possible breadth of this legislation and of course my inquiry relates to that concern. I would appreciate from the Minister an indication of the Government's understanding of what the composite effect of those definitions is. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(8.16) —I refer to clause 3, ' interpretation', particularly in relation to the definition of 'Aboriginal tradition'. When one looks around this chamber tonight one cannot help but be a little cynical about what this exercise is all about. Of course the exercise is to push through this legislation without due consideration for the people who are involved. Having listened to the rather emotional address today of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, who is in charge of the Bill, we now find that she is not here tonight while we are in Committee debating various points of the legislation. What is this game all about? We want to consider the Bill properly, and yet the people it affects have never been consulted and the Minister in charge of the Bill is not here tonight. It is a very cynical approach by the Government. Senator MacGibbon —She is no good; she is hopeless as a Minister. Senator KILGARIFF —They should replace her, then. Senator Grimes —At least she is not a crook like you. Senator KILGARIFF —I do not care what the Minister has to say about Senator Ryan not looking like me. Thank goodness she does not. Senator Grimes —Unfortunately you are deaf, too. Senator KILGARIFF —The Minister can get a little niggly if he wishes but I am sure that in his own heart he realises, from the voice of the nation, that with this legislation the Government has jumped the gun. I refer briefly to the interpretation of 'Aboriginal tradition' as it relates to the purpose of the Bill. What it really boils down to is this: The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) has taken upon himself all those powers that ordinarily Parliament does not give to a Minister. He has taken away powers from the Aboriginal people because he will tell them what they can and cannot do and what they will and will not accept. As I have indicated before, the purposes of the Bill indicate that the Aboriginal people will not have any say in the matter; the Minister will have full power. The Aboriginal people have indicated that they want time to consider the matter, so I suggest once again that the Government adjourn this debate and go back to the people, particularly the Aboriginal people. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(8.19) —I suppose the first thing one must do is dispose of the words of Senator Kilgariff. I do not know what they had to do with the Bill except to say that it should be deferred. I should point out to Senator Kilgariff that it is not the first time in this place that the Minister representing someone else had been unable to be here. Senator Kilgariff has no idea why she is unable to be here. I believe her reasons for not being here are valid. I believe there are plenty of reasons why Senator Kilgariff should not be in this chamber tonight, and they involve the last two hours. The first problem which arises tonight- Senator Kilgariff —I raise a point of order. I find that remark offensive. Senator GRIMES —In what way? Senator Kilgariff —I ask that the Minister withdraw that remark. Senator GRIMES —In what way does the honourable senator find it offensive? Spell it out. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Elstob) —Order! On the point of order, the Minister said that he did not know where Senator Kilgariff was for the last two hours. Senator GRIMES —I did not say that at all. Senator Withers —Don't cheek the Chair. Senator Kilgariff —Are you correcting the Chair? The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Order! There is no point of order. Senator GRIMES —The first matter that was raised tonight was raised by Senator Messner who is concerned about the definition of 'Aboriginal tradition'. In this Bill the definition reads: ''Aboriginal tradition'' means the body of traditions, observances, customs and beliefs of Aboriginals generally or of a particular community or group of Aboriginals, and includes any such traditions, observances, customs or beliefs relating to particular persons, areas, objects or relationships; I will give honourable senators another quotation from the Aboriginal (Land Rights) Northern Territory Act. It reads: ''Aboriginal tradition'' means the body of traditions, observances, customs and beliefs of Aboriginals or of a community or group of Aboriginals, and includes those traditions, observances, customs and beliefs as applied in relation to particular persons, sites, areas of land, things or relationships. This Act was produced by the previous Government in the past. Senator Messner —Which is different. Senator GRIMES —It is marginally different. Is the honourable senator really suggesting that the difference is such that it is a major point in the argument? Of course, we have problems of definition when we deal with the Aboriginal community. We have had problems for a long time. I remember the problems when William Wentworth, a distinguished member of the Liberal Party of Australia, had those definitions of Aboriginality. Problems and vagueness of definition used to echo across the chamber and across the country. Of course we have great difficulties in this area of definition. One cannot make strict definitions of the type that Opposition members talk about. Senator Chaney and other honourable senators talked about that definition of ' area' because it includes a site. As he said, because it includes a site, it is obviously wider than that. An area is defined as the area as declared. It must be defined when the Minister declares it. It becomes subject to public scrutiny. It becomes subject to parliamentary scrutiny. It is only declared and it is only defined if the area is under threat by mining or other sources. It is not, as the Minister assured us in another place, intended to include the sorts of broad acres to which Senator Chaney inferred that it would-- Senator Chaney —Could; I asked a question. Senator GRIMES —It could, but the Minister's discretion is not unfettered and Senator Chaney knows it is not unfettered. The Minister must consult with the relevant State or Territory Minister. He must call for or consider the report of an independent inquirer who publicly calls for submissions and considers a wide range of interests. He may call parties together to consult. He will consult with his Cabinet colleagues and consider any other matters that are considered relevant. The decision is reviewable by either House of the Parliament. It is only in those circumstances and where the Minister and the Government consider that a State or Territory law provides for effective protection that the Minister may revoke that declaration. This nonsense that suddenly the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in this place is going to come in and make broad declarations which no one can say anything about, which no one can question and which no one can argue about is nonsense. It has been pointed out that it is nonsense in this legislation. To bring up the definitional problems because they are vague-they are essentially vague because we have a large number of Aboriginal communities and a large number of different Aboriginal traditions-and to question the definition of 'Aboriginal tradition' in this legislation when the definition in the legislation brought down by honourable senators opposite when in government is essentially the same, I think demonstrates that they are grasping at straws and really trying just to protract this debate. If we are to have the sort of contribution that we had from Senator Kilgariff tonight, who said, 'Why isn't Senator Ryan here? She should be here', and questions as to why she is not present, that is appalling. We could have asked that same question many times about Ministers of the previous Government. We never did that. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(8.26) —I do not get a lot of consolation from the outline of procedures that the Minister, Senator Grimes, gave as some sort of safeguard about the application of these definition sections. Like the Minister, I have had experience in government, and I know about all the papers, all the filters, and all the rest of it. I also have a rough idea of how busy all Ministers are and how difficult it is for all of them to give the sort of detailed attention to these matters that, in theory, they can be given. I simply remind the Committee of the apparent lack of attention that the strategic assessment of Australia's defence priorities got in Perth last year as a fairly good indication of the serious problems. Senator Coleman —What has that got to do with the Bill? Senator CHANEY —It has a lot to do with the Minister's explanation to the Committee. I am saying that it is a notorious fact that Ministers are unable to give the sort of scrutiny that Senator Grimes suggested would be given to anything that was brought forward under this legislation. The definition sections are important, because there is some dispute between the Government and the Opposition about the scope of the Bill. There has been a denial on the part of Government senators that the Bill can be described as land rights legislation. Yet we have the Minister now raising a definition out of the land rights legislation of the Northern Territory and comparing it and saying: ' There you are; that is appropriate'. I refer the Minister to the definition of ' Aboriginal tradition' again. I ask him to direct his attention to this series of words which need to be read together to pick out the concern I am expressing: 'Aboriginal tradition' means the body of . . . beliefs of Aboriginals . . . of a particular community . . . and includes any such . . . beliefs relating to particular . . . areas . . . I ask the Minister to consider those words. Senator Grimes —Who are they from? Senator CHANEY —I was reading from the definition. Because the definition includes all sorts of multiples, I was simply picking out a part of the definition which could be applied to any piece of land with which there are traditional Aboriginal associations. I refer the Minister again to the definition, and I read these words, which are words which could be applied to a particular circumstance: 'Aboriginal tradition' means the body of . . . beliefs . . . of a particular community or group of Aboriginals, and includes any such . . . beliefs relating to particular . . . areas . . . That is part of the definition. That is, of itself, a whole definition that would be an acceptable definition of 'Aboriginal tradition'. The point that I tried to put earlier in the Committee was that if one looks at the beliefs of an Aboriginal community about their land, one can appreciate that the definition would encompass their beliefs about the totality of their land. That is my simple point. It seems to me that Aboriginal tradition, as defined, can cover the beliefs which a particular community has about its land. If that is so, a ' significant Aboriginal area' can include the whole of the land with which Aboriginals have a traditional association. In that sense, the argument is raised that this is legislation which can apply to any part of Australia for which there is a traditional Aboriginal community having an ongoing traditional association. My query about the definition goes very much to the potential breadth of this legislation. I read the legislation as meaning that it would be open to the Minister or one of these unnamed persons who is going to give advice to the Minister under clause 10-clause 10 specifies the sort of information that has to be provided-to include the totality of land with which a particular Aboriginal group had a traditional association. The matter is important because debate in this chamber essentially has revolved around the suggestion on the part of Government senators that senators opposite are not interested in the protection of sites of special significance. All Opposition senators have been very careful to explain that they are not opposing that. Indeed, the Australian Mining Industry Council in its submissions to both the Government and the National Aboriginal Conference has said: 'Please, we are not contesting the desirability in principle of protecting those sites. We are simply saying that what you are doing is not an appropriate way of doing this. This goes way beyond it'. It seems to me that a core problem with this Bill relates to the definition. I query the point the Minister raised. My attention was drawn to that point earlier, before the Committee debate commenced. It seems to me that a definition which fits within the land rights legislation, which is meant to cover the totality of land and which provides for subordinate legislation for the protection of sites, is not necessarily the same as a definition which fits within this legislation. This legislation relates directly to the protection of sites. There is no suggestion of subordinate legislation such as there is under the Northern Territory legislation. We established a parliamentary committee to look at the Northern Territory subordinate legislation. There was some sort of second guessing on what would happen under the umbrella of the 1976 legislation. The short point-I have made a short point at rather greater length than perhaps that description warrants-is this: Is it not a fact that, because of these definitions, it is open to the Minister and those who advise him to regard a significant Aboriginal area as the totality of land for which there are living Aboriginals with a traditional association? I think that very fairly and squarely puts the inquiry that is in my mind. I think it fairly and squarely puts the point which is at the back of the concern of so many people that this is legislation of far too great a breadth. I ask the Minister at the table, the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes), not to answer me by saying that Minister Holding is too smart for that, that he would not make such a mistake. The reason I do not want that answer-- Senator Grimes —I am not going to say that. Senator CHANEY —Let me tell a story. I will not take too much time. The story concerns a former Liberal Minister for Minerals and Energy in Western Australia, who always used to say to me when I complained about the breadth of ministerial discretions in the mining Act: 'Well, Fred, I would never pull the rug out on anyone'. Shortly before I sued the Western Australian Government on behalf of Hancock and Wright I remember one of those people saying to me: 'Do you know what the Minister said to me? He said ''Ernie, we would never pull the rug out from under you''.'. I had a funny feeling that the client was giving me a very square bit of instruction; he was probably telling me the absolute truth. I have never been too prepared to trust a Minister since. I say that with great respect because I was very fond of that particular Western Australian Minister. Senator McIntosh —What about you? Senator CHANEY —When I was a Minister I was prepared to say that I should not be given too many discretions either. But I make the point with great seriousness. When Minister Holding is called upon to implement the provisions of this Bill he will not be acting in an atmosphere which is academic, cold and detached; he will have people demonstrating, upset, hot and bothered, and it will be very difficult to get to the facts of the matter. Senator Grimes —As you did. Senator CHANEY —I understand that. That is precisely why I am concerned. It seems to me that if this legislation is drafted in a way which really puts Minister Holding or any Minister in a position where it can legitimately and in a legal sense be argued that he could properly be called upon to defend the whole of the land which has an Aboriginal group living on it with a traditional association, the Government is opening itself up to very great dangers. There is the possibility of de facto land rights legislation. Since that is not the intention of the Government, according to its spokesman, that is a matter of concern to us. That is as much as I want to say about the definitions. The other points I want to make are separate. Rather than deal with them in globo, I would prefer to hear the Minister on the points which I have just raised. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(8.36) —I share all the anxieties that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) has put forward. The definition of 'Aboriginal tradition', according to the Bill, so that we clearly understand what we are dealing with, is: . . . the body of traditions- perhaps the Minister will explain that to me- observances- perhaps the Minister will explain that to me- customs- presumably one has a better understanding of that- and beliefs of Aboriginals generally or of a particular community or groups of Aboriginals, and includes any such traditions, observances, customs or beliefs relating to particular persons, areas, objects or relationships; I wish to raise something which I raised this afternoon in terms of the question of relationships. I raise it only because the definition is purposely so wide as to embrace almost any activity that Aboriginal communities have undertaken prior to and presumably since 1788. The difficulty with having broad definitions of that nature is that they allow for a very considerable amount of subjectivity in terms of making determinations of what falls within the framework of the definition. As I said in the second reading debate, it was Dr Gumbar, a very highly proclaimed anthropologist who received his doctorate from the Sorbonne university in Paris-I think it was ex-Prime Minister Gough Whitlam who presented him with his doctorate-who took the view that Professor Radcliffe-Brown's proposition, that the relationship of original small groups or hordes of Aboriginals was very much determined by patrilineal descent, in fact, was based on a very false premise that there was interrelationship. In terms of marriage it was interrelationship between groups which moved through the areas, with access by mutual agreement, to the common areas, foraging in pursuit of food, and that they all had attractions to common sacred sites. The definition of who is entitled to claim land rights from the past, which is the basis upon which the Northern Territory land rights legislation was framed, is such that the granting of land rights since then has very much evaporated in the real sense of the word. It has now been argued by Professor Radcliffe-Brown that in fact many Aboriginal communities and individuals have been denied their claim to land rights on that basis. In a number of other areas, because again of the wider definition, we have the problem of there being no proper appeal provisions. Presumably the Minister will take cognisance of advice given to him by those who have a relationship, perhaps an intrinsic inherent blood relationship, with the Aboriginal community, as distinct from other people. There will not be a proper healthy debate in the real sense that we have seen in the past as to what might be land rights, or rather sacred sites, although they are the same thing in this case except that sacred sites by definition are intended to include all areas of significance to Aboriginals. There have been some very well prepared summaries by a number of people who have given examples of misnomers as to what is and what is not a sacred site. I quote Lesley Maynard from the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service who said about an Aboriginal site: And the Aboriginal people had impeccable credentials, it was their site, they owned it and they were taking the anthropologist to tell him all about it. They arrived at the site where there was a large . . . you know, one of those enormous Arnhem Land boulders and with some cave paintings around the base. And the paintings included kangaroos, and barramundis and people and snakes and the anthropologist asked the Aborigines, now, tell me what is this site? And they said, ah, this is the emu site. We are the emu totem men and this is our important emu site. So the anthropologist looked back at the paintings and he saw no emus. He saw kangaroos and barramundi etc, but no paintings of emus. So he inquired about this and the Aborigines said, oh no no the rock is the emu, it 's the mythical emu who travelled from the East and did this and did that and when he came here he died and the rock is his body. So that's the emu significance. So the anthropologist said yes, but what about those paintings of kangaroos and things? And the Aborigines said, ah, well, when we come to this site, and we perform ceremonies, the emu totem ceremonies, we get painted up, we dance, we sing and we have an audience. We invite our mothers' brothers and people related from other clans, and they come to make up the audience. And when we've done our thing they have to pay us. And they pay us by painting on the rock. And they paint their own totems. If they are kangaroo men they paint kangaroos, pythons paint pythons and so on. So the art site is a glorified visitors' book. I could go on to give all sorts of examples of misnomers as to what might be misunderstood to be a sacred site just because it has Aboriginal art upon it. In the past anthropologists have tended to take a preconceived, prejudiced view about what the fabric and structure of the Aboriginal community has been, what is sacred to it and what is of religious and spiritual significance. But those views have almost been set in concrete. Anthropologists are like geologists and many professional people. They like to take a preconceived notion, poor, incompetent and inadequate though it might be. They are terrified that changing their point of view might show them to have been wrong for a very long time. Under this Bill the Minister will be taking advice, presumably, only from people close to him. Given the embryonic beginnings of this Bill and the nature of those who assisted in its conception, one can draw only the conclusion that the advice the Minister will receive will again be from those sorts of people. Looking at the wider definition of Aboriginal tradition, we have sets of words in the Bill that allow for a very wide ambit in respect of such areas. It must be obvious to the Minister that almost any area regarding which it can be demonstrated that there has in the past been an Aboriginal presence could fall under the hammer of a declaration. The difficulty, of course, is that Aboriginal heritage is dynamic. It is constantly changing and adapting. It is not static. How one clearly draws the distinction in terms of this definition, I really do not know. After looking at this clause I am led inexorably to the view and impression that it is the imprimatur for the Minister to set aside land simply for the purpose of providing de facto land rights. I am drawn to that conclusion because he says that he will embrace this principle at a later time in more draconian legislation. I ask the Minister in sincerity to explain to me what is intended by the words 'Aboriginal tradition', when all that is really being said is that 'Aboriginal tradition' means to the Government absolutely everything related to the Aboriginal community. It is not definitive in any sense. It is open-ended and it can result in a situation where almost any area that shows an indication of a previous Aboriginal presence can fall within the framework of this definition. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(8.46) —I will deal first of all with a point that I think Senator Crichton-Browne was making. He objects to the definition of 'Aboriginal tradition' in the legislation because he says it is so broad and so wide that it could incorporate almost any corner of this land which had been occupied by the Aborigines before 1788. Senator Crichton-Browne —Where they had a presence. Senator GRIMES —Where they had a presence. The first thing I will point out to Senator Crichton-Browne is that that definition is essentially the same definition which is in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, which was introduced by a Liberal-Country Party Government. Senator Crichton-Browne —Do you commend that to the Committee? Senator GRIMES —I am just making a point, and the honourable senator has had several years in this place to object to this definition and this is the first time he has ever got up and objected to it. Senator Crichton-Browne —Well, our Party room has no leaks. Senator GRIMES —I ask the honourable senator to let me lead on to this point: If that is what it was about and if this legislation or the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act meant that, because of that definition, every square centimetre of this land could be claimed, of course, and no one would be happy with it. I think Senator Chaney suggested that that definition of 'Aboriginal tradition', of which he picks out a particular part, provides that we could in fact declare the land in totality as a sacred site. But I point out to the honourable senator that in this legislation-- Senator Chaney —No, not sacred sites-significant Aboriginal areas. Senator GRIMES —Well, in this legislation that is qualified by the definition of 'significant Aboriginal areas' and 'significant Aboriginal objects'. It is qualified by the fact that the area involved must be an area of particular significance to Aboriginals and it must be an area or a site or an object of particular significance to Aboriginals. If we take the broad definition that Senator Crichton-Browne is worried about, people would be claiming Sydney, Perth and God knows what and the Minister would be declaring them sacred sites, or as Senator Crichton-Browne puts it, giving people land rights over the whole of that area. I suggest to honourable senators that that is a nonsense definition and a nonsense way to interpret this legislation. I put to honourable senators that the Minister does not have unfettered ministerial discretion. There are all sorts of areas in which he is fettered. He is fettered by the need to consult with the relevant State and Territory ministers. He is fettered by the fact that a House of this Parliament can overrule him. He is fettered by the fact that he has to make his decisions public, that he has to have an independent inquirer who publicly calls for submissions and considers a wide range of interests. It is easy in any piece of legislation which comes before this Parliament to pick out a definition in isolation, in the way honourable senators opposite have done . I suggest we could have done that in 1976. We could have said: 'Look at what you are doing. You have a broad definition there which includes everything in the country'. But no one expected that that would happen then and no one is suggesting that that would happen now. If we look at the rest of the definitions and at the qualifying definitions, I suggest that what the Opposition is saying is a nonsense and just a debating point and not more than that. I say that because no one in his right mind would seriously suggest in this place that any government-either the Government which introduced the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 or the Government which introduces the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage ( Interim Protection) Act 1984-would declare this whole country a sacred site or turn this whole country open to land rights legislation. That sort of tactic and that sort of activity takes out a single definition and implies: 'This can cover anything. We are all under threat-the people of Redfern, the people in Vaucluse, the people in Toorak and the people in Sandy Bay are under threat'. That is a nonsense interpretation of this legislation and I suggest that honourable senators opposite know it. Senator Chaney has made a reasonable point that when we are talking about definitions such as this we are talking about the Aboriginals' concept of land and about a totality that most of us do not conceive. But I suggest that the definitions are qualified by the further definitions and by the restrictions which are placed on the Minister. I accept that if we had some Minister who was a maniac and who decided to declare the whole country a sacred site or to declare the whole country under the original land rights Act, we would be in trouble. But we are not dealing with that situation and I suggest that it is unreasonable to deal with this legislation in that way. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(8.51) —I thank the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) for his reply but I do not believe that he has answered the points which I raised as to the potential breadth. I think the restrictions which the Minister has mentioned are really political restrictions rather than legal restrictions. However, I suggest that there is no point in further prolonging debate on these definitions. I think the position is reasonably clear from what we have heard of the debate so far. I simply want the Government to know that the Minister's response does not in any way reduce the concerns which I have expressed and which have been expressed by other Opposition senators. Clause agreed to. Clause 4 (Purposes of Act). Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(8.52) —I, too, do not wish to delay the Committee. I just raise the question, as did the Opposition in earlier discussions, of the definition of 'significant Aboriginal area'. I see that in clause 4 there are the added words 'particular significance to Aboriginals'. What I am really trying to get from the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes), with the best will in the world, is some kind of view as to whether the word 'significant' as used in clause 4 varies the meaning of the earlier use of the word 'significant' in relation to Aboriginal areas. Senator Macklin —It is a narrowing of the class. Senator MESSNER —That is the way it seems to me. I am rather-- Senator Grimes —What was that? Senator Macklin —It is a narrowing of the class. Senator MESSNER —I ask the honourable senator to let the Minister answer my question. It seems to me that there is a difference. I wonder whether it is simply a drafting problem or whether it indicates a difference of view that will apply in particular circumstances. I will not go on, but I think the Minister sees the difference. I ask him whether he can give us some idea of the position in his reply. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(8.54) —I am at a bit of a loss. I think we have a problem of semantics here. I understand that what Senator Messner is asking is whether the use of the word 'particular' in clause 4 is different from the use of the words 'significant Aboriginal area' and the secondary reference to 'particular significance' in clause 3. I am sorry; I do not understand that difference. I am a bit thick. I truly do not see the significance that Senator Messner sees in the difference in the wording of those two clauses. I would need more clarification as, frankly, would most people here . Clause agreed to. Clause 5 agreed to. Clause 6 (Act binds the Crown). Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(8.55) —I link my remarks on clause 6 with the provisions of clause 7. I want to record my objection to the fact that, as the clause states: This Act binds the Crown in right of the Commonwealth, of each of the States, of the Northern Territory and of Norfolk Island. We have been told often that this legislation is a result of the imprimatur given by the referendum in 1967. As I said in my speech on the second reading, the wording of the Yes case stated that it was not intended that the States be disenfranchised in terms of their capacity and competence to legislate in respect of Aboriginal people; there would be goodwill, co-operation and mutual and compatible legislation between the Commonwealth and the States on this matter. We now find that we have unilaterally cast like a shadow on the federal system Commonwealth legislation described as emergency interim legislation. I do not have the slightest idea what emergency has occurred or arisen in the last weeks. The reason this legislation is being described as interim legislation is that it will be incorporated into more draconian legislation later on. The spirit of this legislation is quite at variance with the spirit of those people who voted yes in 1967 to give the Federal Parliament jurisdiction in respect of the making of laws for the Aboriginal community. In the event that a referendum were put in the same form again it would be defeated by the same percentage by which it was carried last time. I see no reason why the Australian Labor Party cannot, in co-operation, collaboration and perhaps even collusion with the Labor States at least, introduce legislation in the Commonwealth and State spheres that is complementary. There is such legislation in Western Australia; I am not familiar with the legislation in the other States. Inasmuch as the platforms of the State and Federal parties are almost identical I do not see any reason why there cannot be complementary legislation. As a senator representing Western Australia and as a member of a chamber that purports to represent States I find it totally objectionable that this legislation, as I have said, has been introduced unilaterally, without consultation in any shape or form, and crushes and overrides the responsibilities of the States. It ought to be recorded again what was said by the Western Australian Labor Government. A newspaper report states: Proposed . . . legislation to protect Aboriginal sacred sites had taken the State Government by surprise, the State Minister responsible for Aborigines, Mr Wilson, said yesterday. As in many relationships, having been taken by surprise, he was happy to lie down and be raped. The Commonwealth Government has the goodwill and the blessing of the Western Australian Labor Government to proceed with this legislation to take from that Government what would normally be its responsibility. I can see no reason and no justification for Commonwealth legislation which seeks to go past introducing legislation into the Northern Territory. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding, said that he saw the 1967 referendum as providing the Federal Government with the exclusive responsibility for all matters in respect of Aboriginals. Senator Grimes —He didn't say that. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Does the Minister want to know exactly what he said? He said: The prime constitutional responsibility- prime being first- Senator Grimes —You said exclusive. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —In most races I have been in if one is first one damned well is exclusive. Senator Macklin —That is illogical. It can never be exclusive. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I am being logical. Senator Zakharov —Prime does not mean exclusive. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —In the terms it was put it does because the Minister has said that in the event that any State government introduces legislation which is not to the satisfaction of the Commonwealth Government he will introduce legislation which will override that legislation. If that does not make it 'exclusive', what does? The Commonwealth Government has taken unto itself for all time the exclusive rights to legislate for the Aboriginal community. Senator Macklin —What does clause 5 say? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —We are talking about clauses 6 and 7. Senator Grimes —We are talking about 6 actually. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Coleman) —We are talking about clause 6. You have strayed to clause 7. I suggest at this time that it might be wise for me to entertain a motion that we take clauses 6, 7 and 8 together and that might satisfy the debate. Senator Crichton-Browne, you will need to seek leave that clauses 6, 7 and 8 be taken together. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I seek leave to take clauses 6, 7 and 8 together. Leave granted. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Madam Temporary Chairman, I would much rather argue with Senator Grimes. He sits there and takes no notice, but he does not interrupt me. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Yes, but I am in the chair. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Senator Macklin takes no notice of me and continues to interrupt anyway. Senator Macklin —I am directing you to 7 (1). Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I thank the honourable senator for his riveting assistance. Clause 7 (1) states: This Act is not intended to exclude or limit the operation of a law of a State or Territory that is capable of operating concurrently with this Act. Senator Macklin —That is right. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —That is right. In other words if one happens by the grace of God to have legislation which is compatible it will not be exclusive. Senator Boswell —Or worse. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —No, it is not saying that. Senator Macklin —Compatibility; concurrence is not compatibility. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —That is right. It is capable of operating concurrently. In other words, if there is legislation of like nature in a State there is no difficulty, but if the State does not have legislation similar to this, of course, this legislation will operate. That is the point I am making. Senator Grimes —Oh, what a shocking thing! Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Yes, it is a shocking thing. I thank Senator Grimes for saying it is a shocking thing. It is a shocking thing because we have a centralised government in Canberra which has decided to take unto itself all the traditional responsibilities which have been resting in and have been vested in the hands of the States in the past. Senator Grimes —What was the 1967 referendum all about? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —The 1967 referendum was all about providing the Commonwealth with a capacity to implement laws for the welfare of the Aboriginal community. The Yes case made it quite clear- Senator Macklin —This is what the Act says. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Senator Macklin should take his time and have his say. The 1967 referendum was intended to provide a capacity for the States and the Commonwealth to act together. The people who voted in the 1967 referendum never intended to hand over to the Commonwealth of Australia exclusive responsibility in these matters. In fact the Commonwealth Government itself did not know that it had that responsibility until some recent decisions of the High Court of Australia, not the least of which related to the dams case. Since then we have had this unbridled, unfettered, headlong rush by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding, to take unto himself, as I have said, all responsibility for the Aboriginal community. That was not the intention of the referendum. Anybody who uses the referendum as an excuse for this legislation is not being honest with himself, is not being honest with the community and is not being honest with this chamber. I take grave exception to this legislation taking the responsibility away from the States as it very clearly does, and quite improperly so. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(9.04) —I suppose I should reply briefly to the extraordinary outburst. I am one of those people who are naive enough to believe that in 1967 we had a referendum in this country which gave the Commonwealth the power to legislate about Aborigines. I would have thought that this legislation, particularly clause 7 (1) as Senator Macklin pointed out, provided the States produced their own legislation in line with it, would be acceptable. I thought that is what Mr Wilson was about in Western Australia. I thought that is what everybody else was about. Senator Crichton-Browne —If he does not? Senator GRIMES —If he does not the 1967 referendum situation applies and we have the right to legislate in this area. That is what we are doing. Senator Crichton -Browne might not have liked it. He may have voted the other way in 1967. But that happens to be the constitutional situation in this country. We can argue all night about whether the 1967 referendum should have been passed, but it was passed. I point out to Senator Crichton-Browne that clause 6 is a standard clause in almost every piece of Commonwealth legislation. Senator Crichton-Browne —Labor Party legislation. Senator GRIMES —There is nothing Labor Party about it. It is in any Commonwealth legislation. If Senator Crichton-Browne wants to argue the semantics and indulge in the mental gymnastics he has indulged in tonight because he does not agree that the 1967 referendum should have been passed he may do so, but I suggest that he is wasting the time of the Senate. This has nothing to do with centralised government, it has nothing to do with the Franklin dam case. This Government has had the constitutional powers to legislate in this area since 1967. We have done so and we will do so. If the States co-operate we have no desire to overrule State legislation. Clauses agreed to. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(9.07) —Looking at the balance of the Bill it seems to me that it might suit the purpose of the Committee if we consider the clauses in Division 1 of Part II together, consider the clauses in Division 2 of Part II together, consider the clauses in Division 3 together and then consider Parts III and IV individually. I have not had a chance to consult with my colleagues or the Minister for Social Security ( Senator Grimes) who is at the table but it would seem to me that that would be a logical grouping to permit us to make contributions on the clauses. Each of these clauses would, I am sure, repay the time which was given to the definition clause but I do not think it would produce much result so it might simplify matters if we dealt with them in that way. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Coleman) —Is leave granted to consider those clauses together? There being no objection, leave is granted. Clauses 9 to 16-by leave-taken together. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(9.08) —I do not wish to make any lengthy remarks with respect to Division 1 but it throws up a number of the difficulties which have been referred to both in the Committee debate and in the second reading debate. In clause 9 the Minister has the emergency power to act unilaterally once he receives an application to protect an area for 30 days. The only comment I make is that it seems to me that the Minister will come under the most unbearable political pressure in circumstances when getting the facts may well take 30 days and that may be the reason for this clause. But it will pose real difficulties for the Government and the Minister and I utter a caution which I hope will not be borne out in the actual operation of the clause but which I fear will be. Clause 10 deals with other declarations. I welcome the fact that sub-clause (4) of clause 10 specifies some of the matters in the report which the Minister is to receive but those specifics in no way get over the difficulties of the breadth of definition which was discussed at some length earlier. It does seem to me that both those giving the report and the Minister receiving the report are going to have very real difficulty in knowing just how far the Act is meant to go and just how broad the protection is meant to be. There has been a series of public comments-I think it would be unfair to those who have taken the trouble to examine this legislation in the time available not to mention them-about the fact that the person referred to in clause 10 is not a person of any particular status, qualifications or anything else. I must say that the mind boggles at some of the possibilities of the persons who might be appointed. For example, if we commissioned a report from Lang Hancock we would get a very different report from one we commissioned from Charles Perkins. The range of possibilities is endless and, I suggest, the range of results is endless. I think that is a significant difficulty in the administration of this legislation. It may well be the intention of the Government to appoint persons of a certain ilk, but that is a matter which is as wide as the Minister's mind on the matter. Let us take an example which might appeal more to honourable senators opposite: On the return of a Liberal-National Party Government, they might argue that a Liberal or a National Party Minister might appoint someone who is not at all sympathetic to the question and whose report would be very important in terms of the way this section is meant to operate. I simply draw attention to the fact that within these sections, which are the operative sections, one imports all of the difficulties and doubts that we have talked about with respect to the definitions. But even in themselves they contain notable omissions if one is concerned with certainty of operation and consistency of purpose in the actual administration of this legislation. The other point I wish to make concerns clause 15, which provides that declarations shall be reviewable by Parliament. Again I do not wish to labour the points which I made in the second reading debate. I only say that, having had some connection with vexed and difficult issues about the extent of protection that ought to be provided in particular circumstances, the degree of significance that ought to be ascribed to particular sites and so on, I dread the thought of this chamber being called upon to make judgments. We have a bit of interest in taking part in the Chamberlain case, a most significant matter. My real concern is about the ability of the legislature to get overly involved in matters which are essentially either administrative or judicial and which really do not lend themselves to parliamentary consideration. The Minister might get up and say: 'You set the precedent in some areas of the Lands Rights Act whereby Parliament had certain powers'. I suggest that the multiplicity of circumstances and the nature of the matters dealt with here really make this a very doubtful proposition. I have no pleasure at all in contemplating how we would set about dealing with a contested situation in this area at a parliamentary level. I think it is simply another example of something which is beyond amendment by this Committee. It is another example of how the fundamental structure of this legislation needs reconsideration and careful consideration in conjunction with Aboriginal groups. I know that a group of Aboriginals worked on this legislation but there are many groups which have had no say in it. There are many interested groups, including State governments, which have had no say in it. I think there is potential here for very great difficulty in the operation of these sections. I contrast the preparation of this Bill with the approach adopted by the previous Government with respect to the Aboriginal Development Corporation, whereby a draft Bill was put on the table and a group of people trekked around Australia, endlessly consulting Aboriginal groups. We made a very substantial number of amendments because of the views which were expressed by the National Aboriginal Conference at both the Federal and State level, by individual Aboriginal groups and so on. I simply say again at this very late stage that surely that would have been a far more positive and sensible way to approach this legislation than the breakneck way in which the Minister has approached it. Quite frankly, I do not think this is an area in which getting runs on the board ought to be the criterion. I think the criterion ought to be getting it right. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(9.15) — With respect to clause 9, why do the emergency powers precede the normal powers in the drafting of the Bill? Is it assumed that the Act will be invoked more often in response to emergencies than in any other mode? Clause 9 states: Where the Minister- (a) receives an application made orally or in writing by or on behalf of an Aboriginal or a group of Aboriginals seeking the preservation or protection of a specified area from injury or desecration; and (b) is satisfied- (i) that the area is a significant Aboriginal area; and (ii) that it is under serious and immediate threat of injury or desecration, he may make a declaration in relation to the area. How does the Minister confirm the validity of the claim? How does he get the satisfaction as per clause 9 (1) (b)? In clause 10 we find the same requirements imposed upon the Minister in sub-clause (1) paragraphs (a) and (b), yet paragraphs (c) and (d) states: (c) has received a report under sub-section (4) in relation to the area from a person nominated by him and has considered the report and any representations attached to the report; and (d) has considered such other matters as he thinks relevant, Would that not be part of the normal operation in the emergency case as well? Clause 10 (2) states: Subject to this Part, a declaration under sub-section (1) has effect for such period as is specified in the declaration. Is that an infinite period? Is there no time limit for the application of the declaration? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(9.17) —I had better answer these matters as my attention span is not as long as that of some other people in this place. I sincerely question some of the matters which have been raised by honourable senators. Senator MacGibbon asked why the emergency powers precede the substantive powers in the legislation. One would think that if a clause precedes another clause in the legislation it would be the first one which would apply. I do not know how long he has been here, but he must know that that is not so, that the emergency powers are in one clause and the substantive powers are in another clause and if we put the substantive powers first and the emergency powers second it does not matter. I do not know what the question is about, quite frankly, unless he is trying to filibuster this legislation, which I suspect he is. Senator Chaney —Don't start inciting us to that. That would be a mistake. Senator GRIMES —With due respect to the Leader of the Opposition, it is absolute nonsense for somebody to get up here and say that because one clause precedes another one clause has precedence of another. If that is the sort of question he is asking I do not know what he has been doing reading legislation in this place all this time. I can understand the questions that Senator Chaney has raised about this legislation. But I implore people to look at the legislation and to look at the title of the legislation, which is the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill. It precedes the substantive legislation. It precedes the legislation which will be the result of the sort of consultation that Senator Chaney has talked about and which preceded the introduction of the legislation that he talked about-the Aboriginal Development Corporation legislation. But we feel it necessary to introduce this legislation now to cover the situation that exists now. He referred to emergency legislation. He mentioned 30 days. Of course, 30 days is a sort of arbitrary period which is frequently introduced in this type of legislation to allow a Minister to cover a situation which exists and to gather the information necessary to make the sort of decision he will have to make. Senator Chaney talked about the threat, I believe, which he sees exists in the appointment of the expert or the independent person by the Minister. I think we also ought to point out that in this legislation all submissions to that person must be attached to the report that that person gives and must be available to anyone reviewing that report. That is introduced to avoid the sort of situation which I think he is worried about, that someone will bring out a biased report which has nothing to do with the submissions that are given to him, and that his or her job will be clearly defined. The sort of definition that Senator Chaney was worried about, I would suggest, is covered by clause 10 (4) (c) of the legislation which provides that the extent of the area to be protected should be defined. I also believe that in legislation, which is to last for two years, and which is limited, the number of cases that he talks about which might come before this Parliament, or this chamber, must be extremely exaggerated. In that time we will not have hundreds of thousands of cases introduced into this Parliament, to be decided by this Parliament under the difficult circumstances that he talked about. This is interim, emergency legislation. It is designed to cover the period until the more substantive legislation is introduced and I think everyone in the Parliament should realise that. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(9.21) —I take up the Minister on the last point that he made about the number of declarations which will be introduced into the Parliament. I have a Press release from the Australian which states that the Western Australian Museum has declared 750,000 areas that should be able to be registered as Aboriginal sites. One's mind boggles if the Parliament has to go through-- Senator Macklin —Most of that has been done already. Senator BOSWELL —If there are 750,000 areas, there will obviously be more when this legislation takes effect. I want to know what provisions the Minister intends to make for this Parliament. Will we have, say, a Saturday morning sitting every month to deal with sacred sites? How will we handle this legislation? Senator Macklin —With a great deal of difficulty. Senator BOSWELL —With a great deal of difficulty, as Senator Macklin said. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(9.22) —I point out to Senator Boswell that the Western Australian Museum has not declared 750,000 sites in danger. That was an extract of evidence given to the Seaman inquiry, and that has not been declared in any way. If it had-and it has not-it would not come before this Parliament; it would come under the Western Australian legislation which is the legislation which applies in that State. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(9.23) —I make the observation that I am not here to filibuster. If I were, I would not have remained silent for 75 minutes, as I have done, during the Committee stage debate before I first spoke. I would be doing something profitable. I would be thankful if the Minister would not make gratuitous comments on that line. Will he answer my question as to why sub- clause (c) is inserted in clause 10 and not in clause 9? Is clause 10 (2) an infinite proclamation? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(9.23) —Clause 10 states: (c) has received a report under sub-section (4) in relation to the area from a person nominated by him and has considered the report and any representations attached to the report; It is a very sensible clause which refers to the protection of significant Aboriginal sites after the expert has looked at them. Clause 9 is the emergency declaration in relation to areas. If one has an emergency declaration and one is making a declaration to cover a particular emergency, one simply does not have time to have a report of that type. We are talking about two entirely different situations. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(9.24) —Clause 9 (1) gives me a great deal of concern in as much as it refers to oral application seeking protection of a specified area. Any decision that is to be made at the unfettered discretion of a Minister- Senator Macklin —It is not unfettered. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Under the emergency declaration it is. Given the voting pattern of certain combinations in this chamber, I would have thought that it is unfettered. As a result of an oral application, a Minister is able to declare a protected area for a period of 30 days and, in some cases, if necessary, he can declare it protected for up to 60 days. The provision says that he has to be satisfied that it is necessary he should do so. I ask the Minister, in a definitive sense, how will he satisfy himself that it is necessary to do so. What yardsticks will he use, and with whom will he consult? Clause 10 provides that he may make a declaration in relation to an area if he has received and considered a report from a person nominated by him. The Bill gives no indication of who the person nominated shall be, what his qualifications might be, or what his impartiality might be. In no way does the Bill bear on the relevance of that person either to the person making the application or to the person in respect of whose land the declaration is made. I would be grateful if the Minister would answer me. Also, given the enormous dislocation that can be caused by a declaration of this type, is the Minister well satisfied that it is enough to publish a notice in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette? The Gazette is not compulsory or riveting reading for a great majority of people in the community. While it might be put that most large corporations bother to read the Gazette for a number of reasons, they can quickly overcome that problem by being automatic subscribers. But it is highly unlikely that many pastoralists, farmers, smaller miners and prospectors will read the Government Gazette. It is also likely that a notice in the local newspaper circulating in the region, if any, will be overlooked. I concede that those who read births, deaths and marriages might also have some obsession about reading government notices, but by and large I do not think it is a habit or preoccupation of most people who are likely to be undertaking activities that could fall within the ambit of this legislation. They could find themselves open to grave risk of prosecution. While I am glad to see that the onus of proof has been reversed, at the same time I feel that those open to prosecution might find themselves in very considerable difficulty because the argument as to whether they ought reasonably to have known or not could catch them in a net. Paragraph 4 (e) refers to: . . . the effects the making of a declaration may have on the proprietary or pecuniary interests of persons other than the Aboriginal or Aboriginals referred to in paragraph (1) (a); . . . First, I wonder why there is not a more distinct demand that there ought to be consideration of the effect it would have upon them, although that, in part, is covered by the general intention of the legislation. But inasmuch as the Minister is not obliged automatically to notify people who have a direct pecuniary or proprietary interest, I wonder how the report can be absolutely certain that judgment can be made as to the effect it is likely to have on the proprietary interests of persons. I ask the Minister: If that is a consideration , do I take it that there will be balancing and competing interests between the commercial considerations on the one hand and the effect a declaration will have on a piece of land because it falls within the definition of traditional land? I would have thought that that definition was absolute: The application and the declaration would be made in an absolute sense without any other considerations, because the definition is really all that has to be considered. So I am just asking whether financial and pecuniary considerations are a balancing factor and feature in determining what ought to have precedence-the commercial considerations or the traditional considerations outlined in the Bill? Can I touch upon the point that it is clear from the Bill that the application for a declaration need not be made by an Aboriginal or Aboriginal group or somebody representing an Aboriginal or Aboriginal group who has a direct interest? I would like to give an example of the difficulties that I see facing a number of people. I touched on this before and I apologise for repeating it. Perhaps if I repeat it in more detail it might be clearer. I refer to the Argyle diamond mine in the north-west of Western Australia which is being managed and mined by CRA Exploration Pty Ltd. That company originally commissioned a survey of the site by the Western Australian Museum. The Museum in December 1979 reported and identified 58 sites of which only one-that was Barramundi Gap-was located within the diamond deposit. The Museum also, in terms of its charter and commission, identified four traditional custodians of the Barramundi Gap, the principle custodian being John Toby who had, by the way, some incidental involvement with the Kimberley Land Council. CRA sought to negotiate with him. The facts, by the way, are that while there were a number of stations within the environs of the project the actual site of the diamond venture was on Lissadell Station which had been in white hands for over 100 years-not an unknown occurrence in the north-west of Western Australia. Early in 1980 a meeting was held between the representatives of CRA, the four custodians of the site and another 30 Aboriginals who were said to have responsibility for the site through kinship links. This is an interesting little part of history. The Aboriginals asked for a written agreement. Senator Chipp —You can see how everyone is hanging on every word you are saying. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —If the honourable senator is not, he is the loser. The Aboriginals asked for a written agreement between themselves, that is John Toby, the four traditional owners and 30 others who said they had some kinship relationships. The Kimberley Land Council declined to give them legal advice. So they subsequently travelled to Perth and CRA provided them with quite independent, of course, legal counsel and an agreement was signed. The basis of the agreement, which is immaterial to the story, was that very considerable financial assistance would be provided to them and to the whole community. It was not just a question of handing over cheques because, as honourable senators will understand, the ownership of minerals in Western Australia resides in the Crown and not in the Aboriginal communities. There was a great deal of expenditure by the company. The Kimberley Land Council objected vigorously to the agreement on the basis that the wrong people had been dealt with. Council believed that it should have been consulted. The Western Australian State Government asked the Western Australian Museum to check this. The Museum confirmed that CRA had dealt with the relevant Aborigines . The communities at Turkey Creek asked the State Ombudsman to investigate this matter further to ensure that the finding was correct. The Ombudsman did so and said that there was no case to answer because negotiations had been carried out with the proper traditional owners. The Western Australian Government gave approval for that agreement in September 1980. By the end of 1984, CRA will have provided something like $2m in good neighbour program funding. The exploration and evaluation cost for stage 1 of that project is $120m. From the commencement in 1983 funds of $470m have been committed. I bring Senator Grimes to my final point. I know that he is hanging on every single word. That major diamond pipe which is worth several billion dollars to the Australian people, and more particularly to the Federal Government through taxation and, to a lesser extent, the State Government, through royalties, has residing on top of it the Barramundi sacred site. As I have explained, an agreement has been entered into between the company and the Aboriginal community . I would have thought-correct me if I am wrong-that under the provisions of this Bill the Kimberley Land Council, which is still bitterly opposed to the agreement, could make application for a declaration irrespective of the fact that it has no extrinsic or inherent relationship with the land. I would have thought that under the provisions of the Bill the Minister would have been quite within his rights to act if he discovered that the area fell within the definition of an area which relates to Aboriginal tradition. Under the general definitions it would be included as a significant Aboriginal area. I would have thought that the legislation would be able to override the agreement and make it null and void without question. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(9.37) —As to the last point, the agreement has already been made about the Barramundi site at the Argyle mine. The land has already been degraded. Certainly people can apply to have it declared a sacred site, but it is unlikely. In fact, the Minister has said that it is not likely in any case that he would overrule such an agreement which has already been made. It is a situation which already exists. If Senator Crichton-Browne wants to go right around Australia looking at all sorts of hypothetical cases such as this he can, but I do not think that it will achieve much in this legislation. Senator Crichton-Browne —I am sorry, Senator; are you saying- Senator GRIMES —I ask the honourable senator to wait until I have finished. The first question he raised was: Why can people make oral submissions? The simple answer is: First, frequently traditional Aboriginals cannot read or write. An oral submission is the only type of submission that they are likely to be able to make. Secondly, if a bulldozer is coming down the road, it is not much good a person writing a letter and sending it off to the southern States; it will not get there in time. So that person is likely to make an oral submission. Senator Crichton-Browne's second question was: What criteria will the Minister use if he makes a decision about a submission of that type? I suggest there are several things that he can do. He can and, in fact, will consult with State authorities which will consult with other experts in the area and he will consult with the experts in his own Department. He will not sit in an office and make a decision off the top of his head. Thirdly, Senator Crichton-Browne asked: Why is the declaration only published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette? I turn to clause 14 (2) (a) which states: . . . the Minister shall- (a) take reasonable steps to give notice, in writing, of the declaration to persons likely to be substantially affected by the declaration; In other words, he has to contact people who are substantially affected by the declaration. He does not only have to use the Gazette. Senator Crichton-Browne —No, read your own words. Senator GRIMES —If Senator Crichton-Browne wants to corrupt and, just for the sake of extending this debate, ignore other clauses of the legislation he can do so. It is an interesting exercise for him and we can all question his motives in that regard. Quite frankly, if we are to listen to 10-minute anecdotal speeches from Senator Crichton-Browne on each clause of the legislation, ignoring other clauses of the legislation, I do not think we will get anywhere. Surely we have to look at the whole basis of the legislation, what it is about, and surely we should not sit here and look at just fanciful literal interpretations of every single sentence, ignoring every other clause in the legislation. If we are going to do that we should be doing it on every bit of legislation which comes into this place, in which case we would never get anywhere. I realise that Senator Crichton-Browne has interests to represent and I realise he has obsessions about this area but I suggest that he really should do what Senator Chaney did and talk about the general objections he has rather than nitpicking through clauses and ignoring other clauses which qualify them. Otherwise, we are all wasting our time and we may as well either give the game away or stay here all weekend. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(9.41) —I ask Senator Grimes for a categoric yes or no answer, which he is unaccustomed to giving, to the question: Is he saying that the Argyle situation-an area on which I have just given him some details-falls outside the terms of this Bill? Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.41) —I wish to read from a letter from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), which gives the categorical assurance-as did Senator Ryan previously in debate-that: . . . where there are traditional Aboriginal owners or custodians of an area or object the subject of an application, those people, or their recognised representatives, will be consulted before any declaration is made. That is the Minister's assurance. He goes on: The Government will amend the Act in the Budget sittings to give effect to this assurance. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Elstob) —The question is that clauses 9 to 16 be agreed to. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(9.42) —Mr Temporary Chairman, I ask Senator Grimes to answer yes or no. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(9.42) —We have an agreement with the traditional owners of the land, an agreement which was reached in the past. Is Senator Crichton-Browne seriously suggesting that Mr Holding is going to march in and overturn that agreement on the say-so of someone else, and destroy a project? I know how concerned the honourable senator is about the Argyle mine and I know why he is so concerned but I do not think he should take that concern to the extent of destroying this debate tonight. He should go and sell his shares. Senator Crichton-Browne —On a point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman, I was prepared to ignore the Minister's comments because I did not quite understand what he was saying. He said he thought he understood my interest. My interest is for Western Australia and for Australia. Senator Grimes adding that I should sell my shares implies that my interest is a proprietary one. It is a disgraceful allegation although it is not one to which I am unaccustomed because he has made the same sorts of allegations about other people in the chamber. He knows it is quite untrue and yet he makes these snide remarks. Senator Chaney —I rise on the point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman. I heard Senator Grimes's comment and if the inference was that Senator Crichton-Browne had an interest of a commercial kind. That is certainly objectionable and should be withdrawn. Senator GRIMES —If the cap fits, I withdraw it. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Order! The Minister will withdraw without reservation. Senator GRIMES —I withdraw. Clauses agreed to. Clauses 17 to 19-by leave-taken together. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(9.44) —I speak very briefly on this Division to say that all of the difficulties that have been previously discussed in the second reading debate and in the Committee debate obviously apply where officers, as much as the Minister, are involved in trying to apply the sections. The only additional point I wish to make is that I hope that the Government, if this legislation is passed, as it appears it will be, will be extremely careful in its authorisation of officers. History is littered with the deficiencies occasioned by well-meaning public servants who do not necessarily see the totality of the scene in which they are operating. Given the considerable powers that exist in this legislation, this is the sort of situation where officers, if they are to have such powers, should be selected very carefully and should be of a high level of seniority. We should not have the situation where relatively junior people might be tempted to use powers in a way which could be thoroughly destructive. I do not wish to go into examples of my own experience in Aboriginal affairs. Generally well-meaning people have done some most dreadful things to Aboriginals while others have done dreadful things for Aboriginals. I simply utter that caution in respect of Division 2. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(9.45) —I have no worry about echoing the words of Senator Chaney in that area. I can assure Senator Chaney that that will be taken into account. There is no intention of having junior, inexperienced or poorly authorised people to act in this regard. My only remark is that if we take the example of Queensland, many people who are authorised to operate on behalf of the Aboriginals in that State should never have been so authorised. It also has applied in other States. I accept that that is a responsibility that government must accept. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(9.46) —Division 2, clause 17 (2) states: The Minister shall cause to be issued to each authorized officer an identity card in the form prescribed, containing a photograph of the officer. I ask the Minister: Is that the only qualification needed to determine a sacred site? It would seem to me that an officer should have other credentials. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(9.47) —I have just replied to Senator Chaney, pointing out that we are as concerned as he is that people with proper qualifications should be in this position. I point out to Senator Boswell that that is for a matter of identification, not qualification. The officer has to have an identity card in the form prescribed with a photograph so that he can be properly identified. It has nothing to do with qualification. Clauses agreed to. Clauses 20 and 21-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clauses 22 to 30-by leave-taken together. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(9.48) — I refer to clause 28, which deals with compensation for the acquisition of property. Is property acquisition the only grounds on which compensation can be claimed? As an example, I instance the case of a mining company that was proceeding to implement a mining permit that it has . It was held up for a period of 30, 60 or more days by a declaration of the Minister. It was later found that this declaration was not sustained for some reason. Is the company able to have any remedy for compensation against the Commonwealth? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(9.48) —It is my advice and my understanding that this clause is to do with the payment of compensation under just terms where property is acquired which fulfils the constitutional requirements which I understand exist under section 51 of the Constitution. I am not sure what Senator MacGibbon is at. Is he asking whether we in fact pay compensation for profit forgone in the future? Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(9.49) — No. If a company was proceeding to exercise a mining permit that it had, it might have millions of dollars of equipment tied up on the road for an extended period, waiting to enter the site- equipment which it is paying interest on and which it is not employing-and would have a mining crew, or something like that, comprising quite a number of employees, who have to be paid a salary. Clause 28 is the only clause in the Bill, so far as I can determine, which deals with compensation in any way at all , and as I read it, that applies exclusively to land. I go back to my question: What happens in the case of a company which is held up in the implementation of its mining lease? Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(9.49) —While the Minister, Senator Grimes, is considering that point, perhaps I may add briefly to the point made by Senator MacGibbon, which is important. Senator MacGibbon has pointed out that this is the only provision in the Bill for compensation, and it covers only the acquisition of property. Quite difficult questions can arise as to when property is acquired and when it is not. If, for example, the action of the Minister or of an authorised officer under this legislation had the effect of rendering a person's property unusable by him, we could get quite difficult legal questions as to whether acquisition has occurred. I am grateful to Senator MacGibbon for having drawn attention to the clause. I should certainly have done that because, I suppose in common with all honourable senators, I have had many representations about the potential difficulties which could arise here. In recent history, substantial enterprises have been under way and problems have arisen. I think of Portland, Olympic Dam and so on. With the best will in the world, one can get all sorts of situations where operations can be perhaps, held up, delayed permanently or temporarily, and so on. Senator Chipp —Because doubt can be cast over the use of a property. Senator Macklin —It is covered in the second reading speech in the Senate. An explanation of clause 28 was put into the second reading speech in the Senate, but not in the speech in the House of Representatives. Senator CHANEY —Fine. What I am saying is that whatever explanation is given, I believe that this is another area of deficiency in the legislation. I do not believe that we can amend this very difficult legislation on the run. I simply say that it appears to me that clause 28 is manifestly deficient. I cannot think of any more important matter than that action which is taken in the public interest is paid for by the public. That is a principle which ought to apply in all these matters. I commend to the Government consideration of entirely more adequate provisions for compensation. I am sure that the Minister can give us an answer, but I do not think that there is a total answer within the framework of the legislation because it is defective in that it is confined to the acquisition of property. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(9.52) —I do not believe that there is an answer that will satisfy Senator Chaney, even in terms of the Constitution. However, in the second reading speech the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) pointed out that where there is acquisition of property there will be just terms, and so on. The Commonwealth is required to pay just terms where the property is acquired. Where the property is not acquired, that obligation does not exist under the Constitution. But the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) has agreed that: Where the interests of a person or a company are significantly affected by the making of a declaration the Government will determine what compensation payment, if any, is appropriate according to the merits of that case. That is about the only answer I can give in the circumstances. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(9.53) —I have the distinction of remembering almost no law. However, I remember the case of Leahy and the Commonwealth, the famous New Guinea brothers, Mick and whatever his name was. That is a classic example of why one should not rely on that sort of statement. The Leahy brothers took notice of a statement like that made by a Minister, which statement said that the Commonwealth of Australia would give them money if they did certain things with their cattle. It was concerned with a brucellosis eradication campaign, or something of that kind. It was back in the 1930s or 1940s. Anyway, the Leahy brothers did what the Government said. They went along for their money, and the Government said, 'No, we are not going to give you any money'. They took the Government to the High Court of Australia, and the High Court said, 'Oh, that is not the law; that is just a politician's promise'. While I welcome that statement in the second reading speech, it is not, with great respect, an answer. That was the point of my response to Senator Macklin. Within the terms of the Bill, it is manifestly obvious that there are situations which should be compensable which are not compensable. I welcome the Minister's statement of intention. I simply say that those famous Leahy brothers, who made all those films and did all those things up in New Guinea, which we all read about-I think that recently a new book about them has been published-were bitten in this way, and I am sure that they were very shy of government thereafter. I have said in this place previously, 'Put not your faith in princes'. I put no faith in Prince Holding. I would much rather see the statement of intent in the Bill. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.55) —Clause 28 is a clause about which the Australian Democrats made representations to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding). Reference to it was included in the second reading speech of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) at our request. I said at the second reading stage that one of the useful points about this chamber having control over declarations is that the Australian Democrats would require an explication of where one is going in terms of compensation. I also said that the Government may not be able to give the full details at that stage because that might be a matter of detailed negotiation. However, we would require an outline of what the Government was doing in relation to that. To me that seems the reason why there is political control in this regard. The items involved are so extensive that this is not the type of control that we would want to give to a museum or anything else. Indeed, it is a peculiarly political problem. That is why a political House ought to control that act. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(9.57) —I echo Senator Macklin's words. That is one of the reasons why power is vested in the Parliament. Like Senator Chaney, I am well aware of the three great promises-'I will still love you in the morning'; 'the cheque is in the mail'; and 'I'm from the government, I want to help you'. As Senator Macklin said, with that political oversight we can guarantee that at least in this interim legislation, while we are bringing in substantial legislation, someone will help. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(9.58) —The matter raised by Senator MacGibbon and Senator Chaney has exercised my mind also. The best legal advice I have got is that it would depend very much on the High Court of Australia as to how long denial of access to one's own land would prevail before the High Court made a determination as to whether it was an acquisition in the real sense. The best legal advice I have got so far is that two years may not be adequate to fall within the scope of the land in fact having been acquired. This Bill may well provide that land can be taken from its rightful owners without compensation for loss of production or loss of the land in terms of its intrinsic value for a period of two years. To me that seems to be a major defect . I now refer to clause 25 (1) in relation to body corporate responsibilities for acts of servants and agents. While I understand the master-servant relationship is an inherent part of commercial law, I do not know that it is thoroughly appropriate for this Bill. By way of example I instance a mining company based in Perth-for the benefit of Senator Grimes let us say that it is the Poseidon company-with an exploration activity in the far flung parts of Western Australia . That company might have a bulldozer driver who, contrary to specific instructions from the company, breached a provision of a declaration. That company would then be automatically held responsible. Of course, the penalties are enormous. For a person the penalties are $10,000 or five years gaol and for a body corporate there is a fine of $50,000. I find clause 25 (2) even more difficult because it embraces a much wider scope . That clause states: Any conduct engaged in on behalf of a body corporate by a member of the governing body, director, servant or agent of the body corporate, or by any other person at the direction or with the consent or agreement (whether express or implied) of one of the first-mentioned persons, shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to have been engaged in also by the body corporate. I make the point that it says-- Senator Georges —We have heard it all before. Senator Macklin —Several times. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I know Senator Macklin has a temptation to see himself as a pseudo Minister but for the time being I ask him to let Senator Grimes answer the questions. Senator Georges —I have listened to this several times. I know what the answers are, which you do not. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I do not understand why Senator Georges is not sitting in Senator Grimes's place and Senator Grimes is not sitting in Senator Georges's place. That is the fate of politics; we all know that. Senator Georges —He gave the answer. I am satisfied. Why aren't you satisfied? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —We have a democratic process in our Party and we are allowed to question certain things. We do not have this doctrinaire socialism which locks us all into a way of life which does not allow us freedom of thought . Senator Georges —You asked the question three times. He gave the answers. I understand them. You don't. There is something wrong. Obviously you are at fault . Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I would have thought that in those circumstances it really is extending the normal commercial master-servant relationship because it uses the words 'or by any other person'. In other words, a company could engage a bulldozer-driver in the far flung places that I referred to earlier in the north-west of Western Australia. He could subcontract the work or engage someone independently, with no master-servant relationship with the company and that person could breach a provision of the declaration. The company would find itself personally liable. In other words, we are divorcing this legislation from the master-servant relationship. We are going a step further. Somebody else, quite separate, quite independent and quite unrelated to the company, could commit an offence in the presence of an employee of the company, without that employee's consent-his consent could be implied because he did not do anything about it-and the company would suffer the consequences of and be held liable to pay the penalty. That really is extending the normal provisions of law and I would be glad if the Minister could give me an explanation. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.02) —Unlike Senator Crichton-Browne, I make no claims to be a lawyer, an accountant or anything else in this place. I would have thought it was fairly clear from the legislation and the explanatory notes that if someone did the sort of diabolical deed that Senator Crichton-Browne talked about, in ignorance, innocence or anything else, there would be no hope of a prosecution succeeding against that person, the company or anybody else. I suppose it would be different if something were done deliberately. I suppose it would be different if a company hired people three down the line-hired a contractor then a subcontractor-and then said: 'Go on. Go ahead and bulldoze out this sacred site'. Senator Crichton-Browne —No. Say the subcontractor who is engaged has a driver-- Senator GRIMES —If he does it innocently and in ignorance-- Senator Crichton-Browne —No, say he does it willingly. Senator GRIMES —Then he would be responsible for the person he hires, I would imagine. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has just arrived. He can give that sort of advice. I will not give legal opinions in this place. I do not claim to be an economist, a lawyer or anything else in this place. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(10.04) —I do not want to persist- Senator Grimes —You do. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —It is a very important provision. It would hold a corporation responsible for an offence which had been committed by somebody quite unrelated to that corporation, operating on a contractual basis and- Senator Grimes —They will have to be careful whom they hire, won't they? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —But they may not be hiring the person directly. An individual could commit an offence and the corporation would be held responsible . I think that is an intolerable situation. As I understand it, it is unique in a contract. Clauses agreed to. Clauses 31 to 33-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Remainder of Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Motion (by Senator Grimes) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.07) —I do not wish to delay the Senate. I say merely that during the second reading debate the Opposition has endeavoured to point out that fundamentally we favour the protection of Aboriginal sacred sites, of special objects and of matters of high cultural, historic and archeological significance. We have very deep concerns about the use of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill 1984 for that purpose. Those concerns have been reflected in the submissions of the wide range of people who have asked the Government to delay the legislation. That is the view that we have. It is quite clear that it is not the view of the majority of the Senate, as the Australian Democrats have joined with the Government in the support of this legislation in its present form. I indicate to the Senate that, because we see those concerns as being of considerable significance, we will be voting against the motion for the third reading. Question put: That the Bill be now read a third time. The Senate divided. (The Acting Deputy President-Senator R. N. Coleman) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Bolkus, N. Grimes, D. J. Childs, B. K. Jones, G. N. Chipp, D. L. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Coleman, R. N. Macklin, M. J. Cook, P. F. S. Maguire, G. R. Elstob, R. C. Ray, RobertEvans, Gareth Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Richardson, G. F. Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C. Georges, G. Walsh, P. A. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Baume, Peter 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. Hill, R. Teague, B. C. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Watson, J. O. W. Lajovic, M. E. Withers, R. G. MacGibbon, D. J. Button, J. N. Archer, B. R. Colston, M. A. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Crowley, R. A. Collard, S. J. Gietzelt, A. T. Durack, P. D. Hearn, J. M. Hamer, D. J. Primmer, C. G. Jessop, D. S. Robertson, E. A. Lewis, A. W. R. Ryan, S. M. Missen, A. J. Sibraa, K. W. Walters, M. S. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Motion (by Senator Grimes)-by leave-proposed: That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Tuesday, 21 August 1984 at 2.00 p. m., or such other day and/or hour as may be fixed by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable, by the Deputy-President, and that the day and/or hour of meeting so determined shall be notified to each senator. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.13) —I move: At end of motion, add ': Provided that the President, upon a request or requests by an absolute majority of the whole number of Senators that the Senate meet at a certain time, shall fix a day and hour of meeting in accordance with such request or requests, and such time of meeting shall be notified to each Senator. For these purposes a request by the Leader or Deputy-Leader of the Opposition in the Senate shall be deemed to be a request by every Senator of the Opposition and a request by the Leader or Deputy-Leader of the Australian Democrats shall be deemed to be a request by every Australian Democrat Senator. Provided further that the request or requests may be made to the President by leaving the same with, or delivering the same to, the Clerk of the Senate, who shall immediately notify the President. In the event of the President being unavailable, the Clerk shall without delay notify the Deputy-President, or, should he be unavailable, any one of the Temporary Chairmen of Committees, who shall be deemed to be required by the Senate to summon the Senate on behalf of the President, in accordance with the terms of this Resolution'. I have moved this amendment because it would permit a majority of senators to bring the Senate back. I must say that, given the way the Government is presently behaving, I anticipate we will probably want to be back in July to give the Government members a good whack over the ears. In any event, this amendment has been moved at the end of every sitting of the Senate since the mid -1970s. It has always won universal acclamation and I suggest that it be put without dissent. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(10.13) —I indicate that the Australian Democrats will support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney). Amendment agreed to. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.14) —by leave-I move: That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the termination of the sitting this day to the day on which the Senate next meets. I believe that we should all support this motion. It is important that it be passed unanimously by the Senate. As much as I admire and love all honourable senators, I can do with a couple of months without them. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Grimes) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.15) — There are several matters in relation to which I wish to detain the Senate briefly. I can imagine the enthralment of a number of those who have been held back here on a Friday night to consider matters of great import to those who debated them. I wish to seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the answer given to me by the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) in relation to why the Bureau of Industry Economics let a consultancy to the Australian National University for certain trade data. I mention that the Minister in his covering letter said; 'If you would care to have it incorporated in Hansard please advise me and I will arrange for this to be done'. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Senator Rae asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce-Why the Bureau of Industry Economics let a consultancy to the Australian National University for certain trade data. Senator Button-The answer to the honourable members question is as follows: The Bureau of Industry Economics recently undertook a study of Australia's role as a supplier of goods into East Asian countries. The study covered the period 1970 to 1980, and relied on trade data for Australia and for each of the East Asian countries based on the United Nations standard international trade classification (SITC). These SITC classifications were altered around 1975. Australia and each of the East Asian countries modified their trade statistic classifications accordingly. This change in commodity classification caused a problem for the study, for in order to gain comparability over the decade 1970 to 1980, either: post-1975 trade data for Australia and each of the East Asian countries had to be re-classified to correspond with the pre-1975 breakdown; or the pre-1975 trade data had to be reclassified to correspond to the post-1975 SITC code. The Bureau of Industry Economics explored this classification problem with both the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Department of Trade. It was apparent that substantial computing resources would have to be devoted to accomplishing this task, and it was judged that, while the project was of considerable value, computing resources were not available. The Bureau of Industry Economics then explored alternative means of obtaining these data. At the time, the Australian National University had just gained access to World Bank trade data. The World Bank has devoted substantial computing resources to converting post-1975 trade data for most countries in the world back to the pre-1975 SITC classification. For this reason, the Executive of the Bureau of Industry Economics decided an approach should be made to the Australian National University to assess whether it would be possible for the Bureau of Industry Economics to access that data bank. Agreement was reached and a consultancy was arranged. Throughout this particular project, there has been much co-operation between officials of the Department of Trade, the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Bureau of Industry Economics. Some of the results were recently presented to a sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence which is enquiring into Australia and ASEAN relations. I table a copy of that presentation for interested Senators to consult. It is probable that the Bureau of Industry Economics will again access the World Bank trade data bank available at the Australian National University for work that it is doing on the impact of North-East Asian developments on Australia. I am sure that Senator Rae will agree that this is an eminently sensible division of labour between one arm of the bureaucracy and the Australian National University. If comparable data had been available in the private sector, I am confident that the Bureau of Industry Economics would have considered quotations from that source alongside quotations from the Australian National University. Senator PETER RAE —I thank the Senate. I am also in a position to express a degree of concern about a document called Ploughshares which is published under the name of Senator Jean Hearn, Australian Labor Party senator for Tasmania, and which makes some allegations which I regard as matters which require an answer one way or another. I will seek leave to table the document in due course. Page 4 of that document states: THE SPLIT The split was a result of a situation where National Civil Council elements had disrupted the work of the Labor Party to such an extent that, in Victoria at least, they could no longer remain within it. Their 'new' party, the DLP, was ideologically to the right even of the Liberal/ National Party Coalition, to whom they invariably gave their preferences. The opposed every aspect of Labor policy. They totally supported Australia's involvement in the Vietnam war and campaigned against a wide range of social issues, especially those relating to women. The existence of the DLP kept Labor out of office for almost two decades. To refer to NCC adherents as being members of the labour movement is a travesty of the truth. Their sole remaining parliamentary representative, Brian Harradine, supports the ruling class even to the extent of legalising bottom-of-the-harbour tax-dodging schemes. All this is recent or present-day history, not a hangover from 30 years ago. I seek leave to table the remainder of the document. I do so on the basis that I believe that either Senator Hearn should withdraw or Senator Harradine should take action in relation to the matter. Leave granted. Senator PETER RAE —I table the document. Senator Georges —Are you objecting on behalf of Senator Harradine? Senator PETER RAE —I am always looking after democracy. Let me talk about a further aspect of democracy. I have noted that recently an article has appeared in the Tasmanian Press, particularly on Wednesday, 13 June, in the Examiner, entitled 'Let me rejoin-McCoy'. In the Mercury newspaper of the same day a headline stated: 'McCoy applies for ALP membership'. I wish to read part of what was said. The Mercury states: The man who said there would be blood on the streets during the Franklin River blockade and described the Labor Party as a group of 'greenies' has applied to join the Australian Labor Party. The former leader of the Organisation for Tasmanian Development- the OTD as it was known- Mr Kelvin McCoy, applied to join the party last week. There are likely to be howls of protest from many ALP members because of remarks Mr McCoy made during the dams debate. Members have 14 days to object to Mr McCoy gaining membership and objections will be heard by the ALP Rules Committee. But already it seems unlikely Mr McCoy will be granted permission to join the party. The State Secretary of the ALP, Mr Eugene Alexander, said there was a party rule that no person who had 'campaigned, worked or stood against a party candidate' could become a member of the party. Mr McCoy was working last night and could not be contacted for comment on his application. In the Examiner newspaper it was stated: Mr Kelvin McCoy, one of the Labor Party's fiercest critics during the dams debate, has applied to rejoin the party. Mr McCoy, was chairman of the pro-dam lobby group, the Organisation for Tasmanian Development which staunchly supported the State Liberal Party policy to build the Gordon-below-Franklin dam. Labor party sources said yesterday his involvement in that campaign could lead to objections to his membership application. Under the party's rules objections to his application must be made by June 22 by a branch or union. If objections are lodged, the matter will be determined by the rules committee. I would be most interested, having been the subject of a considerable amount of publicity generated by Mr McCoy who suggested that my endorsement should be withdrawn by the Liberal Party of Australia-- Senator McIntosh —Hear, hear! Senator PETER RAE —The honourable senator may well say 'Hear, hear!', but there were a sufficient number of people in Tasmania who did not agree. Fortunately, as far as I, the Liberal Party and democracy are concerned, there was a sufficient number of people who did not agree with this gentleman, Mr McCoy, who campaigned under the guise of being the self-styled leader of the OTD, a semi- fascist organisation that tramped up and down the streets of Queenstown, Burnie, Hobart and Launceston, that goose-stepped its way around Tasmania. This gentleman who was a former member of the Australian Labor Party and who is now applying to rejoin the ALP, had the temerity to suggest that my endorsement as a Liberal senator should be withdrawn. Fortunately, the democratic vote was 19 to 7 the other way. I remained No. 1 on the Senate ticket as far as Tasmania was concerned, notwithstanding the efforts of Mr McCoy, the ex-Labor paid, subscribed member of the Organisation for Tasmanian Development, and a Mr John McKean who applied for endorsement against me, whose previous move in politics was to apply to the Labor Party for endorsement. Strangely enough, he found it desirable to campaign against me vigorously, publicly and openly. I can say with the greatest confidence that he did not receive a single solitary vote from the Liberal Party selection committee but he did gain a lot of publicity for his efforts. In any consideration that may be given to the application for readmission of the late lamented member of the Labor Party, Mr Kelvin McCoy, who visited Bulgaria and found that its trade union movement was the most democratic that he had struck outside Tasmania or something or the other, who has distinguished himself in many ways, perhaps without credit but certainly with notoriety, who chose to call for my removal from the Liberal Party Senate ticket I simply ask the Labor Party and Senator Grimes in particular as the senior Liberal from Tasmania, the Deputy Leader of the Labor Party-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Grimes —Mr President, I ask you to ask the honourable senator to withdraw that statement. The PRESIDENT —Order! I have drawn it to the attention of the honourable senator . Senator PETER RAE —The insult to Senator Grimes was not intended, nor was the insult to the Liberal Party. I ask the senior socialist from Tasmania: Will he, when he is applying his consideration in this very senior position to this particular application, ask whether a condition could be imposed that the Organisation for Tasmanian Development be disbanded formally, that the funds which it may have raised be subscribed to some worthy cause-any that are left after Mr McCoy's activities-and that as a condition of his readmission to the ALP he accept that he behaved as a front group for the ALP which was designed to give an alternative participation to Labor voters and to entrap unwary Liberals and others into lending their support, financial or otherwise, to the extremist activities of that section of the Australian Labor Party? I hope that the Minister will consider that matter. If he does not, so be it. I pass now to certain other matters which relate to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the circumstances of the appointment of people to positions of power in the Corporation. Since Senate Estimates Committee A considered the appropriations for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation I have been inundated with material. My filing system is almost incapable of dealing with the material which I have received from various people in relation to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, as it is now called, and the details of the way in which various activities took place. I will start off by saying that it has been alleged to me-I know nothing of these matters but I raise them because this is the last night on which Parliament is sitting and I think it is important that they be raised and answered-that the board employed, in relation to the appointment of the managing director, outside consultants Stuart Spencer and Associates. They had no previous experience with regard to that type of employment and no previous experience with regard to the particular requirements for a person to be employed in the position of managing director of the ABC. The questions which it is suggested that I ask are: What was the total cost to the taxpayer to engage this consultant? What were the qualifications and experience of the consultants in broadcasting for the purpose of assessing broadcasting qualifications and experience of candidates. The answer to the second question is, as I understand it, that the consultant did not have any particular qualifications. The third question is: In the process of selection, did the consultant interview applicants by himself and form judgments without the normal benefit of an interview committee drawn from the ABC? As I understand it the answer to that question is that they were interviewed by the consultant alone. I also understand that the board delegated to the consultant the responsibility to select a short list and reject applicants without interview and that this rejection was unmonitored by the board. I further understand the board did not take the responsibility of selecting the acceptable applicants under the terms of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act but rather that a sub-committee of the board was appointed to interview applicants on the short list, reject applicants and make a recommendation. The board did not know of or see the names of the applicants, other than those the Board's sub-committee interviewed, prior to the appointment. The appointment was made without reference to the board by the sub-committee on the Friday before a meeting of the board on the following Monday. I ask: Is it a fact that an offer was made and accepted before the full board met to make its formal decision? Is it also a fact that a member of the board interviewed the person who had been offered the appointment and who had accepted it before the board met to formalise the appointment and that the interview was conducted for ABC radio on the basis that the person had been appointed on the date of the interview which was before the full board met? I understand the chain of events to be that interviews were conducted on the last Thursday and Friday of October 1983; that an offer of appointment and acceptance of such an offer was made on the Friday; a radio interview was conducted on the Friday or Saturday by a member of the board before the applicant went back to New Zealand. I further understand that the full board met on the Monday and Mr Myer made a statement before the full board met to the program AM. Yet the Australian Financial Review of 31 October said there was a statement to the effect that the Board would meet that day to make its final decision. I further understand that the appointment was announced on the afternoon on Monday, 31 October, after the full board meeting and that immediately after the announcement the interview with the successful applicant, which had been made before the full board meeting, was played on the ABC immediately following The World To-day program. This is almost one of the most bizarre combinations of sequences of events that one could imagine. The general thrust of the questions which I ask involved the cost and the qualifications of the consultants and whether the board's legal right under the Act to give the responsibility to select a candidate to a non- board, non-ABC person and then for the board to fail deliberately to deal with all the applications is legal and legitimate under the law existing in Austrlaia at the moment. Apparently, the board has failed to answer the questions in relation to this matter and it has been referred to the Ombudsman. I understand that the Ombudsman has not yet responded to the matter which has been referred to him but is considering what action he intends to take. It is alleged to me that the reviewed board is now costing the ABC over $100,000 per month although the previous board cost about the same amount per annum. I am told further that the new chairman of the board, in the first six months of his chairmanship, has hardly ever been within the geographical extremities of Australia. He has been present for board meetings but otherwise the deputy chairman does most of the running of the operation. The chairman has apparently been out of Australia for 22 of the 26 weeks of his chairmanship. I ask: Who is really running the ABC? The restructuring within the ABC has been done in a policy vacuum. It has been based on two articles of faith. One is that the new structure is better in some measurable way than the previous structure and the other is a strongly held belief within the ABC that the new structure will be immeasurably more expensive than the old. It is held that by causing disruptions to staff the new people will be substantially better at running the ABC than the existing staff. That is allegedly the belief of those who are restructuring the organisation that by causing disruptions to staff the new people, those who are able to take control, will be substantially better. Both of the questions which I have raised are open to serious investigation as to the validity of the articles of faith. I am told by many people-I emphasise this-that the amount of disharmony, the amount of distrust and the amount of discredit within the organisation of the ABC at the moment is a matter which is almost beyond belief and a matter which at this stage, late though it may be in the sitting of the Parliament, ought to be given an airing. I ask Senator Grimes whether he will endeavour to obtain from his misinformed colleague, Mr Duffy-who regrettably, when asked a question some time ago by Ms McHugh, did not even manage to distinguish between Senator Peter Rae and the unanimous report of the Senate Estimates Committee A-some responses, and to publish some responses to the matters that I have raised which I believe are causing great concern, disharmony and disunity within the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to the detriment of the public function which it is there to perform. Senator Grimes —I gather you don't like him. Senator PETER RAE —I am not pointing a finger in any particular direction. I am responding to some of the complaints which I have received. The final one to which I am responding is that the Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister for Industry and Commerce-whom the Minister for Social Security ( Senator Grimes) represents tonight-had a shot at me some time ago about the unlimited number of questions I had asked. I point out, as a final part of our happy proceedings in this autumn session of the Parliament, that I am still awaiting an answer to the question which I asked the Minister on notice on 6 March 1984. It was a relatively simple question about tractors and self- regulation, and I still cannot even get an answer to that question out of that man. I thank the Senate for the opportunity to raise these points, all of which I believe are matters which are reasonably relevant when we are required to stay here on a Friday night, and matters which I would have liked to have raised on other occasions, but in deference to the Senate, to the staff and to Hansard and all of the rest of the people here, I have not. I therefore take the opportunity as I may be the penultimate speaker to say what has not been said. I thank those who have served the Senate well during the autumn session, the people who have helped the Parliament to operate successfully. I thank Hansard, the Senate staff and a whole cross-section of people. I add that there was one slight problem for a few days when we did not have much to eat, but I do not know that that did too much harm to us. I just add those words in concluding the proceedings of the autumn session of the Senate. Thank you, Mr President, for your patience. I thank the staff for what they have done. I thank Senator Grimes for the undertaking he gave by nodding his head that he would endeavour to obtain some answers to the matters which I have raised. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(10.20) —Much as it pains me to disappoint Senator Rae, his was not the final contribution; it was the penultimate one. I will, as always, be brief. If ever I felt like offering abject apologies to honourable senators, it is tonight; but that would only extend the proceedings, so I will get on with the business. I could not let the last day of this session pass without acknowledging to certain officials in the Department of Health that there are some things one cannot do without achieving some public notoriety. On 27 March this year I asked Senator Grimes, as the Minister representing the Minister for Health, a series of questions relating to the Health Insurance Commission. I asked three questions. The third of those questions was: How many of the non-private health fund employees were recruited on a temporary contract basis and how many on a permanent basis? The daily Hansard contained a misprint. Instead of printing 'non-private' it printed 'now private'. On 29 March, Senator Grimes gave the Health Department's first, and so far only, attempt to answer that question. Because of this misprint, the question was obviously nonsense; so the Department re-worded it and inserted, instead of 'now private', the words 'former private'. That might have been an understandable mistake for the Department to make if it was not for the fact that on the evening of 27 March, the day that I first asked the question, I spoke in the adjournment debate. In that adjournment debate I referred to and repeated the wording of the question I had asked. On that occasion it was printed correctly. Also in that adjournment speech I referred to a letter that I had received from the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) relating to Health Insurance Commission employment policies. I believe it would not be an unreasonable assumption to think that the Department of Health might have taken some notice of this speech-not be moved by it, but at least notice it-and noticed that it repeated the question that I had asked earlier that day and that there was a different word in the question that I had read in the evening from the question I had asked in the morning as printed in Hansard. One might think the Department would have checked. If the Department had read my adjournment speech it would certainly have got the sense of the question. The point of all this is that the Minister had given an undertaking-it is in his letter that I had incorporated in Hansard on 27 March 1984-as follows: the Health Insurance Commission will be giving preference in employment to former health funds staff; Further he said: The Government is taking special steps to deal with the period, between October 1983 to March 1984, when the Medicare system is gearing up and needing staff, and, at the same time, the private health funds will still be running at full capacity. Any employees taken on by the Health Insurance Commission during that period who are not former private health fund employees will be on contract. The basis of the contract will allow for former private health fund employees to take over these jobs in the Commission once Medicare assumes the bulk of current health insurance business. All of this has been a matter of some notoriety in Queensland and a political issue. Very clearly my reasons for asking the questions which I asked and which, as I said, were repeated in the adjournment debate of 27 March are connected to that undertaking of the Minister and claims that they had not been met, at least in Queensland, by the Health Insurance Commission. I was anxious to know whether the Minister had given that instruction and, if he had, why had not the Health Insurance Commission followed it. If it had followed it at all, to what extent had it followed it? On 13 March, Senator Grimes, as I said, read into the record an answer to the question changed in wording that I had earlier asked. I saw Senator Grimes after he gave that answer and pointed out to him that there was a mistake in the wording of the question. He gave me an assurance that he would refer it back to the Minister for Health and get me a correct answer. That night-the night of 30 March-I again spoke on the adjournment simply to place on the record the wording of the question as it should have been, and what had been my subsequent request to Senator Grimes. On 31 May, two months later, during consideration in the Committee of the Whole of the Estimates in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1983-84, I again asked the questions of Senator Grimes, because I still had not received an answer. Senator Grimes indicated that he believed that I would have received an answer because he had passed on my request and he had assumed that it had been answered. He said: I have been blissfully wandering along thinking that the honourable senator had been given an answer. I apologise that she has not. We will get the answer very quickly. That was 31 May. Senator Kilgariff —Which year? Senator MARTIN —Nineteen eighty-four; it is not that bad. Today the Senate adjourns for the winter recess. I still have not had a word of answer. Last week a member of my staff contacted Senator Grimes's office and pointed out to him that I had not yet received an answer. There have been some conversations this week between me and members of Senator Grimes's staff on the subject. Yesterday I received, with a slip worded 'With the Compliments of the Minister for Social Security', two Hansard extracts. On checking, I found that when Senator Grimes's office had requested from the Department the answer to the question this was the Department's response. What I received was a photocopy of my original question to the Minister on 27 March and a photocopy of his inadvertently incorrect answer of 30 March. That did not seem to me like noteworthy progress, and I started to get a little short tempered. I have discussed the matter with the Minister. I have indicated my extreme annoyance on the subject. But I put this on the record: It is incredible to me that a Commonwealth department could be either so utterly incompetent in understanding the request that has now been directed to it specifically and has been correctly spelled out several times now in the Hansard or, alternatively, so cavalier in its attitude to questions asked of it by members of parliament that it is prepared to ignore them, apparently ad infinitum. I want to know: What instructions did the Minister give to the Health Insurance Commission in relation to the employment of former private health fund employees? Were they the instructions that he stated to me in his letter of August 1983? If so, why have they not been followed, because at least to some extent they have not been followed in Queensland? To what extent have they been followed? Is Queensland the only such state? That is not the precise question that I asked on 27 March, but it is the clear implication of the question, particularly in light of the question I raised on the adjournment. I am sure the Health Insurance Commission is very well aware of the question it is being asked. I would like to know why it has not seen fit to answer it. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.49) —I will deal first with Senator Martin's matters. The details as she stated them are true and accurate. To make things even worse, I think she failed to mention that one night both she and I spoke to officials of the Department of Health who were in this chamber about the answer and it was after that that I assumed she would receive the answer. I can offer no explanation as to what has happened. All I can say is that this afternoon I spoke with an officer of the Department of Health. I told him what I thought of the Department's failure to answer Senator Martin's reasonable and perfectly clear, straightforward question once the printing errors had been sorted out. The expressions that I used to that officer of the Department would not have been permitted to have been repeated in this chamber. I will ensure that officers of the Department answer the questions; if they do not I will go over and drag the answers out of them. I have no explanation for the failure to answer the question. I certainly understand and share Senator Martin's indignation about the matter. Senator Rae has certainly shown a great interest in the Tasmanian Branch of the Australian Labor Party tonight. The first matter that I heard him raise was Senator Hearn's reference to Senator Harradine as being the sole parliamentary representative of the National Civic Council. I do not think that is quite accurate. I know that for many years Senator Harradine was the representative of the National Civic Council, but in recent times there has been a split in the National Civic Council. I understand that Senator Harradine has joined the breakaway group and is no longer associated with Mr Santamaria. I do not know what the difference between the new group and the old group is, apart from a dislike of Mr Santamaria, but I dare say that Senator Rae will very shortly get an answer to the matters that he raised tonight during the adjournment debate. Mr Kelvin McCoy attacked not only Senator Rae during the last election campaign but also me and other members of the Labor Party. I well remember an advertisement that the Organisation for Tasmanian Development put out saying: ' Put Labor last'. I was the head of the Labor ticket. Senator Rae was head of the Liberal ticket. The only difference between the way the organisation treated us and the way it treated the Liberal Party was that it put out a ticket asking electors to vote Senator Walters No. 1 and left Senator Rae off the ticket because it had some obsession about Senator Rae. Mr McCoy has been attacking the Labor Party for many years and has, in fact, attacked me on several occasions. He has been very severe in the past on the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, describing him in all sorts of colourful and lurid terms. Therefore, I am as surprised as Senator Rae that Mr McCoy wants to rejoin the Labor Party. I will have something to say about that in private meetings of the Labor Party. I have no intention of discussing that in the Senate tonight. I will refer to the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) Senator Rae's extraordinary series of accusations about the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and its Board and the manner of its appointment of its new General Manager. I claim to be the only person in this Parliament who does not claim to be an economist. I certainly do not claim to be a lawyer and have no claim to be an expert on communications or the ABC. I think it is sensible that I refer that matter to Mr Duffy and get some detailed answers for Senator Rae. I wish only that Senator Rae had raised the matter before the other place got up. I share the sentiments of Senator Rae and Senator Martin that we should thank the staff and everyone associated with this place, but rather than delay the proceedings and keep up later even more members of the staff I will leave the matter at that tonight and will see all honourable senators in August. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.54 p.m., until 2 p.m. on 21 August 1984, unless previously called together in accordance with the resolution passed earlier this day. The following papers were presented: Primary Industry Bank Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 108. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Regulations 1984- No. 12 (Motor Traffic Ordinance) No. 13 (Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance) The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 923) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 31 May 1984: (1) Is there a proposed Federal Government program to test the application of the method of nuclear waste storage known as synroc at locations in Australia outside Lucas Heights. (2) Where are the sites that are being examined or proposed for such testing and when will the program proceed. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) See (1). (Question No. 791) Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice , on 3 April 1984: (1) What plans does the Government have with reference to adult literacy, to provide assistance to the 10 per cent of the Australian population which research findings indicate is either illiterate or minimally literate. (2) What financial resources are currently provided on a State by State breakdown. (3) Is there a representative committee in each State which advises on allocation within that State. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) In the funding guidelines to the Commonwealth Education Commissions for 1984, the Government asked the Technical and Further Education Council of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (CTEC), in the context of the triennial report for 1985-87, 'to consult with the States and other relevant authorities and provide a report and recommendations for a joint Commonwealth- State campaign to combat adult illiteracy'. The report of the Council is contained in volume 1 of the Commission's report for the 1985-87 triennium which is currently under consideration by the Government. Following detailed consideration of the advice contained in that report I will be in a position to comment further on possible government initiatives to combat this serious problem. (2) Funds are allocated to adult literacy from a variety of Commonwealth and State government courses, and I am advised by the CTEC that it does not compile information to identify total funds allocated to this purpose. The TAFE Council has estimated that about $500,000 of Commonwealth grants to State TAFE authorities which it administers are provided for adult literacy and associated purposes. A detailed break down of this estimate on a State by State basis is not available. (3) There is a representative committee in each State which advises on the use of TAFE Council funds for non-government adult education. The allocation of Government funds is a matter for decision by the respective State TAFE authorities. However, there are no representative committees which advise specifically on the allocation of funds to adult literacy programs. Senator Button —On 29 May 1984 (Hansard, page 2009) Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle asked me a question with regard to a dispute affecting a community employment program project being undertaken by the City of Moorabbin in Victoria . In her question the honourable senator referred to bans imposed by the Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees Union in support of rates of pay in accordance with that union's award. In my reply I undertook to refer the honourable senator 's question to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations for response . The Acting Minister has provided the following information in response to the honourable senator's question: I have been advised of a number of disputes affecting work on several community employment program projects being undertaken by local government authorities in Victoria. The Moorabbin project is one of those affected by these disputes. Specifically the disputes concern whether employees employed on these projects should be paid according to the Federal Municipal Employees (Victoria) Award or under appropriate building industry awards. In that context building industry unions have imposed various bans on a number of community employment program projects. To some extent the problems have arisen because many local government authorities, who in the past have generally sub-contracted 'building' work, have , under community employment program funding arrangements, undertaken to do the work themselves by directly employing community employment program participants. With regard to the City of Moorabbin project I am advised that the bans referred to by the honourable senator remain in force. However, I have been further advised that the Victorian Government has initiated discussions, involving all of the parties to the disputes. These talks are aimed at resolving the matter and several meetings have been held to date. These discussions are continuing. While the Government is naturally concerned at the effect that the bans are having on the operation of the extremely successful community employment program , it is hoped that the discussions initiated by the Victorian Government will lead to a speedy resolution of these disputes. I can assure the honourable senator that the Government is closely monitoring developments in these disputes . (Question No. 684) Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following supplementary answer to Senator Watson's question: The outcome of the review on civil aviation links with southern Africa was announced by the Minister for Aviation on 25 March, after the preparation of the earlier answer. Following consultation with me it was decided that the Government would take no steps to change the status quo in air services with southern Africa. That means that Qantas will continue to operate one weekly Boeing 747 flight from Sydney to Harare via Perth and that SAA will maintain its weekly Boeing 747 flight from Johannesburg to Sydney via Mauritius and Perth. (Question No. 706) Senator Coleman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 8 March 1984: (1) What is the Australian voting record on disarmament or arms limitation motions at the United Nations. (2) Is the present Government happy with this record. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) There were 68 resolutions concerning disarmament and arms control issues debated at the 1983 session of the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly, the main committee of the Assembly dealing with international political and security matters. After careful examination of each resolution, Australia voted in favour of 40 of the resolutions, abstained on 18 and only voted against 10. Details of the texts of the resolutions and the voting of delegations, including Australia's, are available from the Parliamentary Library . In light of the high priority it attaches to progress in the field of disarmament and arms control, the Government's preference is to vote positively for resolutions on these subjects in the General Assembly. At the 1983 session of the General Assembly, Australia supported the large number of resolutions which advanced constructive disarmament measures or were designed to facilitate the operation of the international disarmament machinery. On a number of resolutions which where attractive in the abstract but flawed in terms of their possible contribution to realistic, balanced and verifiable disarmament measures , the Government changed Australia's previous voting position from a negative vote to one of abstention. Australia voted against resolutions which would not lead to any real progress in bringing about disarmament. Australia sought to encourage consensus wherever possible in the belief that ultimately disarmament and arms control measures will only be effective if they attract widespread support. (2) The Australian delegation's votes and its negotiation activity in seeking to promote agreement and compromise was in accordance with its instructions and government policy. The Government was particularly pleased at the Australian delegation's success in promoting, jointly with New Zealand, a resolution supporting efforts by the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva towards the negotiation of a Comprehansive Test Ban-CTB-Treaty. This resolution achieved a large measure of support and unlike competing resolutions on the same topic attracted no negative votes. The Government attaches considerable importance to the fact that the United States was persuaded to abstain after voting against a similar resolution in 1982. (Question No. 758) Senator Hearn asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 28 March 1984: (1) What are the positions held by white, coloured and black staff at the Australian Embassy in South Africa? (2) How many overseas interviewing officers are employed at the Embassy? (3) How many interviewing officers are Australian citizens? (4) How long is it since they were last in Australia and for what period of time? Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Twenty-four locally engaged staff are employed by Australian missions in South Africa. The positions held by white, coloured and black staff are: Pretoria: White Administrative clerk; consular clerk; visa clerk; accounts clerk; clerk typist; assistant accounts clerk; receptionist/ typist; receptionist/telephonist; clerk/ processing visas; stenographer/clerk; clerk/examiner visas; clerk/processing visas. Black Head driver. Coloured Property clerk; driver/clerk; driver/ messenger. Cape Town: White clerk/typist (immigration) (two). Johannesburg-Trade: White: Marketing officer; secretary; accounts clerk; clerk/stenographer (Asian). Black Driver (two). (2) Pretoria-three (3); one chief migration officer, two (2) migration officers . Cape Town-one (1); migration officer. Johannesburg-Nil. (3) All. (4) The chief migration officer was last in Australia from 22 March 1984 to 1 April 1984. The two migration officers (Pretoria) were last in Australia on 10 September 1981 and 10 December 1983 respectively. One had been in Australia for 12 months prior to 10 September 1981, the other departed on his first posting on 10 December 1983. Migration officer (Cape Town) was last in Australia on 12 August 1982 and for five years prior to this. (Question No. 775) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 30 March 1984: (1) Has the Minister for Defence's attention been drawn to an article in the Australian on 28 March 1984 in which the Auditor-General states that no-one can firmly state what defence capabilities are required by the nation. (2) What is the future of air surveillance, particularly in the north in the light of the removal of the Tracker aircraft from northern surveillance and Navy service, together with the removal of the Skyhawkes and the aircraft carrier Melbourne, and some crews from these aircraft now being dissipated and joining other nations' navy arms. (3) Is the report correct in stating that surveillance activities are still being further reduced, if so, what effect will this have on the already stretched quarantine and customs services along Australia's northern coast. (4) Is it the intention of the Government to arm Australia's Navy patrol boats and to upgrade their surveillance equipment so that they would be able to stand up to an attack in the event of being involved in a hostile incident with, for example, other hostile vessels and/or aircraft. (5) Are Australia's navy steaming fuel supplies being allowed to run down as an economic measure. (6) What would be the effect on Australia's defence forces if overseas fuel supplies were cut off, for example through tankers being restricted from leaving the Middle East or for elsewhere. (7) Does Australia hold sufficient fuel reserves to enable its forces to operate through an oil crisis or through any other crisis. (8) Are defence force numbers and training programs being reduced to such a degree that the Nation's defence capabilities could now be aptly described as negligible. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) This question confuses two separate requirements and types of operations. One is peacetime coastal surveillance for civil purposes including quarantine, customs and fisheries control. The other is military surveillance against the forces of a potentially hostile military power. This distinction was addressed in detail in Mr Beazley's recent review of Australia's coastal surveillance and protection arrangements. I refer the honourable senator to that report. The future arrangements for air surveillance of Australia's northern coastline for civil law enforcement purposes were announced by the Special Minister of State on 30 March. Royal Australian Navy Tracker aircraft have not been used in that role since December 1980 when they were replaced by civil charter aircraft. Royal Australian Air Force P3 long rang maritime patrol aircraft continue to conduct surveillance operations in our northern waters, primarily to assist in the regulation of foreign fishing vessels within the Australian Fishing Zone. (3) Peacetime civil coastal surveillance and protection are the responsibility of my colleague the Special Minister of State. As he announced on 30 March, the new arrangements being introduced following Mr Beazley's review are designed to make civil surveillance more effective and attuned to national priorities. Increased emphasis in civil surveillance operations is being given to countering drug smuggling while maintaining effective levels of surveillance against breaches of quarantine, fisheries, environmental and immigration regulations. (4)The Fremantle class patrol boats are fitted with 40 millimetre and 0.5 inch calibre guns, an 81 millimetre mortar and radar. These weapons and surveillance equipment are adequate for current tasks, and the Government has no plans in the short term for improvements. If Australia's strategic circumstances were to deteriorate, more capable systems could be installed within a relatively short time. (5) Navy steaming fuel supplies are sufficient to meet programmed requirements. Naval fuel stocks have however been reduced in recent years, in part for economic reasons but also as a result of changed fuel management decisions, in light of present strategic circumstances. (6) and (7) Australia is substantially self sufficient in oil supplies and Defence Force usage of fuel represents a very small proportion of national consumption. Moreover, the Defence Force's dependence on imported supplies- notably furnace fuel oil-has been significantly reduced by the entry into service in recent years of ships which use dieso and replace other vessels dependent on furnace fuel oil. Furthermore, Defence is recognised as an essential user of fuel oils by the Commonwealth and State emergency fuel allocation organisations. Arrangements with these organisations have been made to ensure that a continued supply of fuel would be available for Defence purposes in emergency circumstances. Should an international oil crisis occur, the International Energy Agency of which Australia is a member would arrange distribution of available oil supplies between member nations. In view of this, the effect on Australia's defence forces of interruption to Australia's overseas oil supplies would not be great, even if oil supplies were to be cut off totally and for an extended period. (8) No. (Question No. 795) Senator Missen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 3 April 1984: (1) Does the quota for slaughter of kangaroos in 1984 of 1,988,000 kangaroos mean no real reduction in the numbers previously slaughtered. (2) Why has no account been taken of the severe reduction in the kangaroo population caused by the drought. (3) Is there substantial killing of kangaroos taking place in Australia over and above the quotas set. (4) Has the Australian Government any reliable information as to the extent of such illegal killings; if so, what is this information. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Each year quotas of animals that may be culled are set after discussions with the State wildlife authorities. The quotas may be varied as conditions change. In 1983 the quotas were set at 3.143 million but, due to seasonal conditions, the actual numbers culled, although final figures are not yet available, is expected to be just under two million. This year, the figure for culling has been set, after population assessment, at 1.98 million, similar to the actual number culled in 1983. This figure has been arrived at after taking into account the present estimated population of kangaroos, current, mostly improved, conditions throughout the nation and the likely state during the rest of this year. Should there be any significant change, the quotas can be varied to take account of these changes. (2) See (1) above. (3) Some illegal killing of kangaroos occurs but the extent of this is unknown. However, illegal killing has no bearing on cull quotas. They are set by assessing the population at the time. (4) See (3) above. (Question No. 826) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 May 1984: (1) Has the United States Defence Department developed a new generation of early warning satellites called DSP2, which are designed for fighting nuclear wars and/or nuclear attacks. (2) Is the Nurrungar ground station in South Australia part of the control system for these satellites. (3) Will the primary function of Nurrungar now only be to monitor arms stocks held by the super powers, given the use of such satellites. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The FY 85 report to Congress of the United States Secretary of Defense includes the following statement concerning the United States satellite early warning program: Early warning satellites in geostationary orbit would provide our first warning of missile attack. These satellites use infrared sensors to detect ICBM and SLBM launches. Replacement satellites, scheduled for deployment in the mid-to late 1980s, will incorporate a number of improvements designed to enhance their performance and survivability (e.g. improvements in the sensor's focal plane and additional hardening). (2) and (3) In relation to the purpose and operations of the Nurrungar station the honourable senator's attention is drawn to the Prime Minister's statement tabled in the Senate on 6 June 1984. (Question No. 841) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry , 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 Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The following schedule gives details of the names, dates of appointment, terms of appointment and salaries of all persons appointed to the statutory authorities under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Primary Industry: Salaries (Determined by Date of Term of Remuneration Name appointment appointment Tribunal) $ Australian Wheat Board Sir Leslie Price (Chairman) 26.10.83 3 years 70,846 T. M. Fullerton 26.10.83 3 years 9,826 P. L. Nielsen 26.10.83 3 years 9,826 J. C. Frearson 26.10.83 3 years 9,826 M. W. Taylor 26.10.83 3 years 9,826 G. B. Frend 26.10.83 3 years 9 ,826 J. V. Delahunty 26.10.83 3 years 9,826 B. W. Bishop 26.10.83 3 years 9, 826 M. S. Shanahan 26.10.83 3 years 9,826 A. B. Eichner 26.10.83 3 years 9,826 T. J. Flugge 24.10.83 2 3/4 years 9,826 B. Hewitt 26.10.83 3 years 9,826 C. E. Condon 26.10.83 3 years 9,826 R. D. McLeod 26.10.83 3 years 9,826 Australian Wool Corporation D. J. Asimus, AO (Chairman) 30.7.83 5 years 70,846 J. S. Silcock, MBE (Deputy) 1.1.84 3 years 14,712 F. M. Davidson, OBE 1.1.83 3 years 9,826 E. L. O'Brien, OBE 1.1.83 3 years 9,826 A. R. Gooch 1.1.83 3 years 9,826 E. N. Barr 1.1.83 3 years 9,826 W. J. Holcroft, AO 11.3.83 3 years 9,826 D. Fletcher-Jones 1.1.83 3 years 9,826 B. N. Kelman, CBE 1.1.83 3 years 9,826 G. L. Miller 23.2.84 3 years Remunerated by Economic Policy Advisory Council Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation R. G. Jones (Chairman) 9.7.81 5 years 70,846 T. H. Bryant 1.12.82 3 years 14, 712 E. I. Ashby 1.12.82 3 years 9,826 G. E. McCamley 3.2.84 3 years 9,826 J. B . Newman 3.2.84 3 years 9,826 N. W. Seccombe 3.2.84 3 years 9,826 I. P. Kennedy 3.2.84 3 years 9,826 J. Ware 1.12.83 3 years 9,826 J. K. Horwood 1.12. 83 3 years 9,826 R. Austen, AO 1.12.83 3 years 9,826 M. J. Blamey 3.3.82 3 years Officer of Dept of Primary Industry Australian Apple and Pear Corporation R. S. Swift (Chairman) 1.9.83 3 years 5,100 + 184 per day sitting fee D. A. Bishop 1.9.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee P. B. Calvert 1.9.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee P. B. Dally 1.9.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee J. V. Kiumelli 1.9.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee D. M. Pullar 1.9.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee G. F. Rogers 1.9.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee P. C. Chandler 1.9.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee M. L. Chittick 1.9.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee H. Morgan 1.9.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee E. Jenkins 1.9.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee Australian Canned Fruits Corporation Sir Peter Derham (Chairman) 1.1.83 3 years 11,835 P. I. Rosenblum 1.1.83 3 years 9,826 R. S. Turnbull 26.1.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee H. Sali 3.2.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee J. B. Pridham 26.1.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee S. R. Catanzariti 26.1.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee P. Pullar 26.1.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee J. Deakin 26.1.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee Australian Dairy Corporation M. L. Vawser (Chairman) 1.7.80 5 years 66,775 J. P. Bennett (Deputy Chairman) 1 .7.81 3 years 14,712 W. R. Dickson 1.7.81 3 years 9,826 D. O. Burston 1.7.81 3 years 9,826 E. R. Thorn 28.7.82 3 years Salary paid by Dept of Primary Industry P. D. Rowley 1.7.81 3 years 9,826 T. Perry 1.5.83 3 years 9,826 J. G. Spinkston 3.8.83 3 years 9,826 P. V. Gallagher 30.2.82 3 years 9,826 F. Davidson 13.12.83 3 years 9,826 P. Lever-Naylor 1.7.81 3 years 9,826 Australian Dried Fruits Corporation E. W. Barr (Chairman) 18.2.82 3 years 11,835 V. L. Byrnes 25.1.82 3 years 115 daily sitting fee A. R. Mead 25.1.82 3 years 115 daily sitting fee H. M. Tankard 25.1.82 3 years 115 daily sitting fee W. N. Whiting 25.1.82 3 years 115 daily sitting fee J. C. Harrison, OBE, DFC 25.1.82 3 years 115 daily sitting fee C. D. A. Lloyd-Bostock 25.1.82 3 years 115 daily sitting fee R. Alderson 18.10.83 3 years Salary paid by Dept of Primary Industry Australian Egg Board R. B. Fuge (Chairman) 2.6.83 1 year 9,826 R. A. Hazlett 18.2.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee K. P. Baxter 1.10.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee D. J. Foster 19.8.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee J. G. Simpson 30.11.82 3 years 115 daily sitting fee L. L. Ikin 9.12.82 3 years 115 daily sitting fee J. Petrie 22.10.82 3 years 115 daily sitting fee Australian Honey Board E. J. Davy (Chairman) 25.6.81 3 years 9,826 K. J. Eastburn (Producers) 1.7.81 3 years 4,017 R. H. McDonald (Producers) 1.7.81 3 years 4,017 J. C. Smith ( Producers) 1.7.81 3 years 4,017 J. C. Fuss (Producers) 1.7.81 3 years 4,017 A. J. Fewster (Producers) 1.7.81 3 years 4,017 R. A. Cook (Packers) 1.7.81 3 years 115 daily sitting fee R. K. Barker (Packers) 1.7.81 3 years 115 daily sitting fee N. R. Gorman (Packers) 1.7.81 3 years 115 daily sitting fee B. D. Clifton (Packers) 1.7.81 3 years 115 daily sitting fee Australian Tobacco Board E. W. Muir 16.8.83 1 1/2 years Salary paid by Dept of Primary Industry W. Kidston 13.2.82 3 years 115 daily sitting fee M. J. Taylor 14.6.83 1 1/2 years 115 daily sitting fee D. E. MacCallum 20.1.81 4 years 115 daily sitting fee D. R. Hastie 20.1.81 4 years 115 daily sitting fee A. Rigoni 20.1.81 4 years 115 daily sitting fee G. H. Warner 20.1.81 4 years 115 daily sitting fee G. M. Landy 13.1.82 3 years 115 daily sitting fee J. J. O'Brien 18.2.82 3 years 115 daily sitting fee P. M. Denton 4.1.82 3 years 115 daily sitting fee Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation R. W. C. Hesketh (Chairman) 1.7.81 3 years 11,835 D. N. Collett 1.7.81 3 years 115 daily sitting fee R. M. Brown 1.7.81 3 years 115 daily sitting fee A. M. Rodger 31.8.82 2 years 115 daily sitting fee F. L. Devine 1.7.81 3 years 115 daily sitting fee D. R. McWilliam 1.7.81 3 years 115 daily sitting fee K. J. Seppelt 1.7.81 3 years 115 daily sitting fee W. J. Harris 1.7.81 3 years 115 daily sitting fee G. B. Lind 20.5.82 2 years 115 daily sitting fee A. O. Preece 1.7.81 3 years 115 daily sitting fee D. J. Gordon 1.7.81 3 years 115 daily sitting fee F. W. Sheppard 1.7.81 3 years 115 daily sitting fee R. J. Hoare 28 .10.82 3 years 115 daily sitting fee G. Mackay 1.7.82 3 years Officer of Dept of Primary Industry Pig Meat Promotion Committee L. J. Newing (Acting Chairman) 7.2.84 16.6.84 142 daily sitting fee G. N. Woltmann 7.2.84 16.6.84 115 daily sitting fee P. E. Howitt 31.11.82 3 years Officer of Dept of Primary Industry J. I. Dryburgh 3.10.81 3 years 115 daily sitting fee Australian Dairy Industry Advisory Committee C. Frearson (Chairman) 3.8.83 3 years 11,835 R. M. Bray 7.6.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee R. J. Campbell 12.1.84 3 years 115 daily sitting fee R. K. J. Barker 7.6.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee A. C. Skene 3.8.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee P. B. Roskam 7.6.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee J. I. Saunders 3.8.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee J. H. Bye 14.9.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee K. L. Perkins 7.6.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee D. W. Partridge 7.6.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee Barley Industry Research Council T. C. Mackey (Chairman) 3.5.84 3 years Officer of Dept of Primary Industry J. E . Begg 3.5.84 3 years 115 daily sitting fee J. P. Quirk 3.5.84 3 years 115 daily sitting fee G. S. Purss 3.5.84 3 years 115 daily sitting fee A. N. Smith 3.5.84 3 years 115 daily sitting fee S. W. Meagher 3.5.84 3 years 115 daily sitting fee A. F. Tideman 3.5.84 3 years 115 daily sitting fee C. M. Fancis 3.5 .84 3 years 115 daily sitting fee J. G. Enright 3.5.84 3 years 115 daily sitting fee M. J. Cock 3.5.84 3 years 115 daily sitting fee Cotton Research Committee E. Muir 25.5.83 3 years Officer of Dept of Primary Industry E. Wolfe 25.5.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee V. E. Mungomery 25.5.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee W. J. Peacock 25.5.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee D. E. Bythe 25.5.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee R. A. Williams 25.5.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee W. J. Mulligan 25.5.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee R. R. Schulze 25.5.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee R. S. Browne 25.5.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee R. C. Armstrong 25.5.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee Oilseeds Research Committee E. W. Muir (Chairman) 5.3.84 3 years Officer of Dept of Primary Industry J. K. Leslie 5.3.84 3 years 115 daily sitting fee A. Lazenby 5.4.84 3 years 115 daily sitting fee J. S. Russell 5.3.84 3 years 115 daily sitting fee F. R. From 5.3.84 3 years 115 daily sitting fee B. Gowrie-Smith 5.4.84 3 years 115 daily sitting fee A. C. Crosbie 5.3.84 3 years 115 daily sitting fee J. K. Anderson 5.3.84 3 years 115 daily sitting fee W. K. Meier 5.3.84 3 years 115 daily sitting fee Wheat Industry Research Council T. C. Mackey (Chairman) 12.12.82 Pleasure of Minister Officer of Dept of Primary Industry J. E. Begg 16.10.79 Pleasure of Minister 115 daily sitting fee J. P. Quirk 7.4.77 Pleasure of Minister 115 daily sitting fee G. S. Purss 2.10. 81 Pleasure of Minister 115 daily sitting fee A. N. Smith 21.1.77 Pleasure of Minister 115 daily sitting fee J. W. Meagher 5.2.76 Pleasure of Minister 115 daily sitting fee A. F. Tideman 18.7.77 Pleasure of Minister 115 daily sitting fee C. M. Francis 3.5.82 Pleasure of Minister 115 daily sitting fee A. B. Eichner 1.8.81 Pleasure of Minister 115 daily sitting fee H. N. Balcomb 9.6.79 Pleasure of Minister 115 daily sitting fee Dried Fruits Research Committee W. J. Byrne (Chairman) 31.5.83 3 years Officer of Dept of Primary Industry V. L . Byrnes 31.5.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee P. J. MacIntosh 31.5.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee H. M. Tankard 31.5.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee C. L. Roy 31.5.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee R. G. Horsburgh 31.5.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee M. McN. Lucey 31.5.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee J. W. Meagher 31.5.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee J. A. Seberry 31.5.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee D. J. Plowman 31.5.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee K. C. Richardson 31.5.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee Fishing Industry Research Committee R. A. Bain (Chairman) 1.1.83 2 years Officer of Dept of Primary Industry B. V. Lilburn 1.1.83 2 years Officer of Dept of Primary Industry A. W. Charles 1.1.83 2 years 115 daily sitting fee J. Olley 1.1.83 2 years 115 daily sitting fee G. G. Newman 1.1.83 2 years 115 daily sitting fee D. D. Francois 1.1.83 2 years 115 daily sitting fee F. A. L. Connell 1.1.83 2 years 115 daily sitting fee D. E. Bottrill 1.1.83 2 years 115 daily sitting fee Australian Chicken Meat Research Committee G. E. Pettit (Chairman) 26.3.82 3 years Officer of Dept of Primary Industry J. G. Fairbrother 26.6.81 3 years 115 daily sitting fee M. M. Hamilton 26.6.81 3 years 115 daily sitting fee J. J. Moth 26.6.81 3 years 115 daily sitting fee J. J. Peacock 26.6.81 3 years 115 daily sitting fee L. J. Skinner 26.6.81 3 years 115 daily sitting fee C. C. Donnelley 26.2.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee P. J. Gilchrist 26.6.81 3 years 115 daily sitting fee J. W. Ryley 26.6.81 3 years 115 daily sitting fee A. R. Johnson 26.6.81 3 years 115 daily sitting fee D. Balnave 26.6.81 3 years 115 daily sitting fee Australian Pig Industry Research Committee G. E. Pettit (Chairman) 26.3.82 3 years Officer of Dept of Primary Industry R. J. Leinert 10.2.82 3 years 115 daily sitting fee G. R. Baker 10.2.82 3 years 115 daily sitting fee B. Muirhead 10.2.82 3 years 115 daily sitting fee D. G. Hinton 10.2.82 3 years 115 daily sitting fee I. Barker 10.2.82 3 years 115 daily sitting fee N. Maughan 3.3.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee J. W. McLaughlin 10.2.82 3 years 115 daily sitting fee J. W. Ryley 10.2.82 3 years 115 daily sitting fee L. C. Lloyd 10.2.82 3 years 115 daily sitting fee D. Lindsay 10.2.82 3 years 115 daily sitting fee Honey Research Committee G. E. Pettit (Chairman) 1.4.84 3 years Officer of Dept of Primary Industry L. J . Briggs 1.4.84 3 years 115 daily sitting fee R. M. McDonald 1.4.84 3 years 115 daily sitting fee B. White 1.4.84 3 years 115 daily sitting fee R. J. Milner 1.4.84 3 years 115 daily sitting fee Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee G. Mackey (Chairman) 23.12.82 1.6 years Officer of Dept of Primary Industry Hon . R. E. Camm 29.10.80 2.9 years 115 daily sitting fee J. A. Pickworth, MBE 10. 10.79 4 years 115 daily sitting fee J. M. Keenan 10.10.79 4 years 115 daily sitting fee B. R. Seanton 10.10.79 4 years 115 daily sitting fee J. L. Stock 10 .10.79 4 years 115 daily sitting fee Export Sugar Committee G. Mackey 23.12.82 30.6.84 Officer of Dept of Primary Industry Hon. R. E. Camm 29.10.80 30.6.84 115 daily sitting fee J. L. Stock 30.7.79 30.6.84 115 daily sitting fee Australian Meat Research Committee R. G. Jones (Chairman) . . . . Remuneration as Chairman of Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation J. P. Dempster 1.7.81 3 years 115 daily sitting fee K. L. Perkins 17.10.83 3 years 115 daily sitting fee K. M. Leckie 1.7.81 3 years 115 daily sitting fee H. I. Robertson 1.7.81 3 years 115 daily sitting fee W. T. H. Bodman 1.7.81 3 years 115 daily sitting fee T. H. Bryant 1.7.81 3 years 115 daily sitting fee P. D. A. Wright 1.7.81 3 years 115 daily sitting fee D. F. Smith 3.4.84 3 months 115 daily sitting fee Prof. N. M. Tulloh 1.7.81 3 years 115 daily sitting fee Dr K. A. Ferguson 11.10.82 1.8 years 115 daily sitting fee E. J. Waring 24.3.82 2.5 years Officer of Dept of Primary Industry Australian Dairy Research Committee M. L. Vawser (Chairman) Ex Officio No set term Remunerated as Chairman Aust Dairy Corp J. P. Bennett 1.7.81 30.6.84 115 daily sitting fee W. H. Pyle 1.7.81 30.6.84 115 daily sitting fee P. D. Rowley 1.7.81 30.6.84 115 daily sitting fee M. W. Hanrahan 1.7.81 30.6.84 115 daily sitting fee G. E. Pettit 1.12.81 30.6. 84 Officer of Dept of Primary Industry D. F. Smith 23.5.83 30.6.84 115 daily sitting fee L. L. Muller 20.5.82 30.6.84 115 daily sitting fee P. Lever-Naylor 13.9.81 30.6.84 115 daily sitting fee Australian Meat and Livestock Industry Policy Council (interim arrangements, pending passage of legislation) N. C. K. Evers (Chairman) 10.4.84 (interim basis) 11,369 M. Binstead 10.4.84 ( interim basis) 115 daily sitting fee B. Bodman 10.4.84 (interim basis) 115 daily sitting fee R. James 10.4.84 (interim basis) 115 daily sitting fee P. Blandford 10.4.84 (interim basis) 115 daily sitting fee K. Bowtell 10.4.84 ( interim basis) 115 daily sitting fee B. Phillips 10.4.84 (interim basis) 115 daily sitting fee K. Gooley 10.4.84 (interim basis) 115 daily sitting fee J. Medway 10.4.84 (interim basis) 115 daily sitting fee B. Meynink 10.4.84 ( interim basis) 115 daily sitting fee R. G. Jones 10.4.84 (interim basis) Remuneration as Chairman of AMLC Australian Livestock and Meat Industry Interim Joint Industry Selection Committee F. W. Millar, CBE (Chairman 1.12.83 (interim basis) ($143 daily sitting fee) M. Binstead 1.12.83 (interim basis) No remuneration K. R. James 1.12.83 (interim basis) 115 daily sitting fee W. Meynink 1.12.83 (interim basis) 115 daily sitting fee J. Gilbertson 1.12.83 (interim basis) 115 daily sitting fee K. J. Smeltzer 1.12.83 (interim basis) 115 daily sitting fee P. A. Cullen 1.12.83 ( interim basis) 115 daily sitting fee (Question No. 845) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, 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 Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following table in answer to the honourable senator's question: Date of Term of Authority Appointee appointment appointment Salary Remuneration Tribunal Hon. Mr Justice D. L. Mahoney, part time Chairman 25.3.82* 5 years Nil-Receives salary for full time appointment as Judge of N.S.W. Supreme Court. N.S.W. Government re-imbursed in accordance with claims Mr R. M. Porter, part time member 24.1.84* 5 years $11,525 per annum Mr L. J. Mangan, part time member 4.2.83* 5 years $11,525 per annum Academic Salaries Tribunal Hon. Mr Justice J. T. Ludeke, part time Tribunal 7.10.83* 1 year Nil-Receives salary for full time appointment as Deputy President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission Australian Electoral Commission Hon. Mr Justice R. J. B. St. John, part time Chairman 21.2.84* 7 years Nil-Receives salary for full time appointment as Judge of the Federal Court of Australia Dr C. A. Hughes, Electoral Commissioner 22.2.84* 7 years $66,557 per annum Dr R. J. Cameron, part time member 21.2.84* 7 years Nil-Receives salary for full time appointment as Australian Statistician Commonwealth Grants Commission Hon. Mr Justice R. Else-Mitchell CMG, Chairman 1.10.79* 5 years $77,633 per annum Mr W. R. Lane CBE, part time Commissioner 1.10.82* 5 years $21,661 per annum Prof. R. L. Matthews CBE, part time Commissioner 15.12.80* 5 years $21,661 per annum Australian Federal Police Promotion Appeals Board Mr E. S. Lightly, OBE, Chairman 1.1.84* 6 months Daily fee (for more than 3 hours) $157 Mr. M. D. McPherson, Member 1.1.84* 6 months Daily fee (for more than 3 hours) $157 Australian Federal Police Mr R. A. Grey, AO, DSO, Commissioner 16.2.83* 5 years $68,056 per annum Mr J. C. Johnson, QPM, Deputy Commissioner 27.9.81* No term* $58,721 per annum Mr R. Farmer, QPM, Deputy Commissioner 15.9.83* No term* $58,721 * Appointment renewed * First appointment * Appointment until retirement (compulsory) at age 60. (Question No. 877) Senator Watson asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 7 May 1984: (1) Are officers of Federal courts protected from investigation by the Commonwealth Ombudsman of complaints made against them; if so, what recourse is available to an aggrieved person? (2) Does the Government intend to rectify this situation; if not, why not? Senator Button —The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) In accordance with the Ombudsman's function as an independent avenue for the investigation of the administration of Commonwealth agencies, actions of Federal Court officers of an administrative nature are within the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. The Ombudsman is able to receive and investigate complaints against such actions under the terms of the Ombudsman Act 1976. Under section 5 (2) (b) of the Ombudsman Act 1976 the Ombudsman is not authorised to investigate 'action taken by a Justice or Judge of a court created by the Parliament'. I am advised that this exclusion encompasses the actions of Federal Court officers when those officers are acting in accordance with the direction of a judge. (2) This distinction between judicial and administrative actions reflects the independence of the judiciary while allowing for Ombudsman review of the Commonwealth administration. The arrangement is considered to operate satisfactorily and therefore I see no need to change it. (Question No. 879) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 8 May 1984: (1) Did the Australian Federal Police Rescue Squad search for and find Mr M. Sinnott and Mr Brett Meddermen on or about 30 April 1984; if so, how many searchers were involved, and from which organisations did they come. (2) What amount of time was involved in the search and what vehicles or other equipment were involved. (3) Had the Australian Federal Police Rescue Squad members been previously called out to search for either or both of these persons; if so, how many officers and vehicles were involved on that occasion, how long were they so engaged and on what date. (4) What was the cost of the search on each of these occasions. (5)Has any demand for payment been made to either of the persons referred to in question 1 to offset the search charges. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes, Messrs Sinnott and Meddermen were located by members of the Australian Federal Police Rescue Squad on 1 May 1984. A total of 28 personnel took part in the search. The organisational breakdown of the personnel involved is: AFP Rescue Squad and support staff 17 Department of Territories and Local Government (DTLG) Ranger 1 Australian Capital Territory Emergency Service 4 New South Wales Police 1 New South Wales Parks and Wildlife Ranger 1 Royal Australian Air Force Helicopter crew 4 (2) The AFP were notified at 2214 hours Sunday, 29 April 1984 that the missing persons were overdue and it was confirmed that they were missing at 0800 hours the following day. The search was commenced at 0800 hours Monday 30 April 1984 and the missing persons were located by the AFP at 1340 hours Tuesday 1 May 1984 . The total period of the search was 29 hours, 40 minutes. The following vehicles were involved: AFP Command vehicle 1 Search vehicles (4WD) 5 Mobile Communications Unit 1 Australian Capital Territory Emergency Service (4WD) 2 New South Wales Police Force (4WD) 1 DTLG (4WD) 1 RAAF Helicopter 1 AFP Rescue Squad equipment in normal use for search operations was utilised. (3) Yes, members of the AFP Rescue Squad were involved in a search for the same two persons on 1 April 1984. On this occasion two members of the Rescue Squad were engaged in the search with one four-wheel-drive vehicle for a period of four hours. (4) It is difficult to determine the actual cost of the searches as there are many factors which must be considered. These would include a proportion of training and equipment costs, direct costs related to vehicle use, wages of the personnel involved, the possible loss of wages in the case of Australian Capital Territory Emergency Service volunteers, and the cost of Defence Force assistance . I do not propose to authorise the time and expenditure which would be involved in calculating the precise proportions of each category of cost in relation to this exercise. (5) No request has been made to the two persons involved to offset the cost of the search. Presently there are no provisions within AFP legislation to enable recovery of costs for such an incident. (Question No. 884) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 May 1984: (1) What changes have been planned to the school cadet system since the Labor Government took office, and over what period of time will the changes be implemented. (2) What changes have so far been implemented. (3) What discussions have taken place with what schools about the future of school cadets. (4) How many schools are now deprived of Government assistance to maintain a school cadet corps, and what is the estimated saving. (5) Were these schools consulted before funding levels were changed. (6) Were these schools consulted before status levels were changed. (7) What are the criteria for deciding whether or not a school should receive funds for uniforms or camps, or be classified as 'economically disadvantaged'. (8) What consultation took place before these changes were made. (9) What has happened to the proposal for 'community-based units'; are they to be implemented, and what is the overall plan for this organisation. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) to (9) the Australian Cadet Corps (Army Cadets) is to be restructured so as to be based on regional units open to the community. These units are to be based on Army Reserve depots rather than at schools. The new scheme will be introduced on 1 July 1984. Army officers conducted a consultative tour in all States during December 1983, which was open to attendance by representatives of all schools with cadet units. Most schools accepted the invitation to represent their views. Levels of support were discussed in detail. Also, each school with a cadet unit received a letter from the Deputy Chief of the General Staff in December 1983, and a telegram from Army Office in March 1984, outlining the proposed restructuring of the Australian Cadet Corps, and requesting that schools indicate their intentions. Those eight units already operating on a community-based system with full army support (funding for uniforms, equipment, travel subsidy, annual camps and payment of officers of cadets) will continue to receive that support. Up to 20 open units are expected to be established in 1984-85. They will receive full support. Ten economically disadvantaged schools will also continue to receive full army support for their cadet units. The classification 'economically disadvantaged' was based on the criteria used by each State education authority in classifying schools as disadvantaged. These units are expected to be opened to the community in due course. All other schools wishing to retain affiliation with the Australian Army Cadet Corps will receive limited support from the Army. Limited support will include the training but not payment of officers of cadets, and uniforms and equipment will be provided, but the schools will have to pay for them. Units which are to receive limited support may retain, at no cost, uniforms, personal and unit equipment currently on issue to them. The estimated saving in fiscal year 1984-85 is in the order of $3.0m, with subsequent additional savings in future years in the order of $4m, resulting in total savings of approximately $7m. (Question No. 886) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice, on 9 May 1984: (1) Does the Government intend to go ahead with its proposals to include the Cocos and Christmas Islands with the Northern Territory electorate for the purpose of voting in Federal elections and referenda; if so, will the Government allow the Northern Territory to attain statehood at a time when the Territory Government feels this is appropriate. (2) What would then be the status of the Cocos and Christmas Islands; would they be included with the Northern Territory as part of the New State; if not, what does the Government envisage their future to be. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories and Local Government has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Government has decided to include electors on Cocos (Keeling) and Christmas Islands in the Northern Territory Electorate for Federal election and referendum purposes. In a letter dated 17 May 1984 to the Northern Territory's chief minister, the Prime Minister advised Mr Everingham of the Government's concern that the two territories should receive proper parliamentary representation at an early date. The Prime Minister said that because of constitutional difficulties with linking the Territories to an existing State, and because the Australian Capital Territory was clearly inappropriate on the grounds of remoteness and lack of community interest, it had been decided to link both Territories with the Northern Territory. The question of statehood for the Northern Territory will be considered by the Commonwealth Government when an approach is made by the Northern Territory Government. The Commonwealth position at that time will be dependent upon the basis on which statehood is sought. (2) The Prime Minister also told Mr Everingham that the arrangement regarding Cocos (Keeling) and Christmas Islands may need to be reconsidered at some future date should the constitutional position of the Northern Territory change. (Question No. 902) Senator Messner asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 29 May 1984: (1) Were any forms printed relating to the introduction of the Government's proposed Income and Assets Test. (2) What happened to those forms after the establishment of the Gruen Panel of Inquiry. (3) Are copies of the forms still available; if so, would the Minister for Social Security make a copy of the form available to me. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) 200 'sample' entitlement review forms were printed (100 'abbreviated' review forms and 100 more detailed review forms); these forms were used primarily by a research company (Lenehan Lynton Bloom) to assess pensioner reactions to the draft questionnaires. (2) Most of the forms have been retained by the research company. A small number were retained by the Department primarily for record purposes. (3) A copy of each of the sample forms has been made available to the honourable senator. (Question No. 916) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State , upon notice, on 31 May 1984: Has Mr John Lennard been dismissed as the Australian Electoral Officer in Tasmania; if so, what is the reason for Mr Lennard's dismissal. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: As I understand that the matter of Mr Lennard's termination of appointment as the Australian Electoral Officer for Tasmania is the subject of legal proceedings instituted in the Federal Court of Australia, I am not in a position to comment on it at this stage. (Question No. 917) Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 30 May 1984: (1) Why is the income of married pensioners assessed jointly for pension purposes but separately for taxation purposes. (2) Will the Government give an undertaking to introduce a standard system of assessment that applies to both areas so that any current discrimination is stopped. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Under the social security system the incomes of husbands and wives are aggregated for income test purposes to reflect the fact that couples can pool their incomes, while the tax system assesses the capacity to pay tax on an individual basis. In practical effect, however, the differences between the two systems of assessment are not so great. For example, the tax system takes account of family responsibilities through the dependent spouse rebate, while the free area under the social security income test is higher for married couples than for single persons. In addition, the tax liabilities of married couples are reduced by the fact that the pension payment is split between them and by the operation of the special pensioner rebate. (2) The Government has no plans at this stage to change the method of assessment for either the social security or the personal income tax systems. The introduction of a standard method of assessment would require fundamental and complex changes to the tax/transfer systems which would need careful and detailed consideration. (Question No. 921) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 31 May 1984: (1) Has the Government received, or does it expect to receive, a request by the Widgee Shire Council for assistance under the Australian Bicentennial Roads Development Program for road developments in the Cooloola National Park. (2) Would such a request require approval from the Australian Heritage Commission because Cooloola is listed on the Register of the National Estate. (3) Will the Government give an assurance that any request or future request will be rejected because of the damage it would cause to the National Park and because other feasible alternatives exist. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. Widgee Shire Council has a local road entitlement under the ABRD Program of $162,000. Two projects were approved on 12 September 1983 which fully commits this entitlement. (2) and (3) The Minister for Transport in approving projects must ensure Commonwealth environmental and heritage requirements are met. If a project is submitted in an environmentally sensitive area (such as a National Park) which affects property listed on the Register of the National Estate, it will be approved for Federal funding only after it has been considered by the Australian Heritage Commission and the Department of Home Affairs and Environment. (Question No. 922) Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, 30 May 1984: (1) Are claims for compensation already lodged by nuclear veterans being shelved; if so, why; if not, what is happening to them. (2) What is the Government's current approach to claims lodged by members of the Nuclear Veterans Association and is the onus put upon these people to prove their injuries are radiation-related. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) There are two categories of Australian veterans who may be considered as coming within the term 'nuclear veterans' used by the honourable senator: A. Those who were prisoners of war at Nagasaki and Hiroshima at the time of the atomic blasts or who were members of the British Commonwealth Occupation Forces in Japan; and B. Those who participated in the British atomic test program in Australia during the 1950s and 1960s. Those in category A are eligible to apply for benefits under the Repatriation Act 1920 and these are being dealt with by my Department and independent determining authorities within the provisions of the Repatriation Act. They are not being shelved. Claims under the Repatriation Act are processed by my Department and determined by repatriation boards in the first instance with avenues of appeal to the Repatriation Commission and the Repatriation Review Tribunal (RRT). Those in category B are not covered by the Repatriation Act but are eligible to claim compensation under the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 which is the responsibility of the Minister for Social Security. (2) Section 47 of the Repatriation Act requires a Repatriation Board or the Repatriation Commission to allow a claim unless it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there are insufficient grounds for doing so. A similar provision is contained in section 107VG in regard to decisions by the RRT. There is no onus on claimants to prove their injuries are due to radiation exposure. Any claims lodged by eligible members of the Nuclear Veterans Association under the Repatriation Act are processed with the same care and consideration as are claims lodged by any other person eligible to claim under repatriation legislation. (Question No. 937) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 6 June 1984: (1) Did two industrial scientists die in early November 1983 while taking water samples for Eraring power station's ashdam, as reported in Engineers' Australia of 11 November1983. (2) What action has the Government taken to ascertain the events leading to these deaths. (3) Was the cause of death a result of foul air from the coal-fired power station. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) and (3) The Electricity Commission of New South Wales, which is responsible for the operation of the Eraring power station, has investigated this matter and further inquiries should be directed to the Commission. (Question No. 947) Senator Childs asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 6 June 1984: Can the Treasurer provide an estimate of the taxation revenue that will be eaten up by discounted investment in negotiable government obligations since this scheme seems to be another method for minimizing taxable income. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: There appears to be a tax deferral element involved in issue of Dingos ( discounted investment in negotiable government obligations) bonds but it is not possible to estimate the revenue forgone at this stage. This would depend on a number of factors on which there are not yet any statistical data, including the volume of Dingos available, their popularity with investors, the tax circumstances of investors and the duration of the Dingos. It would depend also, of course, on whether, as a result of a study currently underway within the Treasury and the Taxation Office, the Government were to judge it appropriate to propose certain changes in relation to the taxation treatment of such securities . Senator Walsh —On 28 March 1984 (Hansard, page 785-6) Senator Archer asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice concerning arson. The Treasurer has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question: The Government is aware of reports on United States legislation relating to immunity in regard to arson reporting and to claims that the legislation has contributed to an improvement in the prevention of arson. I understand that a conference on arson was conducted by the Australian Institute of Criminology from 26 to 29 April 1983. The conference was attended by representatives of Commonwealth and State departments, fire services and the insurance industry. I understand that, as a result of a recommendation of the conference, a committee consisting of nominees of the conference participants has been established to consider proposals made by the conference. Responsibility for criminal matters such as arson is primarily a matter for the States, but the Attorney-General is responsible for the administration of criminal laws in the Australian Capital Territory Arrangements will be made for the United States legislation, and any recommendations that might arise from the conference and the work of the committee mentioned above, to be submitted to the Commonwealth and State Attorneys-General for their consideration. Senator Walsh —On 31 May 1984 (Hansard, page 2232) Senator Colston asked me a question without notice concerning the flow through to the retail level of the recent $60 a tonne decrease in the wholesale price of LPG. I undertook to check with the Treasurer to see if the Prices Surveillance Authority was monitoring retail prices of LPG. The Prices Surveillance Authority does not maintain surveillance of retail prices of petroleum products including LPG. The Authority is currently conducting an inquiry into petroleum prices. As part of this inquiry, consideration is being given to the appropriate extent of surveillance of petroleum prices. The Authority is to complete its final report by 25 July 1984. Senator Gareth Evans —On 31 May 1984 (Hansard, page 2231) Senator Coleman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, without notice: Whether he is aware of recent newspaper reports in the West Australian of the sudden appearance of two groups of three unmarked black helicopters in the skies over Perth? Is he also aware of the concern expressed some days earlier at the sudden appearance of a Galaxy aircraft, unmarked and in camouflage colours, which appeared to lose power while flying low over the city? Is it true that the helicopters and the Galaxy belong to the United States Air Force which was participating in a joint Australian-American exercise? Were the helicopters brought into Australia in the Galaxy and was the Department aware that they would enter the country in this way? Is it normal practice for the Department to authorise the use of unmarked aircraft on such exercise? Was there at any time, any danger to the people of Perth? Would the Minister not agree that a simple press statement to the effect that such an exercise was to take place would have allayed the fears of a number of residents of the Perth and metropolitan area? The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The aircraft activity referred to related to a combined Australian/United States special forces exercise which was approved by the Minister in January 1984. Although the nature of the training required the use of several US helicopters, the exercise itself was of limited size and scope. It involved only 70 US personnel, including support staff, and elements of the Special Air Service Regiment. Training was restricted to Defence facilities in Western Australia. The bringing of the US Army helicopters to Australia in a US Air Force Galaxy aircraft was authorised in accordance with the normal procedures for such exercises. The aircraft were not unmarked as stated in the honourable senator's question. Although camouflaged, they carried the normal US military identification markings. All aircraft movements, including transiting, were undertaken in accordance with the appropriate military and civil regulations. Reports that the Galaxy appeared to lose power when over Perth were refuted by a Defence spokesman at the time. The aircraft was on normal approach to RAAF base, Pearce. By itself, the nature of the exercise was not such that it was considered likely to cause any concern to the people of Perth or to place them in any danger. A Press release prior to the exercise may have satisfied public curiosity about additional military flying activity in the Perth area. Senator Gareth Evans —On 1 June 1984 (Hansard, page 2376) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, without notice: Has the Minister who represents the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Defence seen the reports in today's National Times which state that the facilities at Nurrungar and Pine Gap support the United States strategic policy of limited or controlled nuclear war fighting? Is this information accurately based on advice given to the United States Congress by the Pentagon? Does this information contradict the official Australian Government position that the joint facilities are purely defensive, as is evidenced by the advice from the Department of Defence to Prime Minister Whitlam in March 1973? Will the Minister investigate this matter to ascertain who is misleading whom and so that the Australian people can be fully and accurately advised of the functions of these facilities? The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The honourable senator's attention is drawn to the statement by the Prime Minister tabled in the Senate on 6 June 1984 concerning the general purpose and functions of the Australian/United States joint defence facilities. As the Prime Minister stated, the Government does not intend to comment further upon speculation or assertions about the joint facilities at Pine Gap and Nurrungar Senator Gareth Evans —On 12 June 1984 (Hansard, page 2799) Senator Macklin asked me, in my capacity as the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, the following question without notice: My question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence concerns a response given by the Minister to my question of 30 May concerning the upgrading of the United States base at Nurrungar. Did the Minister not mislead the Senate by suggesting that my question would be answered by the Prime Minister's statement on United States bases, a statement which in fact contained not one shred of information concerning the upgrading of the Nurrungar base? Can the Minister now answer whether the United States in keeping with a specific obligation, has informed the Australian Government of the $126m upgrading of Nurrungar? If so, has the Government accepted the upgrading and the implications that flow from it? If the United States has not informed Australia, why has it not? The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: In his statement of 6 June 1984 the Prime Minister said of the joint facilities 'All functions and activities require, and have, the full knowledge and concurrence of the Australian Government'. This naturally includes plans for changes at these facilities. The Government is kept informed and properly consulted about US plans for Nurrungar. Any proposals for changes affecting the functions or purposes of the joint facilities, or any proposals for new construction, would require our prior agreement. It is the Government's policy to publicly announce any significant new construction at joint facilities, normally at the time of the calling of tenders. It is our intention to continue that practice. (Question No. 850) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology, 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 Ryan —The Minister for Science and Technology has provided the following response to the honourable senator's question: Date of Terms of Salary Name appointment appointment per annum $ Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board Chairman (P/T) Dr K J Foley 21.10.83 1.7.83-30.6.86 11,835 Members Dr W F Howarth 20.12.82 20.12.82-30.6.86 5,917 Mr G H Raymond 1.7.81 1.7.83-30.6.84 5,917 Mr F R Townsend 1.7.81 1.7.81-30.6.84 5,917 Mr H Wexler 1.7.81 1.7.81-30.6.84 5,917 Mr M S Farrell 21.12.81-30.6.84 5,917 Dr C K Coogan 1.7.83 1.7.83-30.6.86 5,917 Mr P J Redlich 1.7.83 1.7.83-30.6.86 5,917 Sir Gustav Nossal CBE 1.7.83 1.7.83-30.6.87 5,917 Dr A Pucci 1.7.83 1.7.83-30.6.87 5,917 Mr P K MacGregor 1.7.83 1.7.83-30.6.87 5,917 Ex-officio Mr J A Clark Senior Assistant Secretary AIRDIB National Standards Commission Chairman (P/T) Dr W R Blevin 14.8.80 11.12.81-13.8.85 9,826 Members Mr M J Puttock 1.8.78 17.10.79-16.10.84 Nil* Prof R A Williams 17.10.79 17.10.79-16.10.84 Nil* Prof R E Aitchison 11.12.81 11.12.81-31.12.85 Nil* Mr R J Crawford 17.10.82 10.5.83-16.10.85 Nil* Council of the Australian Institute of Marine Science Chairman (P/T) Dr J L Farrands 1.7.82 1.7.82-30.6.87 $5,917 per annum Members (P/T) Dr R K Steedman 18.7.82 18.7.82-30.6.85 $115 per day Prof P J Cook 18.7.79 18.7.82-30.6.85 $115 per day Prof M Pitman OBE 18.8.78 3.9.81-30.6.84 $115 per day Prof J M Thomson 3.9.81 3.9.81-30.6.84 $115 per day Anglo-Australian Telescope Board Australian Chairman (P/T) Prof J. H. Carver 13.9.78 1.9.81-31.8.84 Nil* Australian Dr R. H. Frater 2.5.82 2.5.82-1.5.87 Nil* Members (P/T) Dr W. J. McG Tegart 3.3.82 3.3.82-31.12.85 Nil* Management and Investment Companies Licensing Board Chairman (P/T) C. R. Ward-Ambler 1.2.84 1.2.84-31.1.87 11,835 Members (P/T) J. R. Thomas 1.2.84 1.2.84-31.1.87 5,917 E. D. Cameron 1.2.84 1.2.84-31.1.87 5,917 A. V. Gorman 1.2.84 1.2.84-31.1.87 5,917 W. J. Marron 1.2.84 1.2.84-31.1.87 5,917 P. D. Agars 1.2.84 1.2.84-31.1.87 5,917 J. O. Miller 1.2.84 1.2.84-31.1.87 5,917 CSIRO Advisory Council Chairman Sir Peter Derham 1.2.81 1.2.81-31.12.84 11,835 per annum Mr K. Satchwell 1.9.81 1.9.81-31.8.85 115 per day Members Dr G. I. Alexander 1.9.81 1.9.81-31.8.85 115 per day Mr R. A. Footner 1.9.81 1.9.81-31.8.85 115 per day Prof P. Scott 1.9.81 1.9.81-31.12.84 115 per day Mr J. E. Kolm 1.9.81 1.9.81-31.12.84 115 per day Dr S. C. Bambrick 1.9.81 1.9.81-31.12.84 115 per day Dr V. A. Brown 9.9.80 9.9.80-31.12.84 115 per day Mr L. P. Duthie 5.7.80 5.7.80-4.7.85 Nil* Dr H. R. Edwards 10.5.83 10.5.83-term of 34th Parliament 115 per day Prof. P. T. Fink 1.7.79 1.7.79-31.12.84 Nil* Mr A. M. Godfrey 7.9.82 7.9.82-6.9.87 Nil* Mr R. J. Kirby 1.8.82 1.8.82-31.7.85 115 per day Mr D. Hartley 1.9.81 1.9.81-31.12.84 115 per day Mr J. H. S. Heussler 1.9.81 1.9.81-31.12.84 115 per day Mr D. J. Ives 24.3.82 24.3.82-23.3.87 Nil* Mr M. S. Shanahan 1.9.81 1.9.81-31.12.84 115 per day Mr P. R. Staples 10.5.83 10.5.83-term of 34th Parliament 115 per day Dr W. J. McG Tegart 19.1.82 19.1.82-18.1.87 Nil* Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Chairman Dr J. P. Wild CBE* 14.12.78 14.12.78-24.9.85 70,846 Executive Members Mr S. B. Myer 14.12.78 14.12.78-13.12.84 7,899 Prof. D. P. Craig 26.3.83 26.3.83-22.12.84 7,899 Mr G. G. Spurling 9.9.82 9.9.82-8.9.85 7,899 Dr N. K. Boardman* 14.12.78 14.12.78-24.9.85 66,775 Mr P. D. A. Wright 4.2.83 4.2.83-3.2.86 7,899 Justice M. D. Kirby CMG 11.8.83 11.8.83-10.8.86 7,899 Dr G. H. Taylor* 1.5.82 1.5.82-30.4.89 66,775 Mr H. M. Morgan 14.12.78 14.12.78-13.12.84 7,899 * No remuneration payable. * Full time Members. (Question No. 928) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 31 May 1984: (1) How many Aborigines in Australia are: (a) full-blooded Aborigines; and (b) part Aborigines. (2) How many part Aborigines are in excess of 90 per cent non-Aborigine. (3) What difference in status is there for different categories. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) Since the 1967 referendum gave the Federal Parliament power to make special laws for the advancement of the Aboriginal people, successive Australian governments have declined to endorse any definition of Aboriginal based on prescribed degrees of descent. Such definitions have been considered offensive, and therefore rejected as unsuitable for use by the Commonwealth. Consequently, the Australian Government has not kept any records of the kind which would be necessary to provide the information sought. (3) It follows, therefore, that because there are no differences in category, there are no differences in status. When determining eligibility for programs of assistance for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders, the Australian Government uses the following working definition: An Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander is a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Island descent who identifies as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and is accepted as such by the community with which the person is associated. The working definition has been developed by successive Australian governments since 1968, was adopted in its present form by the Fraser Government in 1978, and is accepted by the present Government.