Friday, 24 August 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: Nuclear Disarmament and Peace To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth- (1) The concerns which people around the world have for the increasing stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction; (2) The global concern that any nuclear exchange will inflict on humanity unimaginable death and suffering; (3) The vulnerability that Australians will face in any nuclear conflict between the major powers; (4) The public concern that government should explore all avenues to ensure that the nuclear threat is eliminated. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Parliament establish a Senate Select Committee on Nuclear Disarmament and Peace to investigate the creation of a Ministry of Peace and Nuclear Disarmament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jones (from 5,423 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth to reject the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission contained in 'Funding Policies for Australian Schools', concerning proposed increase in State aid to private schools and the proposed community standard for education funding. 2. They call on the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth to declare a three year moratorium (1985-1987) on increases in State aid to private schools and on grants for new private schools and for increased private schools enrolments. 3. They call on the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm their primary obligation to government schools and to implement all 1983 ALP election promises for increased funding to government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Jones (from 29 citizens), Robertson (from 196 citizens) and Zakharov (from 16 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 Senators Archer (from 32 citizens), Harradine (from 198 citizens) and Robertson (from 60 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament House assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the Australian Labor Party: 'upholds the principles of disengagement and disarmament' (ALP Platform 1982, E ); and will: 'oppose the development, proliferation, possession and use of nuclear . . . and other techniques of mass destruction' (ALP Platform 1982, E.34); 'attach high priority to preventing the further proliferation of nucelar weapons, and to this end will not allow commercial considerations to govern Australia's anti-proliferation strategy' (ALP Platform 1982, E.35c); and 'oppose the storage of nuclear weapons on Australian territory and the staging of operations involving nuclear weapons from Australian territory' (ALP Platform 1982, F.48). Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that all Federal representatives of the Labor Government, and Federal representatives of all other political parties including independents, vote for Senator Chipp's Nuclear Weapons Prohibitions Bill 1984, the passage of which would effectively make Australia a nuclear weapons free zone and would leave no doubt as to the present Government's stated commitment to disarmament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from 88 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth their objection to any proposed legislation removing the power of existing Commonwealth law 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. They furthermore petition that, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Bjelke-Petersen (from 414 citizens) and Gareth Evans (from 33 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition from parents representing the government schools in New South Wales respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the Federal Government to re-affirm publicly that its primary obligation is to government schools. 2. They support the Federal Government's policy decision which have reduced funding to wealthy private schools and which have broken the nexus between government and non-government costs. 3. They endorse the Federal Government's opposition to the provision of a 'base grant' to all non-government schools. 4. They ask that the Federal Government create a general recurrent resource base which is adequate for government schools through the provision of increased recurrent funding. 5. They call upon the Federal Government to negotiate agreements with State/ Territory Governments which will ensure a planned program of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from eight citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1. The Watsonia Army Barracks contains electronic communication facilities, operated by Australian and American personnel, that gives the United States the ability to pin-point Soviet nuclear submarines, hidden in the Oceans. 2. This would make it possible for U.S. killer-submarines to destroy all Soviet nuclear submarines, while the U.S. nuclear submarines launch their missiles in a 'first strike' attack. This makes Watsonia a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Watsonia would have a disastrous effect on Melbourne. 3. The 'joint U.S.-Australian' bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They also add a new menace to nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should close the 'Joint Australian-U.S.' electronic communications facilities in the Watsonia Army barracks And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Primmer (from 72 citizens) and Zakharov (from 43 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That as the assets test, 1. will cost the Australian taxpayer at least $30 million in the coming financial year, leaving less money available for pensioners, 2. is causing worry and apprehension amongst older people and their families, 3. will affect those people least able to alter their financial situation, and 4. is confusing many people about to retire after many years of paying taxes, that it be abandoned. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Townley (from 19 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action or legislation in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sir John Carrick (from 129 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the post-school education sector has been neglected in recent years . Therefore we call on the members of the Senate to endorse: (1) Increases in TEAS to at least the level of the poverty line. All people should be guaranteed a living wage. (2) Increased funding for campus based childcare. (3) The abolition of the overseas student visa charge which is grossly discriminatory. (4) Increased funding for student housing. (5) Increased funding for libraries to ensure facilities are adequate. (6) The establishment or supplementation of campus based student loan funds which are interest free and short-term. (7) Increasing the level and number of postgraduate awards. (8) Extending services to part-time, mature age and external students to open access to education. (9) Increasing student representation at all levels. (10) Innovation in curriculum to ensure curriculum is relevant and critical. (11) Increasing education funding to improve existing facilities. (12) Funding quality student health services which help contribute to the successful completion of courses. (13) Expanding enrolments to open access to education. (14) Compensating institutions for the costs of amalgamation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: The Senate will support the above claims; And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 46 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, plead that the Senate call upon the Government to honour its obligation to protect Australia's children, by reversing its decision to remove barriers to the importation of hardcore pornography; and to restore control to customs point-of-entry; because control at point-of-sale has proven to be wholly ineffective, and injurious video viewing by children is widespread. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter your earnest consideration, And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 1,458 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of Parliament for the Commonwealth of Australia assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned would call upon our government to introduce or amend legislation. 1 To place controls over video-cassettes so as to provide for the open availability through sale and hire outlets only of G. NRC, and M Rated video- cassettes. 2 To prohibit the availability through sale and hire outlets of R rated video- cassettes and restrict their use to adult theatres. 3 To prohibit completely the concept of X rated video-cassettes by the revision of the Customs and/or Censorship Regulations so that the production, import and distribution of such pornographic and sadisticly violent material be prevented. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Gareth Evans (from 19 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled: We the undersigned, being citizens of Australia, respectfully submit that the Government 1. Clearly and unequivocally condemns the continuing breaches of the international Covenants on civil, political and human rights by the Government of Poland; 2. Demands from the Polish authorities an immediate end to torture, beatings, physical coercion and psychological maltreatment of people remaining in prison for their political beliefs and attitudes; 3. Acts immediately for the release of all people who remain in Polish prisons for their attempts to exercise civil, political and human rights guaranteed to them by Polish Constitution and the international Covenants; 4. Sends an official legal observer to the trial of the four KSS-KOR defendants : Mr Jacek Kuron, Mr Adam Michnik, Mr Zbigniew Romaszewski and Mr Henryk Wujec. The defendants are going on trial on July 13th 1984 on charges of plotting to overthrow the Polish Communist State. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Harradine (from 142 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth government 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognise that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection , storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving ' property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse affects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from 14 citizens). Senator HAINES(South Australia) —by leave-I present the following petition, which is not in accordance with the Standing Orders, from 328 citizens of Australia: The undersigned being electors of South Australia, do hereby protest against the needless slaughter of wild horses in Queensland and N.T. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. Petitions received. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That- (a) the Senate reaffirms its views as adopted by the Senate on 7 June 1984 that a joint select committee on pornographic material should be established to undertake an urgent examination of a situation which day by day deteriorates to the dismay of concerned parents and citizens; and (b) in the absence of any Government response to the Senate's resolution, the Senate is of the opinion that a Senate select committee should be established with terms of reference similar to those adopted by the Senate on 7 June 1984. Motion (by Senator Coleman) agreed to: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Industry and Trade for inquiry and report: A re-examination of the Closer Economic Relationship between Australia and New Zealand, with particular reference to- (a) the impact of sharp currency fluctuations; (b) the need for safeguard provisions; (c) the growth of trade between both countries since the commencement of the Closer Economic Relationship (CER); (d) the impact on local industries, including tourism; (e) the change in the composition of the Australian labour market; (f) the progress made on the staged removal of tariffs, import licences and export incentives; (g) the progress made on the inclusion of sensitive industries such as dairy products, iron and steel, timber, fishing and vegetables, et cetera; (h) the scope for investment and the involvement of the financial sector; (i) the identification of regional problems resulting from the implementation of CER; and (j) the impact on third country trade. Motion (by Senator Harradine) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Remuneration and Allowances Act 1973. Bill presented by Senator Harradine, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.08) — by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill has been brought about because of the deliberate attempt by the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) to manoeuvre the Remuneration Tribunal into a position of rubber-stamping a very significant pace-setting decision by the Minister and the Federal Cabinet. I refer to the efforts of the Minister to clothe de facto relationships with the same status as legal marriage in the granting of certain travel requisites. A spokesman for Mr Young put it this way: Soon after we got into Government a member of the Government backbenches came to Mr Young-because he is the responsible Minister-and said he (the backbencher) was going to be travelling overseas. He brought up the matter of de facto relationships and asked if he could use his overseas air travel entitlement for his de facto partner. He felt this would be quite proper in the same way as married couples do . . . The Minister had a look at the position under Commonwealth law. By contrast Mr Young's predecessor in the relevant portfolio, Mr Kevin Newman, also received similar requests but rejected them. No doubt Mr Young on his inspection of the relevant legislation, discovered that this particular entitlement and the detail of its implementation rested-under the Remuneration Tribunals Act-with the Remuneration Tribunal. Furthermore, he would have discovered that the existing determination-Determination No. 12 of 1983- permitted conversion of the overseas study travel credit towards 'the cost of the fares only of a spouse accompanying the senator or member'. The Determination referred to 'spouse' not 'de facto spouse' or 'nominee' and so he would have been unable to accede to the backbencher's request. As the spokesman for Mr Young said, this all took place soon after the change of Government in March 1983. On 4 July 1983 Mr Young wrote to Mr Justice Mahoney, the Chairman of the Remuneration Tribunal. Mr Young stated: My dear Judge, I am writing about single and separated Senators and Members, and refer in particular to their inability to draw on their overseas study allowance in order to be accompanied by their nominees. As you would know, married members may draw on their overseas allowance to enable their spouses to accompany them. I believe it would be appropriate to extend the provisions to some, but not necessarily all, nominees. I have in mind cases where a member has a de facto relationship with his/her nominee. It seems to me that in these circumstances the conditions for drawing on the overseas study allowance should be the same as those for married members . . . Mr Young went on to claim that 'de facto relationships are now recognised in many areas' and cited-presumably as sufficient precedents-two provisions affecting officers of the Australian Public Service. He asked that the Tribunal give this matter consideration at the time of its next review. It is important to bear in mind that at this stage the public and the Parliament were quite unaware of what was going on. I suppose it might be said that the existence of the Minister's submission and its substance could have been discovered by anyone who visited the office of the Remuneration Tribunal and requested permission to inspect the folder of submissions received in connection with its review of the entitlements of Ministers, office holders, and members. However, to be completely up to date, a member of the public would have to make weekly inspections to find out what new submissions had been received. Ten days after writing this letter to the Remuneration Tribunal Mr Young resigned from the Ministry over the Combe-Ivanov matter. During the period until 21 January 1984 when Mr Young was reinstated the Minister for Aviation, Mr Kim Beazley Jr, was the Special Minister of State. In that capacity, Mr Beazley Jr, on 23 December 1983, wrote a letter, marked ' PERSONAL', to Mr Justice Mahoney, Chairman of the Remuneration Tribunal. Before quoting from that letter I should mention that I do not know what was the significance of his marking the letter 'PERSONAL' because it, as with other submissions, quite properly ended up in the file available for inspection by members of the public. Mr Beazley's move does, however, lend itself to the interpretation that he and the Government recognised the de facto subject as a sensitive one and-writing as he was only two days before Christmas-was not going to facilitate public controversy about this move. In his letter to Mr Justice Mahoney, Mr Beazley Jr said: The Government has recently decided that, for Ministers and Office-holders, the present spouse entitlement to travel in Australia and overseas be extended to a nominee in cases where a particular single or separated Minister or Office- holder can demonstrate a bona fide domestic relationship. The Government has also decided that when travelling overseas on official duty, for example as members of a delegation or fact-finding mission, Senators and Members may downgrade the first class ticket, as for spouse, in order to be accompanied by a nominee with whom the member can demonstrate a bona fide relationship. He went on to say: I understand that my predecessor, the Hon. M. J. Young, MP- presumably referring to the letter which I quoted earlier- asked the Tribunal to consider changing the provisions for overseas study allowance to give recognition to de facto relationships. In view of the Government's decision I also recommend that course. Again, nothing was yet public knowledge but it would appear that Cabinet had taken an omnibus decision to extend recognition to de factos in a variety of travel situations. Most other areas-domestic and overseas travel by Ministers and office holders, delegations and fact finding missions overseas-were capable of unilateral decision by the Prime Minister or Cabinet, but they were stuck on the question of the overseas study travel entitlement: This came within the province of the Remuneration Tribunal. Christmas 1983 passed with the general public and most members of parliament being completely ignorant of what had been going on. The first that I and others learnt of these developments was in early February 1984 when an article, referring to Mr Young's original submission to the Tribunal, appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald. I can only assume that an enterprising journalist had made a visit to the Remuneration Tribunal and had discovered the Young letter in the file of submissions. Additional information, including the substance of the letter from Mr Kim Beazley Jr, came to light in an article in the Sunday Telegraph of 5 February, entitled 'MPs Win Perks For Lovers'. I suppose therefore the Government is to be congratulated for keeping secret for eight months such a significant and contentious decision but it should have known that the public would eventually find out. Or was the intention to have the Remuneration Tribunal rubber-stamp the move and then point to it-as an independent semi-judicial body-as the ostensible pace-setter in the process? On 7 and 11 January 1984 advertisements had appeared in all major daily newspapers inviting submissions from the public to the Remuneration Tribunal. The closing date was 17 February 1984. Honourable senators will also recall having received a personal invitation from the Tribunal to make submissions. Note that the public did not become aware of the Government's moves about de factos until 4 and 5 February. There was little time for anyone to do anything. However, on 17 February 1984 I responded to the Tribunal's invitation to make a submission and in my letter to Mr Justice Mahoney said: I am opposed to the granting of a direct or indirect equality of status to de factos, compared with married spouses, in your Tribunal's Determinations concerning the entitlements of Members of Parliament. Such attempts to grant equality, whether or not they carry with them an eligibility for financial subsidy by the taxpayer, involve a matter of great principle and strike at the existing legislative recognition of marriage. Legislators have a responsibility to uphold the law. Members of Parliament have a further responsibility to give an example in matters of principle underlying the laws which they pass through Parliament . . . I then referred to the words contained in the document which, under the Marriage Act Regulation 39 (5A), an authorised celebrant must give to persons intending marriage. The document states: Marriage and family life have been basic to the strength of our society for a long time. The Parliament, in the Family Law Act has placed great stress on their importance. I referred to what Parliament had endorsed in the Family Law Act, when it talks of: . . . the need to preserve and protect the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life- and- . . . the need to give the widest possible protection and assistance to the family as the natural and fundamental group unit of society, particularly while it is responsible for the care and education of dependent children. I referred also to section 46 (1) of the Marriage Act where the Parliament insists that the authorised celebrant must, in the presence of witnesses, remind the couple of: . . . the solemn and binding nature of the relationship into which you are now about to enter. Noting the references by Mr Young to the two precedents which he had cited in his letter of 4 July 1983, I said: . . . nothing that I have said should be regarded as necessarily opposing these provisions. It could well be argued that they are the tolerant and charitable gestures of society towards those who have not yet grasped the vision and beauty of marriage and its unique and essential value to the stability of the nation. I suppose it was this latter reference-which I repeated again in the Senate in June of this year-that prompted Senator Gareth Evans's scornful reference to my vision splendid of marriage. If that is so, I do not resile from it. I only wish that people like Senator Evans possessed a few visions splendid of their own, rather than relentlessly subjecting the community to social engineering experiments. I alerted the Tribunal that Mr Young was inviting it to play the role of legislative pace setter and to acquiesce in his proposal or to fashion a discretionary power which enables equality to be granted and, at the same time, to include this within a determination covering other unrelated matters, would be to deny Parliamentarians a practical opportunity of rejecting this specific contentious decision. I was mindful, of course, of Parliament's power under the Act only to reject, not amend, a determination by the Tribunal. I invited the Tribunal either to reject Mr Young's proposal or, if it was not prepared to do that, to frame its proposals on this matter in a separate determination dealing exclusively with this subject. The determinations from the Tribunal had not been presented to the Government, or tabled in Parliament, prior to our adjournment on 15 June but on the eve of the adjournment-on 14 June-the Senate debated the Remuneration and Allowances Amendment Bill. That Bill had been scheduled for debate in the previous week when the House of Representatives was also sitting. On 4 June I had circulated to honourable senators a proposed amendment to the Bill which would have prevented the Tribunal from adjudicating on this subject. But when the House rose on 7 June, it left me and the Senate in the position that, were I to proceed with the amendment, and had the implementation of the Bill been delayed- because the Government had no intention of recalling the House to consider any Senate amendments-innocent beneficiaries from the provisions of the Remuneration and Allowances Amendment Bill would have suffered. I therefore did not proceed with my proposed amendment but Senator Evans did present what I assume was his considered defence of the Government's proposal. I will refer to that later. On 29 June the Remuneration Tribunal forwarded its determinations to the Special Minister of State, Mr Young. These were released by the Minister on 16 July under cover of a brief media release in which he stated that the Government had accepted the major findings of the Tribunal's 1984 review. There was no mention in the Minister's statement of what the Tribunal had decided on the submission about MPs' de factos. However, in the introduction to the report the Tribunal made mention of the Government's proposal and said: The Tribunal received submissions expressing opposition to, or lack of support for, the proposal from the Conditions Committees of the Federal Parliamentary Liberal and National Parties, three senators and members and a number of organisations and members of the public . . . I interpose here and state that an examination of all the submissions from the public reveals that the overwhelming majority of these submissions dealt with the de facto question and were strongly opposed to the proposal. The Tribunal continued: We have decided that the government decision in 1983 to allow an approved nominee to accompany a Minister when travelling overseas should be extended to senators and members but that the cost of such travel should be met from the existing entitlement. What did the Tribunal actually do? Its summary in the introductory remarks tells only part of the story. In the first place, the Tribunal did not act on my suggestion to deal with this proposal from the Government in a separate determination. We find this contentious decision included as section 9 of Determination No. 18 of 1984 which, among other things, deals with charter aircraft, drive-yourself-vehicles, excess luggage, life gold passes, telephone services, stamp allowances, and so on. The Tribunal has, in effect, said to the Parliament: 'We know that you can only reject a determination in its entirety. If you are so concerned about this new provision, let's see if you will knock out all the other unrelated goodies we have granted you in the other sections of the determination.' Secondly, the Tribunal has gone further than what I understood the Government to be seeking-namely, the ability to convert the credit for the payment of the fares of a de facto. If one reads section 9.2 (v) carefully one will realise that the Tribunal has permitted an additional conversion of the credit to cover the 'accommodation and subsistence costs' incurred by the senator, or member, spouse 'or nominee as defined' up to a maximum of one third of the cost of fares . The Tribunal stated: The 'nominee as defined' means 'a person with whom a senator or member has established a bona fide stable domestic relationship'. The de factos, and whoever else may qualify under that peculiarly-worded definition, will not simply be able to share in the fares conversion. Taxpayers' funds will pay, to a limited extent, for their accommodation and subsistence- presumably, with their parliamentary partner. Before dealing with the specific provisions of the Bill-let me say that I am calling the bluff of the Tribunal and the Government because the Bill seeks to permit a direct vote of the Parliament on this contentious matter-I wish to point out that once the proposal became widely known there was widespread public opposition to the move to equate MPs' lawful spouses with de factos. The Catholic bishops of Australia criticised the move. The Anglican Bishop of Brisbane, Bishop John Reid, said: It is completely unacceptable to have Federal Parliamentarians parading their de facto relationships and we strongly oppose any financial benefits for such relationships. I, and, I am sure, many other senators and members of the House of Representatives, have received letters from numerous church congregations and many ordinary members of the public. There have been scathing editorials in some newspapers which will do more to contribute to the denigration of this Parliament and its legislators than any minor disturbance and name calling in this chamber or the other place. We did not originate this move. It originated from Mr Young and the Government. Why should we share in the odium it has generated? It is ironical that one can quote the words of Mr Kim Beazley Sr in opposition to this proposal. He is reported as saying: (The Commonwealth) should hesitate a long time before further belittling marriage, in this case the marriage of Federal legislators, with the proposal to ask the taxpayer to finance the travel of people who are not spouses and who have undertaken no obligation such as the obligation of marriage. Do I detect in the final sentence of the letter from Mr Kim Beazley Jr of 23 December 1983 to the Tribunal, namely, 'In view of the Government's decision I also recommend that course', a slight disclaimer of his personal endorsement? Mr Kim Beazley Sr is absolutely correct in his reference to the absence of an obligation in a de facto relationship. This is one of the fundamental characteristics which distinguish a marriage from a de facto relationship. It has been very ably dealt with in a paper by Justice Sir Murray McInerney delivered on 21 August 1982, and I quote: I have read one paper on this subject by an author who started with the grievance that de factos were required to 'forfeit the rights of married people' . De factos are not required to forfeit anything. They have elected to live together outside marriage by virtue of which alone they would have acquired those rights. They have in many cases elected-deliberately-not to acquire the status and more significantly not to undertake the duties and responsibilities inherent in that status. Very often that election has been made precisely because the party is not prepared to subject himself or herself to any legal obligation in respect of the incidents of the proposed cohabitation. By facilitating this conscious rejection of obligations we are deliberately denigrating the vast majority of couples who accept their obligations by entering into a marriage. Sir Murray McInerney talked about those who have deliberately chosen not to marry. According to a letter which Mr Young's senior private secretary sent to Dr Parker, Secretary of the Queensland Council of Churches-and which is on the public access file at the Tribunal-Mr Young had in mind a particular class of de factos. I quote: . . . where a single or separated member . . . has not married because of personal preference, or legal or social circumstances . . . The only 'legal circumstance' I can envisage is that the MP or de facto is already legally married to someone else! In that case it is not only a rejection of marriage but also an inability to be married again. It was the waving of statistical 'wands' which the Attorney-General used, on 14 June in this chamber, to justify the proposal. He said: The reality of the matter is that de facto relationships, defined one way or another, but most commonly as bona fide domestic relationships are recognised not just in odd bits and pieces of social security, income tax or Public Service legislation. On the quick review that my Department has done, they are recognised in at least 48 Acts of the Commonwealth Parliament, not to mention innumerable pieces of legislation at State level. I thought that I would check out the Attorney-General's claim so I asked the Parliamentary Library to instigate a computer search using what I assume is the same data base as that used by the Attorney-General's Department. The keywords it used were 'de facto spouse' and 'permanent and bona fide domestic basis'. The Library search revealed references not in 48 Acts of the Commonwealth Parliament , but only 28. It could be, of course, that the keywords used by the Department were different from those used by the Parliamentary Library. Whatever the correct figure is, I maintain that these references fall into my original description of the 'tolerant and charitable gestures', or more likely, are designed to ensure that cohabiting unmarried couples are not placed at an advantage in relation to legal couples, for example, in pension benefits. They do not represent a recognition of a fundamental equality of status. And most importantly, the key item of Commonwealth legislation in this area is the Marriage Act and there-rather than finding an equality of status-one finds a deliberate attempt to assert the supremacy of marriage. Let me give just one example of the basket of references on which Senator Gareth Evans's case rests. The computer search which I instigated threw up a reference to the words 'permanent and bona fide domestic basis' in the Seamen's Compensation Act 1911-1973. In the definition of 'member of the family' it refers to all the relatives that one might usually expect to find in such a definition. It also refers to: . . . or any woman who for not less than three years immediately prior to his death or incapacity was wholly or mainly maintained by the seaman and who, although not legally married to him, lived with him as his wife on a permanent bona fide domestic basis and who, at the date of his death or incapacity, is maintaining one or more children under sixteen years of age or is not less than fifty years of age. That is a very particular and circumscribed situation and the charity of the legislation rests more on the care of children than the existence of the de facto relationship. In no way can we jump from the existence of concessions of that nature to the endorsement of an unqualified privilege as expressed in the Government's proposal about de factos of members of parliament. There was some additional reliance by Senator Evans on statistics-this time, his assertion that: 'the New South Wales figures for 1971-76 indicate something of a four-fold increase'. I assume, in the context of his remarks, that the increase was in cohabitation. Again, I state that marriage is the preferred and the promoted situation-preferred and promoted by the community and by the principal legislation. But Senator Evans destroyed his own argument later by admitting: . . . there is evidence that a very significant proportion of de facto relationships these days, perhaps more than previously, are a prelude to either marriage or remarriage. But is this a reason for granting an equality of status? Do we pay the age pension to a person who is 50 years of age on the grounds that he is not far off the age for eligibility, that he has done well to reach 50 years of age, and that with a bit of luck-bearing in mind the actuarial figures on life expectancy -he will eventually become an age pensioner? Do we pay family allowance to all senior girls in school on the ground that they are very likely one day to become mothers? There are a lot of things in life that are a prelude to something else. Standing for election to parliament can often be a prelude to becoming a member of parliament. But there is many a slip between the cup and the lip. I come to one of the most dangerous assertions made by Senator Evans. he said: There is a further point that it has been recognised by this Parliament . . . by the passage of the Sex Discrimination Act that there should not be discrimination in the provision of public goods and services and so on the grounds of marital status, which includes its negative the absence of a formal marital status. There is no definition of 'goods' in the sex discrimination legislation but there is a definition of 'services'. It includes services 'relating to entertainment, recreation or refreshment'. Perhaps this is what the Attorney- General had in mind! Disregarding the flippancy, there is a further category of services-that is, ' services relating to transport or travel'. I assume it is this, in conjunction with section 26-the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs-on which the Attorney-General relies. Is the Attorney-General asserting that, if any Commonwealth Minister, department, authority or instrumentality confers an entitlement or privilege on a person in respect of that person's wife or husband as the case may be, the Sex Discrimination Act requires as a matter of law that the same entitlement or privilege be extended to a person in respect of his or her so-called 'de facto spouse', even from the first day of their cohabitation? Is the Attorney-General asserting that where a private employer in the Australian Capital Territory, as a matter of policy, pays the fare of the lawful spouse of an employee who accompanies the employee travelling overseas in the course of employment, that employer is under a legal obligation by virtue of the Sex Discrimination Act to pay the fare of a de facto to enable the de facto to accompany the employee overseas? There are three other points which should be made about this argument which, I note, has been utilised as a belated back stop in defence of the Government's proposal. First, the Tribunal's determinations are dated 29 June. By a proclamation published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette on 6 July, 1 August was fixed as the date on which the Act was to come into operation. Strictly speaking, at the time of its determination there was no Commonwealth law in existence which required the Tribunal to have regard for sex discrimination. Secondly, during the very truncated debate in this chamber-during which the legislation was guillotined through-I do not recall any mention of the application of the Act to the negatives of things spelt out in the Act. This is a new concept to me. I would assume that the negative of the formal marital status is its absence, but surely that does not imply that all people not in a formal marital situation are de factos. Is that the new way we must now interpret the legislation? And thirdly, which is the most important point, even if there were any substance in the Attorney-General's claim, it is not unusual to find two items of Commonwealth legislation which might be alleged to be inconsistent in some regard. Whatever interpretations of the sex discrimination legislation might be dredged up, I categorically reject the assertion that this Parliament is unable to declare its refusal to grant an equality of status to de factos as compared with lawfully married spouses. I also have the strongest suspicion that should Senator Evans fail to have his argument adopted that the sex discrimination legislation requires this form of favourable treatment for de factos he will then pull some other rabbit out of his hat. Bearing in mind that the Sex Discrimination Bill rests in part on the United Nations convention, my attention was caught by a draft document in which it is proposed that Senator Evans refer the de facto subject to the Law Reform Commission for report in the context of the Australian Capital Territory's community law reform program. The document which is numbered 2803/0384 and which was tabled on 9 May, has Senator Evans stating: Having Regard To . . . (c) the provisions of Articles 23, 24 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights . . . I have looked at those articles and I cannot see where they deal with de factos in any shape or form. Is this another hidden interpretation awaiting discovery and employment by the social engineers hell bent on radically transforming Australian society? Finally, let me briefly deal with the drafting details of this Bill. Quite simply, it removes from 9.2 (iv) the definition of 'nominee' and deletes also the four subsequent appearances of that word. Honourable senators will appreciate that my Bill in no way affects the opportunity for spouses to share in the overseas travel provisions. It should also be noted that the determination, which this Bill seeks to amend, confines the beneficiaries to spouses and nominees, but only to a certain class of nominees, as defined. The issue is now clearly before this Parliament. I have no joy in forcing some of my Senate colleagues into what might be an embarrassing situation for them, but it is not of my making. The proposal originated with Mr Young and the Government. There is no reference in the Tribunal's introductory remarks to the proposal having the support of any other people who made submissions. There is no record in the public file of any senator requesting this provision. Rest assured that if my Bill is defeated, we will witness an overnight transformation where privileges appropriate to marriage will be extended to de factos in a variety of situations not dreamt of. This Bill seeks to overturn the actions taken by the Tribunal at the behest of the Government. Those actions publicly demean the institution of marriage, strike at its legislative recognition and fly in the face of the responsibility of parliamentarians to give an example in matters of principle underpinning the laws which they pass through parliament. No national leader, no legislator can logically support such actions. We are voting on a matter of principle and the ramifications of how we cast our vote will have an effect long after we have passed from this scene. Debate (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) read a first time. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(9.41) —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 legislation contains several amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, most of which are relatively minor in nature. These amendments are designed primarily to overcome certain problems that have been identified in the operation and administration of the Act and which the Government considers require immediate attention. Honourable senators will recall that when the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) announced the establishment of the review of Australian industrial relations law and systems in July last year, he explained that the establishment of the review would not preclude changes being made to the Act before the committee finalised its recommendations where these were considered necessary. The amendments proposed in the Bill will not in any way impede the committee's work which, as honourable senators know, is well underway at the moment. Consistent with the Government's commitment to consultation, the amendments have been considered by the National Labour Consultative Council and there is agreement on them. The first aspect of the Bill to which I draw honourable senators' attention is the changes proposed to Part VIIIAA of the Act. This Part sets out the various accounting and financial reporting requirements for organisations registered under the Act. Honourable senators will recall that Part VIIIAA was amended last year. Those amendments allowed organisations whose Federal bodies exercised effective control over the financial management of the whole of the organisation to consolidate their accounts for the purposes of Part VIIIAA. When the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations introduced those amendments, he indicated that the NLCC was examining proposals to allow organisations with less centralised control of branch assets also to consolidate their accounts. He foreshadowed his intention to introduce legislation to give effect to those proposals in the autumn sittings of Parliament. The amendments now being introduced permit the federal body of an organisation to file its accounts and those of its branches at the same time with the Registrar. The existing legislation requires the federal body and each branch of the organisation to file their accounts separately. Under the changes to be introduced, where the rules of the federal body and each of the branches of the organisation so provide, where organisations elect to file in such a manner and where the accounting periods of the federal body and the branches are the same, then the federal body will be obliged to file all of the accounts of the organisation with the Registrar. A further amendment is proposed to assist branches to bring their accounting periods into line. Where, for whatever reason, the federal body is unable to file all the relevant accounts with the Registrar, the organisation and each of its branches will be required to file their accounts separately in accordance with existing requirements. I should point out that the proposed changes do not affect the present obligation on each part of the organisation, including branches, for the preparation and auditing of accounts, their supply to members and their presentation to meetings. Nor is it intended to alter the existing rights of branch members in relation to the accounts of an organisation or the requirements for the Industrial Registrar to investigate apparent deficiencies in accounts. It is expected that some organisations will find that the amendments provide a simpler, more convenient and less costly procedure for the filing of financial documents than exists under the present legislation. It will also provide a greater co-ordinating role and due recognition to the central position within the organisation of the federal body. I now turn to the other matters contained in the Bill. Three measures are designed to improve certain administrative arrangements under the Act relating to members of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and registrars. First, leave for Commissioners is to be approved by the President of the Commission rather than by the Minister as at present. This is a more appropriate and efficient arrangement. Secondly, for administrative convenience, provision is to be made to enable the appointment of persons to act as Industrial Registrar or as a deputy Industrial Registrar. The absence of such a provision has resulted in unnecessary cumbersome arrangements for such appointments. Thirdly, it is proposed that during any period when the senior Deputy President exercises the powers and functions of the President of the Commission under section 10, that he be entitled to the salary and allowances of the President. This is consistent with the situation where a formal acting appointment is made. The amendment contained in clause 6 of the Bill relates to section 133AB which was introduced last year by the Government. This provision enables the rules of an organisation to provide for the filling of casual vacancies that arise in offices in organisations. Some difficulties have since been identified in the wording of section 133AB which could create unnecessary problems for organisations. These particular amendments are designed to give effect to the original intention of the 1983 legislation. Provision is also made to prevent existing casual vacancy rules of organisations from being declared invalid simply as a result of the deficiencies in section 133AB in its present form. The Bill also proposes the repeal of section 27 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act (No. 2) 1983. That provision relates to the rule altering powers of committees of management of organisations. It has not been proclaimed and has been made unnecessary by the decision of the Federal Court of Australia in Wright v McLeod. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Gietzelt) agreed to: That the Senate, unless otherwise ordered, at its rising, adjourn till Tuesday, 4 September 1984, at 2 p.m. Consideration resumed from 23 August. Clause 4. Upon which Senator Macklin had moved by way of amendment: Page 2, proposed new sub-section 13 (5), lines 34 to 36, leave out 'in accordance with a law made by the Parliament for the purpose of that sub-section or, if there is no such law, as determined'. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.43) —I ask the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) whether he has done any redrafting since we debated the subject yesterday . Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.43) —We have looked at the possibility of recasting proposed new section 13 in order to accommodate some of the concerns that were expressed last evening by Senator Durack but we have come to the conclusion-I understand that this has now been accepted by Senator Durack -that that is simply impossible without turning this constitutional provision into a full-scale statutory provision making reference to statutory officers and institutions such as the Australian Electoral Commission. It is simply impossible without doing all that to produce the result of getting absolute precision into the language of this clause so far as it governs the order in which senators are determined to be elected and, accordingly, whether or not they take their seats after a dissolution on a short term or a long term basis. Under the circumstances, the Government proposes to stay firm behind the clause as it is drafted in the Bill which leaves the question of determining what constitutes relative success to be determined either by resolution of the Senate or by legislation. We understand that the Australian Democrats propose to persist with their amendment to reduce the options to one, that is to say with relative success being determined as it is at the moment simply by resolution of the Senate. I also understand that the Opposition is likely to support the Democrats in that respect. The Government will not pursue the matter to a division because we do not feel desperately passionate about it. However, we think on balance that the option ought to be preserved and would, for the record , indicate our support for the Bill as it stands. I repeat that we will not pursue that position to the point of division. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.45) —I simply do not accept, as the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) is seeking to attribute to me, the view that this matter should be left as drafted and that it cannot be better expressed. I do not accept that only by an Act of Parliament can we determine what is meant by 'relative success' in an election. The position is that there are lengthy consequential machinery type provisions in constitutional amendments , which, occasionally, find their way into the Constitution. It is unfortunate the Constitution gets cluttered up with them, but that seems to be inevitable. I point out that in the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill which is substantially only two pages, only one page is really concerned with what we would regard as constitutional provisions. The other page is concerned more or less with machinery provisions. I was reminded the other day that in 1977 we succeeded in putting into the Consititution a convention concerning the filling of casual Senate vacancies. Senator Peter Baume —The Lewis amendment. Senator DURACK —Yes. The Tom Lewis, not the Austin Lewis amendment. All I can say is that when I was asked to say what the amendment meant I spent about 10 times longer than I thought would be necessary reading a tremendous amount of machinery and technical provisions before I could discover the relevant section which in two minutes I was able to find the meaning of. However, I had to read all the material to find out what was relevant. We will have a similar situation in this case. The Constitution will be cluttered up with a lot of stuff we will have to read. It is not the answer to come in here and say that we cannot state in simple terms the meaning of 'electoral commissioner returns' or 'relative success' because this will clutter up the Constitution with a lot of machinery provisions . It certainly will clutter up the Constitution with machinery provisions. However, if that is necessary to make it clear-the draftsmen's advice is that it is necessary and there are plenty of precedents for it-how unfortunate that will be. I put on the record that I am not agreeing with the Attorney that it cannot be done. The fact of the matter is that he has not managed to do this. I think that it is simply a failure on his part that the draftsmen have not done it properly. They have brought in here a cock-eyed blessed effort which will probably be the subject-as the Attorney says-of constitutional challenge to what the Senate does unless there are some other powers in it. The matter has resolved itself into the question of whether the meaning of ' relative success' in an election will be determined by another Act of Parliament or by the Senate. The Australian Democrats have tried to do the best they can with the mess created by the inadequacy of the Attorney-General's draft before us. The Democrats have moved an amendment to ensure that this question is determined by the Senate and not by Act of Parliament. I believe if we are to be left with that choice-it is very much a second best choice-the Opposition will support the Democrats, because at least we will be carrying on with the devil we know rather than the devil we do not know. This question has been at large but has always been determined by the Senate. In future, if this provision went through, it would still be determined by the Senate, but the Senate would be constrained at least to the extent of the definition of 'relative success'. Hopefully we will all have a lot better idea of what is meant by 'relative success' than the Attorney-General and his advisers seem to have. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(9.51) —I support Senator Durack. It seems extraordinary, given the great wisdom of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and his advisers, that they cannot find a suitable definition of ' relative success' so that it can be written into the legislation. I think Senator Durack is quite right. The Australian Democrats have sought to make the best of a bad job, but I cannot for the life of me see why the legal minds of the Attorney-General's Department cannot bend themselves around a set of words to accommodate what in the past has been tradition and a resolution of the Senate along the lines accepted in the past. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.52) —I apologise to Senator Durack if I have misrepresented his position. I was relying on what was a fairly amiable conversation before the Parliament started this morning. It has suddenly turned into some sort of feeding frenzy of indignation 25 minutes later. Maybe I misconstrued his state of mind and approach. The point is that I never took the view that it could not be done. Of course it can technically be done. Anything can be technically done with the magnificent resources and expertise at my disposal in the Department. Senator Walters —Then do it. Senator GARETH EVANS —I point out to Senator Walters that the difficulty is that it can be done at the expense of cluttering the Constitution with something like four or five pages of detailed provisions, because we simply cannot use language such as 'quotas' and 'in order of detemination of electoral success by reference to quotas rather than primary votes' without getting into definitions of quotas and without getting into the process of who determines what they are. The whole thing is also premised on an assumption about the continuing application of proportional representation which no doubt will be the case. It is a question of whether we want to put all that into the Constitution or whether we want to leave the Constitution basically designed to deal with matters of large general principle rather than machinery detail. It is sometimes impossible to avoid the machinery detail when putting in provisions, as we had to after the travesty of 1975 to deal with the election of replacement senators in the case of casual vacancies. There was no alternative but to do it that way then. But there is an alternative now, that is, to state the principles in general terms and to leave the detail for elsewhere. As an indication of what would be involved, for the record I refer honourable senators to sub-sections 135 (5) to (28) inclusive of the Commonwealth Electoral Act as amended by the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Act which we passed last year. That is a pretty close example, on my advice from the draftsman, of the kind of machinery detail which would be involved were we to try to come to grips in the text of this Bill with the mechanical detail involved. I repeat: I apologise if I misrepresented Senator Durack's position. I was hoping simply to short-circuit debate by I thought giving a fair summary of his position as at 9 o'clock this morning. I am sorry if that is not so. It seems that in the end result, everybody having put his position on the record, we can now determine this matter and proceed to the next clause. Amendment agreed to. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.54) —I move: Page 3, clause 4, proposed new sub-section 13 (6), lines 37 and 38, leave out the proposed sub-section. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 5 agreed to. Title. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.54) —Yesterday when I moved my first amendment, which was fortunately carried by the Senate, to change the short title of the Bill from Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill to Constitution Alteration (Terms of Senators) Bill, I referred to the second amendment standing in my name, which would have caused the long title to read: An Act to allow the Prime Minister to shorten the terms of Senators so that he may call elections for the House of Representatives and half the Senate whenever he so desires. I believe that is the whole purpose and effect of this legislation, but it has been put to me rather vigorously from some quarters which I will not name that that is rather more a political statement than a desirable statutory provision. Senator Crichton-Browne —Who would say that? Senator DURACK —I do not want to disclose all the advisers I have in my armoury. In one sense it may not be strictly true that this proposal will shorten the terms of senators, although overwhelmingly it will have that effect. But we could have the situation of two Houses of Representatives in succession running over their three-year terms. That seems to be very unlikely; it does not happen often. But it does happen and it could happen. As a result of this proposal. some senators might get slightly longer than a six-year term. Strictly speaking this provision may not shorten the term but I do not resile from that as a political statement because by and large it will have the effect of shortening the terms of senators. We know the proclivity of Prime Ministers to call early elections. We have a most glaring, patent and cynical example of that at present . As soon as a favourable wind blows for a government a Prime Minister wants to have an election. The power that will be given if this constitutional provision is passed by the electorate will I think inevitably mean that because the term of the House of Representatives is a maximum of three years, although over the last 30 years the average has been 2.4 to 2.5 years, the average term for senators will be something like less than five years. If there is a little change the term might be a little longer, but the provision overwhelmingly will shorten the terms of senators. It is a pity that we cannot actually say that in the legislation because that is what will really happen, but I take the point that it would not be appropriate actually to say that in the long title. There is also an objection to what I proposed because it contains a reference to the Prime Minister. The Australian Democrats have suggested that it would be better to talk about the Governor-General and how he was advised. I agree that that would be more appropriate. I do not concede that it would be an improvement , because I know what I previously proposed is a fact and I know that the Democrats believe it is a fact too. But from a drafting purist's point of view it is better to talk about the Governor-General-in-Council as he is advised and so on. There are some other problems with the long title which I have agreed to and therefore I now propose to move the amendment headed 'Amendment to Title' which has been circulated. I move: Leave out 'to ensure that Senate elections and House of Representatives elections are always held on the same day, and to adjust the terms of senators accordingly', insert 'to change the terms of senators so that they are no longer of fixed duration and to provide that Senate elections and House of Representatives elections are always held on the same day'. I do not think even the greatest purist would be able to object to that, because the amendment deals with both aspects of this legislation. Certainly there is a provision for Senate and House of Representatives elections to be held on the same day. That is of some importance because, as the Constitution stands, they do not have to be held on the same day although, as I have already pointed out, there is no reason why they cannot be adjusted to be held on the same day. Nevertheless, the main purpose of this legislation is to change the terms of senators so that they are no longer fixed terms. The main effect of this legislation would be to restrict the role of senators and the Senate in order that senators may be accommodated to elections held from time to time for the House of Representatives, rather than simultaneous elections being ensured by the House of Representatives accommodating itself to senators' terms. The fundamental and important thing about this proposal is that it would change the fixed terms of senators to terms of no fixed duration. It could be a term of a few months only, or even less I suppose. It would change a six-year term to a term of perhaps a few months. In a period of political instability we could get two House of Representatives elections in a year. We agreed in previous debate and by our vote on this legislation yesterday to change the words 'simultaneous elections' in the short title of the Bill to read 'terms of senators'. Obviously the previous long title was deficient and I acknowledged that. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) does not think I am giving him any acknowledgement these days, but when I spoke on this Bill yesterday I did say that his long title was an improvement on the long title of the Bill we introduced in 1977. The long title now refers to adjusting the terms of senators accordingly. However, that is only an afterthought in his long title . It is to be commended that the Attorney-General had an afterthought, but it is a bit late in the day. I think the significant feature of this legislation should be highlighted in the long title. That is why I have put the relevant words in my amendment, not this anodyne statement about adjusting the terms of senators. That might not convey to people the true effect of this legislation. Senator Gareth Evans —That is a bit like tendentious. Senator DURACK —I hope my use of the word is as accurate as the Attorney-General says his use of that word is. The point is that this Bill seeks to change the terms of senators so that they are no longer fixed. I think my words are a neutral way of putting it; it is quite factual. It might have been fairer to have said 'manipulate the terms of senators', but I think I might have met with some trouble from the advisers I have mentioned had I done that. I have settled now for this perfectly accurate statement of what this Bill is all about. I have moved that the long title of the Bill be amended accordingly. The CHAIRMAN —Before I call the next speaker it might be helpful if I explained to the Committee the rules I will be applying to the question of whether title changes are in order. When considering a proposed amendment to any matter before the Chair the principal consideration is whether it is relevant to that matter. In the case of a proposed amendment to the title of a Bill I believe it is also necessary to judge whether a proposed amendment is properly related to the contents and purposes of the Bill. Whether the title accurately and adequately describes the contents of the Bill is a matter for the Committee to determine. Senator Durack's amendment is clearly in order. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.05) —Since gentlemanly goodwill seems to be slightly more the order of the day than it was about 20 minutes ago let me, in turn, acknowledge that Senator Durack's present proposal for a change to the long title of the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill is substantially less offensive than his original proposal, which was indeed a piece of vulgar politicking of a high order. I am delighted to see that he has now retreated on that-not, I suspect, so much because of the force of the advice put to him but rather the consideration that it would probably be knocked out as offensive to Standing Orders if it proceeded in its original terms. Be that as it may, the Government, while not having to be dragged quite as noisily as would otherwise have been the case to the wall over the terms of this amendment, does really rather prefer the language of the long title which is in the Bill as it stands and we wish to persist with that. In that respect we would hope to be joined by the Australian Democrats who, after all, engaged in a great deal of consultation and discussion with us in setting the terms of that long title when this matter was last in issue before the Senate in 1983. Indeed, their co-operation with us in that respect was the subject of considerable adverse comment, as I recall, from the Opposition of the day. I find it a matter of passing regret that the Democrats should once again have been led by considerations best known to themselves to readjust their position and express enthusiasm for yet another different form of words. Senator Haines —You do so many backflips we have trouble keeping up. Senator GARETH EVANS —Now, now, do not fuss. Everything is proceeding calmly and pleasantly. We do not want any grumpiness of any kind to disturb the harmony of this exercise in constitutional reform. Under the circumstances, I simply indicate that the Government believes that the existing long title accurately describes the content of the Bill and accurately communicates that content to the electorate. Accordingly, we wish to remain with it. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.08) —I thought we were going to have a very short debate on this matter. Various moves were made yesterday. I understand that some honourable senators are reading the first version of this amendment. The amendment that has now been moved is the sixth version and it has been drafted in consideration of the ruling that the Chair has made; that material should be relevant to the legislation. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has chosen to make a number of claims about the Australian Democrats. I think it is useful to put on record the fact that it has been excessively difficult to keep up with the Attorney's moves in this matter. Honourable senators will remember that when he was in opposition he championed a fixed term proposal. He promised it to the people and when he became Attorney-General he introduced relevant legislation into this place. Then, however, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) decided that he did not want to give away any powers that previous Prime Ministers had had, so he told the Attorney to drop that proposal and adopt the Fraser electoral reform proposals for simultaneous elections and four-year terms. When the Prime Minister could not get lavish amounts of money to spend on one side of the argument and not the other he decided that the Attorney-General should drop those proposals and come up with only the simultaneous elections proposal. As Senator Gareth Evans has been reminding us of various events of the past, let me refer him back to a statement he made in March 1983, when he said that the Australian Labor Party would have no bar of a simultaneous elections proposal without a fixed term. Those are his words; I have quoted them often. I repeat: He said that the Australian Labor Party would have no bar of a simultaneous elections proposal without a fixed term. If he wants us to try to keep up with that type of somersault, I am afraid we do not have enough time or energy for that type of gymnastic. This proposal indeed had to be changed as a result of the Committee's decision yesterday. The Committee changed the short title to 'terms of senators'. It is, therefore, much more appropriate to move around the points that were previously in the long title to highlight the original item; that is, the terms of senators. Senator Durack's amendment reads: . . . to change the terms of senators so that they are no longer of fixed duration-- that is precisely what this Bill does- and to provide that Senate elections and House of Representatives elections are always held on the same day. This is the consequence of actually removing the fixed terms. It seems to us that the Attorney could accept that motion because that much more accurately reflects the Bill as it will be put to the people. Do not forget that the important point about the long title of the Bill is not just that it is an esoteric discussion in titling Bills; the importance of this long title is that it is the title that appears on the ballot paper. It is the item on which the elector is asked to agree or to disagree. So the long title is a particularly important piece of work. I think it has been useful in the last day or so that a great deal of attention has been given to making sure that the item that appears on the ballot paper is as accurate a reflection as is possible of what the Bill does. I believe that this now must be accepted as an accurate reflection of precisely what the Bill does. Hence, it will have our support. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.13) —We are trying to compare what the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) wants which is a complete distortion of what the Bill proposes- Senator Macklin —No, he knows what he wants. Senator WALTERS —He says he knows what he wants but he cannot actually get his people to put it forward. Senator Hill —Last week the Labor Party supported fixed terms. Senator WALTERS —I think it was a few days before that, but it is a fact that Senator Evans professes to know what he wants. He says he wants simultaneous elections. Will the simultaneous elections be with or without fixed terms? I have got a bit confused. Senator Gareth Evans —When? Senator WALTERS —I am just wondering what the Attorney is trying to put to the Committee. Senator Gareth Evans —Shirley, you just concentrate on what you want to say and leave me to myself, okay? Senator WALTERS —I am attempting to understand what the Attorney wants. It is very difficult for the Committee to understand what the Attorney wants when we look at what he has said over the years. Senator Gareth Evans —You don't harass me and I won't harass you. Let's leave it at that. Senator WALTERS —Senator Evans, you have already harassed the whole of the Committee. At the moment the Committee is trying to find out what the honourable senator wants. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The Committee is trying to determine the title of the Bill. Senator WALTERS —Mr Chairman, I stand corrected. We have already organised a change in the short title of the Bill which now reads 'the terms of senators' which is very accurate. I was a bit concerned about the ruling you gave, Mr Chairman, because if we are really to look at the relevance of the material in the Bill, the present title is completely wrong. It is not relevant to the material in the Bill. The title states: . . . to ensure that Senate elections and House of Representatives elections are always held on the same day, and to adjust the terms of senators accordingly . That is not accurate. Indeed, I do not believe it is relevant to the Bill. What is relevant is that the Bill allows the Prime Minister to call an election of both Houses whenever he likes. He has not got to wait for the fixed term of the Senate to expire, but he can call elections indeed within six months of each other if he so wishes. That is what this Bill is all about and it seems to me an awful pity, Mr Chairman, that you have ruled that particular matter out of order . The CHAIRMAN —Senator Walters, just a correction. I have ruled nothing out of order. I merely gave rules which I would apply and ruled that Senator Durack's amendment was in order. I ruled nothing out of order. Senator WALTERS —The advice Senator Durack received was that that might not be permitted. So we have now got to change the terms of senators so that they are no longer of a fixed duration. It seems incredible that Senator Evans is attempting to hide that fact. I thought he was rather in favour of terms of a fixed duration. I thought he would be supporting and underlining that this is what the Bill does. If, in the long term, he is keen to get fixed terms of parliaments-I would like to ask him indeed whether, in the long term, he is still of that opinion-surely to heavens he would be pointing out to the public that this will be going in the opposite direction. Will the Attorney answer my question as to whether he is in favour, in the long term, of fixed term parliaments? The CHAIRMAN —Order! Before the Attorney-General replies, I do not want to interrupt the jovial mood this morning, but the long title of the Bill is before the Committee. The Attorney-General is entitled to answer any debating points raised, but I suggest that he not open a new matter. The Committee is really only deciding the long title. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.17) —As I made quite clear during this debate, yes, I am in favour of fixed term parliaments. I believe that is the correct principled solution to this. I also make it clear that I do not regard this Bill, to the extent that it varies the presently totally fixed character of senators' terms, as inconsistent with that because what is involved is not so much fixed terms for any particular group of individuals within the parliament, but fixed terms for the parliament itself as constituted and determined by the term in office of members of the House of Representatives in a particular parliament. That is the context in which we are talking about fixed terms. The present position we are seeking to establish of creating a nexus between the Senate and the House of Representatives is entirely consistent with that long term aspiration. I would certainly prefer that there was a system of fixed term parliaments, but even such a system of fixed term parliaments could, as we debated last year, not be absolutely fixed in all circumstances because one would have to allow for certain contingencies. I do not want to get into that debate about what those contingencies are, but in the event of a government losing its majority in the House of Representatives and no other government being able to be formed, there would have to be provision for an early election. Under those circumstances, one would wish, under that regime, the Senate to be elected again at the same time as the House of Representatives. So even in a fully fledged fixed term regime there would still be provision for unfixed terms in certain circumstances for both members of the House of Representatives and the Senate. So to the extent that Senator Walters is trying to make a debating point about support on the one hand for fixed terms and support for this measure now, I have sought to answer her. I hope the record will so record it. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(10.19) —I shall read the record very carefully of what the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has just said because, frankly, it did not make any sense at all as I sat here and listened to it. I have not entered into this debate to date, but do enter on the subject of the long title because I think it is particularly significant in this constitutional debate. The title proposed by the Government is of course the classic sleight of hand. The title, as has already been indicated, will appear on the ballot paper. As people vote in this referendum that is the proposition against which they will write 'Yes' or 'No'. Therefore, it is important that the title accurately represent the contents of the Bill. The title proposed by the Government is a fraud. It is important because the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) clearly wants an election in 1983 and he clearly wants this referendum with it. Senator Gareth Evans —1984, Senator. Senator MARTIN —Sorry, 1984. He enjoyed the one in 1983 and wants another one in 1984. There is, of course, no need for that election to be held in December 1984 . It could be held at least several months later. I have a small feeling of deja vu, having campaigned on this referendum proposal on more than one occasion in the past. I think I can make some reasonably well educated predictions about what will happen in the referendum campaign, what the Yes case will be and what its relevance will be in a December 1984 election. I can just see our Prime Minister saying: 'I am sorry you have to have this election in December 1984 after having just had one in March 1983 but I really cannot help it'. It gets a little difficult during an election campaign to debate the merits of December 1984 versus May 1985 as the election date, so it is a fairly easy proposition for the Prime Minister to put. The next proposition he will put is as follows: ' Of course, all this would be unnecessary if the Constitution just had a little adjustment. If you will just vote yes on this splendid referendum proposal that we, the Australian Labor Party, are putting to you yet again-- Senator Haines —Are you writing the Yes case? Senator MARTIN —I have read previous Yes cases. The Prime Minister will say: ' This will not happen again'. That, of course, is a total fraud. We have a problem in the Constitution with the foreshortening of senators' terms when there has been a double dissolution. As I have said before, I think we could profitably look at the subject of senators' terms following a double dissolution so that we do not have to have very frequent election campaigns. Their frequency, of course, depends on where they fall, either early or late in the July-June period. So that could be done. If the Government genuinely wanted to prevent the effect of double dissolutions, meaning elections in effectively little more than two years, it could seriously look at that proposition. But the Government, the Labor Party, has never looked at it. The Australian Constitutional Convention to which Senator Gareth Evans keeps on referring in this debate saw no proposal or suggestion of a proposal from Senator Evans that this difficulty for governments be looked at seriously. It saw some other proposals, and now it seems another set of proposals altogether. If the Labor Party and Senator Evans were fair dinkum about the difficulties that the 1983 double dissolution has created in terms of the House of Representatives going its full term of three years, there would have been a glimmer of an indication of this as a possible alternative. If Senator Evans wanted a useful amendment to the Constitution he would be following a consensus line and seeing whether there was a possibility of looking at some adjustment of senators' terms following a double dissolution. But we do not have consensus; we have a fraud. The best opportunity we have for preventing frivolously frequent elections is, of course, to have fixed terms of senators. Fixed terms of senators achieve a few other things as well. That has been canvassed quite thoroughly in the debate so far. One of the difficulties I had in making sense of the response Senator Evans just made to the Committee was that he muttered something in his feeble defence of his fixed term proposal and its relevance to this measure and his dropping of it, about the necessity for certain contingencies being met for the need for elections, for example, governments losing their majority in the House of Representatives. The simple fact is that this referendum proposal as fraudulently described in the long title has nothing to do with contingencies. It has everything to do with frivolities: that is, for whatever reasons a Prime Minister may have for calling an early election which is not linked to the Constitution or to the consequences of double dissolutions. As I said a moment ago it will be important if there is a December 1984 election, because the Prime Minister will use this as a fraudulent support for the need for that election to be held much earlier than it needs to be, even if he wants to bring the two Houses back into line. But we all know, of course, that the Prime Minister thinks he will have suffered a lack of nerve if he waits until May 1985. Senator Haines —He may not have much choice, actually. He might have to, given the bungle that has been made with another Bill. Senator MARTIN —That is possible. It is possible that he will not have much choice but I think others will have to bear the consequences of that. At the moment we are charged with the responsibility that the words that appear on the ballot paper in the referendum indicate truly to the voters of Australia what it is that they have to say yes or no to. I am very confident that when the proposal is properly explained to people, when the proposal is properly campaigned on, it will be rejected. I am confident that even with the fraudulent title there is a good chance of its being rejected. However, it makes it a little more difficult for those campaigning against it when they have to start at this point: 'First of all, I must tell you that the words on the ballot paper do not tell you the truth. What you are voting on is not this but actually something else'. That does complicate it a little. Perhaps there is method in Senator Evans's madness in that matter. I think there is every reason indeed when we are interested in informed votes in a democracy, open government and people making proper choices and decisions, for all the information to be made available to the voters. Therefore the Senate should support the changed title in the interest of accurate information. Senator HILL(South Australia)(10.27) —I want to make only a brief contribution on this matter. I commence from the point where my colleague Senator Martin left off when she was looking for the method in Senator Gareth Evans's madness. It has been a matter of some concern to me-- Senator Crichton-Browne —A good starting point. Senator HILL —I can mention another one of the interjections of my colleague Senator Townley. He asked: 'Why are we debating this, because there is no chance of the referendum being put to the public?'. That seems to be a reasonable assumption, bearing in mind the history of this matter. We commenced with the very important constitutional reform of a fixed term for the House of Representatives. As we know, that, although passed, did not get the opportunity to be put to the public. We then had a Bill similar to that which is before us at the moment and which, together with other constitutional reforms, was also passed but again was not put to the public. Here we have it again. Senator Evans has brought the Bill back for a third time. It is not because it is failing to pass in the Parliament that the public is not having an opportunity to express its voice; it is simply because, for Government exigencies, it seems that the public is not to be given an opportunity. That brings me to the point of the method in Senator Evans's madness. I have been reflecting upon why the Government has decided to abandon that important area of reform concerning fixed term parliaments. It seems to me that the Government and Senator Evans have now decided that perhaps the concept of a fixed term parliament is not in their best interests and that from the point of view of being able to manipulate the elective process a Bill such as this that provides for simultaneous elections but with an abandonment of the fixed term of the Senate will best enable the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to feed that massive ego which we know he has and therefore to manipulate the Senate. That is what this matter is really all about, and what this title is all about. As Senator Martin has said, the Bill that is before us is a fraud. Its concept is not that which is being put to us-some idealistic attempt to look for an improvement in the parliamentary and electoral process in this country. Instead, it is an attempt to give the Prime Minister a power that he has not had in the past, a power to hold to ransom not only the House of Representatives but also the Senate. Senator Townley —To threaten senators. Senator HILL —To threaten senators, as Senator Townley said. Therefore, any change to the Bill's title must be beneficial when it has the effect of drawing to the attention of the Australian public the fact that, because of this Bill, the Senate's protection from manipulation by Prime Ministers will be lost. I regret that the Bill's title cannot, for other reasons, express the true purpose of the Bill. The title can go only half way towards meeting that objective. At least the title has the effect of drawing the Australian public's attention to the fact that the Senate's term will no longer be set but will be linked to the term of the House of Representatives and, therefore, will be at the Prime Minister's discretion. The Australian public has shown in the past that that protection is valued. It is a protection in that the Prime Minister cannot manipulate the Senate in the same way as he can manipulate the House of Representatives. No doubt, the Australian public will value that protection in the future. I support the amendment because it goes at least half way towards bringing to the Australian public a better description of what the Bill is about. I regret that the amendment does not go the whole way in drawing attention to the fact that the Bill is designed not for the better government of Australia but to allow the government of the day better to manipulate the electoral process. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(10.32) —I would go further than my colleague, Senator Hill, and say that the Bill is designed for political expediency. The proposal is about giving the Prime Minister a right to have an election at any time he chooses, without having to fear a subsequent half Senate election. If I were drafting the Bill's title, I would use the words: 'An Act to provide that the Senate shall have its election on the same date as the House of Representatives.' The Prime Minister's consideration will not be when he can win a half Senate election but when he can win a House of Representatives election. Any consideration of the date of the election will be based purely on when the Prime Minister can win a House of Representatives election. Subsequently, the Senate will be dragged along and forced to have an election on the same day as the House of Representatives. The Senate and House of Representatives will no longer be divorced but will be inextricably tied together. The Senate's fortunes will be tied to the fortunes of the government of the day. The Senate will no longer be an independent chamber representing the various States; rather, it will be the poor relation of the House of Representatives, and the convulsions, machinations and intrigue that go on in the House of Representatives will flow in and reflect upon the Senate. Of course, the legislation will remove absolutely the Senate's power. The Senate will no longer be a House of review, be independent or be a place for a second contemplation of legislation. It will simply be an appendage. The Senate will be very much influenced by the machinations of the House of Representatives. For the life of me, I cannot see why, in the event that a Prime Minister lost the confidence of the House of Representatives, honourable senators should suddenly be influenced by that determination. If this referendum proposal succeeds, that is what will happen. The Senate's fate and term will rest upon the Prime Minister's fate and term. That action is so far removed from the spirit of the intention of the founding fathers as to destroy and prostitute the premise of the Senate that one almost wonders why the Government does not charge headlong into bringing about its total abolition. As we all know that is a deep- down, strongly-- Senator Mason —They would if they could. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Senator Evans is on record as saying that he would do away with this place. In fact, he shows his commitment by seeking to remove himself from the Senate, even if he cannot remove the chamber itself. Senator Mason —By the way, how is he going on that? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I understand that the Left is getting the numbers very quickly. Senator Gareth Evans —Is this anything to do with the long title, Senator? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Yes, it all has to do with the long title. Senator Robert Ray —We won't go into how you got the numbers in Western Australia. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I can count-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Thank you, Mr Chairman. Senator Robert Ray —You must be good. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Damn good. The Senate should be above and divorced from the determinations of the House of Representatives. The founding fathers gave the Senate a fixed term for very good reasons. Senator Robert Ray —Founding father garbage. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —The reason was-- Senator Mason —I would answer that interjection, if I were you. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I heard just some blubbering on my left; I did not hear a word that the honourable senator said. Senator Mason —He said that it was garbage. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator Crichton-Browne will address the Committee. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Yes, Mr Chairman. I hope that it is recorded in Hansard that Senator Robert Ray of the Australian Labor Party said that the founding fathers were full of garbage. I can well remember what some of the founding fathers from Victoria said about the Senate. Some of them were setting in cement their views of the Senate's role and capacity to stop supply. If the proposal succeeds, the Senate will be subjected to duress, influence and threat. The provision of fixed term parliaments was made for very good reasons- continuity and so that individual senators could feel able to make determinations without concern for their short term careers or worry about pressure and duress from the House of Representatives. The long title amendment proposed by Senator Durack reflects much more accurately the Bill's contents. I believe in part that what the Chairman said in his definition provided to us yesterday by Senator Evans was as devious as his earlier attempts to confuse the public. The measure does not go as far as I would like, but it is a fair reflection of the Bill's contents. I believe that the more accurately the Bill's title reflects it contents, the more likely it is that the constitutional amendment will fail. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(10.38) — In this debate, honourable senators on this side of the chamber were accused of being inconsistent and of trying to vest the Prime Minister with certain powers. We were accused of political opportunism. On looking back at the history of simultaneous election provisions one finds that in 1974 when in opposition the Liberal Party managed to oppose the proposals. In 1977 when the Liberal Party came into government it enthusiastically put the subject to the public. Senator Crichton-Browne —No. Senator Townley —No. Senator ROBERT RAY —It is no use Liberal senators trying to back off. The Liberal Government put those propositions to the public. It had a record majority in the House of Representatives and an absolute majority in the Senate. The Liberal Government put the proposals through both chambers and argued in May 1977 for simultaneous elections. The Liberal Government just went down. What does the Liberal Party do now it is out of government when the Labor Government puts up a proposal for a fixed term parliament? It says: 'No, don't have fixed terms. Let us have simultaneous terms'. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), who is known for his support of fixed terms and also for his political realism, accepts the proposition to have simultaneous elections. Even last year, the official Liberal Party-not those renegades and troglodytes in the chamber- said: 'Yes, we agree with that proposal. We shall support it'. Come 1984, just a year later, the Liberal Party did its fourth back somersault in 10 years, and yet Liberal senators come into the chamber with their hypocritical arguments. The trouble with the referendum proposals is that the principles change from one year to the next. Liberal senators come into the chamber and say: 'Look, the Prime Minister should not have the right to call an early election'. Let us look at the history of early elections. Menzies called an early election in 1951 and took both chambers out. In 1955 Menzies called another early election. In 1963 Menzies and the Liberal Party called another early election. When the Australian Labor Party come to government, twice the Liberal Party forced an early election , in 1974 and in 1975. When the Labor Party was in opposition what happened? We had more early elections. Fraser called an early election in 1977. Finally the big gibber cried on election night. Fraser called an early election in 1983. Every early election in the last 30 years has been called by or forced by the Liberal Party. Now Liberal Party senators are squealing like stuck pigs because the Labor Party may get one opportunity to have one early election in which it will cream them. Senator Crichton-Browne says: 'If a motion of no confidence is passed in the House of Representatives this chamber will have to go out'. However, the existing situation is that if the majority party has the full confidence of the House of Representatives, this chamber can send that chamber to an election without this chamber going to an election. That is the existing situation. Honourable senators opposite do not mind that. They do not care that a basically undemocratic chamber such as this one can do that. The only people whose views I have some time for-they know my general views on the matter-are the Australian Democrats who, at least, have been consistent in arguing for fixed term parliaments. They have been consistent in saying: 'That is what it should be'. However, the difficulty is that the moment the Liberal Party, having used and abused the electoral system in the last 30 years and manipulated it in every cynical possible way, is on its back foot it squeals. These proposals may not get through the Parliament whenever they are put simply because of the tradition, as Liberal senators have pointed out, that such proposals do not pass if any major political party opposes them. I predict that if in the event that the Liberal Party is ever returned to office, within two years it will put up a proposal for simultaneous elections. It will do another back flip. I think it is time that people such as Senator Crichton-Browne stopped just thinking in terms of party political interest. We do not want continual elections. It was the Liberal Party that in 1983 put the Houses out of kilter, deliberately and cynically. It took the big gamble in late January, early February. That is why Liberal senators are sitting in opposition right now -because they tried to manipulate the system. In conclusion, this referendum proposal may, in some way, diminish the supposed powers of this chamber but once it starts to give up its more idiotic powers and makes a more positive contribution it will be better for Australian democracy. The CHAIRMAN —I again draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the matter before the Chair is an amendment moved by Senator Durack to the long title of the Bill. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.43) — Thank you, Mr Chairman, for that timely reminder. I welcome Senator Robert Ray to the chamber. I am sure it is very nice for the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, to at least have someone in the chamber to help him because this is the first time any Australian Labor Party senator, except of course, his Whip, has sat behind him. I believe it is an indictment of Labor Party senators who, we must understand and the public must understand, are caucused on this issue; not like the Liberal Party senators. This is a very important debating point. Senator Robert Ray said that the Liberal Party had changed its mind. Liberal members are permitted to make their own choice. Indeed they did so and voted accordingly. But Labor Party members are caucused. Is it any wonder, Mr Chairman, that no Labor senators are sitting behind Senator Evans? They are caucused, they have no choice so there is no point in their entering the debate. Senator Evans has done it all. Then Senator Robert Ray appeared like a bolt out of the blue. Let us welcome Senator Robert Ray. Mr Chairman, as you noticed he did introduce some odd comments into a debate on the long title of the Bill, but I hope you will allow me to answer a couple of them because they must not go unanswered. Senator Ray referred to the fact that this chamber can send the lower House to the people and not go to an election itself. If Senator Robert Ray brings forward a referendum proposal which states that the Senate, when it sends the lower House to the people must also go to the people, I will join him. Senator Robert Ray —All of it? Senator WALTERS —No, half of the Senate. If the honourable senator does that we on this side will think about the matter. Senator Robert Ray —Why not all the Senate go out? Senator WALTERS —The honourable senator should bring forward a referendum proposal covering that point and then see what the Senate decides to do, but he should not come in here and bring up something that he is not willing to include in a referendum. Senator Ray referred to those Liberal and National Party members who have been consistent, as renegades and troglodytes. I can assure the honourable senator that we were able to convince the Australian people and on two occasions they knocked back the referendum proposals. Senator Martin wondered what on earth is behind Senator Evans's madness. I join the crowd which is wondering what is behind Senator Evans's madness. However, we have only to look at the history of the Labor Party to find out what is behind its madness in putting up this referendum proposal. It was part of its policy to get rid of the Senate chamber; to have one House and one House only for the Australian Parliament. I only have to quote what was said by former Senator McLaren back in 1977. He said 'This simultaneous election referendum is a first step in the abolition of the Senate and the sooner it is abolished the better'. The present Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, added to that. He said: 'Labor will make every effort to delimit the powers of the Senate'. The Labor Party had it in its policy to get rid of the Senate. I remember clearly that at one Labor conference Senator Evans said that he thought the public relations exercise of doing so would do no good at all to the Labor Party. He said: 'While we can still believe in it we ought to be able to get rid of it from our Party policy'. Senator Gareth Evans —Mr Chairman, I am enjoying Senator Walters's contribution as always-- Senator WALTERS —Are you taking a point of order? Senator Gareth Evans —I am taking a point of order and asking what conceivable relevance this has to the long title of the Bill which does have to be addressed by all speakers in this debate. The CHAIRMAN —I have previously drawn the attention of the Committee to the fact that the subject before the Committee is the long title of the Bill and the amendment moved to it by Senator Durack. I have allowed some remarks and responses to be made but that cannot go on forever. I ask Senator Walters to come back to the long title of the Bill. Senator WALTERS —Mr Chairman, I believe my remarks have a tremendous amount to do with the long title of the Bill. May I explain to you that the long title of the Bill, I believe, is a deceit. I am trying to inform the Australian public why the Government is going to such lengths to make the long title a deceit. The point is that the Government is getting across to the Australian public a deceitful long title because it wants to destroy the Senate. So I get back to the history of Senator Evans's talk to the Labor conference when he said: 'It would not be good for our public relations to destroy the Senate. Let us get it out of our policy even though we may still work towards that aim'. Indeed, that is what is behind the deceitful long title, because it has absolutely nothing to do with the effects of this piece of legislation. We know that the Senate's independence will be interfered with considerably. We know that if this Bill eventually goes through and if the people of Australia support the proposition, a Prime Minister of the day will be able to threaten the Senate on any occasion and say: 'If you do not jump into line and pass everything that I want, I shall send you to the people every six months until I get my way'. He can then take the House of Representatives and the Senate to the electors every six months; he can do as he likes. But as matters stand, the people are protected because the Senate has a fixed term. The Prime Minister can take the House of Representatives to the people whenever he likes, but he is limited, to a degree only, by the Senate's fixed term if he wants to call both chambers out together. We know, therefore, that it is the aim of the Bill to give the Prime Minister this complete power. Senator Robert Ray said: 'The Prime Minister should not be permitted to call an early election'. Senator Robert Ray —I did not say that. Senator WALTERS —He was complaining bitterly about the fact that so many early elections had been called. Senator Robert Ray —No, I was not. I just said that your mob had called them. Senator WALTERS —Indeed, he said that for the past 30 years the Liberals had called them or had caused the calling of them. He omitted, of course, the fact that Labor just had not been in power during that period, except for three years -then Labor made such a hash of it that the people threw out that Government, straight after three years. He left out that little detail. What happened to his Government? Senator Robert Ray —You tell me one Labor Prime Minister who has gone to the people early yet. Senator WALTERS —Mr Robert Hawke, on his own statement, as close as a couple of days ago, said that he will go to the people early. He will go to the people not when he has to go to call out both chambers but much earlier than he has to go. He does not have to go to the people until April or May. But what is he doing? He has said himself that he will be going some time between December and March. He is going early. Senator Robert Ray —Do you think that is wrong? Senator WALTERS —The honourable senator asked me to name a Labor Prime Minister who wants to go early, and I am telling him. Senator Robert Ray —No, I said 'who has gone early'. Senator WALTERS —All right; if the honourable senator is going to nit-pick, by all means. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(10.53) —I should like to follow up something that Senator Walters said, because, while she was speaking, Senator Robert Ray from Victoria said 'Fancy-land' when she was talking about the-- Senator Robert Ray —No-'Fantasy'. Senator TOWNLEY —No, the honourable senator said 'Fancy-land'. Senator Robert Ray —No-'Fantasy-land'. Senator TOWNLEY —It does not matter whether Senator Ray said 'Fantasy' or 'Fancy -land'. I do not think that I am wrong. I think that Senator Ray is wrong, just as another Labor senator was wrong in this place yesterday when quoting figures. However, with regard to the Prime Minister taking the Parliament to the people, it could very well happen as Senator Walters said. I believe that people like elections. I do not believe that they like them every six months; I would not agree with that for a minute. However, we could easily have a situation in which a Prime Minister is elected, very popularly for some reason or another, as Mr Hawke was in 1983. If this proposed constitutional alteration had been in place at that time, he could have, under some pretext, had another election very soon afterwards in an attempt to get total control of the Senate. I have been a member of this Parliament long enough to know what happens when the Australian Labor Party has control of the Senate. We will see Bills going through this place ever so quickly. Without discussion, they will be gagged and forced through. If perchance the Labor Party gets control of this chamber after the coming election, I think that we shall find that this chamber will be an entirely different place from what it is now. It is obviously the Labor Party's aim to get control and to use the numbers in this place to force through whatever legislation it wishes. Senator Macklin —Your people guillotined this Bill through in 1977. Senator Haines —Senator Townley was not a member then, was he? Senator TOWNLEY —No, the fact is that it was 1975, and I was a member of the Liberal Party for all the time that I was sitting in this place as an independent. But the honourable senators would not understand that perhaps and they obviously do not understand the history of what has gone on in this place as well as they ought to understand it. Whilst what Senator Macklin says about the Liberal Party guillotining that Bill through in 1977 may be correct, the fact is that once when I was present here, when the then Senator Murphy was in control of the chamber, 11 Bills, I think, went through this place, in almost the same number of minutes. Senator Hill —That will happen again. Senator TOWNLEY —It will happen again if Labor ever gets total control of this chamber. The point that Senator Walters was making was very valid: That a popularly elected Prime Minister could have election after election until he gets control of this place, if the legislation before us is passed and is put before the people. As I said by way of interjection to Senator Hill earlier, I do not believe that this referendum will be put to the people. I believe that it will be another example of how the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has proved to be a Clayton's Attorney-General. He is the Attorney-General that one has when one does not want anything to get through. The Government has not really thought about a few of the matters that must be satisfied before this referendum can be put to the people. I shall not give the Government a few of the matters about which it has not thought; but it had better look very closely at the requirements of referendums, because it will then see that they cause certain complications. I know that I have moved a little away from the-- Senator Crichton-Browne —Answer me this, Senator Townley: If the referendum question cannot be put before February, do you think that that will hold off the Prime Minister's election until February because he is terribly concerned about the referendum? Senator TOWNLEY —When we had referendums before, I said in this place that any Prime Minister who teaches people to vote against something that he puts up is crazy. Whitlam did it, and the people voted against him. Eventually they kicked him out. If Mr Hawke is silly enough to run this referendum and is able to run it, I think he will be just training people, who might otherwise have voted for the Labor Party, to vote against him. Senator Robert Ray —Therefore, you should support its going up. Senator TOWNLEY —Anything that Senator Robert Ray supports I would never support , just out of form. It just seems quite crazy. If Senator Robert Ray from Victoria is after something, there is something wrong with it, in my opinion; there is something shifty about it. Therefore, if he suggests that I would support it, I shall do the opposite. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.58) —I should like to ask a question of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). If the people vote in favour of this proposition, and this is the item that appears on the ballot paper, when will it come into force, and will it then apply to the terms of the first two non- sitting senators who come in in the next Parliament, that is, who come in immediately after the election? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.58) —The transitional provisions in the Bill are such that it would be so applicable. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.59) — So it would be applicable to the first two non-sitting senators who come in immediately the new Parliament comes in? I am referring not to the people who come in in the new terms but to the first two non-sitting senators. Particularly, I am having difficulty as to whether this can even work after the next election. That is my worry. Senator Robert Ray —You mean if there were an early election? Senator MACKLIN —I am talking in the context of an early election before halfway through next year, yes. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.00) —Perhaps I could enlighten the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) and follow up what Senator Macklin said. The position is that after the expected December election there will be an interim Senate, if I might so phrase it, comprising the existing members of the Senate, plus two additional senators from each State. Those two senators will be the first two non-sitting candidates elected. The question that arises is how to determine who are the first two non-sitting candidates elected, and whether that is to be determined by reference to the first two non-sitting candidates who attain a quota, or by reference to particular votes obtained by those persons. It appears that situation is not catered for and would not be catered for in the event of this proposal not going through. Even if it did go through, I cannot see how that matter is catered for. In the likely event of the referendum being defeated, it would not deal with that matter. Under the current provision the Senate determines the issue, but in fact the Senate is not formed. At that time the Senate comprises current members, plus two additional members. I would be interested to have the Attorney's views on that matter. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.02) —First, on a question of order, are all these things now at large for discussion under the long title? I do not mind endeavouring to answer, but I am wondering whether this is the appropriate time. The CHAIRMAN —If the Minister is prepared to answer the points, very well, but I cannot force him to answer. They are not strictly relevant to the title. Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not want to get in a position where, under the guise of debating the title, we shall see all human life once again pass by. The CHAIRMAN —It is an extremely wide-ranging debate. Senator GARETH EVANS —In reply to Senator Macklin's question, that matter is squarely addressed by sub-clauses (11) and (12) of the proposed new clause 13. Sub-clause (11) deals with the question of a short term senator whose term will expire in June 1988. Under the new provisions his term of service would expire on the expiration or dissolution of the first House of Representatives to expire or be dissolved after the commencement of the section. Therefore, if we have an election in late 1987 or early 1988-- Senator Macklin —I was looking at an election before mid-1985, another one. Senator GARETH EVANS —If there is a second election before mid-1985, the short term senator would go out at that election, because the sub-clause says that the term of the person whose term would otherwise expire on 30 June 1988 shall expire on the expiration or dissolution of the first House of Representatives to expire after the commencement. In the wildly implausible, I hope, event that there is a second election between now and the middle of 1985, that consequence follows. The position of the longer term senator is addressed by sub-clause (12) and the same considerations apply. Senator Harradine raises the question once again about the machinery for determining who is who in the forthcoming election. There will be seven senators elected from each State. The arrangement everybody has in mind is that the sixth person to be elected assumes the long term position and the seventh person to be elected assumes the short term position. That still leaves open the question of what is the proper method of calculation to be applied in determining who is elected sixth and seventh. Senator Harradine quite rightly points to the dilemma debated earlier this morning, as we debated it last night, that if it were done in terms of the sixth and seventh quotas to be filled, is it to be done by reference to the primary votes accumulated by each of the respective senators? The convention and practice of this place have been to do it by reference to the quotas. Senator Macklin —But who would be permitted to vote on it? Senator GARETH EVANS —The present continuing Senate. We shall have to debate at some stage whether those two additional from each State or one only of them get a vote. Senator Robert Ray —It should be resolved before the election. Senator GARETH EVANS —I think Senator Robert Ray is correct in saying that this matter will have to be debated and resolved by the Senate before the election. Senator Macklin —Except that the Constitution does not allow that. Section 13 says that we have to make it afterwards. Does this apply to that? Senator GARETH EVANS —We have to make the decision afterwards, but we can determine in advance who is to make the decision. I think that must be right. There is obviously a hiatus in the Constitution in identifying who makes the decision. Can I suggest that this is a fascinating subject for debate but is not one which needs to be resolved in the context of this matter. The question arises as a result of these clauses, but nothing we do with these clauses will resolve it. I am indebted to Senator Harradine for his contribution, but might I suggest that we return to the long title and resolve once and for all what the long title of this referendum proposal will be. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(11.06) —I join this debate briefly to repeat my constant opposition to enshrining in the Constitution the matter of simultaneous elections. To say that it will reduce the number of elections is absurd and deceptive. At present it is possible for any Prime Minister to call an election when he likes. Senator Gareth Evans —The present terms of the long title, either in the original Bill or in the terms proposed by Senator Walters, do not talk in terms of reducing the number of elections. Senator Jessop is seeking to canvass the whole subject matter of the Bill rather than the specific matter of the long title that is before us. I ask you to rule accordingly. Senator Walters —Could I speak to the point of order? The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Colston) —I will rule on the point of order. I was listening carefully to Senator Jessop's remarks and was about to suggest that we are looking at an amendment to the title. I would ask Senator Jessop to keep his remarks closely aligned to the words of the amendment. In that way I think we shall be able to resolve the matter. Senator JESSOP —I am disappointed that a similar ruling was not made by a previous occupant of the chair. I heard Senator Robert Ray and other senators range widely on this matter and thought that, with your indulgence, I could briefly make my point without delaying the Committee. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —I would remind Senator Jessop that I was not in the chair a short time ago. Senator JESSOP —The point is that I am put at a distinct disadvantage because of your astute chairmanship. I thought I would have been allowed the same latitude as Senator Robert Ray and others. I support the amendment moved by the Opposition which states: Leave out 'to ensure that Senate elections and House of Representatives elections are always held on the same day, and to adjust the terms of senators accordingly', insert 'to change the terms of senators so that they are no longer of fixed duration and to provide that Senate elections and House of Representatives elections are always held on the same day'. There is a reason why senators have fixed terms. It was designed and should be maintained to give the Senate independence over the House of Representatives because we are a States' House. The object is to prevent the Canberra government having absolute power. A proposal that would threaten that, in my view, would allow any Prime Minister to weaken the Senate by threatening early elections whenever he liked. Senator Robert Ray —Why did your Party support it in 1977? Senator JESSOP —I did not. Senator Robert Ray —You did not have the numbers in the Party. Senator JESSOP —That is fairly important, is it not? Nevertheless the attempt by the government of the day failed because the proponents of the No case were successful in the smaller States that are vitally concerned in this matter. I support the Opposition's amendment and hope the Committee will see fit to carry it. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Durack's amendment) be left out . The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 3 —— Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lajovic, M. E. Boswell, R. L. D. Lewis, A. W. R. Carrick, Sir John MacGibbon, D. J. Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J. Collard, S. J. Martin, K. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Mason, C. V. J. Durack, P. D. Messner, A. J. Evans, Jack Reid, M. E. (Teller)Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Scott, D. B. Haines, J. Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Bolkus, N. Hearn, J. M. Childs, B. K. Jones, G. N. Coates, J. McClelland, DouglasColeman, R. N. McIntosh, G. D. Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Primmer, C. G. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertElstob, R. C. Reynolds, M. Evans, Gareth Richardson, G. F. Foreman, D. J. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Georges, G. Ryan, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Grimes, D. J. Button, J. N. Rae, P. Walsh, P. A. Archer, B. R. Sibraa, K. W. Chaney, F. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment agreed to. Title, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.12) —It will be recalled that, contingent upon the report being adopted, I had a contingent notice of motion. However, before proceeding to put that, I seek leave to amend my contingent notice in relation to the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1984 by including in it the reference to the Constitution Alteration (Interchange of Powers) Bill 1984 as contained in the second contingent notice of motion standing in my name. I also seek leave to amend my contingent notice by altering the title of this Bill as that has now been agreed to. My reason for doing so is to enable the proposed call of the Senate, to which we are now about to immediately proceed, to apply to the third reading requirement, not only of this Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill or the Constitution Alteration (Terms of Senators) Bill but also so that this call need only take place once and that can also apply as the precondition to the third reading vote on the Constitution Alteration ( Interchange of Powers) Bill when we reach that shortly. Leave granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —Accordingly, pursuant to contingent notice of motion No. 15 so given and so amended I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent a call of the Senate being made forthwith in connection with the Third reading of the Constitution Alteration (Terms of Senators) Bill 1984, and the Constitution Alteration (Interchange of Powers) Bill 1984. I indicate to the Senate that in recent years the procedure for a call of the Senate has been a most unusual occurrence indeed. The call of the Senate is a procedure whereby, as Odgers puts it on page 572 of Australian Senate Practice: Upon an Order of the Day being read for a Call of the Senate, the President directs the Clerk to ring the bells for 3 minutes. At the conclusion of the ringing of the bells, the President informs Senators that their names will be called over alphabetically by the Clerk, and requests them to answer to their names. At the conclusion of the call-over, the President informs the Senate, either that all Senators have answered to their names, or that all Senators with the exception of Senators-have answered to their names. In the latter case, the President directs that the names of those who have not answered be again called. The procedure is a fairly elaborate roll-call simply in order to determine that all honourable senators are here and present to the extent that it is possible for them to be so when the crucial third reading of a Constitution alteration Bill is put. Of course, it is crucial because of the constitutional requirement that such a third reading be carried, not just by an ordinary majority, but by an absolute majority of the whole number of the senators. The call process was originally designed as a procedure with a notice element built into it to enable senators to be given notice of the impending occurrence of such an important proceeding and then to be the formal precondition to that account of the third reading taking place. There have been 17 occasions since Federation when calls of the Senate have occurred in relation to a Constitution alteration Bill or a group of Bills. The last such occasion in fact was in 1967. There have been no calls since even though there have been quite a number of occasions on which Constitution alteration Bills have been put forward. Since 1967 the practice has been to move a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders to dispense with the call and for the vote on the third reading to be taken in the ordinary way. There is only one instance, in 1936, when the full 21 days notice that is provided for in the Standing Orders in fact elapsed before the call took place. All the other calls occurred forthwith with appropriate suspensions of the relevant parts of the Standing Orders in question or with shorter periods of notice in fact being specified. Just for the record I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard two tables ; one laying out the occasions when calls of the Senate have occurred in all the years since Federation and the second table indicating those instances where Constitution alteration Bills have been passed in circumstances where the calls of the Senate have been suspended. I seek leave accordingly. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- CALLS OF SENATE SINCE 1901 1906 19 September 1906 Constitution Alteration (Senate Elections) Bill 1906 2 October 1906 Constitution Alteration (Special Duties) Bill 1906 Constitution Alteration (State Debts) Bill 1906 1909 1 December 1909 Constitution Alteration (Finance) Bill 1909 Constitution Alteration (State Debts) Bill 1909 1910 16 November 1910 Constitution Alteration (Legislative Powers) Bill 1910 Constitution Alteration (Monopolies) Bill 1910 1912 18 December 1912 Constitution Alteration (Trade and Commerce) Bill 1912 Constitution Alteration (Railway Disputes) Bill 1912 Constitution Alteration (Trusts) Bill 1912 Constitution Alteration (Corporations) Bill 1912 1913 9 December 1913 Constitution Alteration (Trade and Commerce) Bill 1913 Constitution Alteration (Corporations) Bill 1913 Constitution Alteration (Trusts) Bill 1913 Constitution Alteration (Industrial Matters) Bill 1913 Constitution Alteration (Railway Disputes) Bill 1913 Constitution Alteration (Nationalization of Monopolies) Bill 1913 1914 11 June 1914 Constitution Alteration (Trade and Commerce) Bill 1914 Constitution Alteration (Corporations) Bill 1914 Constitution Alteration (Trusts) Bill 1914 Constitution Alteration (Industrial Matters) Bill 1914 Constitution Alteration (Railway Disputes) Bill 1914 Constitution Alteration (Nationalization of Monopolies) Bill 1914 1915 14 July 1915 Constitution Alteration (Trade and Commerce) Bill 1915 Constitution Alteration (Corporations) Bill 1915 Constitution Alteration (Industrial Matters) Bill 1915 Constitution Alteration (Trusts) Bill 1915 Constitution Alteration (Railway Disputes) Bill 1915 Constitution Alteration (Nationalization of Monopolies) Bill 1915 2 September 1915 Constitution Alteration (Senator's Term of Service) Bill 1915 1926 25 June 1926 Constitution Alteration (Industry and Commerce) Bill 1926 Constitution Alteration (Essential Services) Bill 1926 1928 14 September 1928 Constitution Alteration (State Debts) Bill 1928 1936 2 December 1936 Constitution Alteration (Aviation) Bill 1936 Constitution Alteration (Marketing) Bill 1936* 1944 23 March 1944 Constitution Alteration (Post-war Reconstruction and Democratic Rights) Bill 1944 1946 18 June 1946 Constitution Alteration (Social Services) Bill 1946* Constitution Alteration (Organized Marketing of Primary Products) Bill 1946* Constitution Alteration (Industrial Employment) Bill 1946* 1947 4 December 1947 Constitution Alteration (Rents and Prices) Bill 1947* 1965 2 December 1975 Constitution Alteration (Repeal of Section 127) Bill 1965 Constitution Alteration (Parliament) Bill 1965 1967 8 March 1967 Constitution Alteration (Parliament) Bill 1967 Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) Bill 1967 * Call of Senate occurred after 21 days. * Call of Senate occurred after motion for Call moved by leave. All other Calls occurred after suspension of Standing Order 283 or equivalent. Table Office 23 August 1984 CONSTITUTION ALTERATION BILLS PASSED BY SENATE SINCE 1901 WHERE CALL OF SENATE SUSPENDED 1983 Constitution Alteration (Inter-change of Powers) Bill 1983 Constitution Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) Bill 1983 Constitution Alteration (Removal of Outmoded and Expended Provisions) Bill 1983 Notice of motion given for the suspension of S.O. 242 17 May 1983, amended and agreed to 18 May 1983. Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1983. Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill 1983. S.O. 242 suspended, by leave. 13 October 1983. 1982 Constitution Alteration (Fixed Term Parliaments) Bill 1981. (1) Contingent Notice of motion for suspension of Standing Order 242 concerning Call of the Senate, 19 May 1982. (2) Contingent Notice of motion for suspension of Standing Order 283, 10 November 1982. (3) Contingent Notice of Motion for call of the Senate, 10 November 1982. No. (1) moved and agreed to 17 November, Nos (2) and (3) withdrawn. 1977 Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1977. Constitution Alteration (Senate Casual Vacancies) Bill 1977. Constitution Alteration (Retirement of Judges) Bill 1977. Constitution Alteration (Referendums) Bill 1977. Contingent Notice of Motion for the suspension of Standing Order 242 given, 17 February 1977; moved and agreed to 22 February 1977. 1973 Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1973 [1974] Contingent Notice of motion for the suspension of S.O.242 given, 13 November 1973, moved 20 November 1973, amended 28 November 1973 and agreed to 4 December 1983. Constitution Alteration (Prices) Bill 1973 Contingent Notice of motion for suspension of Standing Orders to prevent a Call of the Senate given, 18 September 1973; moved 19 September 1973 and agreed to 26 September 1973. Constitution Alteration (Incomes) Bill 1973 Standing Order 242 suspended, 26 September 1973. Constitution Alteration (Mode of Altering the Constitution) Bill 1974 [1973] Standing Order 242 suspended, 4 December 1973. 1951 Constitution Alteration (Powers to deal with Communists and Communism) Bill 1951 Standing Order 242 suspended, 12 July 1951. 1950 Constitution Alteration (Prices) Bill 1950 Standing Order 242 suspended, 31 October 1950. 1919 Constitution Alteration (Legislative Powers) Bill 1919 Constitution Alteration (Nationalization of Monopolies) Bill 1919. Standing Orders suspended, 3 October 1919. Table Office 23 August 1984 Senator GARETH EVANS —The practice of having a call, but without notice of that having been given formally to honourable senators, has occurred on a small number of previous occasions. The point I particularly want to make is that for a call to occur at all is, in terms of recent practice in this place, a very unusual occurrence indeed. I would not think as a result there should be any difficulty about the Senate accepting on this occasion, albeit with the notice requirement removed in the way that is proposed by my contingent notice of motion. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.23) —I will clarify the situation. As I understand it, we are proceeding to debate the suspension of Standing Orders in order that a motion be moved for a call of the Senate in respect of the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill and the Constitution Alteration (Interchange of Powers) Bill. I do not think we have seen the actual motion for the call of the Senate. Is such a motion available? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.24) —Mr President, if I may just intervene; it is my understanding that the passage of the motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders will itself be the authority or constitute the resolution-if passed-which will enable a call to take place forthwith. The motion which I moved stated: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent a Call of the Senate being made forthwith in connection with the third readings of the Constitution Alteration (Terms of Senators) Bill 1984 and the Constitution Alteration (Interchange of Powers) Bill 1984. That is the advice I have had from the Clerk. It may be that in order to put the matter beyond doubt a further motion after the suspension of Standing Orders be moved stating 'That the Call of the Senate be held forthwith pursuant to the Standing Orders just suspended'. My advice is that this is not necessary and that the motion will itself be sufficient authority. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.25) —I say to the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans), with great deference to the advice that he has received, that I would have thought that Standing Orders must be suspended in order to move some motion that is not otherwise available. It is just a question as to whether the Senate may wish to move an amendment to enable the call of the Senate not in accordance with Standing Orders but to be postponed for a period of some time other than 21 days. Is this the appropriate vehicle in which to move an amendment to that effect, if any honourable senator so desires? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.26) —My understanding would be that the appropriate motion would be to delete the word 'forthwith' from the motion presently before the Senate and to substitute accordingly, for example, ' after a period of four days' or five days, 12 days or whatever it is that the honourable senator has in mind. Technically that is possible but I would hope that it is not a course that the Senate adopts because in this instance I think we have all had an amply sufficient notice of the impending passage of these Bills and that we ought to respond accordingly. Senator Harradine —Mr President, I raise a point of order. It is my point that we have two standing orders to consider. The first, standing order 242, deals with a requirement of the call of the Senate. It states: Before the Third Reading of any Bill by which an alteration of the Constitution is proposed there shall be a Call of the Senate. If the Third Reading of any such Bill shall not have been carried by an absolute majority of the Senate-- That standing order states that there shall be a call of the Senate. I think that Senator Evans on Tuesday attempted to move the suspension of Standing Orders to ensure that there would not be a call of the Senate. That motion having been defeated there must be a call of the Senate. What he is proposing now is to suspend standing order 283 which states: An Order for a call of the Senate shall be made for any day not earlier than twenty-one days from the day on which such an order shall have been made. What the Attorney here is saying is that that ought to be made forthwith. In my view that is a matter which needs to be defeated before any further motion and before a subsequent motion is made stipulating a date not earlier than 21 days. I believe that it cannot be done by way of amendment to this motion. This motion is seeking to suspend the standing orders which require that the Call of the Senate take place not earlier than 21 days. In my view it would be inappropriate to have this as the vehicle to be amended to make the positive determination as to when it takes place. Senator Walters —Mr President, I speak on the point of order. I think it would be far easier for us all if we had the separate motions Senator Evans should be putting before us. We have nothing in writing. That does make it difficult. I think it would be sensible if he-- Senator Gareth Evans —They are on the Notice Paper. Senator Walters —We normally have notice of motions put before us. It would make it a lot easier. The PRESIDENT —I rule that the motion moved by the Attorney-General is in order. If anyone wished to amend the proposal moved by the Attorney-General by suggesting some time other than 'forthwith', he or she could do it by nominating a period between 'forthwith' and 21 days, as stipulated in standing order 283. Therefore, I rule the motion in order. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.31) —Mr President, those of us who have concerns about suspending the Standing Orders and those of us who might be happy to suspend the Standing Orders for 21 days or some other period are placed in rather a difficult position. No particular urgency has been established in regard to the passage of these constitutional alteration Bills. The Government has been talking, since it was elected, about Bills to alter the Constitution and, as I pointed out when I spoke in the second reading debate on this Bill, the Government announced at the end of April 1983, in the very middle of the Constitutional Convention, its intention to hold in August 1983 referendums in relation to fixed term parliaments and the interchange of powers, amongst other things. Bills to that effect were introduced into the Senate in May 1983. Before they were disposed of, the referendums set down for 20 August were postponed during the winter recess last year. Subsequently the Government announced-I cannot remember exactly when it did so- that it was abandoning the fixed term parliaments proposal and substituting a package of proposals for the four-year term, simultaneous elections and other proposals introduced in May. That package of proposals was passed by the Senate and the Government announced that it would be holding a referendum on those matters in February of this year. Towards the end of last year or early this year the Government announced that it was abandoning those referendum proposals. From the date of that announcement until the middle of April this year we could not ascertain the Government's intentions on the subject of constitutional reform. We asked questions of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and could not get the answers from him. Then in the middle of April this year the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), when performing some social purpose, told us that there was going to be a proposal for a referendum on simultaneous elections-and nothing else. This created quite a flutter. I remember that it resulted in my being woken early the next morning by the Press wanting to know what we thought about it. At least I was grateful that the Prime Minister had answered a question on the subject on which we have been unable to get an answer from the Attorney-General, who was strangely silent . The only other subject on which he is strangely silent is the contents of the proposed Bill of Rights. The only two subjects he was ever silent on were the two centrepieces of his election policy-constitutional reform and the proposed Bill of Rights. Despite the Prime Minister's statement, he would not even tell the Press that day what the proposals were. We could not get any further information from him until towards the end of the autumn sittings when he introduced this Bill and the interchange of powers Bill. We have been debating those Bills and at this stage have voted only on the simultaneous elections proposal. Now we are told that the Standing Orders of the Senate which require a call of the Senate should not be proceeded with because of the urgency of these proposals. Mr President, I hope you will enlighten me but, as I understand your ruling, if the motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders is passed there will be an order for a call of the Senate forthwith so that no motion for an order for that call of the Senate will be moved. I do not quite follow how that happens, but at all events we are in your hands, Mr President, as to the procedures. If this motion to suspend Standing Orders is now passed, an immediate call of the Senate will be made without any further motion. I am debating on the basis that that is the case. The Opposition's view is that there is simply no justification whatever for suspending the standing orders requiring a call of the Senate. There are ample precedents for a call of the Senate. There are also admittedly precedents for a call of the Senate to be taken forthwith. Senator Gareth Evans —You moved them all yourself. Senator DURACK —We have also opposed them. I have been here a little longer than the Attorney-General and I can remember very clearly that we opposed the suspension of the standing orders for a call of the Senate in 1974. The Attorney -General is apparently suggesting that decisions of the Senate should always be made by blindly following what has been done on previous occasions. Senator Gareth Evans —In accordance with some principle; it helps. Senator DURACK —No judgment should be exercised by the Senate, according to the Attorney-General, in relation to why there should be a suspension of Standing Orders. All he says is: 'This has been done in the past. We will do it today'. Senator Gareth Evans —You did it when you were in government. Senator DURACK —Of course it has been done in the past, but there was good reason. We never did anything in government without good reason. The Attorney- General is proposing to suspend Standing Orders without good reason. He has not advanced any reasons, except that it has been done before. That is not a reason. It is a precedent and a justification perhaps for doing it, if there are good reasons to do it. But there are no good reasons. There are also precedents for a call of the Senate-as recently as 1974 and on many other occasions. As no reasons have been advanced by the Attorney-General why Standing Orders should be suspended-there obviously are no good reasons for them to be suspended-and as there is certainly no urgency about this matter judging from the pathetic history of constitutional change in one form or another that the Attorney- General has been floundering around with since the Government came to office, the Opposition will oppose this motion. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.40) — Mr President, I will be very brief. The matters we are discussing are very important matters indeed, particularly as they relate to the Constitution Alteration (Terms of Senators) Bill. It has been maintained that the proposed simultaneous elections referendum is designed to destabilise the Senate. It is fair for senators to take this opportunity to stand on their dig and to insist upon the observance of Standing Orders. The Standing Orders are very clear. As has been said, standing order 242 states clearly: Before the Third Reading of any Bill by which an alteration of the Constitution is proposed there shall be a Call of the Senate. Of course, the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) attempted to have that standing order suspended on Tuesday. The Senate stood firmly against that and defeated that attempt. He is now attempting to overcome standing order 283, which requires: An Order for a Call of the Senate shall be made for any day not earlier than twenty-one days from the day on which such Order shall have been made. That means that an order must be made for a call of the Senate. I am in a situation now of having to vote against this motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. Of course, this motion is in order, but I believe it is not a motion which is capable of being amended by anyone who wants to see the Standing Orders observed. It is capable of amendment by any other senator who does not want to see the Standing Orders observed-in other words, who wants to pick unilaterally a day between now and 21 days hence-but I do not think any senator is in that situation. Senators fall into two categories: Those who want to see the Standing Orders observed and those who want to see the Standing Orders suspended. Those in the first category, including those who on Tuesday stood against the Standing Orders being suspended in relation to the call of the Senate, are quite clear about the situation. We are dealing with a matter of great importance to the Senate. We will do everything possible to ensure that the Senate Standing Orders are not suspended and we will not allow anyone to ride roughshod over our rights. The call of the Senate is a very important matter. Senator Gareth Evans —It seems able to be dispensed with on most occasions. Senator HARRADINE —In my view it is a very important matter. We find in Odgers's Australian Senate Practice that the provision for a call was inserted to: (i) prevent the rapid passage of a Bill to amend the Constitution and, by the provision that the Call shall not be earlier than twenty-one days from the day on which the Order is made, afford time for reflection and deliberation; (ii) ensure that all Senators would, through notice of the Call, be advised of the proposed third reading of a Bill to alter the Constitution; and (iii) afford all Senators, by reason of the duration of notice of the Call, sufficient notice to enable them to be present to cast a vote on the third reading of a Bill, for which an absolute majority of affirmative votes is required. Those are very important issues. I will deal with them in order. As far as time for reflection and deliberation is concerned, a number of matters were raised in the debate yesterday and today which were not raised in the debate about this matter last year. Some honourable senators who were present during the debate last year are not present now. Is it fair to those honourable senators, in a matter which is of such importance to them and their fixed terms, not to allow them the chance of exercising their rights, as protected by Standing Orders? We are dealing with the fixed terms of senators. The second matter, of course, is to ensure that all honourable senators are advised of the proposed third reading. I know of one honourable senator, who happens to be in New Zealand, who would certainly desire to have the opportunity to vote in this matter. If Standing Orders are observed that honourable senator will have the opportunity of so rearranging his program as to ensure that he is here for the call of the Senate. That is his right. Otherwise, he will be denied his right to involve himself in the preparation of the No case, and that is another aspect that I think is being overlooked. Under the provisions of the referendum legislation those senators who cast their vote for or against the third reading and those members of the House of Representatives who do the same, are the senators and members who have the right to present to the Australian Electoral Office the official Yes and No cases. By adopting the suspension of Standing Orders procedure this Government is preventing the senator I have in mind from exercising that right and participating in that submission. I come to the final point, that the provision for a call was inserted to: . . . afford all senators, by reason of the duration of notice of the Call, sufficient notice to enable them to be present to cast a vote . . . There may be other honourable senators who are not necessarily in that situation but, because of commitments arising from their portfolios or shadow portfolios are somewhere else. I believe that those senators ought to be given consideration. Naturally, the Standing Orders are there for that purpose. Honourable senators on the other side of the chamber do not want to have the Standing Orders observed; they want them suspended. One must ask why they want them suspended. The reason for that is clear. Senator Evans has done his maths and so have I. If the Standing Orders of the Senate are observed the referendum cannot be placed before the people this year. The Attorney-General knows that as well as I do. The Government has the choice of going to the people this year in an election without a referendum or going next year with a referendum. The Attorney-General knows that. That is what this suspension of Standing Orders is about. Senator Gareth Evans —That is not even true. Senator HARRADINE —It is true. Senator Gareth Evans —We could go in late December. Senator HARRADINE —Eleven weeks and four days? Senator Gareth Evans —I have done my arithmetic. Senator HARRADINE —The Attorney-General has done his arithmetic and so have I. It will be tremendously awkward for the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to have-- Senator Gareth Evans —We could have it in December. Senator HARRADINE —Oh yes, we could have it on 22 December. That is a great date for an election. Senator Durack —I don't think he really wants it anyway, Senator. It doesn't matter about the referendum. Senator HARRADINE —It does not matter about the referendum. The Government might jettison the referendum yet; one never knows. The last point I want to make is that to have a call of the Senate without 21 days notice is a farce. Of course it is a farce. Senator Gareth Evans —It is a farce that has been repeated on every occasion but one. Senator HARRADINE —That is the point. Standing order 242, which deals with the call, has been suspended. As I understand it, it has rarely been the case that the 21 days has been interfered with. Senator Macklin —Has it ever been the case? Senator HARRADINE —I think it has, but rarely. Most of the suspensions have been in respect of standing order 242. That was attempted on Tuesday and was defeated . It is a farce to have a call of the Senate forthwith. It defeats the whole purpose of the Standing Orders and that is the reason why the Government has moved this motion. I believe that honourable senators ought to stand firm on this matter of upholding the Standing Orders, particularly as it relates to a referendum Bill which affects the stability and independence of the Senate. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.52) — The Standing Orders are a guideline as to how the Senate works. I believe that there must be a certain degree of urgency and justification to suspend the Standing Orders. Before Senator Harradine spoke , the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) was going to tell us what the great urgency was regarding the need to suspend Standing Orders. I bet he was not going to say 'If we don't suspend Standing Orders, we can't take the referendum to the people this year', because that might interfere with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) having a very early election, just 18 months after the previous election. I am intrigued to know-I guess I never will-what the Attorney was going to say before Senator Harradine pointed out that not only had the Attorney done his maths but also he, too, had done his maths, as we have done our maths. I bet he has changed his tune considerably. Senator Gareth Evans —No, same line. Senator WALTERS —It may well be the same old line. There has to be justification for the suspension of Standing Orders and this should be done only when there is a very pressing need. There is no pressing need. According to the Standing Orders and the Constitution, the Prime Minister can indeed hold a referendum when he so desires. There was a considerable degree of mirth from Senator Evans when Senator Harradine said that the reason for the call of the Senate was that it would give honourable senators time to reflect on the matter. It would also give those honourable senators who are overseas on parliamentary business time to return and vote. There was a degree of amusement from Senator Evans. I can understand this attitude from the Attorney-General of the Australian Labor Party. That indicates how Government members think. There is no need for any back bencher to give it any thought at all. Senator Evans and the Executive have given it thought but the back benchers have not got a thing, they are caucused. They vote the way they are told. There is no need to give them 21 days for reflection. Indeed, it is highly amusing to the Labour Party altogether when it is suggested that back benchers do a little bit of thinking. The back benchers do not need a day, let alone 21 days, and they are not given it, they are caucused. But it is important to honourable senators on this side of the chamber to give constitutional alterations a considerable degree of thought and, indeed, we do. We need the time because we need to carry out our responsibilities to our constituents. Senator Harradine has mentioned that some honourable senators are overseas at the moment. I would like to speak on one honourable senator's behalf. This senator is very concerned about this referendum. Since he became a senator he has consistently voted against simultaneous elections and he will be very upset if he is not given the opportunity of taking part. On every occasion since he has been a member of this Senate he has taken a very active part in working out the No case that should be put to the people of Australia. He will be very upset if he is unable to do that. Senator Evans feels the Prime Minister ought to be able to go to an election this year with the referendum, so he wants the Senate' s Standing Orders suspended to allow the Prime Minister to have control over the Senate and not give honourable senators in this place a say as to what occurs. I believe that, if nothing else, would justify the opposition to the suspension of Standing Orders. There is not enough urgency to suspend the Standing Orders. I hope the Democrats will allow our senators to return from overseas in order to give them the opportunity of voting and taking a part in putting together the No case to go to the people. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.57) — The motion to suspend the Standing Orders deals with only one item; that is, the length of time that will be given for the call of the Senate. The Senate has already decided to have a call and, hence, we are discussing the time availability. The reasons given for the length of time seem to vary, but there seems to be some agreement that it may boil down to two matters. Firstly, the ability of honourable senators to consider the matter at length and, secondly, the ability of honourable senators to actually be here for the vote. I will deal with the first point, that is, the consideration of the matter. Consideration and discussions that we have had so far have dealt with the second reading of the Bill. Senator Harradine stated that certain arguments have been raised in the debate-and they certainly have-that have not been raised before. I think he was correct on that point. However, to take it on from there, that point is not correct since the only consideration left is whether or not a person will vote for or against the third reading. There is no time left to consider items or amendments to the Bill, only whether we will vote for or against the third reading. That being the case, I will move on to Senator Walters's proposition: Who is going to be allowed to do what? Members of the Australian Labor Party, undoubtedly, will be voting the way that they have indicated. Senator Walters has suggested that they have been caucused on the issue. However, I am not at all sure that the black is all on one side. I will be very interested when the third reading vote is taken to see how many Liberal members who voted on this matter the last time will now be voting for it again. My prediction is that only one person will in fact retain his own independent stance on this Bill. I am not quite sure, when we talk about Caucus or party meetings, whether pressure has been brought to bear around the place. Whether it comes from a Caucus or a party meeting, I do not think the terminology really makes that much difference. I do not really believe that in the real world, in the world of this chamber, people' s votes will be moved around in the next 21 days. We can then look at the amount of time a person has had to consider this issue. Senator Gareth Evans —Since 1974. Senator MACKLIN —I am talking about this particular Bill and the fact that the vote on this Bill was to be on this week. I knew that the vote would be on this week at least two weeks ago. I am not sure whether that information was available to other senators but it certainly would have been available to them through their Whips. Senator Gareth Evans —It certainly would have been available for those who had done their arithmetic. Senator MACKLIN —If the Whips have provided that information individual back bench senators would have it available to them. Let us then move out of the unreal world and into the real world and to the point to which the Attorney- General referred by interjection and to which Senator Harradine alluded and that is the fact that those people who become politicians are generally pretty good at counting. Senator Colston —If they can't they won't last long. Senator MACKLIN —If they cannot do their counting they will not last long. Obviously, the counting has been done in relation to December. That is the real world that we are talking about in relation to whether or not this call can go on. I think honourable senators, in allowing a call of the Senate to take place, really ought not unduly trespass and reorganise the whole matter. I am particularly mindful of the fact that the Government says that it will have this referendum campaign. The Australian Democrats will not be a party to causing the community an additional cost of $17m in having a referendum campaign separate from the election campaign. I believe that that $17m can be better spent elsewhere, particularly in terms of education and health. Senator Harradine —He could have his election next year. Senator MACKLIN —The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) can have his election when the election is held because the constitutional power now lies totally within his hands. I am not willing to risk the expenditure of that extra amount of money to have the additional senators brought back here to do what Senator Walters just suggested. I accept that it would be nice to have them here. I am not sure who will not be here when the call is taken. One of the interesting things about having a call is that we actually find who is in the place and who is not in the place, and for what reason. Perhaps we should have those more often to find who is in this place. Since the Australian Democrats have to be here we would not mind other people having to be here or having to put up good reasons as to why they are not here. We do not mind having a call. The Senate will find the five Australian Democrat senators present when the call comes. Let us see how many senators from the other parties are present. There will even be one representative from the Senator Brian Harradine Group, which I think is a full complement as well. So I am not worried on that basis. I must say in the final consideration of the amount of time required that there have been some changes since 1901. I think somebody invented the aeroplane since that time and somebody else actually got the telephones operating. They are two pretty important considerations when it comes to communications. That was part of the reason given in 1901. I think it was a very important one. On these matters of importance it was very important to have all senators here to be able to provide for that absolute majority and to enable all honourable senators to have the opportunity of voting for or against changes to the Constitution. Honourable senators have been given that opportunity on this occasion. They knew that this vote would be on 14 days ago. Indeed, they knew that this vote would be on wherever they were in the world yesterday. Wherever they were in the world yesterday because of aeroplanes they could be here today. That is what I am saying has changed since 1901-the aeroplane. Everybody has had the opportunity to be here. Those who are not here for the vote have chosen not to be here for whatever reason, and we will find that out when the call is taken. Senator Walters —Mr President, very briefly-- Senator Gareth Evans —This is not a Committee stage. Senator Walters is not entitled to speak again. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is entitled to rise on a point of order or something. Senator Walters —Thank you, Mr President. I do not have a point of order. I would like to ask Senator Macklin a question. I was wondering if you could give me that opportunity. The PRESIDENT —No, the honourable senator is out of order. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.05) —I will be as brief as I can. It may or may not be the case that reasons of urgency underlie the requirement that is being advanced by the Government to have a call of the Senate forthwith. Whether or not we regard the situation as being one of urgency , depends, very much, I suppose, on our political perspectives and the kinds of considerations that have been put into the debate by Senator Harradine. It is clear, however, that there is no reason for delay of the matter. That is a separate consideration. We must consider in the first place whether there is urgency-there may or may not be-and secondly whether there is a reason for delay . There simply is no reason for further delaying the consideration and determination of this matter. The standing order, with its 21-day provision, has been far more often honoured in the breach than in the observance since Federation. On a quick count from the tabular material I had incorporated in Hansard earlier, 77 constitutional Bills have been passed by this chamber since Federation. In the case of 23 of those Bills-in fact, the last 23 considered by this Parliament on every occasion since 1967-the call provision has been dispensed with entirely and there has been no provision at all for 21 days or otherwise. In the earlier period 44 Bills were subject to a call of one kind or another in respect of which the requirement was not suspended. On only one of those occasions was the full 21 days in accordance with the standing order actually observed. On every other occasion-43 out of the 44-a call came on after some lesser period than the full 21 days. So Senator Harradine's suggestion that there is some sort of cavalier attempt to dispense with a time honoured standing order, albeit that his tongue was boring its way through his cheek at the time he was uttering this, simply cannot be sustained. Let the last word be Senator Durack's on 22 February 1977 when he was moving a motion for the entire suspension of the call provision. In reply to a debate, the participants in which were very largely those to whom we have been enjoying listening again here today, Senator Durack, as recorded on page 252 of the Senate Hansard for that date, said: I emphasise the fact that the call of the Senate as provided for in standing order 242 has nothing to do with moving or discussing amendments and provides no opportunity for honourable senators to move or discuss amendments. All of that has to be done during the second reading stage and the Committee stage. So there is no value whatever as far as the further consideration of these Bills is concerned in having a 21-day delay after that for the third reading. As I said in my opening speech on this motion and as has been said by other honourable senators, the necessity for having standing order 242 obviously belongs to a day and age when communications were poor and it was thought necessary to give those honourable senators who were not present when a proposal was originally discussed the opportunity of getting here so that they could have the opportunity at the last stage of the passage of such a Bill of voting or speaking against it. Senator Macklin —Did he say that? When was that? Senator GARETH EVANS —It was Senator Durack in 1977. He continued: Mr Odgers said of this standing order in his book . . . that the records of the Parliament give no definite explanation as to the reasons which actuated the early Senate in adopting the rule that there should be a call of the Senate before the third reading of such a Bill. It is so obscure that Mr Odgers has not been able to formulate or discover any real reasons for having the standing order. So Senator Durack went on comprehensively and very effectively to demolish the arguments put then as indeed they have been put now by Senator Walters and all the rest. The truth of the matter is that every honourable senator is here and able to participate in the call, with the exception of Senator Archer who is overseas, and, I believe, Senator Chaney and possibly Senator Peter Rae, who, I understand, have good reasons for their absence within the meaning of the standing order. It is also the case, as has been very well put by Senator Macklin, that the impending debate and vote on this matter can hardly be coming as a surprise to anybody in this chamber, not least because the matter has been on the Notice Paper for a long time and, in particular, the motion to have the call forthwith has certainly been on the Notice Paper for the last couple of days. So everyone is aware of what it is about. I suggest that we proceed accordingly to put the motion and have our call, I think for the first time in history in these circumstances. Question put: That the motion (Senator Gareth Evans's) be agreed to: The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Bolkus, N. Hearn, J. M. Childs, B. K. Jones, G. N. Chipp, D. L. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. Macklin, M. J. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J. Cook, P. F. S. Primmer, C. G. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertElstob, R. C. Reynolds, M. Evans, Gareth Richardson, G. F. Evans, Jack Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O. Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Carrick, Sir John Martin, K. J. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Messner, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Kilgariff, B. F. Button, J. N. Rae, PeterMcIntosh, G. D. Chaney, F. M. Georges, G. Archer, B. R. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Call of the Senate The PRESIDENT —Order! A call of the Senate will now be made with respect to the third reading of the two Constitution alteration Bills that are before the Senate. Ring the bells for three minutes. The bells having been rung- The PRESIDENT —Order! I inform honourable senators that their names will be called alphabetically by the Clerk. I request that they answer to their names. The Senate having been called by the Clerk- The PRESIDENT —Order! I have to inform the Senate that all senators with the exception of Senators Archer, Chaney and Peter Rae have answered their names. I direct that the names of Senators Archer, Chaney and Peter Rae who have not answered be called again. The Clerk called the names of those senators not answering to their names. Senator DURACK(Western Australia) —I inform the Senate that Senator Archer is absent overseas attending a conference in New Zealand and unfortunately Senators Chaney and Peter Rae are absent due to illness. Motion (by Senator Button) proposed: That in view of the fact that Senator Archer is presently overseas and that Senators Chaney and Peter Rae are absent through ill health the said senators be excused from failure to answer the Call of the Senate. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.23) — I remind the Senate of what is stated in Australian Senate Practice: The question arises as to what punishment the Senate may impose upon a Senator who does not attend after receiving due notice of the Call. In the first place, he may be ordered to attend on a future day to answer for his conduct, and disobedience to such an order would constitute a breach of privilege and would be punishable as such. Unless the Senator's explanation for not attending in answer to the Call of the Senate be deemed satisfactory, the Senate may deal further with the matter, by motion. The offending Senator could be admonished, reprimanded, committed to gaol, or expelled, as the Senate saw fit. A term of imprisonment would be during the pleasure of the Senate, but imprisonment could not extend beyond the session. Mr President, I am happy, under those circumstances, to support the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Third Reading Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) put: That the Bill be now read a third time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 10 —— Bolkus, N. Hearn, J. M. Button, J. N. Jones, G. NChilds, B. K. McClelland, DouglasChipp, D. L. McIntosh, G. D. Coates, J. Macklin, M. J. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J. Cook, P. F. S. Primmer, C. G. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertElstob, R. C. Reynolds, M. Evans, Gareth Richardson, G. F. Evans, Jack Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Haines, J. Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Carrick, Sir John Martin, K. J. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Messner, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Kilgariff, B. F. The PRESIDENT-There being 35 ayes and 25 noes, I declare that the motion for the third reading of the Bill has been carried by an absolute majority of the Senate. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 13 June, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question put. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Bolkus, N. Hearn, J. M.Childs, B. K. Jones, G. N.Chipp, D. L. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. McIntosh, G. D.Colston, M. A. Macklin, M. J.Cook, P. F. S. Maguire, G. R.Crowley, R. A. Mason, C. V. J.Elstob, R. C. Primmer, C. G.Evans, Gareth Ray, RobertEvans, Jack Reynolds, M.Foreman, D. J. Richardson, G. F.Georges, G. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Gietzelt, A. T. Ryan, S. M.Giles, P. J. Sibraa, K. W.Grimes, D. J. Tate, M. C.Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O. Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. MacGibbon, D. J.Carrick, Sir John Martin, K. J.Collard, S. J. (Teller) Messner, A. J.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E.Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C.Harradine, B. Townley, M.Hill, R. Walters, M. S.Jessop, D. S. Watson, J.O.W.Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Coleman, R. N. Archer, B. R.Button, J. N. Chaney, F. M.Walsh, P. A. Rae, Peter Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) put: That the Bill be now read a third time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 10 —— Bolkus, N. Hearn, J. M.Button, J. N. Jones, G. NChilds, B. K. McClelland, DouglasChipp, D. L. McIntosh, G. D.Coates, J. Macklin, M. J.Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R.Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J.Cook, P. F. S. Primmer, C. G.Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertElstob, R. C. Reynolds, M.Evans, Gareth Richardson, G. F.Evans, Jack Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M.Georges, G Sibraa, K. W.Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C.Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A.Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O.Haines, J. Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. MacGibbon, D. J.Carrick, Sir John Martin, K. J.Collard, S. J. (Teller) Messner, A. J.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E.Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C.Hamer, D. J. Townley, M.Harradine, B. Walters, M. S.Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W.Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G.Kilgariff, B. F. The PRESIDENT-There being 35 ayes and 25 noes, I declare that the motion for the third reading of the Bill has been carried by an absolute majority of the Senate. Bill read a third time. Sitting suspended from 12.42 to 2 p.m. Senator REID —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Territories and Local Government. I refer to the aspect of the Budget which provides for the servicing of 3,000 additional blocks of land in the area of Tuggeranong bringing to a total of about 5,000 blocks in two years an additional population of approximately 20,000 people. I note that the Budget makes virtually no provision for community services or shops for the Tuggeranong area. As the sale of this serviced land will return much more to the Government than the actual outlay, will the Minister guarantee that the proceeds from the sale of the 5,000 blocks of land in Tuggeranong will be used first to provide community facilities? Will the Minister call for tenders forthwith from the private sector for servicing the area of the Chisholm shopping centre and allow private sector development of that centre to proceed? Senator GIETZELT —Those matters clearly fall within the jurisdiction of the Minister for Territories and Local Government, Mr Uren, whom I represent in this place, as they are matters that involve policy decisions by him. I will undertake to refer those matters to the Minister today for his early consideration. Senator ROBERT RAY —Would the Minister representing the Treasurer, if the Opposition requested it, allow the Treasury to cost Mr Peacock's alternative Budget? How long would it take to estimate the increased expenditure advocated by the Leader of the Opposition, noting that he also wishes to double the amount of tax cuts? Senator WALSH —I am not sure that the assumption made in the last part of Senator Ray's question was correct, when he said that Mr Peacock has said that the tax cuts should be doubled. In fact, I believe that what Mr Peacock has said is that the tax cuts should be trebled. Mr Peacock is saying that, instead of a tax cut for the great majority of Australian workers of $7.60 a week, there should be a tax cut of $22 a week. The additional cost of that would be about $4 billion. So far as Mr Peacock can be identified as saying anything meaningful at all, he seems to be saying that revenue this year should be reduced by a further $4 billion by way of greater tax cuts. In regard to the earlier part of the question, I am not sure how long such an estimate would take to get, but I will certainly refer to the Treasurer the request for a precise costing of the various promises which Mr Peacock has made. I have an approximate costing for a not exhaustive list of Mr Peacock's promises which adds up to $2 1/2 billion. That list includes a promise to scrap the superannuation tax arrangements, which would cost $300m. An annual cost of that magnitude would be a few years down the track but it would cost about $100m in the short term. The repeal of the reintroduction of the assets test for pensioners over 70 years of age would result in increased expenditure to the value of $230m. Opposing the assets test would involve additional expenditure of $100m. The Leader of the Opposition attacked the Government for removing the across the board interest rate subsidy for housing. To restore it would cost $300m. He promised to increase the investment allowance to 20 per cent, which would cost another $55m in forgone revenue, and to introduce a tax rebate for dividends as was done during the last year of the Fraser Government. That measure would represent a cost to revenue of another $100m. He promised to abolish the wine tax, which would cost revenue $62m. The list contains a few other items which I shall not bother to read out. The total cost, however, in either revenue forgone or increased expenditure involving the list of promises that I have, would cost just over $2.5 billion. When one adds to that the $4 billion additional tax cuts which the Leader of the Opposition appears to be promising, it can be seen that the deficit would be increased by an amount of the order of $6.5 billion, or possibly a good deal more. Senator Button —A very conservative estimate. Senator WALSH —Yes, estimates as high as an additional cost of $8 billion for Mr Peacock's shopping list of irresponsible promises and undertakings that have been made. However, I will try to get a more precise costing of them from the Treasurer. Essentially, what the Leader of the Opposition, in his typically irresponsible and desperate style-if I may say so, even more desperate after yesterday's performance in the House of Representatives by his Deputy, I understand-and the Opposition in total are promising is to reduce government revenue in various ways and to increase government expenditure in various other ways while simultaneously reducing the deficit substantially. Of course, those simultaneous undertakings are mutually exclusive and are a good indication of the depths of the desperation of the present Leader of the Opposition and of the Opposition as a whole. Senator BOSWELL —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. In view of the fact that the Government has rejected a $550m emergency fund request for the depressed engineering sector made by the Machinery and Metal Engineering Council, will the Minister give favourable consideration to an election promise made by his Prime Minister and Treasurer that an order for five additional patrol boats would be given to North Queensland Engineers and Agents Shipyards Pty Ltd based in Cairns? Is the Minister aware that 700 people are employed by North Queensland Engineers and that their jobs are in danger if the Prime Minister does not honour his election commitment by October this year? Will the Minister urgently take up the matter with his Leader and Treasurer at the earliest opportunity and seek an assurance that his Leader's election promise will be honoured and the jobs of 700 people in North Queensland preserved? Senator BUTTON —I am not quite sure what the first part of Senator Boswell's question had to do with the second part but I will answer the second part and we will see how we get on. I do not need to consult with the Leader of the Australian Labor Party or with the Treasurer about the matters which Senator Boswell has raised. He suggested that I do that. There have been a number of discussions regarding this matter. A decision will be announced at the appropriate time. I do not propose to take the matter any further than that because it is not a matter about which any honourable senator can come in here and steamroll a government in order to assist a particular company. The matter is fully within the current attention of the Government and a decision will be provided at the appropriate time. Senator GILES —Can the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs advise whether the interdepartmental committee on nurse education has reported to the Government and whether any decision has been taken about the possible transfer of nurse training from hospital-based courses to courses at colleges of advanced education? Senator RYAN —It is the case that the IDC on nurse education has reported to the Government and that the Government has made a decision. It was my great pleasure to announce, just an hour or so ago with my colleague the Minister for Health, Dr Neal Blewett, the contents of that decision, which are these: The Commonwealth will support the full transfer of nurse training to CAEs. That is an historic decision and has been welcomed as such by the Royal Australian Nursing Federation, the largest organisation representing nurses throughout Australia. The timetable, which is a matter of great interest to those who are genuinely interested in upgrading the training of nurses in our country, will be that by 1990 the last intake of nurses into the old system of training-the hospital-based system of training-will be achieved. So the full transfer will be achieved ultimately in 1993. The reason for the Government's having arrived at this decision is that we are very concerned to see an upgrading of the training of nurses in this country. We believe that the Australian community has been very well served by the nursing profession and that the nursing profession has one of the highest professional standards in the world. Nonetheless, we have been persuaded very much by the view put to us by the nursing organisations that, given the greatly increased sophistication of hospital technologies, procedures and so forth, it is time to upgrade the manner in which nurses are trained to work in our hospitals. We will do this by putting nurse education on the same footing, in terms of tertiary education, as any other of the health professional areas. The costs for the transfer will be shared between the Commonwealth and the States and negotiations about the form the cost-sharing will take will be beginning forthwith. Senator DURACK —I refer the Attorney-General to the answers he gave yesterday concerning the handover from the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union to the National Crime Authority and the range of Mr Justice Stewart's current responsibilities. I draw his attention to his answer yesterday to the effect that a team of lawyers headed by Mr Phillip Cummins, QC, is presently sifting through suggested references from the Costigan Commission to the National Crime Authority and his comment that this is a long and complicated process. Can the Attorney say how much time Mr Cummins has been able to put into this task? How many other lawyers are engaged? Are they working on a full time or part time basis? Is it a fact that Mr Cummins has been heavily engaged in court work and is likely to take on new commitments in the near future and will obviously not be able to devote all his time to this aspect? Does the Attorney consider it possible for Mr Justice Stewart to discharge his responsibilities with a proper sense of urgency given his heavy workload as head of both the National Crime Authority and as the Royal Commissioner inquiring into both the Mr Asia affair and the Nugan Hand Bank, investigations which, from the Attorney's answer yesterday, are likely to be delayed to some extent? Will the Government take action to ensure that the sifting process is speeded up and that Mr Justice Stewart is given a more realistic program so that a proper and determined attack on the menace of organised crime can be mounted as Parliament intended when it passed the National Crime Authority Act? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will seek a detailed response from the Special Minister of State on the personnel arrangements presently in place for the processing of the material in question. To my knowledge it was the case that Mr Cummins had certain other court commitments in the first period of his engagement that were to occupy some of his time. It was also my understanding that he would be working full time for the last three months of the year. If there has been any change to that arrangement I will let the honourable senator know accordingly. It is also the case, as I said yesterday, that we have two very highly experienced and very competent commissioners, apart from Mr Justice Stewart, engaged full time in the business of the Commission at the moment, plus a number of other lawyers, and other staff. I am quite sure that nobody is concerned to delay the proper shaping up of references and other investigations more than can possibly be helped, and consistent with the enterprise and the objective which we all share of continuing effectively the attack on organised crime in this country that work will proceed with the greatest expedition possible. Senator McINTOSH —Has the Attorney-General's attention been drawn to the article in today's Age, which asserts that the Federal Police in Western Australia have protested about Mr Ian Temby, QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions, being briefed on Perth police investigations involving some clients of a legal firm in which he was once a senior partner? I would like to know whether there is any truth in these allegations. Senator GARETH EVANS —The front page story in today's Age headed 'Police protest about Temby' with the sub-heading 'He is being briefed on a probe into clients of his old law firm' is another highly regrettable piece of journalism from a newspaper which is apparently increasingly determined to publish articles of this type-short on fact but very long on sensationalism and defamatory innuendo. As I understand it, the situation is this: The allegation that the Australian Federal Police in Western Australia has protested, as has been suggested, is quite incorrect. The AFP both at headquarters and in Perth has today in response to follow-up inquiries I have made through the Department of the Special Minister of State made it clear that it has expressed no dissatisfaction at all with Mr Temby's conduct of this matter. What happened was that Federal police in Western Australia some weeks ago drew to the attention of their central office the very peripheral and indirect connection between Mr Temby and the man that the Federal police were investigating. This connection was, first, that a legal firm, in which Mr Temby was a partner until 1978, at one time acted for this person. Secondly, a trustee company established by that legal firm, Northmore Nominees Pty Ltd, in which Mr Temby and, for that matter, also Senator Chaney, have been directors, lent moneys to the man under investigation. When the matter arose in this way Mr Temby briefed me fully about it some weeks ago, as did the Special Minister of State with briefing material from the Australian Federal Police. Mr Temby has informed me that while his previous firm did some legal work for the person he, Mr Temby, had not, to the best of his recollection, done any professional work for the person, or those associated with him, directly or indirectly. I note that this is accepted by the Age, which does, however, assert that Mr Temby witnessed some documents recovered by the police. Mr Temby has further informed me that he made the AFP aware of the relevant facts at an early stage and has been very careful to disclose these matters at all conferences with the AFP concerning the person. I repeat that there is no substance whatsoever to the highly scurrilous innuendo that permeates this newspaper article. I think yet again the Age newspaper ought to be quite ashamed of itself for running a story in those terms. Senator CHIPP —My question to the Minister for Social Security concerns the Prime Minister's statements on the Schildberger program yesterday in which he attacked the Australian Council of Social Service and wrongly stated that the Executive Director of that organisation was asking for a salary of $45,600. As the Minister would know, this figure is incorrect. The actual amount submitted by the ACOSS Executive Director was in fact $32,600. Has the Prime Minister retracted his false claim and will he apologise to this highly respected organisation fighting for the poor families of Australia? Senator GRIMES —I have not seen the direct report of the broadcast referred to by Senator Chipp. I am afraid that if it is as Senator Chipp said then both Senator Chipp and Mr Hawke were wrong. The original claim for an increase in salary for the Executive Director of the Australian Council of Social Service was not $45, 300 but $42,200, an increase of 31.9 per cent on his previous salary. When I pointed out to a senior member of the Australian Council of Social Service that that was a bit rich coming from an organisation which had just asked the taxpayers and the wage earners of Australia to demonstrate restraint by not receiving a tax cut and to maintain their wages within the wages accord so that money could be redistributed to the poor people in the community, that wage claim in fact was reduced, as Senator Chipp said, to $32,600. In fact, Mr Hawke made a mistake if he said $45,000-the figure in fact was $42,000. Senator Chipp made a mistake if the says that the claim originally was $32,000-it was in fact, $42,000. Senator CHIPP —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Did the Minister personally brief Mr Hawke on these matters before he appeared on the radio program? If not, how did Mr Hawke know about it? Senator GRIMES —I think this matter came up some time ago in considering the request for a grant-in-aid from the Australian Council of Social Service. If Mr Hawke made a mistake in saying $45,000 instead of $42,000 I am sure he will acknowledge that mistake. Certainly it was a matter for discussion at the time because of the incongruity of the statements from the Australian Council of Social Service on the one hand and their claims on the other. Senator ZAKHAROV —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Transport been drawn to the report of the National Association of Australian State Road Authorities, which purports to identify the specific areas where future roads investment should be directed? Can he say how far the Government's Budget commitment on roads goes to meeting these demands? Senator GIETZELT —The Minister for Transport and I are aware of the report compiled by an organisation known as the National Association of Australian State Road Authorities which, it would have to be acknowledged, has a vested interest in meeting the obligations of its members, the State road authorities, of providing an effective road system in Australia. As a result of its consideration of road transport in Australia, it has concluded that road investment needs to be increased by 25 per cent. I do not think anybody in this Parliament would disagree with this assumption, but I think it has to be said that that would represent an engineer's wish list or even a pipe dream because, if that sort of money were available, we would be looking at a deficit running into many more noughts than the current deficit that this Government has to deal with. The report does not take into account the economic, social and financial considerations of government. It just puts into print what it believes to be the ultimate in Australia's road funding needs. Of course, governments have to be a little more realistic about these matters, having to deal with Budgets and the capacity of the economy and the community to meet those needs. I remind Senator Zakharov that this Government, since it came to office, has increased road funding by some 46 per cent in its first Budget and that an additional $50m is provided in the 1984-85 Budget. I think this is some evidence of our commitment. The reason we have spent such large sums of money in the 18 months we have been in office is that we recognise the vital function of a better road transport system. Not only does it reduce transport costs; it also has an impact on both industry and the public generally, and of course it makes a contribution to the depressed construction sector of our economy. When we add all this to the need for a better road strategy in Australia to improve safety, it can be seen that the Government is doing all that is humanly possible to meet the needs, even though they may not be understood by those who have authority at the State level . Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a question asked, I suspect two days ago, by Senator Maguire in respect of whether or not the Australian Government had been invited to visit Nicaragua to observe the elections that are to take place there in November of this year, a question which is all the more relevant since in the last 24 hours all the Opposition coalition parties have been outlawed, which of course means that they are denied access to the media. Senator Cook —Is this a question or a speech? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —If you will let me finish-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the honourable senator ask his question? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I am seeking to do it as quickly as I can, sir. With respect, as long as I am interrupted by ratbags opposite, it is all the more difficult. The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the honourable senator ask his question? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Inasmuch as those democratically elected Opposition parties have now been outlawed, their materials have been censored and they are no longer allowed to have political meetings or rallies, I ask: Government senators-Hooray! Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —You poor peasants! The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator will ask his question or I will ask him to resume his seat. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I ask: Was the Federal Australian Government invited to visit El Salvador to observe the elections there when President Duarte was elected? Did it accept that invitation? In the event that it did not accept that invitation, will it use the same guidelines and yardstick in making the determination and judgment as to whether it will participate in an observer capacity in the elections in Nicaragua? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am afraid that after all that I am going to have to disappoint Senator Crichton-Browne by saying that I have before me no current information which would enable me either to supplement the answer I gave to Senator Maguire or to answer Senator Crichton-Browne's excursion into the affairs of El Salvador. I will refer the question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and get an early reply. Senator MAGUIRE —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to a range of falling interest rates, including rates on Treasury notes which fell this week and the recent decline of over one per cent in interest rates on government bonds, following the Government's success in reducing inflation. Is the cost of home mortgage finance now relatively high in real terms? In view of the comment in Budget Statement No. 2 that some scope is seen to reduce capital market pressures, what are the prospects for an early reduction in home loan interest rates to reduce the interest burden on home buyers? Senator WALSH —Housing loan interest rates vary a little at any given point of time between different types of institutions and even different specific institutions within the same group. The general position is that housing interest rates peaked at about 13 1/2 per cent during the term of the discredited former Government and during the year 1983-84 housing interest rates fell from about 12 1/2 per cent to about 11 1/2 per cent. As Senator Maguire's question mentioned, there have been very significant falls in other interest rates in recent times, including a fall of almost one per cent in the 90-day Treasury notes in, I think, less than one month, a very dramatic fall in such a short time. Of course Commonwealth bond rates have also been falling in recent weeks. The interest rates which I have been citing are nominal interest rates. Esssentially Senator Maguire's question covered the fact that interest rates, although they have fallen very substantially, have not fallen as rapidly as the rate of inflation. As we all know, the consumer price index for the year ended June 1984 was down from something above 10 per cent to only 3.9 per cent. Certainly there has been a Medicare effect in that but the rate of inflation in the period in which this Government has been in office has halved. Although nominal interest rates have fallen, they have fallen by much less than that. As a consequence what are called real interest rates have gone up. That was the point of Senator Maguire's question. I think many factors, including psychological factors, influence real interest rates as well as nominal interest rates, but the main reason why real interest rates on housing loans are somewhat higher than they normally are is that the fall in inflation since this Government came to office has been so rapid and dramatic that the market has not yet fully adjusted. Senator MARTIN —Does the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment recall the Australian Labor Party policy prior to coming to government in relation to the Australian National Gallery? Does the Minister recall promising the abolition of the entrance fee without financial penalty to the Gallery? Why has the Government in contrast pursued policies in the 1983-84 Budget which have seen a dramatic reduction in the National Gallery's funding so that its allocation for 1984-85 is only three-quarters of the real value of its allocation in the Fraser Government's 1982 Budget? In particular, why has the Government reduced the acquisition vote by 14 per cent for this financial year? What effect will this decision have on the Gallery's acquisitions program and on the bicentenary collection? Has the Government been advised that its actions could lead to further loss of senior Gallery personnel? Senator RYAN —I cannot give detailed answers to the questions Senator Martin has asked. I will refer them to the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment and invite him to answer them as he wishes. I point out, though, that it is a matter of great pleasure and satisfaction to the Government that the Australian National Gallery is flourishing. For example, its recent exhibition of the French impressionist painters was, I believe, the most successful public exhibition on such a scale that we have yet seen in this country. The number of visitors to the Australian Capital Territory who came to see that exhibition was outstanding; I think a record number. The management of an exhibition such as that is evidence that the Gallery is operating at the highest possible standard. I was very pleased to be able to attend briefly the opening of another major exhibition at the National Gallery last night, this time of one of our finest Australian painters, the late Fred Williams. Again, I place on record my congratulations and appreciation of the very high level of service the Australian National Gallery is able to give the Australian people. I noticed, when I was looking at Fred Williams's collection-a most outstanding collection- that many of the paintings on exhibition had been bought through the acquisitions fund. Quite clearly the Gallery has the capacity, through its various sources of funding, to continue making outstanding acquisitions to add to its collection. It has just done so. With regard to Senator Martin's reference to the loss of senior Gallery staff, again I will have to refer that matter in detail to Mr Cohen to answer. If Senator Martin is referring, as I think she might be, to the decision of Mr Daniel Thomas to become director of the Gallery of South Australia, all I can say is that I again congratulate Mr Thomas on his new appointment-I can see Senator Teague in the distance looking very pleased about it-which will certainly be to the benefit of all South Australians. Certainly Daniel Thomas is the outstanding curator of Australian art in this country. I am not aware of his decision to make his talents and expertise available to the people of South Australia as having anything to do with the acquisitions fund of the Gallery, as Senator Martin's question seems to imply. I will refer Senator Martin's detailed questions to Mr Cohen. But I must say I believe that the people of Australia are being very well served by the Gallery, in terms of both its exposition of its existing collection and its new acquisitions policy. Senator MARTIN —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for answering a range of questions I did not ask. I will repeat a couple of the questions I did ask to which she, having been shadow Minister for Home Affairs and Environment prior to coming to government, would know the answers very well. Does the Minister recall the Australian Labor Party policy, prior to coming to government, in relation to the Australian National Gallery? Does she recall a promise on the abolition of the entrance fee without financial penalty? How can she say that the Gallery is flourishing when not only is government funding cut this year but also, according to its estimates, non- government income will reduce by 15 per cent? Senator RYAN —I can certainly recall our policy on the entrance fee prior to the election. However, in the light of the huge budgetary deficit we found ourselves facing when we took office, that undertaking had to be reconsidered, as indeed did many other financial commitments. It was simply not possible for us to know in advance of our coming to office of the enormous debt, the financial chaos, that his country was in. I think the whole community has recognised the enormous battle we have had to establish order from chaos. I am pleased to see that the Australian community is very well satisfied with the steps we have taken. I find Senator Martin's claim about a drop in private income very hard to understand given the record number of visitors who have just been to visit the Courtauld exhibition. Detailed answers to those questions are in the domain of Mr Cohen and I will refer the matter to him. Senator CHILDS —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations seen the report on page 2 of this morning's Sydney Morning Herald concerning the recent Full Bench Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission decision on redundancy and severance pay? Can the Minister advise whether the Government will support the implementation of the decision throughout industry despite the threats of the Metal Trades Industry Association ? Senator BUTTON —The Government put its position on this case to the Arbitration Commission at the time the matter was being dealt with. The Arbitration Commission having made a decision on that matter, it stands, and the Government supports it. I noticed in the paper that the MTIA has indicated that some of its members have been particularly aggrieved by the decision. It undoubtedly imposes some burdens on particular companies in that industry. However, it is not for me to canvass the merits of an appeal which I understand the MTIA is foreshadowing. If the MTIA decides to appeal against the Commissioner's decision, presumbly that will be dealt with by an appeal bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and we will await the outcome of its decision. Senator JACK EVANS —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Does this Government have a register of the details of foreign ownership of Australian land and other major assets? If not, does it consider it desirable for the Government and the Australian people to know what proportion of this country is foreign owned and controlled? If so, what steps is the Government taking to ascertain how much of Australia is foreign owned and to create a register of foreign owned and controlled Australian land and other substantial assets? Senator WALSH —The answer to the first question-whether there is a register of foreign ownership of rural land-is no. Senator Jack Evans —Land, not rural land. Senator WALSH —I am sorry. For land in general the answer is still no. It is a question that has been discussed from time to time and would, I think, require significant co-operation from the States. I will determine from the Treasurer whether there is any firm proposal in the pipeline at this stage and let Senator Evans know. As Senator Button has reminded me, the Government very recently reintroduced data gathering procedures or practices within the Australian Bureau of Statistics to determine more accurately the foreign ownership of Australian industry. Such information was previously collected but was, I believe, a discrete decision. Collection of that information was terminated by the former Government in 1976, very early in its term. That decision has now been reversed by the present Government. Detailed statistics on the foreign ownership of industry will be collected. I have no more to say. Senator REYNOLDS —Is the Minister for Social Security able to report on his discussions with the Queensland Minister for Welfare Services, Mr Muntz, in regard to the provision of new child care centres and also the crisis accommodation program in that State? In view of Mr Muntz's failure to attend the welfare Ministers' meeting in Canberra last Friday, is the Minister satisfied that Queensland's welfare needs are being adequately addressed in close co- operation with major Federal Government initiatives? Senator GRIMES —It is true, as Senator Reynolds has said, that Mr Muntz did not attend the meeting of welfare Ministers in Canberra last Friday. Equally I must be fair and point out that that meeting was not about children's services at all , it was about the sheltered accommodation program, and Mr Muntz was not the only Minister who did not attend. I would not like people to think that his absence from that meeting had anything to do with the negotiations between the Federal Government and the State governments on the children's services program. As Senator Reynolds and other honourable senators know, we are negotiating with all States to improve the distribution of funds in the children's services program. Many of the States have come to arrangements with the Commonwealth Government whereby, through a co-operative effort, through the provision of land , through the provision of buildings and through participation in the planning mechanism of children's services, the Commonwealth Government will now be able to provide more places in children's services for a set amount of money because of this assistance and co-operation. We will be able to provide more places where they are needed through the development of a planning approach. This procedure was quicker with New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia because those three State governments were anxious to go ahead initially. The Government of New South Wales had already started to take action on its own behalf to improve the distribution of children's services in that State. It is my understanding, and I have certainly been having correspondence with the Queensland Government and the other governments, that they will now see the benefit of joining in such co-operative arrangements. I have not had final details of what can be expected from the Queensland Government. I understand that discussions are still being held with the State Treasurer and the State Budget has not been brought down. I know in the past the Queensland Government has not been very interested in the provision of services for children and in particular the provision of services for women in distress through women's refuges. I hope that in the future it will see, by the example of the other States and by example of what can happen with Commonwealth-State co -operation, that it should take part in such co-operative arrangements and we can end up with an Australia-wide program. Whether that eventuates from the present Queensland Government and from the discussions that the Queensland Cabinet will have, I am afraid is a matter on which we will have to wait and see . Senator TOWNLEY —Will the Minister representing the Treasurer confirm that this year we expect to have a public debt interest bill of some $5,600m and we are now spending almost as much on our interest bill as we are on defence, a fifth more on our interest bill than we are on education, and that our public debt is now virtually out of control due, to a large extent, to the irresponsible spending in the last two budgets during the Australian Labor Party's period of office? Does the Minister agree that, unless some drastic action is taken, this country which is already in debt more per head than Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Poland or Chile, all of which we know are in extremely bad economic situations, could well follow a similar path? Finally, will the Minister advise the Senate how much of the interest bill is paid to overseas organisations? Senator WALSH —The audacity of members of the Opposition never ceases to amaze me , including a backbench supporter of the Government which in its last year of being formally in power produced a deficit estimate of $1.7 billion that blew out before the year was out to more than $4 1/2 billion and on a no policy change basis left this Government with a prospective deficit of almost $10 billion. That was the structural and cyclical deficit inherited by this Government for the financial year-- Senator Walters —I raise a point of order. If Senator Walsh continues along that line he will convince Senator Cook, as he has before, and make him apologise-- The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator WALSH —The structural and cyclical deficit inherited by this Government on a no policy change basis was almost $10 billion. Because of the rigorous expenditure controls put into place by this Government-- Senator Messner —You are lying again. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Messner, I ask you to withdraw that remark. Senator Messner —Mr President, I withdraw the word 'lying'. Senator WALSH —The truth hurts; that appears to be the real trouble. Senator Townley is correct in one respect, that servicing the debt on a structural and cyclical deficit of that magnitude inherited by this Government, even though it was substantially pruned back by rigorous expenditure controls put into place by this Government, which included, among other things, the abandonment of a number of the particularly irresponsible and inequitable programs announced by the Fraser Government in its terminal months, does cause a significant problem. The figure he quoted for the estimate on debt servicing in this year of $5.6 billion or something like that is, as I recall it, either precisely correct or certainly not very far out. That of course reflects two things: The absolute increase in public debt, which has accelerated at a very rapid rate in recent years, mostly, as I have said, due to the practices of the Fraser Government, and its inheritance. The present Government wound back the impending deficit for the last financial year from nearly $10 billion to what was an ultimate outcome of less than $8 billion and has produced an estimated deficit this year of something below $7 billion. A more realistic assessment of the size of the deficit is to express it as a proportion of gross domestic product. The deficit in 1983-84 was 4.3 per cent of GDP and the estimate for this year is 3.3 per cent. I want to clear up one misconception and that is that servicing accumulated public debt certainly does account for almost 10 per cent of total Commonwealth outlays. Senator Townley —I believe it is 8.8 per cent. Senator WALSH —That is almost 10 per cent. I was not claiming to be precise. I want to clear up one misconception which is a very common misconception and which Senator Townley reiterated in his question. A debt owed internally, although it imposes some strain on public outlays, does not impose any real macro-economic strain on the whole society, because it is owed internally. The problem which the countries that he names have-I am not sure which ones they were but I think they were Argentina, Chile, Brazil and countries like that-is that so much of the debt is owed externally and the servicing of that debt requires a net outflow of money from the country. Servicing charges on internal debt require a recirculation of an internal circulation of money. Senator TOWNLEY —I ask a supplementary question. On the final point, will the Minister tell us how much of the debt for the public interest bill is paid to overseas banking organisations? If he has not got the information available, could he get it for us? Senator WALSH —I do not know the precise figure. My answer, which is to be taken as a very provisional answer, is that it will be something of the order of 20 per cent. I will get an accurate figure for the honourable senator. Senator PRIMMER —Has the attention of the Minister for Resources and Energy been drawn to newspaper reports that the Government is undecided about how to deal with spent nuclear fuel rods currently in storage at the Australian Atomic Energy Commission research establishment at Lucas Heights? Can the Minister advise the Senate about the current arrangements for managing those spent fuel rods and about future options for their management? Senator WALSH —I am aware of a number of Press reports, I think on 14 and 15 August, on that matter and also of an Australian Broadcasting Corporation AM program, I think of 15 August. The position is that there are currently stored at Lucas Heights about 1,200 spent fuel rods. Over one-third of those rods are of United States origin; the remainder came from the United Kingdom. The Press reports and, more particularly, the ABC AM program report and the interview with Mr Bissett, a former officer of the Atomic Energy Commission, contain a number of inaccurate statements and assumptions, the most important of which is that Mr Bissett said in the course of the interview, and the ABC repeated it in an editorial fashion, that if these spent fuel rods were returned to the United States for reprocessing that material could finish up in nuclear weapons, both in the form of plutonium and highly enriched uranium 235. That is wrong on both grounds. On technical grounds-this is something that Mr Bissett, because of his association with the Commission, ought to have known-the plutonium component of the rods which are taken out of the Lucas Heights reactor is very low. I understand that for the entire 1,200-odd rods in storage at the moment there is less than 700 grams of plutonium, which is not regarded as being recoverable. I believe it would be technically feasible at an astronomical cost to recover it, but it is not under normal circumstances recovered and it certainly would not be recovered by a country such as the United States, which has pretty free access to other sources of plutonium. As to the highly enriched uranium 235, enriched to an average level in the spent fuel rods of 65 per cent, if the material were returned to the United States for reprocessing that highly enriched uranium would be credited to Australia and probably reimported in refabricated fuel rods. The other residues would remain in the United States but the highly enriched uranium would be returned to Australia. It is correct that a decision has not yet been made- indeed, I have not yet made a recommendation to the Government-on the disposal of these rods, but if the Lucas Heights reactor is to continue operating it will be necessary within the next couple of years to make a decision either to expand the existing storage capacity or to return some of the rods to the United States for reprocessing. The United States is willing to reprocess United States rods; it will not, at this stage anyway, reprocess rods of United Kingdom origin. There are some costs involved in either option and a decision has yet to be made . I want to make just one other brief comment about the typically hysterical tone in which this was reported both in the Press and probably even more so by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, in conformity with its customary practice, and based to some extent on misinformation from Mr Bissett. Mr Bissett suggested that the rods which would be transported back would, because of the decay of fission products, generate extreme levels of heat which would make them very dangerous to transport, and so on. The facts are that the rods, for about a 12- month period after being withdrawn from the reactor, are put in water for thermal cooling and then-this has been the case for the last 20-odd years-put into underground storage. The rods which could, if the Government made this decision, be transported to the United States for reprocessing are not those that have just been withdrawn from the reactor; they are those that have been in underground storage for some time, and they are not generating a great deal of heat. Finally, on a question of fact once again, it was reported in some or all of those reports that this had not happened before. That is not correct. In the early 1960s some similar fuel rods of United Kingdom origin were returned to the United Kingdom for reprocessing. Senator MISSEN —I draw the attention of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs to a newspaper comment which goes back to as far as May this year relating to a major survey of youth attitudes being conducted by the opinion poll organisation Australian Nationwide Opinion Poll Pty Ltd. I ask: First, when will the full results of the survey be known? Secondly, will the results be made available to all members of parliament and senators as well as to Government Ministers? Thirdly, will the summary of the findings of a preliminary study based on group discussions with young people in the 15 to 24 years age group, circulating within the bureaucracy, the Government and also, apparently, the Press, be made available to all members of parliament and senators? Senator RYAN —The final report of the survey is currently in preparation and is expected to be made available to the Government shortly. ANOP has very recently provided the preliminary report of its findings, but this is incomplete. The final report will be available publicly and so will be available to all honourable members and honourable senators. The reports which appeared in the Press in May 1984 and to which Senator Missen's question referred were not based on any documents available to the bureaucracy or the Government. One report suggested that a summary of the findings of the preliminary study were circulated within the bureaucracy and the Government. This is not true. ANOP conducted a so-called qualitative study in order to test the sorts of issues which could be sensibly taken up in a full study. ANOP provided an oral belief to officials on the results of that preliminary study in order to firm up exactly what issues would be studied in the proper survey. However, as I said, the results of the proper survey will be available shortly and will be available publicly. Senator COLSTON —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Defence noted a comment in the national newsletter issued by the Returned Services League which stated, amongst other things, that a national service program of one kind or another would be of value in bringing Australia's regular force battalions to full strength and in building an effective Reserve? Are regular force battalions below strength and is the Army Reserve at present ineffective as suggested in the newsletter? Does the Government have any plans to introduce a national service program? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am advised by the Minister for Defence that since 1975 total Regular Army strength has varied from year to year by no more than a few hundred, from a minimum in 1976 of 31,430 to a maximum of 33,072 in 1983. These fluctuations have not prevented units from carrying out effective training. All battalions are operating at much the same authorised peacetime levels as have applied since the reorganisation following the Vietnam war. The Operational Deployment Force is being maintained at a high degree of readiness. Other elements are maintained at a lower level of readiness but sufficient to maintain a corps of skills for timely expansion should this be required because of changes in our strategic environment. It is normal practice in peacetime to restrict some units to a strength below that which would be required for war. Minor fluctuations in strength occur in all battalions as a matter of course. These result from normal variations in recruiting and initial training patterns and from variations in the wastage rate. The previous Government increased the authorised Army Reserve strength to 30,000 in 1981-82 and the present Government has maintained this level. Manpower priorities are constantly reviewed to transfer manpower from lower to high priority defence capabilities. For example, the Special Air Service regiment is being increased by an additional squadron. The Government's policy in respect of compulsory military service is that we will continue to rely on our highly trained and voluntary Defence Force as a basis for expansion should the circumstances require it. The regular forces will continue to be augmented by the reserve forces, membership of which is open to citizens who wish to contribute to the nation's defence preparedness. The introduction of national service would divert a significant proportion of defence resources away from essential programs and capabilities. The Government agrees with its military advisers that to introduce national service, notwithstanding any possible advantages for Australian youth, would have no real benefit for Australia's defence capabilities. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. It relates to average weekly earnings. In an interview on Nationwide on Budget night the Treasurer said that the increase in average weekly earnings basically reflected overtime and that we have nothing in there for wages drift. Is the Minister able to provide or obtain information which analyses the average weekly earnings figure to show the amounts related to full time award wages, over-award payments , overtime and the effect of part time work on average weekly earnings figures? Is the Minister further able to advise with regard to the 160,000 jobs which he mentioned yesterday as to whether he was referring to part time or full time employment? Senator BUTTON —I will seek the information for Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle. I could have a stab at some of it but I do not intend to do so because it is subject to variable interpretations and so on. I will seek the information in answer to the several questions which the honourable senator asked me and provide the answer as soon as possible. Senator JONES —The Minister representing the Minister for Aviation will be aware of my frequent representations seeking an upgrading of facilities at Queensland airports, in particular Brisbane and Townsville. I ask the Minister what measure the Government is considering taking to improve the standards of facilities at these two airports following the allocation of funds by the Treasurer in the recent Budget. Senator GIETZELT —In the last Budget and the Budget for 1983-84 the Government provided for an extensive public works program because it believed that the construction side of our economy needed some encouragement. Therefore, impetus was given by providing additional funds to reach that objective. In the current Budget, the Government has approved the development of a domestic terminal complex as a major component of the upgrading of facilities at Townsville Airport. This will include works associated with the terminal, extensions to the aircraft parking aprons, widening of the taxiways, road works and additional car parks. The cost of those works is estimated to be approximately $15.3m. It is hoped that the Joint Committee on Public Works will consider that expenditure before the end of the calendar year, so that the construction work in Townsville can commence at the end of the financial year. Many of the existing terminals in Queensland are of World War II vintage and are inadequate for the present level of domestic traffic. The Government has allocated $61m for further improvement works at Brisbane Airport so that it has the sort of standards that exist in the other major States of the Commonwealth. The Government intends that that terminal will be operational by 1988 so that it fulfils its obligations with respect to Expo, which is an important event in Queensland's economic and social activities. A great amount of money is available to Queensland. I am sure that the airports in both the north and south of Queensland will benefit greatly from the Government's decisions. Senator RYAN —Recently, Senator Kilgariff asked me a question in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. His question related to tourism developments in Kakadu National Park. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the answer that has been provided to me by the Minister. Leave granted. The document read as follows- With respect to the development of tourist facilities in Kakadu National Park, the Budget Papers do state that 'Outlays for the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service (ANPWS) are planned to increase by $1.7m (16.6%) to $10.6m in 1984-85 reflecting the further development of the Kakadu National Park in the Northern Territory. The Government has agreed to an accelerated program of development of visitor facilities and infrastructure in the Park.' As part of this increase in funding for ANPWS I have been advised that funding for Kakadu National Park has been increased from $3.6m to $4.5m and some of these funds will be used in the detailed planning and consultation processes for the development of the accelerated program for visitor facilities. Once these processes are complete the Government will look at providing funds for the program's implementation. The Government is certainly committed to the planned development of tourism in the Park but it is important to ensure that such developments are consistent with the preservation of the Park's natural and cultural heritage and properly take account of Aboriginal interests in the area. To ensure that these objectives are achieved appropriate planning and consultative processes need to be satisfactorily completed before developments take place. The Government believes that the tourist industry can play an important role in the generation of new employment opportunities and in this context the provision of tourist facilities at our National Parks and major heritage sites will be of benefit not only to the Aboriginal people but to all Australians. The importance that the Government attaches to the tourism industry in Australia is reflected in the 18.6% increase in the budget of the Australian Tourist Commission to $22. 8m in 1984/85. This will allow the ATC to expand it promotional activities overseas and I expect that Kakadu along with other major natural attractions in Australia will feature prominently. Senator RYAN —Yesterday, Senator Chipp asked me a question concerning the steps that the Australian Government could take to protect the Daintree River area. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the correspondence between Senator Chipp and the Attorney-General, Senator Evans, in which Senator Evans provides information which, in general terms, confirms the reply that I gave. It also makes additional points. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- August 23, 1984 Senator the Hon. G. Evans Attorney-General Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 My dear Attorney In question time today, Senator Ryan answered my question on the threat to the Daintree rainforest by maintaining the area had to be nominated for, or on, the World Heritage List before the Government could act under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983. This answer was given after Senator Ryan quickly sought your advice on the spot. I believe that advice could be wrong. Clause 3 (2) (a) of the W.H.P.C.A. sets out the property covered by the Act. There are two sections to this: property nominated for or on the World Heritage List and property declared by regulation to form part of the cultural heritage or natural heritage. I believe this demonstrates the Government does have the power to save the Daintree rainforest now. If the answers provided to myself and Senator Mason were correct then Clause 3 (2) (a) (ii) would not be in the Act. I have no doubt the Daintree rainforest is part of Australia's natural heritage . Its inclusion in the Register of the National Estate should establish that fact. The advice of ecological authorities and the work undertaken by the Australian Heritage Commission to determine its prospects for World Heritage List add weight to the belief that the region is, at the very least, of national renown. Section 6 (2) (e), where a proclamation can be made if the property is part of the heritage distinctive of the Australian nation, or a number of the subsections in Clause 6 (2), would seem to provide grounds for a proclamation. I look forward to your urgent advice on this matter. Australia's rainforests are a rare, valuable and rapidly disappearing asset. Your Government's action is needed so as to prevent the Daintree region becoming another casualty. In view of public concern on this issue, I am distributing this letter to the appropriate media. Yours sincerely DON CHIPP Parliamentary Leader of the Australian Democrats 24 August 1984 Senator the Hon. Donald L. Chipp, Leader of Australian Democrats, Parliament House, Canberra, ACT 2600 Dear Senator Chipp, I refer to your letter of 23 August requesting my urgent advice whether the Daintree rainforest comes within the definition of identified property in s. 3 ( 2) of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983. Section 3 (2) of the Act provides as follows: '3. (2) A reference in this Act to identified property shall be read as a reference to- (a) property forming part of the cultural heritage or natural heritage, being property that- (i) the Commonwealth has, under Article 11 of the Convention, submitted to the World Heritage Committee, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, as suitable for inclusion in the World Heritage List provided for in paragraph 2 of that Article; or (ii) has been declared by the regulations to form part of the cultural heritage or natural heritage; or (b) any part of property referred to in paragraph (a).' It is clear from the section set out above that property which has not been submitted to the World Heritage Committee may only be declared by regulations for the purposes of s. 3 (2) (a) (ii) if the property is 'property forming part of the cultural heritage or natural heritage'. The expressions 'cultural heritage' and 'natural heritage' have the same meaning as in the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (s. 3 (1) of the Act). The Convention defines these expressions by reference to property of ' outstanding universal value'. It has not been established to date that the Cape Tribulation area meets those statutory criteria in a way that would be likely to satisfy the High Court should, as would appear inevitable, such a regulation be legally challenged. This is all important, as each of the provisions of the Act which authorise Proclamations depends on the identification of property as forming part of the cultural or natural heritage as defined. In view of the reliance that you place on s. 6 (2) (e), I think I should comment briefly on it. I recognise that there is some authority supporting the principle which underlies the sub-section (that the Commonwealth may derive inherent power from nationhood), but I should point out that, while the Tasmanian Dam case did not conclusively decide the issue, considerable doubt was cast on the validity of s. 6 (2) (e) of the Act by a majority of the High Court. In regard to the other matters raised in your letter, I mention that the criteria for including an area in the Register of the National Estate under the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975 are different to the criteria provided in the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act. I attach a copy of extracts from the Australian Heritage Commission Act. Yours sincerely, GARETH EVANS 4. (1) For the purposes of this Act, the national estate consists of those places, being components of the natural environment of Australia or the cultural environment of Australia, that have aesthetic, historic, scientific or social significance or other special value for future generations as well as for the present community. (2) For the purposes of this section, Australia includes the territorial sea of Australia and the continental shelf of Australia. (3) A place may form part of the national estate for the purposes of this Act notwithstanding that the conservation, improvement or presentation of the place is dealt with by another Act. 5. This Act extends to every external Territory. PART II-ESTABLISHMENT, FUNCTIONS AND POWERS OF THE AUSTRALIAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 6. There is established by this Act a Commission by the name of the Australian Heritage Commission. 7. The functions of the Commission are- (a) to furnish advice to the Minister, either of its own motion or upon request made to it by the Minister, on matters relating to the national estate, including advice relating to action to conserve, improve and present the national estate; (b) to encourage public interest in, and understanding of, issues relevant to the national estate; (c) to identify places included in the national estate and to prepare a register of those places in accordance with Part IV; (d) to furnish advice and reports in accordance with Part V; (e) to further training and education in fields related to the conservation, improvement and presentation of the national estate; (f) to make arrangements for the administration and control of places included in the national estate that are given or bequeathed to the Commission; and (g) to organize and engage in research and investigation necessary for the performance of its other functions. 8. The Commission shall, in the performance of its functions in relation to any matter, and so far as it considers appropriate having regard to the nature of the matter, consult with Departments and authorities of the Commonwealth and of the States, local government authorities and community and other organizations and, in particular, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, shall consult with the Director of National . . . (3) For the purposes of the provisions of this Act, other than this section and sections 14 and 19, a person appointed under sub-section (1) shall not be regarded as a Commissioner. (4) Not more than 2 persons shall hold office as co-opted Commissioners at any one time. PART IV-THE REGISTER OF THE NATIONAL ESTATE 22. (1) The Commission shall keep a register, to be known as the Register of the National Estate, in which will be listed places included in the national estate. (2) A place shall not be entered in the Register otherwise than in accordance with section 23 or sub-section 25 (2). (3) The Commission shall enter a place in the Register by causing to be entered in the Register a description of the place sufficient to identify it and the date on which the entry is made. (4) A place shall not be removed from the Register otherwise than in accordance with section 24 or sub-section 25 (5). (5) The Commission shall remove a place from the Register by causing to be entered in the Register, against the description of that place, the statement that the place has been removed from the Register and the date on which the statement is entered. 23. (1) Subject to this section and to section 25, where the Commission considers that a place that is not in the Register should be recorded as part of the national estate it shall enter the place in the Register. (2) The Commission shall not enter a place in the Register in accordance with sub-section (1) unless- (a) it has, by public notice- (i) stated that it intends to enter the place in the Register; (ii) given a description of the place sufficient to identify it; (iii) notified persons of their right to make written objection to the entry of the place in the Register; (iv) specified the date by which such objections are to be made, not being earlier than 3 months after the date of publication of the notice in the Gazette ; and (v) specified an address to which such objections may be forwarded; (b) the date specified in that notice has passed; and (c) if a person has, not later than the date specified in that notice, made written objection to the Commission to the entry of the . . . Senator RYAN —Yesterday, Senator Peter Baume asked me a question about the gap between unemployment benefit and tertiary education assistance scheme payments. He specifically asked whether the gap had widened since the Australian Labor Party had come to office. As student assistance is a complicated area, I thought it might be useful to honourable senators if I clarified the figures on which I based my reply. Yesterday, I said that the gap had been reduced in the Budget, and that is certainly the case. For 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds the gap was virtually eliminated. The Budget reduced the gap for the over 18-year-olds from the present level of $16.35 to the level in January 1985, when the new rates of TEAS apply, of only $12.43-a reduction of $3.92. However, if one compares the level of the gap in January 1985 with the level in January 1984, one notes a very small increase of $1.08. The consideration really depends upon which months are used for comparisons. Throughout 1984, because the Government has given its highest priority to the unemployed, the level of unemployment benefit has continued to increase with indexation rises, so that today, in August, the gap between that benefit and TEAS is $16.35. That gap will have been reduced to $12.43 in January 1985 as a result of the decisions in this week's Budget. Senator GIETZELT —Yesterday Senator Watson raised two matters in a question without notice. One matter concerned the current ineligibility of a widow of a serviceman to receive a service pension at the single rate and, hence, the requirement in the legislation that she transfer to a social security age or widow's pension in order to be paid at the higher rate. As this and the other matter impinged on both my Department and that of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes), I thought it was prudent to take the question on notice. I am now in a position to provide an answer to the honourable senator's question. The question of payment of a single rate of service pension for a widow of a deceased veteran has been raised from time to time. Many policy considerations as well as practical difficulties need to be addressed. The present position is that, following the death of a service pensioner, his widow may elect to continue to receive half of the married rate of service pension, assessed according to her changed financial circumstances, or to apply to be transferred to the single rate of social security pension. Where an entitlement to social security pension appears to exist, my Department advises widows that it is to their financial advantage to transfer to a social security pension. However, I am aware of the difficulties faced by some and perhaps many widowed service pensioners, particularly older widows, in completing applications for social security pensions. My Department has been in consultation with the Department of Social Security exploring ways to assist widows in the transfer of their service pension to a social security pension. That matter has been under review for some time. I should mention that, for a period of 12 weeks following the death of a service pensioner, the widow continues to receive through the Department of Veterans' Affairs, in addition to her own service pension, the amount of pension payable to her husband at the time of his death. This additional payment is known as a re-adjustment pension and is provided to alleviate the financial hardship of the widow immediately after her bereavement. The transfer to a social security pension occurs only after that 12 weeks has elapsed, if the widow elects to take this course. Naturally and properly, she would be advised to do so by my Department. However, the matter is under review. It requires some further readjustments between the two departments to ascertain whether we can overcome the difficulties that currently exist. In the second part of his question, Senator Watson asked me whether the proposed pensions assets test will be exactly the same for both age and service pensions. The honourable senator was kind enough to show me an article that seemed to suggest that there were differences between the two departments and the two categories of pensioners-service pensioners in my area and the social security beneficiaries in the social security area. The legislation introduced in the House of Representatives on 21 August 1984 to give effect to the assets test contains identical provisions for both age and invalid pensions and service pensions. The assets test for age and service pensioners is not similar; it is the same. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy) —For the information of honourable senators I table the following papers: Estimates of Proposed Expenditure 1984-85-Explanatory Notes of: Auditor-General's Office National Capital Development Commission Parliamentary Reporting Staff Letters Patent Relating to the Office of the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, together with text of a statement by the Prime Minister. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy) —I table the following paper: Advance to the Minister for Finance-Statement of Heads of Expenditure and the amounts charged thereto pursuant to section 36A of the Audit Act 1901, for the year ended 30 June 1984. Ordered that consideration of the Statement in Committee of the Whole be an Order of the Day for the next day of sitting. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria) —On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform I present the second report of the Committee, dated August 1984 , together with extracts from the Committee's minutes of proceedings. Senator ROBERT RAY —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(3.10) —I present the report of the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator TATE —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. On 28 March this year this chamber entrusted to a select committee entitled the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge, which I was privileged to chair, a most solemn task: An examination of certain materials to determine whether conduct revealed in them constituted proved misbehaviour on the part of a Federal judge such as could amount to sufficient grounds for an address for his removal. I believe the Committee has pursued this task vigorously, honestly and exhaustively, so much so that the Senate gave such extensions of time as were necessary. The Committee regarded itself in this inquiry to be in an investigative role, examining witnesses and gathering evidence, rather than a judicial phase where a hearing of the relevant allegations in proceedings subject to the rules for judicial hearings, encompassing more fully the principles of natural justice, would be appropriate. Great care was taken to protect the privacy, the reputation and indeed the safety of individuals by conducting our hearings in camera which accords with the injunctions of the Senate to the Committee contained in the resolution of appointment. In the report there is no needless identifying of persons apart from the judge, Mr Justice Murphy, Mr Morgan Ryan, a Sydney solicitor, and Mr Clarrie Briese, Chief Stipendiary Magistrate of New South Wales. Further, the Committee agreed to disclose to the Senate only that portion of the evidence absolutely necessary to enable it to make an appropriate judgment on the contested part of the report. Committee members have bound themselves by a self- denying ordinance not to go further in revealing evidence in this privileged chamber and recommend to the Senate that no further publication of its documents and evidence occurs. I turn to the so-called Age materials. The materials obtained by the Committee consisted of six bundles of documents amounting to some 524 pages which, on face value, are purported to be transcripts of conversations and summaries of conversations, and three cassette tape recordings purportedly of conversations. It is important to emphasise that among the materials there are no tape recordings of the conversations purportedly recorded or summarised in the documents; that is, none of the documents is supported by tape recordings. Only a small portion of the materials relate to a Federal judge. All of the alleged conversations and telephone calls of the judge involve Mr Morgan John Ryan, a Sydney solicitor, or Mr Ryan's wife. Recorded on the tape recordings is one conversation purportedly between the judge and another person. None of the other conversations purportedly recorded on the tape recordings involves the judge as a party. There was one conversation in which the judge was mentioned. Set out in the report is an exhaustive description of the modus operandi of the Committee in seeking to determine the authenticity and genuineness of the Age materials as required by the Senate. The steps are summarised in paragraph 35 of the report. At this stage I do not need to weary the Senate by outlining them or fully recounting how those inquiries were fulfilled. Suffice it to point to the conclusions of the Committee which, I may be allowed to say, were unanimous on this question. They may be found by honourable senators at paragraph 56. The Committee is unable to conclude that any or all of the tape recordings and transcripts delivered by the Age newspaper to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) relating to the conduct of a Federal judge are authentic or genuine in whole or in part except to the extent that limited acknowledgments have been made to the Committee, as mentioned in paragraphs 52 and 54. Further, for completeness, the Committee wishes to state that even if the tape recording of the one conversation purportedly involving the judge is a complete and unaltered record of the conversation as it actually took place, such conversation contains nothing which could amount to, or provide evidence of, any misbehaviour on the part of the judge whatever interpretation of misbehaviour under section 72 of the Constitution is accepted. In respect of the conversations between the judge and other parties purportedly recorded in the transcripts and summaries, the Committee, having examined the documents and pursued all reasonable inquiries into them and matters referred to in them, has concluded that no facts have been established in respect of conduct revealed by them which constitute misbehaviour under section 72 of the Constitution, whatever interpretation of misbehaviour is accepted. The report goes on to deal with two other matters. The Committee had available to its records of interviews conducted by Australian Federal Police officers under the direction of the Director of Public Prosecutions concerning the tape recordings and documents given to the Age. In one of the interviews a member of the AFP stated that he recalled listening in 1981 to a tape recording of a conversation between a person whose voice he believed to be that of the judge and another person whose voice he believed to be that of Mr Ryan. Given the alleged serious content of the conversations and in the light of subsequent events, the Committee felt obliged to investigate the allegation that such a conversation had occurred and had been recorded. Once again the steps taken by the Committee to follow up this matter are fully detailed in the report. In the end the recollection of the officer, whom the Committee considers to be sincere in his belief, stood alone without any supporting evidentiary material or corroboration from fellow members of the AFP who might have been expected to provide it. There were no admissions, rather there were denials, from the alleged participants in the conversation. Therefore as honourable senators will see in paragraph 68 of the report: Consequently the Committee is unable to conclude that the alleged conversation took place and therefore finds no facts arising from the evidence of the Australian Federal Police Officer such as could amount to misbehaviour on the part of the judge. I turn to alleged conversations between the judge and the Chief Stipendiary Magistrate of New South Wales. The Committee invited Mr Briese to appear before it to ascertain what light, if any, he could throw upon an alleged conversation on a purported transcript amongst the Age material. Mr Briese tendered a written statement to the Committee and gave sworn verbal evidence in elucidation of the statement. He detailed in the period between May 1979 and January 1982 in personal meetings or over the telephone. That sequence of conversations and meetings will be found by honourable senators in an agreed summary form, I think at appendix 5. The Committee agreed that since the allegation of Mr Briese, if sustained by the evidence, was that the judge had engaged in conduct which constituted the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice-section 43 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act-its proper inquiry was whether the evidence established the commission of such an offence. The Committee engaged in a process of deliberation on the allegations such that, at the end of the process of gathering and considering evidence, it had before it one written submission and two transactions of evidence given under oath by Mr Briese, a written response from the judge received in evidence and submissions from his counsel. At every step in these proceedings of the Committee it considered itself to be conducting an inquiry, that is, to be in an investigative phase of its proceedings. A judicial phase of its proceedings could not be triggered if the Committee concluded, at the end of this stage, that the evidence did not disclose the commission of an offence. That is, to move to a judicial phase of its inquiry the Committee considered it would need to conclude, in a preliminary way and after assessment of the evidence considered by it, that the judge had engaged in conduct which could constitute the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice. The judge declined to appear personally during this investigative stage of our inquiry when his appearance could not be preceeded by testing of the evidence by cross-examination, principally of Mr Briese. The Committee was not prepared, as honourable senators will see in paragraph 77, to resort to its coercive powers to compel his attendance and the giving of answers because the rules of natural justice allow only that the opportunity be given to the judge to appear. The Committee then considered the evidence. Honourable senators will find the relevant paragraphs approximately from paragraph 88 onwards. The first task facing the Committee was to determine whether Mr Briese's recollection of events was entirely accurate. At several crucial points his recounting of elements of admitted conversations was at variance with the judge's recollection. An outline of some of the significant discrepancies in the evidence is to be found in Appendix 5. In particular, there is no agreement as to the use of key words in the final telephone conversation. The second task confronting the Committee was to distinguish alleged recalled facts from the interpretation placed upon those facts by Mr Briese. It also had to carefully distinguish Mr Briese's recollected belief that he was being subjected to some sort of pressure from the question of whether the judge was intentionally applying such perceived pressure with a view to affecting the outcome of certain proceedings before the magistrates' courts. There was no specific occasion or instance recalled by Mr Briese in which the judge expressly requested or indicated that any steps should be taken by Mr Briese in relation to the case. Any such intention would have to be inferred from the words used in certain conversations. Many words of crucial significance are themselves disputed and, in particular, as is evident from paragraphs 16 to 19 of Appendix 5, the conversation takes on a quite different colour and significance depending on which words were used. The Committee, on the balance of probabilities, was unable to conclude that the words attributed to the judge were in fact used or that Mr Briese's recollection is total in its recounting of the full conversation. In any case, in the opinion of the Committee the words cannot, on the balance of probabilities, bear the weight which is alleged by Mr Briese to attach to them. I do not know, Mr Deputy President, whether I should weary the Senate by reading through paragraphs 94, 95, 96 and 97 of the report. They are of crucial significance, but I understand that other senators wish to contribute to the debate. Perhaps I may come to paragraph 98, which states that the Committee-here I speak of a majority of the Committee; honourable senators should be aware of minority reports which are appended to this report-'was unable to satisfy itself that certain crucial words were in fact uttered by the judge, or alternatively is unable to draw an inference that the judge intended to influence the outcome of proceedings against Morgan Ryan by the uttering of such words'. The report continues: The Committee did not conclude that the evidence of Mr Briese was of sufficient strength to establish a prima facie case of misbehaviour by the judge. The Committee therefore does not find proved misbehaviour on what is before it. The Committee, having concluded in that manner and not adversely to the judge at the end of this investigative phase of its proceedings, decided, in accordance with its determination outlined in paragraph 5 above, not to proceed to a judicial phase of proceedings. The Committee therefore, having considered the evidence of Mr Briese, reports to the Senate that no conduct of the judge is proved such as would constitute misbehaviour within the meaning of section 72 of the Constitution. In conclusion, I wish to pay tribute to my parliamentary colleagues, who have exhibited perserverance and forbearance during a novel undertaking thrust upon this Committee by this chamber. They have discharged their obligation honourably and well. The support of the secretariat is acknowledged in the report, and perhaps I may say also that that is well deserved. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.23) — I express my gratitude for the very conscientious manner in particular in which Senator Tate exercised and performed his role as Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge, and for the efforts of my colleagues who have engaged in this unenviable task in the best tradition of Senate committees. As would be obvious to the Senate from the nature of the reports and the time that the Committee has devoted to them, the very greatest attention has been paid to these very heavy responsibilities which were placed upon the Committee. The question now before the Senate arising from the Committee report can, I think, be divided into two very clearly different matters-that part of the report which deals with the Age tapes, what has been called the provenance of the Age tapes, and what conclusions may be drawn from the tapes and transcripts which were received ultimately by the Committee from the Age newspaper via the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and the Director of Public Prosecutions. That material was the subject of very great public disquiet and public debate prior to the establishment of this Committee. The establishment of the Committee arose out of that debate, which was vigorously pursued in this chamber as well as outside it. It is no secret that I was particularly concerned about some features of this material relating to a judge. My colleagues on this side of the chamber and I were also very concerned about wider aspects of criminality which were thought to be revealed by this material. No doubt the work of the Committee and some of its conclusions will throw some light on what use, if any, may possibly be made of this material. As will be clear, we all agree with the conclusions that have been drawn in respect of those matters, but we were able to take it a little further than the Special Prosecutor, Mr Temby, who reported the other day. I think it is fair to say that although, as we have concluded in the report, despite all the efforts that have been made it is impossible to make any finding about the authenticity of this material, nevertheless some explanation of how and why it came into existence is perhaps a little clearer from our report than it was possible for the Special Prosecutor to find. It was revealed by one of the methods that we adopted, that of seeking to ask people who allegedly had taken part in conversations, that some support was given to the view that all of this material from the Age is not just a complete hoax and a fraud on the public. There is something there, but it is very difficult to know to what extent. Certainly nothing is clear as to what can be done with it. Nevertheless, I think it is fair to say that it is not a complete hoax. The other aspect of this matter is one which ultimately caused the Committee even greater concern. That is that in the course of our examination to determine the authenticity of material we asked people to assist the Committee, including Mr Briese, for the reasons set out in the report. The Committee was then faced, when he came before it, with the very serious allegations concerning the judge, which are set out in an appendix to the report. We have not submitted his statement as such or any of the transcripts of his evidence as such. Nevertheless, there is an agreed statement in Appendix 5 as to just what the nature of the transactions between the judge and Mr Briese are, giving Mr Briese 's version of them and the judge's version of them. As the Chairman of the Committee has said, we have decided not to table the full transcripts, for obvious reasons, I think, in view of the Committee's conclusion. Nevertheless, there is some reference to key aspects of Mr Briese's evidence under cross- examination contained in each of the reports. I refer to the majority report on this matter, the dissenting report by Senator Lewis and me, and the dissenting report by Senator Chipp. There is sufficient material before the Senate and no doubt before the public now on which it is possible to come to judgments or perhaps to understand the differences of judgment revealed by the report and the dissenting reports. I do not want to go over the differences and the reasons for them. Hopefully, the reports speak for themselves but, in summary, the difference boils down to the interpretation one places on the evidence given by Mr Briese. The members of the majority do not find themselves able to form from that material any judgment adverse to the judge in regard to his conduct, although it is conceded that Mr Briese gave his evidence honestly and sincerely. Unfortunately, and with a somewhat heavy heart, I find myself unable to agree with that conclusion. The conclusions reached by Senator Lewis and me are set out in paragraph 5 of the dissenting report. I shall briefly read them: Mr Briese's allegations have been put under much more rigorous testing than Mr Justice Murphy's denials-- And what was done emerges from the majority report. On the basis of that we concluded: There is a prima facie case of misbehaviour against the Judge. But that is not a finding that the judge has been guilty of this misbehaviour. We added that Mr Justice Murphy should now be granted the opportunity to have Mr Briese cross-examined, in the sense of a formal, judicial type hearing, as contended by counsel on his behalf. The judge himself should only be given the opportunity of deciding to give evidence for himself in light of those proceedings. The problem now before us is what steps should be taken to conduct that hearing which I believe is necessary. The Chairman of the Select Committee, Senator Tate, referred to differences between the investigatory and judicial phases. I agree that the investigatory phase has concluded. I differ in the sense that I believe a judicial type hearing is required in light of the evidence obtained by the Committee, but I agree with the submissions of Mr Hughes, counsel for the judge, that that must be done in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The judge is entitled to have Mr Briese cross-examined fully by his counsel and to decide at that stage whether to give evidence, but if he does so he will be subject to cross-examination. Interestingly, Mr Hughes submitted that this should be conducted in public. I would agree to that as well because that is seen by him as being part of the process. The difficulty we faced was that the Senate Standing Orders do not accommodate that type of procedure. Therefore, special provision would have to be made if the Senate were of the view that that proceeding should be conducted. I have also suggested that a possible other approach would be for the Senate to enable the Committee to conduct that form of hearing or presumably the Senate itself could appoint a commissioner to do so. In essence, my conclusion is that the question is of such moment, and the evidence of Mr Briese is of such strength, that the Senate should now resolve to permit some form of judicial type hearing in accordance with the submissions which his counsel made in referring to the type of situation which I believe has now arisen. I do not wish to say anything further at this stage. No doubt there will be further debate on this matter in this chamber. I shall reserve any further comment until that debate takes place. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(3.35) —My dissenting report has become necessary as a result of the distinctly different view I take from other members of the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge on a number of issues related to Mr Briese's evidence, the Committee's findings at this stage of its investigations, and the action which should be taken next. As the Senate would know, the activities of and evidence given to this Senate Select Committee have not been exactly the best kept secret in Australia. Almost from the beginning leakages of one kind or another have appeared in the media, followed by speculation by some parts of the media concerning the outcome of the report, quite often particularly insofar as I personally was concerned. As published at the time, the material concerning my past and proposed action on the Committee could have led the reader to a false conclusion as to my views and conclusions, but because of privilege I could not comment at that stage. Indeed, I have been impelled to refer one particular leak to the Privileges Committee and to make a personal explanation to the Senate concerning particular references to myself. In submitting my dissent from the report I am now able for the first time to make public my true position and the reasons for it. Let me hasten to say I am one of those members of parliament who hold a strong view that the media not only have the right but also a responsibility to publish leaked material if the editor believes it is in the public interest to do so. The only exception to this rule, I believe, is where our military or strategic interests could be threatened or jeopardised by the release of highly classified sensitive material . Indeed I pay a high tribute to the Age newspaper, The National Times and other sections of the media, including people such as Mr Bob Bottom who have shown courage in pursuing and exposing alleged misbehaviour concerning people in positions of power. In this context let me say that my reference of leaks to the Privileges Committee was not done for the purpose of harassing journalists or media outlets who use the leaks, but to pursue the person or persons who leaked the information which had been given in good faith in camera to a Senate Select Committee. If this type of leakage continues to occur, the value of Senate committees will be reduced to the point of farce and witnesses will be singularly reluctant to give evidence which might be helpful. The inquiry arose from the publication by the Melbourne Age of purported tapes and transcripts which, if genuine in whole or in part, tend to reflect adversely on the conduct of a judge under scrutiny and, partly as a result, on the administration of justice in Australia. During the conduct of the inquiry and in reaching my dissenting opinion I have been conscious of the rights of indviduals facing the daunting process of public scrutiny. However, balanced against this, there must be the consideration that the administration of the law must be above reproach. If citizens find reason to distrust those who are charged with the duty to protect them against crime and corruption, the social fibre of our society is at risk and the future of this country is in jeopardy. There is also the direct threat posed to law-abiding citizens, judicial officers, politicians and honest policemen if the political system should prove itself too sluggish or too party political to take effective action. The task accepted by the Senate to provide impartial scrutiny and a base for appropriate action thus reflects the growing responsibility and significance of the Senate as an effective people's house of protection and review. In summary, it is my view that the refusal of the judge to appear before the Committee has handicapped it to such an extent that it is not in a position to leave a finding of no proved misbehaviour on what is before it as its final conclusion. For the same reason, I believe the Committee is not in a position to find that a prima facie case for such proved misbehaviour has been established. I do not agree with the proposition that it is a denial of natural justice to summon a witness to a hearing, even if he is the subject of the inquiry, as long as he retains the right to refuse to answer questions which might tend to incriminate him. It has never been disputed that this right may be exercised by anyone appearing before the Committee. Accordingly, I believe that investigations must continue before even a preliminary finding can be made and that the judge must be summoned to appear. These investigations should be carried out in a manner which affords him the full protection of legal procedures and the principles of natural justice. The handicap imposed on the Committee by the refusal of the judge to appear before it concerns mainly the written statement as well as verbal evidence and examination under oath by the Chairman of the Bench of Magistrates in New South Wales, Mr C. R. Briese. The allegations contained in this evidence remained unanswered except through a written, unsworn statement by the judge and an appearance before the Committee by his counsel. I note that the Committee did not feel obliged to decide whether misbehaviour unrelated to the duties of office must always be constituted by an offence against the law. I believe that it is not possible for the Committee to come to any finding, even a preliminary finding, on the basis of the evidence before it without hearing the judge and that, as Mr Briese had twice been interrogated on oath in relation to the evidence which he had given, it was appropriate for the judge to attend and to answer questions on his written statement, and in particular the matters on which he differed substantially from the evidence of Mr Briese. If the matter were allowed to end there it would mean that the Committee has allowed its work to be affected by the refusal of a witness to appear before it even though it has power to summon witnesses. I disagreed with the Committee's decision not to compel the attendance of the judge before it. My motion requesting the Committee to extend yet another invitation to the judge and, failing that, to issue a summons was lost. A further motion by me to suspend standing order 304-or to recommend to the Senate that we should suspend it-to enable the judge to cross-examine other witnesses if he agreed to appear himself under Federal Court rules of evidence, was also lost. I took the view that a man of acknowledged substance in the community, the Chairman of the Bench of Stipendiary Magistrates of the largest State in the nation, had made allegations of the gravest and most serious nature on oath on two occasions. There were some inconsistencies in the evidence given during the two appearances before the Committee, but in my view these inconsistencies were not fundamental in character. The overwhelming impression which was left with me was that he did not resile in any way from the grave and serious allegations that the judge had approached him with the intention to attempt to pervert the course of justice in one of the courts of New South Wales in a matter which involved a Federal criminal offence. In my view the questioning of Mr Briese by all members of the Committee was thorough, painstaking, unrelenting and complete. When I was left with the substantive question: 'Did Mr Briese resile from the view that the judge had intended that Mr Briese use his position to interfere with the committal hearing of Mr Morgan Ryan in one of the courts over which Mr Briese had jurisdiction as Chairman of the Bench of Stipendiary Magistrates' I had to come to the view that he did not resile. Of course I could not at that stage find that any offence had been necessarily committed on the basis of this evidence unless I was given the opportunity to hear the judge's version and to test his evidence in the same manner as Mr Briese's evidence was tested-on oath and after subjecting himself to questioning. I therefore came to, and still hold, the very strong view that, notwithstanding the fact that the evidence of Mr Briese has not been and cannot be corroborated, the question on the conduct of the judge cannot be determined or put aside until he has appeared before the Committee or the Senate or a commissioner appointed by the Senate. In these circumstances the rules of natural justice would, of course, have to apply and he would be entitled to adequate protection of counsel and the right for his counsel to cross-examine appropriate persons. The gravity of the allegations and the consequences for the administration of justice in Australia are such that I believe that the Senate should seek to resolve the matter by making further investigations and to ensure that the judge is questioned on the allegations and to enable him to be afforded the protection of the rules of natural justice in the process. Mr Acting Deputy President, you would know that it is not impossible that a future vote of the Senate may agree with some of the recommendations contained in the two dissenting reports. Although the majority finding advocates no further action, that does not, in this place, necessarily reflect the political reality of the future situation. Therefore, I hope that the Senate gives the earliest possible attention to the majority report and the two dissenting reports so that a final resolution of the matter may be brought about as soon as possible. I say that in fairness to the judge who must have suffered deep concern over the past several months and also because of the desirability of allowing the highest court in Australia to function without unresolved allegations remaining against one of its members. Because of the limited resources available to the Senate and because of the natural and obvious difficulties which attach to a committee of parliamentarians engaging in investigative and deliberative functions concerning a judge, consideration should be given that these further investigations which I recommend should be carried out by or with the assistance of a parliamentary commissioner appointed by the Senate. In concluding, I pay the highest possible tribute that I can to the objective and fair way in which the Chairman handled the affairs of the Committee, to my colleagues on the Committee and in particular to Mr Harry Evans, the Secretary, who was assisted by Mr Andrew Snedden and Mr Robert Walsh. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia)(3.45) — I also speak to the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge of which I was a member. I begin by stating that I hope for many reasons that the Australian Parliament does not embark upon this sort of procedure again. It has been an exhausting as well as an exhaustive procedure. The report details in depth the number of official meetings and indicates the amount of work that was involved in the short period. However, I believe that the greatest cost of this exercise has not been to the members involved but to the democratic principles and the principles of justice fundamental to our system of government. That process involved politicians in the investigation of matters which should be outside our sphere of involvement. The judicial process, a process which under the Constitution is deliberately left separate from our legislative function, should remain that way. There are good reasons for this. Indeed, we are different animals from the judiciary. We live in an environment where rumour and half truth take on the credence of fact unless they are proven otherwise. Those sorts of considerations, of course, work against anyone who is in a position where he has to defend himself. Principles of natural justice demand that the judicial process should not operate in that sort of way. When I say that, I say it with absolutely no intention to impute any malicious intent on the part of any member of the Committee. It is a fact of the environment in which we live. It is also ironic-I must comment on this-that we as a body of politicians have been involved in what is part of a law enforcement function. In fact, we were inquiring into whether some other extraneous influence took an undue part in the normal law enforcement function elsewhere. The Committee was, in fact, asked to investigate whether there was a breach of section 72 (ii) of the Constitution, to make an assessment of the law and of the rules of natural justice and, in fact, to interpret the facts as to whether they would constitute a breach of the law. I submit that all those functions should belong to the judiciary. I submit that it is more appropriate-to this extent I differ from the majority- to have a system whereby the court should make a deliberation and a finding on whether an offence has been proven and for the Senate to decide as to the gravity of the finding. That is the sort of principle that has been embodied in legal opinions presented to this Parliament previously. It is the sort of principle that was not accepted by the majority in the Senate when this Committee was set up. As I said-it has been said earlier-we embarked on the investigatory stage and only that. During that stage we heard all the evidence against the judge. We did not hear the evidence for the judge or any defence of the judge. There was no cross-examination by counsel hired by the judge. In this context, therefore, we have had presented to us as a committee the worst possible case against the judge. The only balance to the judge's interest has been that we met in private and we met with an agreement that after our inquiries we would not proceed to publish the evidence obtained in the investigatory stage. However, having said that, let me say that I do not believe that this sort of consideration is sufficient to balance the deprivation of rights that has occurred by the mere institution of this system. I note for the record that I disagree with the majority on one or two other points of law. I do not believe that in our process we should be obliged to find whether an offence has been committed on the balance of probabilities. I believe that the criminal burden of proof is the one that is appropriate and that we should have proceeded to assess the situation on whether, in fact, the judge had committed a breach of section 72 (ii) of the Constitution beyond reasonable doubt. In the event this should be a major consideration because obviously it influences the decision taken by the Opposition senators on the Committee. I do not wish to speak for long. I believe most of the issues have been canvassed. However, I do wish to say that I do not understand a particular part of the logic used. I think it is incumbent on me to highlight this, not for the reason of criticising any particular honourable senator but for the reason of highlighting a particular problem-the problem of politicians acting in a judiciary capacity. I illustrate this by referring to a proposition put to us that says 'Well, we can't find the judge guilty on what is before us; we can't find on the facts that there is a case of proven misbehaviour; we can't even find that there has been a prima facie case established against the judge, even if the burden of proof that we exercise is that based on the balance of probabilities'. Having considered all that we are then asked to take the matter one further step and demand of the judge that he come in here to prove his innocence. It has been incumbent on us, with all the powers we have had, and given the lesser degree of proof and the disregard to a limited extent, as I have highlighted, of the rules of natural justice, that even though we cannot establish guilt-at least a majority of senators on the Committee say that we cannot on the balance establish that there has been a prima facie case against the judge-the judge has to come and prove his innocence. I think that is gross hypocrisy. Having said that I do not wish to say any more other than to join in congratulating the Chairman of the Committee for his patient and tireless work, both in chairing the Committee and in preparing the report. I wish to thank my colleagues for having put up with each other over the last six months. Most importantly I wish to thank Harry Evans, Robert Walsh and Andrew Snedden for their tireless efforts in assisting the Committee. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(3.53) —I wish also to give my congratulations and my appreciation to Senator Tate for the impartial, honest and honourable way in which he chaired the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge. I pay tribute to my colleagues too for their patience and for the way in which the Committee conducted its proceedings in incredibly good harmony considering the difficult nature of the task which we had. Senator Chipp —Only two walk-outs. Senator LEWIS —Senator Chipp has just reminded me that there were only two walk- outs. I have to admit that I was one. I also wish to pay very sincere tribute to Mr Harry Evans, the Secretary to the Committee and his staff, Mr Andrew Snedden and Mr Robert Walsh-and I am sure the other Committee members would agree-and to his secretary, Peggy Grossbechler, for the tremendous amount of work they did. I also thank Hansard for the great assistance that it provided. It seemed to me that every time the Committee met members instantly wanted the transcript of what had been said half an hour before and that we wanted reports immediately. Everything seemed to be done under pressure even though we sat for many months. Now after handing out roses I turn to a raspberry. I give the biggest raspberry I possibly can to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) who is now in the chamber for his attitude towards this Committee. In the early stages when we tried to get the material that the Senate had told us to investigate the Attorney-General, in his usual arrogant, domineering manner, refused to supply the Committee with it. He supplied the Committee only with edited material which he had determined contained the matters that he wanted the Committee to look at. He started to bargain with the Committee about undertakings as to whether the Committee would do this or that with the material. If the Attorney-General wants to argue with me about that I shall ask for that correspondence to be tabled in the Senate so that the Senate can apply its mind to the attitude of the Commonwealth Attorney-General to a properly appointed Senate select committee carrying out a role which the Senate had asked it to carry out. I will be brief. I turn now to the report. The Senate has already had explained to it how ultimately the only question to be resolved by the Committee was the evidence of Mr Briese alleging that the judge had put pressure on him in relation to committal proceedings against the judge's 'little mate', Morgan Ryan . The report is a majority report only because, of course, the Chairman had a casting vote. There are two dissenting reports; there is a dissenting report by Senator Durack and me and a dissenting report by Senator Chipp. I think the majority report is very fair up to about paragraph 89 when, quite frankly, the report starts to go astray. I draw the attention of the Senate to paragraph 87 of the report in which it is stated: The Committee was of the view that Mr Briese gave his evidence sincerely and honestly . . . I assure the Senate that that is the lowest common denominator. I heard all members of the Committee, except one, express much stronger praise of Mr Briese' s evidence after his second appearance. Words were expressed as to how unshake- able Mr Briese had been and as well other comments were made that I will not bother to read into the Senate Hansard. Certainly these comments were much stronger than the words used in the report. Certainly the words 'sincerely and honestly' in the report represent the lowest common denominator. I say to the Senate that I believe the majority report in paragraph 97 quoted Mr Briese out of context. The result is misleading as to his evidence. On a reading of that we can see that Mr Briese was in the process of adding something else to what he was saying. He said: I do not think you could necessarily interpret it that way but he was . . . The reason for the interruption was that one of the members of the Committee interrupted Mr Briese at that point with another question. Of course, Mr Briese was then led on to another point without being able to finish the sentence. I also acknowledge openly, because I have spoken to the Chairman about this matter , that he says 'Well, that is qualified by what appears in paragraph 96'. The majority report in paragraph 96 states: . . . even though he-- that is Mr Briese- drew an inference of pressure consistent with his interpretation of a pattern of conspiracy . . . I draw the attention of the Senate to the way paragraph 97 is written. Also I draw the attention of the Senate to the summary of the dissent by Senator Durack and me which is contained in paragraph 5 and also to paragraphs 18 and 19 in which we set out that: It is our view that the evidence of Mr Briese is of sufficient strength to establish a prima facie case of misbehaviour by Mr Justice Murphy. Paragraph 19 states: We stress that we are not finding that misbehaviour has been proved. It would not accord with the principles of natural justice to make such a finding at this stage. We then recommend to the Senate that a further hearing by a commissioner take place. It is interesting that independently of us Senator Chipp came to the same conclusion. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(4.00) —I appreciate that we all have to rush. Senator Lewis —There is a Press conference. Senator CROWLEY —That is right; a Press conference is waiting downstairs and I would certainly like to join my colleagues. This report records the process and finding of the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge and its findings have been most adequately reported by Senator Tate. I would like to say especially that they serve as a vindication of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and the Government who examined this material and further accepted reports on the material from the Special Prosecutor, Mr Temby, before concluding in the same way as the Committee subsequently did. The points raised by Senator Lewis about the Attorney-General's behaviour in this matter are a complete misrepresentation of the Attorney-General's behaviour. He regarded the material with the same seriousness and solemnity as did Committee members and with regard to the need to protect and take care of all people concerned. For the record I would like to say that it is my understanding, and that of most of the Committee , that he behaved entirely appropriately. Senator Gareth Evans —Thank you. Senator CROWLEY —Any time. The Committee had the unprecedented task-and it is unprecedented in this country-of possible address for the dismissal of a High Court judge. This was a question going to the heart of the Constitution and to the separateness of the legislature, the Executive and the judiciary. The Committee had the task of examining section 72 of the Constitution as well as the terms of reference given by the Senate, while at the same time establishing a precedent for any such future inquiry. Not only did the Committee address the questions and the material under examination; it also addressed the procedures it adopted at every stage with equal seriousness. Every effort was made to proceed with the utmost thoroughness and all fairness, particularly in view of the gravity of the matter occupying the Committee. The Senate is aware of the extensions of time sought by the Committee. They were sought precisely to allow the comprehensive examination of material and witnesses to occur. On examination of all the materials, the tapes, transcripts, written matter and witnesses, the Committee has concluded on the evidence before it that it does not find proved misbehaviour by the judge. I am pleased to put my name to that report. It has been a very serious exercise and I suspect that some time in the future, when a book is written about these materials, the minutes of the Committee will prove just as fascinating a piece of research. On one occasion I found myself involved in a gentleman's agreement, but as I took those words to refer to the nature of the agreement rather than the people engaging in such agreement I felt I could reasonably and comfortably concur. I might say that I do not believe that that is the most significant reason that people would look up the minutes for research. The difficulties facing the Committee from time to time were also complicated by the publication of material related to the Committee's work. I simply make mention of that in passing. I do not want to take much time, but I want briefly to give some of my reasons for finally concluding as I did about Mr Briese's evidence. I simply say that facts were being recalled by Mr Briese from over five years back and that there is some difficulty at any time in recalling events from such a time. Secondly, we had to deal with Mr Briese's interpretations of these facts which he clearly stated were changed after he read the transcripts; that is, it is with hindsight that he placed a different view of such events from those he reported to the Committee. Thirdly, he also indicated that at the time he thought there was no sinister interpretation of many of those facts; and that would no doubt account for why he took no action about these matters at the time. I make these comments only to indicate that there were sufficient grounds for doubt on Mr Briese's evidence alone. Finally, because we are pressed for time, I would like to commend my colleagues on the way they conducted themselves in this difficult and serious task. I can tell the Senate that from time to time various members of the Committee other than myself threw the odd temper tantrum, presumably under the pressure of time constraints and the significant matter to hand. I might add that I resisted the temptation then to ask them whether they were having a period. I particularly commend our Chairman, Senator Michael Tate, who coped with the dual task of the serious matter to hand and the successful functioning of the Committee. As ever, Senator Tate conducted the proceedings with thoroughness and care and throughout provided equable and supportive consideration to the Committee and staff. I place on record my appreciation of his role as Chairman of this Committee. I join others in recording my thanks to the staff for the splendid support they gave, and also to the staff who supported the staff. While we might have complained of writing until 2.30, it needs to be noted that many people were then involved in the shorthand, typing and printing of materials well on into the night after we had finished our business. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Walsh) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(4.05) —My comments this afternoon will be on the case of Mrs Lindy Chamberlain. Standing Orders do not permit me to anticipate debate on my private member's Bill on this subject which is an order of the day, and I shall not do so. However, I think I should say that unless significant and appropriate action is taken by the Northern Territory Government to look at new evidence in the Chamberlain case I will be seeking a vote on the Bill in the Senate prior to 12 October. I mention that date since it seems a probable one on which the Parliament will rise prior to the election. More or less continuous inquiries I am getting from senators and members have made it clear to me that there is a considerable amount of feeling that the matter should be resolved in the Northern Territory if possible. However, there is also a considerable amount of feeling that we should proceed here if the next few weeks do not see satisfactory movement on the matter in Darwin. I am also aware that dialogue is in progress between the Chamberlain defence and the Northern Territory Government and the Crown will now give the defence access to certain material which the defence has been seeking since last March and which is essential to its case. On that basis I expect that all the new material could be available to the Northern Territory authorities quite soon. Meanwhile it is important that the Senate should carefully consider the effects of any action we might take. May I first say that there is not and never has been any question of the Senate usurping the powers of any part of the judiciary or setting itself above and beyond the judiciary. No such thing has ever been in my mind. The point about the Chamberlain matter is that there is significant new evidence which appears to be of importance and which needs now to be tested in a proper setting. However, there is no court to which it can be taken. This evidence has come up since the Federal Court and High Court of Australia hearings. I cannot stress that point too much. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has said that the Government will consider amending the Federal Courts Act to allow for a fresh hearing there if the Northern Territory Government recommends that. I welcome that suggestion, but with considerable reservations. The Federal Court is of course an appellate court and I am concerned that it would not provide the necessary scope to consider this new material. I would like the Attorney-General to consider that point before he goes too far along that road. I also refer briefly to an article in the Australian this week under the heading 'Opposition deals blow to Lindy Chamberlain'. This article does not actually say that the Liberal and National Party Caucus this week decided to vote en bloc against my Bill but it suggests that with its opening words: The last chance for Lindy Chamberlain to overturn her conviction for the murder of her baby Azaria has gone . . . Those words I think are very ill chosen. I have discussed this report with the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, to whom I put the view that it would be scandalous if party discipline forced people to vote against their honest convictions and beliefs, in this matter of all matters. Senator Chaney has assured me that the normal Liberal Party practice of permitting a conscience vote as opposed to a free vote will apply in this matter and that Liberal senators will have this option. Senator Chaney has given me his approval to quote him on that matter. As a result, I am confident that that conscience vote will be extended to members of the Liberal and National parties without reservation. While I have had no undertaking on the matter from the Australian Labor Party, I am hoping it will be forthcoming. Public reaction to the Chamberlain case is now at a very high level, possibly the highest level it ever has been. Most of the reaction I have had has been very much in favour of a fresh examination of the Chamberlain case. About 95 per cent of the inquiries have been to that effect. I have had many responses from lawyers. A typical response from an Edgecliff solicitor indicating that he wholly supports a fresh look at the case is interesting. Even more interesting is the fact that this letter was also signed by 70 of his colleagues and associates. I have also received responses from branches of the World Council of Churches and from law reform societies. This is indicative of the level of concern within both the professional and general community, and on that basis I urge honourable senators to involve themselves in this debate and to inform themselves as fully as possible on the new material available so that they can form their own conclusions in the reasonably near future. Question resolved in the affirmative. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Before the Senate adjourns I advise honourable senators that Estimates Committees A and C will meet at 2.15 p.m. on Monday, 3 September and Estimates Committee B at 4 p.m. on Monday, 3 September. Estimates Committee A will meet in the chamber, Estimates Committee B in committee rooms 1 and 2 and Estimates Committee C in committee room 6. The following Papers are presented: States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments of the Schedules to the subsidy schemes in relation to the States of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania, dated 13 August 1984. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 844) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 1 May 1984: What are the names, dates of appointment, terms of appointment and salaries of all persons appointed to the Boards and Commissions of statutory authorities under the jurisdiction of the Minister. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: QANTAS Date of Term of Position Name appointment appointment Salary $ Chairman J. B. Leslie, A.O., M.C. *15.10.79 5 years 27,578 Vice-Chairman J. B. Reid, A.O. 25.5.81 5 years 20,684 Director Sir Tristan Antico, A.C. 15.10.79 5 years 13,789 Director K. R. Hamilton, C.B.E. 26.6.80 5 years 13, 789 Director J. N. Davenport, A.O., D.S.O., D.F.C.*, G.M. 1.5.81 5 years 13, 789 Director Sir William Allen 1.5.81 5 years 13,789 Director Sir Garrick Agnew, C.B.E. 1.7.81 5 years 13,789 Director J. P. Ducker, A.O. 26.8.83 5 years 13,789 Director M. C. Beasley 26.8.83 5 years 13,789 Director R. Gietzelt 1.7.84 5 years 13,789 *Re-appointed on 19 June 1984 for a further 5 year term commencing 15 October 1984. AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRLINES COMMISSION Date of Term of Position Name appointment appointment Salary $ Chairman N. A. Smith, A.C., C.M.G. 22.6.83 5 years 23, 507 Vice-Chairman *Sir Leslie Froggatt 9.7.84 1 year 11,835 Commissioner A. E. Blanckensee 10. 10.79 5 years 7,899 Commissioner B. W. Lithgow 14.10.80 5 years 7,899 Commissioner F. E. Peterson, O.A.M. 14.10.80 5 years 7,899 Commissioner W. B . Pritchett 21.12.83 5 years 7,899 Commissioner D. Hill 16.7.84 5 years 7, 899 * Appointed on 9 July, 1984 as Acting Vice-Chairman for period of 12 months, commencing 9 July 1984. His 5 year term as Commissioner expires on 22 February, 1986. INDEPENDENT AIR FARES COMMITTEE Date of Term of Rate per Position Name appointment appointment diem of fee Chairman K. F. Wraith 26.1.82 5 years 223 *Member Vacant Member Dr D. W. Zink 26.1.82 5 years 184 Alternate member A. J. Oliver, C. M.G. 24.12.83 1 year 184 Alternate member Hon. Mr Justice J. T. Ludeke 14.6. 84 1 year Nil * This position became vacant on 6 July 1984. Filling action is in hand. (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 November 1983. (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. 972) Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 14 June 1984: What is the operating cost per hour, per day and per month for each fixed-wing and rotary winged passenger-carrying aircraft of the Royal Australian Navy, the Australian Army and the Royal Australian Air Force: (a) operating within range of the home base of the aircraft; and (b) operating from temporary base which is not the home base of the aircraft. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (a) Estimated hourly operating costs for each type of passenger-carrying aircraft flown by the Air Force and Army are listed in the following table: Hourly Type of Aircraft (i) Cost (ii) $ BAC 1-11 3,136 Boeing 707 5,327 Caribou 1,197 Chinook 3,637 Hercules 2,323 HS748 1,609 Iroquois 1,045 Mystere 2,010 Nomad 1,411 (i) RAN does not currently operate passenger-carrying aircraft. (ii) Hourly operating costs comprise spares, fuel, squadron, depot and contract servicing, and crew costs. (iii) Daily and monthly estimated operating costs are directly related to the number of hours flown. (iv) Capital and depreciation costs for aircraft and ground support equipment have not been included. (b) The costs for operating from a temporary base cannot be quantified in a form which could provide a satisfactory response to the question. For flights within Australia any variations in costs detailed at (a) would arise from allowances or accommodation costs paid to or on behalf of crew members. For flights outside Australia, additional costs including differential costs of refuelling, ground handling, overflying, technical services, catering and crew accommodation and allowances would be incurred. The extent of these costs would depend entirely on the duration of each flight and on the locations at which supplies or services are obtained. (Question No. 976) Senator Peter Baume asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 15 June 1984: (1) Was a complaint about taxation matters made by a Mr Russell Hancock, formerly of 26 Water Street, Lidcombe, New South Wales? (2) Was it necessary to have two officers specially sworn in to comply with the secrecy provisions of the Taxation Act in order to obtain satisfactory information in relation to matters raised by Mr Hancock. (3) Who were the officers of the Taxation Department specially sworn in to make inquiries about Mr Hancock's allegations. (4) When were the officers sworn in. (5) What questioning of officers of the Taxation Department was carried out. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I am unable to answer the honourable senator's question. Under the secrecy provisions of the income tax law, the Commissioner of Taxation is permitted to disclose information relating to a taxpayer's affairs only to the taxpayer or a person authorised to act on the taxpayer's behalf, or in other limited circumstances which are not relevant here. The Commissioner of Taxation has advised that he would be pleased to respond to specific questions which the particular person, or another person authorised to act on his behalf, may wish to put to him in writing. (Question No. 849) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 2 May 1984: What are the names, dates of appointment, terms of appointment and salaries of all persons appointed to the boards and commissions of statutory authorities under the jurisdiction of the Minister. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Date of Office held Name appointment Term Salary/Fee CAPITAL TERRITORY HEALTH COMMISSION$ Chairman K. Doust 11.6.80 6 years 65,417 Commissioner O. Fenwick 22.10.81 5-7 years 52,551 COMMONWEALTH SERUM LABORATORIES COMMISSION Chairman N. L. C. Batt 20.10.83 4 years *14,712 Vice Chairman T. H. Hurley 1.7.84 4 years 8,849 Commissioner H. D. Huyer 1.7.84 4 years 5,917 Commissioner V. C. McMullan 1.7.84 4 years 5,917 Commissioner C. Kidson 20 .10.83 4 years 5,917 Director N. L. McCarthy 19.9.79 5 years 66,775 plus allowance of 3,800 p.a. *Appointed as a Commissioner on 20.10.83 (fee $5,917); appointed as Chairman on 1.7.84 HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION Chairman F. W. Millar 1.11.80 4-11 years 15,689 Commissioner W. A. Butters 1.11.80 4-11 years 7,899 Commissioner K. N. Willis 1.11.80 4-11 years 7, 899 Commissioner D. N. M. Denton 1.11.82 5 years 7,899 Commissioner P. O. Glenning 1.11.82 5 years 7,899 Commissioner J. S. Deeble 21.12.83 5 years 7,899 Commissioner R. L. Gradwell 1.12.80 5 years 7,899 General Manager C. R. Wilcox 27.8.81 5 years 66,775 Senator Walsh —On 7 June 1984 (Hansard, page 2759), Senator Sibraa asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice concerning the March quarter national accounts data. The last part of his question asked what action the Australian Bureau of Statistics might be taking to correct discrepancies between the income-based and the expenditure-based estimates of gross domestic product. In reply I undertook to pursue the honourable senator's query and provide a more detailed answer. I have now been informed by the Treasurer that as part of the ongoing effort to improve the quality of the national accounts, and reduce the discrepancy to which the honourable senator referred, the Bureau: has recently expanded its survey of employment and earnings (this survey is used to derive figures for the income side of the national accounts data); and is currently in the process of expanding the size of its profits survey. Both these measures should result in an improvement in the quality of the income-based, and hence the published, estimates. As part of its continuing commitment to improve the quality of the national accounts the Bureau is also looking into the following sources of the statistical discrepancy on the expenditure side of the accounts: expenses associated with the sale of dwellings and other buildings and land; capital expenditure on private dwellings for alterations and additions which either do not require a local government permit or for which the owner does not obtain the requisite permit; and consumption expenditure on illegal goods and services. In the end, however, there will always be some statistical discrepancy in the national accounts if only because of difficulties in measuring aggregate income and expenditure at the same moment. One specific example of this relates to small businesses which, because they do not always possess the same level of budgetary control as larger enterprises, cannot always supply accurate quarterly figures. It is important to appreciate that accurate quarterly GDP estimates are more difficult to generate than accurate annual estimates. Nevertheless, the Statistician is confident that the national accounts provide a most useful guide to developments within the Australian economy. (Question No. 970) Senator Hamer asked the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 13 June 1984: (1) How much has the Department of Education and Youth Affairs spent in the following legal actions relating to the dismissal of Mrs Barbara Setterfield from the then State College of Victoria at Frankston and the present Chisholm Institute: (a) the action of Barbara Setterfield taken out against the Council of the (now ) Chisholm Institute in the Supreme Court of Victoria on 19 September 1980; (b) the action of S. Gordon Setterfield taken out against the Council of the ( now) Chisholm Institute and others in the Supreme Court of Victoria in December 1981; (c) chamber Summons in the Supreme Court against the Council of the (now) Chisholm Institute on 13 April 1981; (d) chamber Summons in the Supreme Court of Victoria against the Council of the (now) Chisholm Institute on 19 June 1981; (e) chamber Summons in the Supreme Court of Victoria against the Council of the (now) Chisholm Institute on 27 July 1982; and (f) hearings of Freedom of Information appeals in the Country Court of Victoria on 9 and 10 April 1984 together with all preceding chamber Summons. (2) How much has been spent in any of these cases by any other Federal Department on behalf of the Department of Education and Youth Affairs. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The Commonwealth has had no involvement in legal proceedings involving Ms Barbara Setterfield and the Chisholm Institute of Technology or the former State College of Victoria at Frankston, nor has it directly met any of the legal costs involved. However the Commonwealth does provide grants to the States for advanced education purposes under the provisions of the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act. Colleges of advanced education are established under State and Commonwealth legislation which provide for the appointment of governing bodies which have general responsibility for the management of institutions. Colleges are self- governing institutions which may be required to consult as appropriate with co- ordinating authorities, but are generally responsible for their own internal administration, including staff matters.