Tuesday, 4 September 1984 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Education: Government Funding 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 increases 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 school 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 Button (from two citizens), Coleman (from 10 citizens), Ryan (from 68 citizens), Peter Rae (from 55 citizens), Robertson (from 189 citizens) and Zakharov (from 31 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they so wish to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Collard (from 250 citizens) and Messner (from 506 citizens). To the Honourable the President and honourable members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation 's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable Senate will: Propose and pass a motion that 'the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change'. And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 266 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 MacGibbon (from 118 citizens) and Ryan (from 1,012 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That governments have a responsibility to maintain standards acceptable to society's wishes. 2. It cannot be guaranteed that X-rated video material will not be viewed by children. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should: Not adopt the X Classification for films and video tapes, nor Category 2 for printed material. Further, that tighter restrictions be applied to R rated films and video tapes and category 1 printed material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Robertson (from 105 citizens) and Ryan (from 238 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 (Cinematographic Films) Regulations and supersede the A.C.T. Objectionable Publications Ordinance in such a manner as to be harmful to society by removing from existing Commonwealth law. the power to prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography (e.g. X- rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; the power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications, including those associated with blasphemy; the power to require imported video tapes/discs for non-commercial use to be registered by the films Censorship Board. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled: 'should disallow the new Regulations and Ordinance and ensure that the Attorney-General enforce existing laws; that censors more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes; that further measures be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; and that, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all members of parliament And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Chaney (from 18 citizens), Robertson (from 29 citizens), Scott (from 79 citizens), Walters (from 1,424 citizens) and Watson (from 151 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 given 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-United States' electronic communication facilities in the Watsonia Army Barracks. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 58 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that 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 cost 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 66 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 Senators Coleman (from 132 citizens) and Colston (from 137 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law. (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901 and each point depicting a State and the Territories of the Commonwealth. 3. They know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to its form or to its acceptance as the sole Australian National Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should ensure that the existing Australian National Flag remains sacrosanct from change and remains the sole national flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 830 citizens). Petitions received. Notice of Motion Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) recognises the concern of the community in the Australian Capital Territory , New South Wales and other parts of Australia about the influx of the importation of X-rated videos for sale, hire, reproduction and distribution; (b) notes that the New South Wales Government is to ban the sale, hire, reproduction and private distribution of all X-rated videos in the State; and (c) calls on the Federal Government to place a moratorium on the importation, sale, hire, reproduction and private distribution in the Australian Capital Territory and across Australia of all X-rated and other sexually sadistic and violent videos pending the outcome of the proposed joint select committee of inquiry into pornographic videos. Notice of Motion Senator DURACK(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Flags Act 1953. Senator LEWIS —I remind the Minister representing the Special Minister of State that on 23 August he gave the most generalised answer when asked by Senator Hamer whether Mr Justice Stewart, head of the National Crime Authority, had sought or been offered briefings by Commissioner Costigan or his staff as part of the handover process from the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union to the Authority. I ask again: Has Mr Justice Stewart had a briefing? If not, why not? Was it because of absence overseas on other duties or was there some other reason why the head of the Authority turned down the opportunity to become personally acquainted with the complex operations of the Commission, much of which will shortly be transferred to the new organisation? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have no further information in front of me with which I can usefully add to the answer I previously gave to the honourable senator but I will seek an appropriate reply from the Special Minister of State and ensure that the honourable senator gets a full answer as soon as may be. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation. It concerns tenders which have been called for airport fire vehicles for Australian airports. Will the Minister advise whether tenders are still being considered or whether they have been cancelled? If they have been cancelled, will new tenders be called? Will the Minister give an assurance that the tenders will not be let outside Australia, as was the case with the Ford Transit vans for Australia Post? Will he outline the policy initiatives of the Australian industry participation program regarding the participation by Australian manufacturing industry in the supply of goods to the Commonwealth? Senator GIETZELT —The Government has on several occasions made pronouncements and statements, issued by both the Minister for Administrative Services and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, detailing Government policies in respect of the purchase of goods for the Australian Government. We are on the public record as saying that in the supply of goods to Government departments preference will be given to Australian goods. On the specific matter raised by Senator Foreman, tenders for the fire vehicles closed on 4 April 1984. Six tenders were received for the supply of a total of 12 vehicle types. Contrary to what has been expressed, the tenders have not been cancelled. The six tenders received were submitted by Australian firms, although all involved significant overseas content such as chassis, pumps, et cetera. One tender involved body building and assembly in New Zealand but under the closer economic relations agreement with that country it will be considered as Australian content. The remaining five tenders involved assembly in Australia, with the Australian content averaging between 40 and 70 per cent. In the Australian industry participation program which was announced by the Minister for Industry and Commerce we seek to increase the level of participation by Australian manufacturing industry in the supply of goods to Australian Government departments, including the departments of Aviation and Administrative Services. So I think I can assure Senator Foreman that the interests of Australian manufacturing are being well protected by the Government's policies. Senator ARCHER —Does the Minister representing the Special Minister of State acknowledge that delay in setting up the National Crime Authority meant that only two weeks in July were available for briefings by members and staff of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union for their counterparts on the new Authority? Who on the Authority received briefings and what areas were covered? Is it a fact that the transition process has largely failed because Commission staff are now totally occupied in writing the final report to meet the deadline of the 30th of this month? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to Senator Lewis in this respect. I have no knowledge of any failures in the transition process as it is presently operating. I do know that substantial briefing material in written form has been made available to the new Crime Authority members. I know that arrangements have been made for the full evaluation of that material. As to detailed briefings of individual members of the Authority and their staff, and the way in which the Costigan Commission members and staff are choosing perhaps to exercise their time at the moment in writing reports rather than briefing members of the Authority, they are matters on which I will have to get further information and advise the honourable senator accordingly. Senator ARCHER —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Will the Attorney make an effort to get that information today and let us have it as requested? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will do my best, Mr President. Senator PRIMMER —I ask the Minister for Social Security: Has his attention been drawn to the case, reported on television and in the newspapers, of Mr and Mrs Clucas, a couple who drew out $12,000 from the bank for fear that their pension would be cut and were then robbed? Is the Minister disturbed that hysterical and irrational statements from the Opposition and some journalists are responsible for a climate of fear that can be so destructive? Senator GRIMES —My attention was drawn to the case of Mr and Mrs Clucas, who apparently withdrew $12,000 from the bank and kept it in their house because they feared that it would affect them under the assets test. I hope that those few members of the Press and some members of the Opposition who have been misrepresenting and exaggerating the effects of the assets test will be aware that this sort of thing can happen if such exaggerations and misrepresentations are known. The terrible irony of this case is, of course, that Mr and Mrs Clucas have assets far below the threshold at which their pension entitlement would be affected and they need not have had any anxiety. Their fears were completely groundless but they were fed by articles in one Melbourne newspaper in particular. Senator Missen —It couldn't be your bad propaganda? Senator GRIMES —If Senator Missen has been enjoying himself misrepresenting the assets test in that way, he can also take some blame. The assets test thresholds have been widely publicised. A special information hot line service has been set up. A number of people, particularly vested interests and one organisation in Victoria, have made irresponsible claims. For instance, there have been claims that there would be armies of inspectors from the Department of Social Security and the Australian Taxation Office entering people's homes. That will not be so. Members of the Opposition, as well as those of the Government, know that that will not be so. There was an outrageous claim by the honourable member for Denison, who is notorious for that sort of thing, that we would assess the gold in people's teeth. We have seen articles in the Press claiming that people will be forced off their land, that there will be SS squads, et cetera, trained ready for assets test raids. Such claims appeared day after day and week after week in the Melbourne Herald. I think one of the reasons the Melbourne Herald yesterday wrote a very responsible, sensible and clear article on this issue was to balance the previous articles which had been written in that newspaper. As I have said before in this place, there will be no invasion of privacy and no inspectors going into people's homes to evaluate their personal effects. The test is based largely on self-assessment. Over 70 per cent of pensioners will not even have to fill out an assets test form. Only about 40,000-odd pensioners will be affected at all by the test. People need not be concerned by these highly emotional statements and articles. It is a tragedy that people put out misinformation to mislead people in this way. Senator MACKLIN —I address my question to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. I refer to the submission of the Australian Teachers Federation to the Minister for Finance dated 31 August this year concerning allocations to non- government schools. First, were the per capita amounts and the total expenditure estimates for non-government schools for 1985-88 checked by the Department of Finance? Secondly, has the aggregate cost of Commonwealth recurrent grants for non-government schools for the next seven years been underestimated because the Government failed to take into account the cost of non-government school enrolments above the 1983 level of enrolments; so that, consequently, the expected increase in 1985 expenditure on non-government schools will be $51.2m rather than $10.6m as previously indicated by the Minister? Senator RYAN —I have seen the submission sent to Mr Dawkins because a copy was sent to me. I am, therefore, in a position to answer Senator Macklin's question. I must lay to rest the idea that the cost estimates in the guidelines were not thoroughly checked by the Department of Finance. The fact is that, as with all Budget figures, the estimates for this program were fully checked by the Department of Finance in the normal way. The Government was aware, when making its decisions, of the cost implications if the projected growth in non- government enrolments were to eventuate. The Government decided to include in the 1984-85 Budget a provision for such an increase. For years beyond that, however, it is felt that the projections are too uncertain for cost estimates to be based on them, particularly in view of the advice of the Commonwealth Schools Commission that enrolment growth in non-government schools is slowing down. Senator Withers —Ha, ha! Senator RYAN —The evidence is available from the Schools Commission, and I am happy to put it on the record. The enrolment growth in non-government schools is slowing down. I am pleased to say that, for the first time in many years, enrolments in government schools are increasing. Just as the figures set out in the guidelines underestimate the amount that will actually be expended in the government sector because of the enrolment growth, so too the figures on earlier projected enrolment growth have been revised and, judging by the 1983 data that is currently being analysed by the Schools Commission, will be lower. In response to the grossly unwarranted reflection on the levels of assistance to government schools, I must say that the fact is that the per capita grants will increase during the next eight years by 37 per cent at the primary level and 100 per cent at the secondary level. Those increases will be made in real terms and will not be affected by any variation in the cost of grants for non- government schools. If government schools continue to increase their retention rates for students in upper levels of secondary schools their grants will rise accordingly. I point out that early indications are that the Government's participation and equity program is having an effect. Senator Macklin previously expressed some scepticism about this. Enrolments in upper secondary levels in government schools are increasing, particularly in disadvantaged areas. Consequently, since government schools are now on a per capita basis of funding in terms of Commonwealth recurrent grants, increases in upper secondary, as is the case with increases in any level of government schooling, will involve higher grants and, of course, will be at those higher rates which I have just given. Senator COOK —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to recent comments made by the Secretary to the Treasury criticising what Mr Stone called 'grasshoppers'; that is, public works for which the earning capacity does not cover the capital invested? Does the Minister share that particular concern of the Secretary to the Treasury? Can the Minister point to any particular projects that would fall into that category? Senator WALSH —Senator Cook asked whether I can point to any particular projects that fall into the category of 'grasshoppers', which I believe was originally defined by Mr Shann; that is, public works the revenue from which is inadequate to service the cost of the capital invested in them. I was astounded to hear the present Leader of the Opposition uncritically endorse Mr Stone's speech when, in fact, the present Leader of the Opposition is busily promoting one of the most voracious grasshoppers ever suggested in Australia. I refer to the fact that the present Leader of the Opposition has committed a Liberal government, if there ever is another one, to building the Northern Territory railway. I cannot think of a better example of a grasshopper, as defined by Mr Shann and Mr Stone, than the proposed Alice Springs-Darwin railroad. That project entails an investment of $600m on present values, the revenue from which would not cover the operating costs and, of course, therefore would provide not only no return on the capital investment but a negative return on the capital investment. I would like Mr Peacock to explain that contradiction along with all the other contradictions he has been embracing recently. He is simultaneously embracing Mr Stone's views, derived ultimately from the views of Professor Shann, and advocating the construction of a voracious grasshopper of the magnitude of the proposed Alice Springs-Darwin railway. A couple of other examples of grasshoppers were mentioned specifically by Mr Stone. One was the Ord River irrigation scheme in Western Australia, in which in present value dollars some $150m of public capital has been sunk, and the other was the Dampier-Perth pipeline in which some $700m of public capital has been sunk. Ironically, both of those projects are attributable to the former Liberal Premier of Western Australia, Sir Charles Court, who, although not the Premier at the time, provided the political push to stampede an irresponsible Liberal- Country Party coalition Government in the late 1960s into providing Commonwealth funds for the Ord River Dam. Sir Charles Court was also responsible for the political push which ultimately resulted in the Western Australian Government signing the disastrous take or pay contract for the domestic phase of the North West Shelf gas and the associated Dampier to Wagerup pipeline. As a result of that decision by Sir Charles Court the Western Australian Government is faced with the prospect, unless it can introduce some way of mitigating the damage which it inherited, of deficits which will accumulate to the order of $700m or $ 1,000m by the early 1990s. One might also add, although Mr Stone neglected to mention it, that Sir Charles Court was also directly responsible for the white elephant at Broome which is called a grain loading facility in which another $3m of public capital has been sunk not only for no return but also for absolutely no use. That facility was supposed to handle the sorghum which was to be grown on the Kamballan irrigation scheme which, of course, was going down the gurgler financially at the very time Sir Charles Court committed $3m of the State funds to it. Finally, I do share those concerns which Mr Stone expressed and I commend a careful and responsible study of those views and the implications of those views to all members of the Opposition. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Attorney-General as the Minister representing the Special Minister of State. I remind him of an answer he gave to Senator Hamer on 23 August-12 days ago-when he said that he would check to see whether Mr Costigan had written to the Prime Minister or the Special Minister of State expressing his grave concern about the handling of the transition from his inquiry to the National Crime Authority. Has the Attorney checked this matter and is he now in a position to answer the question whether that letter has been written by Mr Costigan? Does he accept that Mr Costigan is unhappy with the handover arrangements and is worried that they have hampered the fight against organised crime? If he has now found the correspondence, will he table it? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will draw Senator Durack's question to the attention of the Special Minister of State and get a reply as soon as may be. Senator HEARN —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services seen the report in the Age of 23 August 1984 that the Australian Council of Trade Unions has criticised the Government for failing to implement its policy to give preference to Australian-made goods? Can the Minister comment on the factual base of this criticism? Senator GIETZELT —I did read Mr Dolan's critical comments of what he believed to be frustration of Government policy by some departments and some senior bureaucrats, to use his terminology. I refer Senator Hearn to the previous statement that I made answering Senator Foreman: Government has made a pronouncement about the preference for Australian goods, through both the Minister for Administrative Services, Mr Brown, and Senator Button. It is designed to assist our manufacturing industry to negotiate successfully contracts and arrangements with the Australian Government for the purchase of Australian goods. That policy announcement was designed to ensure that Australian industry would be able to make more efficient use of long-standing Commonwealth purchasing preference for the provision of Australian-made goods. I am further advised that the Government, in making that announcement, has adopted certain guidelines. There is a 20 per cent notional discount, for tender comparison purposes only, for Australian content of offers of over $10,000-worth of goods. Ministers have been given the right of review of purchases of any substantial value by their respective departments. In that respect, my attention has been drawn to a large international company that has a contract arrangement with the Department of Veterans' Affairs, which is contemplating going off-shore in respect of its manufacturing operations and closing down its Australian operation. If that is the case-I propose to have discussions with this company- and if it is within my power to review the contractual arrangements between that organisation and the Department, I shall certainly be acting in accordance with Government policy in insisting that the guidelines that the Government has laid down in respect of the provision of Australian-made goods by the Commonwealth are followed. Otherwise, that particular company will find a very unsympathetic Minister so far as its present contractual arrangements are concerned. I reiterate to Senator Hearn what I said to Senator Foreman: The Government's policy is firm, and we shall be insisting that every government department, in its purchasing arrangements, gives preference to Australian-made goods. Senator HILL —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Special Minister of State. It also follows those questions asked on 23 and 24 August, relating to the hand-over from the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union to the new National Crime Authority. I remind the Attorney-General that on 24 August he promised to obtain details of the personnel involved in sifting through suggested references from Mr Costigan to the Authority. I ask: Apart from Mr Phillip Cummins, QC, who are the lawyers making up the team referred to by the Attorney on the 23rd of last month? When did each of the lawyers, including Mr Cummins, begin work, and how many hours has each been able to devote to the task? How many matters are expected to be ready for presentation to the meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee which the Attorney said would be held within the next few weeks? Is there a firm date for that meeting? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have no reason whatever to suppose that the hand-over from the Costigan Commission to the National Crime Authority, being supervised as it is by Mr Justice Stewart, Mr Max Bingham, QC-a former Liberal Attorney- General of Tasmania-and Mr John Dywer, QC, of the Melbourne Bar, will be anything other than expeditiously and professionally carried out. As to the remaining questions in Senator Hill's list I ask him to put them on notice. Senator JONES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. It refers to youth unemployment and to the Budget allocation of $150,000 for the development of employment opportunities outside the conventional work force. Will the Minister provide details of the proposed pilot training programs and of the options already identified through consultative research, as this is a subject of considerable interest to a number of church and youth organisations, particularly those in Queensland. Senator BUTTON —Senator Jones was kind enough to give me advance notice of this question, which relates to the portfolio of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. It is true that $150,000 has been provided through the Department of Education and Youth Affairs for the purpose of developing training strategies for young people. The funds may be used to promote these training strategies and to strengthen the support networks and agencies to ensure that training provisions have the most favourable outcome. The funds are not available to develop co-operatives or sustainable communities, as such. The Government has provided this $150,000 because training and support have been widely acknowledged as being vital for the success of co-operative ventures. Training is required particularly in co-operative business, administrative entrepreneurial skills and interpersonal corporate decision-making. Two options are available to those concerned. They are: Training in formal institutions, such as technical and further education, and training outside of established institutions. The Office of Youth Affairs has undertaken a number of studies, which have recently been completed or are due for completion soon, relating to these matters. The Office of Youth Affairs will be consulting further with people in the field, the education commissions and State and Territory Government authorities in order to begin developing and then putting into place the necessary training strategies. Senator MISSEN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Special Minister of State. The question also concerns the hand-over from the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union to the National Crime Authority-which I hope the Attorney-General is still interested in. Is it a fact that Mr Costigan has suggested that more than 40 references be made to the Authority to continue the fight against organised crime, which he has so successfully pioneered? Secondly, how many of these proposed references related to the past or present activities of Mr Kerry Packer ? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is the case, in my recollection, that something over or around 40 references have been proposed for the attention of the Crime Authority by Mr Costigan in summarising and drawing together the various activities and investigations on which his Commission has previously been working. How many of those will in fact prove to be appropriate for further full scale, coercive investigation using the full powers available to the Authority is, of course, a matter for the Authority and the Inter-Governmental Committee to consider and decide upon. I understand that a meeting of the Inter-Governmental Committee, which will be the subject of a preceding full report from the Authority, is proposed for a matter of just a few days or a few weeks away. I shall find out what I can about the timing of that and advise the honourable senators accordingly. As to the content of any individual proposed reference, I think it would be quite inappropriate to speculate on that or to give any information at all to the honourable senator on the subject of investigations involving the particular named gentleman or anyone else. Senator BOLKUS —Has the attention of the Minister for Resources and Energy been drawn to recent statements by the Opposition claiming that the Federal Government has slashed its funding for South Australia's water resources program by approximately 23 per cent in the recent 1984 Budget? I ask the Minister whether he can say whether such claims are accurate and, if not, to what extent they are inaccurate. Senator WALSH —Yes, I am aware of some claims by Senator Messner along the lines mentioned by Senator Bolkus. Senator Messner seems to be determined to conduct a misinformation and disinformation campaign in South Australia about this question-of similar magnitude to the sustained disinformation and misinformation campaign which he has been conducting about social security matters for some time. Senator Messner claimed that the allocation for water programs in South Australia this financial year was $8m. In that he ignored, either deliberately or otherwise, the $7m which has been provided in the Budget outside the Federal water resources assistance program to the Adelaide and northern towns water treatment program. That is a particularly important program, a fact well- recognised by this Government in both the previous and present Budgets, a program that is essential to upgrade the low quality of water received by many places in South Australia for far too long. That $7m, incidentally, will not have to be matched by State funds as is required under most of the Federal water resources assistance programs. One might have excused Senator Messner's ignorance on this matter-I am giving him the benefit of the doubt, I suppose, in describing it as ignorance-if he had been required to consult the Budget Papers and read all through them to discover the $7m he overlooked, inadvertently or otherwise. However, I am particularly peeved, and I believe I am entitled to be so, as I personally went to the trouble of signing a letter to Senator Messner which pointed out this fact to him. I do not know whether he cannot read, whether he does not want to read, or whether he deliberately plays fast and loose with the truth. The fact is that there has been a very significant increase in this Budget in allocations to South Australia for water, for the reason I have already given, that is, that the Commonwealth Government is very conscious of the high priority that ought to be given to the Adelaide and northern towns water filtration program. That priority has been matched by the Commonwealth by an appropriate financial allocation. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I ask : Is it a fact that Mr Clarrie Briese appeared twice before the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge and submitted to cross-examination without legal representation? Is it also a fact that Mr Justice Murphy declined to appear before the Committee but was represented by a team of lawyers comprising two senior Queen's Counsel, another barrister, and solicitors? Has the Government decided to make legal aid available to the judge? If so, has any commitment been given to meet his legal expenses and what is the estimated cost to the Government of such assistance? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is the case that in June the Government received a request from Mr Justice Murphy for financial assistance towards his legal costs of making a response to the invitation made to him to appear before the Committee. I do not believe that any similar request was made by or has been received from Mr Briese. I stand capable of correction on that, but certainly it has not come to my attention. The Government takes the view that financial assistance towards legal costs of witnesses before parliamentary committees is normally a matter for the Parliament. However, in this case it recognised that the terms of reference of the Senate Committee raised the quite fundamental constitutional issue of the relationship between the Federal judiciary and the Parliament. Accordingly, it agreed to provide assistance up to the level that was provided to the main witnesses before the Hope Royal Commission on Australia 's Security and Intelligence Agencies. Assistance has been provided on that basis. I am unable to say at this stage what the total sum has been, but I will be happy to advise the honourable senator if he pursues the point. Senator CROWLEY —My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. I refer to the splendid announcement by the Government on 24 August this year of decisions about basic nurse education and the Government's in principle support for the full transfer of nurse education to colleges of advanced education. Will the Minister spell out the steps involved in the transfer? What is the substance of the proposed negotiations with the States and Territories and what are the numbers of nurse places involved at each stage of the transfer before full transfer by 1993? Senator RYAN —Some of the detailed requests in Senator Crowley's question will be worked out in negotiations between the Commonwealth and State governments. As announced on 24 August, the Commonwealth Government has given its in principle support to the transfer of nurse education from hospital programs to CAEs. Subject to negotiations with the States and Territories on satisfactory transition and cost-sharing arrangements, the last intake into hospital-based courses will occur in 1990. Thus full transfer will be achieved by 1993. I expect that the Commonwealth will approach the States next week, or shortly after, outlining its position so that the negotiations can commence as soon as possible. The Commonwealth will co-operate with the States to assist in achieving an orderly, planned transfer process designed to avoid labour shortages during the transition period. The Commonwealth will negotiate cost-sharing arrangements with the States. The Commonwealth, of course, will be responding to State plans and requests and will not be seeking to impose transfers in any areas. As far as the payment of the tertiary education assistance scheme is concerned, it is expected that TEAS will be available to nurse education students in CAEs on the same basis as it is available to other tertiary students. Senator HARRADINE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications and relates to the widespread justifiable public outrage over the decision of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to extend entitlements, including relocation expenses and privileges appropriate to spouses and families of staff members, to homosexual partners. Does the Board of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation take the view that homosexual relations are equivalent to marital relations and if that is the fact will the Minister enlighten the Board about the birds and the bees? If that is not the Board's basis does its decision place a homosexual household in the same category as a family? If that is so, will the Minister draw the attention of the Board to the view of the democratically elected representatives of the Parliament, enshrined in legislation, that marriage and family life have been fundamental to the strength of society for a long time and that families are the fundamental group units of society? Does not the Minister view the decision of the Board to equate a homosexual household with a family as meaning that it regards families as just one other of many social phenomena, with no more significance than any other? Finally, has the Board, in choosing to treat homosexual relationships as if they were marriages, become a propagandist for a type of social change, the logical extent of which is the destruction of society? I ask the Minister directly whether the Government asked the Board to review its decision and to reverse it. Senator BUTTON —I will of course address Senator Harradine's question to the Minister to endeavour to obtain some of the details which he requires in relation to factual matters. However, I remind Senator Harradine that it is not the province of the Government to tell the ABC in any particular respects relating to employment how it shall conduct its business. Senator Harradine —You appointed the Board. Senator BUTTON —Yes, we appointed the Board. However, while Senator Harradine, in preparing his question, has taken great care to read other legislation and to draw rather tortuous conclusions from that legislation, he has not bothered to read the legislation concerning the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I would have thought that was fundamental. Senator Harradine —I certainly have. Senator BUTTON —If that is so, Senator Harradine has not read it very well. The point is that it is not the Government's concern to instruct the ABC in relation to that matter. If honourable senators are concerned to grandstand on these issues then they will turn questions into speeches. If honourable senators turn questions into speeches they will get into the sort of situation which Senator Harradine got himself into when he asked factual questions of me. On the basis of assumptions made as to the answers he then put forward some rather strange hypothesis. I am not prepared to follow him down that tortuous route. I will try to obtain information on the factual matters to which Senator Harradine has sought answers. As soon as I do that I will provide answers to him. Senator HARRADINE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I have read the legislation. Is it not a fact that the legislation provides for a charter for the ABC to contribute to a sense of national unity and to the cultural enrichment of Australian society? In what way did the Board's decision in respect of homosexual relationships, by equating them with marriage, do just that? I ask that the Minister respond directly as to whether the Government-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is now getting outside the range of a supplementary question. Senator HARRADINE —Mr President, has the Government asked its hand picked Board to reverse that decision or not? Senator BUTTON —Senator Harradine says that he has read the Act. He has clearly read the wrong section of the Act. I suggest the honourable senator try again in terms of reading the Act and that he read the section of the Act which defines the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Senator Harradine —Do you say that the Government cannot ask? Senator BUTTON —I am not going to debate that issue with the honourable senator now. He should go away and read the Act and then come back and ask a question if he wants to. Insofar as the second part of the honourable senator's question is concerned, he asked me by way of continued grandstanding whether the Government has indicated its attitude to the Board of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Three minutes ago he asked whether these things happened and I undertook to get the honourable senator factual answers, but on the basis of an assumption about the answers he then asked me a question about what the Government's response has been. There has been no Government response because there is no factual agreement before the Senate and before the honourable senator. Senator SIBRAA —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to the sales tax on wine announced in this year's Budget. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to confused statements from some areas about the future of that tax and to questions raised about the administration of the tax as it affects integrated wine makers and retailers? Can the Minister clarify these issues for the Senate? Senator WALSH —I am aware that questions have been raised, particularly in Western Australia, about the treatment of wineries that make wholesale sales or conceivably do not make wholesale sales and sell the entire production over the cellar door. I can clarify that. There has been confusion about other matters concerning the 10 per cent sales tax on wine; in particular, the confusion within the Opposition and the confusion-indeed, outright contradiction and conflict-between the present Leader of the Opposition and Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Here in the Senate, I think it was two weeks ago or 13 days ago, members of the Opposition sanctimoniously raised a matter of public importance condemning the Government for imposing a sales tax on wine and I think they all voted for it, and then the next week at the National Press Club we had the discredited former Treasurer and present Deputy Leader of the Opposition standing up and saying that the wine tax was a good idea and Liberal government would retain it, after his leader had been running around for weeks saying that a Liberal government would repeal it immediately. That is a bit of confusion which, I am afraid, I cannot sort out, but I can sort out the confusion pertaining to the way in which the tax will be applied. Senator Button —It is not your job to sort it out. Senator WALSH —No, it is not my job to sort it out. In fact, it is a job that I would not like, because I think it is well beyond my capacity. The sales tax on wine, as with sales tax in general, will be applied at the wholesale level. There are cases, such as the integrated wineries which Senator Sibraa has mentioned, where there is in fact no wholesale transaction or at least no arm's length wholesale transaction. I am advised that the present intention of the Commissioner of Taxation is to apply the Act in the way I shall outline. I interpolate that matters of administration such as this are matters for decision by the Commissioner of Taxation at his discretion rather than matters for the Government by direct political directive. I understand that the present proposal is that where a winery sells a portion of its product at arm's length to a wholesaler, all that winery's sales will be valued, for sales tax purposes, at the same prices as the actual wholesale transaction. If a winery does not make any arm's length wholesale sales of that type, the actual retail price will be used as a base for striking the tax, but only 65 per cent of the actual retail price will have the 10 per cent tax applied to it. So the tax converted to a retail level tax will be, in fact, 6 1/ 2 per cent and not 10 per cent. In my view, that is a very generous allowance because implicit in that decision is that the normal wholesale to retail mark-up in the industry is in excess of 50 per cent. I would be surprised if it were in fact that high. There are a couple of minor matters. The taxation Act provides-I think the phrase used in the Act is 'goods for own use'- that, where the producer of a good consumes that good himself or within his or her household-in the case of a wine maker, somebody who is drinking his or her own product-that product will be subject to sales tax at either the actual wholesale price or the deemed wholesale price. I am advised that that will apply to wine consumed on the premises of a wine maker, whether it be a free tasting or something like that. Sales tax at 6 1/2 per cent of the retail price level, or the actual wholesale price level of 10 per cent, will be applied. However, wine consumed off the premises, for example, where a wine maker submits samples to a wine show conducted in another town, another city or, even conceivably I suppose, another State, will not be deemed as goods for own use-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I take a point of order. As usual Ministers, this Minister in particular, simply use Question Time to make statements. If this Minister wishes to make a statement on this matter, why should he not make a statement at the end of Question Time in common with his colleague the Attorney- General? The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. I call the Minister for Resources and Energy. Senator WALSH —I do not know whether Senator Chaney objects to the facts being laid out concerning this matter. I can only assume that. He is deliberately trying-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to answer Senator Sibraa's question. Senator WALSH —I could answer it much better if I was not being interrupted by the Leader of the Opposition when I am giving important points of fact. Where goods are consumed off the premises in that way, at wine shows or in tastings, the sales tax will not apply at all. Senator CHANEY —My question, which is addressed to the Attorney-General, refers to his failure to answer questions put by Senator Durack and Senator Hill today which sought information on the transition from Royal Commissioner Costigan to the National Crime Authority, questions on matters which were raised in the Senate and questions to the Attorney-General on 23 and 24 August which he undertook to follow up and respond to and which obviously have not been followed up by him since that time. Does he accept that, as Attorney-General, he has the fundamental responsibility to see that allegations of organised crime are properly and fully investigated? Does not his obvious lack of action in following up these inquiries indicate that he is neither interested in nor responsible for the protection of the public interest in these matters? If he denies that that is the case, I ask him to tell the Senate what he has done to follow up the legitimate inquiries which have been raised in this place about a matter of considerable public interest, about whether matters which have been uncovered by Mr Costigan will be properly dealt with. Senator GARETH EVANS —If this is meant to be the warm-up for today's main bout, the Opposition should really be trying to get some more proven performers into the ring. The reality of the matters is that the questions raised on 23 and 24 August were referred to the Special Minister of State in the normal course by my office. They were followed up by me personally yesterday. They were followed up by me during Question Time when some briefing that I had expected failed to materialise. That briefing has now materialised and I am in a position to give the honourable senator the following information. I believe that this information largely satisfies the questions that have been directed to me. If, on review, it appears that any aspect of the questions has not been addressed in this answer, I will be happy to follow it up and ensure that that is put on the record tomorrow. The situation is this: Following a meeting with Mr Costigan in March, the Special Minister of State announced that, on the establishment of the National Crime Authority, there would be a transition period of one month with the Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union then having a further two months to write its report. On the appointment of Messrs Bingham and Dwyer in July as members of the Crime Authority, Mr Costigan proposed to them, and they agreed, that they should be briefed first on the computer systems of the Royal Commission to be followed by briefings on the Royal Commission's outstanding investigations. Subsequently, Mr Costigan indicated that he and his senior counsel, Mr Meagher, QC, would be occupied full time as from 1 August on writing the report of the Royal Commission-that is to say, if Mr Meagher could take time out from his journalistic activities-and that they would not, therefore, be available for briefing on the outstanding investigations or on 'the higher levels of operational techniques'. Mr Costigan's position now is that so far as these matters are concerned the transition from the Commission to the Authority will, in his terms, fail. The Authority does not accept that this accurately reflects the position. It notes that the order of the transitional briefing was Mr Costigan's choice and that in any event he had held out to it the prospect that he would have some time available after mid-September when his report had gone to the printers. The Authority notes that, among other things, it will have available to it the material contained in the Commission's computer system, the analyses prepared by Mr Costigan's staff, the material contained in his reports, counsel and a team of solicitors who have been engaged in conducting his operations-I am happy to find out the names of those persons and put them on the record because that was the subject, as I recall it, of a specific question-and accountants, analysts and other staff trained by him, all of whom will be available to the Authority. It is worth repeating the point that the functions of the Authority and the Commission are different and that it is not simply a case of the Authority picking up from where the Commission left off. The Authority is presently concentrating on examining the Commission's outstanding investigations with a view to proposing to the Intergovernmental Committee matters which might be referred to the Authority for investigation. Because of the number of investigations and the complexity of the material, to which I have already adverted in reply to Senator Missen today, the Authority has indicated to the Special Minister of State that it will not be ready to approach the Committee before late September. Further, more precise, advice is expected from the Authority later this week on when it will be ready to approach the Committee. I have also a note on Mr Justice Stewart's travel arrangements, since that has been the subject of some rather snide questioning in the course of Question Time today. Mr Justice Stewart has travelled overseas on only two previous occasions in his capacity as head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking and the Nugan Hand royal commission, the name having changed when the letters patent were amended in March 1983. The first such trip was from 26 November to 23 December 1981 when he visited a number of countries in Europe. From 11 September to 13 October 1982 he visited Hong Kong, Singapore and the United Kingdom. This year Mr Justice Stewart left on 17 August to go to Hong Kong, accompanied by the team working with him on the Nugan Hand royal commission. He went from there to the United States of America and I believe that he will be absent from Australia for just two more weeks in the balance of this year. I trust that that satisfies Senator Chaney and the other members of the Opposition who have asked questions. I will be only too happy on behalf of the Special Minister of State to give any further information that the Senate might reasonably require. Senator GILES —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. In view of the Budget announcement of the supported accommodation assistance program for homeless youth, women in crisis and the chronically homeless, will the Minister please clarify the relationship between the proposed program and current funding arrangements-that is, through the women's emergency services program, the Homeless Persons Assistance Act and youth support services-and explain the implication for existing services such as crisis accommodation for women and for young people? Senator GRIMES —As Senator Giles said, the new supported accommodation assistance program was announced in the Budget. This arose from the report on the Commonwealth's Review of Crisis and Youth Accommodation, which was tabled in this Parliament. As a result of that report and its recommendations I have had negotiations with the various State Ministers for community welfare about the situation which exists in various crisis accommodation programs generally. That report, Senator Giles will remember, reported that there was no order, no chaos, no sense of direction and no apparent idea of just where we were going in this whole miscellany of crisis accommodation programs which have developed over the years. The purpose of the new program is to provide funds to the States and Territories to be used to assist non-government and local government bodies to provide a range of supported accommodation services-services both of the traditional type which have provided accommodation for those who are long term homeless, particularly aged men, and in the youth area and the women's area. It is hoped that these programs will be brought together so that we can replace the homeless persons assistance program, the women's emergency services program, the youth services scheme, and related elements of the children's services program with a supported accommodation assistance program which contains three elements- the youth supported accommodation program, the women's emergency services program and the general supported accommodation program. As a result of recent negotiations with the States, we have come to an agreement, with some minor details to be sorted out. By 1 January I believe these new programs will be in place. We will then have three quite separate programs. The women's program, which is the one particularly mentioned by Senator Giles, will be separate from the other two programs. Funding and administration will be considered separately. In fact, by bringing together the present State and Federal contributions to these programs, plus the additions in the Budget, more funds will be available than have been available in the past. Part of the idea in developing the program is to give women who run programs such as this, and also those people who run youth shelters, one government and one agency with which to deal, and also to give them a guarantee of funds in a way that they have not had in the past. If negotiations with the States and the Territories can be completed as quickly as I think they will be, this program will be established on 1 January 1985. From 1 January 1985 to 1 July it will be a Commonwealth-funded program. After that almost all elements of the program, with the particular exception of the homeless persons assistance program, will be cost shared. The result will be a more coherent program and, in the long term, I believe, a better funded program in all these areas than has been the case in the past. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Resources and Energy and follows the earlier question from Senator Bolkus. I note that the Minister has indicated that there has been a fall of 23 per cent in water resources money for the State of South Australia in this year's Budget. I ask: Is it a fact that the funds provided for special assistance to water, to which he referred, have dropped from $10m in the last Howard Budget to $7m this year, a decline of 30 per cent? Senator WALSH —Some people are tigers for punishment. The inadequate and misleading figure that Senator Messner quoted may well be correct; I do not have with me the figure for the last Howard Budget. However, I do know that the last Howard Budget established the preconditions which, had they not been changed, would have left the country with a $10 billion deficit. Where Senator Messner is misleading or obtuse or whatever is that he has counted only part of the allocation to South Australia in this Budget for water assistance. If the figure in the last Howard Budget was $10m, as he said-I do not know whether that is correct; judging by his recent record it is unlikely, but it may be-the total figure this year for water assistance for South Australia is $15m. That is made up of $8m in the water resources assistance program, the requirement of which is that it be matched by State funds in some proportion, and $7m outside the normal water resources assistance program, which does not require a matching State contribution. I do not know whether Senator Messner is complaining about that, but I do not believe that the South Australian Government or even the South Australian Parliament, which I understand has in it some colleagues of his, would complain about that. If his figure of $10m is correct, then in real terms after adjustment for cost changes over those two years, the total payments from the Commonwealth for water assistance programs in South Australia this year will be 25 per cent higher than they were in the last Howard Budget. Senator ELSTOB —My question to the Minister for Social Security refers to the welfare system and supporting parents. What is the Minister's response to the position of supporting parents who obtain a job to increase their income and then find it extremely difficult to manage financially because they face the financial burden of taxation and child care expenses along with the loss of rental and Medicare subsidies and fringe benefits? Does the Minister agree that such a situation, in which supporting parents would be better off not taking a job, locks them into a poverty cycle? Does the Government intend reviewing that position so that supporting parents on welfare benefits have a real incentive to break out of the welfare cycle and are not disadvantaged by doing so? Senator Walters —Hear, hear! Senator GRIMES —I am glad to hear the cry 'Hear, hear' from Senator Walters. In all her years as a back bencher she supported a government that failed to assist supporting parents, particularly with regard to payments for children, and she is notorious for her defence of wealth and privilege in society. I think her cry was really a bit rich, like her. Senator Chaney —It is better to protect the wealthy and privileged than criminals. Senator GRIMES —Senator Chaney is the second honourable senator who likes to get up in the chamber and talk, but he never defends his record. Senator Gareth Evans —That is offensive. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw that remark . Senator Chaney —There have been enough offensive remarks from the Government side of the chamber. They have been thoroughly offensive to Senator Walters. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the remark. Senator Chaney —I withdraw at your request, Mr President. Senator GRIMES —They are a touchy lot. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator GRIMES —I am aware that supporting parents in the community, particularly those with more than one child, are in a difficult position and always have been. I remind Senator Elstob that because of provisions in the last Budget a supporting parent with two children and in private rented accommodation , as such parents frequently are, can receive after November an increase in payments of between $13 and $15 a week. Since the Australian Labor Party has come to power such supporting parents have received considerably greater amounts of between $25 and $30 a week. Of course, in some cases supporting parents, particularly those with more than one child, always will be better off in monetary terms on the pension with fringe benefits they may receive than in some of the low paid jobs that are available to them. We are likely to have to face that situation for a long time, although I believe-I am sure that this is true- that most single parents prefer to work if they can. Because of the assistance given to them through the family income supplement and the other benefits that are available through State and Federal governments, those parents should look carefully at the position before deciding to go on the pension rather than work. There continue to be obstacles in our society for working single parents with children, the most obvious of which are the limited employment opportunities. Sole parenthood is often an added barrier to obtaining a job. The Government has been successful in increasing the number of jobs available and employment in the community. We shall continue along that path. We shall continue also to give single parents assistance in that regard. The earnings of women-more than 90 per cent of single parents are women-tend to be low. Those women tend to have fewer skills and less experience than others in the community. The legislation on affirmative action introduced by my colleague Senator Ryan and her efforts with education and training will assist us in that regard in the future. Another barrier to obtaining a job is the absence of accessible and affordable child care. This year we increased the child care budget by $30m on top of the $20m-odd by which we increased it last year. That is a considerable increase in a program which accounted for less than $100m when the Labor Party came to power. The increased number of child care places throughout the country will gradually assist us in that regard. We intend to take that action despite the complaints of some people that expenditure on child care is somehow damaging the family in this country. We know that all these problems have to be faced. We believe that we have faced them in the first 18 months of government. We believe that in the future we will be able to reach the situation, through fuller employment and through better assistance to women, where single parents will not be in the position that Senator Elstob talked about. The PRESIDENT —In accordance with the provisions of section 9B (2) of the Public Service Act, I present a report on the operation of the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff for the year ended 30 June 1984. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I will briefly raise a matter which is of concern to the Opposition. During last week's recess there was a considerable delay in receiving copies of the daily Hansard. I am advised by some Opposition senators that once the Parliament rises there is not quite the same urgency devoted to producing Hansard. There is a separate problem with respect to the Hansard record of Estimates committees. Mr President, you might recall that in the last period of sittings, when we had some debate on the Estimates committee record, there was some problem because we were working from informal records rather than the completed Hansard document. I want briefly, Mr President, to draw those problems to your attention and to ask you to take up the matter with the Parliamentary Reporting Staff. We understand, of course, the very heavy burden that members of the staff carry and the very considerable loads that are put on them. However, there is concern among members of the Opposition in terms of our getting access to those documents in as speedy a way as perhaps we have become accustomed to and have learned to rely on. I ask you, Mr President, to consider that matter and perhaps let me know the results of those inquiries before we resume debate on this motion. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The PRESIDENT —In accordance with the provisions of the Audit Act 1901, I present the report of the Auditor-General upon audits, examinations and inspections carried out under the provisions of the Audit Act and other Acts, dated 3 September 1984. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —I seek leave to make a statement concerning the Government's legislative program for the current period of sittings. Leave granted. As the statement is the same as one read some time ago in the House of Representatives, I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- In doing so the Government is continuing its practice of announcing the legislation program at the start of each period of sitting to provide a basis for informed and open public debate about major national issues. There would be no stronger indication than that already given by the Treasurer that during the current sittings the Government will be building on its proud record of sound economic management and progressive social reform which was established by last year's Budget and consolidated during the Autumn sittings this year. This government has had to tackle, during its seventeen months in government, economic and social problems of a kind not seen in this country for over 50 years. Our program should be seen in this light. Our major objective this sitting will be to provide sufficient fiscal stimulus to maintain the momentum of private sector expansion, including by direct support for business; to provide further improvements in pensions and other welfare payments, to provide tax cuts which will support the accord, boost family income and stimulate consumer spending-all this while achieving a significant reduction in the Budget deficit. In addition to the key Budget Bills already introduced on Budget night we intend introducing further Bills to amend the Income Tax Assessment Act, the Income Tax (International Agreements) Act and the Bank Account Debits Tax Administration Act to implement measures announced in or before the Budget. We intend to continue our fight against tax avoidance with Bills to counter trust stripping schemes. In addition to revising the Medicare levy threshold and ceiling we will introduce a Bill to amend the National Health Act and the Health Insurance Act which will, among other things: alter drug pricing arrangements; and encourage provision of respite care in nursing homes. We will introduce a Bill to implement a new Commonwealth State Housing Agreement which will launch a ten year assault on housing-related poverty. In addition to a further social security and repatriation legislation amendment Bill we intend if time permits to introduce a supported accommodation assistance program to provide support for those in crisis situations and for the chronically homeless. (The home and community care part of the aged care package is to be introduced in the Autumn sittings next year.) We intend to amend the Trade Practices Act by repealing sections 45D and 45E and will be amending the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to provide a mechanism whereby secondary boycott disputes can be dealt with by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. We also intend to introduce a Bill to bring about a major consolidation of all existing veterans' entitlement legislation. The Government will be embarking on major industry restructuring and assistance measures all of which have already been announced and some extensively canvassed . Briefly these will include legislation to: establish an automotive industry authority as part of the revised assistance to the industry. Associated with this initiative will be the introduction of measures to provide support for the design and development of motor vehicles; revise industry arrangements for the retail marketing of petrol; amend the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act to facilitate and encourage off-shore petroleum exploration and development activity, and to give effect to the area to be avoided by ships around the Bass Strait petroleum production facilities; introduce a package of Bills to restructure the wheat marketing and pricing arrangements; revise arrangements for the fishing industry to introduce a new management policy and further assistance measures; amend the export inspection charge provisions for meat, dairy products and eggs following review of these procedures; revise arrangements for the canned fruits marketing industry. The Government also intends to introduce, if time permits, a package of Bills to reorganise the dairy marketing industry. These will not be passed during the Budget sittings but will provide the opportunity for detailed public debate to take place on a more informed basis. As already announced by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs the Government will introduce a major item of legislation to revise the system of grants to the States and the Northern Territory for schools assistance. This will be introduced together with States Grants Bills for tertiary education, as well as Bills to adjust grant levels in line with cost supplementation arrangements. In line with an announcement made last April the Government intends introducing a Bill to amend various electoral, health, social security and education Acts to bring arrangements for Christmas Island broadly into line with the rest of Australia. Bills will also be introduced to: enhance the role, jurisdiction and enforcement powers of the Human Rights Commission; introduce changes to the supplementary licence scheme for broadcasting and television in preparation for its early commencement; guarantee borrowings raised by Qantas to purchase Boeing 767 aircraft; enhance the Commonwealth's ability to collect air navigation charges and introduce separate airport charges; enable the Empress of Australia to be replaced, thereby ensuring the survival of the Bass Strait sea passenger service; replenish Australia's contribution to the International Development Fund; restrict the use of Australian passports to Australian citizens and remove the distinction between immigrants who are British subjects and those who are not; implement the report of the remuneration tribunal in respect of salaries and allowances following the 1984 general review. In addition the usual Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill will include a number of matters of minor significance. We will of course be proceeding with Bills before the Parliament, including: The Constitution Alteration Bills; Defence and Repatriation Bills; Conciliation and Arbitration; and the six Export Inspection Charge Bills. As always, unforeseen circumstances may give rise to additional legislation and pressure on parliamentary debating time as well as on the Parliamentary Counsel' s time and resources may not enable all of the legislation forecast to come forward as soon as we would like. In addition, the Government may still consider other measures which could result in legislation in the current sittings. However, the program I have outlined continues the direction of reform established by the Government thus far. I commend the Government's program and look forward to the assistance of honourable senators in its implementation. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —by leave-I wish to make a statement on the Government's response to the report of the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge. The issues confronting the Government and the Senate arising out of the report of the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge are about as serious as could possibly be imagined. An allegation has been made against a very senior Federal judge that, if substantiated, would amount to the commission by that judge of the criminal offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice. The evidence in support of that allegation has failed to convince the Senate Committee as a whole that there is a prima facie case against the judge, but equally it has failed to convince all members of the Committee that there is not. The decisions that are taken on this report will have major consequences for the independence and the integrity of the Federal judiciary and the whole balance of power between the courts, the Executive Government, and each House of Parliament. Also, they obviously will have the most important consequences for the Federal judge concerned, Mr Justice Lionel Murphy, who has served on the High Court since 1975. He is now the most senior judge on the High Court, after the Chief Justice and Sir Anthony Mason, and, as occasion requires, presides over that court. The matters to be dealt with must therefore not be approached lightly or dismissively, or in any partisan spirit. It is particularly important that the decisions we make in this matter-either on the part of Government or on the part of the Senate-not be a hothouse reaction to passing pressures that ignore the deeper issues and values that are involved. What we do now transcends the particular case. It will set the pattern for how our institutions respond in future to grave allegations of judicial misconduct without jeopardising the independence and integrity of the judiciary. Proper Approach to Section 72 The decisions we take need to be taken in the light of the proper procedure and criteria to be applied when a House of Parliament addresses a question of misbehaviour under section 72 of the Constitution. Section 72 provides that a Federal judge: shall not be removed except by the Governor-General in Council, on an address from both Houses of the Parliament in the same session, praying for the removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. Address for removal is the only action that Parliament can take. The Government's position on the criteria and procedures that are available under section 72 has been clear from the outset. On 28 February, I tabled the opinion of the Solicitor-General, which I believed-and still believe now-to be the sound and the correct interpretation on this matter. It pays due regard to the role of the Houses of Parliament, and at the same time addresses the basic issues of the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers. The Government does not accept the view of section 72 contained in the opinion of counsel to the Senate Committee, Mr Pincus, QC, insofar as it supports giving each House of Parliament more or less unfettered freedom to say what private misconduct constitutes misbehaviour. In this connection, Mr President, I now table a supplementary opinion by the Solicitor-General, which confirms his earlier opinion and explains in full the reasons why he, as does the Government, rejects Mr Pincus's approach. The Government's view, based on the authorities fully cited by the Solicitor- General-- Senator Chipp —Do you table that or incorporate it? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am happy to incorporate it in Hansard, if I have leave to do so, at the conclusion of the statement. Senator Chipp —That would be valuable, if the Attorney-General would not mind doing so. The PRESIDENT —Will the Attorney-General seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard at the end of the statement? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will, Mr President. The Government's view, based on the authorities fully cited by the Solicitor-General, is that the concept of 'proved misbehaviour' in section 72 has only two possible areas of application. The first area is misbehaviour in the exercise of judicial functions, including neglect or non-attendance. In the absence of any question of criminal or civil liability of a kind appropriately proved in the courts, 'proof' here would have to be to the satisfaction of each House of the Parliament, following procedures established by Parliament. The second area is misbehaviour involving a breach of the general law of such a quality as to indicate unfitness for office. Parliament would normally rely for 'proof' here on the outcome of ordinary court proceedings, but Parliament could also, should it choose to do so, prove the matter to its own satisfaction by properly established parliamentary procedures. Counsel for the judge, Mr David Bennett, QC, has expressed the view that a conviction in court is necessary to establish 'proved misbehaviour', at least in relation to conduct not immediately pertaining to the duties of judicial office. The Government's view, as I have previously indicated to the Parliament, is not so limited. The traditional authorities, in particular Quick and Garran, in their Annotated Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, acknowledge a proper determining role for Parliament itself, although emphasising the very judicial way in which Parliament would need to act in such matters. Thus Quick and Garran say: No mode is prescribed for the proof of misbehaviour or incapacity, and the Parliament is therefore free to prescribe its own procedure. Seeing, however, that proof of definite legal breaches of the conditions of tenure is required, and that the enquiry is therefore in its nature more strictly judicial than in England, it is conceived that the procedure ought to partake as far as possible of the formal nature of a criminal trial; that the charges should be definitely formulated, the accused allowed full opportunities of defence, and the proof established by evidence taken at the Bar of each House. The reference is to the 1901 edition, at page 732. While acknowledging a proper role for Parliament itself, as well as the courts, in establishing 'proved misbehaviour' for the purposes of section 72, the Government does not, however, accept that it would be constitutionally capable for the actual proof of misbehaviour to be vested in any other kind of body-for example, a royal commission, or a parliamentary commissioner or parliamentary commission purporting to exercise power delegated by one or both Houses. This follows, in our view, from the necessarily judicial character of the 'proving' process; it is a very long established principle in Australian constitutional law that Federal judicial power can be exercised only by courts either created or vested with jurisdiction under chapter III of the Constitution, and there could be few more sensitive tasks of a judicial character than determining proof of misbehaviour against a High Court judge. The only exception, as we see it, to the rule requiring judicial proof or court proof is that which enables proof to the satisfaction of Parliament itself, and that power is in turn vested in the Parliament by virtue of section 72 (ii)-itself part of chapter III of the Constitution which gives the legislature a central role in the removal process. The most fundamental difficulty with Mr Pincus's interpretation of section 72- insofar as it would allow Parliament to range more or less at will in determining what constitutes 'proved misbehaviour' rather than being confined to the two categories I have identified above-is that it takes no account of the object or purpose of security of tenure given to judges by section 72. The Solicitor-General's original opinion points out that section 72 was intended to give 'conscious effect to the principle that the judiciary in our Federal system should be secure in their independence from the legislature and the executive'. The Pincus opinion just does not address the issues of judicial independence and separation of powers, and the consequences-for removal procedures under the Constitution-that flow from the emphasis given in the Constitution to those principles. Quick and Garran put the point very well at page 733 of their book quoting the relevant part of Todd's Parliamentary Government in England: The peculiar stringency of the provisions for safeguarding the independence of the Federal Justices is a consequence of the federal nature of the Constitution, and the necessity for protecting those who interpret it from the danger of political interference. The Federal Executive has a certain amount of control over the Federal Courts by its power of appointing Justices; the Federal Executive and Parliament jointly have a further amount of control by their power of removing such Justices for specified causes; but otherwise the independence of the Judiciary from interference by the other departments of the Government is complete. And both the Executive and the Parliament, in the exercise of their constitutional powers, are bound to respect the spirit of the Constitution, and to avoid any wanton interference with the independence of the Judiciary. Complaints to Parliament in respect to the conduct of the judiciary, or the decisions of courts of justice, should not be lightly entertained . . . Parliament should abstain from all interference with the judiciary, except in cases of such gross perversion of the law, either by intention, corruption, or incapacity, as make it necessary for the House to exercise the power vested in it of advising the Crown for the removal of the Judge. Some classes of 'misbehaviour' may not be subsumed by the approach of Quick and Garran-for example, partisan political activity or notorious private behaviour not directly related to, or affecting, the conduct of judicial office. So be it. What may be a cause for admonition by the Chief Justice of the court in question , peer group pressure and like forces, should not necessarily be regarded as grounds for dismissal. The separation of powers principle demands that the power of Parliament to remove a judge not extend to undefined residual areas of behaviour which are neither clearly illegal nor clearly related to the performance of judicial duties. The 'Age' Tapes and the Briese Allegation It is well to recall that the Senate Committee was established to inquire into and report upon the conduct of the judge as revealed by the Age tapes and transcripts. The Committee's findings on this question could not be more clear- cut. They were, first, that it was unable to conclude that these materials relating to the conduct of a judge were authentic or genuine except to the limited extent that limited acknowledgements had been made. Secondly, as to the tape recordings, there is nothing contained therein which could amount to or provide evidence of misbehaviour of the judge, whatever interpretation of section 72 of the Constitution is accepted. As to the transcripts, the Committee reported that no facts had been established in respect of conduct revealed by them which constituted misbehaviour under section 72, whatever interpretation of misbehaviour is accepted. Well may David Solomon say in the Australian Financial Review of 28 August that the Age 'did not come out covered in glory from the Senate investigation' and that: . . . it is quite extraordinary that a paper which is generally concerned about proprieties should have carried such a thin report of the Committee's conclusions about material which the Age itself had published so prominently. I say no more on that aspect. The nub of the Committee's report clearly concerns the allegation made to it in the course of its inquiry by Mr Clarrie Briese, Chief Stipendiary Magistrate of New South Wales. The criminal nature of the allegation appears to have been downgraded by some commentators, but I point out that the Committee agreed, in paragraph 79 of its report, that the allegation of Mr Briese, if sustained by the evidence, was that Mr Justice Murphy had engaged in conduct which constituted the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice. The Committee specifically referred to the offence to that effect created by section 43 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act. That is a very grave charge. The Committee did not seek to rule as a court on this charge but specifically limited itself to considering whether the evidence by Mr Briese could constitute the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice. There was a difference of views on the Committee, as we all know. Senators Tate, Crowley and Bolkus did not believe that the evidence of Mr Briese was of sufficient strength to establish a prima facie case of misbehaviour by the judge. Senator Durack and Senator Lewis, without finding that the judge had been guilty of misbehaviour, concluded that there was a prima facie case against the judge. Senator Chipp, for reasons he carefully explained in his dissenting report and in his statement to the Senate on 24 August, felt unable to express a conclusion on this matter. The seriousness of this offence and the clear division of opinion in the Committee have led the Government to conclude that further action of some kind needs to be taken to clear the air, and to remove the cloud hanging over the judge and the High Court. The question is what. So far as misbehaviour occurring otherwise than in the exercise of judicial functions is concerned, there are simply no precedents to bind or guide us, except that during the term of my immediate predecessor, Senator Durack, a serious criminal charge involving conduct not pertaining to judicial office was brought against a member of the Family Court of Australia and the judge was acquitted. Apparently that was regarded as the end of the matter. On that occasion, certainly, the matter was not raised in the Senate by Senator Durack or, so far as I am aware, by any other senator. Certainly, the situation in relation to investigations by Senate committees on matters of routine legislative inquiry provides no precedent as to the course that the present Committee should have followed, or that we in the Senate should now follow or authorise, in relation to the interrogation of the judge in the context of the possible application of section 72 of the Constitution. Possible Approaches for Resolution of the Matter The Government has therefore given most serious consideration as to how this situation should be dealt with. One approach would be to consider the institution of criminal proceedings, having regard to the essentially criminal nature of the allegation that has been made. A second approach would be to confine further consideration of the matter to the Parliament, in particular by reconstituting the Senate Committee and directing it to conduct on this occasion a judicial examination of the issues relating to Mr Briese's allegation. A third general approach that has been carefully considered is whether the resolution of these matters might most appropriately be achieved by a person or body, other than a criminal court, outside the political and parliamentary arena. Approach I-Criminal Proceedings In the Government's view, the proper course to adopt at this stage is to exhaust the criminal prosecution option before considering any other approach. This is justified by: the nature and seriousness of the allegation, which has been made on oath and tested by parliamentary committee examination; the belief by two Committee members that a prima facie case has been made out, with a third member not persuaded to the contrary; and the likely inability of non-court and non-parliamentary procedures, including a royal commission or parliamentary commissioner, so called, to satisfy the technical 'proved misbehaviour' requirement in section 72 of the Constitution. If it can be established that Mr Justice Murphy used the words 'and what about my little mate?', and did so with the intention of influencing the course of the committal proceedings involving Morgan Ryan, then the character of this conduct is criminal. If he did not use those words, or used them without that intent, then the conduct is innocuous. There is no middle ground in relation to that conduct. At this stage there is no evidence at all available to the Government to enable it to form a view on this question. All the Government has is the Senate Select Committee's summary of what Mr Briese has said in sworn evidence to the Committee. That, of course, is classic hearsay. Since the tabling of the report in Parliament on 24 August 1984 Mr Briese has indicated to the Australian Federal Police, on an approach initiated by me, that : (a) he did not propose to be interviewed at this stage; (b) he did not intend to make a formal complaint; and (c) he will decide his future conduct in the light of the decisions, if any, taken by the Parliament. According to the Committee summary, Mr Briese gave evidence of a conversation which occurred when the judge telephoned Mr Briese and said he had discussed the question of the independence of the magistracy in New South Wales with the New South Wales Attorney-General and the Government was going ahead with legislation to give effect to it. Mr Briese states that the judge then said to him: 'And now what about my little mate?'. The Senate Select Committee report then makes the following observations on this evidence: In evidence Mr Briese was unsure of the exact opening words of the inquiry (' and' or 'now' or 'and now') but was adamant that the question was asked with such emphasis as to suggest a link between the inquiry and the preceeding conversation The Judge's recollection is that he did not use the expression 'my little mate' . The description I have just given of the relevant events is based upon Appendix 5 of the Committee's report. Essentially what emerges is two materially different versions of the events-Mr Briese's version and the judge's version. Assuming the judge did make the statement 'and now what about my little mate?' with the intention of influencing the course of the Morgan Ryan committal proceedings, there are three provisions of Commonwealth criminal law which may be relevant: (a) section 33 of the Crimes Act 1914, which deals with official corruption and provides for an indictable offence with a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment; (b) section 43 of the Crimes Act 1914, which deals with attempting to pervert justice with a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment; and (c) section 7A of the Crimes Act 1914, which deals with inciting to or urging the commission of offences with a penalty of $2,000 or imprisonment for 12 months. The 'Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth,' tabled in the Parliament on behalf of the then Attorney-General, Senator Durack, in December 1982, lays down three principles which must be satisfied before prosecutions should be brought- (a) the evidence must establish a prima facie case against the defendant; (b) a prosecution should not normally proceed unless there is a reasonable prospect of conviction. It should be rather more likely than not that the prosecution will result in conviction-the so-called 51 per cent rule; (c) whether in the light of provable facts and the whole of the surrounding circumstances, the public interest requires the institution of the prosecution. (a) Prima facie case. The purpose of this rule is to ensure that the evidence in support of the prosecution is sufficient to establish the commission of the offence on the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. This principle must be satisfied by the application of objective professional judgment. Failure to apply this standard would be contrary to processes of the law and may expose an initiator of the prosecution to action for malicious prosecution. (b) The 51 per cent rule. There are precedents to support the proposition that in cases of this kind a prosecution should be brought to clear the air, notwithstanding that the available evidence may not satisfy the 51 per cent rule . Sir Thomas Hetherington, the English Director of Public Prosecutions, has recently said that the 51 per cent chance of conviction rule will not be applied in the case of allegations against police officers, whose public position requires the ventilation in court of allegations which amount to prima facie evidence of crimes. (c) Public interest considerations. It is axiomatic that prosecutions should not be brought otherwise than in the public interest. The question which arises is whether, in the light of provable facts and the whole of the surrounding circumstances, the public interest requires that a prosecution be brought. Among the many considerations that may be relevant in this respect is the desirability , even in circumstances of a relatively weak prima facie case, of bringing a prosecution to clear the air. One New South Wales precedent comes to mind: In 1964 a member of the typing pool at Parliament House made allegations of criminal misconduct against the then Chief Secretary. The Solicitor-General, although unconvinced of the likelihood of a prosecution succeeding, deemed it in the public interest to lay charges, and to instruct the President of the New South Wales Bar Council, then John Kerr QC, to prosecute. After hearing evidence , the magistrate declined to commit. There are three persons who could make a decision to prosecute: (a) Mr Briese- or for that matter any private persons; (b) the Attorney-General; or (c) the Director of Public Prosecutions. Mr Briese may be put aside at the outset. Although this course is open to him at law, he has made it clear that he does not intend either bringing proceedings , or making a complaint at this stage. The Attorney-General could take the initiative in the matter. Notwithstanding the existence of the DPP it would be open to me to consider criminal proceedings , and institute them if I saw fit. I refer to section 10 of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983. However, I have decided not to do so in this case. In reaching this decision I have had regard to the following matters: (a) The Government has recently established the office of DPP to revitalise, and bring greater independence to, the prosecution of offences against the laws of the Commonwealth. I do not consider that I should bypass the proper function of the DPP in this matter. I envisage doing so only in the most exceptional circumstances. (b) Much of the debate in this matter has been in the political arena. Should I decide not to prosecute or should I decide to prosecute and the prosecution fails, the criticism may well be made that these processes lacked independence. The DPP has been established to provide the degree of independence which is required. This leaves only the DPP, and the Government has decided that he is the appropriate person to make any decision whether or not to prosecute. I accordingly foreshadow that I shall be moving at the appropriate time in the following terms: That the Senate- (1) refer- (a) all evidence given before the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge; and (b) all documentary or other material furnished to the Committee, relevant to the Briese allegation, to the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration by him whether a prosecution should be brought against the judge, and (2) request the Director of Public Prosecutions, should he conclude that a prosecution not be brought, to furnish a report to it on the reasons for reaching that conclusion. If criminal proceedings are brought and determined only two consequences can follow: If the judge is convicted-presumably of attempt to pervert the course of justice under section 43 of the Crimes Act-the precondition of 'proved misbehaviour' under section 72 would appear to be clearly established, and an address could proceed without further Committee deliberation; if the judge is acquitted there would be no apparent remaining basis, so far as the particular Briese allegation was concerned, for any suggestion of some lesser form of section 72 misbehaviour. Approach II-Further Parliamentary Procedures Further consideration by the Parliament of the issues involved in an option which is certainly technically available on the views expressed on section 72 of the Constitution by the Solicitor-General and by me. However, the Government's view is that further consideration by Parliament should only proceed after exhaustion of the criminal prosecution option, as already outlined. There are a number of reasons why a further parliamentary procedure is not appropriate or desirable at this stage, but should only be a matter-if at all-of last resort. First, given that the Committee was evenly divided on the question as to whether it should proceed from its initial investigative phase to a more formal 'judicial' phase, there would seem to be a strong case for an independent expert assessment of the question of whether there is a prima facie case, such as to justify a full scale 'judicial' proceeding, before that course is embarked upon. Secondly, while there may not always be any alternative procedure available for the resolution of particular kinds of section 72 misbehaviour questions that may arise, when as here the allegation is of criminal conduct, the Senate should be very slow to proceed to try the issue itself rather than resorting to the ordinary criminal processes. Thirdly, allegations of criminal conduct demand compliance with rigorous procedures, and the careful application of appropriate standards of proof, by persons who are both expert and detached. I imply no criticism of the Senate Committee or any of its members, but the fact remains-as they would readily concede-that its members are less well-equipped to resolve these questions than the established procedures and institutions of the criminal law. Fourthly, the fact that a High Court judge is involved here means, consistently with separation of powers principles, that Parliament should involve itself in the process when, and only when, it is necessary for it to do so. It is not necessary for it to do so now since 'proof' of misbehaviour may be sought by other means, namely the ordinary criminal processes, and that again would appear the proper avenue for resolving the matter in the first instance. None of these considerations weigh conclusively against any further consideration of this matter by a properly constituted-or reconstituted- parliamentary committee. I simply emphasise the desirability of matters of this kind, and gravity, being dealt with by ordinary criminal processes so far as is possible. In the event, however, that the DPP should advise that on the material presently available there is no basis on which a prosecution could or should proceed, it may be that the Parliament-the Senate-would wish to reconsider the question of some further Committee proceeding. Certainly, for reasons I shall shortly set out, there would appear to be no other appropriate machinery on which Parliament could properly rely for such further consideration. If the Senate were to take the course of constituting or reconstituting a committee to conduct a further so-called 'judicial phase' inquiry, the appropriate course would appear to be to follow the general lines of the submission made by Mr Hughes, QC, on behalf of the judge-and endorsed in the report of Senators Durack and Lewis-by applying the principles of natural justice as follows: (a) Taking any necessary evidence or further evidence in the presence of the judge and his counsel; (b) permitting cross-examination of witnesses; and (c) allowing the judge to then determine whether or not he would give sworn evidence and be subject to questioning by the Committee. Approach III-Extra-parliamentary determination of issues (otherwise than through institution of criminal proceedings) The Government has also considered other options for the determination of issues arising in this matter, in particular the following three possibilities which have each received a degree of public attention: (a) An application by the Government, or possibly by the Senate through its President, to the High Court to resolve the questions both of law and fact that are raised by the Briese allegation; (b) A royal commission specifically inquiring into the Briese evidence in relation to Mr Justice Murphy; (c) A parliamentary commissioner or multi-member commission exercising delegated power from the Senate to determine the facts. The Government has concluded, for reasons I shall now set out, that the problems with each of these courses are such as to warrant their exclusion from further consideration. (a) APPLICATION BY GOVERNMENT OR THE SENATE TO THE HIGH COURT TO RESOLVE THE QUESTIONS OF BOTH FACT AND LAW Although this approach would be a move to take the matter out of the political arena and to have all issues authoritatively decided, there is no obvious way of initiating proceedings in the High Court which the High Court would accept as both within its jurisdiction and within its duty to determine. I am not satisfied, in the absence of the kind of advisory opinions, jurisdiction that would have been available had a referendum proposal been put and passed on this occasion, that the High Court would have jurisdiction, and the Solicitor-General agrees. Moreover, it may be necessary for either the Senate or the Government to act as complainant and allege misbehaviour on the part of the judge in order to have standing to bring the matter before the Court. On the information available to it, the Government would not be prepared to take that course. (b) ROYAL COMMISSION SPECIFICALLY INQUIRING INTO ALLEGATION OF MR BRIESE The purpose of such a royal commission would be to establish a non-political impartial investigation by a body with coercive powers. However, there is an important question of principle whether that would be an appropriate step for the Executive Government to take, having regard to the independence of the judiciary. Also, there must be a real doubt whether the Executive Government can, through a royal commission appointed by it, compel a Justice of the High Court to attend and answer questions relating to his possible removal. Clearly, there would be the possibility of a constitutional challenge. The royal commission's report would not legally conclude anything. Its findings could not bind the Senate. In the final result, if the commissioner reported that the judge was guilty of the conduct complained of, parliamentary or criminal proceedings would need to be taken and the whole matter reheard. It is also relevant to mention here that evidence given by the judge before the commission would not be admissible against him in legal proceedings. Similar considerations apply in relation to a possible reference of the matter not to a royal commission but to the National Crime Authority; the only significant procedural difference between the Authority and a royal commission for present purposes being that while the evidence of the judge would be usable in subsequent proceedings, the excuse of self-incrimination would be available. (c) PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER EXERCISING DELEGATED POWERS FROM SENATE There is no clear precedent for what has been proposed in relation to the appointment of a parliamentary commissioner with compulsive powers to conduct a hearing to determine the facts. Such nineteenth century English precedents as have been referred to appear to fall short of what is involved in the present case. It is not clear to what extent power was claimed and exercised to compel witnesses to appear before the persons appointed in those cases to gather information or examine documents or accounts on behalf of the parliamentary committees in question. The Senate in 1982, on a motion by me, directed Senators Chaney and Guilfoyle to deliver to Sir John Minogue, QC, a retired judge, papers relating to tax avoidance and evasion. This was done so that Sir John Minogue could be given the function of editing 'bottom of the harbour' legal opinions held by the then Government with a view to the documents in their edited form being tabled in the Senate. This too falls far short of what would be involved in setting up a parliamentary commissioner with powers to conduct a hearing and to make findings of fact. It follows that there must be a doubt about the power of the Senate to compel the attendance of witnesses before a parliamentary commissioner. Legislation could be considered to deal with this deficiency. However, the enactment of legislation purporting to delegate the 'misbehaviour-proving' function to a commissioner, while removing one possible area of legal uncertainty, would nonetheless still not put beyond doubt the possibility of a constitutional challenge arguing that such 'proving' had to be, if not by a court, then by Parliament itself, or at least by a parliamentary committee. As well as the uncertainty in relation to the power to compel testimony before the parliamentary commissioner, there would also be uncertainty as to the protection available to the commissioner and witnesses in relation to things said in the course of the hearing. Obviously a question would arise whether the proceedings before the commissioner could be regarded as 'proceedings in Parliament' within the meaning of the protection afforded by the freedom of speech and debate clause contained in Article 9 of the Bill of Rights as applied to the Senate by section 49 of the Constitution. It would be important for those taking part in the proceedings before the commissioner, and for the commissioner himself, or the commission members themselves that the same privileges and immunities be available as if the proceedings were before a committee of the Senate, and firm assurances on this matter could not be given in the absence of express legislation. This leads to a further problem with this course, and that is the question of whether it would be possible to find a suitable person or persons who would have the necessary qualities for the most serious and unprecedented role he, she or they would be asked to undertake, and who would be available and willing to undertake that role. Finally I point out, in case there may be some misunderstanding on the point, that even if the Senate were to appoint a parliamentary commissioner he or she could not actually determine the question of misbehaviour. His or her findings could not constitutionally bind any member of the Senate. It would still be a matter for the Senate to decide whether the conduct amounted to 'misbehaviour' and a trial at the Bar of the Senate may, in the absence of a conviction by a court, be necessary for this purpose. Conclusion The course which the Government proposes is, in summary, that there be a reference of the matter in the first instance to the Director of Public Prosecutions in order that the criminal prosecution option may be fully considered, with any necessary further consideration-other than by the criminal courts-being by way of parliamentary rather than any extra-parliamentary process . The Government firmly believes that not only is this approach likely in the long run to prove the most expeditious, but that it is the only appropriate, responsible and constitutionally sound means of resolving such concerns as may continue to be felt following the tabling of the Senate Committee report. What is abundantly clear is that the longer this matter lingers, the greater will be the damage caused to the reputation and prestige of the High Court and to the respect afforded to the institution of the judiciary generally. There is an enormous burden resting upon the Senate, and it is important that we discharge it quickly, conscientiously and honourably. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the text of the Solicitor-General's opinion. Leave granted. The opinion read as follows- In the matter of Section 72 of the Constitution SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION 1. In this matter, the conclusions of my opinion of 24th February 1984 were- Misbehaviour is limited in meaning in section 72 of the Constitution to matters pertaining to- (1) judicial office, including non-attendance, neglect of or refusal to perform duties; and (2) the commission of an offence against the general law of such a quality as to indicate that the incumbent is unfit to exercise the office. Misbehaviour is defined as breach of condition to hold office during good behaviour. It is not limited to conviction in a court of law. A matter pertaining to office or a breach of the general law of the requisite seriousness in a matter not pertaining to office may be found by proof, in appropriate manner, to the Parliament in proceedings where the offender has been given proper notice and opportunity to defend himself. 2. An Opinion dated 14th May 1984 of C. W. Pincus Q.C., counsel assisting the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge, is Appendix 4 to the Committee's Report tabled in the Senate on the 24th August 1984. (As the paragraphs of the Pincus Opinion are un-numbered, I refer to it by its pagination in the published Committee Report). The Pincus Opinion [at 13] extracts parts of paragraphs 19 and 21 of my opinion . I correct the following errors of transcription of these parts- Paragraph 19- line 1. 'function' not 'jurisdiction' line 2. 'discretion' not 'jurisdiction' line 4. 'of a' not 'for' line 8. 'related' not 'relating' Paragraph 21- line 5. 'incumbent' not 'encumbent' line 8. add 'or' after 'moral' line 10. delete 'is' The Pincus Opinion then states- Since, as will appear, I do not agree with the Solicitor General, it will be necessary to examine in detail the authorities on which he relies. The conclusion of the Pincus Opinion [at 27], under the heading 'SUMMARY OF OPINION', is- As a matter of law, I differ from the view which has previously been expressed as to the meaning of s.72. I think it is for Parliament to decide whether any conduct alleged against a judge constitutes misbehaviour sufficient to justify removal from office. There is no ''Technical'' relevant meaning of misbehaviour and in particular it is not necessary, in order for the jurisdiction under s.72 to be enlivened, that an offence be proved. I am asked to reconsider my opinion in the light of the Pincus Opinion. 3. I find it difficult to respond to the Pincus Opinion in any structured way. The Opinion does not acknowledge the distinction, shortly stated by Quick and Garran at 731 (set out in paragraph 5 below), that the tenure of British judges is determinable upon two conditions, namely for misbehaviour or by address from both Houses. The essential matter is that, with the English position in mind, the draftsmen of section 72 consciously departed from it. The relevant exercise in determining the meaning of the section is to identify these points of departure and to establish the consequences. The Pincus Opinion omits squarely to address these issues of construction arising from the terms of the section itself. Although the Pincus Opinion engages that it will examine in detail the authorities upon which I relied in my opinion, the course of its discussion is fixed more by reference to its own English and colonial precedents. For that reason, it is necessary separately to consider the force and relevance of the authorities drawn upon by the Opinion, and the manner in which they are put as advancing contrary argument. 4. It is necessary first to identify the matters of disagreement. The Pincus Opinion does not dissent from my conclusion that misbehaviour may be determined by Parliament. Unfortunately, it does not separately discuss the position in respect of misbehaviour pertaining to office. Misbehaviour of this sort, namely the improper exercise of judicial functions or wilful neglect of duty or non- attendance, was accepted by me as a matter to be found by proof in appropriate manner to Parliament. By inference, the Pincus Opinion does not demur from my conclusion that matters of these sorts are not predicated upon proof of any contravention of the law. Hence the difference between the opinions is limited to conduct not pertaining to office. My view is that a Parliamentary inquiry is limited to whether there is a contravention of law of the requisite seriousness. The conclusion of the Pincus Opinion [at 27] is that contravention of the law is not a relevant inquiry, it being for Parliament to decide whether 'any conduct alleged against a judge constitutes misbehaviour sufficient to justify removal from office'. 5. In paragraph 15 of my opinion I accepted the analysis of Quick and Garran ( at 731)- The substantial distinction between the ordinary tenure of British Judges and the tenure established by this Constitution is that the ordinary tenure is determinable on two conditions; either (1) misbehaviour, or (2) an address from both Houses; whilst under this Constitution the tenure is only determinable on one condition-that of misbehaviour or incapacity-and the address from both Houses is prescribed as the only method by which forfeiture for breach of the condition may be ascertained. Quick and Garran (at 733-4), explain the reason for this difference (set out in full in my paragraph 9), namely, that- The peculiar stringency of the provisions for safeguarding the independence of the Federal Justices is a consequence of the federal nature of the Constitution, and the necessity for protecting those who interpret it from the danger of political interference. For the reasons stated, I found that it was only misbehaviour falling within the first condition referred to by Quick and Garran which was embraced within the meaning of 'misbehaviour' in section 72. I also accepted that misbehaviour in this sense meant misbehaviour as a breach of condition of office held during good behaviour. Further, as noted above, I expressed the view that the improper exercise of judicial functions, and wilful neglect of duty or non-attendance, were matters which, if established, would constitute misbehaviour, and that for the purposes of section 72 such misbehaviour was not predicated upon proof of any contravention of the law. It was, and remains, my opinion that in matters of misbehaviour not pertaining to office, it is necessary for there to be proved a contravention of the law of the requisite seriousness. 6. As it does not address itself to the dichotomy between conduct pertaining to office and other conduct, much of the Pincus Opinion is directed to a false issue, namely, to establish that the word 'misbehaviour' in section 72 is not limited to 'proof of an offence'. The true differences seem to be first, that I regard 'misbehaviour' in section 72 as having a meaning limited to behaviour constituting a breach of condition of office held on good behaviour and, secondly, that in respect of misbehaviour not pertaining to office, my opinion is that such misbehaviour may be constituted only by a contravention of the law of the requisite seriousness. The relevant conclusion of the Pincus Opinion seems to be that for all categories of misbehaviour contravention of the law is not a relevant enquiry, and [at 27] that it is for Parliament to decide whether 'any conduct alleged against a judge constitutes misbehaviour sufficient to justify removal from office'. Apparently Parliament is to be guided in the task of enquiry as to whether 'proved misbehaviour' is established by reference to expressions of the sort to be garnered from the Opinion. Including references in authorities cited with approval in the Opinion, these expressions include formulations such as 'notoriously improper', 'misbehave . . . scandalously'), ' get into debt', 'any sort of misbehaviour', 'gross personal immorality or misconduct', 'corruption', 'irregularity in pecuniary transactions', 'moral misbehaviour', 'immorality', 'misconduct', or, as more widely expressed, 'a variety of reprehensible action or inaction, including mere immorality, or commercial misconduct not amounting to the commission of an offence at all' and 'outrageous public behaviour, outside the duties of their office'. 7. I confirm in paragraph 5 above my acceptance of the analysis of Quick and Garran which identifies the differences, and the principal reason for the differences, between the tenure of British judges and of Federal judges under the Australian Constitution. My conclusion was that section 72 applies to exclude all modes of removal other than for misbehaviour as a breach of condition of office. Only Parliament may initiate removal by way of address upon the specified ground, namely 'proved misbehaviour'. My argument was not based upon the broad application of the English authorities, either ancient or contemporary. It was based upon the proper construction of the terms of the section itself, aided by what was put as permissible references to both legislative history and to the clear departure of its terms from the then recognised position in respect of the tenure of office of British judges. Hence in a very real sense the matters discussed in the Pincus Opinion under its various headings stand outside the course of the argument which they are intended to attack. In particular, the Opinion neither recognises nor discusses the distinction in British constitutional law between the power to remove for misbehaviour as a breach of condition of office held on good behaviour, and the open-textured ground for removal upon address of both Houses of Parliament. For this reason, it is bordering upon irrelevant to engage in a detailed rebuttal of many of the points sought to be made in the Opinion. However some criticisms and observations usefully may be made. I follow the order of the sub-headings of the Pincus Opinion. 8. UNITED STATES [13-16]. I do not read the Pincus Opinion as itself drawing strength from American law. As I neither referred to nor relied upon American doctrine, it is curious that the Opinion first discusses the United States Constitution, particularly as this leads to the conclusion [at 16] that 'it gives no support to the view expressed by the Solicitor General'. Neither does it support the Pincus Opinion. 9. The Opinion contrasts the phrase 'Treason, Bribery and other High Crimes and Misdemeanours' in Article II, section 4 of the United States Constitution with the word 'misbehaviour' in section 72, to suggest that this 'simple word' was intended to be used without technical meaning. In its context, this comment is impermissable. It is clear that the word 'misbehaviour' as used in section 72 is derived from English constitutional law, and that it is not used in contrast with the terms of the American Constitution dealing with impeachment. Rather it is framed in conscious contrast with the law of judicial tenure in Britain. Secondly, and somewhat inconsistently with the first point, the Pincus Opinion also relies upon the alleged circumstance that the particular phrase in Article II has been read with a wider meaning than its terms suggest. If the Opinion here seeks to infer that if an equivalent to the American expression, such as ' treason, bribery, and other felonies and misdemeanours', appeared in section 72 it would be held to have a meaning wider than the commission of an offence, such a suggestion must be rejected out of hand. I comment also that the decision of Ritter v. U.S. referred to [at 15] has no relevance: the note at 300 U.S. 668 merely says that a petition for a writ of certiorari was denied, without reasons , and the report of the Court of Claims below, (1936) 84 Ct. Cls. 293, deals with the quite different point of whether proceedings in the Senate could be the subject of judicial review. 10. We are concerned with the meaning of 'proved misbehaviour' in section 72 of our Constitution. American constitutional law furnishes no relevant learning. This is more obviously so in respect of the construction of section 72 than in respect of other parts of the Constitution where there is less divergence, both in word and context, between the two Constitutions: see generally Attorney- General (Cth); Ex rel. McKinlay v. Commonwealth (1975) 135 C.L.R. 1, 24, 47; Australian Conservation Foundation v. Commonwealth (1978-1980) 146 C.L.R. 493, 530 and Attorney-General (Vict.); Ex. rel. Black v. Commonwealth (1981) 146 C.L. R. 559, 578-9, 598-9, 603, 609 and 652. Hence I put the American authorities on one side. They are of no assistance. 11. ENGLAND [16-19]. As has already been said, the failure of the Pincus Opinion to recognise the distinction between removal in cases of breach of condition of office held during good behaviour and the power of Parliament to address upon grounds not necessarily arising from a breach of such condition destroys the relevance of the discussion of English law which leads to the general conclusion that no offence need be proved to establish misbehaviour. The cases of Judge Kenrick, [discussed at 16], concerned a judge facing charges of misconduct in the House of Commons. The two cases are not reported in the Law Reports, but in (1825) 13 Parl. Deb., 2nd Ser. and (1826) 14 Parl. Deb., 2nd Ser . The allegations clearly involved criminal offences, but as the matter was before Parliament a breach of the law was not required to be established. For this reason, the quotation from Shetreet, Judges on Trial (1976), 143, [at 16], which deals with whether misconduct of a judge in his private life justified the address for removal, is unexceptionable. 12. The Pincus Opinion [at 17] goes on to make one of its several references to the supposed intention of the founding fathers or the draftsmen of the section: 'If the draftsmen of our Constitution knew of the practice of the English Parliament with respect to removal of judges, and intended to depart from it so significantly, it is remarkable that they made that intention so unclear'. In other parts of his Opinion Pincus also seeks to draw strength from negative surmise of intention; for example, at 14, 18-19, 22, 25 and 26. With respect, it must be said that such references do not advance argument; they more stand in substitution for it. In this particular aspect, I comment that in drawing section 72 the draftsmen made intention abundantly clear. When the conditions for tenure in England, as they were understood by the founding fathers, are contrasted with the terms of section 72 the intention of the draftsmen is made quite clear by the specific departures from English law. First, the section excludes all modes of removal other than that for misbehaviour as a breach of condition of office and, secondly, it makes Parliament the sole repository of the power to address upon the ground of such misbehaviour. As a further limitation, the misbehaviour is required to be 'proved'. This is the distinction recognised and stated by Quick and Garran, (set out in paragraph 5 above). In this aspect, it is difficult to suggest that the terms of section 72 could be framed in a manner more directly to distance the Australian provision from the English position. 13. As I merely made passing reference in paragraph 14 of my opinion to R. v. Richardson, when discussing the meaning of the expression 'infamous offence', the Pincus Opinion [at 17-18 and 21] also addresses a false issue by seeking to establish that this case does not bear upon the removal of English judges. (My discussion of what is 'infamous offence' is taken up in paragraphs 19 and 20 to lead to my conclusion that the relevant quality of contravention of the general law in respect of misbehaviour not pertaining to office is whether it is 'of such a nature as to warrant the conclusion that the incumbent is unfit to exercise the office'. Discussion of Richardson in the Pincus Opinion does not touch upon this conclusion). 14. For the reason stated in paragraph 12 above, I agree with the Pincus Opinion [at 19] in its comment that when they framed section 72 what the founding fathers had in mind as to the law about the removal of judges was English practice in the 19th century. Where we differ is in our statement of the relevant law in respect of judicial tenure in England, and in our recognition of the effect of the clear departures from the English position which are embraced by the terms of the section. 15. The Privy Council-Colonial Judges [19-22]. Although the issue of the Privy Council and colonial judges is separately discussed by Pincus, there is little reason to suppose that the draftsmen of our Constitution had any particular regard to the position of colonial judges up to the mid-nineteenth century. The tenure of colonial judges, including the judges of the Australian colonies before responsible Government, was much less secure than for English judges. For this reason I doubt very much the relevance of the Opinion's consideration of the peculiar position of colonial judges before the 1850's. 16. Even if relevant, the discussion under this heading does not take the argument of the Pincus Opinion any distance; indeed to the contrary. The authorities referred to very much support the distinctions made in my opinion. Willis v. Gipps [at 19-20] is concerned with the requirement that a judge be given an opportunity to be heard before removal. Although the facts are not set out in Moore's Reports, the conduct of Willis as a judge in the District of Port Phillip are matters of common historical knowledge: see, for example, B. A. Keon -Cohen, John Walpole Willis: First Resident Judge in Victoria (1972) 8 M.U.L.R. 703 and A. C. Castles, An Australian Legal History (1982), 239-243. The allegations against Willis were very much in respect of conduct pertaining to office, and hence misbehaviour within the meaning of section 2 of Burke's Act. Upon this statutory ground, no contravention of the general law was required to be established. The interjection of Parke B. [referred to at 20] is not relevant to the issue of whether misbehaviour not pertaining to office is predicated upon breach of the law. 17. The 1849 case of Montagu [discussed at 20-21] does not take matters any further. There always are dangers in seeking to establish a decision's authority by reference to successful counsel's argument. I contrast the comment of Deane J . in Hammond v. Commonwealth (1982) 42 A.L.R. 327, 341. What next follows after the quotation from Thesiger Q.C. [referred to by Pincus at 20] is a submission which makes it clear that his submission was that the case was one of misbehaviour pertaining to office- The Appellant having first put his lawful creditor in a situation which compelled him to sue for his debt in a Court of Justice, avails himself of his judicial station in that Court, being the only Court in which the action could be brought, to prevent the recovery of the debt, which he admitted to be due; this is an act impeding the administration, and thereby defeating the ends of justice, and was such a gross act of misbehaviour in his office, as amply to justify his removal. Secondly, it appears, from the evidence, that the various pecuniary embarrassments of the Appellant, while sitting as a Judge, in a Court composed of only two Judges, and necessarily requiring the presence of both, for the determination of all cases brought before it, were such as to be wholly inconsistent with the due and unsuspected administration of justice in that Court, and tended to bring into distrust and disrepute the judicial office in the Colony. Hence each of the two grounds embraced by the quotation set out in the Pincus Opinion fairly is characterised as misbehaviour pertaining to office. On the underlying issue of misbehaviour, the decision was, in the judgment of Lord Brougham (at 499), that on 'the facts appearing before the Governor and Executive Council, as established before their Lordships, in that case, there were sufficient grounds for the motion of Mr. Montagu'. These facts are not set out in length in the report, but, as has been said, the submissions of Thesiger make it clear that they went to establish misbehaviour pertaining to office. As such, it did not, of course, require contravention of the law to constitute misbehaviour within section 2 of the Act. 18. The Memorandum of the Lords of the Council on the Removal of Colonial Judges, [constituting an appendix to 6 Moore N.S. and relied upon at 21-22] in no way supports the view that gross personal immorality is sufficient to justify removal as misbehaviour within the meaning of section 2 of the Act. What is clearly recognised in this Memorandum is the distinction between 'amotion' pursuant to the Act, upon which there was an appeal to the Queen in Council, and the separate and prerogative process whereby (whether with or without an order for suspension by the Colonial Governor), the issue of removal may be referred, upon Petition to the Queen, to the Privy Council for determination. This latter procedure was the colonial equivalent to the Parliamentary power to address for removal. In the Memorandum it is regarded as an exercise of a species of original jurisdiction, contrasted with the separate jurisdiction to hear appeals against actual removal pursuant to section 2 of Burke's Act. Of course the power of the Privy Council to act in its original jurisdiction was not limited to any narrow grounds of misbehaviour constituting breach of condition of good behaviour, and, for that reason, in cases not pertaining to office it was not tied to alleged contravention of the law. 19. There is a similar mixture of discussion in Lord Chelmsford's observations [referred to at 21-22]. The short statement of Lord Chelmsford merely adds some general comments to the Memorandum. It deals with both the appellate jurisdiction of the Privy Council under the Act and the original jurisdiction outside it. Lord Chelmsford accepts that a judge may be suspended pending the exercise of the original jurisdiction. The sentence after next to that quoted [ at 22] is- Such serious cases ought to be brought before the Privy Council, either by appeal on the part of the removed or suspended Judge, or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of State. Hence the remarks are apt to cover both conduct constituting a breach of condition of office and other conduct which may justify petition to the Privy Council (either with or without suspension), analogous to the English Parliamentary power to address. Moreover, Dr. Lushington, who gave an opinion immediately after Lord Chelmsford, stated that the procedure of suspension and reference to the Privy Council in its original jurisdiction is appropriate in cases of the sort discussed. 20. In the result the Memorandum has little relevance to the proper construction of section 72. If it is an authority for anything, it supports the distinctions made in my opinion. 21. Convention debates [22-24]. As has been said, the meaning of section 72 is to be derived from the construction of its terms, standing within Chapter III and the Constitution as a whole, and having regard to the extent to which it provides that judicial tenure under the Constitution differs from tenure of British judges under English constitutional law. As is picked up in paragraphs 10 and 11 of my opinion, legislative history casts permissible light upon meaning. This does not mean that too much is to be constructed from selective quotation of the Convention Debates. The references made in paragraphs 12 and 17 of my opinion were for the limited (and, as was suggested, also permissible) purpose of ascertaining the mischief to be remedied. The identified mischief was the perceived necessity adequately to safeguard the independence of the judiciary as an essential feature of the Federation established by the Constitution. It does not further the task of construction to speculate [as does the Pincus Opinion at 22] that there may have been a silent majority of delegates in disagreement with those who spoke. 22. Clearly it was the primary concern of Mr Isaacs, both at the Adelaide Convention (20th April 1897) and at Melbourne (31st January 1898) to ensure that a decision of Parliament to address for removal should not be challengeable. It was at the Melbourne Convention that Isaacs accepted the amendment to add 'upon the ground of misbehaviour or incapacity'. Isaacs then accepted (Conv. Deb. at 313) that 'to remove any misconception, these words should be added, so that the Houses may show that they are not attempting to remove a Judge for anything but misbehaviour or incapacity'. His concern (also at 313) was to ensure that in the exercise of the power so limited, Parliament's decision should not be amenable to review- I want to lay it down distinctly that a Judge shall not be removed under any circumstances, except for misbehaviour or incapacity; but I want the verdict of Parliament-the verdict of the States House by itself, the verdict of the people's House by itself, the conjoint, independent and separate verdicts of these two Houses to be final and unchallengeable. Of course the speeches and the opinions of Isaacs, and any other delegate, are not determinative of meaning. Reference to them merely is confirmatory of what is comprehended upon construction of the terms of section 72 itself, namely that it is for Parliament alone to address for removal, but upon the limited ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. 23. The Pincus Opinion [at 23] asserts that what is referred to as a critical sentence of Todd (set out in my opinion, paragraph 5) commencing 'Misbehaviour includes . . .' is hardly suggestive of an exhaustive definition. In its context , I disagree. Todd was there seeking to define misbehaviour constituting breach of condition of office granted during good behaviour which would support the exercise of the power of removal without address of Parliament. In other words, he sought to define the content of the first condition of office referred to by Quick and Garran (set out in paragraph 5 above). As he was seeking to mark out the limits of the amenability of a judge to removal by the Crown without address from Parliament, there is no reason to suppose that his statement was intended to be anything else but exhaustive. This particularly must be so in the circumstance that conduct not constituting breach of condition of office was nonetheless subject to address by Parliament on grounds which were required neither to pertain to office nor to arise from any alleged contravention of the law. It was this power of Parliament which Todd [at 860, quoted in my paragraph 6 and by Pincus (quoting Isaacs) at 23] described as one which 'may be invoked upon occasions when the misbehaviour complained of would not constitute a legal breach of the conditions on which the office is held'. Having acknowledged that the power to address for removal was not dependent upon misbehaviour pertaining to office or contravention of the law, it cannot be supposed that in the context of discussion of the power to remove for breach of condition of office, Todd contemplated the existence of an unspecified fourth or wider category of misbehaviour in addition to the three categories stated in his definition. There simply is no basis for inference that Todd embraced the possibility of any wider meaning of misbehaviour as part of the Crown's power to remove for breach of condition. 24. For the reasons stated, I also disagree with the comment in the Pincus Opinion [at 24] that it is a misapprehension to say that at the end of the 19th century the notion of judicial misbehaviour justifying removal from office had some received technical meaning. Misbehaviour, as a breach of what Quick and Garren refer to as the first condition of office, did have a technical meaning. In England, and in the Australian States, the Parliamentary discretion to address for removal remained at large. As has been seen, both British judges and colonial judges were amenable to removal for misbehaviour as a breach of condition of office; they were also liable to removal for some wider ground (not necessarily related to breach of the law) which would not constitute breach of the term for office held during good behaviour. The Pincus Opinion [at 24] does not take this matter any further by reference to what Mr. Wise said at the Adelaide debates. The comment in the Opinion is based upon a misconception. In any event, at 945, Mr. Wise makes it clear that here he was referring to the power of removing on address from both Houses, where, of course, to use the expression of the Pincus Opinion, 'no criminal conduct was necessary'. 25. GENERAL [24-27]. Contrary to what the Pincus Opinion states [at 24], it is not the case that a conclusion has been drawn 'too readily' that the use of the word 'misbehaviour' was intended to incorporate the law as to the removal of judges in England prior to the Act of Settlement of 1700, whether by reference to Coke or otherwise. My opinion draws no such conclusion by reference to the law of removal prior to 1700. As has been seen, what is contrasted with the terms of section 72 is the law in respect of the tenure of British judges, as it was seen when section 72 was drafted, and the obvious points of departure of section 72 from this law. 26. The Pincus Opinion [at 25] invites what is described as the 'safer course', namely, 'to come to the Constitution unaided by any authority, in the first place, and see if there is an ambiguity'. I readily accept that the words of section 72 should be construed within their context in Chapter III and the Constitution as a whole. The terms of section 72 do not stand alone. As the Pincus Opinion [at 25] points out for a contrary purpose, one is assisted in construing section 72 by the fact that it is the Justices of the High Court, and of other Federal Courts, who are being spoken of. To paraphrase the expression of the Opinion 'when one keeps the subject matter in mind' the limiting operation of section 72 becomes clear. Its interpretation is to be built upon the foundation of its context within the Constitution, as a whole, and recognition of the section's obvious and deliberate departure from the terms of judicial tenure under the British Constitution. Those differences are confirmed by the history of the section. As has been said, the reasons for section 72 being drawn to enhance the security of judicial tenure are sufficiently summarised by Quick and Garran, at 733-4 (referred to in paragraph 5 above). In essence, the Pincus Opinion concludes that Parliament may address for removal upon a ground defined upon its whim. The existence of such power would be destructive of the status and independence of the High Court as the independent interpreters of the Constitution and the Federation established by it. The example of the Pincus Opinion of a Judge becoming involved in political activities is inapposite. The relevant enquiry is whether the conduct complained of either constitutes misconduct pertaining to office or a contravention of the law of the requisite seriousness. 27. On the only occasion [at 26] where it refers to the principle, the Pincus opinion seems to accept that for breach of condition of good behaviour conduct outside official duties requires proof of conviction. The Opinion gives three grounds to support the view that this doctrine does not govern the use of the word 'misbehaviour' in section 72. In my view, none of these reasons sustains the load which Pincus seeks it to bear. (1) Pincus asserts that both in England and the colonies before 1900 it is clear that the power to remove for judicial misconduct was not so confined. The answer to this is that in England before 1900 breach of condition of good behaviour was so confined; the quite separate power of Parliament to address always was unrelated to the issue of breach of condition of good behaviour. The position of the colonies is not particularly relevant on this aspect; although, as has been seen, the application of Burke's Act leads to the same result. (2) The Opinion asserts that the language of section 72 makes it clear that conviction is not necessary in respect of conduct outside office. This assertion highlights the fact that the Pincus Opinion nowhere acknowledges that the requirement of section 72 is for 'proved' misbehaviour. The Opinion does not concede that there is any work to be done by this word to enhance the operation of the section. It is section 72 itself which requires an address of Parliament upon the ground of 'proved' misbehaviour. It must be that what is to be proved is to have some content. My view is that this requires the finding of grounds which constitute misbehaviour as a breach of condition of office held during good behaviour. It is difficult to comprehend that the proper meaning of the requirement for 'proved misbehaviour' is to be fixed by reference to undefined conduct left subjectively at large. The requirement for 'proved misbehaviour' does not rest easily with assertions that matters such as 'immorality', 'moral misbehaviour', 'a variety of reprehensible action or inaction, including mere immorality, or commercial misconduct not a mounting to the commission of an offence at all', or 'outrageous public behaviour, outside the duties of their office' are amenable to proof as misbehaviour. (3) The Pincus Opinion suggests that it 'would have been foolish to leave Parliament powerless to remove a judge guilty of misbehaviour outside his duties , as long as an offence could not be proved'. (This is a variation of what is stated [at 25] with respect to 'outrageous public behaviour'). The Opinion asserts that this remark 'applies particularly to the High Court, which was to occupy a position at the pinnacle of the Australian Court system, and to exercise a delicate function in supervising compliance with the requirements of the Constitution on the part of the legislatures'. Apart from begging the question as to what is misbehaviour, this comment ignores the obvious operation of section 72 to give direct effect to the principle that the judiciary should be secure in their independence from control by the legislature and the executive. Far from being a proper assumption that it was intended that a Justice of the High Court should be amenable to removal for undefined reasons relating to behaviour 'outside his duties', it is the position of the High Court in the Australian Constitutional structure which both explains and confirms the limitations which seem to be clearly enough embraced by the terms of section 72 itself. It is the antithesis of the recognition of the High Court as the arbiters of the Constitution to concede that there is a general power to control the composition of the Court by the application of an undefined power in Parliament to address for removal. 28. As to this aspect of the argument, I do not understand the relevance of the dialogue between Messrs. Isaacs and Barton (with the delegates playing chorus) extracted [at 27] for the stated purpose of 'casting doubt on the theory that there was an intention to limit the plain words of s.72 by ancient technical rules'. Far from modifying the words of section 72 by reference to ancient technical rules, it is the plain words of section 72 which alter the terms of judicial tenure existing in English law. Be that as it may, the dialogue itself is relevant only to the result which (as is noted in paragraph 22 above) Isaacs was anxious to ensure, namely, that it was for Parliament alone to determine the issue of misbehaviour. The dialogue says nothing relevant to the proper meaning of 'proved misbehaviour'. 29. Hence in as much as the argument of Pincus is intended there to be drawn together [at 26-27], it is suggested that the maters relied upon are destructive of the conclusion that the requirement for 'proved misbehaviour' in section 72 is not limited to that which would constitute breach of condition of office held during good behaviour. 30. The Pincus Opinion does not demonstrate error. This is not surprising for, as has been noted, it turns away from discussion of the mtters which I found determinative of the proper construction of section 72. My reconsideration of these matters goes to confirm my earlier opinion that, for proved misbehaviour in matters not pertaining to office, section 72 requires proof of contravention of the law of the requisite seriousness. GAVIN GRIFFITH Solicitor-General 3rd September 1984 Senator GARETH EVANS —I seek leave to give notice of motion. Leave granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) refer- (i) all evidence given before the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge, and (ii) all documentary or other material furnished to the Committee, relevant to the Briese allegation, to the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration by him whether a prosecution should be brought against the Judge; and (b) request the Director of Public Prosecutions, should he conclude that a prosecution not be brought, to furnish a report to it on the reasons for reaching that conclusion. Finally, I formally table my ministerial statement and move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.49) —The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has put down a most important, but I regret to say, disappointing statement in regard to the report of the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge which was tabled in this chamber a little over a week ago. The statement of the Attorney covers a lot of matters of serious legal and constitutional importance. I believe it is necessary to study them carefully. Certainly, in the time that has been available since notice was given of this statement, it has not been possible for me at least to study the supplemental opinion of the Solicitor-General which has just been incorporated. Of course, that opinion covers ground of which we are very familiar. I think the issues have now become fairly clear in relation to the question of what amounts to misbehaviour. I feel that the Attorney's response and proposals very much turn on the view of the Solicitor-General which the Attorney has adopted. He adopted the Solicitor-General's view in the first place in February and March this year, and he is adopting it again today. Of course, that is a very narrow view of misbehaviour. Senator Georges —What is your view? Senator DURACK —My view is very well known. It was expressed in this chamber in debates earlier this year and in an article which was published in a number of newspapers earlier this year. That view has been supported by the counsel who was retained by the Committee, Mr Pincus; namely, that the word 'misbehaviour'- the aspects and problems associated with it because of the word 'proved' are another matter-in the Constitution has a wider significance than it does in the view which has been adopted in this debate by the Attorney-General. As I said in the course of my remarks, I think it will become clear that the Attorney's response has been very much dictated by the continuing narrow view that he and, admittedly, the Solicitor-General adopt in this regard. I want to make it quite clear that the Opposition has never accepted that view. The view that the Opposition has put has now been supported by the opinion of Mr Pincus and numbers of other people who have commented on this whole problem. We will certainly maintain that wider view of misbehaviour. In earlier debates in this chamber I referred to a view of judicial conduct by Sir Winston Churchill in 1954 and was rubbished by the Attorney-General for my pains in doing so. In fact, in this Senate on 29 April 1980 the Attorney-General , then shadow Attorney-General, in moving a motion for the establishment of a select committee to look into the alleged conduct of the then Chief Justice of the High Court, also quoted Sir Winston Churchill as to the standards of judicial behaviour that are required. I propose to quote Sir Winston Churchill again, with the authority of the Attorney-General himself, despite the comments that he made earlier this year, when he must have forgotten his quotation. On 29 April 1980 the Attorney-General said: In that respect I rely on no less a presence than Sir Winston Churchill who, according to Shetreet- another author he did not think much of earlier this year, honourable senators may remember- said in the House of Commons in 1954- about judicial life- A form of life and conduct far more severe and restricted than that of ordinary people is required from judges and, though unwritten, has been most strictly observed. They are at once privileged and restricted. They have to present a continuous aspect of dignity and conduct. Far more freedom is granted by the convention of our way of life to Members of Parliament, to Ministers or to Privy Councillors . . . The judges have to maintain, though free from criticisms [in parliament], a far more rigorous standard than is required from any other class that I know of in this Realm. Senator Missen —That applies only to Sir Garfield Barwick, apparently! Senator DURACK —Yes. That is a view of judicial standards and way of life which we on this side have adopted at all times in this debate, and we will continue to do so. I am very glad that since we last debated the subject the Attorney- General has adopted that same standard-at least he did in 1980. However, he now quite clearly adopts a very much more restricted standard. In this statement he makes a very surprising comment in relation to this standard. On page 5 of the statement, in dealing with the issue of what is meant by 'misbehaviour', under the sub-heading 'Proper Approach to Section 72', and having quoted Quick and Garran on the subject, he says: Some classes of 'misbehaviour' may not be subsumed by the approach of Quick and Garran-for example, partisan political activity or notorious private behaviour not directly related to, or affecting, the conduct of judicial office. So be it. 'So be it', says the Attorney-General. He says that misbehaviour does not comprehend partisan political activity or notorious private behaviour not directly related to the office. How can anyone in this chamber or any thinking citizen in this country, adopt a standard of judicial behaviour which excludes the Parliament from considering partisan political activity in relation to the future of a judge? What chamber of Parliament in this country would ever tolerate judges engaging in partisan political activity? It is really an absurd notion. Certainly, the fathers and founders of our Constitution when they used the word 'misbehaviour' as they did in their convention debates on that subject, would not have tolerated for one minute this restricted attitude and understanding of judicial conduct and behaviour. As I said, the approach of the Attorney-General at all times and again in this statement is entirely coloured-dictated, one might say, by that very narrow approach to this subject. The question that he addresses here is a problem which he has endeavoured to prevent this Parliament from considering. His whole approach from the first day that this Parliament sat in February this year, the day that he came into this Senate with his statement on the subject of the Age tapes, as it has been known, has been a very definite attempt to stifle any further consideration of the subject by this Parliament. He did his very best to heavy this chamber from the word go. His response today again is an attempt to divert the course of this chamber from its responsibilities and its duties in relation to this matter. I wish to quote another thing that the Attorney said earlier this year in debates and in response to questions in relation to this matter. On 2 March, only a couple of days after this debate commenced this year, in answer to a question from Senator Reid, the Attorney said: I really believe that the Opposition has drained the last drop out of this matter concerning the judge. On 2 March the Attorney was desperately trying to stop any further consideration of this whole subject. I ask the Senate: Where would we be today if we had adopted that attitude of the Attorney-General? We certainly would not have the problem, but we would not have these allegations which had been heavily resting in Mr Briese's mind for so long. The Senate Committee gave Mr Briese the opportunity to bring forward this very serious matter which the Committee has considered, and the appropriate approach which it is now the responsibility of this chamber to determine. There is no suggestion by the Attorney-General in this statement that no problem has to be faced. He recognises that the problem exists, yet the attitude that he took before would have prevented this information being brought forward. Page 7 of the Attorney-General's statement reads: The seriousness of this offence and the clear division of opinion in the Committee have led the government to conclude that further action of some kind needs to be taken to clear the air, and to remove the cloud hanging over the Judge and the High Court. The question is what. It is interesting to see the way the Attorney-General puts it-'to clear the air' . That does not necessarily mean to have a full investigation of the matter, but simply to clear the air. That is important, but it is also important that we use the right approach and have the truth fully determined. At least the attitude of the Attorney-General in September is some improvement on his attitude in March, when he did not want anything done by the Senate. At least he recognises now that something has to be pursued seriously and determined. So in six months there has been some advance in the attitude of the Attorney-General, disappointing though this statement is. As the Attorney recognises in this statement, the responsibility for this issue rests with the Parliament. It does not rest with the courts. It certainly does not rest with the Executive. It rests with the Parliament. As I understood it, in debates earlier this year the Attorney-General did ultimately recognise that. He certainly recognises it in this statement, but he again takes a half-hearted approach in that his attitude is that as far as possible the Parliament, and the Senate in particular, should keep out of it. The proposal he is making is for reference to the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Senate Committee evidence and the allegations of Mr Briese. The Senate will remember that the Attorney, when he came into this chamber in February to try to heavy us not to take any action in this matter, armed himself with two opinions, which he tabled. One was from the Solicitor-General and the other was from the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Director of Public Prosecutions, who admittedly at that stage did not have the Briese material, formed views about the meaning of misbehaviour. He formed views about the Age tapes and the alleged conduct they involved. So he has already been involved in this matter. The Director of Public Prosecutions, although an independent statutory officer, is subject to the directions of the Attorney-General under his statute. He is an officer of the executive side of government, as is the Solicitor-General. What was the attitude of Senator Evans two years ago when he called for the tabling of documents related to the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union in the bottom of the harbour tax avoidance matter? He called for the opinion of Mr Brinsden and for a police report on a particular case. The Government of the day said that it would not table those documents because they might affect the course of possible criminal proceedings-a very clear ground for exemption under the Freedom of Information Act and under Executive privilege. The Government of the day produced an opinion of the then Solicitor-General, but Senator Evans and the then Opposition were not prepared to accept the opinion of an executive officer of the Government, namely the Solicitor-General. They proposed an independent person to handle that matter and to advise on whether those documents had that effect. Certainly, on that precedent, there is some reason why this chamber should be somewhat doubtful about the Attorney's suggestion, in effect, that it should be left to Mr Temby to decide whether there should be a prosecution. I do not believe that it is satisfactory for the Senate chamber, or for any parliamentary chamber, simply to put such a matter in the hands of an executive official. Of course, there are many other reasons why that is not a satisfactory course. The question that Mr Temby will again be asked to determine is whether there should be a prosecution; that is, whether there has been, or may have been, on the evidence, a criminal offence which should be prosecuted. As I have said, that is not the real question before the Senate in this matter. The question is whether a judge has been guilty of misbehaviour. One will see from Mr Pincus's opinion that that is the way he addresses this question. A criminal offence may also be involved, but that is a separate question. Whether or not a person is to be prosecuted involves a number of considerations, which the Attorney-General sets out in this statement. A prosecutor has to take into account a number of considerations in deciding whether to prosecute. A decision not to prosecute may not resolve the issue, and the Attorney does concede that in this statement. Mr Temby is only a prosecutor. He does not have any investigative or coercive powers. He does not investigate; he simply looks at the material and makes a judgment about whether, on that material, it is appropriate to prosecute. He gives a purely legal opinion. We want resolved the question of judgment on who ought to be believed. Senator Georges —Not you. Senator DURACK —That is not what I am suggesting. Senator Georges —Yes, you are. Senator DURACK —We will suggest a different course, as Senator Georges will see. That is not the approach that is required here. It is not the case of simply looking at papers and making a decision that there may or may not be grounds for prosecution. What is required in this case is a judgment on facts. What are the facts relevant to the question of misbehaviour, not to a breach of the Crimes Act? They are different questions. Different powers are required. Different questions have to be answered and, of course, it is very likely that different standards of proof will be involved. Ultimately this question may well be decided on Mr Temby's attitude. I am pleased to note that Mr Temby has understood the problem in a way which the Attorney-General has not understood it. The other day, when the original suggestion was put to him by Senator Tate, Mr Temby is reported as saying very firmly: It is not my function to help solve the problems of politicians, whatever their persuasion may be. Obviously, Mr Temby clearly understands the problem he would face if the matter were referred to him. He clearly understands that it is not an appropriate function for him; that it is a function for the Parliament, or for the politicians, as he referred to them. Those are the inadequacies of that proposal. The Government's response is most disappointing. The Government wants this matter resolved quickly but in fact suggests a process which may only prolong it. The Attorney concedes that ultimately there may well be a role for a Senate committee-either the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge or a reconstituted committee. It is well known that Senator Chipp and I have suggested that a most satisfactory way of handling this would be to have an independent parliamentary commissioner resolve it. I agree that that would be the most satisfactory way of resolving these disputed questions of fact, with the commissioner then making a recommendation to the Parliament as to what the facts are. Senator Tate —Does that include a state of mind? Senator DURACK —That includes, of course, a state of mind. The honourable senator will realise that a state of mind is a question of fact, resolved every hour of the day, every day of the week. There is nothing new about that. The issue is resolvable, despite some comments to the contrary that I have read. That is the best way to resolve the matter. The Government's co-operation would be required to resolve the questions of fact in that way. That action will certainly not resolve the whole question; the Senate must decide whether there was misbehaviour, on the facts, and whether any other action is justified. The disputed questions of fact must be determined by an independent person with-I agree with the Attorney-General-greater expertise than we as parliamentarians have. The difficulty is that although that proposition has been put to the Government, it is, to say the least, very lukewarm in its response. Senator Gareth Evans —Not lukewarm; negative. Senator DURACK —It is a negative attitude, as the honourable senator said. Senator Gareth Evans —Cold. Senator DURACK —It is a negative response in almost every respect because the Government really did not want this matter to be ever faced. The Government wanted and still wants the problem to go away. Government co-operation is still my and, I am sure, Senator Chipp's preferred solution. In the absence of any sign of co-operation by the Government, on behalf of the Opposition I give notice that I shall move a motion calling for the constitution of a select committee to deal with Mr Briese's allegations and to make a finding of fact with respect to them. The select committee should consist of three honourable senators-one from the Government, one from the Opposition and one from the Australian Democrats. The real nub of the committee is that it will have the power to appoint a commissioner who will conduct the formal hearing for which Mr Hughes asked on behalf of his client. As I said, it would be preferable if the Government co-operated. If the Government really were willing to resolve the substance of this matter and really believed, as we do, that a substantial matter must be resolved, it would co-operate in establishing a form of parliamentary commission. In the absence of that commission, the only way in which the matter can be resolved is by reconstituting a Senate committee. The Senate can give that committee the power to appoint a commissioner. Formally the powers would have to be exercised by a committee. We would obtain a man or woman of sufficient stature with the necessary expertise and time to devote to resolving the questions of fact and reporting the finding to this chamber. Our powers would in no way be taken away by that process. That would be the only way in which we could ensure that the disputed facts are resolved in accordance with the ordinary principles of natural justice. As I said, I agree entirely with the submissions made on behalf of the judge by his counsel. If those measures were undertaken we could satisfy all of those requirements and the matter could proceed in the right way. That is also the appropriate way in which to obtain the expedition that the Attorney- General says he desires. That process will certainly be a case of this chamber exercising its powers to resolve the very difficult problem that has arisen and has resulted in the division of opinion in the previous Committee. Those measures are entirely consistent with the proper resolution of the matter by the only body that can, as the law stands, resolve it in the end. In his statement the Attorney-General recognised that it may well be appropriate or necessary for the Senate Select Committee to be reconstituted. In our view that should be done forthwith with the powers that I have outlined. We hope that the Committee's findings of fact can be made expeditiously. That is the Opposition's response to the Attorney-General's statement. I seek leave to table the notice of motion. Leave granted. Senator Chipp —On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. Should not Senator Durack incorporate the notice of motion in Hansard? I understand that he is simply tabling the notice of motion. Would it not be preferable to incorporate the document? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Durack, do you wish to incorporate the notice of motion in Hansard? Senator DURACK —Yes. I seek leave to incorporate the notice of motion in Hansard . Leave granted. The document read as follows- I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge, be appointed: (a) to inquire into the allegations made by Mr C. R. Briese, the Chairman of the Bench of Stipendiary Magistrates of New South Wales, concerning Mr Justice Murphy of the High Court of Australia, which are outlined in Appendix 5 of the Report of the Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge; and (b) after conducting such inquiry, to report to the Senate its finding of fact upon those allegations; (2) That the Committee consist of three Senators, as follows: (a) one to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, (b) one to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and (c) one to be nominated by the Leader of the Australian Democrats. (3) That the Committee proceed to the despatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy. (4) That the Chairman of the Committee be the member nominated by the Leader of the Government. (5) That the Chairman of the Committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the Committee to be Deputy Chairman of the Committee, and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the Committee at any time when there is no Chairman or the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee. (6) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman, or the Deputy Chairman when acting as Chairman, have a casting vote. (7) That the quorum of the Committee be one member. (8) That the Committee have power to send for and examine persons, papers and records, and to meet notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives. (9) That the Committee appoint a commissioner, upon terms and conditions agreed to by the President, the Committee and the commissioner, who shall be present at all meetings of the Committee, and who may participate in the Committee's deliberations and examine witnesses before the Committee. (10) That the Committee appoint counsel to assist it, subject to the approval by the President of the terms and conditions of the appointment. (11) That witnesses before the Committee may be examined by counsel assisting the Committee, by counsel for Mr Justice Murphy, and by counsel for witnesses. (12) That Mr President be authorised to reimburse witnesses for reasonable costs of legal advice and representation by counsel in respect of the Committee' s inquiry. (13) That the examination of witnesses before the Committee and any submissions made to the Committee by counsel be heard in public session. (14) That witnesses before the Committee be summoned by the Committee at the request of the commissioner. (15) That the commissioner report to the Committee and make findings upon the matters into which the Committee is to inquire, and the Committee include in its report the report and findings of the commissioner. (16) That the Committee, the commissioner, witnesses and counsel appearing before the Committee have access to the records of, transcripts of evidence taken by, and documents submitted to the Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge and relating to the Committee's inquiry, and may refer to those records, transcripts and documents in the course of the Committee's proceedings. (17) That the Committee report as soon as possible. (18) That, if the Senate be not sitting when the Committee has completed its report, the Committee may send the report to the President, or, if the President is unable to act, to the Deputy President, and, in that event (a) the report shall be deemed to have been presented to the Senate, (b) the publication of the report is authorized by this Resolution, (c) the President or the Deputy President, as the case may be, may give direction for the printing and circulation of the report, and (d) the President or the Deputy President, as the case may be, shall lay the report upon the Table at the next sitting of the Senate. (19) That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(4.16) —The Australian Democrats are, as I hope is every other honourable senator, acutely aware of the importance of not only today's debate but the issue with which the debate is concerned and the responsibility to resolve this matter that rests not just with the Australian Democrats-a group of five-or even with 64 honourable senators but with the Parliament as a whole. I do not intend to cover ground already covered by the reports of the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge or to debate the various findings contained in them. Nor do I intend to canvass abstruse legal or constitutional issues. A plethora of conflicting opinions already exists about the way in which section 72 of the Australian Constitution should be interpreted, particularly the meaning of the words 'proved misbehaviour'. Yet another opinion is not necessary. Suffice it to say, I believe-I believe that my opinion is shared by many others-that the issue is not as black and white or, as Senator Durack said, as narrow as the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) seemed to indicate in his statement. I and my Party are firmly convinced that this is not so much a question of whether the judge committed a criminal offence or even whether he is liable to be convicted of such an offence but rather a question of whether the behaviour shown in the allegations made by Mr Briese is such as to render questionable the judge's fitness to remain in a position in the highest court in this country. The issue is that the community must have and must be able to retain the fullest confidence in members of the judiciary at all levels. The Australian people are entitled to expect exemplary behaviour of the judiciary. I think that Senator Durack's point is one to which we should pay close attention. Very grave allegations have been made against Mr Justice Murphy. They cannot be allowed to remain unanswered or publicly unresolved. That aspect is particularly important, given Mr Briese's status. As my colleague Senator Chipp said in the Senate on 24 August: . . . 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 . . . 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. On the other hand, we all know that the judge, in his wisdom, has consistently declined to be cross-examined on the allegations or on his unsworn statement denying them. The Senate Committee, not surprisingly, was unable to reach a unanimous decision on the question of whether there had been 'proved misbehaviour' under section 72 of the Constitution or even whether a prima facie case could be made against the judge. Therefore I would have to agree with the Attorney-General that it is pointless to reconstitute a Senate committee of inquiry, given that three reports came from the original committee. At the moment I do not want to discuss the contents of those reports-they are, after all, readily available and I think very well known-except to make the point that Senator Chipp's report argued strongly that insufficient evidence had been put before the Committee to enable any member of that Committee to come to a clear and definite conclusion. Indeed, the work of the Committee was, it has been suggested, significantly handicapped by the fact that Mr Justice Murphy consistently refused to appear before the Committee either to make a sworn statement or to be cross-examined on a written statement. Furthermore, Senator Chipp's attempt to use Senate procedures to summon the judge was not supported by a majority of the members of the Committee. The Committee was therefore in a position not unlike that of a jury faced with an unsworn statement by the accused in a trial. All of this puts the Parliament in a particularly invidious position. To do nothing after the tabling of two dissenting reports is unthinkable. It is unfair to the judge and to the Australian public and an abrogation of the Parliament's responsibility to the people. Section 72 of the Constitution places the decision firmly with the Parliament. Whatever else can be argued, that fact is not open to debate. There is no question in my mind that there is a need for further action to be taken on this matter. The question, of course, as the Attorney- General has said, is what action. It is vitally important that whatever moves are undertaken by the Senate today must lead to an inquiry which is beyond party politics. I cannot stress that point enough. It is essential that the inquiry be totally divorced from both the overt and covert political arenas. For that reason the Australian Democrats do not believe that the reconstitution of a Senate committee is appropriate, particularly in an election year. For a similar reason we do not believe that a reference of the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions is acceptable. While I do not question in any way-I stress this-the integrity of Mr Ian Temby, QC, the fact remains that he is an appointee of the current Government and would be placed in an awkward position at best if asked to examine the evidence brought before the Committee and to come to a definitive conclusion about the culpability of the judge, given his limited investigative resources and lack of coercive powers. Senator Missen —He does not think he should do it, either. Senator HAINES —That does not surprise me at all. After all he would be in a position similar to that of the Senate Committee in that he could only make a judgment on the balance of sworn evidence given by Mr Briese and the unsworn written statements from Mr Justice Murphy. Therefore it is my belief and that of my party that the only appropriate course of action is for the Senate to establish a three-member parliamentary commission. I do not subscribe to the Attorney-General's argument that this is out of the question because it has no precedent. There is, after all, a first time for everything or precedents would never be established. Neither do I believe, as the Attorney-General appears to believe, that it is too difficult to provide such a commission with the powers and protection for it to function effectively. For the first time set a precedent, Senator Gareth Evans. The provision of a commission with powers and protection can be achieved through legislation. Furthermore the Australian Democrats believe that the selection and appointment of the three commissioners referred to by me a moment ago should take place on the basis of consensus reached among the Government, the Opposition and the Australian Democrats. I would have thought, given consistent comments by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) over the last year and a half, that it would not be impossible for that sort of consensus to be reached on a matter as important as this. Our proposal is based on the dissenting report by Senator Don Chipp, who insisted that the Senate Committee could not and should not make a finding without hearing the judge and without the opportunity of cross-examining him on his evidence. We believe there should be no constitutional or any other grounds preventing the judge from appearing before an impartial commission which would combine the authority of Parliament with the high judicial status and proven public record which will be the criteria for the selection of its members. However, if Mr Justice Murphy believes that it is beyond the jurisdiction of such a commission to investigate allegations against him or to determine what ' proved misbehaviour' is, he has the right to challenge these issues in the High Court of Australia. Indeed, because of the wide divergence of opinion already surrounding the exact meaning of the term as it is used in section 72 of the Constitution, a High Court interpretation of the words would of itself be of tremendous value. Finally, I can do no more than echo the sentiments expressed in the last two paragraphs of the Attorney-General's statement. I believe that they sum up the belief not only of this chamber and honourable senators in it but also of the general public. He said: What is abundantly clear is that the longer this matter lingers, the greater will be the damage caused to the reputation and prestige of the High Court and to the respect afforded to the institution of the judiciary generally. There is an enormous burden resting upon the Senate, and it is important that we discharge it quickly, conscientiously and honourably. We would not be doing that if we allowed ourselves to go no further than we already have or if we referred the matter to another source of inquiry which is questionable at best, which perhaps would not satisfy this chamber and would not satisfy the general public. On behalf of the Australian Democrats, I seek leave to give notice of a motion. Leave granted. Senator HAINES —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That a commission be appointed to inquire into the matters raised by the evidence of Mr C. R. Briese before the Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge and relating to the conduct of Mr Justice Murphy of the High Court of Australia, and report to the Senate whether Mr Justice Murphy engaged in any conduct which would amount to misbehaviour providing sufficient grounds for an address to the Governor-General in Council by both Houses of the Parliament praying for his removal from office pursuant to section 72 of the Constitution. (2) That the commission consist of three commissioners appointed by resolution of the Senate upon terms and conditions of appointment agreed to by the commissioners and specified by that resolution. (3) That the commission have power to send for and examine persons, papers and records, and to meet notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives. (4) That the commission appoint counsel to assist it, subject to the approval by the President of the terms and conditions of the appointment. (5) That witnesses before the commission may be examined by counsel assisting the commission, by counsel for Mr Justice Murphy, and by counsel for witnesses. (6) That Mr President be authorised to reimburse witnesses for reasonable costs of legal advice and representation by counsel in respect of the commission's inquiry. (7) That the commission determine procedures and rules for the examination of witnesses before it, having regard to the procedures and rules followed by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. (8) That the commission have access to the records of, transcripts of evidence taken by, and documents submitted to the Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge, and may, for the purpose of the examination of witnesses, make those records, documents and transcripts available to witnesses and counsel and authorise witnesses and counsel to refer to them in the course of the commission 's proceedings. (9) That the examination of witnesses before the commission and any submissions made to the commission by counsel be heard in public session. (10) That the commission report to the Senate on or before 30 October 1984. (11) That, if the Senate be not sitting when the commission has completed its report, the commission may send the report to the President, or, if the President is unable to act, to the Deputy President, and, in that event: (a) the report shall be deemed to have been presented to the Senate, (b) the publication of the report is authorised by this Resolution, (c) the President or the Deputy President, as the case may be, may give directions for the printing and circulation of the report, and (d) the President or the Deputy President, as the case may be, shall lay the report upon the Table at the next sitting of the Senate. (12) That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, in so fare as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Kilgariff) agreed to: That Order of the day No. 2, in the name of Senator Peter Baume, be postponed until the next day of sitting. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, I present a report on the practical operation of the prescribed payments system of taxation. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COATES —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave, Mr President, to incorporate in Hansard a brief tabling statement. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- This is the second report presented by the Committee on the prescribed payments system of taxation. In October last year the Committee reported on the then new PPS regulations and since that time it has monitored the practical operation of the system. The Committee's report notes that many of the problems associated with the PPS have been overcome as the result of modifications made by the Government and as users have become much more familiar with the system. Recommendations have been made which, if implemented, should further reduce the volume of paperwork and simplify the operation of the system. Briefly, the Committee recommends: 1. That the terms of the declaration by prescribed persons-usually accountants- be changed to match the wording of the ruling issued by the Commissioner of Taxation on this matter; 2. That the use of obligation transfer forms be modified; 3. That a system for the recovery of overpaid tax through the use of deduction forms be established; and 4. That deduction exemption certificates be issued to taxpayers only on the ground of satisfactory taxation history. The Committee also considered the renewal of the variation certificates, and its fifth recommendation is that the Government review this matter after a further year's experience. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.34) —Perhaps I may put something on the record, very briefly, for answer by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh). I have not given him notice of this and I do not seek a reply now. It is a matter that I raised with him informally in the Senate chamber some weeks ago, and he was good enough to give me some information which I should now like him to put on the public record. So, Mr President, simply to commence that process, I just wish to say that I think that it is time that the Government told us precisely what will happen about the next shipments of uranium which are due to be made in, I think, October. Those shipments may be barred by the Government in the light of the decision which was taken by the federal conference of the Australian Labor Party just a few weeks ago, but I have seen no official announcement as to what will happen with respect to those shipments, and an announcement is overdue. The second matter on which I seek information from the Government is the question of what is to happen with respect to losses which are incurred should shipments be disrupted. Queensland Mines Ltd may well suffer losses if the Government policy reflects the policy adopted by the ALP. That is a serious matter. It is a case of the deprivation of the proceeds of investment, which is most unfortunate; indeed, it is quite wrong. I believe that there is a case for compensation for that company or any other company which is similarly caught by government action. Therefore, I ask the Government to advise the Australian people, in the near future, of what it proposes in that area. I am sorry to raise that matter without giving notice to the Minister, but time is marching on , and I thought that if I put it on the record now he could respond later. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(4.36) —I must take up some of the time of the Senate this afternoon to raise the issue of the administration of the Commissioner for Housing loans scheme in the Australian Capital Territory, which has caused such incredible distress to so many people over the last couple of weeks. I had thought that I might get an opportunity to ask a question at Question Time today; I could not let the day pass without referring to this matter. However, I shall not do so in the detail that the matter warrants; I shall do that on another occasion. There are questions that need to be answered. I hope that the Minister will answer them quickly. One might ask: 'What is happening to the Westminster system as far as this matter is concerned, and who bears the responsibility for the monumental muddle in the Commissioner for Housing loans scheme?' The muddley has existed since the time of the Budget. The muddle was alleviated to some small extent yesterday when the Cabinet, somewhat belatedly, band-aided the issue and gave a further $ 6m to cover loans which had been approved prior to 21 August but for which people could not get money. There were 355 people who had bought land or houses and who had been approved for the Commissioner for Housing loans scheme but who were not able to get the money to settle. Many of them ran the risk of losing their deposits. Many of them were involved in contracts which meant that they would be in serious difficulties if they did not meet them, and many other people were depending on those contracts for other transactions and were being inconvenienced as a result of cheques not being available from the Commissioner for Housing. Senator Kilgariff —It would have ruined many. Senator REID —Yes. The fact is that the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) has for a long time been promoting low income people into houses. His rhetoric has been splendid. But it is clear that it was not matched by the money he had available for this scheme. It is clear that the guidelines for the administration of the scheme were not of the same order as the funds available. I want to know from the Minister how far the $6m will go towards redressing the plight of the people whom I have had in and out of my office over the last couple of weeks. Many of them have been very distressed. I also want to know how much money will be available in the Commissioner for Housing loans scheme for the balance of this financial year for people who have applied, who believe that they are entitled, and who believe that their situation is no different from others who are now getting money. What will the position be? I think that 1,100 blocks of land were sold during June of this year and 650 in July, and 130 blocks of land have been made available for over-the-counter sales at the reserve price to people who have qualified as low income earners. Many of these people believed that they would be able to get a Commissioner for Housing loan to proceed with the purchase. Perhaps some of the most distressing cases are those who have been affected by Family Court settlements and who had approval under their settlements to buy out the family home, to provide a home continuously for the children. These are people who had gone through divorce, obviously, and who, as a result of this, believed that they would at least be able to stay in the same house, but were told that they would not get the money. It has been a fact for a long time that in many instances Commissioner for Housing loans have been used to save the family home. I think that is a proper use of the funds. The cost to government of throwing a woman out of her house, causing her to come back asking for emergency housing and probably then wanting a low rent house valued at about $60,000, is considerably more expensive than making available an average of $20,000 or $30,000 to save the family home. I could give many examples of that type. Some loans have been approved and applicants will now receive the money. Many are in the midst of settlements. They had expected the money to be available, but they now do not know what will happen or where to turn. There is a need for a close look at the guidelines. For some time the operation has been hit or miss. There have been no clear guidelines under which a person could go into the Department and pick up a piece of paper showing whether he or she was likely to qualify or whether the income was within the appropriate range. I have raised this matter previously and the Minister for Social Security ( Senator Grimes) knows about it because he referred to it when I raised the subject earlier. He is aware of the fact that maintenance is not taken into account in assessing ability of a person to repay a Commissioner for Housing loan, yet the very pension received by that person is lower because of the receipt of that maintenance. If the person concerned were not receiving maintenance and were on full pension, he or she would qualify. The position is absurd and must be remedied. More land sales will take place within a few weeks and many people, especially first home owners, low income earners, will attend those auctions to buy land and will expect to feel confident that they will qualify for a Commissioner for Housing loan. The Minister has said that there is to be an inquiry and that he wants a report within a couple of months. However, he has not said what is to be inquired into or what he is looking for, he has not said what the guidelines for the future will be. There is a whole range of questions I hope he will answer before this week is out. As I have said, I could go on with examples of people who have been to my office and I could instance issues that arise. Even with the Estimates committee hearings pressing upon us this afternoon, I felt I could not allow this opportunity to pass without referring to this matter which has had such a devastating effect on the very people the Minister says he is hoping to help. They are the ones who have been harmed. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —Before the Senate adjourns, I advise honourable senators that Estimates Committees A, B and C will meet at approximately 5 p.m. 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 bells will be rung for three minutes prior to the meetings of the Committees. Senate adjourned at 4.43 p.m. The following papers were presented: Air Force Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 198. Air Navigation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 208. Audit Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 209. Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposals 1984-No. 6-Monthly collections of lending commitments by financial institutions and collection of annual data from financial institutions. Australian Federal Police Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 205. Defence Act-Determinations 1984-No. 35-Overseas Allowance. Defence Amendment Act-Interim Determinations-Statutory Rules 1984 Nos 206, 207, 212, 213, 214, 215. Export Control Act-Orders 1983-No. 3-Meat Orders (Amendment No. 3). First Home Owners Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 197. Health Insurance Act- Statements of particulars of disqualification under Section 19C (2), dated 22 August 1984. Statements (3) of particulars of Ministerial determinations authorised under Section 106AA. Home Deposit Assistance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 196. Live-stock Export Charge Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 203. Live-stock Slaughter Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 202. National Health Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 200. Naval Defence Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 199. Navigation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 210. Overseas Students Charge Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 201. Postal Services Act-By-laws 1984-Postal-Amendment No. 3. Public Service Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 211. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 204. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Determinations made under the following Ordinances- Fishing Hawkers Motor Traffic Nature Conservation Plumbers, Drainers and Gasfitters Board Pounds Scaffolding and Lifts Weights and Measures Ordinances 1984- No. 29-Sewerage Rates (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 43-Traffic (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 44-Motor Traffic (Amendment) (No. 3). No. 45-Motor Traffic (Amendment) (No. 4). No. 46-Plumbers, Drainers and Gasfitters Board (Amendment). No. 47-Fishing (Amendment). No. 48-Dog Control (Amendment). Regulations 1984- No. 19-(Plumbers, Drainers and Gasfitters Board Ordinance). No. 20-(Motor Traffic Ordinance). No. 21-(Motor Traffic Ordinance). Governor-General's Proclamations-Commencement of Acts: Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General were presented, notifying that His Excellency had proclaimed the following Acts and sections of Acts to come into operation on the dates specified: Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984-Parts III, IV, and V-1 September 1984 ( Gazette No. S 343, 31 August 1984). Public Service Reform Act 1984-Sub-sections 5 (5) and (6), section 19, sub- sections 37 (2) and 53 (2), section 55, sub-sections 57 (2), 80 (2) and 95 (2) and section 155-1 September 1984 (Gazette No. 344, S 341, 31 August 1984). Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984-3 September 1984 (Gazette No. S 342, 31 August 1984). The following answers to questions were circulated: Senator Ryan —On 5 April 1984 (Hansard, page 1298) Senator Martin asked Senator Button, as Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment in the Senate, a question without notice concerning appointments to the Australia Council and the attendance of members of the Australia Council at Council meetings. The Acting Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Appointments to the Australia Council are made by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. In recommending appointments, the Minister takes into account State representation. The Australia Council Act 1975 provides that persons appointed to the Council by the Governor-General shall include, amongst others, such number of persons who practise or have practised the arts or are otherwise associated with the arts as the Governor-General thinks fit. The Act also provides that, in appointing persons in this category, the Governor-General shall endeavour to ensure that a majority of the members holding office are persons who practise the arts or have practised the arts and that the membership of the Council includes a reasonable balance of persons who practise or have practised the various arts. On 3 May 1984 the Governor-General appointed Associate Professor Donald Horne to be, as a part time member, the Chairman of the Australia Council for a period of three years commencing on 1 January 1985 and Professor Di Yerbury to be the General Manager of the Australia Council for a period of four years commencing on 14 June 1984. On 11 May 1984 the Governor-General also approved Ms Helen Williams, Deputy Secretary of the Department of Education and Youth Affairs as a part time member of the Australia Council. Ms Williams has been appointed as a Government representative on the Australia Council. The terms of office of six members of the Council expired on 30 June 1984. To fill these vacancies and two existing vacancies on the Council the Governor- General appointed, on 4 July 1984, eight new part time members to the Council, including a Deputy Chairman: Betty Churcher (Deputy Chairman) (New South Wales), writer, college lecturer and chairman of the Council's Visual Arts Board; Chicka Dixon, chairman of the Council's Aboriginal Arts Board; Michael Crosby (New South Wales), federal secretary of Actors Equity since 1982 ; Errol O'Neill (Queensland), actor, writer and director, worked with the Queensland Popular Theatre Troupe, 1977-83; Anthony Steel, A.M. (South Australia), arts consultant, Director, Adelaide Festival of Arts, 1972 and 1984; Director Designate 1986 Festival; John Pinder (Victoria), entertainment entrepreneur, has managed or introduced many well known Australian performers and acts, for example, Daddy Cool, Circus Oz and Rod Quantock; Therese Radic (Victoria), a leading Australian music historian and Associate of the Faculty of Music, University of Melbourne; and Diana Gribble (Victoria), publisher, co-founder and director of McPhee Gribble Publishers Pty Ltd. With regard to attendance records of members of the Australia Council, I am advised that there is no requirement that the information either be tabled or published. However, I have provided direct to the honourable senator a table showing Australia Council members' attendance at Council meetings over a two- year period up to February 1984. Senator Walsh —On 7 May 1984 (Hansard, page 1632) Senator Sir John Carrick asked me a question without notice concerning the British nuclear tests and an Australian committee known as the Atomic Weapons Testing Advisory Committee or similar. I provide the following additional information to the response I gave in the Senate and to Senator Sir John Carrick's supplementary question on the subject: A Committee, then called the 'Maralinga Safety Committee' was set up in July 1955 with Professor Sir Leslie Martin as its first chairman. In 1956, the Committee was renamed the 'Atomic Weapons Tests Safety Committee' (AWTSC). There was no formal committee for the first two tests at Monte Bello and Emu. Professors Martin and Titterton were, however, both present at the Hurricane and the Totem nuclear tests. Members of the (AWTSC) included expert scientists and senior public servants. In January 1957 the Committee comprised: Prof Sir Leslie Martin, (Chairman) Prof E. W. Titterton, Member Mr W. A. S. Butement, Member (Department of Supply) Mr L. J. Dwyer, Member (Director of Meteorology) Mr D. J. Stevens, Member (Commonwealth X-Ray Laboratory) Mr H. A. Wills, Member (Secretary to Committee) In January 1958, the Committee comprised: Prof E. W. Titterton, (Chairman) Mr L. J. Dwyer, Member (Director of Meteorology) Mr D. J. Stevens, Member (Commonwealth X-Ray Laboratory) Dr J. H. Martin, Member (Cancer Institute Board) Mr J. Moroney, Member (Secretary to Committee) The responsibilities of the Committee, when founded, were: (a) to examine information and other data supplied by the United Kingdom Government relating to atomic weapons tests from time to time proposed to be carried out in Australia for the purpose of determining whether the safety measures proposed to be taken in relation to such tests were adequate for the prevention of injury to persons or damage to livestock and other property as a result of such tests; and (b) to advise the Prime Minister, through the Minister for Supply, of the conclusions arrived at by the Committee as a result of each examination and in particular as to whether, and if so what additional, alternative or more extensive safety measures are considered necessary or desirable. Reports of the activities of the Committee and other relevant documents are available and were reviewed by Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council in the preparation of its report 'British Nuclear Tests in Australia-a review of operational safety measures and of possible after-effects' and more recently by the Kerr Committee. Dr J Symonds who has prepared a Chronology of Events concerning the British atomic tests in Australia, which I tabled on 7 June, 1984 , has also examined relevant AWTSC documents. My Department has contacted available members of the AWTSC in relation to the question. Their recollections vary in detail but none can recall any evidence of harmful effects of the atomic tests in the areas for which the Committee had a responsibility. My Department has sought from the relevant departments and agencies detailed documentation of all material held in the Australian Archives and elsewhere relating to the British atomic tests in Australia and the details of this material will be made available to the Royal Commission which has commenced its inquiry into the tests. More precise answers to questions raised in respect of the British atomic tests can be expected to result from the deliberations of the Commission. Senator Walsh —On 31 May 1984, (Hansard, page 2232) Senator Colston asked me a question without notice concerning the flow through to the retail level of the recent $60 a tonne decrease in the wholesale price of liquefied petroleum gas. I undertook to check with the Treasurer to see whether the Prices Surveillance Authority was monitoring retail prices of LPG. The Prices Surveillance Authority does not maintain surveillance of retail prices of petroleum products including LPG. The Authority is currently conducting an inquiry into petroleum prices. As part of this inquiry, consideration is being given to the appropriate extent of surveillance of petroleum prices. The Authority is to complete its final report by 25 July 1984. Senator GARETH EVANS —On 12 June 1984 (Hansard, page 2805) Senator Martin asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, without notice: When Cabinet was considering changing Australia's national colours from the previous unofficial blue and gold to our sporting colours of green and gold: (1) what information did it seek about the cost of such a change? (2) will statutory authorities such as the Australian Bicentennial Authority and the Australian Tourist Commission, which adopted blue and gold logos because they were our national colours, be required to change to green and gold logos? (3) what was the cost of designing and registering the present logos of the Australian Bicentennial Authority and the Australian Tourist Commission? (4) What will be the cost of changing these logos? The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: At the outset it should be noted that Australia had no formally approved national colours before the Governor-General's proclamation of green and gold on 19 April 1984. The adoption of green and gold as our formal colours was taken noting the community's general use and identification of these colours as a symbol of Australia. With regard to the specific issues raised in the question: (1) The use of any colours in the context of symbols, logos and other forms for identification purposes involves funding. This was appreciated when the adoption of official national colours was being considered. (2) Blue and gold were not Australia's official national colours. The Australian Bicentennial Authority sees advantages in changing its colours as a consequence of the Government's decision. The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment announced the change on 23 July 1984. The Australian Tourist Commission uses blue and gold as its primary colours. However, it should be noted that different colours are used in different markets , appropriately reflecting the colour perceptions in each market. (3) The cost of designing and registering the Australian Bicentennial Authority 's current logo, which includes both symbol and prescribed words, was approximately $100,000 to 30 June 1984. This amount includes the cost of a nation-wide competition to select a suitable symbol and registration costs both in Australia and overseas. Costs incurred by the Australian Tourist Commission in relation to its logo totalled $57,250, which includes designer fees, material, tender, and trade mark registration charges. (4) The logo of the Australian Bicentennial Authority will not be changed, though the colours will in time. The Authority will keep the costs involved to a minimum. No additional design or registration costs will be incurred and, as far as practicable, current stocks of stationery and brochures will be issued before new stocks with the national colours are obtained. Funds to cover the unavoidable costs involved in the changeover have been provided in the ABA's 1984/85 appropriation. The ABA estimates that the amount involved, excluding the cost of Bicentennial Roads Development Program signs, will not exceed $300,000. The money will be spent mainly on planning kits for the 839 Bicentennial Community Committees being formed throughout the nation. Should the Australian Tourist Commission decide to change its colours, the use of new colours would be introduced progressively, avoiding wastage. Senator Button —On 13 June 1984 (Hansard, page 2915) Senator Crowley asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, the following question without notice: I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations whether he has seen an article in yesterday's Age headed: ' Tenosynovitis will cost millions in compo, says solicitor'. Is he aware of comments by the solicitor, Mr John MacMillan, that computer manufacturers claim that ergonomic features built into their products substantially lowered the incidence of tenosynovitis in key stroke operators? Is he further aware that Mr MacMillan claims that job design, with adequate rest periods, is far more important in preventing tenosynovitis than ergonomic components? Can the Minister say whether similar consideration is given to computer operators in Federal Government departments? Can he confirm the estimates of cost to industry of workers' compensation, as claimed in the article? Will he raise these issues with the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations for reference to the proposed national commission on occupational health and safety? The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following information in response to the honourable senator's question: Yes, I have seen the article in the Age in which Mr MacMillan is quoted as saying that '. . . these measures [job design], coupled with the implementation of correct postural positioning plus seating and keyboard positioning, have resulted in a marked decrease in the number of injuries to keystroke workers'. As I understand it, a number of factors, including job re-design or workplace design, will require attention to bring about an improvement. I doubt whether there is an exclusive solution for this serious occupational problem. Many departments now have guidelines available which specify the need for rest breaks and well designed equipment. For example, the Office of the Public Service Board issued on 3 August 1984 a comprehensive circular (84/2970) dealing with the prevention of repetition strain injuries. It is expected that this circular will provide additional assistance to those departments which have still to introduce preventive strategies. The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations' policy for its own employees states that 'a regular change in work or tasks such as a mix of duties or job rotation may provide breaks from continuous keyboard operation'. The question of the frequency and duration of rest breaks is the subject of on- going negotiations between staff associations, departments and the Public Service Board. As a general guide where sustained keying is involved, and the opportunity to perform a mix of duties is not available, rest breaks of up to 10 minutes after 1 hour's work may be applicable. I cannot confirm Mr MacMillan's estimate of the cost of tenosynovitis and related diseases to industry and government. With regard to the broad area of occupational health and safety, funds have been provided in the 1984-85 Budget for the establishment of a National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. I assure the honourable senator that the National Commission can be expected to devote urgent attention to tenosynovitis and related diseases with a view to their elimination. Senator Gareth Evans —On 13 June 1984 (Hansard, page 2910) Senator Primmer asked me, as Minister representing the Special Minister of State, the following question without notice: Has the Minister representing the Special Minister of State seen the comment of former Chief Superintendent Headland of the Australian Federal Police in yesterday's Canberra Times wherein he is reported as saying that Federal departmental fraud is being overlooked and there is much Federal fraud going on that is largely undetected and uninvestigated? Has Chief Superintendent Headland been involved in investigations into allegations of fraud in the Department of Foreign Affairs? The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I have seen the Canberra Times article of 12 June 1984 in which former Chief Superintendent Headland is reported as making certain personal comments on a number of issues. I have been informed that from the inception of the Australian Federal Police in 1979 until his recent retirement, former Chief Superintendent Headland was not involved in any investigations into allegations of fraud in the Department of Foreign Affairs or any other Commonwealth department or agency. (Question No. 736) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs , upon notice, on 8 March 1984: (1) What have been the total costs of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service Sheraton exercise. (2) What have been the following costs associated with the exercise: (a) Legal costs in representing ASIS personnel involved; (b) cost of reparations to the Hotel and elsewhere; (c) costs of the exercise itself; (d) anticipated costs of the inquiry of Mr Hermes as a consequence of such exercise; (e) the cost of the Hope Inquiry arising out of the same exercise; and (f) any other costs involved with the exercise. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The total costs to the Commonwealth arising from the Sheraton Hotel exercise cannot be determined at this time, mainly because the final accounts in connection with the High Court proceedings have not been rendered. The estimated costs are as set out below and total $762,473. (2)- (a) Private legal representation at Commonwealth expense has been or is being provided for those involved in the incident in three areas: Mr Justice Hope's inquiry; the inquiry by Mr C. L. Hermes into disciplinary action; and the High Court injunction proceedings regarding communication to the Victoria Police of the names of those involved. Legal costs in respect of the first two activities are covered elsewhere in this answer. The High Court matter awaits judgment. Costs of the High Court proceedings, including legal representation of all parties, in December 1983, May 1984 and before the Full Bench of the High Court on 31 July-1 August 1984 are estimated at $190,000. (b) Claims for damages and costs totalling $365,400 have been finalised, including $300,000 to Sheraton Hotel (Melbourne) Pty Ltd.; $35,000 to the hotel manager; and $30,400 to 15 other hotel employees. There are no outstanding claims. (c) The cost of the exercise itself, excluding salaries, was $5,091.23. (d) The total cost of Mr Hermes's inquiry was $36,705 including $7,240 for Mr Hermes's services, $25,803 for legal representation and $3,662 in administrative expenses. (e) the Special Minister of State has informed me that the cost of Mr Justice Hope's inquiry into the exercise, including legal representation of ASIS members , was approximately $150,700 with some accounts still to be rendered. In addition, ASIS incurred costs of $14,577 for attendance of ASIS members and administrative costs. (f) There have been no other areas of cost arising from the exercise. (Question No. 763) Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 28 March 1984: (1) Are the following claims made by Mr M. Klare in the November 1983 issue of South and by Mr R. W. Johnson of Oxford University in the Advertiser of 14 January 1984, in respect of the shooting down of a Korean airlines aircraft correct: (a) that in September 1982 two whole United States Navy aircraft carrier groups conducted exercises just off Kamchatka; (b) that in April 1983, a larger exercise involving three United States Navy carrier groups rehearsed for a conventional attack and invasion of both Sakhalin and Kamchatka and was described as the ''largest fleet exercise conducted by the Pacific Fleet since World War II''; and (c) that the Pacific Coast area of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is of the highest military and strategic importance to that country. (2) What further specific information can the Government provide on these events. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) and (b) The following are details of the two United States naval exercises mentioned. Neither would appear to have had any relevance to the shooting down of the Korean Airlines aircraft by the Soviet Union on 1 September 1983: In late September 1982, two United States carrier battle groups (led by USS ENTERPRISE and USS MIDWAY) from the USN Seventh Fleet conducted carrier operations south of the western Aleutian Islands, which are US territory. From 5 to 16 April 1983, the United States held a major fleet exercise in the north-western Pacific. The US naval force included three carrier battle groups ( USS Enterprise, USS Midway, and USS Coral Sea). The composition of the force involved was not consistent with an invasion related exercise objective. The exercise was carried out in waters south of the Aleutian Islands and along the coast of northern Japan. (1) (c) The Pacific coast area contains a number of installations of considerable military/strategic significance for the USSR. It is doubtful, however, whether Soviet authorities regard it as more important than other areas of the USSR, particularly the European part of the country where the great bulk of Soviet human, economic and military resources are concentrated. (2) The Government has no further specific information on the above exercises. We place no credence on claims such as those in the article to which Senator Maguire refers that the Korean Airlines aircraft was engaged in espionage activities. The Government reacted with shock and grave concern to the shooting down of the aircraft and strongly expressed the view, both directly to the Soviet Union and in international forums, that there is no circumstance in which the shooting down of an unarmed civilian aircraft can be justified. (Question No. 798) Senator Missen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 3 April 1984: (1) Do the findings of the Woodward Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry prove that the malpractices arising from the kangaroo industry were seriously threatening the export market for other meat products. (2) Would the rest of the meat industry in Australia be easily able to supply any meat which would be required by the elimination of the existing kangaroo commercial operators. (3) Was the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment expressing the Labor Party's policy on kangaroo issues when in 1980 he said that ''it is up to the Government to provide the nation with an effective monitoring campaign that meets the standard acceptable to conservation groups and farming interests alike ''. (4) Does the Minister and the Government continue to support that view; if so, why is the Minister now publicly accusing conservationists of 'hypocrisy, distortion, dishonesty, deceit and evil' when they continue their campaign. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Hon. Mr Justice Woodward took evidence on the substitution of export meat with uninspected pet food, including kangaroo, during the Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry. The Royal Commissioner, in his summary of major issues, said that he had not been asked to consider what effect the serious level of commercial malpractice may have had on the export meat industry itself or on Australia's reputation as a trading nation. He added, in any event, this would be difficult to judge in the absence of any knowledge of the meat industries of other countries. (2) No official statistics are published on the level of kangaroo meat production or consumption in Australia. However, production is likely to be small in relation to total Australian meat production of some 2.5 million tonnes annually. In 1982/83, exports of kangaroo meat were around 1,300 tonnes compared with total meat exports in excess of 1.1 million tonnes. In quantity terms there is no doubt that the Australian beef and sheepmeat industries could fill any gap in the market left by the withdrawal of kangaroo meat. However, this would depend on the end use to which the kangaroo meat is presently being put, quality and price considerations. (3) Yes. A national kangaroo monitoring unit has been established. (4) Yes. Responsible conservation organisations generally recognise the need for some form of culling. Regrettably some irresponsible individuals and groups resort to such approaches as those referred to. The correct quote was 'some conservation groups' not 'all'. Please do not deliberately try to distort what I said. (Question No. 894) Senator Childs asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs , upon notice, on 29 May 1984: (1) Has Tanzania provided humanitarian aid to the African National Congress ( ANC) to assist it in the establishment of a school at Morogoro, Tanzania, for refugees from South Africa. (2) Has Sweden provided humanitarian development aid to the ANC to assist it in establishing agricultural projects in Dakawa and Mazimba, Tanzania as self-help projects for refugees from South Africa. (3) Have numerous other countries provided humanitarian aid to the ANC. (4) What is Australia's current humanitarian aid to organisations in and countries of the Southern African region. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) There is no internationally-accepted definition of 'humanitarian aid'. Most aid has a basic humanitarian motive. Answers below to the specific questions describe aid in general. The Tanzanian government has donated land for the establishment of the NAC Soloman Mahlangu Freedom College in the Morogoro region , and with the assistance of bilateral and multilateral donors is continuing to provide assistance to the College. (2) Sweden provides aid to the Mazimba farm located in Morogoro, Tanzania, but not, according to the information received, to the Dakawa Project. (3) A number of countries, including Sweden, Netherlands, Norway and Denmark, are currently providing aid to the ANC in Tanzania. (4) Australia's aid to the countries of the Southern African region totalled $ 26.4 million in 1983-84, an increase of 52 per cent over the 1982-83 figure. This aid included assistance to projects (both official and non-government), training, food, development import grants and emergency relief. Details are as follows: Aid to Southern African Countries(1) Country 1982-83 1983-84* $A $A Angola . . . . Botswana 585,000 399,000 Lesotho 488,000 320,000 Malawi 205,000 306,000 Mozambique 2,114,000 3,117,000 Swaziland 117,000 332,000 Tanzania 9,045,000 12,248,000 Zambia 2,738,000 3,798,000 Zimbabwe 2,115,000 5 ,910,000 Total 17,407,000 26,430,000 (1) Members of the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference (SADCC ); Australia gave $362,000 to the Conference in 1983-84 for projects. * Preliminary figures subject to revision. Australia has also given aid to the following organisations for Southern Africans: 1982-83 1983-84 $ $ UN Education & Training Program for Southern Africa (UNETPSA) 90,000 90,000 UN Trust Fund for Southern Africa (UNTFSA) 60,000 60,000 UN Fund for Namibia ( UNFN) 70,000 70,000 During 1984/85 Australia will provide funds through the Non-Government Organisations Project Subsidy Scheme to allow some black South African students to come to Australia to study. It is envisaged that initally three postgraduate students a year be financed to study in Australia at a cost of approximately $45 ,000. The program could increase to around 10 students at a cost of $150,000 per annum by 1987. In October 1983, an Australian scholarship scheme was introduced to assist South African students disadvantaged by apartheid to study in South Africa. Under this arrangement funds are made available by the Australian Embassy in Pretoria to three NGO's in South Africa (South African Institute of Race Relations, South African Council of Higher Education and the Trust for Christian Outreach and Education). The NGO's are responsible for selecting awardees and administering the awards. $A25,000 has been made available for the training of approx. 25 students in 1984/85. It has been agreed that this program be expanded until a plateau of 100 students is reached in 1987. (Question No. 900) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 29 May 1984: (1) Is the Government aware of evidence arising in the courts in New South Wales which indicates a mechanism for evading sales tax on motor vehicles through using exemptions available to charities. (2) Is any departmental investigation into this matter proceeding; if so, what stage have the investigations reached, and if not, when will an investigation be launched. (3) Have any prosecutions been launched; if so, how many and what are the details, and if not, when are such prosecutions anticipated to be launched. (4) How widespread is this evasion mechanism, and how many charity organisations might be involved, on information available to the Government so far. (5) What order of loss to revenue does the Government estimate this evasion of sales tax has involved. (6) Have taxation authorities made relevant records available to investigating officers of the New South Wales Police; if not, why not. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Government is aware of the matter. It involves an isolated case and is not indicative of any serious weakness in the system by which organisations entitled to exemption from sales tax on goods for their use and not for sale obtain that exemption. In the case of motor vehicles, the Taxation Office has in place procedure to safeguard the revenue which, except for claims made by Government Departments and authorities, requires that claims for exemption be scrutinized by that office prior to the motor vehicle being sold free of tax. (2) Departmental investigation into the matter is proceeding with finalisation of it depending on the outcome of proceedings that are currently before the courts in New South Wales. (3) No prosecutions have been launched. Whether any prosecutions will be launched will depend on the outcome of the departmental investigations. (4) This matter is an isolated instance involving a single official of one organisation. (5) Approximately $10,000. (6) Yes. Full co-operation has been extended to the New South Wales police and copies of documents have been made available. (Question No. 908) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 29 May 1984: (1) Have allegations been made by Australians working with refugees on Thailand 's borders, that chemical warfare is being used by Vietnam against Kampuchea. (2) Has Mrs Adelia Bernard claimed that in 1982 she was instructed to obtain evidence of such warfare by and for the Australian Government. (3) What action has been taken on any evidence supplied by Mrs Bernard by the Australian Government. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) The material supplied by Mrs Bernard to the Australian authorities was analysed by the Defence Materials Research Laboratories in Maribyrnong, Victoria who were unable to find evidence of any toxicity. Whatever its source, all evidence available to the Australian Government concerning alleged use of chemical weapons in Indo-China is carefully assessed by the Australian Government agencies concerned. The Government has made clear on many occasions its abhorrence of chemical weapons, its utter condemnation of their use and its determination to work for the conclusion of a Chemical Weapons Convention that would eliminate existing stocks of chemical weapons and their means of production as well as prohibiting their use, all this under effective verification. In this connection please see my reply to Question No. 751 in the House of Representatives (Hansard, page 3470, 7 December 1983). (Question No. 932) Senator Gareth Evans —On 22 August 1984 (Hansard, page 195) the Minister for Foreign Affairs provided an answer to Senator Childs's question No. 932, on nuclear disarmament initiatives. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has now provided the following supplementary answer to Senator Childs's question: The Soviet Union has called for a nuclear freeze but has not addressed the question of balance of nuclear forces and the need for a direct linking of a freeze to reductions of nuclear arms. (Question No. 956) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters, upon notice, on 13 June 1984: Do the criteria as applied for the recognition of Royal Australian Air Force training also apply for the recognition of Army training in the radio/ telecommunications field; if not, why not. Senator Button —The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: RAAF and Army training in the radio/ telecommunications field is recognised for three main employment levels in the Australian Pubic Service (APS)-professional (engineer), middle level (technical officer and draftsman) and trade. The general criteria applied for the recognition of RAAF training also apply for the recognition of Army training, the general criteria for each level being: professional-a tertiary qualification recognised by the Institution of Engineers, Australia middle-a Technical and Further Education (TAFE) middle-level certificate qualification, or other equivalent educational qualification trade-a first-class tradesman's qualification, or tradesman's certificate issued under the Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Act. In practice, the application of these general criteria means that RAAF and Army radio/telecommunications training receive equal recognition of professional and trade-level employment. However in the case of middle-level employment, there has been equal recognition only since 1980. From this time both RAAF and Army personnel in the radio/telecommunications field have received recognised technical and further education middle-level certificate qualifications as part of their basic military training. In the case of pre-1980 RAAF training, personnel whose training meets certain specified criteria are recognised as qualified for middle-level employment in the APS. However, no such provision exists for pre-1980 Army radio/telecommunications training because the Department of Defence, following investigations conducted in conjunction with TAFE authorities during the period 1973-1977, concluded that the RAAF training specified above was broadly equivalent in standard to a TAFE middle-level certificate but that the Army training (which is structured differently front the RAAF's) was below that standard. It should be noted, however, that any person whose qualifications are not accepted for a technical officer or draftsman job in the APS can, under certain conditions, demonstrate that his/her technical knowledge and competence are at around TAFE middle-level certificate standard by sitting an eligibility test conducted by the relevant department on behalf of the PSB. On the general question of recognition of Defence Forces qualifications, an interdepartmental working party is currently examining the nature and extent of problems being encountered by persons seeking to obtain formal recognition in civilian employment of training and education received in the Defence Forces; the working party is expected to report shortly: (Question No. 978) Senator Watson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs , upon notice, on 15 June 1984: (1) Why have representatives in the Department of Foreign Affairs expressed surprise at a retaliation by Indonesia in cancelling the planned visit to East Timor by the Australian Ambassador in Indonesia, Mr Dalrymple, when it must be received against a background of Australia giving offence to Indonesia in allowing East Timorese Guerilla Fretilin Leader Mr Jose Horta permission for a six week speaking tour of Australia. (2) Is this not yet another demonstration of Australian Government vanity in insulating and distancing itself on issues deemed important to our ASEAN neighbours and trading partners. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The visit to Australia of Mr Jose Ramos Horta, Fretilin's representative at the United Nations, reflects the Government's belief that as a matter of general principle, such persons should not be refused entry solely on the grounds that they are likely to express controversial views while they are here. In allowing Mr Morta to visit Australia, the Government made it clear, including to the Indonesian authorities, that the visit was in Mr Horta's personal capacity, that he would not receive any Government assistance and that the visit did not imply any change in the Government's attitude towards Fretilin. The initial cancellation of Ambassador Dalrymple's visit to East Timor, for whatever reasons, caused some surprise. The foregoing circumstances surrounding Mr Horta's visit to Australia were clearly understood by Indonesian authorities and a similar visit had been made in June 1983 by two Fretilin Central Committee Members, Abilio Araujo and Roque Rodriquez. The Government held the view that a visit to East Timor to examine developments in the province since the visit of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation in August 1983 was in both countries' interest. This point was accepted by the Indonesian Government and the visit took place from 4 to 7 July 1984. (2) No. The Government has not in any way sought to distance itself from its ASEAN neighbours and trading partners on this or any other issue. Indeed the whole thrust of the Government's foreign policy is to involve Australia more directly and immediately in the issues facing our region. While, as a natural part of this process, there have been some differences of view with our asean colleagues on particular issues, Australia's role and interests in the region are accepted and our continuing consultations have proved productive for Australia and the region. (Question No. 979) Senator Mason asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 15 June 1984: (1) Did a Metal Trades Industry Association survey indicate a probable loss of 3700 jobs in the Hunter region of New South Wales during the next six months as a result of the rundown of large construction projects in and around Newcastle, New South Wales. (2) Is the already appalling loss of jobs in the Hunter region of New South Wales likely to increase in spite of national improvements in the unemployment rate. (3) Does the Government concede that Newcastle represents the most valuable and extensive infrastructure in the nation and that it is grossly uneconomic that these facilities and their workforce should be under-used. (4) Will the Government urgently examine in light of existing national priorities, work which might be undertaken in the public sector including shipbuilding, production of steel and steel artifacts, possible new sunrise industries, new water storage dams and gas pipelines, all of which would enable new jobs to be created in Newcastle and check the present serious drop in the region's large and nationally indispensible production potential. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The Metal Trades Industry Association conducted a telephone survey of selected firms in the northern region of New South Wales on 31 May this year. Of the 20 firms surveyed, 18 were in the heavy engineering, foundry and metal fabrication industries. Respondents, who had a total employment of 2469 persons, estimated that between June and December 1984 they would reduce their workforce by 15.4 per cent. The estimate of a job loss of 3700, which was publicised in the local press, was obtained by applying this 15.4 per cent factor to all metals industries in the northern region of New South Wales, which employ about 24 000 persons. There is no indication to support the assumption, implicit in this estimate, that other metals industries are suffering the same difficulties as the heavy engineering industries. The Government is concerned about the situation in the heavy engineering industry. On 5 August this year, the industry was referred to the Industries Assistance Commission. The Commission is required to provide an interim report within three months on the appropriate short term response to existing industry problems, and a final report within 12 months on long term assistance arrangements. (2) There has been some rise (+12 per cent) over the past nine months in the number of unemployed registered for full time employment with Commonwealth Employment Service offices in the region. Given the strong growth in the labour force over the past year, and the generally poorer performance of industrialised areas during the present recovery, the increase in registrations in the Hunter region is not unexpected. (CES unemployment figures between March 1981 and March 1983 are not available-due to the Review of Commonwealth Functions decision to discontinue their collection.) Against this the number of unfilled vacancies available at CES offices in the Hunter region increased by over 60 per cent over the year to June 1984. In addition, over the year to the June quarter 1984, the number of vacancies notified to CES offices in the region increased by over one third. (3) The Commonwealth is aware that Newcastle has a valuable and extensive infrastructure provided by both public and private investment over past years. So too do many other regions of Australia. The Government's economic policies, re-affirmed in our Budget of 21 August, are directed to make more efficient use of labour and capital resources throughout the nation, including the Hunter region. (4) In 1984-85, expenditure on civil works funded directly from the Budget is estimated to rise by over 50 per cent. Grants of a capital nature to State, Northern Territory and local Governments are estimated to rise by 14 per cent. Within the Hunter region, the Hunter Valley Research Foundation has identified between November 1983 and May 1984 a 4 per cent increase in the value of projects under construction, and a 91 per cent increase in the value of proposed projects. At least $46 million of the proposed new investment in the region is due to capital expenditure by BHP in its Steel Division, undertaken as part of the Steel Industry Plan. The Federal Government is also assisting the region through its package of employment generation and training initiatives for the steel regions. In 1983-84 some $3.3m was provided towards a range of TAFE, road, water treatment, tourism and Defence housing projects in the Hunter region. A further $13.5m is being provided for the region in 1984-85, of which the main payments will be for TAFE projects ($6.4m), Nelson Bay fishing port extension ($3m) and Chichester water treatment works ($2.6m). In addition, the Federal Government is continuing its considerable support for other projects in the region, including a $1m development of the Royal Australian Air Force base at Williamstown, construction of a new $9.45m office block in Newcastle, and provision of $1m towards the Chichester Dam under the national water resources program. Under the Federal Government's roads program, the Newcastle National Highway Strategy is being developed with a view to constructing a new route west of Lake Macquarie bypassing Newcastle and Maitland at a preliminary cost estimate of $ 180m. Upgrading of the New England highway section of the Sydney/Brisbane national highway is also continuing. (Question No. 984) Senator Hearn asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 15 June 1984: (1) Does the Australian Government Trade Commissioner in the Philippines monitor the conditions of Philippine workers producing goods imported into Australia. (2) Is there a human rights criteria for: (a) imports from Asian countries; (b) overseas aid to Asian Governments; and (c) the granting of export credits. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The senator's question might more properly have been addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade as the activities of the Australian Trade Commissioner in the Philippines fall within his portfolio. It might be stated, however, that Australia's commitment to observance of internationally accepted standards of human rights is an important part of the Government's foreign policy. Through our membership in the International Labour Organisation, the Australian Government supports international efforts to improve labour conditions in all countries. We also maintain an interest in the activities of Australian companies in the Philippines. This does not normally extend to a close examination of local working conditions. (2) The Government has not established explicit human rights criteria for trade or overseas aid. The Government believes that Australia should not automatically withhold commercial and aid contacts from states with adverse human rights records. Nor do such contacts imply any endorsement on our part of the policies of these states. The Government has considered suggestions that Australian aid to certain countries should be discontinued, but has firmly taken the view that such suggestions overlook the fact that the result of such action would be to punish the most needy people in a developing country without influencing those who direct affairs. At the same time, the Government believes that Australian aid in developing infrastructure and alleviating some of the social and economic problems of developing countries can play a positive role in promoting human rights in recipient countries. The Government recognises, however, that Australia's commercial, aid and diplomatic relations with other states enable us to maintain a dialogue with them on human rights matters. It pursues such a dialogue with a view to promoting genuine, lasting improvements in human rights. Human rights issues, therefore, are clearly understood to be on the agenda of our bilateral relations with many countries including Asian countries. In seeking to pursue principles embodied in the United Nations Charter and the International Bill of Rights, the Government has a legitimate basis for taking issue with human rights violations in countries throughout the world. The Government's commitment to the promotion of human rights will continue to have an active influence on the conduct of Australia's international relations. (Question No. 1047) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 August 1984: What amount of sales tax was raised on the sales of goods in Queensland in the financial years 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Sales tax raised on the sales of goods in Queensland is not recorded. However, net collections of sales tax by the Australian Taxation Office in Queensland are as follows: 1981-82-$312,152,000; 1982-83-$359,214,000; 1983-84-$403,807,000.