Thursday, 13 September 1984 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Pornography 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 21 citizens) and Walters (from 299 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully shows: That we strongly support 'The A.C.T. Smoking and Tobacco Products Advertisements Prohibition Bill' introduced by Senator Evans, because it represents the first positive national step towards the eventual elimination of widespread serious ill health caused by smoking tobacco. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 298 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: But for a High Court decision narrowly favouring the Federal Government, recently discovered 20,000 years old archaeological cave sites near the Franklin River Tasmania, equal in importance to those in the Vesere Valley in France, would have been destroyed, like a United Kingdom Government unable to stop a Wiltshire authority from clearing Stonehenge for a freeway. The constitutional basis for protecting historical and environmental assets remains weak. Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should request the Government to hold a referendum to amend the constitution so that: The Federal Government has the duty and a right superior to state and local governments to set above the commercial advantage of one generation, protect and restore, those things we hold in trust for the future- Being relics, sites, features, areas, wildlife, buildings or things of Aboriginal and other historical, cultural, scientific, aesthetic, ecological or environmental importance; To care for the maintenance of the balance of nature, to manage land, marine and atmospheric use so as to avoid their degradation and in any other matter which might be seen to be in the same spirit. In particular to prevent beach mining, preserve the Heritage Areas, The Great Barrier Reef Region at least as originally defined in the 1975 Act and consider its extension into the Torres Strait. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Mason (from 39 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 Archer (from 291 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the honourable members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that. 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. 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. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. 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. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable house will propose and pass a motion that 'the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 16 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 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 a 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 Senator Missen (from 13 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That Regulations and an Ordinance now before the Parliament amend the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations and supercede the A.C.T. Objectionable Publications Ordinance in such a manner as to be harmful to society by removing from existing Commonwealth Law The power to prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography e.g. X rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; The power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications including those associated with blasphemy; The power to require videos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Film Censorship Board before release from Customs. 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 the Censors more appropriately reflect reasonable and responsible community attitudes; That further measure be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; That, because of the importance of this issue to the whole community, a conscience vote be permitted to all members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 41 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows: That: the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; 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 the Australian people should they wish as a people 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 Senator Collard (from 127 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens shows that: 1. the Hawke Labor Government's retirement income policies are piecemeal, inconsistent and make no provision to encourage people to save towards their retirements; and 2. the Government's proposed assets test legislation is iniquitous and, if enacted, its effects would be discriminatory. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled; urge the Government to: 1. scrap its proposed assets test legislation; 2. either institute a broad inquiry into Australia's retirement income and taxation systems or await the outcome of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare's work on this matter; and, 3. following the report of such a wide inquiry institute a retirement income policy which is fair and equitable, that encourages self-provision and which will be non- discriminatory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Collard (from 25 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that they call on the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia 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 Senator Ryan (from 11 citizens). Petitions received. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That- (a) Senate procedures be modified so that a substantially increased proportion of Government Bills is referred to Senate Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees; (b) a selection committee be established to recommend to the Senate which government Bills should be referred to Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees, which committee each Bill should be referred to, and by when the committee should report; (c) the Sessional Orders be amended so that there is a regular opportunity each day for motions to be moved on reference of Bills to committees and an opportunity provided for senators to move the reference of Bills which have not been recommended for referral by the selection committee; (d) the present Sessional Order on reference of Bills be rescinded, and a revised version permitting the calling of any witnesses that the committee chooses, and removing the present procedural restraints, be adopted; (e) the government party should set up an informal liaison committee of the chairman of the Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees, in order to : (i) divide, with the concurrence of their committees, government departments among the committees, and report the result and any subsequent changes to the Senate, and (ii) make representations on committee staffing to the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing; (f) in order to test the will of the Senate, the Standing Orders Committee should: (i) at the start of the 1985 Budget session, move a motion to abolish the Estimates committees and to transfer the responsibilities to the Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees, and (ii) before the 1985 winter recess, circulate to all senators a paper setting out the arguments for and against such a change; and (g) a sessional order be passed, limiting the number of select committees at any one time to three. I seek leave to make a very brief statement. Leave granted. Senator CHANEY —I have given notice of this motion now so that the discussion of the motion can be facilitated both within and outside the Senate. The Leader of the Government, the Leader of the Australian Democrats and Senator Harradine have been kept fully informed of the development of these proposals. Although I would have liked to see this motion determined this session, it may well be that an early election will render that not practical. Whether that is so will be determined by events. I would just like to advise the Senate that senators have shown an interest in this-in particular, Senator Hamer, who, on behalf of the Opposition, has consulted the Democrats and the Government on the matter. Any interested senators are welcome to make suggestions now that public notice has been given of the motion. Subject to no unexpected problems being revealed, I will seek an opportunity to bring this matter on for debate in this session hopefully, but otherwise in the next session of the Parliament. To assist debate on the motion, I would like to make available a paper which describes the background to and the argument for the motion. The paper was prepared with input from senators from different parties. Again, I acknowledge the work of Senator Hamer who had the substantial carriage but who received assistance from around the chamber. I seek leave to table the paper, Mr President. Leave granted. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate condemns the Government for its hypocrisy, double standards and political expediency on conservation matters, as revealed in its attitude regarding the Daintree rainforest issue and the Franklin Dam issue. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I yesterday couched an announcement about the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt, in terms that he will be absent for the whole of the week through illness. That remains the case, and any questions to him should be directed to the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes. Senator CHANEY —Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware of an article in today's Melbourne Age which claims that the name of Mrs L. Murphy appears on the back of a cheque stub, a copy of the front of which was tabled in the Senate yesterday as one of a series tabled by the Minister for Resources and Energy in an attempt to smear members on this side of the House? Has the Minister made any inquiries to ascertain whether the facts contained in the Age are correct? Senator BUTTON —Mr President, I am not aware of the article in the Melbourne Age. I have not seen the Age this morning. Senator Crichton-Browne —Would you like a copy now? Senator BUTTON —I am grateful to Senator Crichton-Browne for his help, but I believe that the Attorney-General is aware of this matter. If Senator Chaney wishes to redirect the question to him, it may obtain an earlier answer. Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr President, I seek to add something on this matter. Just a few minutes before Question Time, my office was contacted by Mr Justice Murphy of the High Court who asked that the following statement be made in the Parliament should the opportunity arise or should it be required. The statement is to the following effect: The Age story is a continuation of a disgraceful campaign of defamation by the Age now directed against my wife. My wife never has purchased a diamond in her life. There have been no dealings ever with Mr Christo Moll of any kind. There is not an atom of truth in the Age story. I request that there be a full and prompt investigation of the allegations and of the role of the Age in this affair. I have had no opportunity to do more than write that down and now retail it to the Senate. I propose to raise the matter with the Special Minister of State who , I presume through the Australian Federal Police, is responsible for investigations of the kind His Honour has in mind. I will advise the Senate at some appropriate time of the course those investigations in fact follow. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. I preface it by saying that I acknowledge the propriety of the Attorney-General reading the statement that he has read. I believe that that is just as proper as the statements made by Senator Crichton-Browne and me yesterday in similar circumstances. My supplementary question relates to the fact that the Minister has not really addressed the question that I asked the Leader of the Government, and I would be grateful if he would. First, I asked whether the Minister was aware of the article, and it appears that the Attorney-General is. The article claims that the name appears on the back of cheque stubs and so on. There are a series of allegations in the article about that. My question is: Have any inquiries been made to ascertain whether the facts contained in the Age report are correct? I wish to emphasise that I am not asking whether Mrs Murphy got a diamond. I am not for a moment suggesting that that is the case. I am asking about the facts in the article, which suggests that there are certain writings on cheques or what purport to be cheques and whether the facts are as broadly set out in this document? Apparently the document is in the hands of the Federal Police, so this is a matter which ought to be within the knowledge of the Government. Senator GARETH EVANS —I became aware of this article only a few minutes ago-in fact, at the time that the phone call came through to my office. My attention this morning was preoccupied with another article in the Age which I shall make the subject of a full personal explanation straight after Question Time, if the matter in not pursued in Question Time. I literally have not absorbed the detail in the article, except to notice that it is not only about the alleged involvement of a Mrs L. Murphy, but also about a series of transactions involving Mr Christo Moll. It is well known that there is a long-standing Federal Police investigation of that gentleman and various commercial transactions in which he has been involved. I will endeavour to find out the state of play on that investigation and advise the Senate in due course as to what can be put on the public record about that, including the particular matters that are raised in the course of this article. Senator ELSTOB —My question is directed to Senator Button, who represents the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I refer to the recent Commonwealth car drivers dispute in Canberra. Is the Minister aware that a written agreement of June 1977 in regard to appointment and promotion of Commonwealth drivers was broken by the Department of Administrative Services in June this year without any consultation with the Transport Workers Union? Considering the Government's policy of consultation and consensus on industrial matters, will the Minister inform the departmental heads or the people concerned in the Department of Administrative Services who caused the unnecessary strike by the Commonwealth car drivers that if they do not want to abide by the Government's policy they may find themselves looking for another job, instead of causing industrial disputes? Senator BUTTON —I am not aware of the details of the alleged breaking of an agreement by officers of the Department of Administrative Services in the course of negotiations with Commonwealth car drivers. I will make an inquiry of the Minister regarding this matter and provide Senator Elstob with an answer as soon as possible. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. It refers to the tabling of documents in the Senate yesterday by Senator Walsh which has already been the subject of questions by Senator Chaney. Will the Minister say on behalf of the Government whether the purported copies of cheque forms and butts provide the basis for any suggestion of impropriety or wrong-doing by any of the individuals or organisations allegedly named on them? Senator BUTTON —I am unable to say at this stage whether they provide substance to any innuendo or allegation against any person-I forget the exact expression that the honourable senator used- Senator Durack —Impropriety or wrong-doing. Senator BUTTON —Yes, but I am trying to recall the category of person identified in the question. If it is confined to members of parliament, I am unable to say at this stage whether any conclusion can be drawn about impropriety or wrongdoing on the part of any person. I wish to have further discussions with some of my colleagues on that matter. Senator DURACK —I ask a supplementary question. In view of the extreme importance of this matter which concerns the tabling of documents by one of the senior Ministers of the Government, I ask the Leader of the Government whether he is going to make his inquiries and provide a statement to the Senate in relation to my question before we get up today? Senator BUTTON —I think the answer to that question must be no, because I would want to make thorough inquiries, not the sorts of inquiries which Senator Durack talks about. I just make the point that there is nothing in the Standing Orders which requires any senator, including a Minister, to vouch for the authenticity of documents. Honourable senators interjecting- Senator BUTTON —If I could complete my answer. I will repeat what I said. There is nothing within the Standing Orders which requires any senator or Minister to vouch for the authenticity of documents. I would not seek to rely on the Standing Orders in respect of this matter. If I had been given the courtesy of being allowed to complete the answer there would not have been a need to have this answer expanded. Indeed, people complained about this practice yesterday. Of course, people in this place rely on the Standing Orders. However, I do not think in this case that it is necessarily appropriate to do so. Senator McINTOSH —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the Government express its strong support for a proposal by members of the Association of South East Asian Nations to move towards establishing a nuclear free zone for the region? Senator GARETH EVANS —I indicated yesterday in the course of a speech on Senator Chipp's private member's Bill that the further exploration of the Indian Ocean zone of peace concept was an initiative that the Government was anxious to continue. As to anything else that might be subsumed by the honourable senator's question, I will seek an early response from the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy . When he tabled the copies of the cheques yesterday, did the Minister have in his possession or did he have access to a copy of the reverse side of the cheque stub on which had been written the words 'diamond purchase Mrs L. Murphy'? If he did, why did he not table it in the course of his muck-raking exercise in the Senate yesterday? Senator WALSH —I tabled those documents yesterday without comment as to anything that was written on them. They were simply tabled. I am satisfied that they are genuine photocopies. I also note for the record that the name 'L Murphy' is much more common than 'Crichton-Browne'. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. The Minister has totally failed to answer the question. I ask him: Did he have in his possession a copy of the reverse cheque stub on which had been written the words 'diamond purchase Mrs L. Murphy'? I remind the Minister that he tabled copies, or what purported to be copies, of three cheques, purported copies of three cheque stubs, and the copies of only two of the reverse of the cheque stubs. I ask him: Did he have a copy of the reverse of the third cheque stub? Did he withhold that from the Senate when he put the other documents on the table here? Senator WALSH —I am satisfied that the documents I tabled are photocopies of documents which exist. I again invite anyone who cares to look through the telephone book to see how many times they can find 'L Murphy' and how many times they can find 'Crichton-Browne'. Senator CHILDS —I refer the Minister representing the Treasurer to the fact that tax outstanding at 30 June 1984 was nearly $3,500m, some $500m higher than the figure a year ago. Is the Government satisfied that all necessary steps are being taken to remedy this situation? Senator WALSH —I think the answer to the question has to be no. The Government has taken steps, principally by increasing significantly the staff available to the enforcement section of the Australian Taxation Office, to overcome the backlog of tax cases. I interpolate that that is in contrast to the inactions of the previous Government, which consistently ignored pleas from the Commissioner of Taxation to do that. But in the general sense, no, the Government could not be satisfied with the general tax collection situation. One reason for that, of course, is that the Opposition, 60 per cent of the Australian Democrats and Senator Harradine continue to reject legislation to recover tax which should have been paid long ago-legislation which would deter would-be tax avoiders or evaders from attempting to repeat their anti-social behaviour in the future. A variety of excuses have been trotted out, by Senator Harradine in particular for that action, particularly for switching his vote on an identical proposition. Senator Harradine —I rise to a point of order, Mr President. My point of order is that the Minister is not answering the direct question posed to him by the honourable senator. The honourable senator's direct question was in respect of staff in the Taxation Office to enforce the current provisions of the legislation. If the Minister wants an argument about this other matter, I am perfectly happy to have it with him, here or outside, but at present he is not acting in accordance with Standing Orders. The PRESIDENT —Order! A Minister is entitled to answer a question in any way he chooses, but in answering a question he is not entitled to debate the matter. There is no point of order, but I draw the latter part of my ruling to the Minister's attention. Senator WALSH —Thank you, Mr President. On a point of fact, however, the question contained no reference to staff. Senator Harradine was wrong again. I said that he in particular had given a variety of excuses for switching his vote on an identical proposition; that is, the removal of section 3 (12) from the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Act which was passed in 1982. Those excuses were often mutually exclusive, and always specious. I direct the attention of Senator Childs and the Senate to the Hansard of 14 December 1983, pages 3772 and 3773, where Senator Harradine conceded that he had voted in the opposite way on an identical proposition. He said: The reason I voted against it this time is simply that the omission of section 3 (12) has a retrospective effect in that taxpayers who would be entitled to relief under that sub-section and who have requested that it be applied by the Commissioner of Taxation will now have that right removed and face recoupment tax liability. As Senator Harradine was told at the time, no taxpayer had applied for exemption under that provision because no relevant assessments had been issued. That is the reason he gave then, and it is quite different from the latest excuse, which he gave yesterday. They are quite inconsistent. I note in closing that Senator Harradine has resorted to a legal subterfuge, to an abuse of legal processes, to escape electoral justice, that is, by issuing a stop writ against me. I challenge him to bring it into court immediately. The PRESIDENT —Order! The last part of the Minister's remarks is in breach of standing order 418 and I ask him to withdraw it. Senator WALSH —I withdraw, Mr President. Senator WALTERS —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I refer him to a copy of a cheque allegedly signed by Mr Christo Moll, tabled in the Senate yesterday by the Minister for Resources and Energy, on the back of which is a notation 'Northmore Hale donation Liberal Party'. Does the Attorney consider that this document casts any reflection on the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Temby, who was a partner in the firm of Northmore Hale and, if so, what action does he propose to take in relation to the matter? If not, can he indicate what justification his colleague had for tabling the document? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have no view on the former matter which Senator Walters raised. As to the justification for any action that may have been taken by my colleague, that is a matter for the honourable senator to question him about, not me. Senator WALTERS —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I asked two questions and the Minister answered only one. The first question was: Does the Attorney consider that this document casts any reflection on the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Temby, who was a partner in the firm of Northmore Hale, and, if so, what action does he propose to take in relation to the matter? Senator GARETH EVANS —There is nothing I can usefully add to my previous reply. To the extent that it is proper that there be some further investigation of this matter in the context specifically of the request to that effect made by Mr Justice Murphy, which I indicated previously, no doubt that other aspect of the matter will be looked at as well. If there is anything appropriately flowing from that investigation no doubt that will be a matter of public record in due course. Senator GILES —Has the attention of the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women been drawn to the survey of Australian women by advertising agent, John Clemenger, and is she surprised by his conclusion that the ' unhappiest women in Australia' are mothers at home with young children? Is this not a matter for serious community concern? What measures can be taken by the Government to assist these women to find life more rewarding and stimulating? Senator RYAN —I do not think anyone on this side of the chamber, or probably anybody in this chamber, would have been surprised by the findings of the Clemenger survey. It is a matter of interest that for over a decade now women in Australia, through their various organisations, have been drawing to the attention of government the fact that society has changed and women generally want to participate fully in community life and in the work force for long periods of their lives. When they are obstructed from doing this, because of lack of child care services or adequate training or through prejudice and discrimination in the work force or in training and education institutions, they become very frustrated and unhappy. It was out of a recognition of these changes and the difficulties faced by young mothers in particular that the Australian Labor Party many years ago started to formulate its equal opportunity policies, including extensive policies for gaining equal opportunity in education, training and in the work force. The Clemenger survey, while it is still valid, does not tell us anything new, but it does demonstrate that the Labor Government is very much on the right track in the policies it has been pursuing to improve opportunities for women. We have been pursuing those policies very assiduously during our 16 months in government. I think the community will generally endorse the steps we have taken , particularly in areas such as the Sex Discrimination Act, the pilot program for affirmative action in private employment, the equal opportunity legislation which will give women better opportunities in the Commonwealth Public Service and, of course, in our greatly enhanced commitment to programs such as child care, special subsidies for employers to train women, particularly as apprentices, and so on. It is quite clear that Australian women want to participate beyond the domestic sphere and become frustrated and unhappy when they cannot do that. I believe those women, who were the subject of the Clemenger survey to which Senator Giles referred in her question, have something to look forward to because of the very wide range of education, training, apprenticeship, child care and equal opportunity policies which this Government has implemented. Senator MACKLIN —I ask the Attorney-General a question about the Government's decision on the fate of the Daintree Rainforest. Does the Attorney-General concede that the Government has powers under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act to regulate to save the Daintree region now that it has been recognised as natural heritage 'of outstanding universal significance'? Why did the Attorney, in his advice to the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, make references to what the High Court of Australia may or may not do in response to a government regulation? Is it not the proper and prudent course of action for the Government to regulate in accordance with its powers and the recommendations of its environmental advisers and then, should a challenge arise , allow the High Court to determine its response free of government interference ? Senator GARETH EVANS — With the utmost respect to Senator Macklin, it is an extraordinary proposition that any government should embark upon a course of action without having regard to the legal consequences of such action, the possibility or probability of a challenge and the estimate of the likely success of that challenge. That is in the context of legislating or regulating in a way that may be unconstitutional. The point is even stronger when the matter in issue is essentially a factual one-and I think that is the matter at issue here- as to whether there could be something that could properly be described as irreparable damage occurring or which may occur in the future. The Government has made a judgment for better or worse. I appreciate that reasonable people may differ about these things. But quite apart from the policy considerations, I was addressing myself to the purely legal considerations in the letter to the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment of which Senator Chipp has a copy. I do not think it is possible for me to add anything more to that side of the equation which is the sole aspect for which I have any portfolio responsibility. Senator MACKLIN —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I refer to the first part of my question when I asked whether the Attorney-General would concede that the Government has powers under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act to regulate to save the area. He did not answer that part of the question. Senator GARETH EVANS —There are certain powers available under the legislation which may or may not be applicable to the circumstances of this particular case as a threshold question. It is a matter of determining whether the criteria spelt out in that legislation can be satisfied. The mere fact that there are opinions to that effect by the Heritage Commission or other expert advisers does not finally determine that matter. As I have indicated previously in response to questions of this kind, difficult and delicate questions of legal judgment are involved in matters of this kind and it is simply not appropriate, even if it were possible under the Standing Orders, for me to give such opinions during Question Time. Senator COLSTON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I refer to a letter written by the Queensland State Minister for Health, Mr Brian Austin, to the Chairman of the Pittsworth and District Hospital Friendly Society. Mr Austin stated in that letter that there is no power under the relevant Act for a State Minister for Health to make recommendations to the Federal Minister for Health in relation to the categorisation of any hospitals. Is it not a fact that under regulations made under a Federal Act, Mr Austin could make recommendations in relation to the categorisation of any hospital in Queensland? Does any recommendation made by Mr Austin under these regulations need to be initiated by the Federal Minister for Health? Has the Queensland State Minister for Health made recommendations in relation to any Queensland hospital's categorisation? If not, does this indicate that Mr Austin is satisfied with the categories of private hospitals in Queensland or that he is interested only in public hospitals? Senator GRIMES —Senator Colston gave me notice that he would ask this question. I have obtained the following information from the Minister for Health. Under section 31 of the Health Insurance Act 1973 which was gazetted in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette on 22 March 1984, any State Minister, including Mr Austin, can make recommendations in relation to the categorisation of any private hospital in his State. In essence, the gazetted order defines a category 1 or 2 hospital as being one which either satisfies the relevant statistical criteria or does not satisfy the criteria for a particular category, but has been subject to a recommendation by the relevant State Minister that it be determined to be in that category. In addition, it is open for the State Minister to recommend that a hospital be placed in a higher category. The order also provides for a State Minister to recommend that a hospital may be placed in a lower category. This particularly applies where the hospital does not meet State safety standards or regulations. The effect of the order is that the Minister for Health can use his discretionary power to upgrade a hospital which does not satisfy all the criteria only if a State Minister so recommends. This in no way obliges any Minister to make a recommendation, but it does place considerable constraints on the Federal Minister. Where a State Minister does make recommendations concerning individual hospitals, the Federal Minister for Health has the option of either accepting or not accepting the recommendations. A recommendation by Mr Austin or any other State Minister does not need to be initiated by the Federal Minister for Health but can be made by a State Minister of his own volition at any time. Mr Austin has been provided with a list of the categories of all private hospitals in his State and has been asked to advise the Federal Minister for Health of any changes that he considers appropriate. The fact is that Mr Austin has not made any recommendations in relation to any Queensland hospital's categorisation. I am unaware why Mr Austin has written this in a letter to the Chairman of the Pittsworth and District Hospital Friendly Society. Perhaps he wishes to avoid his responsibilities in this area. Quite clearly Mr Austin is not telling the facts or the truth in his letter to that friendly society. Senator HILL —My question is directed to the Attorney-General, and I am sure it will not surprise him. Will he confirm the facts reported in today's Age newspaper about representations he made on behalf of Mr Stuart John Perry? If not, what inaccuracies are there in that report? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am indebted to Senator Hill for his question because it does enable me to put the record straight. The Age this morning published a long article commencing on page 1 under the heading: 'Efforts for ex-criminal put Evans in dilemma over rights'. The article purports to deal with the so-called dilemmas faced by members of parliament generally when asked by constituents with criminal records to make representations on their behalf. The great bulk of the article, however, deals with the specific case of Mr Stuart Perry, on whose behalf, in my capacity as a senator rather than Attorney-General, I made certain representations to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in April, July and September last year. Although the article has obviously been worked over very carefully by the Age's defamation lawyers in the three months since the issue was raised with me by the newspaper, it is difficult to read it, timed as it is, as anything more than yet another attempt to suggest a less than proper or wholehearted approach to organised crime issues by me in particular and the Government in general. As such I cannot let the matter go by without responding and making it clear that any such imputation is in this case, as so many times before, utterly without foundation. What has obviously attracted the Age's attention is that Mr Perry-although this was unknown to me or my office at the time-was the subject last year of investigation by the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, in a subsequent reply, advised me that his departmental files on Mr Perry, including the only copies of the correspondence from me of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, were subpoenaed by the Costigan Commission on 27 September and delivered on 30 September last year. The essence of the matter is set out in the memoranda and correspondence which I shall shortly table and seek leave to incorporate in Hansard. In short, it is as follows: Mr Perry approached my office in March last year, through a mutual trade union acquaintance, seeking clarification of his immigration status following advice to him from the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs that if he left the country he would not be allowed to return-not following his 'arrest as an illegal immigrant' as the Age story put it. He was dealt with throughout by a senior member of my staff in whose judgment and capacity I had, and retain, total confidence. I did not personally see or speak to Mr Perry at any time, and my evaluation of the merits and sincerity of his case was based entirely on the judgment of my staff member, which I have never had occasion either before or since to call in question on a matter of this kind. The letter to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, which I signed on 28 April 1983, and which features prominently in the Age story this morning, did the following things: It set out Mr Perry's story, including an account of his extensive criminal record and his claim that he was no longer engaged in criminal activity. It stated that he wanted to leave and return to Australia and had been told by Immigration that he could not. He sought my intervention to find out what the situation was. The letter finally stated that I would appreciate the Minister's consideration of the matters raised and his advice to me adding as a concluding sentence: I know that cases such as this are difficult, but it does at least appear to me that Mr Perry is making some determined effort to make a clean break with his past. A routine acknowledgement was received from Immigration on 16 May, and two subsequent representations were made seeking resolution of the matter, but a final decision-which involved questions as to whether Mr Perry's status should be regularised, or whether in fact he should be deported-had not been made at the time and the Immigration file was subpoenaed last September, and the matter has not been able to be progressed by the Minister since. The Age raised the matter with me on 18 June this year in the form of a set of questions directed to me from Lindsay Murdoch of that paper, all premised on the false assumption that I had written to the Minister for Immigration expressing personal support for a citizenship application by Mr Perry. I replied the following day with the memorandum and attachments which, together with the Murdoch questions, I now table and seek leave to incorporate in Hansard. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- QUESTIONS FROM LINDSAY MURDOCH OF 'AGE' RE YOUR SUPPORT OF CITIZENSHIP APPLICATION BY STUART JOHN PERRY 1. How did you come to support in two letters to the Immigration Minister, Mr West, last year, the Australian citizenship of Stuart John Perry? 2. Did you know that at the time of those letters on 28 April and 4 June 1983 that Perry was an illegal immigrant? 3. Did you know that Perry had a long criminal history with convictions in NSW, Vic & Qld, and England where he served 5 years for assault and robbery? 4. Are you aware that Costigan has questioned Perry about his illegal immigrancy, his association with Painters and Dockers and possible involvement with several murders and the Great Bookie robbery? 5. Do you know that Perry has confessed to Costigan to being a liar and a thief ? 6. Did you meet with Perry before supporting his application for Australian citizenship and if not, did someone from your office? 7. Did you seek from any law enforcement agency the background of Perry and his suitability for Australian citizenship and, if so, which agency(ies)? 8. Did you write any letters to West other than the letters of support in April and June and did you ever withdraw the support you gave in those letters? To: Lindsay Murdoch, The Age From: Gareth Evans Re: Perry Matter Date: 19 June 1984 I had no personal recollection of this matter at all when it was raised yesterday, but having now checked my office file and with the Immigration Department and my former Electorate Assistant Geoff Gardner (who now works for the Minister for Finance, and a note from whom is appended below: Attachment A) I can answer your questions as follows. Please note that the whole matter concerned a question of current immigration status and entitlement to a re-entry visa, and had nothing whatever to do with any application for citizenship. 1. The matter was dealt with in a routine way by my Melbourne Electorate Office , and by me in my capacity as Senator for Victoria. My former Electorate Assistant Geoff Gardner handled the case throughout, and I have no recollection of ever meeting or speaking to Mr Perry myself. He was introduced to my office by a mutual acquaintance, Mr Ron Chadwick, whom I know as a member of the Storemen and Packers Union and ALP. My personal role was confined to signing the original letter to the Minister for Immigration on 28 April 1983 (Attachment B), a follow-up letter on 4 July 1983 (Attachment C) and giving papers from my office file to the Minister personally on 16 September 1983 (following a memo from Mr Gardner on 13 September, Attachment D) with a request that he expedite an answer. My office has no record, and neither I nor my staff have any recollection, of any further movement on the matter since then. 2. Mr Perry's status as an immigrant was the very matter in issue, as my letter of 28 April 1983 makes clear. 3. Yes. Mr Perry gave a full account of his criminal record to Mr Gardner, and my letter of 28 April again makes this clear. 4. I am aware of the report of Mr Perry's appearance before the Costigan Commission in The Age of 1 October 1983, which-according to a file note-was marked for my information by Mr Gardner on 3 October 1983. 5. My knowledge of what Mr Perry may have told the Costigan Commission is confined to the press clipping referred to above. 6. I did not meet or speak to Mr Perry. Mr Gardner interviewed him in my Melbourne office on 29 March 1983 and spoke to him several times subsequently by telephone. 7. The question in issue was not Mr Perry's suitability for citizenship, but rather clarification of the question whether, if he left the country, he would be re-admitted. Given that context-as made very clear in my letter of 28 April- no such inquiry would have been appropriate. 8. See my answer to question 1. My letters of 28 April and 4 July were routine representations-of the kind that any Member of Parliament makes in the hundreds- seeking clarification of status and putting forward matters which might assist the Minister's consideration of the question. ''Support'' terminology implies something in the nature of a character reference, which my correspondence clearly was not. Concluding note. I would be grateful if you would bring your questions and my answers to the personal attention of the Editor, and if Mr Burns were to speak to me before any publication of any of this material occurs. I will be in my Canberra office until 4.20 this afternoon (tel. 72 7301, 72 7260), at home in Melbourne this evening after approximately 8.00 p.m. and in my Melbourne office tomorrow (tel. 63 4071). GARETH EVANS Senator Evans You have asked me to recall the circumstances concerning the representations you made to the Minister for Immigration on behalf of Mr Stuart Perry. As I remember, Mr and Mrs Perry came to see me in company of Mr Ron Chadwick, an official of the Storeman and Packers Union. Mr Perry was concerned about his immigration status following an application he had made for a visa to leave Australia to visit the Philippines. He needed the visa to return to Australia. He advised that he had been informed by the Immigration Department that their records indicate that he should not be in the country and should have been refused re-entry the last time that he returned. As I recall he had been to England. Mr Perry's concerns were: 1. that he should be allowed to remain in Australia 2. that he should be allowed to obtain a visa which would permit him to return to Australia if he were to leave. In connection with the latter he spoke of a desire to see his aged grandmother in Britain. Mr Perry then explained that he had a long criminal record and had served several prison sentences. He freely conceded that he had been involved in violent crime. He claimed that his last conviction and prison sentence in Australia had been for possession of a weapon. At the time of it he said he felt his life was in danger and he felt it necessary to carry a gun for self- protection. Mr Perry claimed that he had not been involved in crime for some time. He had married an Australian woman and had legally adopted her children as his own. He no longer carried a gun though he still felt threatened. He was living on the dole and had been declared bankrupt following the collapse of a company he was involved in which had gone broke. In my assessment of the case I believed that Mr Perry had been frank with me about his past. The fact that the problem of his immigration status had arisen was a shock to him and lead him to seek assistance from a political source. By doing so, and by asking for official representations to be made it seemed to me that he was prepared to have his case decided by officials on the basis of his desire to change his lifestyle. This view was re-iterated by him in his appearance before the Costigan Commission which basically took him through incidents that had occurred some years ago. As a result, representations were drafted for you to sign which requested sympathetic consideration of his case by the Minister for Immigration. In such cases, we generally prepared such representations on the notepaper which was headed Senator for Victoria. Without seeing the originals I cannot remember whether this practice was followed in this case. The second letter that was written to Mr West was a reminder that the case had still not been resolved. No substantive additional information was included though it referred to Mr Perry's desire to see his grandmother before a certain time as her health was failing. At this stage therefore Mr Perry's case had still apparently not been resolved. The case is not one involving an application for citizenship. Mr Perry simply wished to be allowed to stay in Australia with his family and be given the opportunity to leave and return. I must say I am fairly astonished that a newspaper can have raised this case with you in the way it has. The questions you have been asked smack of a desire to implicate you in some underhand way. Clearly they also reflect on my own capacity for personal judgment and carry the inherent suggestion that people with a criminal record have no right to seek assistance from their elected representatives. Your letters clearly indicate that you were simply carrying out your duty as a Senator to assist people who seek your help. In fact you made no mention that supports the claim but simply requested its fair consideration. As for the effect on Mr Perry, clearly it can only do harm to his case and I think it is to be regretted if it means it is not treated on its merits. There is a hint of character assassination of both you and Mr Perry about the whole exercise which I personally find offensive. I assume that the whole thing has become public as the result of a misleading leak of information designed to embarrass you. 28 April, 1983 Hon. S. J. West, MP Minister for Immigration Parliament House CANBERRA, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Stewart, I have received representations from Mr Stuart Perry, of Spotswood, Victoria, who is concerned about his immigration status in Australia. Mr Perry is a British subject who, I understand, first came to Australia in 1960. He has, as he freely admits, an extensive criminal record. Some time prior to June 1979 he visited his relatives in Britain. He returned to Australia in June 1979. Since that time he has had two convictions for possession of a pistol . He has also been involved in a building company which went bankrupt in Queensland as a result, he claims, of the general recession that is still taking place. A short time ago, Mr Perry applied for a visa to go to Manila. He believed that he would be able to arrange for finance for the development of a property in Noosa. He was then told that he should not have been allowed back in the country when he returned in 1979, and that if he left again he would again not be allowed back into Australia. Mr Perry is most concerned at this and has asked for a clarification of his position, as he wishes to visit his relatives in England and hopes to do so during the European summer which is starting shortly. Mr Perry claims, and in this he has the support of Ron Chadwick of the Storemen and Packers' Union, that he is no longer engaging in criminal activities and, despite the danger to himself that he feels exists, no longer arms himself. He has been married to an Australian woman for almost two years and has legally adopted her three children. He wishes to be issued with a re-entry visa so as to be able to return to Australia if he does visit England and has sought my intervention to ascertain whether this is possible. I would appreciate your consideration of the matters I have raised and your advice to me. Mr Perry is worried that he is under threat of deportation, particularly as not only his wife, but also his mother and brothers are all living here. I know that cases such as this are difficult, but it does at least appear to me that Mr Perry is making some determined effort to make a clean break with his past. Yours sincerely, GARETH EVANS Hon. S. J. West, MP Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Parliament House Canberra A.C.T. 2600 Dear Stewart, You will recall that I wrote to you on 28 April 1983 about Mr Stuart Perry of Spotswood, Victoria, concerning his current immigration status. As some time has elapsed since I wrote to you, Mr Perry has contacted my office again to ascertain if there is any further development in his case. As I explained to you earlier, he was hoping to visit Europe in July, largely for the purpose of seeing his aged (83 years) grandmother. Mr Perry advised that his grandmother's eyesight is failing and that this is possibly the last opportunity she will have to see him and if possible, his family. As this case is now taking on some urgency, I would appreciate it if a reply could be provided as soon as possible. Yours sincerely, GARETH EVANS ATTACHMENT D STUART PERRY Gareth Ron Chadwick of the Storeman and Packers Union rang about the abovenamed again. We first wrote to Stewart West about him on 28 April. We received an acknowledgement of 16 May. We sent a reminder on 4 July. Considering its now been 4 1/2 months this is starting to get a bit over the odds in the amount of time its taking. A note on file by me done on 18 July indicates that an official rang and said there would be ''some slight delay'' in presenting the case to the Minister. That's starting to assume the class of massive understatement. Can you have a quick word to Stewart West at a meeting or something just to say that everyone is getting a bit agitated at the lack of any communication. GEOFF. 13/9 ATTACHMENT E Gareth This is the bloke whose case we have taken up with Stewart West. He wants to stay, the Dept. of Imm & E. A. wants to deport. For info. Costigan witness recalls 'war' that killed five By JILL BAKER An unemployed man told the Costigan Royal Commission yesterday that he had carried a gun for protection during a factional fight involving the violent deaths of five Melbourne men. Stuart John Perry told the Royal Commission that he was concerned for his safety after hearing of a feud between his friend, Raymond Patrick ''Chuck'' Bennett, and the Kane brothers. He said he had armed himself with a loaded .38 calibre pistol before a meeting with Mr Bennett to discuss the fight. Senior counsel assisting the commission, Mr Douglas Meagher, QC: A violent fight? Mr Perry: Yes. Mr Perry said he had been newly-arrived back in Australia and wanted to tell Mr Bennett, whom he described as a friend, that he did not want any part in the fight. ''I didn't know how he (Mr Bennett) would take to the fact that I didn't want to be involved in it, but he said 'It's okay, Stuart'.'' Mr Perry agreed that the two had been arrested about an hour after the meeting outside a St Albans restaurant. He said it was later alleged that Mr Bennett had also ''had a pistol on him.'' Mr Perry said he had heard rumors that anyone who was a friend of Mr Bennett would be an enemy of the Kanes. ''After Ray Chuck (Bennett) got shot, I felt a bit vulnerable,'' he said, adding that as ''things turned out, . . . there was no problem.'' Mr Bennett was shot dead in the city court in November 1979. Brian Kane was shot dead in the Quarry Hotel in Lygon Street in November 1982 and his brother, Leslie Kane, disappeared from his Wantirna home in October 1981. Mr Perry told the commission he had no intention of carrying a gun again. '' There is a time in everyone's life when they have to change,'' he said. Mr Meagher asked whether that was because the ''war'' was over. Mr Perry replied: ''I wasn't involved in any way . . . I presume the fighting factions decided to call it a day. I hope so.'' Mr Meagher: The Kane family is almost wiped out? Mr Perry: It is unfortunate thing, but yes. Mr Meagher: I guess that means the end of the war? Mr Perry: Let's hope so. Mr Meagher asked a series of questions about a Mount Martha house where Mr Jan Carrol a former member of the Victorian executive of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers' Union and a friend of Mr Perry, was shot in January this year. Mr Perry said he had not been to the house with Mr Carroll and did not know whether escapee Russell Cox had been staying there. He said he was ''flabbergasted'' when he saw on television the number of weapons which were allegedly found in the house. He was asked a series of questions yesterday about his property interests since his return to Australia in June 1979. These had included a block of units called Weyba Lodge at Noosa held through a company called Namsina Developments Pty. Ltd ., two flats in the Esplanade, Brighton, and two units in Hammer Street, Williamstown. He said he had left $40,000 with Mr Carroll before leaving for England in 1974. He had earned $30,000 from legal horse betting and made the rest shoplifting, he said. Mr Perry said he could not transfer the money from Australia because he was absconding from bail but expected Mr Carroll to hold it for him or send it if required. Further evidence in chief and cross examination of Mr Perry will continue when the royal commission resumes on a date to be fixed. Senator GARETH EVANS —The documents should be wholly self-explanatory. I had a long conversation on the evening of, I believe, 19 June with the Age Editor, Mr Burns, in which I explained with some patience the nature of the MP's role so far as representations to other Ministers on behalf of constituents were concerned. I also expressed some incredulity that the Age could possibly-in the light of my explanation-find any reasonable basis for running a story from which , however written, adverse inferences would inevitably be drawn. There the matter rested until the article appeared in the Age this morning. I finally say that the dilemmas for MPs in making constituency representations are largely a product of the Age's imagination. Difficult questions do occasionally arise when one is approached, for example by persons who are clearly less than wholly sane, or whose cases are clearly such that no useful purpose could possibly be served by pursuing them with the appropriate authorities. But the paper's suggestion that there might be some kind of duty to fully investigate the background and bona fides of a constituent before making representations on his or her behalf-at least in circumstances where someone with a criminal record is involved-simply cannot withstand any scrutiny. Not only is a member of parliament-even someone who, wearing another hat, is first Law Officer of the country-in no position at all to conduct any such investigation, nor should there be any pre-representation test run on each case. To do so would be, usually, to anticipate and predecide the very issue on which the representation is being made. Certainly that would have been the case in the Perry matter now before us. More importantly this needs to be said and said loudly and clearly for those whose hearing is limited in these matters. It would massively diminish the rights and expectations of ordinary citizens, who have a totally reasonable expectation that their elected representatives are there, not to pre-judge them, nor to adjudicate their claims, but to represent them. That is the role that I have always played in the past, and one that I hope to go on playing-without fear of favour from the Age or anyone else-for a long time yet. Senator CROWLEY —My question is to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. Has the Minister seen the article in today's Age headed 'Women lead the growth in university enrolments' which shows the Australian Bureau of Statistics' figures for university and advanced education student enrolments, revealing a 2 per cent increase for university students, a 3 per cent increase for advanced education students and, surprisingly, a 13 per cent increase in post graduate study groups? Is the Minister satisfied that this increase is part of the Government's efforts and the efforts of the Education Department in encouraging students to further their studies? Is the increase in students matched by sufficient places and facilities? Does the Minister expect this increase to be maintained? Senator RYAN —It is very heartening to see that there is increased participation in higher education and in post-graduate education as revealed in the ABS survey . It has been the policy of our Government since we came into office to encourage such participation and to support it by way of increased funding for higher education institutions and increases in income support provisions for students. It is our view that, given the changed nature of the Australian work force, given the much greater demands for a highly educated, flexible work force , it is absolutely essential that more young Australians have the opportunity to get the benefits of higher education. We appreciate that during the seven years of the Fraser administration there were real cutbacks in funding for higher education and a real fall off in the participation levels of students in higher education. I think a generally low morale was induced throughout institutions of higher education and the feeling was abroad amongst young people that it was pointless to pursue higher education because employment opportunities were so restricted. Fortunately, we have been able to turn that situation around. We are now seeing increased participation in all elements of education, especially at the upper secondary level, which is essential to young people being able to participate further in higher education. We have turned around funding to higher education and given the first substantial increases in seven years. The funding decisions that I announced for tertiary education in the tertiary education guidelines will mean an extra 30, 000 full time places in tertiary education over the next three years. We hope that we can supplement and increase that growth in future years. Clearly higher education, tertiary education, is once again in a growth situation and the participation statistics which Senator Crowley's question revealed are heartening to the Government although, of course, it is not complacent and does not want to rest there. We want to see more opportunities and we believe that the increase of 10 per cent in the tertiary allowances and of 15 per cent in allowances for secondary students that we have been able to provide in this year's Budget, together with an easing of the eligibility tests and an easing of the means test on family incomes, will mean that many thousands more young Australians will have the opportunity to benefit from higher education. Senator PETER BAUME —I ask the Minister for Resources and Energy: When he tabled yesterday three cheques, three cheque butts and two reverse sides of cheques or cheque butts, did he have in his possession or access to the reverse of a cheque stub bearing the words 'diamond purchases Mrs L. Murphy'? Senator WALSH — I have answered that question already. I am satisfied that what I tabled yesterday are photocopies of documents which are authentic. Senator ROBERTSON — Has the attention of the Minister for Resources and Energy been drawn to a report in the West Australian of last Friday in which Sir Charles Court is quoted as saying that without the State Electricity Commission' s take or pay contract the North West Shelf gas project would not have gone ahead and that with this sort of contract the State could make a profit from the Dampier pipeline investment? Are these claims by the former Liberal Western Australian Premier sound? Is his other major claim, that without this project Perth would be running short of gas, accurate? Senator WALSH —Senator Robertson has really asked three questions within his single question. I am aware of the report in the West Australian-indeed, I have it in front of me-and the various claims and assertions made by Sir Charles Court. In summary, his statement is the usual amalgam of bluster, inaccuracy and irrelevancy. He asserts that Perth would have run out of gas from the previous areas of supply. That, of course, would have been true sooner or later but there was enough gas supply for three years and probably six years. The rest of the Woodada reserves were not proved up because there was absolutely no point in doing it after 1980. He also asserts that unless he had forced the SEC to sign that take or pay contract in 1980 the project would not have gone ahead. I do not believe that is the case; but that is more a matter of judgment. I might add that Sir Charles made no comments on the $3m that he was directly responsible for squandering on a redundant, unused grain handling terminal at Broome, or in present value the $ 150m that has been sunk into his other great white elephant in the Ord River scheme. The export and domestic phases of the North West Shelf project should have gone ahead simultaneously. Now is the time for them to go ahead. Now is the time, because the export phase is about to be finalised, I believe, and the domestic phase should have been done at the same time. The most significant claim made by Sir Charles Court is that overseas experience has shown that one can make profits out of storing gas. He went on to assert that the Western Australian Government could make such profits in buying today from the joint venturers gas which conceivably it will not be able to market until the 1990s. Indeed, Sir Charles was quoted as saying: When eventually you take the gas out it is likely to be worth more than at the time you paid for it. If Sir Charles really believes that, I am quite sure that the Western Australian Government would be delighted to sell to him whatever quantity of gas he cares to buy at the price the Western Australian Government, via the SEC, must pay for it and allow Sir Charles to pick up the windfall gains in the 1990s. I invite Sir Charles to make such an offer to the Western Australian Government; better still, he could exercise his self-proclaimed entrepreneurial skills and set up a finance company to buy as much gas from the Western Australian Government as it can supply and pick up the windfall gains that Sir Charles says will be there in the 1990s. That, of course, is the objective test of whether Sir Charles really believes that or not: First, whether he will back his claim with his own money and, secondly, whether he can persuade, using his self-proclaimed entrepreneurial skills, other financiers to do the same thing. I do not expect, however, that either will happen. The real point is that politicians like Sir Charles are essentially self- indulgent. They mouth the rhetoric of free enterprise and then commit public funds to underwrite their fantasies and ego trips. Indeed, the attribute of the Court syndrome is the epitome of the political attitude which leads to the establishment of what Professor Shann originally, and subsequently John Stone, referred to as grasshoppers. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. It also concerns the Attorney's representation on behalf of Mr Stuart John Perry and his reply given this morning. Are we to take it from his answer that he asked the Age not to publish the Perry articles? What was his reason? Did he at any stage attempt to suppress or delay publication of the article in the Age? Senator GARETH EVANS —I did have a conversation with the Editor of the Age, as I said in my answer, on 19 June. I believe it was the same date as the date of my memorandum. Honourable senators will see the full details of that. In it I said that I thought it was quite outrageous that the material be published. That was a view which seemed to be accepted at the time as a result of that conversation when I put the material in the perspective which I have explained today. I heard in the early hours of this morning that it was proposed to publish the story again at this time from a source which I shall not disclose. I rang the Editor of the Age again in order to see what further developments there had been in the last three months that made the situation any different from what obtained in June. He told me there had not been any. I made a few suggestions as to what might be the developments motivating, which I shall not retail to the Senate on this occasion. We left the matter on the basis that history will judge which of us is right. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. On what grounds could the Attorney justify an attempt to stop the freedom of the Press to publish? Senator GARETH EVANS —On the grounds that I articulated very fully and thoroughly, I thought, in my answer to Senator Hill. Senator REYNOLDS —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware that some family doctors responsible for home visits to the elderly and disabled are concerned that more regular visits could be regarded as overservicing under the present Medicare guidelines? Can the Minister give an assurance that this situation is being reviewed so that , in line with the Government's policy, elderly and disabled people may receive necessary medical support to remain in the community rather than be forced into institutions? Senator GRIMES —I have no direct knowledge of any review that is being conducted or is intended to be conducted in this area. Whether or not regular visits to elderly or disabled people at home are considered to be overservicing must be a matter for judgment in individual cases. Certainly, the Medicare regulations and the health regulations generally are not intended to prevent medical practitioners from treating their patients properly and visiting them as often as they need to be visited. I cannot recall in recent times many cases in which medical practitioners have been questioned for overservicing in the way they used to be when I first went into practice 20-odd years ago when it seemed to be quite a regular thing that doctors under the pensioner health service were hauled up to explain the frequency of their visits. Of course there will always be some medical practitioners-this applies to any profession-who will abuse a service of this type. However, I do not think that any conscientious doctor in this country need worry that he or she should restrict his or her visits to patients in any way because of the Medicare regulations. As Senator Reynolds said, it is the policy of this Government to ensure that more and more elderly people stay where they really want to be, and that is in their own homes. The only way to do this is to provide adequate services for them, and one of those services will always be a health service. Senator JESSOP —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer him to tabled paper 2005 of 30 November 1983, proposal No. 13 of 1983 by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, dealing with household expenditure surveys of about 7,500 homes at an estimated cost of $3.3m. The paper states inter alia: All household members aged 15 years and over will be asked-- I repeat 'asked'- to record all payments made over a two week period, (four weeks in the rural areas) in a diary provided for the purpose. Is it a fact that the Australian Bureau of Statistics has informed respondents selected for this survey that they are required-I repeat 'required'-to keep such a diary? Is it also a fact that the interviewers have been provided with training instructions on how to circumvent their lack of power of entry to private premises? Will the Government stop this big brother activity by directing the Australian Bureau of Statistics to inform its respondents of their full rights in detail in respect of this survey and to withdraw any letter which implies that the completion of this diary is mandatory? Senator WALSH —I cannot remember all the questions that Senator Jessop has asked and I do not have paper 2005 to which he referred. If I may answer in more general terms, so far as I am aware-subject to being checked out by the Treasurer-the procedures being followed in the household expenditure survey are no different from procedures which have been followed in the past. Senator Jessop referred to the lack of power of Australian Bureau of Statistics officers in collecting material. I think it is correct, and all this is subject to confirmation, that officers do not have power of entry into a house, but I am advised that the ABS has the power to compel people to fill in the diaries once they have been selected as respondents to the survey. That is a power, however, which is rarely, indeed probably never, actually used. Over a long period the Statistician has adopted the view that it is better to persuade people than to coerce them with the long arm of the law. This is because information given under coercion is less likely to be accurate than that given voluntarily and the reliability of the survey would therefore be affected. I do not think I need go through the reasons for this information being collected. I do not think there is any serious dispute about that from anyone. Such information is valuable, if not essential, to governments. Some concern has been expressed, and I remember this about the general census in 1971 when there was a virtual campaign of non-compliance being promoted by some people. That is always there, but it should be stressed that all the households or all the individuals in the households selected for this survey can be assured that all information is subject to stringent safeguards regarding confidentiality and the ABS has an unbroken record in this regard. If I have not covered the other specific questions that Senator Jessop raised I shall see whether the Treasurer has anything to add to my comments. Senator MAGUIRE —I direct my question to the Attorney-General. In the wake of Australia's economic recovery, has there been any decline in the national level of bankruptcies? Do the figures for bankruptcies in South Australia in 1983-84 indicate a significant drop over the previous year? Has there been an increase in bankruptcies in any State in the last financial year? Senator GARETH EVANS —Bankruptcy figures are, as we all know, a good yardstick, after the event at least, of the general condition of the economy. Preliminary figures for the financial year 1983-84 confirm the dramatic turnaround in the economy under the Hawke Labor Government and State Labor governments. In particular, there have been dramatic reductions in bankruptcies of 15 per cent in both South Australia and Victoria over the previous year under Liberal governments. It is noteworthy that the extent to which the Queensland economy continues to wallow in a degree of local difficulty is shown up by the fact that there has been a 26 per cent increase in bankruptcies in southern Queensland and a 20 per cent increase in central Queensland bankruptcies. Western Australia, Tasmania, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory all show decreases. There is an increase in bankruptcy in northern Queensland and the Northern Territory. Overall, the Government is pleased with the progress, although we do recognise that there is more work to be done. The figures do show , yet again, that the Government's economic policies are working. Senator KILGARIFF —I direct my question to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. I refer to the Government's decision to abolish the per capita subsidy to students at residential colleges at Australian universities and colleges of advanced education. Does the Minister acknowledge the difficulties faced by students from remote areas such as the Northern Territory in arranging for accommodation while they are studying away from home? In view of the reliance of students from isolated areas on residential halls and colleges, and bearing in mind the Government's professed commitment to widening access to tertiary education for disadvantaged groups, country people included, what action will the Minister take to ensure that students from remote areas are not disadvantaged by the abolition of the subsidy? Senator RYAN —I did answer a question about this matter last week. Senator Kilgariff must not have heard what I had to say. Senator Chaney —He was hoping you would improve your answer in the few days since. Senator RYAN —Well, Senator Chaney might or might not be interested in this but I think Senator Kilgariff is. The subsidies will be phased out; they are not going to be removed immediately. The phasing will allow the colleges to adjust the way they operate their residences. However, it is important to realise that the way the subsidy was operating until we changed it meant that only 6 per cent of tertiary students got any direct assistance for accommodation needs. That is clearly inequitable. An amount of money was going to support accommodation but it was going only to university college residences and to some, but not all, residences in colleges of advanced education. So I think everyone would have to agree that this was an inequitable use of the funds available for student accommodation assistance. After receiving advice from the Tertiary Education Commission we decided to continue to make funds available but to make them available in a different way. The Tertiary Education Commission will report in volume 2 on the details of the new arrangements which will be along these lines: That all institutions will be able to get funds for the amount allocated for this form of student assistance; they will be able to run their own loans scheme; and the guidelines will include a provision that priority for loans from these schemes are to go to students from remote areas who need to board. So it may well be that students from remote areas, about whom Senator Kilgariff is concerned, will get more assistance as a result of the way the scheme is being reorganised than was the case with the previous scheme. In fact, students from remote areas who are studying in colleges of advanced education that had no access to the previous schemes will certainly be better off. As the scheme will be needs based, many students from remote areas certainly will get more assistance than they were able to get before because the previous scheme simply provided a per capita subsidy to those colleges which happened to be operating when the scheme was introduced. It is also important to realise that we have increased tertiary education assistance scheme allowances by 10 per cent. Therefore, the amount by which college residences will have to increase their fees, should they decide to do so , to make up for a reduction in the per capita grant will in many cases be more than compensated for by the TEAS increases. So in summary, the assistance will now go directly to the students themselves rather than to the colleges; it will go on a needs basis; it will go in a way that is administered internally by the institutions, and we want students to participate in the administration of the scheme; and all students from needy backgrounds, but especially those from remote areas, will have first call on the scheme. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. Can the Minister provide some information to the Senate on the impact of the assets test on farmers? Will the assets test have the effect of forcing retired farmers off their farms? Senator Messner —Of course it will. Senator GRIMES —I was interested to hear the interjection from Senator Messner because I was fascinated that during the long debate on the assets test in this chamber no member of the National Party spoke. I think only one senator on the Opposition side made passing reference to farmers at all. Outside this chamber they are quite happy to spread all sorts of scare stories about farmers. The fact is that the Government recognised that farmers are in a special category-as did the previous governments which administered the assets test that existed until 1976. In general, the house and curtilage of five acres will be excluded from the assets test but, of course, it does not end there because, as Senator Zakharov suggested, many farmers have lived on their properties for a long time and in some cases their sons and daughters have worked and maintained the property for very little wages. To expect those people to leave that land would constitute hardship. It is for that reason that the first option for farmers is to apply for relief under the hardship provisions to ensure that we are not unnecessarily harsh on farmers in this situation. The second option farmers have is to take up the option suggested by Professor Gruen and his Panel of Review of Proposed Income and Assets Test, which is to take out a lien on their estate. I believe very few farmers will do that, but that would provide for a pension to be paid to the farmers for a couple of years which could later be repaid out of the estate in the same way that municipal rates are frequently paid for. I think the farmers accept that the Government has made special provisions for them and, it having made those provisions, they will realise, like everybody else in the community except Senator Messner, that the test is in fact equitable. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-Mr President, I claim to have been misrepresented by a statement of the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, after the point of order I raised during Question Time. Senator Walsh has accused me of inconsistency in my voting over the so-called innocence clause 3 ( 12) of the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Act. He further accused me of using a different reason yesterday from the one I advanced in December last year. The facts are entirely different. They are on my side and are a matter of public record. I invite the Senate to examine what I said on 16 December. At page 3974 of Hansard I said: I have maintained a consistent approach based on certainty before the law and fairness. It was one thing last year to vote against the inclusion of a clause which conferred certain rights to expect certain treatment in accordance with let-out or innocence provisions; but it is entirely another matter, 12 months later, to deny to taxpayers their right to relief which, under the law, they are entitled to expect. They are two different questions altogether. That is what I said last year. If honourable senators compare that with what I said yesterday they will see that I said exactly the same thing. Yesterday I said: The position in respect of sub-section 3 (12) last December was entirely different from what it was in 1982 because the 'innocence clause' was not in the legislation in 1982. At that time I considered that sub-section 3 (12) was not necessary, but once it went in it provided an expectation for taxpayers, if we like, to have their assessments made accordingly. Therefore to take that out and remove that right was an entirely different matter altogether . . . I invite the Senate to examine the record to see whether I have been inconsistent, as I have been accused by Senator Walsh, or not. It is one thing-I emphasise this-to vote against a right which did not previously exist; but once that right is enshrined in the statute and an expectation has been raised, it is another consideration to vote for its removal. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator WALSH —It is a matter of public record that Senator Harradine has a faulty memory. For example, when he was asked by the Federal Executive of the Australian Labor Party whether he had ever been a member of the National Civic Council, he said that he could not remember. His memory continues to be faulty. The excuse that he has just given-that is, that there is a qualitative difference between the inclusion of a clause and the subsequent exclusion of the clause-is not the excuse he gave on 14 December last year, which I quoted earlier in the Senate today. The reason he gave at that time was that the exclusion of section 3 (12) of the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Act would have a retrospective effect on taxpayers 'who have requested that it be applied by the Commissioner of Taxation'. He was told prior to that by an officer of the Australian Taxation Office, I believe it was Mr Conwell, that no such requests had been received. I think the reason was that no relevant assessments had been issued. In fact, I am not sure whether any assessments at all had been issued at that stage. That was the reason he gave at the time. He gives add-ons and qualifications. As one excuse after another is blown out of the water, he keeps coming up with either varied or completely different excuses . Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —Mr President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. I claim to have been misrepresented again by Senator Walsh. The PRESIDENT —When people get up to make personal explanations, claiming to have been misrepresented, substantial debate seems to be taking place. That is completely out of order. If a person seeks leave to make a personal explanation, claiming to have been misrepresented, he must stick to the personal explanation or correct the misrepresentation that has occurred. Leave granted. Senator HARRADINE —The question was clearly outlined by me in Hansard of 16 December 1983. I maintained a consistent approach during the debate on section 3 (12) of the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Act that to vote against the conferring of a right before that right was on the statute book is an entirely different matter altogether from voting 12 months later, once that right was enshrined in legislation, to remove that right and thus destroy the expectation of taxpayers to have their assessments made accordingly. If that is not clear to Senator Walsh, I will see him in court. Motion (by Senator Chaney) proposed: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Chaney moving forthwith-That the Senate censures the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) for his deliberate misleading of the Senate by selective tabling of documents and his refusal to explain his actions despite repeated questioning of the Senate. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(11.15) —We, of course, will follow the usual practice and not oppose the suspension of Standing Orders. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion of Censure Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.16) —I move: That the Senate censures the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) for his deliberate misleading of the Senate by selective tabling of documents and his refusal to explain his actions despite repeated questioning of the Senate. I bring this motion against a man who glorifies in the fact that he has been described in newspapers as having a drawer in his office marked 'dirt'. Of course, we are all familiar with the antics of the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, in this place and his unending efforts to smear all of those whom he can to his own political advantage. On this occasion we believe Senator Walsh has passed beyond the line which is even bearable in this place. We believe it is time that the Senate recorded its view of his behaviour. The censure motion relates specifically to events that have taken place over the last two days. Senator Walsh, of course, misled the Senate yet again when he answered my question to him this morning which I think was the first question he answered today. He said, in answer to my question about his tabling of documents yesterday, that he tabled those documents without comment as to anything that was written on them; they were simply tabled. Nothing could be further from the truth. Yesterday Senator Walsh said: I have here copies of a number of cheques, which I now table, which may shed some light on the matter, because they are drawn on a well-known Moll company. Of course it would be entirely improper of me to speculate about whether there is any relationship between these copies and votes which have been cast in the Senate. In other words, he was making an imputation about senators as to the casting of their votes in this place. To suggest that he tabled these papers without comment is, of course, the height of absurdity. It is also a very simple illustration of the sort of standards which we have come to expect of Senator Walsh in this place. This is at least the third occasion on which-and I find the use of the words ' the honourable Minister' rather repugnant-Senator Walsh has tried to use the Moll question for his own political reasons. He started by smearing Senator Noel Crichton-Browne about the matter. He then set out to smear me about the matter and now he has sought to cast doubts on senators and the votes that they have cast in regard to taxation legislation. He refused when questioned today to come clean. He has refused to answer questions. Instead he has indulged in his smart- Alick blocking which impresses nobody. This matter is not to be written off as insignificant. That has been very simply demonstrated today by the answer which the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, gave during Question Time. Senator Button was asked whether he was able to absolve people who might have been referred to in that material from any suggestion of impropriety or wrongdoing. He was unable to do so. I suppose that the Leader of the Government, the smear having been made, cannot negate the matter. How can he establish the truth in a way which enables him to come forward and say: 'These people are all innocent.' Even the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) is unable to give a clean bill of health in relation to his Director of Public Prosecutions in response to a question from Senator Walters during Question Time today. So the muck which is thrown by Senator Walsh is thrown wide. It rests on those on whom it is thrown and nobody on the Government side is able to give any absolution. Senator Evans today read a message from Mr Justice Murphy about the innocence of his wife. We are reduced to people having to ask the Attorney- General to read out messages of innocence in this place because of the antics of Senator Walsh. As I said during Question Time, we regard it as entirely proper that Senator Evans should be allowed to say what he has said because now a wider group of people have been caught up in the net which has been thrown by the Minister whom we are seeking to censure today. Senator Button cannot absolve those of us who, by whatever remote means, have been caught up in this matter, and nor can the Attorney-General. So Senator Walsh has now cast a nice smelly cloud over the Director of Public Prosecutions, Senator Crichton-Browne, Mrs Murphy and Mr Ditchburn, who now appears in the Age account this morning and, of course, over me too. I would like to refer in some detail to what has been put down by Senator Walsh, and say that it does, in an inexcusable way, go beyond the limits of what are the normal and often vigorous, tough and unpleasant clashes which occurs in this place. But let me just talk about the hypocrisy and cant which infects this argument by reminding honourable senators that it was Senator Walsh who drew attention to the fact that I had been a member of the law firm which acted for Moll, this central villain that we are all associated with, and that meant in some way that I am involved in tax evasion. Of course I have made it clear that I have not been involved in tax evasion in any way. But Senator Walsh has made the accusation. It has appeared in newspapers as having been said in this place, and the cloud hangs over; not very pleasant. Subsequent to that, by an extraordinary act, the Government has appointed my partner and friend, Temby, to be the Director of Public Prosecutions. It seems to me to be quite extraordinary that, if a Minister of this Government is entitled to say that people who are associated with a law firm are under some cloud, it can subsequently appoint a member of that same firm to such a delicate position, one of the key roles of which is the chasing of people who might have offended in this area of tax evasion and so on. It is absolutely absurd, and I merely quote it to show that it is illustrative of the nonsense that this Minister gets up to. I would like to know whether the Government adopts his sleazy tactics. Of course, the Government willingly accepts the benefits of his sleazy tactics, but do any other Ministers or back bench members of this Government endorse and adopt his sleazy tactics? I know they are prepared to have his advantages, but do they adopt his sleazy tactics? Perhaps we will find out in this debate today. I bring this matter forward and regret that I have in any sense been personally caught up by Senator Walsh's efforts. But I quote that as a very good example of just how Alice in Wonderland this Minister's approach to these matters is. Government senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Senate to come to order. The motion which has been moved is a very serious one. I ask that the Leader of the Opposition be heard. I call Senator Chaney. Senator CHANEY —I concede that many hard things are said in this place on both sides of the chamber. I would now like to explain why, in the view of the Opposition, this Minister has, on any judgment, transgressed the lines which can be regarded as proper and acceptable. I will do that by referring to the material which has actually been tabled in this place by the Minister. He tabled , not for the first time with respect to some of the material-some of it is novel to us but some of it he has tabled before in his earlier forays-a series of cheques drawn on the National Bank of Australasia Ltd by a company called Mobitt (Western Australia) Pty Ltd, which he tells us is a Moll company. He tabled photocopies of the front of the cheques, photocopies of three of the cheque butts and photocopies of what purports to be the back of the two of the three cheque butts. It is quite clear why we have been given two of the three rears of the cheque butts because the two which he has tabled mention people that he can use in his smear campaign. One of the rear of the cheque butts that he has tabled mentions the firm Northmore Hale Davy and Leake, and has the words 'donation Liberal Party' on it. We all know that that is Senator Walsh's way of wrapping it up-by saying: ' There you are, there are these people, including Senator Chaney over there, but particularly the Liberal Party in Western Australia, all rolled up in this terrible Moll business.'. We find that he has given us the back of another cheque butt which identifies 'MVQ' which has been identified in earlier debates as Mr Quartermaine. It refers to 'donation Liberal Party for Crichton-Browne'. It is quite obvious why that bit of material has been included. But the funny thing is that he has omitted one of the backs of those cheque butts. Only this morning the Age newspaper has told the Australian people what it was that was omitted by Senator Walsh. What was omitted by Senator Walsh was a number of similar bits of writing. They appear in today's Age. There is a facsimile of what has been omitted by him. We find that what has been omitted are the words 'diamond purchases Mrs L. Murphy $7,800' Next is an indecipherable name against the figure $4,000. There are also references to Ethiopian Airlines. Of course, there are very good reasons why Senator Walsh would not want Ethiopian Airlines brought into this. There are very good, immediate and direct political reasons why Senator Walsh would not want Ethiopian Airlines mentioned. We heard a bit more of Senator Walsh's sophistry here this morning. He said that there are lots of L. Murphys. He probably went out and looked in the Sydney telephone directory and found that there are lots of L. Murphys, with lots in Melbourne and lots all around Australia. But the fact is that he knows that there are connections between the name Murphy and Ethiopian Airlines. The names Ditchburn and Morosi come up. All of those names are ones which have been in the public arena many times. Of course, there are connections which are embarrassing and awkward for the Labor Party in all that. What this Minister has done is come into this chamber and put down documents which he thinks can give rise to inferences and implications against members of this Opposition, against members of the Liberal Party of Australia. He has carefully omitted one of the same series of documents which might be used to give rise to similar inferences and imputations against people who are connected with the Australian Labor Party. There could be no clearer attempt to mislead this place by omission than that. We heard the Minister-he was given several opportunities today to declare himself-as usual obfuscating, refusing to get to the point and refusing to clarify the position. The Senate has been used by this Minister. It has been abused by this Minister. It has been ill used by this Minister. He has brought his dirty habits into this place and on this occasion he has caught himself out because the newspapers have published the omissions. It is time that the Senate recorded its view of this man. In his time here he has done more to reduce the value of this place as one of the useful legislative chambers in Australia than anyone else I can think of. He has practised vilification and abuse in a despicable way. I think it is time that the Senate gave its expression of opinion and censured him for this latest example of his escapades. There is a strong view abroad that, if one believes in the value of elected democracies, this place is one of the few places which remain where legislative values still are alive and well. I believe that if we are to maintain the advances in this place which have made the Senate a useful contribution to democracy and to government in Australia, we have to get rid of the sort of influence which Senator Walsh is bringing to this place. I believe that this vote is one step in that direction. I have very firm views that we should speedily carry this motion to express to Senator Walsh our contempt for the way that he has behaved in this place. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.29) — Firstly, may I set Senator Chaney's conspiracy theory to rest. I have had in my office for some time a number of photocopies of what, as I have said before, I believe are genuine documents. Some of those, as Senator Chaney has acknowledged , have been tabled previously. I retrieved them yesterday because I was expecting the sort of muck-raking murky attack that was launched by the Liberal Party of Australia in the House of Representatives and in particular by a prominent Liberal Party front bencher and former Premier who read from what he said purported to be a communication to the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking. I had been anticipating that the Liberal Party would attempt in desperation to resort to those tactics in what it knows is an election year. I say to Senator Chaney there is no conspiracy. I have had those copies for probably a year, maybe even longer-I do not remember precisely. There was no conspiracy. The bundle of documents had been in my office for some time. I just brought them down here and yesterday I tabled them. I expect and assume, indeed I take for granted, that the vote on this stunt will bear no relationship to the argument which has been offered. It will, of course, be a jockeying for political position and perceived-I believe misperceived-political advantage. I anticipate a pious speech on this matter from Senator Chipp. The question of tax evasion is a very serious one. The way in which the Senate votes on tax evasion is a serious matter. I remind Senator Chipp that he has been reported in the Press as saying that the Australian Democrats were offered a bribe of $500,000. I think the bribe was offered to the Democrats as a party but if that is not correct I apologise. They were offered a bribe of $500,000 to vote against legislation. I would have thought that there was some obligation on Senator Chipp to name in the Parliament the people who offered that attempted bribe. I make it very clear that I am not implying that Senator Chipp or any of the other Australian Democrats accepted a bribe. I do not believe they did. But Senator Chipp has said that a bribe was offered. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of that statement. I do, however, believe that Senator Chipp has an obligation to the Senate and, more importantly, an obligation to the Australian community to identify the people who offered that bribe. Proceeding on the assumption that the bribe was offered, I would have thought that that was a far more serious matter-that legislators of this parliament are being offered enormous bribes to vote against particular legislation. I have already said that I do not believe the Democrats accepted a bribe. I do not believe it affected their votes because their voting habit has been consistent. The same, however, cannot be said for everybody. Senator Chaney's pious sermon, towards the end, must have been received very sceptically by anybody who was in this Senate in 1974 and 1975, as I was. Senator Chaney has expressed views to me privately, not about these precise matters but generally similar in tone-I am sure you will not mind my repeating this, Fred- The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister must not refer to a member by his Christian name. Senator WALSH —I am sorry, Mr President. I am sure Senator Chaney will not mind my- Opposition senators interjecting- Senator WALSH —If honourable senators opposite are objecting I will not say it. Perhaps Senator Chaney cannot remember what it was. I will not pursue that matter because I do not pursue private conversations. The substance of the point I am making is that we are seeing the humbug and the hypocrisy of the bandits of the Liberal Party who, from the day of the 1972 election, refused to accept the legitimacy of the elected Government and who used every dirty trick in the book inside and outside this Parliament to see that the will of the people as expressed in two elections was aborted. I am filled with disgust that the people who in some cases orchestrated and in other cases collaborated in that exercise have the temerity, the humbug and the hypocrisy to preach piously in the Senate about alleged misconduct. It was equally appropriate, and in the same vein, that the discredited former Treasurer, who honourable senators will remember was told five days before the last Federal election that there was an impending deficit of $9.6 billion for 1983-84 and who collaborated in the then Prime Minister's deception of the Australian people by saying that the impending deficit was $6 billion, should have been in the Senate to watch his protege, Senator Chaney, when he pulled on this stunt. It is also worth noting that very early in Question Time yesterday that same discredited former Treasurer attempted to gain political mileage from the Liberal Party by spreading baseless innuendo about the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins). The first point- Senator Cook —It should be treated with the contempt it deserves. Senator WALSH —I was about to say precisely what Senator Cook said. It is being treated as a cheap stunt by a bunch of desperate and sullied politicians in the run-up to an election campaign. The Senate is being used as a forum for a cheap stunt. I return to the original comment Senator Chaney made. He accused me of misleading the Senate because I said today-I do not have the exact words of what I said, but I think the substance of what he said was accurate enough-that the documents I tabled yesterday were simply tabled without comment. Senator Chaney drew attention to the fact that I identified that the company name appearing on those cheques was a well known Moll company. That it is, and that is a fact that has been put on the public record dozens of times. I do not accept Senator Chaney's charge because the context in which the questions today were asked did not refer to what was printed or the account on which the cheque was drawn, but quite clearly in some cases if not all explicitly to handwritten comments which were also on the cheques. I made absolutely no comments on those handwritten comments yesterday, so I do not accept that there is any substance to Senator Chaney's claim on that. Senator Chaney mentioned, just to reinforce the point I had a bundle of them in the office and I brought them down and tabled them yesterday, that some of them- I am not sure which ones-had been tabled previously. Senator Chaney on that occasion did not choose to move a censure motion. Members of the opposition asked a couple of questions about the authenticity of the documents and were given the same answer on that occasion as I am giving now. They did not try to pull on a stunt like this then, because there was not an election coming up. That is the reason this stunt was pulled on today. The Liberal Party, in particular, is facing an election in which it knows it will be slaughtered. It is willing to pull any stunt to save it from the electoral Armageddon for which it believes it is headed. Senator Cook —Rightly headed, too. Senator WALSH —Rightly so. It will use any stunt to divert public attention from the fact that this Liberal Party and the discredited former Treasurer who was here a moment ago for almost three years ignored increasingly desperate entreaties from the Commissioner of Taxation to take action against bottom of the harbour tax evaders. No wonder this Liberal Party wants to divert public attention from its record by using the forms of this Senate or using this Senate as a forum in which to stage a cheap stunt and as a place in which to shed its crocodile tears in view of that record. It had an Attorney-General who presided for five years over inertia; who sat on a document recommending prosecution, and allowed it to gather dust in the bottom drawer for five years while he did nothing. If the Opposition, and particularly the Liberal Party, is genuinely concerned about what it piously calls standards of conduct or propriety in the Senate-I recognise that it cannot retrospectively remove its own improprieties of 1974-75 -I suggest that it do something about one of its own members, the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) and not sit here whingeing and complaining when there is retaliation of a lower-I should say different-but related kind-- Senator Peter Rae —I think you were right the first time, a much lower kind. Senator WALSH —By 'lower' I meant a lower order of magnitude, Senator Rae, then I decided that it would be more appropriate to use an alternative term. Although this cheap stunt should be treated with contempt, and I suggest that the best thing that the Senate can do is wind up this debate fairly quickly- Senator Chaney —I bet you do! Senator WALSH —No, I particularly want Senator Chipp to speak; I presume he will , he has been making some notes. The Senate should get down to the real business of the Estimates committees for this afternoon. Although the debate itself is a stunt, the issue of tax avoidance and tax evasion was important and it continues to be important. In particular, the record of those people who, as in the case of the former Government, presided inert as stuffed bullfrogs over massive tax evasion year on year on year is one that should be remembered. The way this Senate continues to vote on taxation Bills should be noted by the people. We know the record of this Senate-it passed retrospective legislation when the Fraser Government was in office and the great majority of Liberal and National Party senators voted for it. The Senate has on four occasions rejected Bills which are related to that Bill, which it passed. All the Liberal and National Party senators who voted for the Fraser legislation and who are still here, voted against our Bills. Senator Archer —What about your misleading of us? Senator WALSH —I have dealt with the misleading allegations. I can understand why Senator Archer does not want to be reminded of far more substantial matters. Three of the Democrats have voted, erroneously in my view, but at least consistently, against both the previous Government's legislation and this Government's legislation. We have already dealt with Senator Harradine. On the same specific question he voted one way the first time and the opposite way the second time. That is something that should be noted. Senator Harradine —Can you not understand plain language? Senator WALSH —Since Senator Harradine is interjecting I think it would be appropriate for me to repeat the challenge that I made in writing yesterday and that is- Senator Walters —Why didn't you go outside and meet us on the steps? We were waiting for you. Senator WALSH —If I had known you were there there was no way I would have fronted up. Senator Walters —Well, you did not. Senator WALSH —I would not go anywhere that you were if I could possibly avoid it. Senator Harradine issued a challenge yesterday that I should endorse and republish-something like that-the pamphlet which I had commenced, with one reservation, the day before. I did exactly that, I wrote his name on it, signed it and dated it. The challenge was taken up and the bluff was called. However faulty Senator Harradine's memory may be, he has always been ingenious. I stress that it does not pay to underestimate his ingenuity. His response to that is to threaten to issue a stop writ, which he has not yet done, or a writ for defamation in order that this subject can no longer be discussed by the Press for as long as that stop writ is hanging around. The Press will not dare to publish any comment on the taxation issue or his role in taxation legislation in the way that he voted while that writ is around. For that reason, I challenge him, if he is going to issue a writ, to get that writ into court at the earliest possible time and have it dealt with so that we can then unmuzzle the Press and allow it to report the facts and informed comment arising from those facts. It is a well known fact, and not even the Opposition disputes this, that at stake in the first taxation Bill which this Government introduced was revenue of $570m. Because that revenue will not be collected because of the actions of the Senate, honest decent taxpayers will have to pay more tax than they would have paid if the Senate had passed those Bills. Although some people have at least had consistent objections to the principle of retrospectivity, others have not. They cannot plead a genuine and consistent opposition to the principle of retrospectivity, no matter what the cost. It is on those people that attention should be focused, because $570m of revenue has been thrown away because of the actions of the majority of this Senate. Moreover, an unquantifiable amount could be lost in the future because the threat of retrospective legislation against tax avoiders-in the context of those Bills, leaving aside the legal technicalities, a more accurate term would be tax evaders, that is, people who took deliberate and artificial actions to avoid taxation payments for which they would have been liable-- Senator Lajovic —Like Mr Dawkins. Senator WALSH —I am glad that Senator Lajovic mentioned Mr Dawkins because we all know who set up that little deal. It is true that at about third remove Mr Dawkins was a shareholder in a company which had shares in Metro, but who organised the sinking of Metro? It was the chairman of the Western Australian Liberal Party finance committee. He was the chairman at the time when Senator Crichton-Browne was the State President of the Party. He organised it in conjunction with Mr Ronald Wass, another member of the Western Australian Liberal Party finance committee. I suppose it could be coincidental that six or seven of the then 15 members of the Western Australian Liberal Party finance committee were subsequently shown to have been involved, either as promoters or as organisers of the sinking of companies to the bottom of the harbour. I suppose it could be a coincidence that there should have been that concentration of people on the Western Australian Liberal Party finance committee at the same time that Senator Crichton-Browne was State President. It is possible that it was a coincidence, but it is a matter of public record that six or seven members of the Western Australian Liberal Party finance committee were subsequently shown to have been involved in those activities. A great deal of money is involved in these taxation Bills, and there is a clear incentive for people who have a vested interest to influence politicians to ensure that the Fraser Government's legislation on tax recoupment is not carried through to its logical extension. That is not just hypothesis. Senator Chipp has told the Press and been reported in the Press as saying that the Australian Democrats were offered a bribe of $500,000 to vote against that legislation. I make no suggestion, nor indeed do I believe, that that offer influenced the way that any of the Democrats voted. The fact remains that Senator Chipp said that that had happened. I would have thought that if this Senate were concerned about genuine propriety, rather than pulling off a stunt like this because somebody thinks that someone has been nasty to someone else and said nasty things, it would be more interested in getting down to the fundamentals of this question. What Senator Chipp has said is that attempts have been made to bribe members of this Senate and to secure their votes on a piece of legislation. Senator Cook —How many more attempts were made? Senator WALSH —That is a very interesting question, Senator Cook. I think it is unlikely if it is correct that the Australian Democrats, who it was well known had a crucial role or potentially could have had a crucial role to play in the fate of that tax legislation, were offered a bribe-and I have no reason to doubt Senator Chipp's claims-other people who could have played crucial roles may also have been approached. But I come to the real point in respect of the matter raised by Senator Chipp. He has given no indication that he is disputing the facts or the previous reports to which I have referred and he still gives no indication of that; so I take it that he agrees that what he has said in the past has been accurately reported. That must surely be the grossest contempt of Parliament short of a death threat imaginable. It must be the grossest contempt of Parliament short of a death threat which is conceivable. But nobody on the other side of the Senate seems to care about it. I once made a public comment about that. But nobody on the other side cares that Senator Chipp has said that the Democrats were offered half a million dollars to vote in a particular way on a piece of legislation. To the extent that that happens, it is not only a contempt of the Senate; it is also very clearly a threat to the fundamental structure of this society if the votes of politicians on legislation can be bought. On the assumption that Senator Chipp intends to speak, I invite him to identify the source of that claim and the means by which the bribe offer was communicated to him. When that is done I think the Senate should at some subsequent time consider what action ought to be taken pursuant to it. That will then be a real test as to whether members of the Opposition have any real interest in the substance as distinct from the shadow. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(11.53) —A casual observer of proceedings in this chamber this morning and, no doubt, in the other place, could not be blamed for suspecting that an election is close at hand. The nature of politics is such that accusations fly from one side to the other in the period leading up to an election. A censure motion against somebody is not unusual at this time in an election atmosphere. We have one before us this morning moved, if I might say so, in a fine, dignified and restrained way by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney). Whilst I compliment Senator Chaney sincerely on that, I take notice of what Senator Walsh just said about the dirt that was unloaded in the House of Representatives yesterday by a member of the Liberal Party. I believe that that sort of conduct is equally as unfortunate as the conduct we are discussing this morning. Let me say at the outset that the Australian Democrats accept without reservation the statement read out to the Senate this morning by the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans), on behalf of Mr Justice Murphy, concerning the allegation that his wife had accepted a diamond. We accept that totally and without reservation. However, the Senate has before it a charge that a Minister had deliberately misled the Senate. I do not know of any more serious charge that can be levelled against a Minister. Do the facts support that charge? I must say that when the motion was first moved I felt angry at Senator Walsh, believing that he had deliberately misled the Senate. The Minister's speech did not come close to persuading me to vote against the motion but it left me in a very sad state. I was no longer angry with him; I was sad about him, so pathetic was his attempt at defence of his actions. I read the Age this morning with great interest. The Age is a newspaper of undoubted integrity and respect. It is highly respected in the community. What it virtually said, as I understand it, is that Senator Walsh yesterday tabled the face of three cheque stubs and the back of two cheque stubs. One might say he did not table the back of the third stub because there was nothing on it. According to the Age this morning there was something on it-something quite significant but, as we have been advised by Senator Evans, or by Mr Justice Murphy through Senator Evans, untrue. I put that to one side. However, the fact is that something was on the back of the third stub. I think three or four times this morning Senator Walsh was asked directly by members of the Opposition: 'Did you have that third stub and on the back of the third stud was there a reference as was alleged?' Three or four times he refused to answer that question. During his speech he did not even refer to it. I thought it quite extraordinary that a Minister who was defending himself against a charge did not even refer to the charge. So one comes to the inescapable conclusion that that information as alleged by the Age was in fact there and was deliberately withheld by Senator Walsh. That, to me, is nothing short of deliberately misleading the Senate. It is for that reason that the Democrats and I reluctantly-because it is a matter of reluctance when one does join a censure motion-will support the motion moved by Senator Chaney. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(11.58) —We are debating a very serious motion to censure a Minister in this place. After hearing what was said by Senator Chipp, it seems that this matter is even more serious because it is apparent that the Australian Democrats will support the motion. I think we ought to look at the circumstances under which the motion has been moved and the record of some people who have been involved with moving the motion. Senator Chipp said that Senator Chaney moved this motion in a quiet and dignified way. He certainly was quiet and he certainly was dignified. But I must suggest to Senator Chipp that he also demonstrated that characteristic which I suppose various people in this place, including me at various times, have demonstrated under these circumstances and which most people who observe politics do not find very attractive-the characteristic of phoney righteous indignation. We have before us a motion to censure a Minister who at times is abrasive, who at times gets under the skin of members of the Opposition parties and who at times gets under the skin of members of his own Party. We have a Minister who, by his determination to get to the bottom of things like tax evasion and to follow through with great accuracy the figures and facts of the cases he deals with, gets under the skin of a lot of people in this place because sometimes those people get caught up in what happens. It is claimed by Senator Chaney and Senator Chipp that the tabling by Senator Walsh of the documents which had on them the name of another senator is really a heinous crime, and that the allegation that he failed to table another part of one of those cheques is sufficient to bring forward a censure motion. As Senator Chipp rightly pointed out, all this has happened in what seems to be a pre- election atmosphere. It has all happened while in another place members of the Liberal Party are producing documents which smear this country's Treasurer (Mr Keating). These documents have not been authenticated, and no attempt was made to authenticate them before they were produced. There has been no attempt to prove the truth and accuracy of what is in them; they were produced merely to smear the Treasurer. However, this sort of thing has gone on for as long as I have been in Parliament, and it particularly went on in November 1975, as many honourable senators will remember. Let me give a couple of examples of what happened in 1975, and let us see how some of the star players on the other side acted in those days. On 4 November 1975 Senator Withers came into this place with two alleged statutory declarations-he will remember it well-one from a Mr Khemlani, of some 80 pages, and another from a Mr Crawford. These had been obtained overseas by a member of the staff of the then shadow Treasurer, assisted by a newspaper in this country that was willing to indulge in cheque book journalism. It later turned out that that newspaper had actually paid for these documents. Senator Withers said that he thought these documents demonstrated that the Prime Minister, other members of the Executive Council and officials of the Treasury had operated in an improper way. He sought to table those documents and at that time Senator Cavanagh and Senator Wheeldon asked what he was tabling and whether he had any guarantee that the contents of those documents were right. Senator Withers said: 'I don't know that the contents of those documents are right; in fact, I have only read them in a cursory manner'. We, quite reasonably, said that he should read them out. Senator Chaney —He didn't leave any pages out, either. Senator GRIMES —We will come to the pages left out. We thought it was unreasonable for someone to table documents in that way. Who, using the numbers on his side, moved that these unauthenticated documents making these charges be tabled? None other than Senator Chaney. Senator Chaney moved that these documents, which were later found to be not accurate, be tabled in this place. He had no qualms at all about having those documents tabled. The documents were so hot that Senator Withers then moved that their publication be authorised to ensure absolutely that they would be covered by the privilege of this Parliament . That motion was passed. These are the people who are now taking the serious step of censuring Senator Walsh because allegedly he did not table a document which apparently named someone of the same name as the wife of a judge of the High Court of Australia. That can only be described as hypocrisy. It is just rank hypocrisy for Senator Chaney to rise in the Senate, with great dignity and quietness, and say that Senator Walsh has done this terrible thing when Senator Chaney himself was an active bit player in what took place here in 1975. I well remember another case. Senator Townley produced a photocopied document, with no author indicated on it, and made all sorts of allegations about all sorts of people in the then Government. I believe that occurred after 1975; I think it was 1976. When the document was eventually tabled it was incomplete. It had no names on the bottom, no names of the author or anything else. Objections were made to that being tabled. Who moved that the document be tabled? It was Senator Townley assisted by Senator Withers who spoke in support of the tabling. These people are now attempting to have passed a censure motion on a Minister of this Government for allegedly not tabling a document in his possession. That just has to be rank hypocrisy too. As Senator Chipp said, this is a pre-election stunt. It is part of the campaign being conducted in another place against the Treasurer and other members. So let us not have this nonsense of Opposition members demonstrating this righteous indignation, saying: 'Look at this terrible person, Senator Walsh, who has by not tabling this document done such a terrible thing'. The real problem is that he tabled the other documents. He has said, and I think the Age has said that it is convinced, that they are genuine documents. Sheer hypocrisy is going on in this place. We recognise that this is a political stunt. In Senator Walsh we have a competent, utterly honest Minister who is concerned for the facts. This annoys members of the Opposition so terribly that they have taken the very serious step of moving a censure motion against him for allegedly doing something that they quite deliberately, openly and vigorously did on several occasions in the period 1974-76. In fact their own colleagues are doing the same thing in another place this very week. How on earth can one seriously support such a hypocritical action? I am surprised that Senator Chipp has. How can one possibly take this serious step and use the numbers in this way in view of what has gone on in this place in the time I have been here. I do not approve of the tabling of unauthenticated documents which make the sorts of accusations made in 1974, 1975 and 1976. I believe that this would be a better chamber, and it would be a better parliament, if we did not do those things. But it has gone on for as long as I have been here and it happens almost daily in the other place. It is done by members of the Liberal Party over and over again. When they did not get their way in 1975 and 1976 Senator Chaney, the person who has moved the motion with such righteous indignation today, was quite happy to take part in such activities-activities which I suggest were of far greater moment and far greater importance to more people than anything Senator Walsh has done. It is because we in the Government do not accept that this is a fair dinkum exercise, that it is anything other than a political pre-election stunt, that we reject the censure motion and will continue to reject censure motions of this type. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(12.10) —I remind the Senate that we are debating a motion of censure against the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, for his deliberate misleading of the Senate by selective tabling of documents and his refusal to explain his actions despite repeated questioning of the Senate. That is the motion which we are debating. One of the saddest things about the Minister's defence and about the speech which the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, made on his behalf is that both speeches failed to address the substance of the motion in any way. They failed to address the matters which were brought to the Senate about which the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Chipp spoke. They were not addressed in either speech of defence. The motion is about Senator Walsh, his actions, his omissions and his refusal to clarify the issues. Those matters have not been addressed by anyone speaking on his behalf. It is very likely also that this is the first time in the history of the Senate that a Minister under censure has not been supported by his ministerial colleagues, apart from Senator Grimes, and has not had his Leader present at the table while he is under attack. The absence of his colleagues is eloquent in itself. I was told when I became a member of parliament that there are those senators, to use football parlance, who play the ball and there are those senators who play the man. The advice given to me at that time was to play the ball and ignore the other road. Senator Walsh has chosen, during his career in Parliament , to play the man regularly. He has chosen to take the low road in politics. He has kept the drawer marked 'dirty'. He has made regular attacks under privilege upon people, most of whom have had no chance to defend themselves adequately. He has no compunction about the road he has taken, the way he has chosen to attack people or the way he has taken to smear people by association. It has not pleased people. It has not even pleased his colleagues. I refer honourable senators to the Senate Hansard of Thursday, 6 September, and to a speech given by Senator Georges. Senator Georges said: Let me come back to criticism of this place. I think we must look at our own standards and the manner in which we apply them. Again, I suggest that it does no good to attack, to vilify and to drag down. I remember on one occasion being requested to ask a question about a Liberal Minister and something that concerned his personal life. I did not ask that question. Senator Walsh, by way of interjection, said: Why not? Senator Georges replied: Because I am not of the Minister's type. I repeat those words: Because I am not of the Minister's type. We have it on record that even his own colleagues will not go down that road. Senator Walsh has gone down that road and today he is being asked to answer for what he did, for what he omitted to do and for the fact that he refused to answer when questioned. The duties which rest upon a person taking his road are quite onerous. I remind the Senate that Senator Walsh tabled a series of what purported to be cheque forms, the backs of cheques and cheque butts. I remind the Senate also of the point raised by my colleague the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, when he outlined what was present and what was omitted. The facts are that Senator Walsh seems to have omitted to make available to the Senate those documents which do not support the particular smear upon which he was engaged and which happened, as it were, to implicate and mention some former members or supporters of the Australian Labor Party. Yesterday in Question Time Senator Crichton-Browne took the trouble to ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) a question about what steps are taken for Ministers to validate or verify documents which they table in this place. I remind the Senate that Senator Crichton-Browne received no adequate answer from Senator Button to what was in itself a reasonable request. Today, realising what has happened, we offered the Minister a way out, not once , not twice, but several times we asked the Minister to make the facts known. We asked him whether he had had certain material in his possession. The Minister refused to answer. He refused to tell the Senate what it was entitled to know in relation to a matter which he had initiated, raised and pursued. Not once, not twice, but three times he was invited to clarify the matter. We repeated the questions and it was possible for Senator Walsh to have purged himself of the matter in which he was involved. It was possible for Senator Walsh to have ended the matter right there. He understood the question. He understood the issue. He understood why the question was being repeated. He understood that by repeating the question we were inviting him to clarify and clear up the matter. He refused to answer-not once, not twice, but several times-on a matter which it was within his capacity to clarify something about which the Senate had been misled by his actions. I say that by his silence and his refusal to come clean he misled this chamber of the Parliament. I go further: Senator Walsh has offered in his defence-if I heard him correctly-that he simply picked up a bundle of cheque butts, brought them in and tabled them, but he must have detached the cheque butt that was not tabled here. The Age newspaper has it. He must have detached it at some time, either then or previously. The fact that one cheque butt was not tabled here clearly indicates an intention on the Minister's part to present the Senate with less than complete information and to cover up matters which did not happen to suit his purpose. His defence-he said this in the Senate this morning-was that there are plenty of people with the name L. Murphy. But how many people are there who have the name L. Murphy and an association with Ethiopian Airlines mentioned on the same document? We know why he did not table that material. The fact that he would not come clean is the guilt about which we are taking him to task now. There has been a deliberate misleading of the Senate by Senator Walsh-a deliberate, continued and repeated misleading. He has refused to come clean on a matter which he raised. He has refused to come clean on this matter for his own grubby political purposes, in a manner which is quite consistent with his behaviour over the 10 years that he has been a member of this place. His assertions about the other people in relation to whom he tabled this material are most serious. He is quite happy to make those assertions. He is quite happy to allege matters in relation to another senator. He is quite happy to put material down if he thinks it will hurt that senator, but he will not put all the material down. By his selective tabling and his refusal to answer questions he has attempted to direct us incorrectly and improperly. I believe the duties of a Minister include honesty. When there is a partial presentation of facts I believe that honesty can be called into question. The selective tabling of material in his possession is not fair dealing with the Senate. I believe this is a matter which Senator Walsh has refused to address. He has failed, in his defence, to address the matters that are the subject of this motion. Senator Grimes, quite clearly, failed to answer them also. The Ministers failed to answer those matters because there is no defence. Senator Teague —Senator Grimes is not even in the chamber. Senator PETER BAUME —I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that there is not a single ministerial colleague here to support him, and not a single colleague. He has been abandoned by his colleagues because they know where the truth and the guilt lie in this matter. He has failed totally to present all the material. He has failed to answer or clarify the matter in question. He has failed to answer this motion. He has no answer to these questions. I finish by saying that this is a motion about the Senate, its procedures, its duties, its responsibilities and the rights of honourable senators. It is also a motion about Ministers and their duty to Parliament and to the people. I must say that Senator Walsh has failed the Parliament, he has failed his ministerial duty and he has failed the electorate. He has failed in the tradition of proper ministerial accountability to Parliament. He has misled us deliberately. The motion is a proper one and I urge the Senate to support it. Question put: That the motion (Senator Chaney's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Carrick, Sir John Martin, K. J. Chaney, F. M. Mason, C. V. J. Chipp, D. L. Messner, A. J. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Rae, PeterCrichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Evans, Jack Teague, B. C. Haines, J. Townley, M. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Kilgariff, B. F. Button, J. N. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Coleman, R. N. Primmer, C. G. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F. Elstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A. Evans, Gareth Ryan, S. M. Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C. Georges, G. Walsh, P. A. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Grimes, D. J. Gietzelt, A. T. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Sibraa, K. W. Guilfoyle, Dame MargaretHearn, J. M. Macklin, M. J. Jones, G. N. Missen, A. J. Bolkus, N. Hamer, D. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator WALSH —It was not until I spoke with some of my colleagues that I realised that I had not made a fact clear or explicit in my reply. I said, as accurately as I can remember it, that Senator Chaney's conspiracy theory was ill -founded because the collection of photocopies of documents had been together for a considerable time and I had tabled all of them. That is correct. The Opposition apparently was referring principally-and I did not explicitly answer this, although implicitly I answered in the way which I have stated-to a particular cheque, the number of which I do not have, but the cheque is well known. The Opposition was apparently alleging that I have in my possession a photocopy of the back of that butt. I do not have, and have never had, a photocopy of the back of that butt; nor, if I remember correctly, do I have a photocopy of the back of a butt of one of the other cheques tabled. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —I was to have presented a report of a parliamentary delegation to the European parliamentary institutions. However, I understand that the leader of the delegation has not yet had the opportunity to present it in the other place. Therefore, I seek leave to be able to present it at an appropriate time after the leader of the delegation has presented it in the other place. Leave granted. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia) —I present the twelfth report of the Publications Committee. Report-by leave-adopted. Motion (by Senator Jack Evans) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to establish a register of foreign corporations owning or controlling Australian property. Bill presented by Senator Jack Evans, and read a first time. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(12.31) -by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill seeks to establish a public register of foreign corporations which own or control major Australian properties or other assets. Foreign corporations with substantial assets or interests within Australia will be required to provide an annual statement to the Treasurer. That information will be used to compile a register which is to be available for public inspection. The form of the information required to be lodged is such that its preparation will incur very little additional time or expenditure. It virtually duplicates information which must now be lodged with the National Companies and Securities Commission or the Commissioner of Taxation, or would be within existing corporate accounts. The Bill will apply only to foreign companies which own large amounts of Australian property. If a foreign company owns or controls more than $3m of Australian assets or an individual Australian asset worth more than $1m, it will be obliged to lodge a form. It will not apply to individuals, nor will it apply to substantial foreign companies which do not own or control substantial Australian assets. The current Government now has a policy of allowing the Australian 'farm' to be sold off. This was exposed by the Australian Labor Party conference decision to alter its 51 per cent Australian equity policy. By doing so, the ALP is breaking its election rhetoric of buying back the 'farm'. The ALP Government seems willing to allow our economy and our money markets to continue to be guided by the decisions of foreign board rooms. The Australian Democrats are concerned that this increasingly reduces the ability of the Australian Government to direct the Australian economy. Successive Australian governments have allowed the 'farm' to be sold off. The ALP's policies will ensure that future Australian governments or investors have difficulty in buying it back. By allowing itself to be swayed by foreign multinationals, the ALP now rests side by side with the Liberal Party: Both are prepared to squander Australia's heritage and sovereignty in return for short term gain. The problem facing Australians and future governments, is that no one knows the extent of foreign ownership. Investors and governments cannot buy back the 'farm ' if they do not know who owns it. At present there is no way of finding out how much of Australia has been sold, leased, loaned, mortgaged or simply given away. This Bill will identify the big foreign owners and will identify the value of those portions of Australia which they own or control. The people of Australia simply do not know how much of their country is in foreign hands. We are entitled to ask the question and this Bill will begin to give us the answers. The Government of the day may still be able to sell off the 'farm', but now Australians will be aware of how much of it is sold and who is buying it. Australians elect Australian Democrats as the watchdogs of Government. This Bill is yet another example of the Australian Democrats fulfilling that role on behalf of all Australians-now and in the future. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —I table the 1983-84 annual report of Special Prosecutor Gyles, QC. I seek leave to make a statement, the text of which I wish to incorporate in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- The Annual Report of Special Prosecutor Gyles for the year ended 30 June 1984 was received in my office at midday on 11 September 1984. The time that has elapsed has not permitted consideration by the Government in relation to all the matters raised in the Report. I am not required by the Special Prosecutors Act 1982 to table the Report until the fifteenth sitting day after receipt of the Report. However because of the rumour, innuendo and fabrications propagated by the Opposition about the suppression of the Report in whole or in part, and about its contents, even before it was received by me, the Government has decided to table the Report forthwith so that it may be read in its entirety. Mr Gyles was appointed on 22 September 1982 as Special Prosecutor for a period of two years in relation to 'bottom-of-the harbour' tax evasion matters. The purpose of the appointment was in particular to concentrate special efforts on action with a view to prosecution of persons who were directly involved in the promotion and execution of 'bottom-of-the-harbour' schemes. The Report notes that to the end of the year covered by the Report, 3171 profiles of persons and entities involved in company stripping other than simply as principals of companies stripped, had been compiled. They participated in the company stripping industry in various ways. After the initial collation approximately 150 persons were identified as high priority targets, and that number has since increased significantly. The Report also refers to an Australian Taxation Office estimate of the number of companies as having increased by more than fifty per cent-the latest estimate is about 6,000 compared with the original estimate of something over 4,000. The Report notes that by 26 July 1984, 28 persons had been charged and brought before a court and 9 additional warrants for arrest were issued but not executed , of which 6 related to persons believed to be outside Australia. The names of the persons charged are set out in the First Schedule of the Report. There has so far been one completed matter with a plea of guilty. In all, 176 charges appeared to have been laid in relation to current matters. It is clearly inappropriate to make any comments which could be interpreted as affecting those proceedings. Mr Gyles says that the gross excesses of the tax avoidance industry in the 1970s should never have occurred and should never be repeated. He states that if there had been an adequate administrative, judicial and political response in the first place the situation would never have arisen. The Government can only concur in those views, which indeed are identical with the views the Government expressed effectively in opposition on numerous occasions. Civil remedies The Report reveals a major difference of approach between the Commissioner of Taxation and the Special Prosecutor in two areas. The correspondence set forth in the Fourth Schedule of the Report deals with these differences. The views of the Special Prosecutor in this regard are expressed in his Report. It is only fair that the viewpoint of the Australian Taxation Office should also be made available, and I shall be setting out below comments supplied to me by the Treasurer from that Office. I point out in this regard that both the Special Prosecutor and Commissioner of Taxation are almost wholly independent of Government in relation to the administration of their legislation. It is unfortunate that differences have occurred between them, but these are the facts . The history of part of the debate has been reported in the media on several occasions. I would also suggest that the letters quoted in the 4th Schedule to the Report indicate that the Commissioner was prepared to fully co-operate with Mr Gyles except, as I have indicated, in two areas. These areas were the application of s .260 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to vendor-shareholders and the appropriate level and manner of commitment of compliance staff to the task of investigating and assessing promoters, their associates and other intermediaries . Mr Gyles is kind enough to acknowledge a role for me in re-opening the use of s .260. However, in considering the timing of the decision to use s.260-a matter to which Mr Gyles has specifically referred-it is necessary to point out that differing legal views have been expressed to the present Government on the availability of s.260 in this area. I understand that a difference of views on the same topic was expressed to the previous Government. The previous Commissioner made it clear that his decision not to apply s.260 was based on what he believed to be the best legal advice, but that if the best legal advice now available was that the prospects of success were such as to warrant taking s .260 action, and the Government noted and accepted the implications of that advice, he would heed it. This is not a matter on which I propose to give any detail, having regard to the decision, reflected in Mr Gyles's Report, that it has now been agreed that assessments will be raised in a series of cases in order to test the application of s.260 in the company stripping field, both as to current year profits and undistributed profits. To save people the trouble of trying, I make it clear that the Government will not be tabling any documents that bear directly upon the use of s.260. The obvious reasons for this are the public interest in protecting the revenue and the legal interests of the Commonwealth in the litigation that is proposed. I add that the important decision to re-open s.260 has been made all the more relevant by the intransigence of the Opposition Parties in the Senate in repeatedly rejecting amendments to the TUCT legislation relating to the collection of tax from vendor shareholders. The following comments by the Australian Taxation Office have been supplied by my colleague the Treasurer. ''Apart from the s.260 matter, the second matter of difference between Mr Gyles and the Commissioner concerned the investigation, assessment and recovery of tax from promoters of company strip cases, their associates and intermediaries. Mr Gyles takes the view that there ought to be an all out effort against promoters of 'bottom-of-the-harbour' schemes, their associates and intermediaries to collect from them the taxes they ought to have paid. He suggests that administrative disruption and expenditure of significant sums of money should be no barrier. It has been recognised by all concerned that the task of investigating the affairs of persons associated with the promotion of tax avoidance schemes and company strips is one of considerable complexity requiring the skills of experienced auditors. Many of those involved in promoting company stripping were also involved in promoting trust stripping and other tax avoidance schemes. Any investigation of these persons necessarily involves an examination of all related persons and entities. Other difficulties include lack of co-operation or positive obstruction, claims of professional privilege, difficulties in obtaining records and information, overseas implications and destruction of bank records. Mr Gyles has stated his prosecution approach has been in the first place to concentrate investigations on some identified large scale promoters, even though this necessarily involved a substantial commitment of resources to a small number of targets and the relatively long lead time before a brief could be prepared to deal adequately with the target. The Commissioner has advised that the application of the resources of the Taxation Office has involved setting similar priorities based on essentially the same value judgments. The Commissioner advises that substantial investigation work has been carried out by his officers in relation to all major promoters and their high profile associates and where possible assessments have been raised and recovery proceedings commenced. This has occurred notwithstanding the secondment to Mr Gyles's office of many of the officers most familiar with the affairs of the various promoters and their associates. Of the list of 139 promoters and associates who are major targets of Mr Gyles, the position is that investigations are underway in respect of 85 of the named persons. Those 85 were responsible for more than 95 per cent of the known company pre-tax profit strips. Investigations have been completed in 19 of these and are well advanced in many more. The Commissioner advises that at present 80 experienced audit staff are engaged in this exercise. Another 34 cases have been listed for investigation and investigations will commence as soon as resources permit. In revenue terms, it has been estimated that up to $150m in gross income has been derived by those involved in the promotion of company profit strips. To date tax and penalty in assessments raised against those persons total approximately $140m. Almost invariably the assessments have been contested. Writs totalling $24.4m have been served on some of the major promoters. Two other major promoters have already been bankrupted. Garnishee action has been taken in a further two cases. The Commissioner pointed out that it was typical of these people to place their assets beyond reach and given the complicated company and trust structures generally used the tracing of assets and fixing of liabilities is extremely difficult. He made it clear that there was no lack of will on his part and all available avenues of recovery are being pursued. It should also be recognised that many of these promoters face large assessments under the recoupment tax legislation a significant number of which have already been issued. In the Commissioner's view demands for the allocation of further resources to the promoters exercise had to be balanced against other competing priorities. These activities include the provision of experienced officers to the Costigan Royal Commission and to the two Special Prosecutors Redlich and Gyles, the investigation of promoters, finalising the work arising from the tax avoidance explosion of recent years, trust stripping matters, recoupment tax and to the extent that any are not so engaged, general audit work. In this sort of situation the Commissioner said he must set his priorities by reference to the overall range of tasks to be performed and not simply focus on one task, important though it may be. On page 9 of his Report Mr Gyles refers to the Commissioner's estimate of $150m in commissions earned by promoters of company strips and goes on to suggest that if all avoidance schemes are taken into account the revenue forgone runs into billions of dollars. The Commissioner estimates that the total amount of tax disputed and otherwise, which was sought to be evaded during the 1970's under these schemes and arrangements was about $2,500m. He said this has been acknowledged in his annual reports to Parliament. On the assumption that promoters' fees averaged about 10 cents in the dollar (and this has been his general experience) it is estimated promoters may have received some $250m to $300m in gross fees. Moreover, the Commissioner pointed out that assessments had been raised or will be raised in cases involving tax avoidance schemes as well as assessments against promoters. It was therefore not correct to say that any revenue had been forgone. The decision not to allocate additional resources to promoters was made, the Commissioner said, in the light of the large number of very important tasks facing his office, none of which could be sacrificed. There is the proposal by Mr Gyles to approach the Government seeking the establishment of special task forces to accelerate activity in these areas. These areas were promoters and associates, s.260 and trust stripping. The correspondence dated 6 April 1984 and later correspondence shown in the Fourth Schedule of the Report refers. The correspondence shows that after some initial misunderstanding by Mr Gyles of the Taxation Office position, it was agreed that position papers would be prepared as a first step in putting together a proposal to the Government. These papers were to form the basis of discussion at a meeting between the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Attorney-General's Department, Mr Gyles and the Taxation Office. In the result no such meeting ever took place because consideration of this initiative was overtaken by the need to put its staffing proposals to Ministers within the time-frame of the preparation of the Budget. Nevertheless, Mr Gyles' views on extra staffing in the area of promoters and trust stripping were made known to the Government at that time. The results of the Government's consideration of Taxation Office staffing are now known as a result of the Treasurer's Press Statement of 22 August 1984. As that statement shows the Government has given the Taxation Office significant staff increases in the current year including an extra 392 positions specifically allocated to the taxation audit area. The Government has also agreed to planned increases in future years to bring the audit coverage of business taxpayers to a figure of 1 per cent by 1987 and 2 per cent by 1992.'' Role of the DPP Mr Gyles has strongly supported the arguments advanced by Mr Redlich and others in favour of giving the Director of Public Prosecutions powers to co-ordinate civil and criminal remedies. Mr Temby has been asked for his comments on Mr Gyles' suggestions, as he was asked for his comments on Mr Redlich's Report. Mr Temby has stated that he agrees generally with the views expressed by Mr Redlich and now confirmed by Mr Gyles. As I indicated in my statement in relation to Mr Redlich's Report, great weight must be given to the views of Mr Temby and Mr Redlich, now joined by Mr Gyles. Nevertheless, different views are open and these views must be most carefully considered and decided. As I mentioned in that statement, I shall accordingly be taking to Cabinet at the earliest opportunity the question whether these recommendations should be implemented. Decision to prosecute I have read with interest Mr Gyles's comments in relation to the adequacy of the ''Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth'' presented to the Parliament on behalf of then Attorney-General Senator Peter Durack, QC, in December 1982. Mr Gyles says that he is not sure that the guidelines are always satisfactory as a guide in making the initial decision to lay a charge. He comments that it may be appropriate in complex fraud charges to lay charges as soon as the prosecution is in possession of material of appropriate credibility which establishes a prima facie case notwithstanding that the materials fall short of strictly admissible evidence. Honourable senators may recall that I dealt with the prima facie evidence rule in my ministerial statement on the Report of the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge in the Senate on 4 September 1984. I referred to the '' Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth'', presented to the Parliament on behalf of the then Attorney-General, Senator Peter Durack, QC, in December 1982. Obviously it would not be appropriate for me to give directions in any way in relation to decisions made by Mr Gyles to prosecute in his capacity as Special Prosecutor. As to whether or not the Prosecution Policy Statement needs amendment, in the direction Mr Gyles has indicated, that is a matter in relation to which I will be seeking the views of the Director of Public Prosecutions, to whom my Department has already spoken on the matter and that is ultimately a matter for Mr Temby to decide. He has the Prosecution Policy under review at the present time. This particular matter is no doubt one to which close consideration will be given. Crimes Act, section 86 Mr Gyles has drawn attention to the absence of a federal statutory offence of defrauding the Commonwealth. The only relevant offence at the moment is conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth. This suggestion has been strongly supported by the Director of Public Prosecutions. I shall be examining the question of an early amendment of the Crimes Act to include such an offence. In the meantime, as has been announced, the Government proposes to introduce significant amendments to the taxation legislation designed to deal with conduct of the kind in question. However, the case for inserting a general provision along the lines suggested in the Crimes Act obviously must be examined closely and quickly. I shall be assigning the matter to the Task Force I have established in my Department to consider the Redlich Report. Bank records I am referring the suggestions of Mr Gyles in relation to bank records to the Treasurer for his consideration. This matter is already under study following earlier recommendations from the Costigan Commission. Future operations The Report notes that it has always been my view that the Director of Public Prosecutions should take over the work of Special Prosecutors. Mr Gyles in his Report has in effect suggested that, if this is to be done, there is much to be said for the view that the Director should accept a concurrent appointment as Special Prosecutor, and that this would ensure that his role as Director of Public Prosecutions does not become absorbed with a large scale investigative function. The Director of Public Prosecutions, as Mr Gyles is already aware, takes a different view. Nevertheless the matter will be considered by me. Other matters Other matters dealt with in the Report will be referred to the responsible agencies. In respect of a number of those other matters Mr Gyles has indicated that he will be providing further comments and suggestions in his final report. The Government is grateful for the vigorous efforts by Mr Gyles in undertaking a daunting prosecution task of unprecedented magnitude. Senator GARETH EVANS —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(12.36) —The report of Special Prosecutor Gyles, which has just been tabled by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) is a most important and interesting document which will repay a great deal of study and consideration and, I think, debate in this chamber at an appropriate time when we have a greater opportunity than we have today to study it and give it the attention it clearly deserves. Therefore I hope that after saying some words about it this morning we will adjourn the matter for further debate, as I am sure the Attorney himself will concede the importance of it. Nevertheless, I propose to speak to it briefly now. One of the main reasons for doing so is the circumstances in which Mr Gyles was appointed. I believe his appointment was a very interesting and important initiative taken by the Fraser Government when it was confronted with the full horror of the bottom of the harbour tax avoidance schemes. Once the extent of them became fully known to the Fraser Government one of the particularly firm steps that was taken was the appointment of Mr Gyles. That entailed the passage through the Senate-I am pleased to say that the Senate gave the legislation a speedy passage-of the Special Prosecutors Act 1982. I believe that that initiative of the Fraser Government in the criminal law enforcement area was an important achievement. The experience that Mr Gyles and successive governments have had in that office, the resources that have been given to it and the work that has been done-all clearly establish the need to have the statutory provision of Special Prosecutor. The report of another Special Prosecutor, Mr Redlich, was tabled in the Senate only a few days ago, and that also emphasises the great value of this new office. Despite the appointment of a Director of Public Prosecutions, the new prosecution effort and independence of office which are entailed in that appointment and the fact that it has a continuing role, I still believe-I have said this before-in the need to retain the legislation under which the Government can appoint a Special Prosecutor for very special reasons. I am a little concerned that the work of both Mr Redlich and Mr Gyles-as special prosecutors-is being ended and that that work is to be carried on by the Director of Public Prosecutions. In the case of Mr Redlich I can see very good argument for that, but I believe that the terms of reference of Mr Gyles, in his role as Special Prosecutor, emphasise the true function of a Special Prosecutor. It is very much a special role. Mr Gyles was confronted with a special problem of great magnitude, and he will not by any means have completed that work by the end of his two-year appointment. I do not know whether Mr Gyles is available to continue his appointment. Perhaps the Attorney could indicate whether Mr Gyles is available for reappointment. If he is not, somebody else could be appointed to carry on his work as Special Prosecutor. I note that Mr Gyles, in his report, recommends that even if the Government continues with its present policy of transferring the whole of this office-the staff and the work-to Mr Temby, as Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Temby should be appointed Special Prosecutor. Maybe that has something to do with the deficiencies that have emerged in the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983, which has been referred to by Mr Redlich in relation to its limitations on taking civil remedies and so on. The powers that the Special Prosecutor has in regard to remedies are perhaps better stated in the Special Prosecutors Act than they are in the Director of Public Prosecutions Act. The Attorney in his statement tells us simply that he is considering this point. I know that he has not had very much time to consider it, and I am not critical of him for not having made a decision on this matter, which is clearly one of great importance and difficulty. I wish to give my support to the view that at least Mr Temby should be appointed Special Prosecutor. The desirable course, if Mr Gyles is not available , would be to appoint another Special Prosecutor to carry on his work as a special exercise. It is a unique problem and a totally discrete exercise of its own of enormous magnitude and importance. That is clearly shown by some of the statistics that have been provided in this report by Mr Gyles of the nature of the work that he has undertaken. One hundred and fifty persons have been identified as high priority targets for breaches of the Crimes Act, of conspiring to defraud the Commonwealth. Already 150 persons have been identified . One thousand persons have been interviewed, 400 statements and records of interview have been taken and 28 prosecutions have been launched. That is an indication of the magnitude of the task. It is a commendation of the work that Mr Gyles and his team have performed. It is most unfortunate that only the early stages of prosecution have been reached. Certainly, there has been one conviction but the prosecutions which have been launched, on the basis of a great deal of material, are only at the earliest stages. A matter of this magnitude and seriousness needs the leadership of a man of the quality of Mr Gyles who can devote all his energies and all his attentions to this task. Of course, he will have to brief a number of counsel. He will have in-house staff and so on to do the work. Of course, the Director of Public Prosecutions is responsible for all the prosecutions, and the implementation of the prosecution policies, by the Commonwealth. That in itself is an enormous task. We know that Mr Temby has also been diverted into other tasks of a high profile and importance. We are not criticising any of that. What I am saying is that it is a mistake to believe that Mr Temby, despite his resources and his personal qualities, can do all that work and at the same time supervise, manage and carry forward with the necessary vigour the enormous task revealed by this report. We knew that it was an enormous task when he was first appointed. The statistics that are revealed here show, if anything, how much greater the task was, how much greater the problem was, how much greater the threat to the revenue of this country was, than was believed two years ago, even in the wake of the McCabe-Lafranchi report which, of course, led in the first place to action being taken by the Fraser Government. Subsequently, there was the report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, immediately in the wake of which the Special Prosecutors Act was passed and Mr Gyles appointed. I emphasise the unique character of this task and the clear necessity for one person to lead it and to devote the whole of his time and attention to it. As I have said, 150 persons have already been identified not just as targets but as high priority targets. Twenty-eight prosecutions have been launched. Obviously a tremendous amount of work still has to be done and I believe that can only be carried out effectively by the continuance of Mr Gyles or, if he is not available as seems to be the case from the Attorney's reaction when I asked that , the appointment of somebody else of Mr Gyles's calibre and standing. I have a number of other comments I want to make on this report and I therefore seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received a letter from the Leader of the Government in the Senate relating to a change in membership of Estimates Committee E. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That Senator Coates be discharged from Estimates Committee E, with effect from 14 September 1984, (2) That Senator Sibraa, having been duly nominated in accordance with Standing Order 36AB, be appointed a member of the Committee, with effect from 14 September 1984. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.47) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to appropriate amounts required for expenditure in 1984-85 from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the ordinary annual services of the Government. The expenditure program of the Government was outlined in the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). The amounts sought in this Bill for each Department are detailed in Schedule 2 and total $15,749,379,000; of this total, the Bill seeks authority for the issue of $9,140,049,800, the balance of $6,609,329,200 having already been authorised by the Supply Act (No. 1) 1984-85. An amount of $160,000,000 is also included in the Bill for the Advance to the Minister for Finance, $10,000,000 more than was provided in the Supply Act (No. 1) 1984-85 which this Bill, when enacted, will subsume. The increase reflects the experience of recent years whereby the amount provided has consistently been put under pressure during peak periods. Contributing factors have included the relatively late passage of Additional Estimates in some years-resulting in shortages of funds to meet due payments in some departments-and the inclusion in the Appropriation Bill No. 1 of provisions of a kind formerly funded under special appropriations-for example the Commonwealth employment program. Clause 5 of the Bill provides for the appropriation of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to enable the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) to issue amounts for payment of increases in salaries and payments in the nature of salary arising out of awards, orders or determinations made under or in accordance with a law. Allowance has been included in the overall Budget figuring for such prospective increases, $60m in respect of persons employed under the defence function and $ 60m in respect of other Public Service employers; that allowance is not, however , appropriated in advance or any increases being awarded. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.48) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill seeks appropriations of the Consolidated Revenue Fund in 1984-85 totalling $4,502,666,000. Of this amount, $1,711,770,500 was authorised by the Supply Act (No. 2) 1984-85; the balance of $2,790,895,500 would be authorised by this Bill. The Bill provides for proposed expenditure on the construction of public works and buildings, the acquisition of sites and buildings, certain advances and loans, items of plant and equipment which are clearly definable as capital expenditure and expenditure on new policy initiatives for which legislation has not previously been provided. Provision is also made for grants to the States under section 96 of the constitution and for payments to the Northern Territory. An amount of $130,000,000 is included under the Advance to the Minister for Finance, $10,000,000 more than was provided in the Supply Act (No. 2) 1984-85 which this Bill, when enacted, will subsume. The need for the increase reflects pressures placed on the advance in recent times due, inter alia, to the inclusion, in the Appropriation Bill No. 2, of programs of a kind formerly funded under special appropriations-for example the Commonwealth employment program. Details of the proposed expenditures are set out in Schedule 2 of the Bill and the main features were outlined in the Budget Speech. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.50) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- Pursuant to accepted arrangements relating to the Parliament's appropriations and staffing, I present the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1984-85. The purpose of the Bill is to appropriate moneys of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the recurrent and capital expenditures of the parliamentary departments for the year ending 30 June 1985. The total amount sought is $43,680,000. Of this amount, $17,222,000 was authorised by the Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Act 1984-85, the balance of $26,458,000 being sought in this Bill. An amount of $150,000 is included under the Advance to the President of the Senate, $50,000 more than was provided in the Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Act 1984-85. The increase reflects a change in approach whereby contingency amounts previously included in the individual estimates for the Senate have been excluded on the basis that urgent and unforeseen requirements may be met from the advance. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Senator LEWIS —I seek leave to move a motion- Senator Georges-I rise on a point of order. The Senate had the intention of rising for Estimate committee hearings this morning. It was interrupted by a debate on a censure motion and we proceeded to that matter. We then continued, after the debate had finished, to deal with machinery matters. I took it that we would then rise so that the Estimates committees could meet. I think it would be contrary to the spirit of the arrangement if any new matter were now to be brought before the Senate. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order involved. It is completely a matter for the Senate. There is no motion before the Chair at the moment for the Senate to adjourn and the Senate is proceeding with its business. Senator Chipp-I take another point of order. I do not know much about these things, but there is a whole team of civil servants and senior Service personnel in King's Hall. Could they not be told that the Senate will be breaking for lunch in five or 10 minutes? They have been there for two hours already. Senator Robertson-I think, the honourable senator will find that those arrangements have been made. Senator LEWIS —I seek leave to move: That the Senate (a) reaffirms the long-established principle that it is a serious contempt for any person to attempt to deter or hinder any witness from giving evidence before the Senate or a Senate committee, or to improperly influence a witness in respect of such evidence; or (b) warns all persons against taking any action which might amount to attempting to improperly influence a witness in respect of such evidence. The PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? Senator Georges-I again raise a point of order. A substantive motion has been brought before the Senate-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Lewis at this stage is seeking leave to move a motion. Senator Georges-I seek your guidance, Mr President, because it may be necessary for leave to be refused because this motion should lead to substantial debate. I wonder what the procedures will be. The PRESIDENT —Order! It is not a matter for the Chair. Senator Lewis has indicated that he seeks leave to move a motion. It is up to the Senate to determine whether or not leave is to be granted. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney- General) —by leave-I think we can all understand Senator Georges's concern that, given the imminence of Estimates committee hearings and other arrangements made, we should not now embark upon a long substantive debate. That point was very much present in the minds of those of us in the chamber who had some notice very recently of Senator Lewis's motion . However, I think Senator Georges can be guaranteed, following discussions that have taken place between the representatives of the various parties, that the debate on Senator Lewis's motion will be kept within a very short and narrow compass and will not detain the Senate longer than, I would hope, a few moments. Under those circumstances I think it probably is appropriate-- Senator Georges —What if I have an interest in the debate? Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Georges has a right as a senator to demonstrate that interest and to participate in that debate. Given the competing desires of honourable senators to get on with the business of Estimates and given the matter that Senator Lewis raises-given that he expresses himself in a way that does not generate further controversy-is likely to be capable of being dealt with in a short compass. I think under those circumstances we ought to allow this debate to proceed and the Senate to react to whatever it is that Senator Lewis now wants to tell us. The PRESIDENT —Senator Lewis has sought leave to move a motion. Is leave granted ? Leave granted. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —I move: That the Senate- (a) reaffirms the long-established principle that it is a serious contempt for any person to attempt to deter or hinder any witness from giving evidence before the Senate or a Senate committee, or to improperly influence a witness in respect of such evidence, and (b) warns all persons against taking any action which might amount to attempting to improperly influence a witness in respect of such evidence. I have signed and handed a copy of this motion to the Clerk. It is in rather general terms as a result of the agreements that have been reached around the chamber this morning. This morning I was somewhat appalled, as I am sure many people were, to hear on the radio program AM allegations being made by the president of the solicitors body in New South Wales concerning what he believed was intimidation against Mr Briese in relation to his reappointment as Chief Stipendiary Magistrate in New South Wales. I shall not go into that matter other than to say that it was very disturbing. I checked on newspaper reports this morning and found a report in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald in which a reporter by the name of Dennis Shanahan stated: The Attorney-General, Mr Landa, also said yesterday that no decision would be made on Mr Briese's position until the controversy over Mr Briese's allegations about Justice Murphy had been resolved. If that statement were true it would be a terrible intimidation of a witness who is about to come before a Senate committee. The Senate is about to get up for Estimates committee hearings, and it is anticipated that Mr Briese will come before the Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge before the Senate resumes. Senator Georges —I raise another point of order. We are now in the process of debating matters which are privy to a select committee which we have appointed. Senator Lewis, by this proposition, has opened up the debate on matters which are the concern of that Committee and not the concern of the whole Senate. The powers of that Committee are such that it could deal with intimidation if intimidation were revealed to it. It serves no useful purpose for that debate to be opened up here and for Senator Lewis to make his position clear on this matter virtually in public. This matter should have been discussed at a private meeting of the Committee. The whole Senate should not now be given information, Senator Lewis's opinion, which is now surely a matter of debate. The Senate Select Committee has powers to deal with the matter which Senator Lewis raises. He should have kept it within the confines of the Committee. My view is that this is contrary to the Standing Orders and the decision of the Senate that gave a certain reference to the Senate Select Committee and gave it all the powers of the Senate to proceed. We should not be engaging in any sort of debate and we should not be giving out any sort of information which reflects the views of members of that Committee. Senator Lewis ought to know better; obviously he does not. Those are the reasons why I have endeavoured to put to you, Mr President, that the matter should not be opened out at this stage. Senator Chaney —On the point of order, Mr President, I have listened with very great care to what Senator Lewis has said. I note the motion he has moved is in terms of principle with which I would have thought no one, including Senator Georges, could disagree. Senator Lewis was putting before the Senate his reasons for putting down the statement of principle in a motion today. I think it would be fair to say that in what he has said to date there has been no attempt by him to reflect a view on the matter which is going before the Select Committee. It is merely the question-- Senator Georges —It is getting very close. Senator Chaney —Let me say that I have listened very carefully to what has been said so far, and I am sure you have too, Mr President, in light of the subject matter in particular, and I believe that Senator Lewis has expressed nothing which would reflect a view. Were he to reflect a view, I am sure, Mr President, that you would intervene in the debate or that some other honourable senator, including the Attorney-General or indeed Senator Lewis's fellow Committee member and Chairman, Senator Tate, would be concerned about the matter. It is a reasonable exercise for Senator Lewis merely to establish for the Senate reasons why he is seeking that this principle be acknowledged by the Senate today. It should not be held up and it is certainly not out of order. The PRESIDENT —I have listened to the point of order raised by Senator Georges. The Chair is completely in the hands of the Senate so far as motions that are before the Chair are concerned. It is not for the Chair to set the times at which or during which the Senate will be sitting. I have listened very carefully to the remarks of Senator Lewis. Senator Lewis was given leave to move a motion and then he moved that motion. Senator Lewis, in my opinion, so far has directed his remarks to the motion and so long as he continues to do that and not to discuss any private affairs with the Committee he is in order; but I do suggest that Senator Lewis, as a member of that Committee, in speaking to this motion and in moving this motion should take particular care of the fact that he is a member of that Select Committee. Senator LEWIS —Thank you, Mr President. I will certainly accept your advice and am endeavouring to do that, I can assure you. I had quoted a report in yesterday 's Sydney Morning Herald. Frankly, I found it very difficult to believe that report that Mr Landa had said the remarks as alleged. I read the report in yesterday's Canberra Times and I would like to quote from that. It states that later at a Press conference, Mr Landa intimated for the first time that there was some doubt about whether Mr Briese would be reappointed as chief magistrate. According to the Canberra Times, Mr Landa said that the question of any senior appointments at this stage was 'on hold' because the public controversy had not been resolved and future appointments would depend on the outcome. Let me say at this stage, Mr President, that I do not know what he was referring to in relation to the public controversy and I am hopeful that what he was referring to was some controversy in New South Wales with regard to magistrates. Senator Evans —That is the other available alternative. Senator LEWIS —I allow into Hansard what the Attorney-General has just said by acknowledging it. I am disappointed, I may say, that I have not been able to find any report that yesterday Mr Landa denied that that was his purpose but no doubt something will come of it. My point about raising this matter at this stage is that it seems to me that it is important that the Senate does what it can to protect any witness. Senator Georges —How? It does not have to be spelt out to give you an opportunity to put a case about what Mr Landa said. Senator LEWIS —I again allow that to be entered into Hansard by acknowledging the interjection. But let me say that it is absolutely essential that the Senate reaffirms that it will not allow any witness to be intimidated by anyone; any witness, regardless of who the witness is who comes before a Senate committee, is entitled to the privilege and protection of this Parliament. That is why I moved this motion today in the hope that the witnesses who come before these committees will understand that the Senate will back them, not just an individual senator or one party in the Senate, but that the Senate itself will support witnesses who come before it in any circumstances. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(1.05) —The Government will not oppose the terms of this motion because Senator Lewis has pointed out, and others no doubt are able to point out, that the terms of the motion are quite unexceptionable. Of course, it is the case that we have a long established principle that it would be a serious contempt for any person who attempted to deter or hinder any witness and of course it is the case that it is appropriate, I suppose, to warn persons against taking any action which might amount to attempting to improperly influence a witness. That much said, however, it is another thing again to accept without demur the wisdom of Senator Lewis choosing to bring this motion forward in the way he has at this time. I believe it ought to be acknowledged by the Senate that Senator Georges is absolutely right when he says that it is unnecessary to bring the motion forward at this time since the Senate Committee is amply armed with the powers to look after its own privileges and to protect those and to protect the Senate itself. Of course, should the Senate Committee be minded to call in aid the powers of the Senate itself, those powers will undoubtedly be made available. There is also an element of unwisdom, I believe, in Senator Lewis, as a member of this Committee, rising to his feet and advancing a motion like this in terms which can be described only as sailing very close to the wind in terms of dealing with substantive matters which have to be resolved by the Committee. In both of those respects I think Senator Georges is absolutely correct and we ought to acknowledge the force of what he is saying. There is another thing, however, that ought to be said for the record; that is, that in terms of the particular subject matter which Senator Lewis has adverted to as justifying bringing forward a specific motion of this kind, I do not believe even that as reported in the Press is such as to justify the course that he has taken. Two points need to be made: One, it is not clear that the statement attributed to Mr Landa in the Sydney Morning Herald and apparently in similar terms also in the Canberra Times was ever actually made. Senator Chipp —The Sydney Morning Herald was much more succinct. Senator GARETH EVANS —I take Senator Chipp's point. The second point I make is that it is not clear that if it was made it is open to the interpretation that Senator Lewis has obviously been trying to impute to it. It is not clear that the statement was ever actually made because of course there are two major controversies in which Mr Briese is presently embroiled in New South Wales, and the subject of Mr Landa's parliamentary statement a day or two ago was clearly the matter of the appointment of a number of magistrates whose competence or whatever has been recently called in question. There is a major issue involving Mr Briese and his willingness apparently to testify in appropriate disciplinary proceedings against those magistrates which has created profound difficulties for Mr Landa and the New South Wales Government and he was apparently expressing himself with some force on that particular controversy. Senator Lewis —You do understand that that was in the Parliament; this was alleged to have been said outside. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes, I understand that. But what I am saying is that it is clear that there is also another controversy in which Mr Briese is embroiled that squarely concerns the Senate Committee and it is a matter of some uncertainty as to whether Mr Landa's remarks can even be regarded as applicable to that situation or to the other controversy in New South Wales. I took Senator Lewis to acknowledge the ambiguity and uncertainty of that during the course of his speech. But the further point that I make, that even if there was some reference and that reference could be established to the Canberra controversy, as it were, concerning Mr Briese, it is by no means totally clear on its face that remarks of the kind reported ought to be construed as a contempt or a potential contempt of the Senate. There is a sense in which executive governments that are on the verge of making major appointments of what are for all practical purposes judicial figures, ought to be able to have confidence that those appointments will in fact prove to be justified. To the extent that there may be some question in the air as to whether or not an allegation has been made which may prove to be justified and to the extent-- Senator Chipp —You are sailing fairly close to the wind yourself now. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am simply making the point because Mr Landa is here being accused, if only hypothetically, of a grave contempt-I think they are Senator Lewis's words-of the Senate if he did say anything which could be construed as referring to the Canberra Briese controversy. All I am saying is that that must be a matter for reasoned and sensible argument and appreciation of all the facts and circumstances at some appropriate time. It is not something about which assumptions can be made. There conceivably may be circumstances in which what Mr Landa might have said along those lines could quite sensibly be justified as a cautious, careful exercise of the ordinary prerogatives and responsibilities of executive government. I simply raise that particular question to say that even if the matter is as Senator Lewis believes it might have been, in other words, a reference to the Canberra controversy, then still it is inappropriate to jump quickly to the kind of conclusions that he wants us to jump to. I think those points ought to put on the record without getting into the kind of debate which Senator Georges quite rightly, I think, has warned us about. All that having been said, the point still remains that it is probably not inappropriate in all the circumstances of this highly volatile and delicate and difficult task that is confronting the Committee for the point to be made now by the Senate as a whole that it is a very serious business to endeavour in any way to interfere with the workings of the Committee, to do anything which might be construed, properly or not, as an attempt to interfere with a witness, and it is probably timely, although arguably unnecessary, for such a warning to be given. Provided we approach it in that spirit, rather than hanging it specifically to the facts of some particular case which are not established to everyone's satisfaction and which may well be ambiguous anyway, I do not see any basis for objecting to Senator Lewis's motion and I endorse it accordingly. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —Mr President, I gave notice to Senator Walsh that I would be raising in the adjournment debate the remarks he has been making-he made some today and he has made some earlier in this current period of sittings-on the North West Shelf project. I understand that Senator Walsh is hosting a luncheon for a visiting New Zealand Minister and I would imagine that that is why he is not here. I do not complain about it, but I merely wish to place on the record that I did indicate to the Minister that I would be raising his remarks here today. I will be quite brief. What the Minister has done is, in response initially to a question from Senator Cook, a fellow Western Australian of Senator Walsh but one who like Senator Walsh sometimes seems doubtfully interested in the welfare of his State to criticise the Western Australian Government and the previous Western Australian Government in particular, for the contract it entered into with respect to gas from the North West Shelf. He has claimed that the Western Australian Government could face a very large bill for the unused gas which the State Government or its instrumentality, the State Energy Commission, would be obliged to purchase. I place on the public record my total disagreement with the views which have been expressed by Senator Walsh. That disagreement is across party disagreement, Mr President. Senator Walsh's remarks have not been welcomed by the Premier of Western Australia, Mr Burke, who is reported on 5 September as saying that he was not embarrassed by Senator Walsh's figures which did not appear to be accurate. The Premier went on to say that the Government was working on various projects which would use this energy. I do want to make the point to the Senate that on a number of occasions-it is in the daily news as I have said, but also at the launching of a boat called the Blue Nabilla on 7 September-Senator Walsh was deserted even by his State Australian Labor Party colleagues. The Premier on that occasion took the opportunity to explain that, whilst Senator Walsh was entitled to say what he likes, the Premier disagrees with him. Mr Burke said on that occasion that there is a surplus of gas but the State Government has it well in hand for new industries to take up that surplus, including the aluminium smelter in the south-west. If Senator Walsh thinks that it is beyond the wit of the present Government and beyond the wit of the present Labor Government in Western Australia to use the resources of the North West Shelf which have now been opened up by the building of the pipeline, and so on, I can only suggest that they hand it over to people who believe that they can make good use of those projects for Western Australia. I am quite sure that the Leader of the Opposition in Western Australia would be happy to accept that challenge and that his team in the State Parliament would be anxious to use the very great advantage which Western Australia now enjoys of very clean, readily available source of energy. There are exciting possibilities for the State of Western Australia in what has been achieved, and I suppose it is very easy to forget at this time when we have some energy surplus that at the time when the basic decisions were made with respect to this project we were in a time of energy crisis, we were in a time of energy shortage. It was a very different market and what is occurring now is simply the natural adjustment to the changing world scene which is beyond Australia's and certainly beyond Western Australia's control. I think it is a pity that the national Minister for Resources and Energy should indulge in the sort of cheap political point scoring which he has used with respect to this project. I wish to reject his comments and to say that most Western Australians, I believe, would reject them and would disagree with his general conclusions. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney- General)(1.15) —I will draw Senator Chaney's remarks to the attention of the Minister for Resources and Energy ( Senator Walsh) and no doubt he will find appropriate opportunity to reply in kind. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —Before the Senate adjourns, I advise honourable senators that Estimates Committee E will meet at about 1.45 p.m., in about 30 minutes time. Estimates Committees D and F will meet at approximately 2 p.m. Senate adjourned at 1.16 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 2 October 1984. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 618) Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice , on 15 December 1983: (1) Has the Public Service Board given approval to the appointment of officers to government departments of authorities; if so, (a) how many have been approved for each department or authority; and (b) when was approval sought and given for each department or authority. (2) What is the total number of new officers anticipated to be needed for the proposed assets test program. Senator Button —The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Individual departments appoint base grade staff, acting under delegation from the Public Service Board. (2) A number of new base grade staff were appointed in 1983-84 by departments in preparation for the introduction of the then proposed assets test on pensions . Once trained, new staff were to replace more experienced base grade staff in a chain of staffing movements intended to release appropriately graded and experienced staff to do assets testing work. It is not possible, however, to distinguish precisely between new base grade staff recruited to enable the then proposed assets testing to proceed and other new base grade staff who would have been recruited in any event. The best estimates of the number of new base grade staff appointed by departments up to the end of February 1984 to enable the introduction of assets testing to proceed are: Number of appointees Department of Social Security 1,252 Department of Veterans' Affairs 140 On 23 February 1984 the Prime Minister announced that the Government had decided to establish a broadly-based panel of relevant community representatives to advise on amendments to the proposed assets test legislation. A majority of the staff who had been recruited to the Departments of Social Security and Veterans' Affairs up to February 1984 were able to be deployed to perform immediate and useful work within those departments. The honourable senator may also be interested to note that a number of base grade staff, considered excess to the immediate requirements of the Department of Social Security pending Government decisions on the assets testing legislation, were temporarily redeployed to other agencies. Most of the staff redeployment went to the Australian Taxation Office, where a staffing requirement existed to meet the Government's objectives of greater effort in the priority areas of tax collection and pursuit of tax avoidance which were neglected by the previous Government. The following table shows the total number of staff redeployed and the gaining agencies. Staff redeployed Australian Taxation Office 220 Housing and Construction 73 Communications 23 Australian Electoral Commission 1 Employment and Industrial Relations 28 345 Following the Government's consideration of the report of the panel reviewing the assets test legislation, it has introduced revised legislation. The revised assets test will require considerably fewer staff than the earlier version. For 1984-85, which includes the 'start up' period, agreement has been given to the following staff levels in relation to assets testing: Staff years Department of Social Security 717 Department of Veterans' Affairs 205 It is expected that the on-going allocations for 1985-86 will be significantly lower than those for 1984-85. (Question No. 974) Senator Martin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 14 June 1984: (1) Which countries have been invited to contribute their ships and crew to the 'tall ships' visit to Australia for the Bicentenary. (2) Which countries have accepted the invitation. (3) How much of the cost of the visit will be met by the Commonwealth Government or any Commonwealth-funded organisations. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) Official invitations were issued by the Australian Government late in 1983 to countries to contribute their ships and crews to the tall ships event for the Bicentenary. The following countries, which own sail training vessels, were invited to participate in the event: Asia Indonesia, Japan. North America Canada, United States. Europe Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, USSR, Yugoslavia. Latin America Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Uruguay, Venezuela. Middle East Oman. An invitation has also been issued to the British Government to be represented in the Parade of Tall Ships. The British Government does not, itself, own or operate a sail training vessel. An invitation has been issued as well to the owners of a privately owned New Zealand vessel to participate in the event. It is intended to issue invitations in due course to other non-government foundations and organisations which own suitable ships. The Australian Bicentennial Authority commenced the necessary formal presentations explaining the nature of the event in April 1984. There are several major difficulties that need to be resolved by most of the countries to whom invitations have been extended: adjustments need to be made to academic year training schedules to accommodate the long voyage to Australia; European vessels have a heavy program scheduled for 1988; the voyage will be expensive for nations and crew changes will be required; and there will be considerable competition from other events planned around the same time. Despite these potential difficulties and the short period since the invitations were issued, two countries, Spain and the Federal Republic of Germany, have already formally accepted. Strong expressions of interest have already been received from a number of countries including Latin American countries recently contacted by the Australian Bicentennial Authority. Encouraging discussions held with authorities that own vessels from Europe and elsewhere taking part in the Tall Ships event held at Quebec in June indicated enthusiasm for the Australian event. The two sail training associations which co-ordinate international Tall Ships activities have taken the unique step of already according planning priority to the Australian event in 1988. However, a firm commitment by most nations invited to participate cannot be expected for some time. In most cases the final outcome of deliberations will not be known until 1986. (3) The Australian Bicentennial Authority has allocated $4m to the staging of the visit of Tall Ships to Australia. The major proportion of the costs incurred by vessels visiting Australia will be met by the countries that own the vessels. (Question No. 1052) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 22 August 1984: (1) Why have representatives of the mining industry not been appointed to the advisory committee looking into the future management of Kakadu National Park, bearing in mind that there are large mineral deposits in the area. (2) Does the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment agree that without representation of the mining industry the committee does not have a balance of interest and advice in regard to the Park; if so, will the Minister review the membership of the advisory committee. (3) Will the Minister have tabled in the Senate the names of those persons participating on the committee, and the interest or industry they represent. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Dr Terry Garner, General Manager-Operations, Ranger Uranium Mines Pty Ltd, is a member of the Kakadu National Park Advisory Committee comprised of representatives of public interest groups. (2) See (1) above. (3) Membership of the Advisory Committee includes: The Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, or his nominee; Dr. T. Garner, General Manager-Operations, Ranger Uranium Mines Pty Ltd; Mr N. Maralngurra, Chairman, Gunbalanya Council Inc.; Mr E. Main, Chairman, Jabiru Town Council; Mr M. Alderson, Chairman, Gadudju Association Inc.; Dr C. Jack-Hinton, Director, N.T. Museum of Arts and Sciences; Dr M. G. Ridpath, OIC, Darwin Laboratories, CSIRO; Mr A. Julius, President, Amateur Fisherman's Association of the Northern Territory; Ms K. Hosking, Executive Officer, Darwin Tourist Promotion Association; Mr M. Stewart, President, Northern Territory Association of Four Wheel Drive Clubs Inc.; and Mr R. Baker, Northern Territory Councillor, Australian Conservation Foundation. (Question No. 949) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 6 June 1984: (1) Were allegations made in November 1979 that drugs were illegally entering Australia through an airstrip on the northern island of the Sir Edward Pellew group of islands in the Northern Territory. (2) Did such allegations claim that there was an airstrip on this island operating without effective radar cover to enable detection of light aircraft and without facilities for recording details of cargo. (3) What action was taken subsequent to those allegations to ensure that this avenue was not being used for drug smuggling. (4) Can the Special Minister of State provide a better response than the one provided by Mr Fife when he was Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs in November 1979. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes, see Hansard, 8 November 1979, pages 2768-9. (2) Yes. (3) Since the present Government came to office in 1983, the Hon. Kim C. Beazley, in his role as the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, has reviewed Australia's peacetime coastal surveillance and protection arrangements. His recommendations have been considered by Government which took the unprecedented step of ensuring that one organisation has the overall responsibility for the direction and co-ordination of coastal surveillance, response and enforcement by establishing the Coastal Protection Unit within the Australian Federal Police. To enable the Unit to meet its responsibilities, the Government has allocated $ 3.634m this financial year. The Unit will establish regional co-ordination centres in Darwin, north Queensland and the north-west of Western Australia in the immediate future. These centres will ensure that the minimum of delay is occasioned in future response and enforcement action arising from surveillance reports. They will have the added advantage of ensuring that all interested authorities are fully aware of activities in their particular areas. The Coastal Protection Unit will research and evaluate new and projected means of enhancing our overall surveillance capabilities. I am informed that the limited size and usage of the airstrip in question has not in the past warranted the installation of either on-site radar or Customs inspection facilities, nor does the present level of usage indicate the situation will change in the foreseeable future. Light aircraft carrying spare parts and personnel from the mainland for prawn trawlers are the only measurable air traffic. The islands in question are being subjected to frequent air surveillance flights. (4) I refer the honourable senator to the response in part (3) above. (Question No. 955) Senator Childs asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 7 June 1984: (1) Can the Treasurer confirm the accuracy of the claim in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 5 June 1984, in relation to the top five United States banks that '. . . in all cases their loans to the four big Latin American debtors-Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela and Argentina-represent more than 100 per cent of their shareholders funds.' (2) What effects will the current international debt problem have on the Australian economy and in particular the Australian financial system. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Up-to-date, complete and consistent official information on lending by United States banks to individual Latin American countries is difficult to obtain. However, the information set out in the table below supports the claim in the press report to which the honourable senator refers. These figures indicate that total loans to Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela and Argentina from each of Citicorp, Bank America, Chase Manhattan, Manufacturers Hanover and J. P. Morgan considerably exceed shareholders' equity of each of these banks. Lending to: Shareholders' Mexico Brazil Venezuela Argentina Total Equity4 Citicorp1 2,874 3,073 1,435 na3 7,382 6,044 Bank America1 2,358 2,347 1,524 na3 6,229 4,310 Chase Manhattan1 1,567 2,308 1,220 823 5,918 3,684 Manufacturers' Hanover2 1,915 2,130 1,084 1,321 6,450 2,575 J. P. Morgan2 1,174 1,785 464 741 4,164 2,973 1 Lending data is sourced from the United States Federal Financial Institutions Examinations Council's (FFIEC) Country Exposure Information Report as at 31 March 1984. 2 Lending data is sourced from company Annual Reports as at 31 December 1983. 3 Loans represent less than 1 per cent of Bank's assets. 4 Shareholders' equity is obtained from FFIEC as at 31 March 1984. (2) The Australian commercial banks have relatively small exposures, for the most part, to developing countries with debt servicing difficulties. It would therefore be reasonable to expect the direct effect of these difficulties on the Australian financial system and the Australian economy to be limited. The indirect effects of the international debt situation on the Australian economy and financial system are more difficult to assess. Initially, lower economic growth rates and foreign exchange shortages in debtor countries might adversely affect Australian exports to such countries. Australian exports to third countries might also suffer, either because of the more vigorous promotion of debtor countries' exports in these markets or because such third countries themselves have experienced lower export demand. As against that, net capital inflows to Australia might be higher than otherwise as foreign investors seek to place their assets in countries with more favourable economic prospects. In general, the implications of the international debt problem for the Australian economy, and for the Australian financial system, cannot be expected to be favourable. But how unfavourable they might be will depend partly on the success of efforts currently being made internationally to manage, and overcome, debt servicing problems. To the extent that debtor countries are successful in restoring their economies to a healthy state, the adverse implications of the international debt problem for countries like Australia will be minimised. Apart from that, adverse implications for the Australian economy will also be minimised to the extent that Australia can achieve stable and non-inflationary growth as a result of its own domestic economic policies. (Question No. 967) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 13 June 1984: (1) Are a considerable number of Aboriginal assistant teacher positions in remote areas to be cancelled because of lack of support by the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, despite the fact that these positions were originally created to fill vacancies caused by Aboriginal people moving to teachers' training colleges, such as the one at Batchelor in the Northern Territory. (2) Why is the Minister refusing to fund these positions in the future, despite the large amount of funding being allocated to less important Aboriginal areas and despite the fact that the Northern Territory supplies some $302,000 for operational expenses for this scheme. (3) Will the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, who has in the past shown interest in this matter, prevail on the Government to ensure continued funding for this very necessary project. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) My colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the Hon. A. C. Holding M. P., has advised that the forty positions in question, those of Aboriginal assistant teachers located in homeland centre schools, will continue to receive funding from the Commonwealth in 1984-85. (2) Under the original agreement with the Northern Territory Government the Department of Aboriginal Affairs undertook to fund the positions for a three year period ending on 30 June 1984. The continuation of the funding arrangement therefore represents an extension of the period for which Commonwealth support had been originally negotiated. Commonwealth assistance will therefore be withdrawn on 30 June 1985, at which time it is expected that the Northern Territory Government will assume its clear responsibility to provide funds to allow the scheme to continue. (3) I am anxious to ensure that appropriate educational resources and services are made available to meet the needs of Aboriginal communities in remote areas. It is however an area where the State and Northern Territory governments must assume the major responsibility to provide for the educational needs of their citizens. Senator Walsh —On 7 June 1984 (Hansard, page 2753) Senator Lajovic asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice concerning international debts. The Treasurer has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question: Statistics from a number of sources have to be used to provide an analysis of a country's external debt. (1) Debts to Banks The International Monetary Fund (IMF) publishes a monthly volume of International Financial Statistics. Its tables provide the most comprehensive published information about international debts to banks and deposits with banks , under the headings of interbank accounts, bank credit to non-banks, and bank deposits of non-banks. The publication contains data up to about 6 months before the time of publication. Its tables relate only to IMF member countries and hence have a limited coverage of the Eastern European countries. The IMF's statistics do not include projection of repayment obligations. Table 1 shows figures from this source for major debtor countries as of December 1983. The Bank for International Settlement (BIS) publishes International Banking Developments, a quarterly bulletin showing individual countries' positions with respect to the Western banks and those offshore branches which report to the BIS . These figures are incorporated in the relevant tables in the IMF's publication International Financial Statistics, just mentioned. The BIS also publishes a bi- annual bulletin, The Maturity Distribution of International Lending, showing the periods within which each country's repayment obligations to banks are scheduled . Table 2 shows figures from this second BIS source, for major debtor countries as of June 1983. (2) Medium and Long Term Debts of All Kinds The World Bank publishes annually a volume of World Debt Tables, with comprehensive statistics about the external debt of 103 developing countries which report to it. Eastern European countries are not included. The statistics mainly concern debts contracted or guaranteed by public authorities of the debtor countries, but for some countries include privately-contracted non- guaranteed debt. There is some overlap with the IMF or BIS statistics for debts to banks, where the statistics in the World Debt Tables include either public or private debts of which non-resident banks are creditors; but the World Debt Tables do not include data for any short-term debt (that is, debt with original maturity of one year or less). The latest issue for 1983-84 contains time-series statistics up to 1982, and also projections of debt-servicing obligations up to 1990 relating to public debts at the end of 1982. Table 3 shows selected statistics from this source for major debtor countries. (3) Trade-Related Debts The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) publishes, jointly with the BIS, Statistics on External Indebtedness. This half-yearly publication extends the BIS statistics by showing the component of each country' s international debts which comprises trade-related obligations other than to banks, so far as these are reported to the OECD. Some of these obligations are short-term and not included in the World Bank's tables. Table 4 shows figures from this source for major debtor countries as of June 1983; as implied above, the figures here are additional to those in Tables 1 and 2, but partly overlap those in Table 3. Table 1 SELECTED COUNTRIES' POSITIONS VIS-A-VIS COMMERCIAL BANKS (at end of 1983-in $US billion) (3) Country of (1) (2) Net debt borrowers/ Gross debt Deposits to banks depositors to banks with banks (1)-(2) Latin America- Argentina 24.07 6.57 17.50 Brazil 73.14 (a) 7.93 (a) 65.21 Chile 11.91 4.49 7 .42 Columbia 5.93 (b) 2.57 (b) 3.36 Ecuador 4.20 (b) 1.31 (b) 2.89 Mexico 85. 09 14.27 70.82 Peru 4.22 3.14 (a) 1.08 Venezuela 21.21 16.07 5.14 Asia- China 4.13 14.65 -10.52 Indonesia 13.25 8.42 4.83 South Korea 23.42 6.60 16. 82 Malaysia 9.99 5.17 4.82 Philippines 14.63 3.09 11.54 Thailand 5.65 2.08 3. 57 Africa- Algeria 6.04 (b) 1.79 (b) 4.25 Ivory Coast 2.30 0.38 1.92 Morocco 3.55 (b) 0. 58 (b) 2.97 Nigeria 7.75 2.20 5.55 Eastern Europe- Czechoslovakia 2.45 (b) 0.91 (b) 1.54 Germany, Dem R 7.83 (b) 3.23 (b) 4.60 Hungary 8.62 1.54 7.08 Poland 10.44 (b) 1.08 (b) 9.36 Romania 3.47 (b) 0.45 ( b) 3.02 Turkey 8.81 (a) 2.53 (a) 6.28 USSR 14.87 (b) 9.65 (b) 5.22 Yugoslavia 14.51 2.72 11.79 Source: IMF, International Financial Statistics, June 1984, except as noted. (a) = Partially based on data for third quarter 1983. (b) = Data from BIS, International Banking Developments, April 1984. Table 2 MATURITY DISTRIBUTION OF INTERNATIONAL LENDING OF BIS REPORTING BANKS Percentage Percentage Bank lending Percentage due between due in more at end June due within one and two than two Country of borrower 1983 $USbn one year years years Latin America- Argentina 25.45 53.4 6.8 35.3 Brazil 62.78 34.0 5.6 50.7 Chile 10.95 37.6 7.2 52.2 Colombia 6.63 47.9 5.6 40.2 Ecuador 4.38 55.5 7.7 34.2 Mexico 65. 48 47.7 6.8 41.4 Peru 5.31 58.1 7.4 27.2 Venezuela 27.77 57.2 7.3 29.2 Total for Latin America 217.88 45.4 6.7 41.6 Asia- China 1.51 47.3 9.7 30.6 Indonesia 10.88 35.5 7.5 48.4 South Korea 22.73 56.5 5.1 34.6 Malaysia 7.93 27.9 3.0 60.0 Philippines 13.34 59.7 3.9 32.9 Thailand 4.87 54.4 7.1 34.8 Total for Asia 74.12 49.5 5.5 39.0 Africa- Algeria 7.13 17.1 11.5 43.6 Ivory Coast 3.18 24.0 4.8 28.9 Morocco 3.79 26 .0 4.4 30.0 Nigeria 9.25 39.0 7.6 38.5 Total for Africa 34.83 30.7 7.2 32.6 Eastern Europe- Czechoslovakia 2.74 32.3 9.4 49.0 Germany, Dem. R. 8.26 38.8 14.4. 31.3 Hungary 6.42 36.0 14.1 40.9 Poland 12.16 29.3 7.5 48.2 Romania 4.07 32.8 7. 8 33.5 Turkey 3.84 25.0 5.6 60.1 USSR 14.97 46.0 8.5 28.1 Yugoslavia 9.55 30.0 10.6 43.1 Total for Eastern Europe (a) 50.40 38.0 10.2 36.4 Note: Rows do not add up to 100 per cent owing to an unallocated component of reported loans. Source:BIS, Maturity Distribution of International Lending, December 1983. (a) Does not include Turkey and Yugoslavia. Table 3 MEDIUM AND LONG-TERM DEBT OF SELECTED COUNTRIES (at end of 1982, in $US billions) Public/publicity guaranteed debt Of which Private non- official Supplier Financial guaranteed debt Countries Total creditors credits markets (where given) Latin America- Argentina 15.78 1.99 2.38 11.41 . . Brazil 47.59 8.18 1.08 38.20 23.12 Chile 5.24 1.31 0.33 3.53 8.73 Colombia 6.21 2.99 0.34 2.88 1.22 Ecuador 3.91 1.56 0.24 2.11 . . Mexico 50.41 7.10 0.35 42.96 . . Peru 6.71 3.37 0.77 2.57 . . Venezuela 12.12 0.30 0.12 11.68 . . Asia- Indonesia 18.42 10.99 1.75 5.54 . . South Korea 20.06 8.34 2.04 9.68 1.44 Malaysia 7.67 1.77 0.21 5.68 . . Philippines 8.84 3.85 0.33 4.66 3.16 Thailand 6.21 3.50 0.17 2.54 2.32 Africa- Algeria 13.57 2.90 2.68 7.99 . . Ivory Coast 4.54 1.34 0.34 2.86 . . Morocco 6.08 1.14 0.01 4.94 . . Nigeria 9.03 4.90 0.26 3.87 . . Eastern Europe- Hungary 6.74 0.96 0.53 5.25 . . Turkey 15.04 9.79 0.93 4.32 0.39 Yugoslavia 5.63 4.12 0.01 1.50 10.45 Source: World Bank, World Debt Tables, 1983-84. Table 4 SELECTED COUNTRIES' NON-BANK TRADE-RELATED DEBTS (as reported to OECD, at end of June 1983-in $US billions)Latin America- Argentina 2.26 Brazil 7.32 Chile 0.48 Colombia 0.72 Ecuador 0.40 Mexico 3.66 Peru 0.67 Venezuela 1.46 Asia- China 3.68 Indonesia 3.77 South Korea 5.01 Malaysia 0.70 Philippines 1. 58 Thailand 1.19 Africa- Algeria 8.15 Ivory Coast 0.57 Morocco 1.11 Nigeria 3.37 Eastern Europe- Czechoslovakia 0.76 Germany, Dem R 1.58 Hungary 0.25 Poland 2.16 Romania 0.49 Turkey 2.65 USSR 11.83 Yugoslavia 1.74 Source: OECD/BIS, Statistics on External Indebtedness, April 1984.