Tuesday, 2 October 1984 The Senate met at 2 p.m. The Clerk-I inform the Senate that the President is absent overseas on parliamentary business. In accordance with standing order 29 the Deputy President will take the chair. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hamer) thereupon took the chair, and read prayers . Motion (by Senator Grimes)-by leave-agreed to: That, during the absence of the President, the Deputy President shall, on each sitting day, take the chair of the Senate and may, during such absence, perform the duties and exercise the authority of the President in relation to all proceedings of the Senate and to proceedings of standing and joint statutory committees to which the President is appointed. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: National Flag 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 vision 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 159 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth government- 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognise that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection , storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving ' property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programs, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 14 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth their objection to any proposed legislation removing the power of existing Commonwealth law to prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography, e .g. x-rated videos, and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs. They furthermore petition that, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 25 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That governments have a responsibility to maintain standards acceptable to society's wishes. 2. It cannot be guaranteed that X rated video material will not be viewed by children. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should: Not adopt the X Classification for Films and Video Tapes, nor Category 2 for Printed Material. Further, that tighter restrictions be applied to R rated Films and Video Tapes and Category 1 Printed Material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 14 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your Petitioners are concerned about foreign owned military bases on Australian territory and the entry into Australian waters and territory of foreign warships and aircraft carrying nuclear weaponry. And that the Australian Government should take an active and constructive role in the promotion of a nuclear-free world. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: 1. Promote the expression of Australian sovereignty by legislating to bring foreign military bases on Australian territory under the control of the Australian Government. 2. Make it compulsory that the disclosure of weaponry carried by foreign warships and aircraft be given in confidence to the Australian Government prior to a request for entry. And that foreign warships and aircraft that carry nuclear weaponry be banned from Australian waters and territory. 3. Legislate for the cessation of all uranium mining in Australia and its subsequent export. 4. Urge the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to pose to the governments of the United States and the Soviet Union that both countries agree to immediately halt the testing, production and further deployment of all nuclear weapons, missiles and delivery systems in a way that can be checked and verified by both sides. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 131 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they so wish to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Collard (from 164 citizens) and Messner (from 1,627 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: That the present Flag symbolises Australia's continuity of the past, the present and the future; we therefore request no change be made to endanger the heritage it represents. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Durack (from 115 citizens) and Gareth Evans (from 19 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth 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 Senators Chaney (from 63 citizens) and Withers (from 29 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 State aid to private schools and the proposed community standard for education funding. 2. They call on the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth to declare a three year moratorium (1985-1987) on increases in State aid to private schools and on grants for new private schools and for increased private school enrolments. 3. They call on the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm their primary obligation to government schools and to implement all 1983 ALP election promises for increased funding to government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Robertson (from 58 citizens) and Ryan (from 41 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That Regulations and an Ordinance now before the Parliament amend the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations and supersede the A.C.T. Objectionable Publications Ordinance in such a manner as to be harmful to society by removing from existing Commonwealth Law the power to prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography, e.g. (X rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; the power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications including those associated with blasphemy; the power to require videos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board before release from Customs. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should 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 Senators Gareth Evans (from 260 citizens) and Peter Rae (from 18 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament House assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the Australian Labor Party: 'upholds the principles of disengagement and disarmament' (ALP Platform 1982, E ); and will: 'oppose the development, proliferation, possession and use of nuclear . . . and other techniques of mass destruction' (ALP Platform 1982, E. 34); 'attach high priority to preventing the further proliferation of nuclear weapons, and to this end will not allow commercial considerations to govern Australia's anti-proliferation strategy' (ALP Platform 1982, E. 35c); and 'oppose the storage of nuclear weapons on Australian territory and the staging of operations involving nuclear weapons from Australian territory' (ALP Platform 1982, F. 48). Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that all Federal representatives of the Labor Government, and Federal representatives of all other political parties including independents, vote for Senator Chipp's Nuclear Weapons Prohibition Bill 1984, the passage of which would effectively make Australia a nuclear weapons free zone and would leave no doubt as to the present Government's stated commitment to disarmament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from 63 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament House assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we support Senator Chipp's 'Australian Waters (Nuclear Powered Ships and Nuclear Weapons Prohibitions) Bill 1984', a Bill for an Act to prohibit the passage of nuclear-powered ships, and of vessels carrying nuclear weapons, through Australian waters or in the airspace over them, effectively declaring Australia a nuclear weapons free zone. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that all Senators, regardless of political affiliations, support this Bill-not just for our sake but for our children. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from 96 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned, having great concern because of the spread of moral pollution in our nation call upon the Government to introduce immediate legislation: 1. To provide strict controls over importation, production, sale, hire or mailing of video-cassettes with the open sale of only G, PG, and M rated video- cassettes; and the total prohibition of the sale of R rated video-cassettes so that R rated films can only be viewed in an adult theatre by persons over 18 years. We totally reject the concept of 'X' rated video-cassettes which would allow the legal sale of hard-core pornographic films for screening in the homes of our nation, which endanger our children. 2. To dramatically improve the Federal Attorney-General's Guidelines for Classification of Video tapes/discs which restrict the importation, production, sale or hire, screening in private homes and mailing by Australia Post so as to include the total prohibition of any pornographic, obscene or blasphemous video cassette, or film containing child pornography, bestiality, sodomy, group sex, violent sex act with women, such as rape and pack rape, sadism and torture, etc. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will protect our society, especially women and children from moral pollution and its harmful effects. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Sir John Carrick (from 39 citizens) and Gareth Evans (from 21 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we are greatly concerned with the extent to which serious crime including murder, major drug financing and massive tax frauds have penetrated into the highest levels of Australian society as shown by the investigations of various Royal Commissioners and in particular by Mr Frank Costigan Q.C. That we are concerned that the National Crime Authority has too many restrictions and possible lines of veto placed upon it for it to be an effective successor to the Costigan Enquiry and that this will allow major criminals to avoid prosecution. And your petitioners humbly pray that the Federal Government negotiate urgently with the Victorian Government on the reactivation of the Costigan Commission and to extend its term to at least the 31st March, 1985 and also to provide the Costigan Commission with whatever resources it may need to successfully conclude its investigations into organised crime in Australia. Further we believe that the issue of organised crime in Australia is so important that the Parliament should not be dissolved until at least the interim Costigan Report has been received and fully debated in both Houses of the Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Sir John Carrick (from eight citizens), Messner (from 18 citizens), Missen (from 32 citizens) and Peter Rae (from 10 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: We hail as a victory for the not-so-silent majority, the decision of the Hawke Federal Government to now conduct an inquiry into the effects of hard core pornography and violence upon people and especially children. We view with deep concern, and deplore, the decision of the Government to allow the sale of this objectionable material to continue to become even more widespread during the period of the inquiry. We request the Federal Government to immediately enact laws to ban the entry into Australia and the sale of hard-core pornography and violence in video and publication form. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Martin (from 30 citizens). To the Honourable the President and senators assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: The Australian Aerospace Manufacturing Industry has not been developed to its full growth potential through lack of Government committment and planning. Local industry has not been allowed to fully participate in designing, developing and manufacturing Australia's Aerospace requirements. Whilst the Hawke Labor Government's recent announcement by Senator Button to address the industry's problems are a welcome change. These opportunities will only be fully realised if there is proper consultation with unions before decisions on equipment purchases are made. It is essential that the Government take account of points raised in the A.C.T. U. endorsed C.U.S.C. Future of the Aircraft Industry including the following points. Development of the Australian Aerospace Manufacturing Industry requires participation as a full partner through co-production with overseas manufacturers. To fully realise significant export potential requires the Australian Government to fund through the A.I.D.C. design and development costs. To avoid previous mistakes in equipment purchases which failed to take account of workload requirements for the local industry e.g. F 111 and FA/18. Your petitioners therefore, humbly pray that the Government, prior to a decision being made to purchase helicopters for the R.A.N., that there be full consultation with the Unions on which helicopter is to be purchased, to establish which helicopter purchase would be in the best interest of the industries development as well as the nation's defence needs. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Button (from 1,879 citizens). Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia) —by leave-I present the following petition which is not in accordance with the Standing Orders from five petitioners outlining the detrimental impact of sales tax on ductwork manufacturers and contractors: To the Honourable the President and the Senators in Parliament Assembled. The humble petition of ductwork manufacturers and contractors in Australia respectfully showeth that: The imposition in the August 1983 Federal Budget of 20 per cent sales tax on ductwork and associated parts, fittings and accessories is creating increasing inefficiencies in the air conditioning industry and, the sales tax legislation has been shown to be incapable of efficient application to the industry and, in an effort to comply with the legislation members have found it necessary to create a complete set of separate records, their only use being for sales tax purposes and, the tax is a restraining influence on the expansion of capital and labour investment at a time when the industry is struggling to lift itself out of the doldrum of recession in the commercial building industry and, the tax could cause a reduction in standard of construction which may in future years cause health problems in buildings and, the tax will cause a reduction in the number of metal workers employed in the industry. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to read a petition arising from the proceedings of the Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge. Leave granted. Senator GEORGES-It reads: The Hon. the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned Peter Anthony Hohnen a member of the firm of MacPhillamy, Cummins and Gibson, solicitors of Canberra and solicitors for the Hon. Mr Justice L. K. Murphy respectfully shows: 1. Your petitioner prays that the Senate, in parliament assembled, should permit the Hon. T. E. F. Hughes, QC, to address the Senate from the Bar of the Senate on the following questions which have arisen in relation to the conduct of the Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge-'the Select Committee' : (a) that counsel appearing for witnesses be not permitted to cross examine other witnesses; (b) that counsel appearing for witnesses be not permitted to cross examine Mr Justice Murphy should he choose to give evidence; (c) that counsel appearing for witnesses should not have made available to them by the Select Committee: (i) the statement made by Mr Justice Murphy to the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge-'the former Select Committee'-on 2 July 1984 or (ii) the oral submissions made to the former Select Committee by the Hon. T. E. F. Hughes QC on 14 August 1984 (d) that no amendment should be made to paragraph 2 (b) of the resolution of the Senate of 8 September 1984 concerning the matters referred by the Senate to the Select Committee. 2. Alternatively, your petitioner prays that the Senate, in parliament assembled, should determine in relation to the conduct of the Select Committee the following matters: (a) that counsel appearing for witnesses be not permitted to cross examine other witnesses; (b) that counsel appearing for witnesses be not permitted to cross examine Mr Justice Murphy should he choose to give evidence; (c) that counsel appearing for witnesses should not have made available to them by the Select Committee: (i) the statement made by Mr Justice Murphy to the former Select Committee on 2 July 1984 or (ii) the oral submissions made to the former Select Committee by the Hon. T. E. F. Hughes QC on 14 August 1984. (d) that no amendment should be made to paragraph 2 (b) of the resolution of the Senate of 8 September 1984 concerning the matters referred by the Senate to the Select Committee. The petition is dated 2 October and signed by Mr P. A. Hohnen. I seek leave to make a short statement in connection with that petition. Leave granted. Senator GEORGES-This petition is one which refers to matters of the utmost importance to the Senate, and I ask that the text of the petition receive consideration by the Senate in the debate which is to take place later this day and, if necessary and on further consideration, I may move in that direction. Petitions received. Notice of Motion Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act for the prevention and settlement of disputes concerning the operations of contract carriers and bailee drivers. Senator MISSEN(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That, in accordance with section 54 of the National Crime Authority Act 1984, matters relating to the powers and proceedings of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority shall be as follows- (a) the Committee consist of 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate,2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators; (b) the Committee elect a Government member as its chairman. The balance of the notice of motion, which is lengthy, is in the same form as that given in the House of Representatives by the Special Minister of State, Mr Young, on 11 September 1984. I seek leave to incorporate the rest of the notice of motion in Hansard. Leave granted. The remainder of the notice of motion read as follows- (c) the Committee elect a Deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the Committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee, and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting; (d) 5 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the Committee; (e) the Committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to such a sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to inquire into; (f) the Committee appoint a chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee, the members of the sub-committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of the chairman at the meeting; (g) the quorum of a sub-committee be a majority of the members of that sub- committee; (h) the members of the Committee who are not members of a sub-committee may participate in the proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum; (i) the Committee, or any sub-committee, have power to send for persons, papers and records; (j) the Committee, or any sub-committee, have power to move from place to place ; (k) a sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate or of the House of Representatives; (l) a sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it; (m) the Committee have leave to report from time to time; (n) in carrying out its duties the committee, or any sub-committee, ensure that the operational methods and results of investigations of law enforcement agencies, as far as possible, be protected from disclosure where that would be against the public interest; (o) the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. (2) A message be sent to the House of Representatives acquainting it of this Resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the final report of the Costigan Royal Commission into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and to public interest in the contents of that report. Given the obvious desirability of getting Mr Costigan's report on the public record as soon as possible, I ask: Does the Leader of the Government agree that Parliament should be kept in session to receive the Costigan report? Does he expect Federal Parliament to be sitting after Mr Costigan's reporting date of the 31st of this month, or is there a likelihood that the House of Representatives will have been dissolved for the Prime Minister's early election? In that event, will the Government agree to the tabling of this report in the Senate? Senator BUTTON —I have really been asked three questions. One is whether I believe the report of the Costigan Commission will be available before Parliament rises for this year for whatever reason. I believe on the basis of public statements made by Mr Costigan that his report will be available later this year. I was asked also whether I believe it should be tabled in the Parliament. A number of issues are involved in that question. They have been canvassed already in public debate. I think the Government would be concerned to try to provide a situation in which the maximum amount of material emanating from Mr Costigan's report was tabled consistent with the need to protect certain liberties of particular individuals, if that question arises. I am not able to speculate on an early election. That is a matter for the Prime Minister, who will make an announcement in due course. Senator CHANEY —Mr Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. The Leader of the Government did not really address himself to the question I asked about keeping Parliament in session to receive the Costigan report and whether, if the House of Representatives had risen, the Government would agree to table the report in the Senate. I ask him to address those two points if he can. Senator BUTTON —I am not in a position to make a conclusive statement on that issue. The matter will be addressed and I will seek to provide the Leader of the Opposition with an answer as soon as possible. Senator COLSTON —I direct a question to the Minister for Social Security. My question refers to the assets test and those pensioners who consider that the value of the contents of their home is greater than $10,000. Will these pensioners be required to itemise their assets and the individual values of those assets, or will they be required to record only what they consider to be the total value of their household contents? Senator GRIMES —I thank Senator Colston for his question. I am sure it arises out of statements in the media in both New South Wales and Queensland over the weekend in which representatives of an organisation called Grey Power said that in fact people would have to itemise the assets they hold in their home, that these would go into a computer and that in some way this would put these people at risk. The answer is that this is not so. In fact, people will have to record just the net value of their assets. A space is provided on the form which will go out for an answer to the question: 'What is the total net market value of your and your spouse's normal household contents and personal effects?'. There will be no necessity to list those effects, nor will any such listing go on to any computer record anywhere in the Department of Social Security. I realise that in this country people who oppose things like the assets test feel obliged to go to all sorts of extremes to oppose such legislation, but when they do so to the extent of frightening elderly people in this way I think, quite frankly, that they are beneath contempt. I recommend them and members of the Opposition to an article in the Australian Pensioner of 11 September 1984 which said this: Opposition politicians, certain sectors of the media and certain so-called pensioners' representatives have resorted to just about everything in their campaign against the assets test-even to the point of suggesting that a . . . social security Gestapo will be created to body-search pensioners and ransack their homes to make sure they are not hiding any valuable assets. The Australian social security system has never operated in this way and there is no reason to believe that it will start to do this now. So how do those opposed to the proposed test justify their hysterical outpourings? They do it, they say, in the name of pensioners' rights. Well, pensioners do have rights, and the first of those is the right to be told the truth; the right to be informed, not misinformed. If those opposed to the assets test have a legitimate case to put, then let them put it honestly and openly. Don't play on the ignorance, fear and insecurity of this most vulnerable group. No Opposition which sets out to win a point by creating such anxiety in a community can ever be regarded as worthy of governing that community. No individual or organisation which uses misinformation as a means of building support to suit their own ends can ever honestly be regarded as representing pensioners. If anything, they are misrepresenting them. I believe that that sums up the situation adequately. It sums up the contempt with which we should treat such items as appeared on the weekend. I repeat: People will be asked to itemise the total net value of their assets, not each individual item; no one will be asked to give a list of such individual items which could be put on any computer or any file in the Department of Social Security. Senator DURACK —I address my question to the Attorney-General and refer him to the statement by the Prime Minister at his news conference on 21 September in which the Prime Minister said: All of the Costigan references . . . have been handed over to that properly equipped authority. He was referring to the National Crime Authority. Does the Attorney agree that this statement gives a quite misleading impression about the situation as it stands at the moment, that the Authority is off and running investigating all the Costigan material? Is not the true situation that material from Mr Costigan is still being sifted through by a committee for the National Crime Authority and that no full scale investigations are yet underway, nor will they be until a committee of State and Federal Ministers meets for the first time to consider formal references to the Authority? I refer the Attorney to a statement he made in the Senate on 4 September that the Authority would approach the committee in late September and to Mr Justice Stewart's statement last week that the Authority would approach the committee 'next month'. I ask: When will the first meeting of that committee finally be held to enable a start on full scale investigations of Mr Costigan's unfinished business? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is the case that all of the 42 case summaries prepared by Mr Costigan have been handed over to me in the first instance and then, through me, to the National Crime Authority. It is not quite accurate to refer to them as references, particularly since only 20 of them are summaries, which actually propose that a formal reference be given to the Authority involving the exercise of coercive powers, and to that extent the Prime Minister's use of the expression 'references', which has been common, I might add, in most public discussion of this, is not strictly accurate; but I do not think Senator Durack or anyone else would have been misled by the content of his remarks in that respect. The reality of the matter is that all the material that was handed over by Mr Costigan to the National Crime Authority is being assiduously looked at and investigated with a view to the formulation of references in relation to that part of it which justifies a formal reference. It will be appreciated, even by Senator Durack, I hope, that the way in which the Authority is structured means that it is not impotent when it has no references. It has a whole level of statutory function which extends to the investigation, using non-coercive powers, of material that is provided to it or that it is able to obtain otherwise than through the use of coercive powers. Of course, in that sense it is presently actively liaising with the Australian Federal Police and a number of other authorities around the country and pursuing particular investigations or lines of inquiry which do not relate to or bear upon any of the material coming from Costigan. I understand that when the meeting of the intergovernmental committee is held later this month, as is now proposed, there will be proposals for a number of references, some from the existing Costigan material and some from elsewhere, that will be put to that committee. I am not in a position on the information available to me to be any more precise than that at the moment. But certainly there is every reason to believe, as the Authority members said in their Press conference, that they are working actively, efficiently, effectively and vigorously at the moment to get on with the task statutorily vested in them. I should say that one of the difficulties that is being experienced by the Authority at the moment is the absence of the full complement of personnel from the Costigan Commission being presently available to the three full time members of the Authority to work on the projects that the Authority would wish to be now embarked upon. At the moment there is still only a skeleton staff working for the Authority as distinct from Mr Costigan, apart from Mr Cummins and his team of lawyers who are working on particular matters and who were appointed for this purpose. The reason why there is only a skeleton staff is that Mr Costigan has now embarked upon a very much larger report writing exercise than was initially contemplated by him, or certainly indicated to the Government when the transition arrangements were being identified. I think it needs to be appreciated that the larger Mr Costigan's report grows, the longer he will take to write it, and accordingly he has sought and been granted an extension of another four weeks, to 31 October. That means in turn that fewer personnel will be available to do what is identifiably the work of the Authority rather than that of Mr Costigan. But the work is proceeding. The three Authority members fully explained how it was proceeding at their Press conference last week. All the innuendos that lie behind Senator Durack's question in this respect, I believe, are utterly without foundation. Senator HEARN —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Do the recent retail sales figures for the month of July, released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, confirm that retail sales are picking up in line with the general economic recovery? Could the Minister comment on the implications of the July retail sales figures? Senator BUTTON —Surprisingly enough, the answer to Senator Hearn's question is yes. But because members of the Opposition would no doubt like to be better informed than that, I propose to accede to the second part of her question and elaborate on the figures released by the Bureau. Let me say first of all that the Bureau's figures are based on several adjustments that it has made to improve the accuracy of the retail sales indices. The 3 per cent seasonally adjusted increase in July over August is further confirmation that the economic recovery has been maintained. It represents an 8 per cent improvement on the July figure for 1983. If one looks at the figures for the quarter as distinct from these for the month of July, they are also encouraging. The figures for the three months ended July recorded an increase in sales of 1.3 per cent over the previous three-month period, compared with an increase of only 0.1 per cent using the same comparison to June. The retail sales indices offer as a general rule an early warning system for subsequent increases in manufacturing activity. It is not surprising that the recent Confederation of Australian Industry-Westpac Banking Corporation survey of business expectations indicated that businesses are now more confident than ever about economic conditions in the future. As I recall the figures, the CAI- Westpac survey showed a 33 per cent return, indicating optimism and confidence about the economy, compared with-- Senator MacGibbon —That is three out of 10, Senator. Senator BUTTON —Yes, I understand. Thirty-three per cent is also five higher than 28, which was much higher than it was for any period in the last two years of the previous Government. The 33 per cent figure for the September quarter showed confidence in the general improvement in the business situation. More importantly, the CAI-Westpac survey showed a great improvement in business expectations of increases in capital expenditure over the next 12 months. These are the most optimistic findings of this survey in the past three years. Should these plans in fact eventuate, the increased investment is likely to strengthen further the base for a sustained and long term economic recovery. I should also say, because it might provide a preliminary answer to a question I will no doubt be asked about the Australian Bureau of Statistics production figures for the month of July, which were disappointing, the figures for the preceding months were very satisfactory. The Government hopes and believes that when one examines the retail sales expectations those figures for that month will be aberrant and indicate no downward trend when there has been a consistent upward trend. I make the point that nobody in the Government has pretended that there has not been patchiness in the overall economic recovery, but as we climb, as it were, the stairway to light after the dark ages of the Fraser Government, there will always be difficult steps along the path, and we have acknowledged that. It is important that we continue to make progress. The indicators suggest that we are. Senator MESSNER —Has the Attorney-General read the strong criticism of the powers and effectiveness of the National Crime Authority from two distinguished former judges and royal commissioners published in yesterday's Melbourne Herald? In particular I ask whether he noted Mr Justice Moffitt's view: The way it has been set up I don't think it will work. Did the Attorney note Mr Justice Moffitt's concern about the Government's power of veto? I ask whether the Attorney has further noted Mr Justice Woodward's comments: However, I believe the new Authority will have no effect because it lacks teeth . Is the Attorney also aware of the views of Mr Tom Rippon, Federal Secretary of the Police Federation of Australia and New Zealand, who has described the Authority as nothing more than a paper tiger? Will the Attorney-General now concede that the Authority is clearly underpowered and ill-equipped to handle the job, given that the great majority of people with first hand experience in the fight against organised crime have clearly supported that view? Finally, will the Government immediately introduce amending legislation in order to make the Authority the powerful and effective body that all Australians want it to be ? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have noted the views of former justices Moffitt and Woodward. I heard them before in fact here in this chamber at the seminar held in the middle of last year at which people from all parties and all areas of professional expertise were present and in the course of which views of that kind for and against the kind of authority which has now emerged were very widely canvassed and thoroughly reported. Senator Missen —You heard it? Senator GARETH EVANS —The decisions were made by the Government and by the Senate in the light of those arguments put backwards and forwards and were dealt with with great thoroughness by the Senate Committee of which Senator Missen, who is interjecting, was a member. The legislation which has emerged is, we believe, perfectly satisfactory to do the task, notwithstanding the sniping that continues to be directed at it by various people, some of whom should know better. Let me advise the Senate of a number of considerations which lead me to insist upon that proposition. For a start, the Crime Authority will have almost double the resources of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. In its last full year of operation, the financial year 1983-84, the budget for the Costigan Commission was $5.9m. It had a staff of just over 100 people. The budget for the NCA for 1984-85 is $8.6m -this is only for nine months-with its budget for the full year likely to exceed $10m. It will employ approximately 200 people. Another important factor to consider, before we get on to the formal legal powers available to the body, is that the NCA is made up of three members, including the Chairman, each of whom is able to exercise the full powers of the Authority. It is a situation, as Mr Justice Stewart said last week, of 'Costigan times three'. Thirdly, it needs to be appreciated that the role and responsibility of the NCA are specifically to assemble admissible evidence, not just to produce reports for governments, but evidence which will successfully found prosecutions. The way in which its powers are structured, particularly as to the gathering of evidence which can be used in subsequent prosecutions, is very squarely directed to that objective. The important thing to appreciate, which does not seem to have been appreciated in the public debate so far, is that the National Crime Authority has a number of additional powers which are not available to a royal commission and which make it peculiarly well equipped to perform the particular task it was established to do. Some people whose sole experience of these things is in terms of traditional royal commissions may not have fully appreciated the extent to which this is so. Let me indicate what these additional powers are. First of all the Authority has general access to information that Commonwealth agencies may be obliged by statutory secrecy provisions to keep secret from a royal commission. Secondly, the Authority is able to apply to a Federal court to obtain and retain a person's passport to stop his leaving the country where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that he may be about to flee. A royal commissioner has no equivalent power. Thirdly, the Authority can apply to the Federal Court of Australia to issue a warrant for the arrest of a witness where there are reasonable grounds to believe he is likely to leave Australia to avoid giving evidence to the Authority. Again, a royal commission has no equivalent power. Its power to issue warrants for the arrest of witnesses is limited to the apprehension of witnesses who fail to comply with a summons to attend the commission. That will not stop the horse from bolting. That was a point that was made with some vigour by the Senate Committee and it was a point that was taken up and accepted in the final legislation. Further, and crucially important, evidence given before the NCA may be used in prosecutions except in criminal proceedings against a person who has been protected by indemnity. Evidence given, by comparison, to a royal commission cannot be used in evidence against that witness in any criminal or civil proceeding other than a perjury proceeding. The reality is that the protection against self incrimination, which traditionally applies in a royal commission, is one that does not stop the evidence being extracted from the witness but certainly stops its being used in subsequent proceedings. That makes royal commission evidence very often worthless from the point of view of an effective attack on organised crime, as distinct from simply showing where organised criminal activity is going on. The NCA is the body with teeth in this respect. Royal commissions lack them. The National Crime Authority Act further expressly gives the Authority power to enable arrangements to be made for the protection of witnesses. Royal commissions, by contrast, have no such power. The NCA is not constrained by narrow terms of reference, as I said in answer to an earlier question, and has a wide-ranging investigative power, and to the extent that it wants to exercise coercive powers there are a whole series of routes by which it may obtain such powers. The concept of a State veto, which has been so widely canvassed, is of course not now, if it ever was, part of the legislation, certainly not so far as Commonwealth matters are concerned. I think what also needs to be said, when one is talking about the effectiveness of the Crime Authority and the teeth and the armoury with which it can operate, is this: All States are involved in the Crime Authority, not just Victoria, as is the case with the Costigan Commission. Every State has notified its intention to participate in the workings of the Authority through the intergovernmental committee. I cannot overemphasise the importance of this aspect of it. The Costigan Commission by comparison has no mandate, no legal authority to investigate offences against any State law other than Victoria. Again, that is the point that has been massively neglected in all the discussions that have gone on about the comparative virtues of the Costigan Commission as compared with the National Crime Authority. Senator Button —There will be dreadful repercussions when they get going in Western Australia. Senator GARETH EVANS —Indeed. There is a formal mechanism in the crime authority legislation for achieving the co-operation of law enforcement agencies. There are more than 30,000 police in Australia and it would be quite irresponsible to ignore that enormous resource in the fight against organised crime. The National Crime Authority Act expressly provides for that in a way that is not the case under the powers or functions vested in any royal commission under the Royal Commission Act. The National Crime Authority Act expressly provides for the Authority to work with the law enforcement agencies, including the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence, in relation to the collection and dissemination of criminal information. The Authority can itself arrange for the establishment of joint task forces and can itself co-ordinate investigations by those task forces so that the national effort against organised crime is maximised. Neither the Costigan Commission nor any other royal commission can exercise any of those statutory functions. So when one puts together the structure of the Authority, its mode of operation and its broader charter by virtue of the role of the States in this particular model as compared with any given royal commission, and when one looks at the actual powers that are vested in it, one sees that all those considerations combine together to identify for the nonsense that it is the claim that is being peddled for crude and opportunistic political reasons by the Opposition on this occasion that the NCA has no teeth. Senator MESSNER —I wish to ask a supplementary question. The Attorney-General has spent all his answer talking about the comparisons of the powers of the royal commission with those of the NCA. My question addressed itself to the weaknesses of the NCA itself. In particular, the Attorney-General skated over very simply the question of the States' power of veto. Does that not represent a very profound weakness in the powers of the currently established NCA? Senator GARETH EVANS —The most profound weakness I can identify in this chamber at the moment is inside the skull of Senator Messner. In talking about the need, under the legislation, for a State actually to participate in the vesting of a reference to the Authority before that Authority can investigate, using coercive powers, a crime against that particular State, what he and many other people fail to appreciate, in pointing out that fact about the legislation, is that no Commonwealth body has the constitutional power or the capacity to investigate, using coercive powers, offences against the law of a particular State without the co-operation of that State. Anyone who claims to the contrary demonstrates a profound, total and comprehensive lack of understanding about the constitutional ground rules that prevail in this country. The Commonwealth can, of course, investigate offences occurring within a State if they involve breaches of Commonwealth law. A Commonwealth authority can, of course, investigate, using coercive powers, offences against the law of the State if the State in question has vested that capacity in the Commonwealth agency. But to talk about the State veto idea as if it was something which existed as a deliberate policy decision by the Government and the governments of the various States to enable the NCA to be prohibited from embarking upon some enterprise that it was otherwise minded to engage in is not only folly; it is a crude piece of misrepresentation of what the honourable senator, if he has any brains at all, must know to be the truth. Senator Chaney —May I ask the Attorney-General to table the paper from which he has quoted. Senator GARETH EVANS —Certainly. Senator McINTOSH —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is he aware of consideration being given by the Association of South East Asian Nations to an eventual ban on the transit of United States, Soviet and other nuclear armed ships, submarines and aircraft through the region as a step towards declaring South East Asia a zone of peace, freedom and neutrality? If so, will the Government lend its support to this proposal, in accord with its endorsement of a nuclear free zone in the South Pacific? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not sure whether the material I have before me fully addresses the particular matters that the honourable senator refers to and which I believe he raised in a question at the end of the last sitting period. However , I am able to tell him this, subject to supplementation: In a speech on 10 September 1984 to the recent meeting of the ASEAN Standing Committee, the Malaysian Foreign Minister, Tengku Rithauddeen, indicated that the ASEAN Foreign Ministers meeting in Jakarta had agreed to initiate measures for the implementation of the zone of peace, freedom and neutrality concept for South East Asia, beginning with the declaration of a nuclear weapons-free zone in that area. The Minister said that concept of a nuclear weapons-free zone was inherent in the ZOPFAN concept and would constitute one of the prerequisites for it. The sentiments expressed in the statement by the Minister are in accord with Australia's policy of advancing the concept of a nuclear-free zone for the South Pacific region. They also reflect the Australian Labor Party platform, which is to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear-free zones in the Indian and Pacific oceans. The Australian Science and Technology Council inquiry into Australia's role in the nuclear fuel cycle also recommended that Australia support the establishment of nuclear weapons-free zones in the Asian region. Australia believes that appropriately constituted nuclear-free zones can contribute significantly to regional peace and security and through this to global security. It is, of course, essential to the success of any such arrangement that it have the full support of the States in the region concerned and that it take account of the situation in the region. The ultimate form to be taken by the ASEAN proposal will of course depend on the countries of the region . The Malaysian Foreign Minister has made clear that preparations for the establishment of the zone are expected to take some time. As indicated above, Australia certainly hopes the ASEAN countries will succeed in this endeavour. Senator MACKLIN —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Given that the Australian sugar industry is one of Australia's major rural industries and a major employer, and that the industry is deeply depressed with raw sugar prices at their lowest level for 12 years, does the Government plan to introduce any incentives to assist ailing sugar producers? If so, when will such incentives be introduced and can the sugar industry in Queensland and New South Wales in particular expect any additional support from the Federal Government before the impending Federal election? Senator WALSH —The Government has already done a good deal for the sugar industry in the light of the present recession. I cannot remember the amounts but additional funds were made available to sugar mills in last year's Budget. I do not recall off the top of my head whether any further funds were made available in this year's Budget for special loans. I am not aware of any additional measures being proposed but I will contact the Minister for Primary Industry to see whether any information can be added to my answer. Senator ROBERTSON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's remarks in a recent speech to the Business Council of Australia in which he outlined proposals to get rid of what he called ' an unnecessary business regulation' in Australia. Does the Government propose to implement these proposals and, if so, what are the implications of such a move? Senator BUTTON —Of course it is not clear at present what the implications of such a move would be. There are all sorts of estimates and opinions about these matters and the results would be difficult to quantify. That could only be done over time. The undertaking given by the Prime Minister was to establish a body in which the private sector of industry would be involved, through the Business Council of Australia, in which the Australian Council of Trade Unions would be involved, and no doubt in which other representative bodies could be involved to look at the removal of unnecessary business regulation. The Government believes that much of the regulation which currently takes time and hampers the effectiveness of industry could be removed and that would contribute greatly to industry efficiency. Of course the most important thing in improving the environment for industry is the provision of a satisfactory macro-economic climate. The Government, in its 18 months in office, has devoted prime attention to this question, with quite significant and indeed spectacular results, of which I think the business community is well aware. I refer to results in terms of the inflation rate, in terms of interest rates and in terms of the level of industrial disputation in Australia. A number of improvements of that kind have created a better environment for business activity. Another aspect of improving that environment is the removal of unnecessary regulation. It will be a slow process in the context of the Australian federal system because both Commonwealth and State governments contribute to the overregulated environment in which industry currently has to operate. There is no doubt that a critical examination conducted by government, in conjunction with business representatives, will turn up a number of areas of over-regulation about which that group can tackle and make recommendations to the Government. We look forward to this exercise. We regard it as of great importance in improving the general industry environment in Australia. Senator WALTERS —I refer the Attorney-General to a report in the Age newspaper of last Wednesday headed 'Companies crime cartel' which reveals that a special police squad's investigation has uncovered a network of about 40 companies allegedly involved in drug importation and distribution, large scale fraud and disposal of stolen property. I ask: Is it true that the group of companies has been or is under investigation by Commonwealth instrumentalities including the Australian Federal Police, Customs, the Department of Taxation and the Trade Practices Commission? Is it a fact that, as claimed in the Age report, distrust or jealousies between agencies have hampered the investigation? What action is the Minister, as Attorney-General, taking to resolve the reported conflicts and jealousies and to expedite the investigation? Finally, is it true that this report by the New South Wales Bureau of Criminal Intelligence corroborates material in the Age tapes and transcripts about which the Attorney has been so dismissive for the past eight months? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not know whether it corroborates it or not. I have seen only the newspaper report. I do not have a detailed briefing, or indeed any briefing, in front of me from the Special Minister of State as to the accuracy or otherwise of that account of that investigation. I will see what information it may be possible to provide to the honourable senator. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. In view of widespread misunderstanding evident in some States about the implications of the Federal Government's actions in relation to the control of the sale of video material, will the Minister outline the present position and the progress made in negotiations with the States? Senator GARETH EVANS —As was reported in some places, the Ministers responsible for censorship met in Melbourne last Friday to consider where we were at in relation to the whole question, in particular, of the censorship of X-rated videos, the standards appropriate to be applied to those and to some lesser categories as well, and to see what recommendations it might be possible to agree upon to our respective governments. I can say only that no final decisions were reached but that a considerable amount of progress was made. I think that progress is best recorded by indicating to the Senate the terms of the resolution arising out of the meeting that was agreed upon. It is as follows: MINISTERS AND GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES 1. Noted the widespread concern that has been expressed about the existing 'X' category as presently administered by the Film Censorship Board, and the present unwillingness of a majority of State Governments to legislate to allow the commercial distribution of such material under any conditions; 2. Noted further widespread concerns expressed about the extent of permissible violence in existing 'M' and 'R', as well as 'X', classified films, and the case advanced for stricter guidelines being formulated in relation to violence of gratuitous or exploitative character. 3. Noted the views of the Chief Censor that the largest proportion of the 'X' material was straightforward sexual erotica not involving violence in any form and that, on the basis of overseas experience, a very large black market could be expected to develop in relation to such material were it to be banned outright. 4. Agreed that further consideration should be given to whether the concept of an acceptable category of non-violent erotica be developed, going beyond the existing 'R' category but excluding such limited depictions of violence as depicted under the present 'X' category. I interpolate that the concept of such a category which has been described in some cases as a possible E category-for erotica, not effort and efficiency as some others have suggested-has come forward from the national women's advisers body or the group of women's advisers to particular governments. It is clearly a proposition that is deserving of further consideration, particularly since there is so much misunderstanding, most of it wilfully generated by people like Senator Walters, about the actual content of the present X category. I return to the Ministerial Council resolution. It went on as follows: 5. Directed the Commonwealth in consultation with the Chief Censor and State and Territory officers, to prepare a detailed paper for subsequent Ministerial meeting:- (i) outlining the possible contents of, and arguments for, such an 'RT' category , and (ii) formulating stricter guidelines in relation to violence in the 'M' and 'R' categories. Finally, the Ministers agreed to meet again in approximately a month's time to consider the above material and to formulate recommendations for respective governments and parliaments. So progress is being made on this matter. It is a matter for regret by the Government that there continues to be so much misunderstanding about what is and what is not banned at the Customs barrier and in accordance with the existing classification administered by the Film Censorship Board. But the reality is that there is some unwillingness on the part of a number of governments to go down the track of the uniform legislation agreed to a year ago. It does become necessary, accordingly, to have another look at what sorts of areas of compromise and unanimous agreement might be possible, and that is where we are at the moment. I would hope that as this process continues we cease to have some of the neanderthal contributions to what should be a civilised debate in an area that not only has considerable implications for the protection of the community from unwanted and inappropriate material but also has a great deal of implication for the freedom of the subject and liberty of expression in this country. Senator SCOTT —Is the Minister representing the Special Minister of State aware of last weekend's Four Corners report on Australian Broadcasting Corporation television which claimed that seven New South Wales police officers are involved in the heroin trade and other serious criminal activities? Is it true that the Australian Federal Police says that the allegations by Mr Stephen Bazley can be corroborated by other sources and that they were passed on to the New South Wales Police 16 months ago? Has the Federal Police expressed concern about the length of time it has taken to complete the New South Wales force's internal investigation? Have charges been laid against a Federal policeman said to be involved? Is the Federal Police continuing investigations into other people, said to total 60 in all, who have been identified? In view of the gravity and scope of the allegations will the Attorney-General consider a reference of this matter to the National Crime Authority? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am aware, having seen the program in question, that allegations against State and Federal police were made on the Four Corners program by Stephen Bazley, who has an extensive criminal history and who was a business associate of the late Terrence John Clark, the head of the notorious Mr Asia syndicate. The thrust of Mr Bazley's allegations in regard to Federal police was to the effect that heroin stolen from an AFP safe was sold to a dealer in Sydney by an AFP officer code-named Uncle and that the same officer would, for a price, interfere with the course of justice by tampering with evidence presented in Federal trials. I am advised, through the Special Minister of State, by the Australian Federal Police that it believes it has identified an officer involved in the matter, and an investigation by the AFP's internal investigations division is proceeding. I am not in a position to comment on investigations being conducted by the New South Wales Police in relation to allegations made against that force. Whether this is indeed an appropriate matter to be the subject of further investigations by the Crime Authority is something that I will bring to that Authority's attention to see what further action it thinks might be appropriate to take in all the circumstances, given the state of the investigations that are obviously proceeding on this matter. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. It relates to the Government's policy of encouraging employee participation and industrial democracy. Can the Minister give some details of how this policy is to be implemented during 1985? Senator BUTTON —The Government is committed to encouraging industrial democracy in Australian industry and employee participation in decision-making. I should preface anything I say on this issue by making the point that one does not change attitudes in relation to these matters overnight. Any changes that might come about can be expected to be slow. Senator Martin —You did on education. You changed your mind overnight. Senator BUTTON —I was not talking about the Government; I was talking about attitudes. Insofar as education is concerned, the Government announced its policy and that is it. Senator Walters —I wish it were. Senator Martin —Did you say that at the conference? Senator Walters —You are chopping and changing. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There are too many interjections from Opposition benches. I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Senator Cook —Stop harassing him. Senator BUTTON —I do not know whether Senator Cook is alleging some form of sexual harassment by Senator Martin and Senator Walters, but if that is the allegation, I quit. I was seeking to make the point that any action in relation to the implementation of industrial democracy programs cannot be expected to bring about results overnight. The Government's intentions about this matter are quite clear. They were illustrated by the Budget decisions in relation to several initiatives which were contained in that Budget. First, an industrial democracy cost subsidisation program to provide direct financial assistance to selected organisations was funded on the basis of an allocation of $750,000. Secondly, a resource persons development program to create practical, accessible educational opportunities for those involved in developing industrial democracy programs was allocated $125,000. An allocation of $120,000 was made available to a considerably expanded industrial democracy research grants scheme to sponsor research which contributes to the solution of practical problems experienced in implementing some of these programs. Totalling over $1m, these initiatives complement the existing training, research and information carried out by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. I reiterate that the Government is committed to a course of action in relation to this matter because it happens to believe in it. It believes in it because it is of the view that, looking ahead at the enormous changes which are likely to take place in the structure of Australian industry, it is desirable that consultative and participatory mechanisms be available to facilitate an understanding of those changes. The money which has been appropriated for this purpose this year signals a first step in proceeding to introduce those programs and to try to encourage the necessary attitudinal changes so that these programs can be effective. Senator TEAGUE —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I refer to the representations made by the Attorney-General to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs on behalf of Mr Stuart John Perry following approaches to the Attorney's office by Mr Ron Chadwick of the Federated Storemen and Packers Union of Australia. Did the Attorney or anyone from his office advise either Mr Perry or Mr Chadwick of the approach to him by the Age newspaper on 18 June when a list of questions concerning Mr Perry was submitted to the Attorney? Is the Attorney aware of whether Mr Perry made any approaches to any employee of the Age newspaper concerning the story which ultimately appeared in that newspaper on the thirteenth of last month? Did the Age, as a consequence of any such visit , change its security system? Senator GARETH EVANS —The attempt to beat some life into the Perry story is one of the less attractive and certainly less productive features of the Opposition' s current campaign. I have said as much as I usefully can say about the role that I played and my staff played in that particular matter in my detailed statement to the Senate on 13 September. I regard it as grotesquely despicable that the Leader of the Opposition in particular should continue to beat the drum on this particular matter indicating that there are associations between me and organised crime, continue to get the facts of the representation wrong, continue to imply that there is some sort of personal reference written on behalf of the citizenship application and generally continue to smear the buckets of mud for which he has become, with his pretty face, his empty head and his morals of an alley cat, so downgraded in public esteem over the last few weeks. That apart, I understand Senator Teague to be introducing some new element into the equation by making some reference to an approach by Mr Perry to the Age. I have seen some reference to that in the Age story, I think, suggesting that some personal approach was made by Mr Perry. I do not know on what basis that approach was made. It certainly was not, to my knowledge, as a result of any information communicated by me or anyone on my staff to Mr Perry about the circumstances in terms of the Age's approach to me. I have had no communication with Mr Perry of any kind during the whole course of this matter, and I do not believe anyone on my staff has, other than staff member Mr Gardner whose role was fully explained in the material that I put down. Any information Mr Perry might have obtained about the Age's desire to defame him as well as me in this matter is something which the honourable senator will have to, by whatever resources are at his disposal, find out about from him. I cannot give the honourable senator any further information on that. Senator TEAGUE —I ask a supplementary question. I will just repeat the first part of the question that the Attorney did not address and which relates to a matter which was preliminary to any approach by Mr Perry to the Age. I asked: Did the Attorney or anyone from his office advise either Mr Perry or Mr Chadwick of the approach to him by the Age newspaper on 18 June when a list of questions concerning Mr Perry was submitted to the Attorney? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not know what the honourable senator has been doing for the last two minutes, but that is exactly the question that I was seeking to answer. The answer is no, I did not advise Mr Perry about any approach made to me by the Age, nor to my knowledge did anyone on my staff; nor has there been any communication at all with Mr Perry about this matter. Senator GILES —Has the Minister for Veterans' Affairs seen recent Press reports of mounting pressure on home care services for the aged, of the possibility that such services will not be able to be maintained at the same level as they currently are and, further, that some service agencies are being forced to close their books to new clients? Is the Minister aware that amongst those who claim to be affected by this pressure on services is the widow of a Gallipoli veteran? Can the Minister say whether frail aged repatriation beneficiaries need be concerned about a reduction in the level of home help services provided through his Department? Senator GIETZELT —The responsibility for the provision of home help services rests in most of the States of the Commonwealth and, in more recent times, since 1984 with the Commonwealth under the Department of Veterans' Affairs. It would appear that the popularity of the home help service scheme has exceeded the budget predictions of some of the States to the extent that there is now a greater demand for the services than what had originally been planned by some of the State governments. Therefore, I am not in a position to validate any of the criticism which has been made in newspapers by some journalists about the problems associated with the provision of services in some of the States. However, as I indicated in response to a question asked about three or four weeks ago, the Department of Veterans' Affairs began a pilot scheme in February this year which was designed to keep veterans and their dependants in their homes rather than in nursing homes, hospitals or other institutions. That scheme was scheduled to conclude at the end of a six-month period. I indicated then that it was my belief that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, would grant additional funds to carry forward the scheme into 1985, because $1.9m had been provided for the scheme in the 1984-85 Budget. In other words, $1.9m has been provided for the scheme next year, leaving an interim period requiring additional funding. That funding was made available by the Government so that there would be no interruption to the scheme. In respect of the Gallipoli veteran's widow to whom Senator Giles referred, I am not sure, of course, whether she is a beneficiary of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. If she is a war widow or in any way a beneficiary under the Department's jurisdiction, she would be eligible and would have no difficulty whatsoever in qualifying under the home help services scheme. I cannot understand why the article made no reference to a Press statement I issued last Tuesday which indicated that the home help services scheme, which began as a Federal experiment, would continue on a permanent basis. There was no reference to that point in the article. I take advantage of the question that has been asked of me to indicate that there will be no interruption to the home help services scheme which is run by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. In fact, in 1985, when the Budget allocation for this scheme will begin, it will be extended from the major cities to include some of the regional centres. I hope that if any distress has been caused to Mrs Temple she will be reassured that if she is in any way associated with the Department of Veterans' Affairs there will be no interruption to the services provided by the Department. Senator MARTIN —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security in his capacity as Manager of Government Business in the Senate. It relates to the Government's intentions with respect to the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill 1984. Will he, on behalf of the Government, give an undertaking that the Senate will be given an opportunity to complete its debate and to vote on the Bill before the Parliament rises prior to the next Federal election? Senator GRIMES —The answer is yes. I hope that debate on the Bill will be resumed this week. It depends, of course, on what other activities-- Senator Martin —It is not listed. Senator GRIMES —I am sorry. I can give the honourable senator an absolute guarantee that, unless something catastrophic happens and a bomb falls on the place, the Bill will be debated. It is my intention at the moment that it will be debated this week. Senator JONES —Has the attention of the Minister for Resources and Energy been drawn to the recent announcement that there has been an increase in the world price of rutile sand? I ask the Minister what effects the increase in the world price of rutile will have on Consolidated Rutile Ltd and its parent company, Cudgen R.Z. Ltd-two Queensland based mineral sand mining companies. Will this price increase help to improve the general trading of these companies, as stated by David Moore, the Joint Managing Director, in the annual report of both companies? Senator WALSH —I am afraid that other than the self-evident observation that any increase in the price must help the companies concerned in the production of it I do not have any particular information on that subject. I will obtain whatever information is available and make it known to Senator Jones as soon as possible. Senator CHANEY —Mr question, which is addressed to the Attorney-General, follows his answers in which he has expressed great satisfaction about the tradition of fighting organised crime. Is he satisfied that his initial responses as Attorney -General to the Humphreys case, to the New South Wales early prisoner release scheme allegations and to the Age tapes were adequate in light of subsequent developments? I ask the Attorney whether he can honestly claim that he has at all times acted to protect the public rather than the Government and Australian Labor Party interests in these matters. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes, on all counts, Mr Deputy President. I will not dignify the rest of it with an answer. Senator RICHARDSON —My question is to the Attorney-General. Can the Attorney inform the Senate of what action he has taken in relation to the material concerning His Honour Judge Foord of the New South Wales District Court which was handed to him by the New South Wales Attorney-General, Mr Landa, on 25 September this year? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is a particularly appropriate question in the light of the last sally, if it might be so regarded, from the Leader of the Opposition. Honourable senators will already be aware that on Wednesday, 26 September, the New South Wales Attorney-General announced in the State Parliament that material in relation to certain conduct of His Honour Judge John Foord of the District Court of New South Wales concerning the Morgan Ryan case was provided to the New South Wales Attorney-General by the Chief Judge of the District Court, His Honour Judge Staunton. The New South Wales Attorney-General went on to make the following points: The material was handed to him on 25 September. Immediately on receipt of it he sought the advice of the New South Wales Crown Solicitor who advised that it related to matters covered by Federal law. The New South Wales Attorney, having regard to that advice, conferred with me in Canberra on the evening of 25 September, at which meeting the New South Wales Crown Solicitor and the Commonwealth Senior Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions were present. Having read that material I referred the matter to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for immediate attention and appropriate action. That action took the form of asking the Australian Federal Police to investigate the matter and report to the DPP. Having regard to the nature of the material it was clear to me that this was the appropriate course. It is appreciated that some of the material may possibly be regarded as having a bearing on the inquiry being conducted by the Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge. It is clear, however, that the charter of the Senate Committee does not extend to allegations against the conduct of Judge Foord as such. It is equally clear that the material forwarded by Judge Staunton raises a serious matter relating to the administration of Federal justice which is being considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions. In the meantime the New South Wales Attorney-General has announced that Judge Foord will not sit as a judge until further notice. I hope and expect that all the persons concerned will co-operate with the AFP investigation that is under way. Judge Staunton has already been spoken to and I have made clear my wish that the investigation should be completed as soon as possible so that the DPP can consider what action , if any, should be brought. The results of the Director's consideration will be made public to the fullest extent possible and I will report further to the Senate on the matter. Senator GARETH EVANS —On the matter of yet another investigation, on 13 September Senator Chaney asked a question about Mr Christo Moll and in particular an Age report about certain cheque butts allegedly having the name Mrs Lionel Murphy on the back of them. I am able to report to the Senate on this matter as follows: Inquiries have been completed by the Perth office of the Australian Federal Police into allegations made by Mr Christo Moll, firstly in relation to a diamond purchase by or for Mrs Lionel Murphy and, secondly, in relation to donations to the Liberal Party of Western Australia through the involvement of Senator Crichton-Browne. I told the Senate on 13 September last that I would find out what information was available on these matters from the long-standing AFP investigation of Christo Moll and advise the Senate in due course of what could be put on the public record. This I now do. The allegations were categorically denied by or on behalf of the persons concerned. The report from the AFP concludes that the assertions made in these respects by Mr Moll cannot be substantiated and it is possible that they are malicious fabrications. In accordance with normal practice relating to police investigation reports, I shall not table the report itself in the Senate. However the following points have been cleared with the AFP and I mention them for the information of honourable senators and the public. Mr Moll fled from Australia on 17 June 1979 because of taxation inquiries into his business dealings. In 1983 the journalist Marshall Wilson of the Age newspaper interviewed Mr Moll in Europe and was given a book of cheque butts by Mr Moll with some form of notation in various pens on the back of almost every butt. The notation on the back of the butt referring to a Mrs Murphy was written with a different pen from that which was used to write out the cheque and the butt record. The same applies to the two cheques supposedly related to the Liberal Party. The notations made on the back of the cheques had no apparent relevance to the purpose for which the cheques were written out. The preceding cheque book used by Mr Moll, which is held by the AFP, had no notations written on the back of any of the butts. This book of cheque butts was seized in Australia in 1979. I repeat, against the background of that much information, the conclusion of the AFP that the assertions made in these various respects by Mr Moll cannot be substantiated, and it is possible that they are malicious fabrications. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I am pleased that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has brought this report into the Senate and that for the first time the Government has taken some interest in this matter. Of course this is not the first time that allegations of this sort have been raised in this place by Senator Walsh. This is the second or third occasion on which these matters have been raised. I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that it took the reference to Mrs L. Murphy to activate some investigation. I am glad that has been done and I am glad that the fact that these documents are possibly malicious fabrications, to use the words of the Australian Federal Police, has been exposed to the Senate by the Attorney -General. I remind the Senate that these possibly malicious fabrications were introduced into this place by Senator Walsh, a Minister of the Crown. The Senate has already made clear its view of Senator Walsh and of his activities in this matter. It censured him a little over a fortnight ago. The report which has been made by the Attorney-General bears out the objections which were raised in this place over Senator Walsh's behaviour, and it is quite clear that Senator Walsh is under the clearest possible obligation to apologise for all those he has smeared in this way. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of all or several of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of all or several of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Second Readings Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(3.16) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- BOUNTY (AGRICULTURAL TRACTORS) AMENDMENT BILL 1984 This Bill and the Bounty (Tractor Cabs) Amendment Bill 1984, which I will introduce in a few moments, propose a continuation of short term assistance to the agricultural tractor industry in Australia until 31 December 1984 or until the Government's decision on the Industries Assistance Commission report on long term assistance to this industry is announced. Agricultural wheeled tractors and their derivatives having a power output of not less than 15 kilowatts at the power take-off were accorded 12 months temporary assistance from 10 June 1983 in the form of doubling the then existing bounty. The continuation of this short term bounty assistance to the industry was announced by the Government on 8 June 1984. The IAC in its interim report of 16 February 1984 on agricultural wheeled tractors and certain parts stated that the industry's position had changed since the Temporary Assistance Authority Inquiry in March 1983 when the market was characterised by depressed demand, high inventories and heavy price discounting. According to the IAC the changed position included a generally improved market outlook for tractors, a lessening of the pressures which led to heavy price discounting during 1981-82 and 1982-83, and a substantial decline in imports in 1982-83. It was the commission's view that cessation of the existing temporary assistance on 9 June 1984, when it was originally due to terminate, before the Government's decision on the long term assistance arrangements for this industry expected before the end of 1984, would not have resulted in a significant withdrawal of resources from this relatively low cost industry. The major local producer, Chamberlain John Deere Pty Ltd, suffered a substantial decline in sales during the last six months of 1983 despite an upturn in demand in that period and the availability of short term assistance up to June 1984. The extension of the temporary assistance is intended as a holding action. The government considers that cessation of the temporary assistance would result in greater losses than otherwise being incurred by the industry. It would also result in a reduction in the effective rate of assistance to about ten per cent compared with the current average for manufacturing industry of about twenty- five per cent. Moreover it is expected that the Government's decision on long term assistance arrangements for the industry will be announced within a few months and the Government considers it would be undesirable to terminate the temporary assistance before that time. Financial Impact Statement It is estimated that the bounty assistance to 31 December 1984 will cost approximately $1.4m, depending on the level of sales. I commend the Bill to the Senate. BOUNTY (TRACTOR CABS) AMENDMENT BILL 1984 This Bill is the companion of the Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Amendment Bill 1984 and proposes a continuation of short term bounty assistance to the tractor cab industry in Australia. Temporary bounty assistance for 12 months from 10 June 1983 was accorded the production in Australia of tractor cabs at the rate of 15 per cent of the factory cost of the cabs sold in Australia for fitting to imported agricultural tractors. In its interim report of 16 February 1984 on agricultural wheeled tractors and certain parts the commission found that there had been a significant decline in the share of the market supplied by Australian manufacturers of cabs, and that this was caused mainly by a shift towards the importation of tractors with cabs already fitted. The commission considered cab manufacture in Australia was facing a long term structural change and that this was not an appropriate basis for the extension of the temporary assistance. It was the commission's view that a decision to cease short term assistance for the period June to December 1984, pending decisions on assistance arrangements to apply from January 1985, would be unlikely to result in a significant withdrawal of resources from this industry. The commission, therefore, recommended that short term assistance should not be extended beyond 9 June 1984 . As almost all imported cabs enter Australia as an integral part of a tractor and are therefore free of duty, the 20 per cent duty on tractor cabs imported separately has little protective effect and consequently prior to the temporary bounty the local industry had been operating with virtually no assistance. The Government therefore believes that the question of the long term future of cab manufacture in Australia will best be addressed in its consideration of the IAC report on long term assistance. In the interim period the government considers that the current temporary assistance should be maintained. Financial Impact Statement It is estimated that the extension of the temporary bounty assistance on cabs to 31 December 1984 will cost about $85,000 depending on the level of sales. I commend the Bill to the Senate. BOUNTY (COMPUTERS) BILL 1984 This Bill proposes to introduce a bounty on the production of computer hardware, computer sub-assemblies and electronic microcircuits in Australia for 6 years until 5 July 1990. During this period the bounty will be paid at the rate of 25% of the value added to the equipment by the manufacturers in Australia. The Bill, which replaces the Automatic Data Processing Equipment Bounty Act 1977, implements the Government's decision, announced on 5 July 1984, on the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) report of 7 February 1984 on computer hardware, software and related goods. Together with the other elements of the government's decision, which includes a reduction to minimum rates of tariffs on most products covered by the IAC's report, the bounty is an important step in the formulation of the government's policy for the computer industry. The new assistance arrangements will result in access by users to these important productivity aids at close to world prices, a stable assistance framework for the local industries' continued development, and a stronger infrastructure within the domestic industries. The Government believes that the new arrangements will reinforce other measures already introduced to encourage the development of the computer hardware and software industries. These include measures designed to stimulate the development of a venture capital market, modified Government purchasing arrangements, and changes to the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Scheme last year to specifically include software. In addition the Australian Industries Development Corporation has undertaken three investments in these industries with further investments being evaluated. The Government is currently examining the need for additional development measures for the computer and related industries. A recent input has been the W. D. Scott/Arthur D. Little report on Opportunities for Australia in Information Technology. In its report the IAC proposed a 25 per cent value added bounty on general purpose computer hardware, computer based office machines and parts and accessories. The proposal excluded systems software costs and limited bounty to production for domestic sale. The commission also recommended minimum tariff rates for most hardware, duty free treatment of software on recording media, and phased reduction in duties on recording media and electronic components to 20 per cent. The Government accepted the general thrust of the IAC report. However, its approach to direct assistance to the computer industry has been based on the following objectives. Computers and key micro-electronic components should be available in Australia at world prices. These products are important productivity aids and are an integral component of a rapidly increasing range of industrial products. Domestic producers should not be disadvantaged because of protection accorded their inputs. The level of assistance provided should be sufficient to encourage local industry to be internationally competitive without creating a situation of dependency on government assistance. Inconsistencies and disparities in assistance between products that were inherent in the previous arrangements for this industry should be eliminated or reduced. The assistance provided should provide a general framework within which more specific industry development needs can be addressed, if necessary. These objectives led to the assistance package announced by the Government on 5 July 1984. Australia has a large number of producers of computer hardware engaged in various levels of development and assembly concentrating on supplying small computers and terminals. Many of these companies are small and innovative. The large number of manufacturers, many producing only in small volumes, has meant that production economies are generally not being obtained, there is duplication of production capabilities and in some instances the investment in testing and quality control equipment is insufficient. The bounty arrangements under this Bill have been designed to address some of the weaknesses in the infrastructure available to computer manufacturers and to provide flexible arrangements that do not distort the manner in which manufacturers conduct their business. For this reason the bounty is to be paid on production of sub-assemblies and parts as well as fully assembled hardware. This should reinforce the trend that is already evident for companies to utilise specialist producers of sub- assemblies with increased specialisation and greater volume. The Government considers that the bounty arrangements will provide an opportunity for these specialist companies to invest in labour saving equipment as well as quality control equipment and hardware and software testing. This in turn should further improve the competitiveness and quality of Australian hardware. One of the problems faced by hardware producers everywhere is the availability of key microelectronic components. As a relatively small consumer of these components, remote from the main suppliers, Australian computer hardware manufacturers have experienced problems greater than those of larger companies with more purchasing clout. Increased use of specialist assemblers is expected to lead to greater purchasing economies and greater stock holdings of the main components. The reduction in duties on these components should also facilitate greater stock holdings. Payments of bounty on locally developed or modified operating systems, design and development costs are particularly important as these items are major costs of those companies that are undertaking substantial developmental work in Australia. These activities can also be sub-contracted out to specialist research and development teams, software houses or in some circumstances research institutions, such as universities and the CSIRO. This will have the advantage of building up specialist teams. The overriding benefit from these flexible arrangements is that they enable companies to specialise in what they do best and should free both human and capital resources to concentrate on development and marketing innovative hardware. Another feature of the Government's decision is that bounty is to be paid to producers of special purpose as well as general purpose computers. The former ADP equipment bounty did not cover equipment that was incorporated in other equipment or that was used to control other equipment. Many of Australia's best prospects lie in these specialised areas. The Government has therefore decided to extend bounty assistance to such equipment provided that it does not involve 'double assistance'. As a consequence, any goods that are being assisted by Tariffs, or where the Defence Department is accepting cost penalties as part of designated defence contracts, will not be eligible for bounty. Bounty is also to be paid on the production of electronic microcircuits such as integrated circuits and hybrid circuits. Duties on these components have been reduced from 35% to minimum rates. This combined with the bounty on local production, should encourage increased competitive application of microelectronics. In conclusion, the new assistance arrangements are considered by the Government to provide a meaningful level of assistance to local industry. They have been designed to provide flexible and predictable assistance to enhance the competitiveness of local producers both directly and through strengthening the infrastructure that supports the industry. Reduced import duties will, of course, mean that it will be a very competitive market. Competitive innovative local producers will now have the opportunity to succeed and contribute to our overall economic performance. Finally, clauses 24 and 25 of the Bill contain provisions giving authorised officers a right of entry at reasonable times to commercial premises without warrant and enabling them to require persons to truthfully answer questions and produce documents relevant to the operation of the Act. These provisions are not new to bounty legislation. They are consistent with the powers provided by governments of all political persuasions to ensure that taxpayers are fully protected by appropriate compliance audits. These powers have been considered on a number of occasions by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. The Committee has previously acknowledged the view that it is not unreasonable for persons who have been paid moneys out of the public purse to expect a degree of auditing to establish that payments have been correctly made. Financial Impact Statement The bounty proposed by this bill is expected to cost $7 million in 1984-85 and $ 8 million in 1985-86. The cost for the remainder of the bounty period cannot be estimated at this time. It will depend entirely upon the success of the Government's assistance package. I commend the Bill to the Senate. AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT BOUNTY AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1984 This Bill proposes to terminate the bounty period under the Automatic Data Processing Equipment Act 1977 on 5 July 1984. The Act was extended from 6 May 1984 to 6 August 1984 pending the Government's decision on the long term assistance needs of the computer industry. The need to terminate the Act on 5 July 1984 arises from the proposed introduction of a new bounty scheme on 6 July 1984. On 5 July 1984 the Government announced its decision to implement new assistance measures for the computer industry. These measures include an extension of the range of computer goods on which bounty is proposed to be payable. The new Bounty (Computers) Bill 1984, which I introduced earlier, is proposed to commence from 6 July 1984, that is, the day after the Government announced its decision on new assistance measures for the computer industry in Australia. Financial Impact Statement Bounty paid under the Automatic Data Processing Equipment Bounty Act 1977 in the period 6 May 1984 to 5 July 1984 is expected to be $200 000. I commend the Bill to the Senate. BOUNTY (ELECTRIC MOTORS) BILL 1984 This Bill proposes to implement the Government's decision, announced on 17 July 1984, to pay a temporary bounty from that date on the production in Australia of certain types of alternating current, three phase, squirrel cage electric motors . This temporary assistance is to apply until the Government's decision on the Industries Assistance Commission's report on long term assistance to the industry is announced. The IAC is expected to report by 16 April 1985. Manufacturers of motors will be eligible for the bounty if, during the bounty period, motors with a power output of at least 0.746 kilowatts but less than 38 kilowatts are completed at registered premises and the added value of each motor is not less than 33 1/3% of the total Australian factory cost. The bounty will be payable on eligible motors for sale locally and for export. The rate of bounty will be $14 per motor and bounty payments to any one manufacturer are to be limited to $300 000 during the proposed period of the Act . As a complementary measure, duty will be increased by 5 percentage points on imports of electric motors of the same kind as those upon which bounty is to be paid. This increase is the subject of a separate legislative amendment. The IAC in its interim report of 16 April 1984 on electric motors recommended no variation to the current levels of assistance pending its final report on the long term assistance needs of the industry. The Government has accepted this recommendation in so far as the bulk of electric motors are concerned. However, the Government is concerned that without interim assistance, producers of the larger 'integral' electric motors might be forced out of production before consideration of the industry's long term assistance needs is completed. Such an event would cause a permanent structural change to the industry on the basis of an IAC interim report. The Government sees important advantages in sustaining a capability in Australia to manufacture electric motors. Interim assistance is therefore proposed to the producers of the larger ' integral' electric motors by way of the bounty and tariff increase. We are confident that this assistance package will ensure the continued viability of all sectors of this important industry until the decision on the long term assistance can be announced. The industry is aware that the extent to which it takes advantage of the benefits afforded by this interim assistance package will have a considerable impact on the Government's decision on the long term arrangements. It is aware also that there are no grounds to assume the continuation of the special assistance beyond the interim period. By the inclusion of a ceiling on bounty payments to any one producer, the Government has minimised the risk to the Commonwealth of open-ended liability for bounty payments beyond a level necessary for viable Australian production. The use of a balanced package of tariff and bounty assistance is expected to minimise cost increases to users of electric motors whilst ensuring the lowest possible cost to Australian taxpayers. Finally, clauses 25 and 26 of the Bill contain provisions giving authorised officers a right of entry without warrant at reasonable times to commercial premises and enabling them to require persons to truthfully answer questions and produce documents relevant to the operation of the Act. These provisions are not new to bounty legislation. They are consistent with the powers provided by governments of all political persuasions to ensure that taxpayers are fully protected by appropriate compliance audits. The powers have been considered on a number of occasions by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. The Committee has previously acknowledged the view that it is not unreasonable for persons who have been paid moneys out of the public purse to expect a degree of auditing to establish that payments have been correctly made. Financial Impact Statement The cost of the bounty for 1984-85 is estimated to be less than $500,000. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Rae) adjourned. Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment. Assent to the following Bills reported: Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures and Assets Test) Bill 1984 Loan Bill 1984 Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1984 Sales Tax (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1984 Sales Tax (No. 2) Amendment Bill 1984 Sales Tax (No. 3) Amendment Bill 1984 Sales Tax (No. 4) Amendment Bill 1984 Sales Tax (No. 5) Amendment Bill 1984 Sales Tax (No. 6) Amendment Bill 1984 Sales Tax (No. 7) Amendment Bill 1984 Sales Tax (No. 8) Amendment Bill 1984 Sales Tax (No. 9) Amendment Bill 1984 Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 Patents Amendment Bill 1984 Senator TATE(Tasmania) —I seek leave to make a statement on behalf of the Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge, and following that statement to move four motions relating to the proceedings of the Committee, on the understanding that the motions will be put separately. Leave granted. Senator TATE —Before making the statement and moving four motions as indicated, I wish to advert to two preliminary matters. At the meeting of the Committee on 24 September 1984, counsel for Mr Justice Murphy, Mr T. E. F. Hughes, QC, foreshadowed a submission to the effect that the three members of this Committee who also served on the Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge-the previous committee-should not sit on this Committee, on the ground that it would be contrary to the rules of natural justice, because they had already made a judgment on the matters before this Committee. At our meeting yesterday, Mr Hughes indicated that he would not press this matter. Without conceding the validity of the submission foreshadowed by Mr Hughes, the three members concerned have considered whether they should disqualify themselves from sitting on the Committee, and have concluded that they should not do so. They consider that their service on the other committee does not preclude them from making a proper and unbiased judgment on the matters before this Committee on the basis of the evidence to be heard by it. When the Senate resumed this afternoon, Senator Georges presented a petition of Peter Anthony Hohnen, a member of the firm of MacPhillany, Cummins and Gibson, solicitors of Canberra and solicitors for the Hon. Mr Justice L. K. Murphy. Regarding that petition the Committee has asked me to indicate to the chamber-of course this is not relating to any motion that may arise out of the petition which is now before the Senate-in relation to the first part of that petition which prays that the Senate should permit the Hon. T. E. F. Hughes, QC, to address the Senate from the Bar of the Senate on several questions which are outlined, the Committee is of the view that that should not be acceded to. It forms that view on the basis that although the petition is framed in terms of permitting the Hon. Tom Hughes, QC to address the Senate, it would be very difficult to restrict appearances of counsel to Mr Hughes. It would be sensible and probably it would be only fair that counsel for witnesses, certainly Mr Briese and counsel assisting the Committee, would also be required to come before the Bar of the Senate. I do not dwell on that. It is just a matter that should be adverted to. Additionally, and much more importantly, the Committee had the benefit of Mr Hughes making submissions on points A, B and C in public session on two occasions where Mr Hughes had the opportunity to develop his argument in the fullest way and without restriction. He did so, may I say, with strength and vigour. Those arguments were delivered in public session-they are recorded in Hansard, copies of which have been circulated to members of the Senate-and it is considered that in that regard Mr Hughes has had an opportunity to put the arguments that he would want to put, in a way which has made those arguments available to honourable senators. In addition, the arguments put by Mr Hughes and by other counsel, including counsel assisting the Committee, not only are available in the Hansard record but also will be summarised in the course of my statement. For those reasons it is thought by the Committee that it will not be necessary for Mr Hughes to appear before the Bar of the Senate to present argument in relation to those matters. In relation to sub-paragraph 1 (d), as I will explain to the Senate, it is considered that that matter arose out of an error in the compiling of the resolution as it was finally passed by the Senate. I will explain the nature of that error and indicate what course the Committee recommends in relation to it. As to part 2 of the petition, which asks that the Senate determine certain matters, those matters will be determined by the votes taken this afternoon. The Committee was unable to agree on two matters relating to its proceedings, and has decided that the directions of the Senate should be sought on these matters. The Committee has asked me to set out the arguments for and against the alternative courses of action in relation to these matters. I will be moving four motions, the first two of which embody the preferred views of Senator Bolkus and myself. The two matters in question are the cross-examination of witnesses and of Mr Justice Murphy, should he give evidence, by counsel for other witnesses, and access to two documents of the previous committee by counsel for witnesses. Cross-examination by Counsel for Witnesses Paragraphs (12) and (18) (d) of the resolution of the Senate appointing the Committee, on one view, give a right to counsel for witnesses to cross-examine other witnesses and to cross-examine Mr Justice Murphy if he gives evidence. A copy of the resolution is attached to this statement. Paragraph (17) of the resolution requires the Committee to determine procedures and rules for the examination of witnesses before it, after receiving recommendations from the commissioners assisting the Committee, and having regard to the procedures and rules followed by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The commissioners have recommended procedures and rules to the Committee, and these recommended procedures and rules included provisions for the cross-examination of witnesses and of Mr Justice Murphy, should he give evidence, by counsel for other witnesses, in conformity with the apparent intention of paragraphs (12) and (18) (d) of the Senate's resolution. The provisions recommended by the commissioners, however, seek to limit that right of cross-examination to matters relating to the evidence of the witness concerned, and provide that the Committee may stop any secondary cross- examination if it considers it repetitive or oppressive. The Committee, in determining its procedures and rules, has, by majority decision, omitted those provisions. Senator Lewis, in the Committee, moved an amendment to extend the right of cross-examination to matters concerning the reputation of a witness, as well as matters relating to the evidence of a witness, but this amendment was not agreed to by the Committee. Apart from the omitted provisions, the procedures and rules adopted by the Committee are identical with those recommended by the commissioners. Attached to this statement are the procedures and rules adopted by the Committee and the omitted provisions. The view may be taken that the Committee, in determining procedures and rules which do not allow cross-examination by counsel for witnesses, has made a determination contrary to the Senate's resolution. Apart from this, it is important that the Senate should indicate its wish in relation to this matter. Witnesses should know what their rights are before they appear. The Committee therefore has postponed its hearings of evidence until the Senate has given a direction on this question. The first motion which I will be moving is to the effect that the Committee may , in its procedures and rules determined under the Senate's resolution, make provisions not permitting the cross-examination of witnesses and of Mr Justice Murphy, should he give evidence, by counsel for other witnesses. If the Senate negatives this motion, the Committee will take it as a direction from the Senate that it should restore to the procedures and rules the omitted provisions recommended by the commissioners. The arguments against allowing the right of cross-examination by counsel for witnesses are as follows: First, the proceedings of the Committee should conform as closely as possible to proceedings in a criminal trial, and Mr Justice Murphy , who is the person in peril in these proceedings, should be accorded all the rights of an accused person in criminal proceedings. In criminal proceedings before the courts a witness is not permitted to be represented by counsel or to cross-examine the accused or other witnesses. Secondly, it may be held to be unfair to witnesses and to Mr Justice Murphy, if he gives evidence, to be exposed to cross-examination by more than one counsel. These arguments are regarded by the majority of the Committee as decisive, notwithstanding the safeguards suggested by the commissioners. The arguments in favour of allowing cross-examination by counsel for witnesses are as follows: First, this was intended by the Senate's resolution appointing the Committee, and it was the Senate's intention that the Committee conduct an inquiry and not a trial. The right of cross-examination by counsel for witnesses would be conducive to a thorough inquiry into the matter referred to the Committee. Secondly, the Senate should adhere to its tradition of providing the maximum protection for witnesses appearing before committees. Mr Briese will be exposed to cross-examination by counsel for Mr Justice Murphy, and may be regarded as being in danger in the proceedings, because his reputation and veracity will be put under question. Therefore it could be argued that he should be provided with the protection afforded by the right of cross-examination. Moreover, if they are not to have the right of cross-examination, counsel for witnesses would be able to play little part in the proceedings. Access to Documents Paragraph (20) of the resolution of the Senate appointing the Committee provides for witnesses and counsel appearing before the Committee to have access to documents of the previous Committee relating to this Committee's inquiry. Counsel for Mr Justice Murphy, however, has objected to two documents of the previous Committee being made available to Mr Briese and other witnesses. These documents are a written statement submitted by Mr Justice Murphy to the previous Committee in response to relevant parts of a statement made before that Committee by Mr Briese, and the transcript of oral submissions made before the previous Committee by counsel for Mr Justice Murphy and relating to the evidence of Mr Briese. The Committee considers that the Senate should be asked to give a direction on this matter. Accordingly I will move a motion to the effect that notwithstanding paragraph (20) of the Senate's resolution the Committee may decide not to grant access by witnesses and their counsel to the two documents in question. If this motion is negatived, the Committee will take that as a direction from the Senate that it should grant access to the documents. The arguments against allowing access to the documents are as follows: First, if the analogy of a criminal trial is adhered to, the nature of Mr Justice Murphy's evidence in his defence, if he gives evidence, should not be known until all other evidence has been heard, including evidence produced by cross- examination of other witnesses; secondly, it would be unfair if Mr Briese and other witnesses knew in advance the evidence which might be given by Mr Justice Murphy and the likely line of questioning to be followed in cross-examination of them. The arguments in favour of allowing access to the documents are as follows : First, it was clearly contemplated by the Senate's resolution that all witnesses would have access to all relevant documents of the previous Committee; secondly, since Mr Justice Murphy already has access to all the evidence given to the previous Committee by Mr Briese, and may use that evidence for purposes of cross-examination, in fairness Mr Briese ought to have access to the evidence given by Mr Justice Murphy. Other Matters The third motion I will move is to provide that the right of access to documents under paragraph (20) of the Senate's resolution is to be restricted to Mr Justice Murphy and Mr Briese, and that the Committee have a discretion to grant access to the documents by other witnesses. The reason for giving special status to these two persons is their central position in the Committee's inquiry , as the person whose conduct is under question and the person whose statements are the subject of the inquiry. Counsel for Judge Flannery asked that his client 's name be added to the motion so that he would have a right of access to relevant documents. The Committee decided, however, that it would deal with his request for access under the proposed discretion. The fourth motion is to clear up a drafting problem in the resolution. Paragraph (1) (c) requires the Committee to report whether Mr Justice Murphy engaged in any 'conduct which could amount to misbehaviour', while paragraph (2) (b) requires the Committee in its report to indicate whether there is a proof of 'conduct amounting to misbehaviour'. This difference of wording apparently came about simply because in the somewhat tortuous negotiations involved in the passage of the resolution one part of the resolution was changed and a consequential change was not made in the other part. That history has been confirmed by way of inquiry of those who were responsible for the drafting of the resolution as passed. The wording could cause some difficulty to the commissioners and to the Committee when they compose their advice and report, respectively, so the Committee unanimously agreed to ask the Senate to change paragraph (2) (b) of the resolution accordingly. Before moving the necessary motions, there is one other matter which the Committee asked me to report to the Senate. The Senate appointed the two commissioners assisting the Committee upon terms and conditions approved by Mr President. Those terms and conditions, as originally accepted by the commissioners, included a daily rate of remuneration. After consultation with each other, the commissioners have indicated that they will act without remuneration, and the terms and conditions have been amended accordingly by Mr President. Motions I now move the following motions, on the understanding that they will be put separately: (1) That the Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge, in determining procedures and rules under paragraph (17) of the resolution of 6 September 1984 appointing the Committee, may determine procedures and rules which do not permit the cross-examination of witnesses and of Mr Justice Murphy, should he give evidence, by counsel for other witnesses, notwithstanding paragraphs (12) and (18) (d) of that resolution. (2) That, notwithstanding paragraph (20) of the resolution of 6 September 1984 appointing the Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge, the Committee may determine that it will not disclose to witnesses or their counsel the written statement made by Mr Justice Murphy to the Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge and the transcript of oral submissions made before that Committee by counsel for Mr Justice Murphy and relating to the evidence of Mr C. R. Briese. (3) That, notwithstanding paragraph (20) of the resolution of 6 September 1984 appointing the Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge, the Committee may determine, in respect of any person other than Mr Justice Murphy, Mr C. R. Briese and their counsel, that it will not grant to that person access to the whole or part of the records of, transcripts of evidence taken by and documents submitted to the Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge. (4) That the resolution of the Senate of 6 September 1984 appointing the Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge be amended as follows: Paragraph (2) , sub-paragraph (b), leave out 'conduct amounting to misbehaviour', insert ' conduct which could amount to misbehaviour'. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Is it the wish of the Senate that the four motions be debated cognately? Senator Durack —I have no objection to their being debated cognately, but the questions may have to be put separately. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no objection to the motions being debated cognately? Senator Georges —Mr Acting Deputy President, I remind you that when I presented a petition this morning I indicated that I may move a motion in conjunction with that petition. I reserve my right to do so during the debate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There being no objection, the motions will be debated cognately. Senator Georges, if you wish to move a subsequent motion regarding this matter all that you would require would be the leave of the Senate. Senator Durack —Is it possible for Senator Georges to indicate whether he has a motion he will move? It would be useful if we could have the motion before us while we debate Senator Tate's motions. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Georges, would you care to move your motion now, by leave, and reserve the right to speak at a later stage. Senator Tate —He may not wish to. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I am just asking whether he wishes to. Senator Georges —I do not know how the debate will proceed. I do not know what position the Opposition intends to take. I certainly do not know which position the Australian Democrats intend to take. Whether I move my motion depends on the process of the debate. Therefore, I reserve my right to move it at a later stage and not to foreshadow it. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.40) —The Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge, Senator Tate, has moved four motions of very considerable significance in regard to the procedures of the Committee. In my view, they modify in a very material way the resolution of the Senate of 6 September. The resolution consists of 23 paragraphs which are appended to the copies of the statement which has just been made by Senator Tate . I think it useful for honourable senators to have a copy of the resolution and to be reminded of it in the course of this debate. Before going into the particulars of the matter, I wish simply to recall the nature of the debate that took place in the Senate following the report of the previous Committee, the Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge, and the various recommendations that were made by members of that Committee, including me. One problem faced by that previous Committee was based upon submissions that were made to it by counsel for Mr Justice Murphy, Mr Hughes, who put to that Committee, in my view quite properly, and with his usual vigour, a number of views about the procedures that should be followed by that Committee in the event of his client being placed in any jeopardy by any of the findings, tentative and all as they may be, of that Committee. He submitted, and I believe he was correct, that before that Committee made any findings which could in any way be adverse to his client, his client should be accorded a formal hearing in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Although I do not need to traverse all the facts about that report and the subsequent debate in the Senate, the fact is that in the resolution of 6 September which constituted the present Committee known as the Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge, the Senate was at considerable pains to ensure that the hearing of evidence concerning allegations by Mr Briese against the judge should be conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. To some extent, the Senate was called upon to follow a new procedure. Although there are precedents for witnesses to be represented by counsel at Senate committee hearings, in an attempt to give effect to the full force of the submissions that had been made to the previous Committee, it was required that fairly detailed rules be laid down about the right of examination or cross- examination of various witnesses by various counsel who might appear. That issue was certainly one of the difficulties faced by the previous Committee because to give effect to such submissions would have been contrary to one of the Standing Orders of the Senate regarding the procedures of its committees. As I have said, apart from setting up the Committee to deal with the allegations made by Mr Briese, the prime object of the resolution of 6 September was to ensure that the principles of natural justice were observed in the proceedings of this new Committee. Although the object of the investigation of that Committee would be to ascertain the full facts, the truth of the matter, its procedures should, as I said, observe the rules of natural justice. As a result, fairly detailed provisions were made in the resolution. In my view the Senate gave very close regard to those rules. Although the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) and the Government were opposed to the establishment of the Committee, the Attorney-General, together with Senator Haines on behalf of the Australian Democrats and me on behalf of the Opposition, gave very close and very detailed attention to what I might call the rules for the procedures of this Committee which are set out in the resolution. That is why they are so detailed. The first matter that was attended to was the right of representation of witnesses before the Committee. Paragraph (12) of the resolution states: That witnesses before the Committee may be examined by counsel assisting the Committee, by counsel for Mr Justice Murphy, and by counsel for witnesses. Although Senator Tate says that one view that could be taken of that paragraph is that counsel for any of the witnesses may cross examine any other witnesses, I would not have thought there was much room for doubt as to what that paragraph means. In fact, in my view, it is very difficult to see how there could be another view as to what was intended by that part of the resolution. It was intended that the Committee should have the utmost facility to arrive at the proof and the facts but that that should be done in accordance with the utmost protection of witnesses before the Committee, including Mr Justice Murphy. Under the existing Standing Orders of the Senate, counsel are not allowed to ask questions-only senators are allowed to do that-and it was decided that that standing order be set aside and that those witnesses appearing before the Committee should have their counsel and their counsel should be able to give them full assistance and protection and thereby assist the Committee in its ascertainment of the truth. It was further felt that some additional protection should be accorded to Mr Justice Murphy in the light of the submissions that had been made by his counsel , Mr Hughes, to the previous Committee. A special paragraph, paragraph (18), was included in the resolution, with specific reference to Mr Justice Murphy in an effort to give full protection to him as he was, if I can use the phrase, although it is an unfortunate one, 'the accused person'. Paragraph (18) states: That the Committee conduct its inquiry in accordance with the following procedures: (a) Mr Justice Murphy shall not be summoned to give evidence; That was another major submission that had been made earlier by Mr Hughes. Of course, that in itself is a major change in the rules of Senate committees, because any witnesses may be summoned. The paragraph continues: (b) all examination of all witnesses shall take place in the presence of counsel for Mr Justice Murphy and of Mr Justice Murphy if he chooses to attend; That is another major concession and an amendment of the existing rules. The paragraph continues: (c) when all examination of witnesses has concluded, Mr Justice Murphy shall be invited to give evidence; and (d) if Mr Justice Murphy gives evidence, he shall be sworn and subject to examination in accordance with this resolution. That refers to the whole resolution of the Senate. The object was to accord to Mr Justice Murphy, in the position he was in, the right of declining to give evidence if he so desired or if his counsel so advised. In other words, that right of Mr Justice Murphy's is a very fundamental right. That is my opinion, the opinion of the Senate and, I am sure, the opinion of most people. Mr Justice Murphy would be given the right of silence if he chose to meet the allegations made against him in a way other than giving evidence himself. Accused people in our system of justice have that fundamental right. This very special rule was constructed for Mr Justice Murphy, and rightly so. Nevertheless, sub-paragraph 18 (d) provides: if Mr Justice Murphy gives evidence, he shall be sworn and subject to examination in accordance with this resolution. That is, Mr Justice Murphy may be examined, as any other witness may be, under the provisions of paragraph (12) which reads: That witnesses before the Committee may be examined by counsel assisting the Committee, by counsel for Mr Justice Murphy, and by counsel for witnesses. As I said, the object of this exercise was to accord the principles of natural justice. We had specifically in mind according those principles to Mr Justice Murphy, but we must also bear in mind that other people appearing before the Committee are also entitled to have the principles of natural justice accorded to them. Simply because we are making special efforts to accord the principles of natural justice to Mr Justice Murphy is no reason to deny justice to other witnesses before the Committee. Senator Gareth Evans —How are they at risk by these proceedings? Tell us that. Senator DURACK —Is the Attorney trying once again to frustrate this exercise? He has been doing that from the word go. The first matter of concern in the motion moved by Senator Tate concerns the right of cross-examination of Mr Justice Murphy by counsel for Mr Briese or any witness called by him. The Commissioners, two independent retired judges appointed with the agreement of both sides of this chamber and selected because of their independence and their status, recommended the rules of procedure as follows: Counsel for a witness may cross- examine all other witnesses including Mr Justice Murphy should he give evidence and any witness called on his behalf on matters relevant to the evidence of the witness for whom the counsel appears. That would mean that the counsel for Mr Briese or any other witness may cross-examine Mr Justice Murphy on matters relevant to the evidence of that witness. It is confined to the evidence of that witness. The cross-examination may not be wide-ranging on all matters. It must be relevant to that witness. The second rule of procedure recommended by the Commissioners was: The Committee may stop any secondary cross-examination if it considers it repetitive or oppressive. The first motion moved by Senator Tate would prevent that provision applying to the rules of procedure of this Committee. The Chairman of the Committee has a casting vote. Apparently we have decided that this provision should not apply to the rules of procedure. Senator Tate's first motion is to affirm deletion of that provision. The Opposition will certainly oppose that motion. Senator Tate gave as the arguments against allowing the right of cross-examination by counsel for witnesses: . . . the proceedings of the Committee should conform as closely as possible to proceedings in a criminal trial, and Mr Justice Murphy, who is the person in peril . . . should be accorded all the rights of an accused person in criminal proceedings. In criminal proceedings . . . a witness is not permitted to be represented by counsel or to cross-examine . . . The position is, of course, that in a criminal trial there would be a prosecuting counsel. There would be full and rigorous cross-examination of the person on trial by such a counsel, if the person on trial gave evidence. But clearly an analogy between a criminal trial and these proceedings is very remote . The Senate was not setting up a trial court. It was setting up an inquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice. It had regard to the special position of Mr Justice Murphy, but it also had to have regard to the rights of other people giving evidence before the Committee. Therefore, it has not surprised me that the Commissioners believe that counsel for other witnesses, including Mr Briese, should have the right of cross-examination in regard to what they said. I am pleased that that has been pointed out in Senator Tate's statement. He pointed out that Mr Briese would be exposed to cross-examination by counsel for Mr Justice Murphy. Therefore, I argue very strongly that Mr Briese should be provided with the protection afforded by the right of cross- examination by his counsel. The second argument advanced against allowing the right of cross-examination was: . . . it may be held to be unfair to witnesses and to Mr Justice Murphy, if he gives evidence, to be exposed in cross-examination by more than one counsel. But it is quite competent in trials, civil and criminal trials, royal commissions and other proceedings, for a witness to be exposed to cross- examination by more than one counsel. There seems to me to be absolutely no substance as far as any legal procedures are concerned in that argument. Therefore, it is only elementary justice, and was always intended by the Senate in its resolution, that if Mr Briese is to be cross-examined by counsel for Mr Justice Murphy-as indeed he must be; we have conceded that-Mr Briese should be afforded the protection of his counsel being able to cross-examine Mr Justice Murphy. The Commissioners themselves recommended that principle; it should be adhered to. The next matter which is the subject of variation of the Committee's resolutions is access to documents. Paragraph (20) of the resolution for the setting up of the Committee makes it perfectly clear that the Committee, the Commissioners, witnesses and counsel appearing before the Committee should have access to the records of, transcripts of evidence taken by, and documents submitted to the former Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge which relate to the inquiry. It has been argued strongly before the Committee by Mr Hughes that neither the submissions he made to the former Committee as counsel for Mr Murphy nor the statement that Mr Justice Murphy gave to that Committee should be made available to the other Committee. I turn to the terms of the second motion. The second motion states that notwithstanding paragraph (20) the Committee may determine that it will not disclose to witnesses or their counsel either of these documents. So that applies generally. It applies to Mr Briese, of course, in particular and to his counsel. Again, we have a question of the responsibility of the Committee to endeavour to ascertain the proof. Of course, it would be perfectly normal that any statements that have been made, provided they are statements which have been made voluntarily, should be available to any inquirer of the facts. They do not have to be just the evidence given at that hearing. Any statements should be available. The arguments for and against are set out in Senator Tate's statement. The argument is put forward that the nature of Mr Justice Murphy's evidence in his defence, if he gives evidence, should not be known until other evidence has been heard and that it would be unfair if Mr Briese and other witnesses knew of that evidence in advance. But the fact of the matter is, of course, that a summary of Mr Justice Murphy's evidence has been included in the public record of the former Committee. This was set out in the appendix to the report which the Committee made to the Senate. But if one is going to make some analogy with a criminal trial, the fact of the matter is that previous statements that have been made by an accused person either to investigators of the case, provided those statements are voluntary, or statements made in other proceedings-earlier proceedings or committal proceedings-of course can be available and must be available to the prosecution as indeed statements made by witnesses that the Crown may or may not call are made available to the defence. It is a perfectly clear principle that previous statements, provided they are made voluntarily, should be freely available to both sides in criminal proceedings. Therefore, I and the Opposition certainly oppose this added restriction on the availability of one of the relevant documents in the proceedings of the Committee. However, we are prepared to concede that the submissions that were made to the previous Committee by Mr Hughes may be justified, depending on the Committee's decision about whether that material should be used in the proceedings of the present Committee. Therefore, we will be moving an amendment to that motion. The third motion again seeks to modify paragraph 20 of the resolution which established the Committee. It provides that the Committee may determine in respect of any person other than Mr Justice Murphy, Mr Briese and their counsel that it will not grant to that person access to the whole or part of the records of the previous Committee. I believe that that motion is wrong in principle. I believe that paragraph 20 in its existing terms expresses the right principle, that where one is trying to arrive at the facts and the truth, all relevant testimony and records of the previous Committee should be available to this Committee and to all those taking part in it. I find it very difficult to see why there should be this restriction. However, the Opposition is prepared to leave that to the determination of the Committee, as this motion provides. I will be watching very carefully what the Committee does in relation to this matter because if there is any attempt by the second committee to suppress relevant evidence which was before the first committee and if we have any further evidence like some of the decisions this Committee has made the subject of motions here-- Senator Georges —Mr Deputy President, I take a point of order. Those words imply a threat to the Committee. That is actually what the honourable senator has done . He has threatened the Committee. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —What words are you complaining about? Senator Georges —In essence Senator Durack used the words: 'If the Committee endeavours to suppress any of the evidence before the Committee or to alter any of its procedures'. What I am saying is that by the tone, by the words and by direct implication he is placing that Committee under threat. He is threatening that if the Committee does not do as he wishes-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Georges, you are making a debating point, not a point of order. You are entitled to raise this matter in debate if you wish, but it is not a point of order. Senator Georges —I would say that the honourable senator ought to be brought to order because he is threatening the Committee. He is implying that the Committee might seek to suppress evidence. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — There is nothing in Standing Orders which would prevent Senator Durack from doing that if he were doing so. Senator Georges —Then, if I might say-- Senator Chaney —Oh, sit down. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Georges, are you continuing your point of order? You may make these points in debate if you wish but this is not a point of order as you have expressed it. Senator Georges —Mr Deputy President, let me say this: I am very difficult to sit down. When the Leader of the Opposition by interjection says 'sit down' that is an affront to me and I ask him to withdraw that. If I cannot get anything else withdrawn at least I ask that he withdraw the remark that I ought to sit down. I am trying to exercise my right as a senator in this place. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I certainly will not order Senator Chaney to withdraw that remark because there is nothing unparliamentary in it. Senator DURACK —I am simply saying that the purpose of the Senate in setting up this Committee is to ascertain facts and the truth of this matter. Everything that will assist the Committee in ascertaining the truth should be considered by the Committee. There should not be suppression of relevant evidence that was before the previous Committee. I am simply saying that the Senate should keep a very watchful eye to ensure that that rule is observed by the Committee at all times and in all respects. This Committee is a creature of the Senate. It is subject to the Senate and that is why we are debating this matter at present. The fourth motion is a tidying up and clarification process which the Opposition will support. In conclusion, I want to refer briefly to statements that have had wide currency this morning by counsel for Mr Justice Murphy who talked in extravagant terms about the possibility of an unjust farce in the case of this Committee. The fact of the matter is, as I have pointed out, both the Senate, and I am sure this Committee, will be conducting these proceedings in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Committee has a very difficult task. It does not assist the Committee or the Senate if extravagant statements of this kind are made. I repudiate entirely the suggestion of counsel for Mr Justice Murphy that there is any sort of unjust farce in anything this Senate has done or in anything that the Committee itself has done in regard to this matter. I conclude on this note: The Committee and the Senate will not be assisted in any way by such extravagance of that kind. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.10) —I say at the outset that the procedural difficulties that the Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge is now confronting and which it now places for resolution in the lap of the Senate are a classic demonstration of the unwisdom involved in the Senate trying to resolve a matter of this kind and this gravity before all the processes of the criminal law, which are far more appropriate, have been exhausted. That is a point that the Government and I have been making with a great deal of vigour over a long period and I simply make it again on this occasion without further elaboration. I believe everything we have seen today and everything in the way in which the Committee has been wrestling with these matters demonstrate the wisdom of the original course that was proposed. Two of the four resolutions that are before us are contentious and I will concentrate my remarks upon those first two, which concern respectively the question of the rights of other witnesses to cross-examine Mr Justice Murphy if and when he chooses to give evidence and the question as to whether certain documentary evidence of Mr Justice Murphy ought to be made available to other witnesses in advance of their giving their evidence to the Committee. The first matter with regard to cross-examination has arisen due to differences of view which have been expressed by counsel in submissions to the Committee about the proper meaning and application of paragraph 12 of the existing terms of reference. I do not believe that the Senate, any more than the Committee, should endeavour to resolve this difference of view by elaborate questions as to interpretation of terms of reference, but should go straight to the basic questions of principle involved; namely, whether the Committee should be able to permit counsel for witnesses to cross-examine other witnesses and Mr Justice Lionel Murphy, in particular, should he give evidence. Certainly the Government' s view on this question is that counsel for witnesses should not be permitted to cross-examine the judge. The case, I believe, is very strong in relation to the judge and perhaps a little less strong so far as other witnesses are concerned. But certainly so far as the judge is concerned we believe that it is almost self -evidently strong. There are a number of reasons for saying that. The first is that to allow such cross-examination obviously has the potential for unnecessarily prolonging the inquiry. This point was relied upon by the then Attorney-General, Senator Greenwood, QC, and the then Solicitor-General, Mr Ellicott, QC, in the paper on 'Parliamentary Committees Powers Over and Protection Afforded to Witnesses', which was tabled in 1972. Page 85 of that paper states: We share the view often expressed that it is undesirable for witnesses to have the right to cross-examine other witnesses, either themselves or through their counsel. As a general rule we think this would unnecessarily prolong investigations and would tend to formalise them. On some occasions the witness is in a position where he is in a sense on trial, for example, a charge of contempt. On these and perhaps other occasions there may be good reason for the Committee allowing counsel for a witness to cross-examine other witnesses. The terms of reference of the present Committee make it amply clear that the only person who is in a real sense on trial is Mr Justice Lionel Murphy. Certainly no other person in these proceedings can claim that role. The guidance provided by the Greenwood-Ellicott paper is therefore that other witnesses should not be given the right to cross-examine unless this is one of those ' other occasions' where there is good reason for allowing this to happen. The Government is certainly very firmly of the view that the present case is not one of those 'other occasions'-one of those exceptional situations in which cross- examination would be permissible. I point out that already under the terms of reference the judge and witnesses called by him may be cross-examined by counsel assisting, as set out in paragraph 12, and also by the two commissioners assisting, as set out in paragraph 10. They may, of course, be questioned as well by any member of the Committee. This should certainly provide ample opportunity for testing the evidence of the judge if he takes the witness box and of any witness as called by him. There is therefore no necessity on that ground of conferring any further right of cross-examination on counsel appearing for other witnesses. There should not be any misunderstanding about the Government's position. We believe that Mr Justice Murphy should be subject to cross-examination if he gives evidence. Any witnesses he calls, equally, should be subject to cross- examination. However, that cross-examination should not extend to counsel for other witnesses. Apart from those sorts of considerations there are other more fundamental reasons why the Government has taken this position. One of the more fundamental reasons is that the character of this inquiry is vastly different from the normal kind of inquiry undertaken by parliamentary committees or even, for that matter, by royal commissions. This emerges clearly enough from the terms of reference of the Committee which indicate that the Committee's proceedings are to partake of a judicial character. This is further confirmed by the procedures and rules for the examination of witnesses which have already been adopted by the Committee, paragraph 2 of which states: The Committee's inquiry should, in general, be conducted as a judicial proceeding . . . That is in marked contradistinction to the obligations, for example, of a royal commission, not to mention the courts themselves. The second fundamental reason on which the Government relies is, of course, also the question of why a judicial approach that I have mentioned was readily approved by the Senate in the case of the present Committee. The reason is, of course, that the allegation made against Mr Justice Murphy as disclosed to us to date by the report of the earlier committee is an allegation of serious misconduct; so serious, in fact, as to amount to the offence, if sustained by the evidence, of attempting to pervert the course of justice, an offence under section 43 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act. We take it as an absolutely fundamental principle that proceedings of that character should be governed by the same principles that would apply in relation to criminal proceedings. We believe it would be a travesty of due process to follow any other course. It would be unthinkable to contemplate in criminal proceedings that any witness for the prosecution, however important his evidence might be and however much his own credit or reputation might be involved, would be allowed rights of cross-examination conducted by his own counsel. As it is pointed out on pages 19 and 20 of the Greenwood-Ellicott paper, in civil and criminal proceedings in a court a witness as such has no rights of cross-examination in respect of witnesses who give evidence adverse to his. Certainly, a witness would have no rights in relation to cross-examination of a defendant in a criminal proceeding. There is an excellent reason for this. The procedures that we have in the courts have evolved over centuries and are crucial and necessary to ensure that persons who are at risk by the determination of the bodies in question are not unfairly prejudiced, overborne, oppressed or harassed in the conduct of their own defence. It is unfair for a defendant to be cross-examined by multiple witnesses in the circumstances that are here proposed. It does not happen, contrary to what Senator Durack said, in a criminal trial. A witness may be cross-examined by multiple defendants in a situation of a multiple defendant trial. I suppose there are circumstances in which a defendant may be cross-examined by counsel for co-defendants, where there are, again, multiple defendants in some sort of criminal conspiracy. In this case there is only one defendant in the box and all the principles and procedures of the criminal law shriek out against the legitimacy of allowing cross-examination under those circumstances. The point that has been made most strongly in favour of allowing witnesses in this case to have a right to cross-examination is that somehow it is unfair to the witnesses themselves because their reputation and veracity, it is said, are on the line and the principles of natural justice, according to the way in which Senator Durack put it, ought to be equally applicable to the witnesses themselves. The argument does seem to be put on these terms rather than on the basis that otherwise the defendant will not be sufficiently cross-examined because, as I have already said, that is hardly a basis, that can withstand scrutiny given the number of people who already will have rights of cross- examination under the procedures that are presently set out. But in meeting the argument about the need to protect the interests of the other witnesses, I think it is important to bear very closely in mind the sorts of protections that are available to those other witnesses by virtue of the procedures presently embodied and adopted by the Committee in its procedures that it has made subject to resolution. It certainly does not follow that these other witnesses-Mr Briese and the others-are without any protection. As the Greenwood-Ellicott paper points out: The protections afforded to witnesses in courts of law arise partly from the procedures adopted for the examination of witnesses and partly from the application of rules as to the form and content of questions and the admissibility of evidence. It seems to me that these rules are already encompassed by paragraph 2 of the procedures and rules for the examination of witnesses which have been adopted by the Committee. In particular, paragraph 2 (a) provides: The rules of evidence shall be applicable to the Committee's hearings; Against that background we should look now at the sorts of protections that are available to witnesses. I think this point justifies some development, given the way in which it is so obviously central to the Opposition's position. The Greenwood-Ellicott paper points out that that protections is in certain circumstances given to witnesses from questions put in cross-examination which might injure their character. In applying this protection the courts have regard to the following considerations which are set out on page 20 of the Greenwood- Ellicott paper. They are as follows: Such questions are proper if they are of such a nature that the truth of the imputation conveyed by them would seriously affect the opinion of the court as to the credibility of the witness on the matter to which he testifies. Such questions are improper if the imputation which they convey relates to matters so remote in time or of such a character that the truth of the imputation would not affect or would affect in a slight degree only the opinion of the court as to the credibility of the witness on the matter to which he testifies. Such questions-- that is, questions made to a witness- are improper if there is a great disproportion between the importance of the imputation made against the witness's character and the importance of his evidence. So in the very questions that can be put to a witness in the first place there are very solid, well entrenched and certainly applicable here ground rules as to what can and cannot be asked of the witness in question. Moreover, the courts also have power in certain circumstances to forbid questions or inquiries which they regard as indecent or scandalous, which are intended to insult or annoy or which are needlessly offensive in form. The paper goes on to point out that it will be seen therefore that the basic protections afforded to witnesses as distinct from parties in courts of law springs from the adoption in courts of procedures and rules designed to ensure that the issues will be tried without any unnecessary injury to the witness's reputation and without undue intrusion into the witness's privacy. The present Committee can properly be expected to adopt the same approach. In effect its terms of reference already direct it to do so. I finally point out as far as this issue of protection for witnesses is concerned that under the procedures and rules that have been adopted by the Committee counsel for any witness, in addition to being able to ask supplementary non-leading questions of that witness after counsel assisting the Committee has sat down, may also re-examine that witness before counsel assisting the Committee does so. I also point out that at the conclusion of all the evidence counsel for a witness can make a closing address with the leave of the Committee. They are references to paragraphs 11, 14 (a) and 15 (a) of the procedures and rules that have been adopted. Here the point is simply this: There are protections available for witnesses. They can be expected to be applied in this particular case. It cannot be a justification for abandoning the basic, traditional principles of criminal trials and procedures as are applicable to this particular matter that here we have witnesses of stature, witnesses of reputation, witnesses whose veracity and judgment will be in issue. It is often the case in criminal trials that witnesses of this kind are involved in the proceedings. It cannot be seriously suggested that in those circumstances the rules of evidence ought to be changed to allow them to be represented by counsel or for them to have rights of cross- examination under those circumstances. I repeat: The basic theme underlying our approach to this is that the proceedings we have here are indistinguishable in principle, and ought to be so regarded, from those of a criminal trial because the consequences are so grave. The remaining matter which is contentious is the question of witnesses having access to certain documentary material, being first of all a written statement made by Mr Justice Murphy to the previous Committee, the Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge, and, secondly, the transcript of oral submissions made before that Committee by counsel for Mr Justice Murphy and concerning the evidence of Mr Briese. It has been foreshadowed by the Opposition that the exclusion of the latter category of material will not now be pursued but it still wants witnesses to be able to see Mr Justice Murphy's written statement before those witnesses in fact give their evidence. As to the distinction which has been thus adopted by the Opposition, and I believe also the Australian Democrats, I must say that for the life of me I cannot see any relevant difference between the two classes of material, and I do not think Senator Durack was putting that point with any great vigour either. If there is a case for letting both classes of material in, that is one thing; if, there is, as I believe, a strong case for excluding both classes of material from being made available to witnesses before they give their evidence now, both classes of material should come out. It seems to me quite implausible to try to find some ground of distinction between the written statement and the submissions of counsel on Mr Justice Murphy's behalf. I turn to the merits of this particular proposition. It may be that the inclusion of a provision such as paragraph 20 in the terms of reference, which does seem at the moment in the way it is drafted to require the production of all this material to all the witnesses concerned, was understandable enough at the time it went in. I think there was generally some expectation that it would expedite the present inquiry which would be in the public interest and also arguably very much in the interests of the judge himself. However I believe that insufficient attention was given at the time by everyone concerned, including myself, to the implications of this particular paragraph in these terms. There is a real question of principle that now has to be weighed against the competing question of expedition. Essentially we are back to the same question of principle that was involved in dealing with the issue of cross-examination. Mr Justice Murphy and only Mr Justice Murphy is in the position of being in a real sense on trial in this particular Committee proceeding. No other witness and no other potential witness is in that position. On that basis we believe that the ground rules that ought to be applicable to him are as follows: Neither of the two particular documents referred to should be made available to Mr Briese or his counsel or to any other witness. It would be unthinkable, in my understanding, in judicial proceedings for such materials to be provided to a witness, as distinct from the prosecution of course which often has a proof of such evidence, before that witness has given his evidence. As to other relevant documents, Mr Justice Murphy stands in a special position for reasons that are evident. Obviously he should be informed of any allegations made against him and the substance of the evidence in support of those allegations. This means that he should be given access to all relevant documents from the previous Committee. I do not understand there to be any great disagreement with that proposition. Equally there could be no objection, on the ground of the principles to which I have referred, to Mr Briese and his counsel having access to the transcript of Mr Briese's evidence before the previous Committee. Certainly the Government would advance no objection to that course and I do not understand anyone else would either. However when it comes to the witnesses being given advance notice of the submissions and the written evidence that has been put in by Mr Justice Murphy before they give their own evidence, with all that that implies about the capacity accordingly to adjust the terms of the witnesses' evidence to meet what is understood to be the line of reply, we believe it is quite unconscionable for the matter to proceed in the way that is proposed apparently by the Opposition and possibly-I hope not-by the Democrats. I conclude on this note: The Government believes that it is of the greatest importance to ensure that the safeguards of our ordinary judicial processes are applied to the proceedings of the Senate Committee. Only in this way can we provide a sound and satisfactory basis for that Committee to complete its very difficult task. It has taken Anglo-Saxon law and in particular criminal law some seven centuries to resolve the kinds of procedural difficulties that this Committee, no doubt with the best will in the world, is trying to resolve in seven days or so. It is true that the present proceedings are not a criminal trial properly so called, but in terms of the stakes for those involved in these proceedings it is the closest thing to a criminal trial that this Parliament is ever likely to see . I believe that if the Opposition, and possibly the Australian Democrats, persist with their opposition or pursue an opposition to the first two motions that are now before the Senate, they will be making a mistake and the Senate will be making a mistake of a quite fundamental kind. We will be treating and prejudicing the rights of individual defendants or individuals who are in the same practical position as criminal defendants in a way that would be unthinkable in the criminal process. I believe that if that is the course which is followed by the Senate on this occasion the Senate will establish a precedent that it will as an institution live to regret quite profoundly. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(4.30) —It is not my intention to take a great deal of the Senate's time this afternoon in debating the matters before us in any great detail, nor do I intend to be provoked by some of the earlier inflammatory statements made by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) with regard to the whole establishment of this Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge; that, I think, was canvassed well enough during the debates last month. I would, however, like to pick up the references that he has made to the question of analogies between the Committee that has been established and various other forms of trials and hearings. The simple facts of the matter are that we are not acting as a civil hearing, we are not acting as a criminal trial , we are not acting as a royal commission and nor are we indeed acting as an ordinary standing or select committee. We are, if you like, a hybrid, and the reason that that hybrid has been produced is that we are in an unprecedented situation which has arisen out of the responsibilities placed on this Parliament by section 72 (ii) of the Constitution. We have got to respond to that and the Committee, the Senate and the Parliament as a whole have to act in accordance with those responsibilities. To do anything else-and I remind the Senate that it is not something of our doing-would be highly irresponsible. I want to deal with the matters before us today generally in the order in which Senator Tate approached them. The first matter on the agenda, so to speak, is the question of Mr Hughes's petition to come before the Bar of the Senate. Essentially we agree with the points that Senator Tate brought forward in the statement that he read to the Senate earlier, that is, that Mr Hughes's arguments are a matter of public record and they are available for senators to read and digest. Mr Hughes put those arguments with considerable flair and enthusiasm. Indeed, I almost wished that he were in this place to-- Senator Gareth Evans —He is. Senator HAINES —No, I mean a little further in this place than simply sitting in the gallery, to entertain us and enlighten us from time to time with that sort of delivery. I have to say, however, that I took exception-I suspect I was not the only one-to his statement, made when he was in full flight, that the Committee runs the risk of becoming an unjust farce. I remind honourable senators and anybody else that we paid considerable attention to the matters that Mr Hughes raised-the objections that he raised and the challenges that he issued to the previous Committee, the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge. I believe that as far as possible those concerns that Mr Hughes raised about the full requirements of natural justice being seen to be met were indeed accommodated in the formation of the current Committee. On the matters contained in the four motions before us today, the Australian Democrats have elected to be guided by the recommendations of the Commissioners assisting the Committee and by counsel assisting that Committee. That is, after all, the reason why those people were put there. For that reason it is my Party' s intention to oppose the first motion moved by Senator Tate. As he points out, this in fact effectively returns to the rules and procedures recommended by the Commissioners, their original provisions numbered 13 (c) and 14. On page D.-2 of the recommendations, the Commissioners had this to say: Our recommendation therefore is that cross-examination generally of Mr Justice Murphy, if he is called, and of any witnesses called on his behalf, be conducted by counsel assisting the Committee and, as in the case of other witnesses, counsel representing Mr Briese should be confined to cross-examination on matters relevant to his evidence. Item 13 (c) of the Commissioner's original recommendation reads: Counsel for a witness may cross-examine all other witnesses including Mr Justice Murphy (should he give evidence, and any witness called on his behalf, on matters relevant to the evidence of the witness for whom that counsel appears . Item 14 reads: The Committee may stop any secondary cross-examination if it considers it repetitive or oppressive. The second motion that is before us today-in the form presented by Senator Tate- requires that neither the statement by way of letter from Mr Justice Murphy to the previous Committee nor the oral submission made by Mr Hughes to that Committee be made available to witnesses. We are of the opinion, which is shared by Senator Durack, that there is little justification in preventing access to Mr Justice Murphy's written statement. However, we concur with and are convinced by the Commissioners' opposition to access being allowed to Mr Hughes's oral submission since it would seem that this runs perilously close to giving a witness advance notice of the direction of Mr Hughes's likely cross-examination of that witness. For that reason we will support the amendment that has been foreshadowed by the shadow Attorney-General to the second motion; that is, deleting reference to Mr Justice Murphy's letter and supporting the remainder of the motion, which would stop access by witnesses to Mr Hughes's oral submission to the previous Committee. Of the last two motions I simply wish to say that we support Senator Tate on the same grounds as those which he issued in his statement to the Senate. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(4.36) —I was the only senator who attended the public hearing yesterday of the Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge, possibly because I was in Canberra for another matter and had the opportunity to do so. That is not a reflection on other senators. I merely state the case that I was the only one who was there. I was there when Mr Hughes put to the Committee that he did not intend to press for the removal from the Committee of senators who had been exposed to the previous hearing, but he did make clear something that ought to be made clear. In doing so he referred to having raised the matter previously and said that one of the Commissioners had asked him: 'If they are not to sit, who else is to sit?' Possibly that was the reason-I cannot go into Mr Hughes's mind-why Mr Hughes decided not to press his point on that matter. That is the question: Who can sit on that Committee from the Senate because we have been exposed time and time again to debate, to question and counter-question and to insult and counter-insult in this place concerning this matter. None of us is free from prejudice and none of us is able to sit upon that Committee. Senator Missen —We are not concerned about the Committee's views. It is the Commissioners' view we want to know. Senator GEORGES —Nevertheless, it will be the Committee's decision which will come to the Senate. It concerns me that we have in the Senate these matters before us again. I would have thought that the Committee itself would determine exactly what it needed to do. In fact I think it did so determine but because a minority on the Committee decided that that did not satisfy them the matter is back before us to determine. Senator Chaney —They decided against the rules the Senate had laid down, Senator . That is why it is back. Senator GEORGES —They also made determinations on other matters concerning evidence and documents. The Chairperson, Senator Tate, if I may say so, has been given a burden by the Senate that no senator should be expected to carry. He has been placed in an extremely difficult position in having to deal with this hybrid, as Senator Haines has described it, which consists of some people with judicial capacity and some senators mostly with a lay capacity, but all senators with prejudices. We should not put too much store by the hope that the position of senators on that Committee will not be questioned further. My belief is that no senator is in a position to sit upon that Committee. That might have been in the minds of honourable senators opposite when they first put a proposition before the Senate. Senator Durack —Why don't you support that? Senator GEORGES —No, it was not supported. After having put that proposition the Opposition was not prepared to accept defeat upon that proposition but it moved to establish what has been said several times, that we have created a farcical situation. Senator Chaney —That is what you would like it to be. Senator GEORGES —Well, it is a farcical situation. The way in which we have proceeded in this place is quite outrageous. On this very important matter we have broken down into personality conflicts. I think that Senator Chaney's approach to this, Senator Durack's approach and the approach of several honourable senators opposite, is to get square with the Attorney-General, to cut him down to size. I have seen it happen time and time again in this place when there have been insults and counter-insults which have debased this place to the point where it is a farce. Senator Missen —No, we are very sorry for the Attorney-General. Senator GEORGES —That is the type of comment that is continually being made in this place and it actually complicates this important matter very much indeed, because I do not believe that the Senate is in the position to make any sort of decision on these matters before us today. I am certain that the Liberal Party met today and determined which way it would proceed. So we have a party decision on how the Opposition should proceed. I do not doubt that the Democrats have also made a party decision as to how they should proceed on this matter. Yet honour- able senators try to tell me that what we will have before this Committee is a non-political, unprejudiced approach. Senator Durack —Have you got a free vote on this? Senator GEORGES —I am moving a motion which indicates that I have got a free vote and that our Party did not do what the Liberal Party and the Australian Democrats obviously have done, and that is come to a political decision on what is to happen to these propositions before us today. Let me go back to the public meeting of the Committee yesterday. I was astounded to see before that Committee two groups of people who suddenly appeared. I am told that even the Committee itself was not aware that these people were going to appear. We had counsel who came before the Committee and sought to be represented on behalf of Judge Flannery from New South Wales. On the other hand, we had counsel appearing for Judge Foord before, without the knowledge of the Committee. Why? Because this monster that we have created has suddenly extended itself and will further extend itself. It was decided that the Committee would be assisted by two Commissioners. It was then further decided that the Committee should be assisted by counsel, as if the Commissioners and the Committee members themselves were not competent to carry out the inquiry. So we appointed counsel. What does the counsel do? The counsel, possibly with the consent of the Committee and this is something I would like to know, goes into New South Wales and takes statements. It apparently took statements from Judge Foord and Judge Flannery. As a result of that, we now face the possibility, because of those statements having been taken, and being part of the Committee's procedures, of the Committee having to consider the position of Judge Foord and Judge Flannery. Where are we going? Furthermore, we suddenly find that the counsel we appointed decide that they need to be supported by solicitors. So we get an extra group of people involved with the Committee. Who are the solicitors who have been chosen, unwittingly? The solicitors that are supporting the counsel who will, in effect, carry out the prosecution of Justice Murphy-- Senator Walters —No. Senator GEORGES —Yes, they will in effect because that is how they have proceeded. They have gone into New South Wales and taken statements elsewhere. Senator Chaney —What do you expect them to do? Senator GEORGES —You are saying that this is an inquiry. I am saying that it is a judicial procedure which will widen and widen and which we are not competent to handle. Senator Missen —No, it is all right. Senator GEORGES —We are not competent to handle it, not one of us is competent. I speak not only for myself, but I speak for you, Senator Missen. You have capacity and experience as a jurist, which I admire. But even you cannot sit upon that Committee because you have prejudged the issue and made comments in this place concerning the case indicating a bias, which, if you look at it carefully, would disqualify you. I might disqualify myself because of ignorance and incapacity, but you, Senator Missen, disqualify yourself because although you have the capacity, you also have the prejudice. Senator Durack also has the prejudice. Senator Missen —On a point of order, Mr Deputy President. An allegation has been made by Senator Georges that I have disqualified myself from something by reason of some prejudice that I have shown, some views that I have expressed. That is totally untrue. It is an allegation which any reading of my speech will show not to be so, and I ask Senator Georges to withdraw it. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order: That is a debating point and you may respond to it. Senator GEORGES —I withdraw it because the last thing I want to do is to insult Senator Missen. I am prepared to insult Senator Durack and perhaps Senator Chaney, and I am prepared to take a swipe at Senator Chipp. He is a person who has considerable political capacity, but he has not had long enough experience of the way the Senate and its committees operate. Perhaps because he lacks that knowledge he has been party to what I consider to be the denigration of the forms of this place. Let me return to the fact that we had solicitors appointed, and it turns out that the solicitors that were appointed to support the counsel of our Committee are the solicitors for the Fairfax Press. They appeared as solicitors before the Privileges Committee of the Senate. What is this situation? This is an example of how these things extend. Certain complaints, charges and allegations were made against a senator because of some connection with Christo Moll. It turns out that these charges were false and that the material that was used to mount the charges against Senator Crichton-Browne was fabricated. The same charges were levelled against Mrs Ingrid Murphy. The Age ran them. Senator Chaney —It was not until that happened that we got a retraction. Senator GEORGES —That is another matter which Senator Chaney can take up in his own time. I have taken it up, and sufficiently so. The Age ran a story which implicated Mrs Murphy, and the judge was outraged by the defamation. Yet we have solicitors assisting counsel before this Committee who are the solicitors for that group. They are the solicitors who turned up before the Privileges Committee to defend the National Times, one of the newspapers in the Fairfax stable. This is the sort of situation that we have allowed ourselves to fall into and from which we cannot recover. When the counsel for Justice Murphy said before the Committee-he did not make the statement outside-that this was likely to become a political farce, Senator Durack took umbrage. He takes umbrage at the statement which was part of the submission which Mr Hughes made before the Committee. He had a right to make that submission, because the Committee has been completely discredited. It is not in a position to hear anything about anyone. Let me get back to the original Committee. There is talk of intimidation, but I say to Senator Durack, who was a member of the Committee, that he was guilty of intimidation of the Committee because when the Briese allegations came before it they were outside its terms of reference. When it was pointed out to the Committee that that was so, what was the response? I asked the distinct question : Why did the Committee allow Briese's allegations to be heard and given the privilege of the Committee? I was told the reason the Committee did that was that if it did not the Opposition would come before the Senate and extend the reference. Senator Chaney —So it should have. Good heavens, are you suggesting that that evidence should have been suppressed? How extraordinary! That is an absolutely disgraceful, pathetic statement. Senator GEORGES —My memory is long, and I remember when a client of Senator Chaney's came before the Select Committee on Securities and Exchange. That person was in danger of making statements which would have prejudiced or incriminated himself and the Committee refused to hear them. Senator Harradine —He was not a High Court judge, was he? Senator GEORGES —No, he was not a High Court judge. However, the double standards of Senator Chaney need to be remembered because, as is revealed in the Sydney Morning Herald, the Opposition wants to continue with this matter, to make it an issue in the election campaign because the Costigan affair has gone cold. If we debate the Costigan affair, I will tell honourable senators exactly how information got from the Costigan Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union into the National Times. Senator Missen —Yes, tell us. Senator GEORGES —In due course I will say how it was done, and I say now to honourable senators that it just does not stand scrutiny. The Opposition has lost its momentum on the Costigan affair and it will now continue with this affair. It will drag it out and accelerate it, giving it momentum and impetus in order to serve its own political ends. If I say that about the Liberals, I say it also about the Australian Democrats because they should have given a little more thought to what they are doing in this matter. They should have listened to the reason of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). No matter what one thinks about the Attorney-General on matters legal, he puts a reasoned case. Senator Walters —Talk about damning with faint praise! Senator GEORGES —Yes, it is all a joke. What took hundreds of years to establish we will destroy within a few minutes, for nothing more or less than political advantage. I could make harsher comments about this matter but of course then I would make this place an even greater farce than it has become. Let me tell honourable senators what my motion was to be. I would say that Senator Durack believes it has some case, because he attacked Mr Hughes. The motion was to have been: That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, prior to the Senate proceeding to the vote on proposed motions Nos 1 to 4 moved by Senator Tate, the counsel assisting Mr Justice Murphy, the Hon. T. E. F. Hughes, QC, be called to the Bar of the Senate forthwith to address the Senate in connection therewith. Senator Chipp —Would your Party support that? Senator GEORGES —As I have listened to the debate and as I have listened to Senator Tate-- Senator Mason —Does your Party support that? Senator GEORGES —Let me finish. Senator Mason —I am just asking you a question. Senator GEORGES —Senator Mason will get an answer to his question if he is patient. He seldom interjects on me so I do not want to be too harsh. I cannot think of anything nasty to say about him, anyhow. I repeat that the motion I intended to propose stated that notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, the Hon. T. E. F. Hughes, QC, be called to the Bar of the Senate forthwith to address the Senate in connection therewith. I will answer the honourable senator's question. It is fairly obvious, from what Senator Tate says, that the Committee is not prepared to support that. That means that the Government would support the Committee because it takes the view that the Committee is the body best able to judge. That is not the position taken by the Liberal Party or the Democrats. It is fairly obvious that if I move that motion it will not prevail. I suppose I have been in worse situations than this. I have been on my own many times until situations have changed and I have found I have had the majority with me. However, on this occasion I find myself very much on my own although the proposition deserves to be supported. I will tell honourable senators why it deserves support: It has been said that Mr Hughes's submission has been circulated. I wonder how many honourable senators who are going to vote have read it. I know that only five honourable senators have actually heard it. There is a considerable difference between hearing it and reading it as much emphasis can be placed on something that is said which cannot be put on something which is in writing. Having heard the position taken by Senator Durack, as a jurist, I believe he needs to receive the advice of another jurist against whom he cannot rail the way he rails against the Attorney-General. Perhaps he would be prepared to listen with greater concern to Mr Hughes. Senator Durack —I listened very carefully to him, before. Senator GEORGES —The honourable senator may have. I do not doubt that he has an admiration for Mr Hughes, and I do not doubt that he would be prepared to listen to him again. However, the Senate has set up this Committee with two commissioners-something entirely new which I fought against, suggesting that we drop the whole matter to the bottom of the Notice Paper, an attitude from which I have not shifted-as well as counsel and solicitors. This means that we will find before the Committee a whole host of Queen's Counsel, other counsel and solicitors-you name it and they will be there; they were all there yesterday-and can thus extend the scope of the Committee to that of a judicial inquiry, and so it is quite possible and reasonable to ask Mr Hughes to come to the Bar of the Senate and put his case. It is fairly obvious that honourable senators do not want to listen to the case. It is fairly obvious that they do not want to be convinced. I do not know why I am looking at Senator Lewis; it is just as well for him that any conversations we have had are privy to ourselves, and I will not inject into this debate what I consider to be a motive that you ought not have. Senator Lewis —Rubbish! Senator GEORGES —Do I tease Senator Lewis? Get up and make an explanation. Senator Walters —Tell us about the Constitution before you sit down. Senator GEORGES —I thought the Constitution was to protect justice. It does not spell it out. It is supposed to protect the rights of individuals but that is not spelt out. We do not have a Bill of Rights; we have a Constitution which says a number of things, but there are many things that it does not say. It does not mention the protection of individuals against scurrilous and infamous attack . That is happening too often in this country at present. It is something new; an indication that our society is getting somewhat sick. Senator Harradine —It has happened before. Senator GEORGES —It has happened in the past and it is happening with greater magnitude now. Someone stirs up some information. It is happening against the Leader of the Liberal Party at present. I have a sympathy for him. I remember when he and someone else were supposedly-perhaps I should not say it. I will forget about that and come back to the way in which it is done. A newspaper runs a story and no names are mentioned. It makes all sorts of allegations, spreads all sorts of rumours but mentions no names. But the names run around. Senator Harradine —That is what you have just done. Senator GEORGES —I am sorry about that. The names run around. Let me say that Mr Peacock was without any blame. I have no blame for Mr Peacock. I have a respect for him that many honourable senators opposite do not share. The practice has developed now in which a rumour is spread and no names are mentioned. The rumour is pushed around. It was done by the National Times. Suddenly the allegation appears in the Parliament under privilege-the Queensland Parliament, the New South Wales Parliament or here. Then as a result an inquiry is established. Police in New South Wales have been tapping telephones and obtaining information which they cannot use because they have taken it illegally. The information is spread around and raised in the Parliament. A commissioner is elected and someone goes on trial. It has happened to Mr Packer. I ask honourable senators to take note and read what Morris West said about that, because I do not have time to go into it. Senator Missen —He is a very good novelist. Senator GEORGES —He might have a sense of justice as well as being a good novelist. He does not have to be a jurist to know about the justice and rights of ordinary people. All I can say is that we live in a very unhappy climate. I think that the Senate ought to accept its responsibility and pull away because it is too far enmeshed in the machinations of others outside this place. When one starts to go deeper one realises how substantial those machinations are and that conspiracies are at work to assassinate people and destroy people's reputations. We ought not to be a party to it. For that reason I go back to my original proposition. Let us drop this to the bottom of the Notice Paper. Let it go away. Let the Committee make a decision to disband. Let us go on being a Senate, a place of review, which looks at legislation and at the concerns of people in the country and not at this rubbish. Senator Walters —Sweep it all under the carpet. Senator GEORGES —The honourable senator should be careful. There is not one of us here who can escape rumour or scandal which is spread against us. Even the most innocent can suffer and does suffer. Rumours create minefields in which even the innocent can stumble. One can argue that if one has nothing to hide why be afraid, but what is going on in this country must make everyone afraid, even the most innocent. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —Mr Acting Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented. I am a great admirer of Senator Georges. I think that the speech he has just made in the Senate is probably one of the best speeches he has made in a long time. I must say that he and I get on very well personally outside the chamber. I would count him as one of my friends in this place. I believe that when he reads his pink of what he has said today he will realise that for some reason he imputed some base motive to me in the course of an exchange when he apparently caught my eye. Frankly, I do not understand what he meant, but I do say this-I have said it before, publicly, and I will say again; I am adopting words used in the case ex parte Lewin in 1964, New South Wales reports, page 446 -I am possessed of no views incapable of reconsideration; I have an open mind and no sense of vested interest in maintaining my earlier decision, if it was, in fact a decision or a judicial view. I have always claimed that the earlier report was, in fact, a report of an investigative nature and not of a judicial nature. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.06) —The Senate has just heard a speech by Senator Georges, the gravamen of which was that we should move right away from this inquiry, that we should drop it and should regard it as something we should do away with. That is an interesting viewpoint put forward in what was a very interesting and, in some ways, a rather entrancing speech. Because of the passionate way in which it was delivered it was very easy to lose sight of the facts with which this Senate is faced. Senator Gareth Evans —Don't be patronising. Senator CHANEY —I am told not to be patronising. I would point out that that demonstrates the difficulty of trying to avoid the ills which Senator Georges talked about of being abusive and so on. I am trying not to be abusive. I am trying to be calm about a subject which runs very deep in this chamber. I certainly do not mean to patronise Senator Georges. I think it is difficult to take any topic seriously in this place when the usual cry from the front bench opposite is that if one is being serious one is being sanctimonious. The fact of the matter is that we face a situation in which the Senate has had put before it evidence which was not sought by the Opposition-evidence which was not ferreted out by the Opposition-but was brought forward by the Chief Stipendiary Magistrate of New South Wales and which was laid before a Senate committee. A Senate committee has reported to the Senate on that evidence and has reported in terms that, having cross-examined Mr Briese twice, it thought he gave his evidence honestly. There is no escaping the fact that Mr Briese has made allegations which have been reported on to this place and which are serious in their nature. They are allegations which led to the judge making his appearance before the Committee in the form of senior counsel. The panoply of lawyers about whom Senator Georges has complained commenced with the appointment of a counsel to assist the Senate committee, but the larger number of lawyers commenced with Mr Justice Murphy's first appearance through counsel-a number of counsel and instructing solicitors-before the committee. We have to deal with this matter because under the Constitution it is our responsibility. It is no use Senator Georges pointing his finger around this chamber and saying that none of us may deal with this matter, because under the Constitution it is we and only we who can. I can appreciate the concern which is felt by Senator Georges that we have to deal with this serious matter under section 72 of the Constitution when all of us now, since Senator Harradine started his Party, bear a party label and our actions can be impugned on the basis that we are caucused, acting out of party interest or whatever. The fact of the matter is that we have no choice but to act in this matter. There is no one else to sit. There is no one else to carry out the inquiry but this Senate. We thought there was a better way of going about it. It was not an invention of the Opposition. It was something which was mentioned by a number of members of the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge in their first report. The Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Chipp, mentioned it. It was mentioned by Senator Lewis and Senator Durack that there was another way and perhaps we should consider the appointment of a parliamentary commissioner. That idea was originally meant to appoint a person who would be free standing from this Parliament-appointed by this Parliament, but able to sit independent of this Parliament. That proposition was put forward by the Australian Democrats and we gave the clearest possible indication that we would support it. Senator Gareth Evans —It was constitutional nonsense, and you know it. Senator CHANEY —The Attorney-General says: 'It was constitutional nonsense, and you know it'. We in the Opposition, with the Australian Democrats, at least sought to find a vehicle to carry out our responsibilities in this matter which was insulated from the political process and from politicians. We understand that that was something which could not be achieved by the Senate unilaterally. We understood that was something which required the co-operation of the Government, and the co-operation of the Government was not forthcoming. The first option that was put forward by the Australian Democrats and supported by us was rejected by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). In common with the Attorney-General's response to any of the matters that I have seen put before him, we got bluster, we got obstruction; we got the sort of behaviour which can lead parliamentary procedures to be described in terms of farce. Anyone can turn any procedure into a farce if he tries hard enough. A single family can be rendered a farce by the behaviour of one individual within it. The behaviour of this Parliament can be rendered farcical by the behaviour of a few individuals. To the extent that there is anything unsatisfactory about the way this matter is proceeding, the responsibility lies with the Government and with the Attorney-General who, I assume, has given his usual bad advice to the Government-it is either that or the Government has chosen to override whatever good advice he may have given in private. We face a situation in which serious allegations have been made. There is no evidence of will on the part of the Government to get to the bottom, to the truth of this matter. There is no evidence at all of that on the part of the Government, and the responsibility is therefore left to us. I simply say in response to Senator Georges that I believe that we have put forward the best procedure which is available to us as a parliament to meet the responsibilities which are clearly ours under section 72 of the Constitution. I do not resile at all from the fact that we have established a parliamentary committee which has the obligations which are laid down in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Senate resolution of 6 September. The honourable senator will note that we have not tried to give to the parliamentary Committee the responsibilities of this Parliament. We have asked it to report upon the facts and upon whether there is misbehaviour within the various meanings that have been put before the Parliament by the Solicitor-General and by the opinion of Mr Pincus, QC. We have asked that the Committee indicate whether there is proof of conduct amounting to misbehaviour beyond reasonable doubt or upon the balance of probabilities. There is a series of decisions which this Parliament may have to face, and this Committee has been established as a procedure which is insulated from the political processes of this chamber in an attempt to get the facts before this place so that we can exercise our responsibility. I do not wish to go over the ground which has been covered very satisfactorily on behalf of the Opposition by Senator Durack, but let me make a number of points. We are not here establishing a criminal trial; we are here talking about a Senate committee of inquiry. The fact that this is not a criminal trial is quite evident. The Government tried to push this matter aside, to send it off to the Director of Public Prosecutions and to make it a matter which would be determined by his decision as to whether or not a prosecution should be brought and by the outcome of any prosecution which might be brought. It was the majority view in this place that that was not the way to meet the responsibilities of this Parliament and that the determination of whether or not a prosecution should lie was not the critical question for determination in this matter in any event. The fact is that we have a Senate committee of inquiry, which is the best agent available to us to make inquiries into the facts and to report to us within the terms set out in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Senate resolution. There is something novel about this inquiry. It is a novel inquiry in that, out of deference to the difficulty that we as members of political parties all face in dealing with a very sensitive matter, we have inserted into the process the appointment of commissioners to assist the Committee who, under the terms of the Senate resolution, will be required to report, through the Committee, their views to the Senate. They will be required to report their views on a series of issues. Therefore we have the possibility of having their clearly non-political views on these contentious and difficult matters. We cannot run away from the fact that an Australian in a responsible position, the Chief Stipendiary Magistrate of New South Wales, has come forward and made statements on oath. He has been cross-examined on those statements and has raised very serious issues which require to be determined. The debate this afternoon has ranged rather wider than the matters covered by the motions which Senator Tate moved today. It has ranged much more widely, particularly with the contribution of Senator Georges. I think it is important to remind the Senate of why we have what Senator Haines described as a hybrid. We have this form of inquiry because an external inquiry was denied us by the Government. It ill sits in the Attorney-General's mouth to complain about the procedures which we have to utilise when he is primarily responsible for our having to utilise the procedure of a parliamentary committee. I say again that we have offered him an alternative. The Democrats offered him an alternative, we indicated that we would support it, and there was no interest on the part of the Government in pursuing that alternative. Senator Gareth Evans —Say something honest for once in your political life. Senator CHANEY —I do not wish to say very much in terms of the merits of the matters before us today, because they have been canvassed by Senator Durack. I welcome the interjection made by Senator Evans about my saying something honest for once in my political life because I have made it clear that I have very severe doubts about the resolve of the present Attorney-General to deal with the serious matters which his duties require him to deal with in the public interest instead of in the narrow partisan interest that I think he so often displays. So I do not mind his being critical of me because I am highly critical of him in his failure to live up to the traditions and standards of his office. Senator Gareth Evans raised a matter which needs to be addressed in the context of his own remarks. We faced the difficulty of establishing a set of rules which would be fair and likely to produce the truth, the facts, for the Senate to consider. It is a difficult matter. Senator Evans placed great weight on the fact that it is Mr Justice Murphy who is at risk. I thought there was an interesting window into the fact that others are at risk in the Attorney-General 's comments when last this Senate sat, on 13 September, when Senator Austin Lewis expressed concern about the possibility of some threat to Mr Briese because of his having undertaken the course that he followed. It is worth looking at what the Attorney-General had to say in the Senate on 13 September-it is to be found at page 993 of the Senate Hansard-because I think that what the Attorney-General was saying was that quite clearly there was properly a risk for Mr Briese also in what is happening now. The concept that a man in his position has come forward with the statements that he has and that that is a matter on which he is not at risk is a concept which escapes me when I read the Attorney- General's words at page 993, spoken in what was an inconclusive debate because the facts were not clear as to what Mr Landa was saying regarding Mr Briese's position as the Chief Stipendiary Magistrate. The Attorney-General made clear that he thought it was a matter that could properly be taken into account in an administrative decision-- Senator Gareth Evans —You are misrepresenting me. I said it was a matter for argument. Senator CHANEY —I will read the section to which I am referring. Senator Gareth Evans said: 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. Earlier in the debate Senator Evans said: 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- Here the Attorney-General was stopped by Senator Chipp, who made this interjection, with which I agree: You are sailing fairly close to the wind yourself now. The Attorney-General went on to say: 'Oh, yes, but I am speaking hypothetically' . The fact of the matter is that this is a serious inquiry. It is an inquiry in which I believe the Senate would want to be fair to Mr Justice Murphy. It would also want to be fair to Mr Briese and to the other people who are apparently now likely to be called before the Senate Committee and, indeed, who are volunteering to come before the Senate Committee to give evidence. We have had a heated and wide-ranging debate on what is a series of fairly narrow but very important propositions which have been put forward by the Chairman of the Committee. Senator Durack has made it quite clear why we do not accept a number of the points which have been put forward by the Chairman of the Committee. On behalf of the Opposition, I foreshadow two amendments to the second motion, the terms of which have been circulated in the name of Senator Durack. The amendments read: Resolution 2, line 5-7 delete-the written statement made by Mr Justice Murphy to the Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge and line 8 delete-that Committee add-the Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge. The Opposition believes that this matter which is before the Senate Committee is one of major importance and that the proper conduct of this inquiry, which goes to the standing of this Parliament and to that of the High Court, has to be handled soberly, seriously and honourably on all sides. I believe that we have placed a very heavy burden on the four senators who have been appointed to this Committee. We have made that burden a little less by the appointment of the Commissioners assisting them but I believe we should avoid the quite understandable sense in which these proceedings could be criticised if we appear to be just bickering amongst ourselves without getting on with the job. I think it is important that we give a set of rules which is practical for the Committee to operate, which will operate fairly for all the individuals caught up in this matter and which gives us the best possible opportunity of having the truth put before this Senate, if necessary through the mouths of the Commissioners assisting, but I hope ultimately through the unanimous recommendations of the Committee itself. Debate interrupted. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the gallery on my right of former senator , Ken Wriedt, who was a Minister and a former Leader of the Government in this place. I welcome him and hope that his stay in Canberra is an enjoyable one. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Debate resumed. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(5.23) —in reply-I do not see any great value in my adding to the arguments that have been consequent upon the moving of my motions. In fact, the arguments are fairly succinctly summarised in the statement I made to the chamber. They have been elaborated on very fairly and forcefully by honourable senators in the course of this afternoon's debate. In any case, the arguments and issues have been fairly widely ventilated among senators in the course of the last day or so since they have been on some sort of notice that this was likely to occur. Whilst it is true, as Senator Chaney says, and as is the position underlying motion Nos (1) and (2) moved by me, that we are not conducting a criminal trial, such a criminal trial process provides the very best model for these very unusual proceedings that we have been required to undertake by resolution of the Senate. We are in a situation in which to a certain extent we are grappling for an appropriate mechanism to deal with what has not arisen before under section 72 of the Constitution. But I believe that as nearly as practicable we should assimilate the proceedings of the Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge to the proceedings appropriate in a criminal trial, simply because there is one person in peril under the Constitution at the end of these proceedings and that is Mr Justice Murphy. It is true that Mr Briese or any other witness may suffer some consequence if, in effect, the Committee finds that the allegations made by any particular witness cannot be sustained. It is true that there is that consequence, but the proceedings themselves, by resolution of the Senate, are directed to finding matters of fact and characterising those facts, if they exist, in relation to Mr Justice Murphy. Further, the allegations against Mr Justice Murphy concerning certain conduct which he is alleged to have engaged in with a certain intent would, if sustained on one view, amount themselves to criminal activity on his part. Thus the analogy with a criminal trial, I believe, becomes even more compelling. If that is the case, whilst it is true that Mr Justice Murphy should be subjected to most vigorous cross-examination by counsel assisting the Committee after he has been led through evidence by Mr Hughes, if he chooses to appear-and he may not; he may not, in particular, if the motion I am now moving is defeated-if he is subjected to that vigorous cross-examination by Mr Theodore Simos, QC, he should not be subjected to secondary cross-examination by counsel for other witnesses. In a criminal trial witnesses do not have the right to be represented by counsel who can cross-examine the accused. We say that that particular analogy is the most appropriate. With respect to motion No. (2), I say only that keeping the analogy with a criminal trial would lead to the observation that the accused in a criminal trial never has to open his or her mouth. The accused never has to say a word unless he or she chooses to do so. Senator Durack —What about his previous statement? Senator TATE —I am coming to that. The resolution of the Senate itself recognises that Mr Justice Murphy cannot or should not be compelled to appear before the Committee. There is a distinction made between him and all other witnesses because it is recognised that he is in a particular position and ought not be required to appear. Therefore, he cannot be required to utter a word in his defence. Certainly, if he says a word in his defence it ought only to be at the end of the presentation of all the evidence against him, when it is fully known to Mr Justice Murphy and his legal advisers. To put the chief witness, if I may call Mr Briese the chief witness-I do not adopt the term 'chief accuser'- in possession of a former statement made by Mr Justice Murphy in camera to the former Committee, which statement was made in respect of an earlier formulation of charges arising out of the appearance of Mr Briese before that former Committee and which response is necessarily partial and perhaps not as he would wish to respond in this second case where the evidence to be put to the Committee by Mr Briese will be restricted properly by the rules of evidence to what is relevant and admissible, would seem to me to be highly improper given that Mr Justice Murphy does not have to utter a word in his own defence if he chooses not to do so and ought only be questioned on a response that he makes, if he does, when he has heard all the evidence against him. It seems to me to move so far away from the appropriate analogy, which is a criminal trial, as to render the Opposition's foreshadowed amendments to motion No. (2) highly improper, particularly given that it is now conceded all around the chamber that Mr Hughes's oral submission to that first Committee ought not to be made available. That seems now to be common ground. Why? Because that oral argument by Mr Hughes would alert Mr Briese to the line of cross-examination which Mr Hughes would be undertaking of Mr Briese in relation to both the evidence that he puts forward and as to his credit. The same arguments apply to the statement by Mr Justice Murphy. I do not think I can add further to the argument that has been heard around the chamber. It depends on one's view as to how far the analogy with a criminal trial ought to be pressed. I think that is the crucial issue and is well understood by honourable senators. Therefore, Mr Deputy President, I think the stage has been reached where I should ask the Senate to vote on motion No. (1). Question put: That motion No. 1 be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 3 —— Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Childs, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Primmer, C. G. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Hearn, J. M. Archer, B. R. Jessop, D. S. Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F. Bjelke-Peterson, F. I. Lajovic, M. E. Boswell, R. L. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Carrick, Sir John Macklin, M. J. Chaney, F. M. Martin, K. J. Chipp, D. L. Mason, C. V. J. Collard, S. J. Messner, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Missen, A. J. Durack, P. D. Rae, PeterEvans, Jack Reid, M. E. (Teller)Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Scott, D. B. Haines, J. Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Button, J. N. Lewis, A. W. R. Coates, J. Hill, R. Reynolds, M. Withers, R. G. Elstob, R. C. Watson, J. O. W. McClelland, Douglas Townley, M. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.36) — I formally wish to move the amendments to motion No. 2 which were foreshadowed by both Senator Chaney and me when speaking during the debate. The first amendment simply seeks to delete reference to the written statement made by Mr Justice Murphy. This will enable the Committee to determine that it will not disclose to witnesses the submissions made by Mr Hughes to the previous Committee. I seek leave to move the two amendments together. Leave granted. Senator DURACK —I move: Leave out 'the written statement made by Mr Justice Murphy to the Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge and'. Leave out 'that Committee', insert 'the Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge'. Amendments agreed to. Motion No. 2, as amended, agreed to. Motion No. 3 agreed to. Motion No. 4 agreed to. Motion (by Senator Walsh) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.38) —The Opposition is concerned at the direction that the Government is pushing the oil industry. Our concern goes much further than the introduction of the resource rent tax and the downturn in off-shore exploration that seems to be related to that decision, or the fact that most of the changes the Government has made to the industry either directly or indirectly have resulted in increased government revenue, at the expense of both oil producers and consumers. We are concerned that there is a strong thrust towards more regulation in the industry and more Commonwealth Government bureaucratic control despite Senator Walsh's free market rhetoric. This has become especially evident in the last nine to 12 months. The effect is to maintain a higher price for petroleum than would otherwise apply. There are currently two pieces of legislation before the Parliament that seek to increase Government control over the industry, the Customs Tariff (Stand-by Duties) Bill 1984 and the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill 1984. No doubt we will have an opportunity to debate the merits of these Bills at a later stage and I am not entitled, I think, to anticipate debate on them here. But for now I would simply note that the Customs Tariff (Stand-by Duties) Bill is a big stick to enable the Government to put a customs duty on imported crude oil thereby increasing its price if, in the opinion of the Minister for Resources and Energy, not enough oil is being uplifted from Australian oilfields. This denies Australian refiners and consumers the opportunity of taking advantage of temporary lower prices available for oil overseas and enables the Government to hold the price of Australian oil and, therefore, petrol prices higher than they should be, simply for government revenue reasons. The petroleum (submerged lands) legislation is designed to give the Commonwealth Government power to control how much oil the producers can uplift from each oil pool with an explicit concern for Commonwealth revenue implications but no apparent concern that the direction given by the Government might damage oilfields. Such damage, if it occurred, would reduce the amount of oil that could be recovered from the fields. The Opposition has already indicated that it will move an amendment to ensure that government greed for revenue will not be able to take precedence over good oilfield practices. The potentially most significant government decision on the oil industry is one that will not even come before the Parliament. It is the decision to renew, replace or otherwise modify the crude oil allocation system, which is an integral part of the current regulation of the oil industry. As the Government is reported to be close to a decision on this matter and because it is potentially very significant for the future structure of the industry, I would like to say a couple of words on it today and to make available some more detailed comments in writing on what this Government is doing and what it should be considering. The Department of Resources and Energy has prepared two papers on the allocation scheme in the past few months and has invited industry comment. Despite a substantial part of the industry arguing for a freer market, and the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) saying that he believes in a freer market, the Department's papers advocate a continuation of the regulated approach and give virtually no thought to freeing up the system. They almost go to a stage where it could be said they are biased against a free market system and misinterpret or misrepresent the amount of support, and the arguments, for such a system. In addition the Opposition is concerned that new issues appear to have been introduced into the Department's latest discussion paper with little or no industry consultation and no time for discussion being allowed before the Government makes its decision. I have had a paper prepared in my office on an alternative and more free market approach to the marketing of crude oil. It contains options and arguments that the Department does not appear to have considered. I challenge the Minister to look at this document and talk directly to people in the industry before he decides on the future of the allocation scheme. I challenge him to give more thought to the possibilities and potential benefits of the free market than his Department appears to have done. I do that bearing in mind that in a number of areas the Government has been prepared to adopt a more deregulatory approach, for example, in regard to the financial system. Where that approach has been adopted by the Government, the Opposition has welcomed it and has not tried to make a political issue out of it, even when there may have been some possibility of doing so. In this area I believe that the Government should look to the same principle and look to a freeing up of what is a highly regulated system. Although the current scheme is due to expire on 31 December the industry needs to know what will take its place soon. It is obvious that more thought and discussion is needed on this matter. The Government should not put a new and possibly inadequate system into place for a long period while there is a possibility of vastly improving the system. I suggest that the Minister considers extending the present arrangements for another six months-until July 1985-to enable him to examine schemes that do not just have the interests of the Commonwealth bureaucracy as their rationale but make a genuine attempt to improve and deregulate the oil market. It appears to me, from the public statements of the Minister, that he is in favour of a freer market but that there is little interest in the industry and that he is not getting the views of the industry direct. I am sure that there are substantial sections of the industry which would favour a freer market approach than is at present being advocated in the departmental paper which has recently been issued. I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to a holding action on this very important issue to enable him to have a greater dialogue with the industry and to see whether his own freer market principles which he has publicly espoused could be placed into operation. I know that Estimates committees wish to sit. It is a large and interesting subject, and it is one which I would be happy to continue to debate. I simply seek leave to table the paper which I have had prepared. I ask the Minister to consider it and to consider the sort of action that I have advocated. I think that would be a satisfactory amount of progress for this afternoon. I seek leave to table this paper. Leave granted. Senator Walsh —Mr Deputy President- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Minister, I cannot call you because you moved the motion for the adjournment, and another honourable senator wishes to speak. Senator Chaney —I am happy to agree to leave being granted for the Minister to speak. I indicated to the Minister that I would be speaking on the adjournment. In fairness, we thought that he could not be present because of departmental commitments. We have gone on so long that he is now present. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Is leave granted for the Minister to speak without closing the debate? There being no objection, leave is granted. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.45) —by leave-Senator Chaney has indicated that I have not seen the paper, so I cannot respond to it. But I guarantee to have a look at it. In regard to the other comments he has made there has been, of course, an absorption allocation policy ever since oil has been produced from Bass Strait-for most of that period under non-Labor governments. In recent years the situation has been that the spot market price is usually above the Australian administered import parity price. That has changed back recently to the situation which applied with regard to price relativities in the early years of Bass Strait production. For that reason -I do not have time to go into all the details under the circumstances-the Government has had to consider the import duties Bill to which Senator Chaney referred. With regard to the proposed amendments to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act and the reference that Senator Chaney made to good oil field practice, the Victorian Government raised some concerns about this. I understand, although I have not directly confirmed this with the Victorian Minister, that the Victorian Government is now satisfied with the proposed amendment proposed by the Government to the original Bill which was introduced into the House of Representatives. I had a quick glance at an amendment of which Senator Chaney has given notice of his intention to move. From my quick study of it, it imposed a far more rigid condition-that is, that under no circumstances must the requirement of good oil field practice be overlooked. I will consider that further, but at this stage I do not believe the Government would accept it because there are circumstances in which there is a trade off between good oil field practice and the need to maintain petroleum supplies in a real emergency, which could even be a defence emergency. As Senator Chaney has indicated he would concede there are some conditions whereby the need to satisfy an emergency might outweigh the absolute maintenance of good oil field practice. In regard to the new allocation scheme, it is not correct that there have been no discussions with the industry or that the only discussions which have taken place have been between departmental personnel and the industry. Certainly there have been many discussions with departmental personnel at which I have not been present, but there have been a number of discussions at which I have been present, the most recent being only half an hour ago. I have seen the telexes and members of my staff at Parliament House have examined the submissions which have been made by the industry. It is necessary for the matter to go to Cabinet before very long. I cannot forecast or state with any certainty what the outcome of that Cabinet decision will be. There will be, I believe, a movement towards a freer market and a longer term intention of freeing up the market even further. But it would be unwise in the Government's view-or at least in my view and I believe in the Government's view-in one move to deregulate completely the Australian oil market and open up the possibility of significant instability and much greater movements of crude both in and out of Australia with consequential social losses. On the question of the industry response, I think it is correct that one or two companies-I am talking here about both the production and the refining sides of the industry-have advocated a completely free market. The great majority of the companies, however, have expressed a preference for a free market, but have either recognised that there are valid reasons for deviating from a completely free market to some extent or, I think in the majority of cases, have actually argued that there should be some exceptions to a free market because there are circumstances which justify some degree of government regulation. For example, so far as I can recall, no company has suggested that the smaller on-shore producers-at least with the exclusion of Barrow Island-should be completely exposed to market forces because small on-shore producers which do not have the infrastructure for exporting oil would be in a very unequal bargaining position in attempting to sell crude in a completely free market to Australian refiners. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(5.49) —Tonight I wish to correct some remarks made concerning the Chamberlain issue and me on yesterday's Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio program City Extra by the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Mr Paul Everingham. Mr Everingham said that, although it had been six months since I said that I was holding new evidence in the Chamberlain case, I had not provided any of it to him. Mr Everingham appears to have forgotten that when his Solicitor-General, Mr Brian Martin, asked me for statutory declarations I had said I was holding, I complied with that request within 48 hours. That was in June of this year. In that reply to Mr Martin I stated that the major part of the new evidence available was not in my hands but in those of Mr Stuart Tipple, the Chamberlains' solicitor, and urged that the Northern Territory Government examine this as soon as possible. However, I am informed by Mr Tipple and others that Mr Tipple indeed approached the Northern Territory Government at that time in June to inform it of this material but that his approach was refused. At that time, I am informed, the Northern Territory took the view that all the material in Mr Tipple's hands must be handed over to it in the form of final evidence. However, since March of this year the Chamberlain defence has been requesting in vain Crown agreement to the defence having access to vital areas of evidence being held by the Crown which the defence needs to finalise its case. So the delay is indeed the Northern Territory's responsibility. This material was denied to the Chamberlain defence for five months, and was finally made available only some three weeks ago. It is only now that the Chamberlain defence is able to complete its case, which should be available for submission to the Northern Territory Government within two or three weeks. Mr Everingham also has a very poor recollection of the elapsing of time. I raised the Chamberlain issue only in June, a little over three months ago, not six months ago as he has stated. Mr Paul Everingham's misleading and totally inaccurate public utterances on this matter do him no credit, nor do they help the appearance of his attitude towards the Chamberlain case. As things stand now the vital area of Crown evidence on whether or not damage to the child's clothing could have been caused by canine teeth is under intensive assault. Experiments with a large dog on identical clothing strongly suggest that the damage could indeed have been caused by canine teeth. This material will now go to an expert in the United States of America for final evaluation. That is basically what is causing the delay in the final presentation of the case to the Northern Territory Government. More than 40 members of this Parliament have expressed to me their concern at the necessity for the new evidence in the Chamberlain case to be examined. Many of these have already reached the conclusion that I have reached, that a grave miscarriage of justice may have occurred, as a result of the new evidence emerging since the Federal Court of Appeal and High Court hearings. However, most of our colleagues feel the Northern Territory Government has a prime obligation to make any first move. Bearing on this point is a telex I received from Mr Everingham this afternoon in which he said to me: My Government will consider the appropriate action which it should take if and when it receives representations from legal advisers authorised by Mr and Mrs Chamberlain based on new cogent and credible evidence. I would have thought that the Northern Territory Government would have already received such representations. In fact, it did so in June. However, I know that it will certainly receive more in the near future. I should say in regard to all this that Mr Everingham may well have been provoked in his response to me by attempts in some of the media to present this matter as a confrontation between him and me. For the record I must state that this is not the case. My own belief is that only great patience and good will on the part of all concerned will bring the necessary resolution of this vexed and controversial matter. I am certainly prepared to make no further significant moves in the matter until the Northern Territory Government has in its hands the new material which I and most of Australia know perfectly well is available. But I think it is fair and reasonable that the Northern Territory Government should have that material in its hands certainly before any move is made in this place. However, it is a serious matter indeed to adopt a leisurely approach to the possibility that a person might be held indefinitely in prison for an offence that person had not committed, and this is all the more serious when the person concerned has a family of small children. This matter of the Chamberlains cannot drift on indefinitely. The time is past when it ought to be delayed by narrow legalisms, entrenched positions and injured feelings. Hence I speak today to ask honourable senators and members to maintain their interest in this matter and to keep a close eye on developments over the next few weeks and on the response of the Northern Territory Government to them. This I shall certainly be doing. Question resolved in the affirmative. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Before the Senate adjourns, I advise honourable senators that Estimates Committees D and E will meet at approximately 6.10 p.m. Estimates Committee D will meet in Senate Committee rooms 1 and 2 and Estimates Committee E will meet in the chamber. The bells will be rung for three minutes prior to the meeting of the committees. The following papers were presented: Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 225. Air Force Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 226. Audit Act-Corrigendum to the Report of the Auditor-General upon Audits, Examinations and Inspections under the Audit and other Acts, dated 3 September 1984. Australian Citizenship Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 252. Canberra College of Advanced Education Act-Statute-No. 54-Staff Superannuation Amendment 1984. Companies Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 246. Companies (Acquisition of Shares-Fees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 Nos 243, 244. Companies (Fees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 245. Defence Act- Determinations 1984- No. 39-Bindoon Allowance. No. 40-Recreation Leave and another. No. 41-Representation Allowance. No. 42-Entertainment Allowance. No. 43-Insurance on Removal Overseas. No. 44-In Port Allowance and another. Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 227. Defence Amendment Act-Interim Determinations-Statutory Rules 1984 Nos 236, 237, 238, 239. Designs Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 256. Director of Public Prosecutions Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 249. Federal Court of Australia Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 258. Fisheries Act- Fisheries Notices- No. 124-Prohibition relating to the taking of southern rock lobsters from south-eastern Australian waters. No. 126-Prohibition relating to the taking of southern bluefin tuna from proclaimed waters. Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 233. Judiciary Act-Rule of Court, dated 13 September 1984. Lands Acquisition Act-Statements (2) by the Minister describing lands acquired by agreement under sub-section 7 (1) of the Act, for specified public purposes. Life Insurance Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 248. Maternity Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 235. Migration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 251. National Gallery Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 250. National Health Act-Corrigendum to Annual Report 1982-83 on Operations of the Registered Medical Benefits and Hospital Benefits Organisations. National Measurement Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 Nos 231, 232. Naval Defence Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 228. Patents Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 254. Postal Services Act-By-laws 1984-Postal (Staff) (Amendment) No. 2. Protection of the Sea (Shipping Levy) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 257. Public Service Act- Determinations 1984-Nos 33, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 Nos 234, 247, 253. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 229. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Notice of Variation of the Plan of Layout of the City of Canberra and its environs (82nd Series), dated 12 September 1984. Ordinances 1984- No. 49-Agents (Amendment). No. 50-Mental Health (Amendment). Sewerage Rates Ordinance-Determination, dated 10 September 1984. Securities Industry (Fees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 242. Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Act-Notice of Commencement of Part V of the Act on 24 October 1984. States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments of the Schedules to the subsidy schemes in relation to the States, dated 3 September 1984 and 12 September 1984. States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act-Statement by the Minister of a direction under sub-section 16 (2), dated 23 August 1984. Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 Nos 240, 241. Telecommunications Act-By-laws-Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts) Amendment No. 48. Trade Marks Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 255. Trade Practices Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 230. Governor-General's Proclamations-Commencement of Acts: Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General were presented, notifying that His Excellency had proclaimed the following Act and sections of an Act to come into operation on the dates specified: Advance Australia Logo Protection Act 1984-1 October 1984 (Gazette No. S 385, 28 September 1984) Public Service Reform Act 1984-Sub-sections 5 (4) and (8), sections 11, 16, 18, 24, 25, 28, 31 and 36, sub-section 52 (2), sections 82, 83 and 84, sub-sections 95 (3), 96 (1), 97 (3), 99 (2), 104 (1), 126 (1) and 127 (2), section 132, sub- section 137 (1) and sections 143 and 156-1 October 1984; sections 12 and 34-2 October 1984; section 26 and 153-1 November 1984 (Gazette No. S 383, 27 September 1984). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 691) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 7 March 1984: (1) Is the Minister for Industry and Commerce aware of the article in the Australian Agricultural Report, Volume 1, No. 3 in relation to self-regulation of imported tractors (2) What action has the Government taken to investigate this issue; if not, why not. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: I am aware that from time to time suggestions have been made about regulation of the Australian market in regard to service and spare parts. There are more than 40 brands of tractors and in excess of 300 models (mainly from overseas) competing on the Australian market which is of the order of 13 000 units per year. Such a competitive market should by its nature ensure a certain level of performance by the dealer organisation if continuity of sales is to be secured. It is in the farmers' own interests for them to thoroughly investigate a dealer 's ability to provide the required services and to seek information about recent performance in this regard. However, I would not argue against action by the industry to eliminate or reduce the potential problem for future purchasers of tractors. If after appropriate examination of the facts the industry concludes some measure of self regulation is desirable, codes of conduct could be developed by the industry (including Australian manufacturers) and representatives of the farmers. Of course, codes of ethics, etc, should not substantially lessen competition in a market or otherwise contravene the Trade Practices Act, unless the Trade Practices Commission is satisfied these are countervailing public benefits. Consumer protection is primarily a matter for the States and the parties involved should use avenues provided by the States in the first instance if they wish to proceed further. (Question No. 747) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 27 March 1984: (1) Do many thousands of Australians have a hearing loss which requires the use of a hearing aid, the cost of which varies from $350 to $800 for a three year device; and are other glasses, contact lenses and prosthetic devices such as glass eyes, arms, legs and breasts covered by health funds, in many cases to the value of $1000 per year. (2) Is the Minister for Health aware that many people with a hearing impairment are disadvantaged as they are unable to obtain employment without the benefit of a hearing aid and must therefore pay for their own aid and also contribute through their taxes to the provision of hearing aids for children and pensioners . (3) Will the Minister therefore take action to have the provision of hearing aids included under the Medicare Schedule. (4) Will the Minister also take action to require private health funds to include hearing aids in their 'extras' tables. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. The National Acoustic Laboratories (NAL) of my Department provide hearing aids free to people with hearing problems who are either under 21 years of age, eligible pensioners or their dependants, members of the armed services, ex-servicemen and women with war related hearing impairment or persons receiving supporting parent or sickness benefit allowances. During 1982/83, 53 126 hearing aids were fitted to eligible clients. Persons not eligible for NAL services acquire hearing aids from the private sector hearing aid dealers at an average price of $500. It is estimated that some 25 000 hearing aids per annum are fitted by the private sector. Hearing aids on average have a life of about five years. Many prosthetic devices are covered by health funds. However, the benefits and limitations which are applicable vary from fund to fund. (2) Yes. The 1978 Australian Bureau of Statistics Survey 'Hearing and the Use of Hearing Aids (persons aged 15 years or more)' indicated that some 26 700 persons could not afford to obtain an aid of which 11 300 persons were over 65 years of age, 10 700 persons were between 45-64 years of age and 4300 between 25 -44 years of age. I am not aware of any figures that are available regarding the number of people unable to obtain employment because of the lack of a hearing aid. Such persons could, under certain circumstances, be eligible for a free hearing aid through the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service of the Department of Social Security. I am aware that some people may be disadvantaged in this group. Unfortunately the resources are not available to extend eligibility for NAL services to all. Although the needs of all persons with hearing impairments are a matter of continuing concern it is essential that attention first be addressed to providing adequate services to those who are currently eligible for them. (3) Consideration of admitting benefits for hearing aids under Medicare would need to extend to a range of other aids and appliances, such as spectacles and dentures, with implications for an extensive increase in the cost of Medicare. The budgetary situation is such that the Government cannot responsibly approve of such an innovation at this time. (4) In relation to ancillary benefits payable from 'extras' tables, it has been the long standing policy of successive governments that funds are free to include whatever benefits they choose in these tables. The Government's role in relation to these tables is essentially one of ensuring that financial viability is maintained. However, I understand that many registered funds do offer benefits in respect of hearing aids. These funds include: New South Wales-The Grant United Order of Oddfellows, Friendly Society of New South Wales; Health Insurance Commission (Medibank Private); The Lysaght Hospital and Medical Club; The Phoenix Welfare Association Limited; Reserve Bank Health Society; The United Ancient Order of Druids, Registered Friendly Society; Grand Lodge of New South Wales; The Wollongong Hospital and Medical Benefits Contribution Fund. Victoria-Army Health Benefits Society; Cheetham Hospital Benefits Fund. South Australia-Health Insurance Commission (Medibank Private); South Australia Public Service Association Health Benefits Fund. Queensland-CPS Health Benefits Society; The Grand United Order of Oddfellows Friendly Society; The Queensland District No. 87, Independent Order of Rechabites Friendly Society; MIM Employees Health Society; Protestant Alliance Friendly Society of Australasia, in Queensland (The Grand Council); Queensland Teachers' Union Health Society. Tasmania-Health Insurance Commission (Medibank Private); Queenstown Medical Union Ancillary Medical Benefits Fund. (Question No. 837) Senator Chipp asked the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 2 May 1984: What are the names, dates of appointment, terms of appointment and salaries of all persons appointed to the boards and commissions of statutory authorities under the jurisdiction of the Minister. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is set out in the attached schedule. The details are correct as at 1 August 1984. Full-time *Salary *Allowance/ Date of part-time or annual sitting Name appointment Term member fee fee $ $ Commonwealth Schools Commission Dr P. D. Tannock(1) (Chairman) 15.1.81 7 yrs F 70,782 3,800 Dr R. J. Andrews 2. 8.82 5 yrs F 52,551 1,355 Ms L. G. Connors 22.4.83 5 yrs F 52,551 1,355 Mrs J. S. Brown 26.5.83 3 yrs P 8,823 Nil Rev Dr D. B. Clarke 15.1.82 3 yrs P 8,823 Nil Dr N. G. Curry 2.8.82 3 yrs P 8,823 Nil Mr V. J. Davy 26.5.83 3 yrs P 8, 823 Nil Sr D. Desmarchelier 20.4.84 3 yrs (Approx) P 8,823 Nil Mr J. V. Faulkner 26.5.83 3 yrs P 8,823 Nil Mr P. Hughes 26.5.83 2 yrs P Nil(ii) Nil Prof R. Sackville 15.1.84 3 yrs P 8,823 Nil Mr D. A. Swan 15.1.84 3 yrs P 8, 823 Nil Curriculum Development Council Ms L. G. Connors (Chairperson) 1.7.84 3 yrs P Nil Nil(ii) Dr P. D. Tannock (CSC Member) 1.7.84 2 yrs P Nil Nil(ii) Mr P. Hughes (CSC Member) 1.7.84 1 yr ( Approx) P Nil Nil(i) Mr J. V. Faulkner (CSC Member) 1.7.84 2 yrs (Approx) P Nil 128 per day Mr W. Hannan 1.7.84 3 yrs P Nil 128 per day Ms K. E. Schofield 1.7 .84 3 yrs P Nil 128 per day Ms L. Trimper 1.7.84 3 yrs P Nil 128 per day Prof C . E. Praegar 1.7.84 2 yrs P Nil 128 per day Mr P. S. Gebhardt 1.7.84 1 yr P Nil 128 per day Dr R. L. Vickery (AEC Nominee) 1.7.84 3 yrs P Nil 128 per day Dr F. G. Sharpe (AEC Nominee) 1.7.84 2 yrs P Nil 128 per day Mr G. F. Berkerley (AEC Nominee) 1.7.84 3 yrs P Nil Nil(iii) Mr J. R. Steinle (AEC Nominee) 1.7. 84 2 yrs P Nil 128 per day Mr R. Johnson (Secretary DEYA) 1.7.84 3 yrs P Nil Nil(ii) Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Mr H. R. Hudson (Chairman) 1.7.84 7 yrs F 75,097 3,800 Prof D. N. F. Dunbar 23. 6.83 3 yrs F 66,557 2,985 Dr G. A. Ramsey 1.7.84 7 yrs F 66,557 2,985 Mr D. A. Morrison 21.2.83 5 yrs F 66,557 2,985 Mr R. Goldsworthy 1.9.82 3 yrs P 8,823 Nil Ms A. D. Hull 13.7.83 3 yrs P 8,823 Nil Ms P. J. O'Shane 13.7.83 3 yrs P 8 ,823 Nil Mr B. C. Wilson, A.M. 5.11.82 3 yrs (Approx) P 8,823 Nil Universities Council Prof D. N. F. Dunbar (Chairman) As above Prof H. G. Gelber 1.9.82 3 yrs P 6,609 Nil Prof Dame L. J. Kramer, D.B.E. 1.9. 82 3 yrs P 6,609 Nil Prof M. I. Logan 1.9.83 3 yrs P 6,609 Nil Mr J. McG. McIntyre 1.9.82 3 yrs P 6,609 Nil Ms H. J. McPhee 1.9.83 3 yrs P 6,609 Nil Prof I. F. Morrison 1.9.81 3 yrs P 6,609 Nil Mr O. J. Nilsen 21.10.8 3 yrs ( Approx) P 6,609 Nil Prof D. Yerbury 1.9.83 3 yrs P 6,609 Nil Advanced Education Council Dr G. A. Ramsey (Chairman) As above Ms M. J. Bickley 1.9.83 3 yrs P 6,609 Nil Dr G. G. Burniston, O.B.E. 1.9.82 3 yrs P 6,609 Nil Ms R. L. Galbally 1.9.83 3 yrs P 6,609 Nil Dr D. A. Jecks 1.9. 81 3 yrs P 6,609 Nil Mr P. C. M. Kendal 1.9.82 3 yrs P 6,609 Nil Emeritus Prof G. H. Newstead 1.9.82 3 yrs P 6,609 Nil Mr T. J. Shanahan 1.9.82 3 yrs P 6,609 Nil Dr R. W. Smyth 1.9.81 3 yrs P 6,609 Nil Technical and Further Education Council Mr D. M. Morrison (Chairman) As above Ms D. Bradley 22.9.83 3 yrs (Approx) P 6,609 Nil Mr H. Hauenschild 22.9.82 3 yrs (Approx) P 6,609 Nil Ms L. C. C. Hodsdon 1.9.83 3 yrs P 6,609 Nil Ms J. J. Kiraly 1.9.81 3 yrs P 6,609 Nil Mr W. J. Menz 1.9.82 3 yrs P 6,609 Nil Mr G. E . Rees 1.12.82 3 yrs (Approx) P Nil(ii) Nil Mr I. R. Russell 22.9.83 3 yrs ( Approx) P 6,609 Nil Mr R. H. Wallace 1.9.81 3 yrs P 6,609 Nil Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority Dr R. Campbell (Chairman) 1.1.82 3 yrs P 13,220 Nil Dr G. Hancock (Chief Education Officer) 1.6.81 5 yrs F 61,129 1,900 Ms J. Kellett 21.12.83 1 yr P 6 ,609 Nil Mr H. Waring 21.12.83 1 yr P 6,609 Nil Mr B. Baratta 1.1.82 3 yrs P 6 ,609 Nil Mr I. Alder 1.1.84 1 yr P Nil (ii) Nil Ms C. O'Connor 1.1.84 1 yr P Nil (ii) Nil Ms A. Duke 1.1.84 1 yr P Nil (ii) Nil Mr J. Taggart Acting from 23.3.84 P 6,609 Nil Mr G. Cornwell 7.10.82 2 yrs (Approx) P 6,609 Nil Dr F. Coulter 11.11.83 1 yr (Approx) P 6,609 Nil Dr M. Edwards 11.11.83 1 yr (Approx ) P Nil (ii) Nil Mr R. Mitchell 1.1.84 1 yr P 6,609 Nil Dr C. Hughes 1.1.84 1 yr P Nil (ii) Nil Mr C. McDonald 11.11.83 1 yr (Approx) P 6,609 Nil Date of Appoint- Sitting Name ment Term fee* $ Australian Capital Territory Apprenticeship Board Mr R. A. Smart (Chairman) 21.7.70 Indefinite Nil (ii) Mr T. G. Magee (Deputy Chairman) 26.5.83 Indefinite Nil (ii) Mr J. Benson (Member) 15.6.80 Indefinite Nil (ii) Mr A. K. Walklate (Deputy to Benson) 11.7.67 Indefinite Nil (ii) Mr F. J. Gellatly (Member) 8.9.83 Balance of three year term expires 30.11.84 128 per day Mr G. P. Dodds (Deputy to Gellatly) 8.9.83 Balance of three year term expires 30.11.84 128 per day Ms M. Morris (Member) 12.12.83 3 years 128 per day Mr I. D. Culver (Deputy to Morris) 12.12.83 3 years 128 per day (i) Dr Tannock has resigned with effect from January 1985. (ii) Section 11 of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 states that a person appointed or otherwise employed in the service or employment of the Commonwealth shall not be paid any remuneration in respect of holding or performing the duties of a statutory office on a part-time basis. All Statutory Office holders receive travel allowance in accordance with Remuneration Tribunal Determinations . (iii) Does not wish to accept remuneration. (Question No. 898) Senator Teague asked the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 10 May 1984: (1) Which countries with communist governments have established airline, shipping or tourist bureaus or offices or representation in Australia. (2) How many such bureaus or offices or representations are established for each country and where are these situated in Australia. (3) How many staff from each of the respective countries, not citizens of Australia, have been authorised to work in Australia in such bureaus, offices or representation. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: I refer you to the answer provided by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to Question No. 899 in the House of Representatives Hansard for Wednesday, 22 August, at pages 192-193. (Question No. 924) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 30 May 1984: (1) Why is it necessary for a film crew to obtain permission to film in the Uluru and Kakadu national parks when such parks are said to be for the benefit and use of the general public. (2) What is the procedure to film in a national park, given that permission is necessary for obtaining a permit. (3) Who requires a permit, and who is responsible for the issue of these permits. (4) What role will the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service play, if traditional Aboriginal owners give their approval to film in a national park (5) Will a permit from the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service still be required. (6) Is there a requirement for a permit to carry out aerial filming; if so, would the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment expound this requirement. (7) Does the Minister anticipate that, at some stage in the future, a permit will also be required to take aerial photographs. (8) Would the Minister explain the Government's views on filming in national parks, taking into account the problems which have occurred recently over filming in the Uluru National Park and Kakadu National Park. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) National parks and wildlife regulations have been in force under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 since 1977, the year Uluru ( Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park was proclaimed. Regulation 7 (1) provides that commercial activity shall not be carried out in a park or reserve without the consent in writing of the Director of National Parks and Wildlife. Regulation 7 (3) requires that the Director shall not give his consent unless he is satisfied that the carrying on of the commercial activity will be of benefit to the members of the public using the park or reserve, or will assist in the protection and conservation of wildlife or the protection and preservation of the park or reserve. Commercial filming may adversely affect the use of a national park by the general public, require the services of park rangers and park facilities at public expense, affect park values and cause disturbance to wildlife and other park assets. (2) Anyone wishing to conduct commercial filming in Kakadu and Uluru national parks should apply to the Director of National Parks and Wildlife providing details of proposed filming programs in adequate time for consideration of the application before the proposed filming date. Where appropriate, the Director refers the application to the traditional Aboriginal owners or their representative bodies and the Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory. In these instances, the Director makes his decision after consideration of the advice and recommendations received. (3) See (2) above. (4) Under the national parks and wildlife regulations the approval of the Director of National Parks and Wildlife is required for all commercial filming operations in the parks. (5) See (4) above. (6) Aircraft movements within Kakadu and Uluru national parks are subject to regulations under the Air Navigation Act. Complementary regulations may be made under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 to regulate the movement of aircraft over the park. Although a permit is not required to carry out aerial filming, film crews are strongly advised to comply with established guidelines. (7) Regulation of aerial filming may be considered if such activity intrudes upon or adversely affects the use and management of the parks. (8) The Government's policy is that commercial filming is permitted in national parks established under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act provided that filming complies with the Act and Regulations, administrative arrangements made under this legislation and any guidelines agreed with traditional owners. Problems have arisen only in a minority of cases where film companies have provided insufficient time for the necessary consultations to take place or have submitted proposals which are environmentally or culturally insensitive. (Question No. 938) Senator Peter Rae asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 6 June 1984: What action has the Government taken in pursuance of its promise to 'strengthen the Trade Practices Act to protect small business'. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Since coming to office in March 1983 the Government has taken a number of initiatives in relation to trade practices matters which are intended, amongst other things, to assist small business. The Government has increased the funding and staffing of the Trade Practices Commission to allow it to perform its functions more effectively than has been possible for some years. In particular, the computer being acquired by the Commission will assist in dealing with complaints from small business. Also, in February 1984, in conjunction with the Ministers for Employment and Industrial Relations and Home Affairs and Environment, I released a Green Paper detailing proposals to strengthen the Trade Practices Act. Whilst a strong and effective Trade Practices Act benefits all efficient businesses, both large and small, as well as consumers, some of the proposals in the Green Paper are more directly aimed at allowing small business to compete with larger enterprises on more equal terms. A large number of submissions on the Green Paper were received from all interested sectors including small business. These submissions are now being considered and the proposals are being re-assessed in the light of those submissions. (Question No. 941) Senator Missen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 5 June 1984: (1) What are the names and addresses of Australian export companies which export kangaroo skins, hides and/or meat. (2) What has been the volume of kangaroo products exported from Australia for the years 1979-1980, 1980-1981, 1981-82, and 1982-83 and the current year. (3) Does kangaroo meat for human consumption leave Australia without inspection by any Government inspector. (4) What are the principal Australian abattoirs dealing with kangaroo meat. (5) Why has the Australian Government recently refused to grant a licence for the export of kangaroo meat to a Cambridge laboratory for testing to establish a standard for processed food in the United Kingdom. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Department of Trade has provided the following list of names and addresses of Australian export companies which were exporting kangaroo skins, hides and/or meat as at August 1983: Alco Import Export Pty Ltd 4th Floor, 147-153 Castlereagh Street Sydney, New South Wales 2000 Aust. Fur Trading Co. Holdings Pty Ltd 199 King Street, Sydney, New South Wales 2000 Aust. Light Leather Pty Ltd 400 Stafford Road Stafford, Qld 4053 Bell Trading Australia 3-17 Longland Street Fortitude Valley, Qld 4006 Beta Meats Pty Ltd 20 Railway Parade Welshpool, Western Australia 6106 Bonsella Pty Ltd 27 Rochester Street Botany, New South Wales 2019 Clinkat Australia Pty Ltd Lot 7, Trawalla Avenue Thomastown, Victoria 3074 Colyer Wilcox Partnership 22 Swan Street North Fremantle, Western Australia 6159 Conn Wool Co. Pty Ltd Taroona Street Launceston, Tasmania 7250 Crompton & Sons Pty Ltd 64 East Avenue Beverley, South Australia 5009 Dewez Export Co. Pty Ltd Unit 30, Hedley Avenue Hendra, Queensland 4011 Neale Edwards Pty Ltd Ruthwell Street Montrose, Tasmania 7010 Elders IXL Ltd-Rural Trading Division 29 Palmerstone Crescent South Melbourne, Victoria 3205 S. & J. Ferguson Pty Ltd 65 Parramatta Road Homebush, New South Wales 2140 Karl Frank Exports Pty Ltd 261 George Street Sydney, New South Wales 2000 B. Furedy & Co. 5 Byrnes Street Botany, New South Wales 2019 Hedrick (Aust.) Pty Ltd 253 Lonsdale Street Melbourne, Victoria 3000 Edgar Houghton Trading Pty Ltd 469 King Street West Melbourne, Victoria 3003 M. E. Humfress 22 Market Street Brisbane, Queensland 4000 IMP Investments Pty Ltd 19 Transvaal Avenue Double Bay, New South Wales 2028 Jesser Skin Processors 15 Francis Road Wingfield, South Australia 5013 Cory Johnston (Aust.) Pty Ltd 33 Longland Street Fortitude Valley, Queensland 4006 Kanematsu-Gosho Australia Pty Ltd Cnr King and George Streets Sydney, New South Wales 2000 Kosky Bros Pty Ltd 306 Victoria Street Richmond, Victoria 3121 Murlis Trading Pty Ltd 94 Balfour Street Launceston, Tasmania 7250 Angus Nugent & Sons Pty Ltd Viscount Road Wingham, New South Wales 2429 Overseas Game Export Pty Ltd Cnr Hornsby and Leonard Streets Hornsby, New South Wales 2077 G. W. & J. Packer Tanning Pty Ltd Boundary Road Narangba, Queensland 4504 Quindo Pty Ltd 3rd Floor, 36-38 Clarence Street Sydney, New South Wales 2000 Radarmin International Pty Ltd Cnr Perentie Road and Forest Way Belrose, New South Wales 2085 Raffan International P.O. Box 9 Richmond, Tasmania 7025 Reynolds Tanning Company Pty Ltd 13 Wilson Street Botany, New South Wales 2019 E. Schiro & Sons 14 Burgess Avenue Moonah, Tasmania 7009 Tasmanian Possum Hunters Association C/o Post Office Mole Creek, Tasmania 7304 Taurus Australia Pty Ltd 11 Lecha Street Sunnybank Hills, Queensland 4109 P. Tavrian McKenzie Street Georgetown, Tasmania 7253 C. F. Thomas Pty Ltd Dalgety Wharves, Macquarie Street Teneriffe, Queensland 4006 A. I. Topper & Co. Pty Ltd 6th Floor, 58 Pitt Street Sydney, New South Wales 2000 Tusker Australia Pty Ltd 128 Fison Avenue Eagle Farm, Queensland 4006 Vacik Distributors Pty Ltd 14 Fisher Street North Auburn, New South Wales 2144 (2) Exports of kangaroo products. Meat Hides and skins Unsuitable For human for human Pickled Raw consumption consumption skins skins Leather (a) (tonnes) (tonnes) (number) (number) $A ('000) 1979-80 1,273 n.a. 1,212,854 708,159 105 1980-81 1,671 n.a. 843,896 282,294 168 1981-82 1,521 356 1,352,925 214,682 459 1982-83 597 678 1,565,397 205,865 1,288 1983-84(b) 226 262 993,598 68,917 838 (a) Available in value only ($A f.o.b.) (b) Preliminary figures Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics (3) The Department of Primary Industry has advised that kangaroo meat may not leave Australia for human consumption without inspection by an authorised government inspector. (4) The Department of Primary Industry has advised that there are at present three game meat processing plants eligible to prepare kangaroo meat for export for human consumption. They are: (a) Tusker (Australia) Pty Ltd, Eagle Farm, Queensland; (b) Southern Game Meat, Chullora, New South Wales; (c) Northern Australian Meat Industries, Hamilton, Queensland. (5) There is insufficient information in the question to allow the specific application to be located and examined. (Question No. 973) Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 14 June 1984: What is the cost of providing, per head and per day, for each of the Royal Australian Navy, Royal Australian Air Force and Australian Army: (a) water; (b) meals; (c) accommodation, when the people concerned are: (a) on shore at permanent peace-time bases; (b) for the Royal Australian Navy, at sea; (c) for the Australian Army, on field exercises away from the permanent peace-time bases ; and (d) for the RAAF when operational support facilities are deployed away from permanent peace-time bases. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The accounting and other records within the Department of Defence are not structured to provide information in the form Senator Messner requires it. To answer the question in the terms that it is asked would cost almost $500,000 in salaries alone-a diversion of defence resources which I am not prepared to authorise. (Question No. 983) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 15 June 1984: (1) Are reports accurate that cattlemen in Northern Australia, particularly the Gulf of Carpentaria region, have no chance of freeing their herds of brucellosis and tuberculosis by the 1992 deadline date imposed by Australian authorities. (2) Will the lack of fencing and roads in northern Australia mean that vast areas of land will never be free of feral cattle and thus never entirely free of tuberculosis. (3) What effect will this have on Australia's export meat industry in the future. (4) Is the destocking program causing social problems resulting in large viable cattle areas becoming uninhabited and destitute. (5) Does the Government intend to increase funding for the brucellosis and tuberculosis program in order to complete the program by 1992. (6) When does the Government anticipate that Australia will be completely free of brucellosis and tuberculosis. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) It will be difficult for some northern cattlemen to meet the 1992 target date to eradicate brucellosis and tuberculosis. A number of northern cattle properties will require special assistance. State animal health authorities have developed workable programs required for effective disease eradication on each of these properties after examining the economic as well as technical aspects. With the assistance measures recently made available by the government these properties should be able to achieve freedom from brucellosis and tuberculosis by 1992. (2) Livestock in unfenced areas which are found to be infected will have to be removed to ensure that disease does not spread into disease free areas. Disease monitoring will be used to detect infection and where there is a risk of disease spreading onto disease free properties a program of testing or destocking will be mounted to remove that risk. (3) The effect of the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign on our overseas markets is not known. The EEC Third Country Directive which applies to Australia certainly mitigates strongly against tuberculosis infected cattle but this has only a minor influence at this time. It is not possible to anticipate the application of new non-tariff trade barriers. (4) Destocking is only carried out where approved eradication programs have been put in place by State animal health authorities with the property owner's agreement. These programs examine the economic and technical aspects involved and strategies are developed which will effectively eradicate the disease with minimal hardship to producers. This also ensures that compensation and the new assistance measures are applied to the best effect. (5) The Government has agreed to support the campaign financially until 1992 based on the cost projections made by the National Planning Group which reported in December 1982. State authorities have not indicated that funding significantly different to the Planning Group's cost projections will be required to achieve freedom on the target date. (6) The target date for freedom from brucellosis and tuberculosis remains 1992. (Question No. 986) Senator Crichton-Browne asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: (1) How many international inbound passengers used Perth and Brisbane airports in 1983. (2) What will be the cost of the international passenger terminal to be built in Brisbane. (3) What will be the cost of the international passenger terminal to be built in Perth. (4) In each case how many international flights will the terminals, when completed, be able to cater for at any one time. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) There were 208,956 inbound international passengers at Perth in 1983 and 232,228 at Brisbane in 1983. (2) There is no current proposal to provide a new international terminal building for Brisbane before 1990. The existing international terminal has been located so that it will form part of the new airport. Extensions and modifications of the terminal prior to the Commonwealth Games in 1982 proved to be adequate to meet the needs of international air travellers. The demands predicted for Expo 88 should not exceed the capacity of the facility. Costs of a future international terminal can not be predicted accurately without firm design proposals. (3) The cost of the new international terminal building at Perth will be $30. 247m at July 1983 prices. (4) The capacity for each of the terminals is as follows: Perth-The international apron is designed to hold 6 B747 aircraft. Terminal facilities are designed to handle up to 3 terminating or originating flights plus 2 transit flights per hour. Brisbane-The existing international apron can hold 5 B747 aircraft. The terminal was designed to handle 2 arriving and 2 departing B747 aircraft in each hour. Currently up to six B747 services operate through Brisbane Airport in a day and there is ample opportunity to schedule additional aircraft without causing undue congestion. (Question No. 1033) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 22 August 1984: (1) Will the Government maintain the number of officers, currently eight, working on soil erosion in north Queensland. (2) Does the Government have any plans to reduce this number. (3) Has the Government any plans of appointing a market officer to north Queensland to initiate a promotion of the benefits of soil erosion programs to the farmer. (4) Does the Government believe such a program is needed. (5) Will the Government review the agricultural Census Form to incorporate questions of farm management and soil erosion and allow input from people living on the land. (6) Will the Government consider involving local government in the fight against soil erosion because soil degradation reduces land values. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) to (4) Responsibility for agricultural production and land resource management is vested in the States under the Constitution. The States are directly involved in decisions on land use and in the practical aspects of land management and administration including the staffing of soil conservation agencies. The Commonwealth's role is more one of coordinating the administration of issues that extend nationally. Thus these questions should be directed to the Queensland Government. (5) The question of including farm management and soil erosion in the agricultural census form has been considered by the Standing Committee on Soil Conservation recently. State agencies responsible for soil conservation are anxious to obtain as much information as possible on land degradation. However, after consideration of the agricultural census as a means of achieving this data it was decided that it would be difficult to frame questions that would achieve a uniform response from all landholders. In fact, Griffith University is to undertake a project, which will be funded under the national soil conservation program, to ascertain farmers' perceptions of soil loss and its effects on productivity. This project will be important in devising future questionnaires to obtain information on land degradation. (6) The Department of Primary Industry is currently examining ways in which local governments can become involved in combating soil erosion through the national soil conservation program. Town planning and land sub-division decisions frequently determine the erosion risk of particular parcels of land and the Government therefore believes that local governments have an important role to play in overcoming land degradation problems. (Question No. 1039) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 22 August 1984: (1) How many international passengers have landed in Cairns as a first Australian port of call since the opening of Cairns International Airport and what were their countries of origin. (2) How many international passengers landed at Townsville International Airport as a first port of call during the same period and what were their countries of origin. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The Department of Aviation does not publish statistics for airports in the form envisaged by the question. The statistics published by the Department on international passengers (a) relate only to revenue passengers i.e. those paying 25 per cent or more of the standard air fare (as defined by the International Civil Aviation Organisation). (b) relate only to scheduled international airline services. Statistics are not published on non-scheduled services. (c) relate to embarkations and disembarkations, i.e. transit passengers are not included. (d) relate to the country in which passengers embarked i.e. they do not necessarily relate to the nationality of the passengers concerned. The information which follows is therefore subject to the above qualifications. As at 31 July 1984, the figures sought by the honourable senator in respect of Cairns since the opening of the Cairns International Terminal on 31 March 1984 are as follows: COUNTRY IN WHICH PASSENGERS EMBARKED Papua New United Guinea States Canada Total 2,631 8,415 327 11,373 The figures sought in respect of Townsville for the same period are: COUNTRY IN WHICH PASSENGERS EMBARKED New United Zealand Kingdom Singapore Total 3,261 628 1,226 5,115 (Question No. 1050) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 August 1984: (1) How many women are currently serving in (a) the Australian Army, (b) the Royal Australian Air Force, and (c) the Royal Australian Navy. (2) How many of those women are serving in apprenticeships. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) 2051 (b) 1696 (c) 1033. (2) 12. (Question No. 1070) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 24 August 1984: (1) How many word processors, stenographers and typists are employed in the Minister's Department. (2) As of 1 September 1984, how many such staff have been, or are, off work with repetition strain injury. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The Department employs a total of 248 staff on keyboard duties in the following categories: 40 word processors, 73 stenographers and 135 typists. (2) A total of 42 staff have been, or are, off work as of 1 September 1984 as a consequence of repetition strain injury or suspected RSI. The breakdown of work categories is 11 word processors, 14 stenographers and 17 typists. (Question No. 1074) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 24 August 1984: (1) How many word processors, stenographers and typists are employed in the Minister's Department. (2) As of 1 September 1984, how many such staff have been, or are, off work with repetition strain injury or suspected repetition strain injury. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) As at 1 September 1984, the Department of Resources and Energy had the following number of officers working in the categories specified: word processors 12, stenographers 45, typists 36. (2) Word processors 3, stenographers 4, typists 5. (Question No. 1075) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs , upon notice, on 23 August 1984: (1) How many word processors, stenographers and typists are employed in the Minister's Department. (2) As of 1 September 1984, how many such staff have been, or are, off work with repetition strain injury or suspected repetition strain injury. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Department of Foreign Affairs employs 490 permanent staff on full time keyboard duties. This includes 18 word processing supervisors and typists, 336 stenographers and typists, and 136 communicators. The Department also employs in its passports offices 37 clerical officers or clerical assistants who use VDU keyboards on a full time basis and a further 20 clerical officers who, as supervisors, frequently use VDU keyboards. In addition, an estimated 40 other Departmental officers use VDU keyboards for some time each day. (2) 24. (Question No. 1083) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 23 August 1984: (1) How many word processors, stenographers and typists are employed in the Minister's Department. (2) As of 1 September 1984, how many such staff have been, or are, off work with repetition strain injury or suspected repetition strain injury. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) A total of 242 staff are employed in those categories by the Department of Aviation. (2) 46 staff have been, or are, off work with repetition strain injury. (Question No. 1085) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 24 August 1984: (1) How many word processors, stenographers and typists are employed in the Minister's Department. (2) As of 1 September 1984, how many such staff have been, or are, off work with repetition strain injury or suspected repetition strain injury. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Housing and Construction has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's questions: (1) 61 word processing typists; 60 stenographers; 151 typists. (2) As at 1 September 1984, 10 word processing typists, 11 stenographers and 18 typists were off work with repetition strain injury and 3 word processing typists, 8 stenographers and 8 typists were off work with suspected repetition strain injury. (Question No. 1087) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 24 August 1984: (1) How many word processors, stenographers and typists are employed in the Minister's Department. (2) As of 1 September 1984, how many such staff have been, or are, off work with repetition strain injury or suspected repetition strain injury. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Word processors 44; Stenographers 41; Typists 119; Total Staff 204. (2) 34 staff. (Question No. 1092) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 24 August 1984: (1) How many word processors, stenographers and typists are employed in the Minister's Department. (2) As of 1 September 1984, how many such staff have been, or are, off work with repetition strain injury or suspected repetition strain injury. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Two word processing operators, 23 stenographers and 59 typists are employed in the Minister's Department. (2) As of 1 September 1984, two stenographers and one typist were off work with repetition strain injury; a further one stenographer and four typists have the symptoms associated with repetition strain injury and are now employed on non- repetitive administrative duties. (Question No. 1093) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 24 August 1984: (1) How many word processors, stenographers and typists are employed in the Minister's Department. (2) As of 1 September 1984, how many such staff have been, or are, off work with repetition strain injury or suspected repetition strain injury. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Word processors 43; stenographers 76; typists 445. (2) Word Processors 7; stenographers 7; Typists 34. (Question No. 1098) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 24 August 1984: (1) Are visitors to Australia under working holiday agreements with Great Britain, Japan, Canada and the Netherlands eligible to receive social security unemployment benefits; if so, can such benefits be claimed five weeks after arrival in Australia. (2) What is the number, if any, of overseas visitors who are currently drawing unemployment benefits under working holiday agreements. (3) Does the Minister for Social Security consider this number to be an abuse of the working holiday scheme; if so, what action does the Minister propose to take to ensure that abuses will not occur, while still supporting the spirit of working holiday agreements. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) It is generally not possible for visitors to Australia under working holiday arrangements to receive unemployment benefit. However in some exceptional circumstances unemployment benefit may be paid-in these cases there is no limitation precluding payment within the first 5 weeks after arrival in Australia. In general, a person can only qualify for unemployment benefit either by having resided in Australia for 12 months immediately preceding claim or by satisfying the department that s/he is likely to remain permanently in Australia. It would be highly unlikely that a person visiting Australia under the working holiday agreements with Japan, Canada or the Netherlands could satisfy either of these requirements. Because of the existence of a reciprocal social security agreement with the United Kingdom the situation in regard to working holiday visitors to Australia from Great Britain differs somewhat from those from Japan, Canada and the Netherlands. Under that agreement residence in the United Kingdom can be used to meet the requirement for 12 months prior residence in Australia. In these cases, however, the grant of unemployment benefit is not assured. In any case where a working holiday maker satisfies the requirement for Australian residence, unemployment benefit can be granted only when all other qualifying criteria are satisfied-ie the person must be unemployed, capable of and willing to undertake suitable work, and taking all reasonable steps to find such work. Thus, people merely holidaying rather than genuinely seeking work cannot qualify. It should be noted that the reciprocal agreement equally assists Australians on working holidays in the United Kingdom to satisfy the residential qualification for that country's unemployment benefit. (2) No statistics are kept on the number of unemployment beneficiaries who are in Australia under working holiday schemes but it is believed the numbers would be very small. (3) No. (Question No. 1101) Senator Watson asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 24 August 1984: Are goods and furniture held by a pensioner on behalf of other people (for example, a relative overseas) assessable under the assets test guidelines if that pensioner's assets exceed the set limits. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: No. Only assets owned by a pensioner will be taken into account. (Question No. 1106) Senator Foreman asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 4 September 1984: What amount of sales tax was raised on the sale of goods in South Australia in the financial years 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Sales tax raised on the sales of goods in South Australia is not recorded. However, net collections of sales tax by the Australian Taxation Office in South Australia, including collections in the Northern Territory, are as follows: 1981-82-$172,345,000; 1982-83-$216,378,000; 1983-84-$261,328,000. (Question No. 1114) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs , upon notice, on 6 September 1984: (1) What changes have been made in Australia's overseas representation for the financial year 1983-84. (2) What posts have, in the financial year 1983-84 been: (a) closed; (b) downgraded; (c) upgraded; (d) opened. Senator Gareth Evans —The Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The following changes have been made in Australia's overseas representation for the financial year 1983-84: Bolivia-Diplomatic relations were established with the Republic of Bolivia. The Australian Ambassador in Chile is accredited on a non-resident basis to the Republic of Bolivia. Brunei-upgraded representation from a Commission to High Commission in Bandar Seri Begawan following Brunei's Independence. El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua-Diplomatic relations were established with El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua. The Australian Ambassador in Mexico is accredited on a non-resident basis to the three countries. Iceland-Diplomatic relations were established with Iceland. The Australian Ambassador to Denmark is accredited on a non-resident basis to Iceland. Lebanon-the operations of the Australian Embassy in Beirut were temporarily suspended. The Australian Ambassador in Syria is accredited on a non-resident basis to the Lebanon. Mauritius-A High Commission was established in Port Louis. Responsibility for conducting Australias diplomatic relations with Mauritius was transferred from the Australian High Commission in Tanzania. Nepal-An Embassy was established in Kathmandu. The Australian High Commissioner in New Delhi remains accredited as Ambassador to the Kingdom of Nepal. South Africa (Cape Town)-The Consulate was closed but a Visa Office remains. United Arab Emirates-upgraded representation from a Consulate-General to an Embassy in Abu Dhabi. Yemen-Diplomatic relations were established with the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen. The Australian Ambassador in Saudi Arabia is accredited on a non-resident basis to the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen. (2)-(a) closed-Cape Town but see (1) above; (b) downgraded-Beirut; (c) upgraded -Abu Dhabi; (d) opened-Port Louis (Mauritius);-Kathmandu (Nepal). (Question No. 1115) Senator Watson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs , upon notice, on 6 September 1984: Does the Commonwealth Government support, as does the neighbouring country Vanuatu, the early granting of self-determination in New Caledonia as outlined by the Independence Movement of New Caledonia. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: New Caledonia was one of the principle issues discussed at the South Pacific Forum held in Funafuti, Tuvalu, on 27-28 August where the Australian delegation was led by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister reported to Parliament on the Forum meeting in his statement on 5 September in which he indicated that Australia, along with all other Members of the Forum, was anxious to see New Caledonia join the community of independent countries in the South Pacific as soon as is realistically possible. The communique reference agreed by the members reaffirmed their support for the transition of New Caledonia to independence in accordance with the wishes of its people and in a manner which guaranteed the innate and active rights of the Kanak people and the rights, interests and aspirations of all its inhabitants. The Forum noted progress made in the process of decolonisation of New Caledonia and called on France to both state publicly that independence was the desirable outcome of the act of self-determination and to bring forward the date of that referendum, currently planned for 1989. The Forum believed France should transfer additional administrative and political powers to the territory to ensure it is adequately prepared for independence and to take the practical steps necessary to guarantee the full and active participation of the Melanesian community in the territory's educational, vocational and administrative institutions. Australia urges all the involved parties to continue to work towards the peaceful political evolution of New Caledonia. (Question No. 1119) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 7 September 1984: Which Australian businesses and/or industries have actually commenced business in the People's Republic of China in the 12 months from 1 July 1983 to 30 June 1984. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Australian Government is not able to identify all Australian businesses which are trading with China. It is only possible therefore to provide an indication of some of the areas of business activity which have had recent commercial success in the People's Republic of China. As a broad indication, Australian businesses in the following industries have been involved in trade with the People's Republic of China in 1983-84: Wheat, iron ore, wool, sugar, iron and steel products, zinc and zinc alloys, cotton, animal oils and fats, textile yarns, lead and lead alloys, chemicals, leather, cattle hides, paper and paperboard, sheep and lambskins and building materials and products. (Question No. 1122) Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 6 September 1984: (1) Is a married pensioner whose spouse dies entitled to payment of the pension at a married rate for a further six weeks to help meet funeral costs; if so, does the Queensland Housing Commission continue to charge rent during this six week period at the married pensioner rate, thus taking most of the extra money received by the pensioner for funeral costs. (2) Will the Minister for Social Security consider payment of a lump sum to cover funeral costs rather than the continuation of the married rate for six weeks so as to avoid this problem. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) For up to 12 weeks after the death of one of a married pensioner couple, the surviving pensioner is paid the equivalent of the two pensions that would have been paid if the spouse had not died (except where the survivor's single rate exceeds the combined rate that was payable to the couple). The purpose of this payment is to help with the difficulty experienced by a surviving spouse in reducing household commitments and making the necessary adjustments following the loss. The additional payment was not introduced as assistance for funeral costs. Rental charges for public housing are the responsibility of the appropriate housing authority and I am not in a position to comment on rent charged to pensioners by the Queensland Housing Commission. (2) A funeral benefit of up to $40 may be payable to the surviving pensioner spouse, if he or she is responsible for the funeral costs and each of the couple were eligible for Commonwealth pensioner concessions. Up to $20 may be paid where only the deceased was eligible for concessions. There is no proposal currently before the Government to vary this benefit. Senator Gareth Evans —On 7 June 1984 (Hansard, page 2757) Senator Lewis asked me , as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the following question without notice: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to a media report that Miss Patricia Rankin, the daughter of the late Lieutenant-Commander Rankin, Royal Australian Navy, who was killed in action as commanding officer, HMAS Yarra, while defending a convoy against an overwhelmingly superior Japanese cruiser force in 1942, is stranded in Canada because Australian authorities refused to renew her passport on the ground that Miss Rankin, apparently a direct descendant of a First Fleeter, was born in England while her father was serving on exchange with the Royal Navy in the early part of World War II. I ask the Minister whether it is a fact that some petty bureaucrat made the extraordinarily insensitive remark: It could be that with her British birth-and if her parents didn't register her properly in Australia- They were therefore very naughty- this lady should never have been issued with an Australian passport in the first place. Secondly, is it not a fact that in any event that statement is not correct in that a British subject resident in Australia prior to 26 January 1944 is automatically an Australian citizen under section 25D of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948-73 transitional provisions. Will the Minister undertake to investigate the matter, ensure that Departmental officers are fully conversant with the Act and expedite the issue of a new Australian passport to Miss Rankin? Will the Minister also undertake the necessary action to establish what action, if any, Departmental officers have taken to assist Miss Rankin to establish her bona fides as an Australian citizen? The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The comments attributed to the Department's spokesman are correct in respect of the issue of a passport to a person born outside Australia before 26 January 1949 of a father who was born or naturalised in Australia and who entered Australia as a British subject. While such a person may acquire Australian citizenship on the date of entry to Australia, documentary evidence of that citizenship is required for the issue of a passport. In the absence of such evidence, a passport should not be issued. An Australian passport issued after 26 January 1949 which describes the national status of the bearer as an Australian citizen is generally accepted as evidence of Australian citizenship. However, as part of the control measures introduced to improve Australia's passport issuing system in response to recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking, applicants applying for a passport after 1 July 1983 may be asked to produce other documentary evidence of Australian citizenship. This may take the form of a birth certificate if the applicant was born in Australia or a Certificate of Citizenship or Declaratory Certificate of Citizenship if the applicant was born outside Australia. On 25 may 1984, Miss Rankin applied to the Australian Consulate-General, Vancouver, for a replacement passport. She submitted her then current passport as evidence of Australian citizenship. Miss Rankin was interviewed by the Consul who explained that documentary evidence of her Australian citizenship additional to her passport would be required. The Consul advised Miss Rankin on how to complete an application for a Declaratory Certificate of Citizenship and assured her that she would be issued with a restricted passport if it was necessary for her to travel before confirmation of her citizenship was received from Canberra. The application was returned to the Consulate-General on 29 May and was despatched to Canberra in the next diplomatic bag which left Vancouver on 1 June . A telegram was despatched on the same day alerting the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to the despatch of Miss Rankin's application and requesting an urgent decision by telegram. On 12 June, the Consulate-General was advised by telegram that Miss Rankin may be accepted as an Australian citizen under Section 25 (3) of the Australian Citizenship Act. A passport was issued to her on 22 June 1984. I am satisfied that Miss Rankin was given every assistance necessary to confirm her Australian citizenship and to obtain a replacement passport. Senator Gareth Evans —On 15 June 1984 (Hansard, page 3137) Senator Haines asked me, as Minister representing the Special Minister of State, the following question without notice: Given that many members and senators are, or will be, visiting foreign countries in the coming months and therefore could find themselves in potentially hostile situations, I draw the Attorney-General's attention to an excerpt from the South Australian Country Hospitals 'Emergency Manual' with regard to the behaviour of hostages. It is headed: Hold up-Immediate Action The manual makes the following recommendations: If confronted, remain calm and obey their instructions . . . If a female staff member is taken hostage, she should pretend to faint. Does the Attorney-General believe that either or both of these instructions is appropriate behaviour in all circumstances? In particular, could he comment on whether, if given the choice, male hostages as well as female hostages should elect to faint rather then obey? The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Firstly, I would like to remind the honourable senator that the extract concerned was from a State emergency manual dealing with a local hostage contingency and was not perhaps intended to be construed as advice to federal politicians travelling overseas. I have, however, consulted with the Australian Federal Police (AFP) on the matter and they have informed me that the advice to hostages to remain calm and obey instructions has proved sound in many circumstances and it is therefore appropriate behaviour. As to the advice concerned with the option of fainting if taken hostage, it is obviously up to the individual to assess his/her particular situation and to be alert to all options and their possible consequences before deciding on taking ' appropriate' action. Should the senator have a genuine concern in regard to a specific overseas trip she can approach the AFP for further advice. Senator Ryan —On 24 August 1984 (Hansard, page 362) Senator Martin asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, the following question without notice: Does the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment recall the Australian Labor Party policy prior to coming to government in relation to the Australian National Gallery? Does the Minister recall promising the abolition of the entrance fee without financial penalty to the Gallery? Why has the government in contrast pursued policies in the 1983-84 budget which have seen a dramatic reduction in the National Gallery's funding so that its allocation for 1984-85 is only three-quarters of the real value of its allocation in the Fraser Government's 1982 Budget? In particular, why has the Government reduced the acquisition vote by 14 per cent for this financial year? What effect will this decision have on the Gallery's acquisition program and on the bicentenary collection? Has the Government been advised that its actions could lead to further loss of senior Gallery personnel? How can she say that the Gallery is flourishing when not only is Government funding cut this year but also, according to its estimates, non-government income will reduce by 15 per cent? The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Government reviewed admission fees to the National Gallery as part of its 1983-84 Budget deliberations and decided to retain them because of the contribution that these charges are making to building up the Gallery's collection, particularly in view of the coming Bicentenary. The payment of an entry charge is not inconsistent with the practice of some art galleries in Australia and many overseas, but pensioners, children, full time students, and others are exempted from the charges. Approximately 60 per cent of visitors are admitted free of charge. Net revenue from admission charges has been used exclusively to purchase items for the Australian collection. Since the Gallery opened to the public on 13 October 1982, more than $750,000 from this source has been spent on the acquisition of such works of art and these acquisitions have included such significant purchases as the Fred Williams gouaches and a large number of works by Australian Aboriginal artists. Acquisitions funded from admission charges are labelled accordingly so that the public can see what is being funded. In regard to comparison of funding for the Gallery in the 1982-83 budget, the honourable senator will appreciate that there were special needs associated with the opening of the Gallery in 1982 and there is no real basis for comparison. The appropriation of $3.1m for acquisitions in 1984-85 is reasonable in view of prevailing financial restraints and represents a significant contribution to building up the Gallery's collection. I am advised that as far as the Gallery is aware there have been no resignations which can be attributed to the reduction in the acquisitions vote. The Gallery is a national institution which provides unique opportunities for both curatorial and administrative staff to gain experience which is not available elsewhere. The nature of the national collection is such that expertise gained at the Gallery at both senior and junior levels is in high demand by other art museums in Australia. The fact that the Art Gallery of South Australia approached Mr Thomas for the position of Director is considered to be a great compliment to the Australian National Gallery. As regards the estimated reduction in non-government receipts as shown in the Budget papers, it should be appreciated that the highly successful Founding Donor Campaign which commenced in February 1983 was an initiative which raised a substantial endowment for the purchase of Australian and international works of art for the National collection, but this source of non-government revenue closed in June 1984. In general, funding for acquisitions is seen as a partnership between government, the private corporate sector and private individuals and every endeavour will be made to ensure that non-government support of the National Gallery is maintained. (Question No. 1140) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 12 September 1984: Will the Minister for Social Security, following the lay advocacy seminar- social security appeals held at the university of Queensland in May, when 40 people nominated to undertake training as lay advocates, indicate whether he would support the provision of welfare rights centres to enable the further development of training and employment of lay advocates to assist social security appellants. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: I welcome and support all initiatives which assist social security claimants to secure their proper entitlement under the Social Security Act 1947. The provision of advice and assistance for such people is under consideration in the context of a report to the Attorney-General by the Administrative Review Council entitled 'The Structure and Form of Social Security Appeals' and a Report prepared for the Commonwealth Legal Aid Council entitled 'Legal Needs of Social Security Claimants'. (Question No. 843) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 1 May 1984: What are the names, dates of appointment, terms of appointment and salaries of all persons appointed to the boards and commissions of statutory authorities under the jurisdiction of the Minister. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs is the only statutory authority that comes under my jurisdiction. The information sought on the Institute is as follows: Date of Term of Name appointment appointment Salaries Dr Kenneth Rivett 20.12.1983 1 Year 16,433 Miss Betty Con 20.12.1983 1 Year 6,609 Mr Eric Willmot, A.M. 20.12.1983 1 Year 6,609 Professor Jerzy Zubrzycki, A.O., C.B.E. 20.12.1983 1 Year 6,609 Dr Moss Cass 21.12.1983 1 Year 6,609 Mr Michael Liffman 21.12.1983 1 Year 6,609 Ms Helen Cattalini 21.12.1983 1 Year 6,609 Mr Petro Georgiou 1.2.1980 Ex Officio 5 Years . . Mr William Mckinnon, C.B.E. 25.3.1983 Ex Officio while Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Question No. 988) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: (1) What have been the employment levels for each industry group in the financial years 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84. (2) What redundancies have been recorded in each industry group in the financial years 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84. Senator Button —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following information in response to the honourable senator's question: (1) Table 1 below provides the employment levels for each industry group for each year from 1981-82 to 1983-84. (2) The number of redundancies occurring in each industry is not directly available, however, information on the total number of persons laid off during the years 1980 to 1983 is provided in Tables 2 and 3 below. These are the latest years for which information is available. Table 1 EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY, ANNUAL AVERAGES 1981-82 to 1983-84 ('000)* Industry 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting 408.7 416.7 407.8 Mining 98.6 96.0 98.1 Manufacturing 1 248.9 1 163.4 1 139.3 Electricity, gas and water 127.9 139.7 143.1 Construction 476.4 437.1 409.7 Wholesale and retail trade 1 282.7 1 258.4 1 254.1 Transport and storage 357.8 365.8 363.3 Communication 138.5 132.8 138.9 Finance, property and business services 567.0 571.9 596.3 Public administration and defence 291.8 294.8 318.9 Community services 1 026.8 1 041. 3 1 086.8 Recreation, personal and other services 400.1 403.0 412.2 Total employed 6 425.1 6 320.8 6 368.8 *The data on employment by industry are only available for the months of August , November, February and May of each year and the figures provided therefore relate to annual averages of these months. Source: ABS, The Labour Force, Australia, (Catalogue Number 6203.0). Note: Due to rounding sub-totals may not add up to totals. Table 2 PERSONS WHO CHANGED JOBS DURING THE PERIOD FEBRUARY 1980 TO FEBRUARY 1981 BECAUSE THEY WERE LAID OFF (a) ('000) Industry Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting 12.7 Manufacturing 49.9 Construction 31.4 Wholesale and retail trade 54.4 Transport and storage 8.7 Finance, property and business services 10.5 Community services 9.3 Recreation , personal and other services 16.2 Other industries (b) 6.2 Total 199.4 Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics' Labour Mobility, During the Period February 1980 to February 1981, Australia (6209.0) (a) Relates to persons who indicated they were laid off by an employer or business. (b) Comprises mining, electricity, gas and water, communication and public administration and defence. Note: 1. In the February 1981 survey, reason for leaving a job was only asked of persons who changed a job; 2. Due to rounding sub-totals may not add up to total. Table 3 PERSONS WHO LEFT A JOB BECAUSE THEY WERE LAID OFF (a) ('000) During the period February During the 1981 to year ending February February Industry 1982 1983 Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting 11.3 18.3 Manufacturing 62.7 130.6 Construction 39.7 72.7 Wholesale and retail trade 67.7 104.4 Transport and storage 8.5 14.2 Finance, property and business services 14.3 26.6 Community services 15.2 21.3 Recreation, personal and other services 25.8 36.2 Other industries (b) 6.2 9.1 Total 251.5 433.4 Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics' Labour Mobility, Australia (6209.0). (a) Relates to persons who indicated that the last job they had left was one from which they were laid off by an employer or business. (b) Comprises mining, electricity, gas and water, communication, and public administration and defence. Note: 1. In the February 1981 survey, reason for leaving a job was only asked of persons who changed jobs. For all previous and subsequent surveys, reasons for leaving a job was asked of the wider population of persons who left a job. 2 . Due to rounding sub-totals may not add up to totals. (Question No. 989) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: (1) Are taxation concessions available for chiropractic services only when they are directed by a legally qualified medical practitioner. (2) Was this particular instruction entered in the tax guidelines prior to registration of chiropractors in the Commonwealth. (3) Does it now not appear that the law is outdated since governments have recognised, by registration, the beneficial effects of chiropractic services. (4) Will the Treasurer review this particular aspect of the law. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) and (4) The general concessional rebate provided under the income tax law represents the extent to which the Government has been able to provide some form of relief in respect of the private expenditure of taxpayers. The rebate is not designed to provide relief in respect of all a taxpayer's private expenditure. The Government has received many representations for expansion of the rebate, including its extension to include chiropractic expenses, but it has not considered it appropriate to extend it in the manner sought. One consideration has been the small number of taxpayers able to benefit from such an extension- the percentage of taxpayers qualifying for the rebate in 1984-85 is expected to be in the order of 7 per cent. (Question No. 1042) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: (1) What would be the estimated cost to the Government of granting exemption from the payment of sales tax to pensioners and other social security beneficiaries. (2) Will the Government consider exempting social security beneficiaries from the payment of sales tax across the board; if not, will the Government consider drawing up a range of goods essential to the welfare and comfort of social security recipients and grant them exemption from sales tax on those goods similar to the existing exemption from sales tax currently granted to all Government departments, large and small businesses and self-employed people. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The estimated cost to the Government of granting exemption from the payment of sales tax to pensioners and other social security beneficiaries is indeterminate but substantial. (2) At the outset it should be noted that it is not correct to say that businessmen or self-employed persons can obtain 'essential' items free of sales tax. What the sales tax law does is to provide exemption for manufacturers to obtain their raw materials, aids to manufacture and similar goods free of sales tax. The purpose here is to prevent double taxation of goods or indirect taxing of exempt goods. As to the appropriateness of exempting pensioners and other social security beneficiaries ('beneficiaries') from the payment of sales tax, you will appreciate that it is desirable that the taxation system be fair and efficient and complement the Government's general economic policies as much as possible. In this regard, a concession like that proposed by the honourable senator would be inequitable as it would not be well targeted to those who are in greatest need and, in fact, would tend to direct assistance inversely in relation to need . A sales tax concession provides a benefit only in respect of the purchase of taxable goods. The so-called essentials of life, such as food, clothing, drugs, medicines and shelter, are generally exempt from sales tax so that the concession would not directly enhance the capacity of the needy to purchase goods of this kind. In addition, the greatest benefit would go to those persons who can afford the largest purchases of taxable goods. It would not assist those persons whose means limited them to second-hand goods or precluded the purchase of taxable goods. There would also be problems in policing such a concession. For example, it would be an onerous-if not impossible-task to design effective safeguards to prevent abuse of the concession by eligible persons buying goods for or on behalf of relatives and friends. Further, as a matter of broad principle, the Government considers that it is more appropriate that assistance to the needy be provided through the social welfare system where it can be directed more precisely to those in greatest need . In this regard, the Government announced in the 1984-85 Budget that further assistance was to be provided for 'beneficiaries'. This further assistance included a discretionary increase, from the first payment in November 1984, in the rate of indexed pensions and benefits, including the unemployment benefit, of $2.50 per week for single people and of $4.20 per week for couples; substantial extra help to pensioners who rent and to those with children; an increase in supplementary rental assistance of 50 per cent to $15 a week; an increase in additional pensions and benefits of $2 to $14 a week per child; and an increase in the mother's and guardian's allowance of $2 to $10 a week. In view of the foregoing, it is not considered appropriate to introduce the system proposed by the honourable senator. (Question No. 1066) Senator Jessop asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 24 August 1984: (1) Of the 600 Aboriginal tribes in Australia when Europeans first arrived, how many tribes now exist. (2) Are there approximately 213 different dialects spoken by Aborigines today; if so, can it be assumed that there are only approximately 213 tribes remaining of the 600 original tribes. (3) Can the land of tribes that are now extinct be claimed by Aborigines who are not traditionally associated with it. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The concept of tribes to traditional Aboriginal society is problematic and probably relates as much to names given to identifiable groups by Europeans as to Aboriginal categories. However, there have been various estimates of these so -called tribes to the time of European settlement, 600 being an upper limit. (2) The current estimate of the number of Aboriginal languages spoken at the time of European settlement is about 200. Of these, about 50 are now extinct, another 100 are in danger of extinction, and 50 languages are in a healthy state . The concept of 'language' is much more clearly defined that the concept of ' tribe' and an unequivocal relationship between languages and tribes cannot be asserted. Aboriginal languages are structured in the form of overlapping families of languages, and linguistically it is very difficult to define a dialect in Aboriginal languages. It could be a further exercise to attempt to determine a relationship between tribes and dialects. With respect to affiliation to land, there are three categories of association known to exist: (a) present day traditionally-oriented language groups with certain or relatively clear ancient association with land areas, (b) people of mixed descent who have well established genealogical connections to language/land association groups, and (c) Aboriginal people whose links with particular land areas are either difficult to establish or else are connected with developed or urban land. It is thought that there may be a number of Aboriginal groups who left no descendants. This is, however, not known with any certainty. One such example is thought to be the Ngungawal group from Canberra. (3) There are probably descendants of every so-called tribe in Australia who could claim ownership rights to their tribal land on the basis of traditional alignments. Such claims would very likely encompass the majority of Australia. Whether any such claims could or should be upheld is a matter of sustained current political and academic debate, and ultimately political and legal decision. (Question No. 1072) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 23 August 1984: (1) How many word processors, stenographers and typists are employed in the Minister's Department. (2) As of 1 September 1984, how many such staff have been, or are, off work with repetition strain injury or suspected repetition strain injury. Senator Button —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following information in response to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Department employs 53 word processors, 82 stenographers and 223 typists . (2) Forty one (41) of these staff have been, or are, off work with repetition strain injury or suspected repetition strain injury. (Question No. 1090) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 23 August 1984: (1) How many word processors, stenographers and typists are employed in the Minister's Department. (2) As of 1 September 1984, how many such staff have been, or are, off work with repetition strain injury or suspected repetition strain injury. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) 67. (2) 18. Senator Walsh —On 15 June 1984 (Hansard, page 3129) Senator Robert Ray asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice concerning the effects of sale-leaseback transactions on estimates of fixed investment by business. In the course of my answer I undertook to refer the question to the Treasurer for a more definitive answer. The Treasurer has supplied the following information: The national accounts attribute gross fixed capital expenditure to sectors on the basis of legal ownership, a basis consistent with existing Australian accounting practices. The attached table provides information on major sales of fixed assets from the public sector to the private sector. Because the vast majority of these sales are associated with leaseback or similar financing arrangements these data can be used to partially adjust capital expenditure estimates from sector of legal ownership (usually the financial sector) to sector of effective ownership. That is, these adjustments are designed to take account of situations where the legal owner does not bear the risks and benefits normally associated with ownership. The adjustments do not, however, take into account all arrangements under which assets owned by the private sector are effectively controlled by the public sector, e.g. leasing transactions not involving a sale from the public sector to the private sector. It should also be noted that adjustments reclassifying private and public expenditure result in expenditure estimates inconsistent with estimates of gross operating surplus and other income aggregates in the sector accounts, as information is not available to make income estimates other than on the basis of legal ownership. The September issue of the Treasury Round-up of Economic Statistics contains estimates of private business fixed investment adjusted for the known sale/ leaseback transactions presented in the attached table. MAJOR SALES OF FIXED ASSETS FROM THE PUBLIC SECTOR TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR ( EXCLUDING DWELLINGS) Non dwelling construction Equipment Total $m $m $m 1980-81 . . 185 185 1981-82 81 1,216 1,297 1982-83 98 851 949 1983- 84 151 1,120 1,271 1982- September n.a. n.a. 117 December n.a. n.a. 208 1983- March n.a. n.a. 367 June n.a. n.a. 257 September n.a. n.a. 104 December n .a. n.a. 523 1984- March n.a. n.a. 110 June n.a. n.a. 534 Source: ABS Cat. No. 5206.0 Senator Button —On 24 August 1984 (Hansard, page 367) Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, the following question without notice concerning average weekly earnings: In an interview on Nationwide on Budget night the Treasurer said that the increase in average weekly earnings basically reflected overtime and that we have nothing in there for wages drift. Is the Minister able to provide or obtain information which analyses the average weekly earnings figure to show the amounts related to full time award wages, over-award payments, overtime and the effect of part time work on average weekly earnings figures? Is the Minister further able to advise with regard to the 160,000 jobs which he mentioned yesterday as to whether he was referring to part time of full time employment? The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following information in reply to the honourable senator's question: Average weekly earnings (AWE) are derived by dividing estimates of weekly total earnings by estimates of employment. Movements over time in the series can consequently be influenced by one or all of the following factors: Changes in the proportion of part time compared to full time employees; Changes in the proportion of junior compared to adult employees; Changes in the ratio of males to females in employment; Changes in the number of overtime hours worked; Variations in over-award rates of pay; Other compositional changes in the employed labour force. Average weekly ordinary time earnings (AWOTE) of full time employees, disaggregated by sex, refers to that part of weekly total earnings attributable to award, standard or agreed hours of work. It avoids the influence of the first four factors affecting the AWE series. The AWOTE series is still, however, influenced by changes beyond those in award and over-award payments. Other compositional changes in the workforce can alter the relative number of high and low wage and salary earners and thus alter the growth of AWOTE. These compositional changes include: changes in the share of employment accounted for by low wage earners, say due to last in/first out retrenchment practices in a recession; variations in the occupational composition of the employed labour force; variations in the industry composition of the employed labour force; variations in the incidence of short-time working; and changes in the seniority or length of experience of the employed labour force affecting the extent of proficiency allowances and annual increments made. Data do not exist to quantify the influence of these other compositional changes. It is thus not possible to make meaningful estimates of the extent of ' wage drift' by comparing growth in award rates of pay with growth in AWOTE for males and females. The most recent data must be treated with care due to the change in the survey base for AWE and AWOTE. As noted on page 30 of Budget Statement No. 2, this may have made estimates for the two halves of 1983-84 not fully comparable. It is also important to note that AWE and AWOTE data are subject to sampling error which implies that growth estimates can only be interpreted as falling within a certain range, making inferences regarding wage drift even more uncertain. While it is not possible to determine the amount of wage drift on the basis of the AWE and AWOTE figures, impressionistic information from the regional offices of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations suggests that little drift exists. Data from the National Accounts, which can also be affected by compositional change but provide some cross check on the AWE series when adjusted for employment growth, suggest that earnings have risen at much the same rate as award wages since the introduction of the new wage fixation principles. The estimated 160,000 jobs to be created over the course of 1984-85 refers to total employment.