Thursday, 4 October 1984 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hamer) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. 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 division in the Australian community. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should ensure that the existing Australian National Flag remains sacrosanct from change and remains the Sole National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Archer (from 12 citizens) and Walters (from 495 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: 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. 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 acts 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 Senator Sir John Carrick (from 76 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully show that: We deplore and oppose the decision of the Federal Government in legislating to allow the importation and distribution of hard-core pornographic video films and material into Australia and the social consequences of this action particularly for our children. We request the Federal Government to re-enact immediately the previous laws which banned the entry into Australia and sale of this hard-core pornographic material, until the Inquiry into the Effects of the current legislation in relation to adults and children has reported to the Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Boswell (from 327 citizens). To the Honourable the President, and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned taxpayers of Australia, respectfully show that we deplore the use of taxation funds to allow privileges and entitlements, such as overseas travel, for homosexual staff members of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on the same basis as legally married couples . As taxpayers, we humbly request that this decision be reversed immediately and our taxation contribution be used for more urgent needs, such as defence, housing, education, roads, transport and social security benefits. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Boswell (from 647 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Tasmania shows: (a) We are shocked and disappointed at the Federal Government's decision not to upgrade the Wynyard Airport. (b) This decision will inevitably lead to downgrading and closure of the Wynyard Airport. (c) Closure of Wynyard Airport will cause grave hardship and inconvenience to the people of the North West and West Coast regions of Tasmania. (d) We urge the Federal Government to immediately reverse this disastrous decision. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Archer (from 66 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 Senator Messner (from 394 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 QC 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 Lajovic (from 18 citizens), Messner (from 242 citizens), Peter Rae ( from 18 citizens) and Teague (from 36 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are gravely concerned at the proposed reduction in the recurrent grant to Australian Halls and Colleges of Residence. That any such reduction will seriously affect the ability of many students to reside within Halls and Colleges. Your petitioners therefore humbly call upon the Federal Parliament to restore the recurrent grant to the real level of 1983, and to increase the funding of tertiary student accommodation, such additional funds being allocated on a needs basis. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume (from 92 citizens). Petitions received. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence: Northern coastal surveillance, with particular reference to the adequacy of the current levels of coastal surveillance and the adequacy of the current levels and deployment of surveillance staff. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I incorporate the list in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia)-Annual Report 1983-84- Pursuant to section 53 (3) of the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946. 2. Annual return of persons granted Australian citizenship for 1982-83-Pursuant to section 42 (D) of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948. 3. National Road Freight Industry Inquiry-report. 4. Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation-Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to section 36 of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Act 1970. 5. Australian Bureau of Statistics-Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to section 24 (1) of the Australian Bureau of Statistics Act 1975. 6. Australian Statistics Advisory Council-Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to section 24 (2) of the Australian Bureau of Statistics Act 1975. 7. Telecom Australia-Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to section 99 (1) of the Telecommuncations Act 1975. 8. Australian Industry Development Corporation-Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to section 37 of the Australian Industry Development Corporation Act 1970- together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Industry and Commerce relating to the report. 9. Commission Schools Commission recommendations for 1985-Report. 10. Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission report for 1985-87 triennium- Volume 2 (Part 1 and 2). 11. Commonwealth Schools Commission-Report for 1985-Response to government guidelines. 12. Proposal for an institute of freshwater studies-Report of the interim council-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Resources and Energy relating to the Report. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales) —Minister for Veterans' Affairs)-I seek leave to have the text of the statement by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) relating to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission and the Commonwealth Schools Commission reports incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- COMMONWEALTH SCHOOLS COMMISSION REPORT FOR 1985 This Report is the Schools Commission's response to the Government's Guidelines on Commonwealth funding policies for schools for 1985-88 which I announced on 14 August 1984. The Report makes recommendations on the distribution of funds between States and programs, as well as detailed arrangements for implementation of the Government's decisions on long term general recurrent funding for all schools. The Government has accepted all of the major recommendations of the Commission. The Report contains the approved recommendations on the distribution of the total funds for 1985, amounting to $1,389m, in estimated December 1983 prices, between States and programs, and also summarizes the approved recommendations for implementation of the new long term general recurrent per capita funding arrangements for both government and non-government schools. Included in the approved program re-allocations is enhanced provision for Aboriginal education, arising out of the Government's request to the Commission to consider some interim action pending the Government's consideration of the CSC/NAEC Working Party Report in the context of the Commission's review of all special purpose programs. The Government will be providing $0.5m in 1985 from within existing programs to support the development of the work of the various State and Territory Aboriginal Education Consultative Groups. In addition, an amount of $1.114m will be provided in 1985 within the Participation and Equity Program as a national fund to stimulate projects specially related to Aboriginal education. The Commission will be seeking advice from its Working Party on Aboriginal Education on how this fund should be administered, including how best to involve State and Territory Aboriginal Education Consultative Groups in the planning and implementation of initiatives. This will not be a substitute for the substantial support available for Aboriginal students from the regular government and non-government allocations for each State and Territory. The Government has accepted the Commission's proposals for the establishment of the new $3.7m Early Special Education Program for children below school age, through re-allocations of $2m from within existing appropriate elements of the Special Education Program, in combination with a national joint fund of $1.7m through the transfer of funds from the Office of Child Care. The Government has also approved provision for the forward commitment for a full two years of 70 per cent p.a. of these funds. The Commission records in its Report that it welcomes the Government's initiatives in establishing the new general recurrent funding scheme for all schools, which has the following features: Stability and security in provision of Commonwealth general recurrent funds; A funding standard based on educational criteria; Development of a clearer rationale for Commonwealth funding for government schools, including for the first time the provision of progressive real increases in Commonwealth general recurrent grants for these schools; Introduction of a program of resource improvements, through a phasing-in of increases in Commonwealth grants and the negotiation of resource agreements with government and non-government school authorities; Refinement of the needs principle in Commonwealth general resources funding; Development of improved public accountability procedures; Recognition of the primary obligation to public schools (through the 10% loading ); and Acceptance of the dual system of schooling in Australia and of the need for co- operative planning for the use of resources between the government and non- government sectors. It will be recalled that the Commonwealth has undertaken to progressively raise its contribution to government schools to 8% of the cost of the Community Standard by 1992 and that, in recognition of the obligation of government schools to provide high cost services to students in a variety of circumstances and locations, the Commonwealth has added a special supplement of 10% of the standard for government schools: a doubling of the supplement recommended earlier by the Commission. The Government has accepted the Commission recommendations that: Per student grants for government schools be paid on the basis of the actual enrolments in the relevant year, as it does for non-government schools; and For the purpose of determining whether Year 7 enrolments are counted as primary or secondary enrolments, the definitions of primary and secondary education be those applied by the States themselves. The Commission reports that it intends to consult closely with State and non- government authorities on the implementation of its recommendations for enhanced accountability which have been approved in principle by the Government. Following the Government's decision that non-government schools' funding categories be determined in future on the basis of a new formula based on their total private income, the Commission has recommended, in principle, that schools be assessed initially on the basis of an Education Resources Index, as outlined in its Report, which incorporates progressive adjustments to private cash income (tuition and boarding, recurrent and capital) for capital-related expenditure. In determining the funding categories for schools whose capital-related expenditure patterns are substantially in excess of the adjustment applied by the formula, the Commission proposes to examine these schools' circumstances further in the light of the objectives of the scheme, before placing them in categories. Final details of the formula, including the range of allowances for capital related expenditure and the categorisation of schools will be released by the Commission following the completion of processing of the latest available data ( i.e. 1983) from the schools. The Government has agreed that schools will continue to have an opportunity to apply for a review of their initial formula-based assessment in order that special circumstances may be taken into account. The Government has also accepted the Commission's proposal that non-government schools be able to lodge a more formal appeal against a review decision; such appeals to be heard by a Ministerially-appointed panel of Commissioners and that schools will have a right, if they wish, to send representatives to present their case direct to the panel. This proposal follows the request in the Guidelines for the Commission to consider the form of a suitable appeals mechanism. The Commission was advised almost universally by non-government school authorities and groups that any such appeals process should be kept within the Commission's administrative structure. As already announced in the Guidelines, any schools which are reclassified to a lower grant category for 1985-88 will have their grants maintained each year at the 1984 level in money terms until they reach their appropriate real level of grant. The following recommendations of the Commission, in relation to the non- government schools scheme, have also been adopted by the Government: Grounds for reviews of the initial assessment of school grant categories; Data on schools relevant to accountability arrangements and their needs assessment be collected on an annual basis; Schools to be re-assessed in 1988, for the period 1989-92, on the basis of three or four years' data; and Support under the Short Term Emergency Assistance Program to be extended to include all non-government schools experiencing severe short-term financial hardship. Over the next 8 years, the Commonwealth's per capita grants for government schools will increase, in real terms, by 37% per primary student and over 100% per secondary student. Over the first 4 years, for which grants are to be legislated, these grants will rise by 16% and 59%, respectively. Per capita grants over the next 8 years for the poorer non-government schools in categories 10, 11 and 12 will increase by 24%, 30% and 36% for primary schools while those for secondary schools will grow by 15%, 21% and 26%, respectively. Over the first 4 years, these grants will rise, respectively, by 13%, 16% and 19% per primary student, and 8%, 11% and 14% per secondary student. These funding arrangements should lead to considerable resource improvements in schools. Through the provision of a minimum grant, the new scheme will also support the maintenance of the high standards already achieved by the higher income schools, while requiring that these schools do not widen the resource gap between themselves and other schools. At the same time, the Government is concerned that public debate about education focuses on the real issues-the quality of education, equality of opportunity and improved outcomes of education. The Quality of Education Review Committee, under the Chairmanship of Professor Peter Karmel, will look closely at the outcomes of schooling. We want to be sure that satisfactory standards are being achieved by the great majority of students. We want to ensure that we have the best possible match between what is taught in schools and what is required for success in the workforce, or in tertiary education, and for participating in a democratic society. Parents have a right to expect that schools will equip their children adequately for further study, for jobs and for life. That includes, of course, ensuring that students attain satisfactory standards of literacy and numeracy, the ability to communicate effectively and a sound knowledge of the society of which they are a part. This fresh look at the issue of quality is, of course, quite consistent with the Participation and Equity Program that has been introduced this year. We want students to complete their education, so that they have reasonable prospects in a very competitive job market, and reasonable prospects of gaining entry to tertiary education. We want them to leave school competent, confident young Australians. But more participation by itself is not enough. I have repeatedly emphasized that the funds available under the PEP Program should be used to improve education in ways that will make staying on worthwhile for all students. The Government also recognises that many of the unsatisfactory outcomes at the end of schooling have their origins in the experiences of students at the primary level. We are particularly concerned that a minority of students leave government and non-government primary schools without having achieved a minimum acceptable standard in the basic areas. To help remedy this problem, the Government has announced a further initiative- a program for primary schools to provide extra assistance for children in their basic learning. It will emphasise the acquisition of language skills and numeracy in primary schools for those groups in the community who have most difficulty in acquiring learning skills in the early years. $6.7 million a year has been provided for this program for three years from 1985. I have asked the Schools Commission to institute arrangements which will encourage collaborative activity between government and non-government schools in this area. The Commissison will be reporting to me with detailed recommendations for the implementation of the program from the beginning of next year. The new program will reinforce and complement existing special purpose programs, especially the PEP initiative at the secondary and TAFE levels. In addition to these new initiatives, there are other continuing elements in our education package. Programs such as funding for capital works, multicultural programs, education and the arts, will all be continuing. In all, we believe that the package as a whole is directed towards innovative change and quality improvements. In this, we are fulfilling the Commonwealth's role to offer leadership and direction, and to ensure that educational developments are in harmony with the broader needs of our pluralistic, multicultural society, and of our economy. Returning to the work of the Schools Commission, I draw attention to the fact that the Commission will be submitting a number of other reports over the coming months. In particular, the Commission will be submitting reports on proposals for implementation of the new programs for Basic Learning in Primary Schools and Early Special Education, the report of the panel on new non-government schools, and the reviews of special purpose programs and the capital program review. In addition, the Commission will publish the second report of the Working Party on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education and, in conjunction with the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, the report of the Review of Teacher Education. The report of the Quality in Education Review Committee is due in April 1985. The fact that the Government has adopted funding arrangements which are widely accepted as fair to government and non-government schools, certainly much fairer than in the past, now gives me confidence to look forward to a constructive dialogue about education policies for the future. COMMONWEALTH TERTIARY EDUCATION COMMISSION REPORT FOR 1985-87 This Volume 2 Report responds to the Guidelines issued to the Commission by the Government on 5 July 1984 and recommends the detailed allocation of tertiary education funds to States and institutions for the triennium. I remind honourable Senators of the essential features of the Government's guidelines for the triennium. The Commonwealth will provde an extra $65.15 million for tertiary education for 1985 in real terms, the largest single increase in funding in this area since the Commission was established in 1977. In addition, the Government has honoured its undertaking to return to fixed triennial funding arrangements. These arrangements will cover all elements of higher education funding programs for 1985-87 including capital and equipment and will also apply to TAFE, if State Governments are willing to indicate their own resource commitments in that sector for the three years. The guidelines set the scene for a return of steady, planned growth in tertiary education over the 1985-87 triennium and build on the initiatives commenced in 1984 to increase participation in tertiary education. Pending a further report from the Commission on a number of issues referred to it in the guidelines, the Government has set a guaranteed minimum level of funding for 1986 and 1987. Final decisions on total funding levels for 1986 and 1987 will be taken after consideration of the further report. The guidelines also initiated fundamental reviews aimed at increasing opportunities and improving the quality and effectiveness of education in Australia. Funds for universities and colleges of advanced education will be increased by $54.3 million to $1,991.8 million in 1985 (in estimated December 1983 prices). In addition, the Commonwealth will increase its funding for technical and further education, which is largely the responsibility of State Governments, by $10.9 million, or 3.8 per cent, to $299 million for 1985. Under the fixed triennial funding arrangements the minimum levels of funding to be provided for the higher education sector will be $2,015.2 million and $2,033. 1 million for 1986 and 1987 respectively. In the TAFE sector the real level of 1985 funding will be maintained as a minimum. In its Volume 2 report, the Commission recognises that, although its funding recommendations were not accepted in full, the Government's decisions were taken at a time when maximum restraint on expenditure is required in the interests of national economic objectives. Furthermore, the Commission acknowledges that the provision for continued growth that has been made in such circumstances reflects the significant place of tertiary education in the Government's developmental strategy. The Commission agrees that it is preferable in the interests of balanced development to have guaranteed steady growth in coming years, as provided in the Guidelines, rather than occasional large injections of funds leading to a stop-start process of development. The funding allocations recommended by the Commission and agreed by the Government- Make significant increases in the provision of higher education in outer metropolitan areas as a step towards meeting the needs of the large numbers of young people which are not served adequately at present with higher education facilities; Increase access to regional institutions; Increase access for Aborigines; Revert to a rational higher education capital program after nearly a decade of inadequate funding provided on an annual basis; Continue the Commonwealth's major contribution to the development of TAFE through the provision of substantial capital funding; Provide additional equipment allocations to assist higher education institutions where intakes are increasing and to enable the TAFE sector to respond to technological developments; and Provide for increases in participation in all States with particular emphasis on those States where existing participation levels are low. The Government has accepted the allocation of funds recommended by the Commission with the exception of the State by State allocations of funds for 1985 under the TAFE Participation and Equity Program (see Table 3.28 in the CTEC Report). The recommended allocations for PEP will be adjusted slightly on the basis of further advice from the CTEC to take account of transfers of funds between the schools sector and the TAFE sector requested by the New South Wales and South Australian Ministers for Education during 1984. The legislation to be introduced shortly will incorporate the revised allocations. In relation to the higher education sector, there are several matters on which the Commission has not made detailed recommendations for the distribution of funds at this stage. These comprise funds for measures to promote equity, key centres of teaching and research, superannuation, special assistance for needy students, special research centres and programs to increase participation of Aborigines. These funds will be distributed in accordance with determinations made by me after further advice from the Commission. The Commission has also made a number of recommendations for changes to the form of enabling legislation to be introduced shortly. These include flexibility over the triennium to vary grants between institutions, sectors and States, provision for the early commencement of approved capital projects and the removal of limitations on continuing education programs in the advanced education sector. The Government accepts the Commission's recommendations. In conclusion, the measures now announced by the Government arrest the decline brought about through seven years of neglect by the former Government and provide the basis for a return to steady planned growth in the tertiary education system. The allocations to institutions will increase participation in tertiary education and enhance equality of access by disadvantaged groups. The Government will be considering further measures to increase participation and equity and to improve the overall output of institutions in terms of skills related to employment opportunities following the further report of the Commission for 1986 and 1987 requested by March 1985. [COGNATE BILL AND MESSAGE: NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY (STATUS AND RIGHTS OF CHAIRMAN) BILL 1984 JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY] Debate resumed from 12 September, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney- General) —I propose that it would suit the convenience of the Senate if there were a cognate debate on this Bill, the National Crime Authority (Status and Rights of Chairman) Bill and the National Crime Authority-Joint Statutory Committee-Consideration of message from the House of Representatives. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Is it the wish of the Senate to have a general debate covering these measures? There being no objection, it is so ordered. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.06) —Honourable senators agreed to have a cognate debate on three quite separate matters: First, a Bill to implement the Remuneration Tribunal's determination in respect of judicial salaries and those of statutory officers; secondly, the resolution from the House of Representatives for the establishment of a Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority; and thirdly, a Bill which will in effect confer on the title of Chairman of the National Crime Authority the status and rights of a judge. The first Bill that I refer to is the Bill to implement the Remuneration Tribunal's recommendations in regard to judicial salaries. The Opposition supports the Bill. Indeed, I wish to comment on only one aspect. I suppose it could be raised in the Committee stage, but for convenience I shall raise it here. I note from Part II of the Schedule the relative salaries that are determined for Federal judges, in particular the salaries recommended for senior judges and judges of the Family Court by comparison with judges of the Federal Court. Indeed, there is a new determination for the President of the Inter-State Commission, whose salary has been determined as equivalent to that of judges of the Federal Court. I understand that the President himself has been made a Federal Court judge. However, the President of the Inter-State Commission has been given the same salary as a Federal Court judge. The discrepancy, however, between salaries of judges of the Federal Court and judges of the Family Court remains. Even the salary of the Chief Judge of the Family Court by comparison with that of the Chief Judge of the Federal Court, reveals a quite significant discrepancy. Thus in broad terms the discrepancy between judges of the Federal Court and judges of the Family Court appear to remain the same as they have been for some time. I think this subject has been raised in this chamber from time to time. It was certainly a matter which was raised with the former Government and quite a number of discussions took place. Submissions were made to the Tribunal by me in regard to the matter, with the object of narrowing the discrepancy or of obtaining a fixed percentage of salary for judges of the Family Court as against those of the Federal Court. Those in this chamber who are interested in the matter will be well aware of this problem . I am concerned to obtain from the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) an indication of what policies he or his Government is pursuing in relation to this problem and what steps he has taken in relation to it particularly in light of the fact that he has expressed views on previous occasions when he was on this side of the chamber, which would be highly critical of the situation which existed and which still exists. So I am particularly interested to know whether he is of the same mind as in the past or whether he has now changed his view and, if so, where he now stands in relation to this question. An opportunity arose a year ago when amendments were being made to the Family Law Act to do something in regard to this matter, but nothing was raised about it at the time. The Judicial and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Allowances) Bill 1984, which gives effect to the decision of the Remuneration Tribunal, perpetuates this discrepancy to a quite considerable extent. I believe it is appropriate that this matter should be raised and that the Government should indicate what its policy is. The next matter I want to comment on is the message from the House of Representatives proposing the establishment of the Joint Statutory Committee on the National Crime Authority. The Government's performance in not bringing forward this matter when Parliament first sat in the Budget session is rather tardy. The National Crime Authority Act came into force on 1 July and the Authority has been established, but it has taken three months to deal with the establishment of the Committee to oversee the Authority. We welcome the establishment of this Committee, which was an important initiative of the Opposition during the debate on the National Crime Authority. I refer specifically to the initiative taken in Committee by Senator Missen to establish a parliamentary committee to oversee the Authority. We are naturally very pleased to support this proposal, even though we would have been happier if it had been before us at an earlier stage. The Committee would then have been in existence and operating, and of course there has been a very clear need for such a committee to have been operating in recent weeks. I do not say that it is too late, even at this stage, for such a committee to deal with the problem that has been presented. A very real problem has been highlighted by the Opposition in recent weeks. I refer to the totally unsatisfactory situation which has arisen in regard to the handover from the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union to the National Crime Authority. The timing of this handover, of course, has been laid down by the Government. I do not suppose that the proposed committee could have done much about that because the decision was taken by the Government-a decision to which the Govenment still pigheadedly adheres and tries to defend, without much success. Clearly there are questions apart from the timetable that was laid down. However, problems have arisen in trying to cope with that timetable, particularly in regard to the briefing of the Authority by Mr Costigan and his staff. These briefings have been very perfunctory, not because of Mr Costigan's wishes or beliefs but because of the timetable and the attitudes that have been taken by members of the National Crime Authority. I think the proposed parliamentary committee might well have been able to improve that situation. The other very important and urgent question concerns a continuing problem. It is one which I believe the Committee will still have time to tackle and make, I hope, some contribution. Certainly if the Committee had been in existence it might have already been able to improve the situation. I refer to the totally unsatisfactory way in which the Costigan material is now being dealt with by the National Crime Authority and by the inter-governmental committee. A large amount -42 summaries-of material is set out apparently in some form of book which refers again to a large mass of other material which has been handed to the Authority without the benefit of any detailed briefing of any kind by members of the Costigan Commission. Because of the structure of the Authority it can exercise coercive powers only if it has a reference. That material must be sifted to determine what references may be suitable for referral. The National Crime Authority has engaged a counsel, Mr Cummins, who is now being assisted by several other people on a part time basis. Mr Cummins has only recently become available on a full time basis. Indeed, he will be absent from this task for some period, while he conducts a brief. So we have a fairly ragged situation in relation to the sifting of all of this important material-material which is the result of the great momentum of Mr Costigan's investigations. Those investigations have ceased since 30 June this year and now that momentum has been lost. It cannot be revived until the references are obtained and the full coercive powers of the Authority can be used. Indeed, there may be other material which should be the subject of investigations, even perhaps without the use of coercive powers. At all events, it appears, as best we can ascertain from the torrent of words that pour forth from the Attorney-General every time he is asked a question about it, that there is a mass of material. Yet it is not being tackled by a sufficiently large group of people. It is not being pursued, except by Mr Cummins, on a full time basis and there has been some doubt as to what extent he will be involved on a full time basis until the end of the year. This is a major problem and there is a major necessity that this whole exercise be expedited to the full. It is clearly a matter that this Joint Committee should be looking at and I certainly hope it will be looking at it. If the Committee had been established, of course, it would have been able to have been tackling this problem and prodding the Authority and the Government to get on with it and to do a far more effective job than has been done to the present time. As I said, the Opposition certainly welcomes the establishment of the Committee and hopes that it will be able to get on with the job as soon as possible despite the frustrations that it will probably have very early in its life as a result of the determination of this Government seemingly to have a totally unnecessary dissolution of the House of Representatives and an early election within the next few weeks. The other Bill deals with the position of the Chairman of the National Crime Authority. It is a Bill for an Act relating to the status and rights of the Honourable Donald Gerard Stewart, the present Chairman of the National Crime Authority. The Bill does not amend the National Crime Authority Act as such. It is a special Bill to cope with a special problem which has been created by this Government, and in particular I suggest by the Attorney-General, although no doubt the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) has also played a pretty considerable part in this exercise. The Bill arises from the fact that the Government chose to appoint as Chairman of the Authority Mr Justice Stewart, a judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The National Crime Authority Act, as indeed its predecessor the National Crimes Commission Act, allowed for the appointment of a judge as Chairman of the Authority. In all of the parliamentary debate on the subject, although it ranged over very many other aspects, it was accepted on all sides that it was an appropriate provision that a judge may be appointed Chairman of the Authority although there were differing views as to whether it would be suitable to have a judge as Chairman of the Authority. But in all events the question was to be open and indeed when we were in government we had designated as the Chairman of it a Mr Justice Williams, as he then was, of the Supreme Court of Queensland. Nevertheless the question of obtaining the services of a judge for the chairmanship of an authority of this kind or of any statutory body, such as the appointment of Justice Roma Mitchell of South Australia, as she then was, as Chairman of the Human Rights Commission or of judges to be royal commissioners under the Commonwealth Royal Commissions Act, always requires some delicate negotiations with the State concerned and indeed the court and the Chief Justice of the court of that State. Whatever may or may not have transpired in those negotiations between this Government, the New South Wales Government, the New South Wales Supreme Court and particularly the Chief Justice of New South Wales, the end result was a most unfortunate situation to say the least, one which I would have thought could have been avoided if proper procedures had been followed and full and proper consultation had taken place in accordance with ordinary convention and tradition in these matters. However the Attorney-General claims that consultation of some particular sort did take place with the Chief Justice of New South Wales and in fact that this Government was aware of the opposition to the appointment of a judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales to this position. Whatever the result, some of the public statements and actions of the Chief Justice of New South Wales indicate clearly that any consultation that took place with him must have been of the most perfunctory kind and quite unsatisfactory and inadequate. But be that as it may, the end result was that Mr Justice Stewart, who I think at that stage had already been appointed-certainly public announcements had been made of it-found that he was in conflict with his Chief Justice, and I think almost all of the judges of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. A most unfortunate public conflict had arisen. We know the way the Attorney-General operates in most things. I think it is a pretty fair assumption that he and the Government, of which he is a member proceeded in normally delicate negotiations with haste and determination to get their own way regardless of what anybody else might think. I believe that the Government has to take responsibility for the result. Senator Missen —Would you say it was a case of crash or crash through? Senator DURACK —It was both, I think. We are now having to pick up the pieces in this proposal. Mr Justice Stewart was left in a position where he felt obliged to resign from the Supreme Court of New South Wales. I think that was an inevitable decision that he had to make, and it was a very unfortunate one for him. I have a great deal of sympathy for him and for the position in which he found himself. Certainly he should not suffer. He has assumed the responsibility of chairing the National Crime Authority-a great responsibility and one which I have at all times believed he is well qualified to discharge. Therefore he should not suffer any financial disadvantage as a result of the public service that he has agreed to undertake. I trust that nothing I say in this matter will reflect in any way on Mr Justice Stewart. This legislation, most of which the Opposition takes no exception to, is designed to preserve Mr Justice Stewart's financial situation-his pension rights and entitlements-to enable him to be appointed in due course, if necessary, to a Commonwealth office, if he is interested in accepting such an appointment when he finishes his term as the Chairman of the National Crime Authority. That is entirely appropriate. But there is one particular clause in this legislation to which the Opposition is totally opposed and which we believe is not only inappropriate but also improper. After Mr Justice Stewart has resigned from the Supreme Court of New South Wales-he has not yet done so-he will be entitled to retain the designation, rank, status and precedence of a judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. This will make Mr Justice Stewart, as I have already said in a public statement, a Clayton's judge. He will not be a judge but he will look like a judge and appear to be one. I believe this is totally contrary to the whole standing of the judiciary in this community. This proposal has already received the greatest condemnation by the legal profession in Australia, and rightly so. The only precedent for it, the only justification the Government has for putting up such a proposition, is that it was done on a previous occasion. It was done by the Whitlam Government in regard to Mr Justice Else-Mitchell, the Chairman of the Grants Commission, when he resigned from the New South Wales Supreme Court to take over that position. It was criticised in the Parliament at the time and it certainly was wrong in principle. I do not know the ins and outs of the negotiations between Mr Justice Else-Mitchell and the Whitlam Government at the time, but there may have been some special reasons or justification for it. The fact is that this should not be used as a precedent for doing this sort of thing again. To give an appearance of a person being a judge when he is not a judge is misleading to the public, it is like a passing off situation in the commerical world. There is no institution in this country that has greater respect than the judiciary and that respect must be maintained. The judiciary has that respect because of the standards of the people who serve in it. The reputation they have is one that they deserve, they have earned by their own efforts and their own standards. Senator Gareth Evans —What do you say about Deputy Presidents of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, which was a Liberal innovation? Senator DURACK —The Attorney-General knows well that that situation arose because the Commission had been a court until it was changed as a result of a High Court decision. People had been given that title because they were truly judges and it would have been quite wrong to have taken that title from them because of constitutional changes which were required as a result of the High Court decision. The Commission had been a court for 50-odd years before then. That was quite a different situation with a different background. Here there is no requirement for the Chairman of the Authority to be a judge. There is a lot of feeling that a judge should not serve on that Authority as Chairman. I do not share that view, but it is a widespread feeling in the judiciary. This entitlement has been given simply and solely because Mr Justice Stewart has been so badly treated in the way in which he was appointed. The entitlement has been given to get the Government out of a hole, to clean up a mess. Again, it is another mess that has been created by the Government and the Attorney- General in this way. We should not, for no good reason whatever, lend our aid as a parliament to that problem and its solution. The problem is quite unnecessary and should never have occurred. As I said, there is no requirement for the Chairman of the National Crime Authority to be a judge. Indeed, there are a lot of arguments that he should not be one. There is no reason whatever for this, except this problem and unfortunately it is a personal problem for Mr Justice Stewart. That cannot be the basis upon which a step like this should be taken. If we do this sort of thing it will devalue the status of the judiciary. The title 'Mr Justice' it is one of great honour and standing. That is because the people who hold it deserve it. When judges retire they do not retain the title of 'Mr Justice' or 'judge'. they usually retain the title 'honourable' but they do not retain the title 'judge'. Many of them take on other tasks, they may even go into business or go back to the Bar. Some perform other judicial tasks, as two are doing this very minute in Parliament House. But they do not retain the title once they cease to be judges and once they cease to perform the duties of the office of a judge. Therefore, the Opposition strongly opposes that aspect of the Bill. Otherwise most of the provisions are totally suitable and necessary to compensate Mr Justice Stewart for the considerable sacrifices he has made in the public interest. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(10.35) —This cognate debate on the Judicial and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Allowances) Bill, the National Crime Authority (Status and Rights of Chairman) Bill and the Joint Statutory Committee on the National Crime Authority covers a number of matters relating to the National Crime Authority. Although I will not cover a number of the matters already mentioned by Senator Durack, I support strongly what he said and the attitude taken by the Opposition to these proposals. In particular, the whole question of the rather unnecessary provision concerning the title of a judge has arisen because of the 'crash or crash through' operations of the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans), who failed to discuss these things properly with State authorities before this situation arose. I want especially to deal with two other matters. The first relates to the proposal that has come from the House of Representatives to set up the monitoring committee, the Joint Statutory Committee on the National Crime Authority. According to the requirements of the National Crime Authority Act, the Committee was to be set up as soon as practicable after the Act came into operation. The act came into operation in June and now is not 'as soon as practicable'. Such a delay is in clear breach of the Act. Notice of the motion to set up the Committee was given on 11 September in the other House and was debated only some time after midnight one day ago. That was after I had given notice in this chamber that I intended to move for the setting up of the Committee but in terms slightly different from those proposed in the House of Representatives. In that House the Government had proposed that the Joint Committee of 10 would consist of three Government and two Opposition members of the House of Representatives and three Government senators, one Opposition senator and one Australian Democrat senator. For some reason the Government saw fit to require not only that it have the chairmanship and therefore a casting vote and general control of the Committee but also six out of the 10 members. Fortunately it was made clear to the Government that neither the Liberal and National Party Opposition nor the Democrats would accept that. It is essential that the Opposition in this Senate, which has taken a most constructive and constant interest in the National Crime Authority and the way it is set up, be properly represented. The proposal that has now come from the House of Representatives adopts the proposal in the motion of which I gave notice some two days ago and provides that there will be two Opposition senators, two Government senators and one Democrat on this important committee. The Committee should have been set up long before this. We have gone through a period in which not only have the general workings of the Authority caused some worry but also the handover from the Costigan Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union to the new Authority has been a matter of constant concern to this Parliament. It is a disgrace that the Joint Committee has not been in a position before now to meet and talk with Mr Costigan and the new members of the Authority. It needs to ascertain what are the problems and see whether it can make some recommendations that could help in ensuring, and this is the important point, that the investigations which remained uncompleted by Mr Costigan-investigations which were stopped by this Government on 30 June, which are now not going ahead in public hearings-are quickly resumed. The position is that inquiries, and in respect of which the National Crime Authority at the moment has no authority to demand evidence, or use its coercive powers are at a standstill because the inter-Governmental Committee has not yet met and so has not given any references whatsoever to the Authority these matters need to be brought to a conclusion. All that the new Authority can do at the moment is what you, Mr Deputy President, or I can do-ask people, make inquiries and knock on doors. It cannot require the production of documents or anything of that sort. It is a crisis situation in which irreparable harm may well be done as a result of the folly of this Government, and I put it as low as that. The Committee is to be set up. It must meet very quickly and do what it can, in a number of ways, to help the situation. The Committee must try to see what repair can be done to the inefficiency of the changeover which is taking place, but also it has to do other things. It has to look at the question of the powers which this Authority has been given and at the suggestions which even the Authority has made that there should be some changes to those powers. Last night in this chamber in the adjournment debate I spoke because I wanted to draw the attention of the Senate immediately to an article which appeared in yesterday's Melbourne Herald concerning an interview by Peter Game with the members of the new Authority. I do not intend to repeat what I said at more length last night. The Attorney- General, although he was advised that I was speaking on the subject last night, did not choose to be in the chamber or to reply to the criticisms that I made. I trust that he will take the opportunity-he is not concentrating on this matter at the moment-in his speech in reply to indicate whether I am right in my view that the members of the Authority, unfortunately, have misunderstood their powers and are not yet aware of the grave restrictions which are imposed on them . I invite honourable senators to look at the detail of that criticism which I made in my speech last night. As I quoted from the Herald last night, the members of the Authority have come to a conclusion that they certainly do not intend to be lackeys of any government. They are to be independent and intend to remain independent. As I said, I applaud that sentiment, but I fear that their high hopes of their ability to expose any attempt by the Inter-Governmental Committee or governments to frustrate their actions will fail. The article reported Mr Justice Stewart, after making that declaration of independence, as saying: Nonetheless, the commissioners already have sought an amendment to their Act which could have the effect of making political interference less likely-they want the legislation changed to compel the Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC) to give reasons when it vetoes a particular investigation. That is probably a very good proposal. What the judge and the other members of the Authority do not appreciate apparently is that for them to get reasons from the Inter-Governmental Committee is not much use if they cannot be made available to the public. The burden of my speech last night was to draw attention to the fact that they cannot, by just holding public sittings for the purpose of discussing the general work of the Authority, go ahead and disclose that they have been refused a reference from the Inter-Governmental Committee, the reasons why they have been refused a reference and that they are frustrated from going on with that inquiry. This is a deficiency in the Act. I draw the attention of honourable senators and the public to the real restrictions that are imposed in sections 60 and 61 of the Act. Section 60 deals with the power to have public sittings and bulletins to discuss the general conduct of the Authority's operations. There too was a very significant proviso which the Government put into the Act. It was not part of the recommendation of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs which looked into the Act . Sub-section (5) says: The Authority shall not- (a) divulge in the course of a sitting held under sub-section (1); or (b) include in a bulletin published under sub-section (4), any matter the disclosure of which to members of the public could prejudice the safety or reputation of a person or prejudice the fair trial of a person who has been or may be charged with an offence. The width of that is enormous. Any such statement about a reference or its refusal must be concerned with the reputation of a person-to take just one segment in that clause-and, therefore, as the Act is presently phrased, the Authority cannot and would not dare to discuss it openly in public sittings. The same point arises when the members of the Authority come to make their annual report under section 61 of the Act. The Senate Committee made reference to the width of that annual report, but the Government did not accept it because it included-I regret to say that this went through the Parliament; certainly it did not go through with the Opposition's support-sub-section (5) which states: Where the Inter-Governmental Committee resolves that the inclusion in a report by the Authority under this section of particulars of the outcome of a request made by the Authority under sub-section 10 (1)- that is in regard to a reference being sought- might prejudice the safety or reputation of a person, the operations of law enforcement agencies or the fair trial of a person who has been or may be charged with an offence, the Authority shall not include in such a report particulars of the outcome of the request. Is it not perfectly clear that the Inter-Governmental Committee can refuse such a request? We may change the Act and say that a reason has to be given to the Authority, but the committee can write to the Authority and say certain particulars may not be reported. Any reference must influence and must deal with the reputation of a person, otherwise what is a reference about? Something I did not mention last night but which I wish to draw to the attention of the Senate are the recommendations in the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on the National Crime Authority Bill, and in my minority report, which in substance were adopted by the Opposition with one exception. One of the Committee's recommendations was 4. 39, which is to be found on page 44 of the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs into the National Crime Authority Bill and which states: (b) Provision should be made for the Authority to set out in its annual report any matters on which it has sought reference from the Inter-Governmental Committee, including those which were rejected. Such information should be so set out, however, only if the Authority is satisfied that to do so will not affect the safety or reputation of persons, or prejudice the operations of law enforcement agencies or fair trial of a person who may be charged with an offence. What this Government did was say that the Authority could not determine such a matter, but the Inter-Governmental Committee could make its demands and require the Authority not to reveal information. That is the very important difference. So the Senate Committee's recommendation was there not adhered to. I had some criticism to make in my minority report of the recommendation. I made a more lengthy criticism of the restrictions which the Committee recommended should be imposed on public hearings. In dealing with that matter I said: Recommendation 4.39 (b) is subject to the same criticism I make in respect to public hearings. What did I say about public hearings? I said that they were useful in themselves but they did not answer the real problem. I do not say here that the Opposition supported me in my general views about public hearings, but in this regard I went on to say in the report: The Majority Report (paragraph 6.8) points out that it is generally conceded ' that the provisions of the Bill make it extremely unlikely that many hearings would be conducted in public or, if they were, that publication of the proceedings would ensue'. I would put it even more strongly. Since clause 21 (7) requires the hearings to be in private 'if the taking of that evidence in public might prejudice the safety or reputation of the person . . .' (my emphasis), no Authority could risk the accidental damage to anyone's reputation. My comments were similar to those in the recommendation made by the Senate Committee, which was fundamentally changed by the Government in its Bill to ensure that it could leave with the Inter-Governmental Committee that power of direction over the Authority to stop it from exposing in public attempts which were being made to frustrate it in its actions. I take that case as a particular example of the need for the Joint Statutory Committee on the National Crime Authority. Fortunately the Australian Democrats, including Senator Chipp, supported the recommendation I made in my minority report that there should be a joint committee. I am sorry they did not support other recommendations, but at least we achieved that. The establishment of the Committee is a vital feature of the way in which this Parliament can continue to see whether the Authority is aware of its powers, whether its powers will be properly amended and whether such amendments will cover the essence of what powers are lacking in order to approach the public, in cases where the Authority is being frustrated perhaps by the actions of a State government or by members of the inter-governmental committee acting in concert and probably in private. Therefore, I welcome very much the fact that the Joint Committee will now at last be set up. It must come together very quickly to look into these matters and also to take the opportunity to ensure that what it can do will facilitate matters and make members' jobs easier. As honourable senators know my view is that the present outlook for the real defeat of organised crime is hopeless. Obviously, we have to change the Act very substantially in the future if organised crime is to be defeated. In the meantime, this Joint Committee has a lot of work to do in helping to facilitate the Authority's work and in drawing to the attention of the Parliament deficiencies which members of the Authority cannot draw to the attention of the public. Therefore, I welcome the fact that the Government has at last got off its slow course of deliberate delay so that quite obviously this Committee would not effectively be in operation until after the election. But that Committee will go on. It is provided for under the Act. It will therefore have a task which is not just for this Parliament. In future years it will also have the very important task of ensuring that we make the best endeavours we can to deal with the serious problem of organised crime in Australia. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.51) —The Bills we are debating cognately plus the message from the House of Representatives have all been matters of fair ranging discussion in the community. Hence, positions are relatively well known. I do not intend to take a great deal of time to rehearse them all again. However , I would like to point to certain matters in each of the measures that are likely to be the subject of a division in this chamber. The first Bill relates to the remuneration and allowances payable to holders of certain judicial and statutory officers. It is a machinery Bill of an important kind in setting up the various matters that are necessary in the ongoing debate. However, one matter has probably come to the fore, namely, the amendment that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) proposes to move. The Australian Democrats will support that amendment. It was put to us by the Attorney-General that it would facilitate the new Solicitor-General in his personal capacity, and in regard to where he is living, particularly the movement between Melbourne and Canberra. We sought from the Attorney-General figures in relation to the expenditure incurred in travel by the previous Solicitor-General and information as to how these would relate to the proposals for the new Solicitor-General. The figures that have been provided show quite clearly that the amendment that the Attorney- General proposes to move will actually result in a saving to revenue and will also fit in with and facilitate the work of the Solicitor-General. It seems to me that if one can achieve both those objectives it is indeed a remarkable occurrence. It is not very often that we manage to save money and gain efficiency in activities. This seems to be one such occasion. I do not think there is any reason to oppose this proposition. I believe that in various offices arrangements increasingly ought to be made on a one to one basis. We had a debate in this chamber recently in relation to the upper echelons of the Public Service. One of the matters that the Australian Democrats pushed for and were successful in gaining in the legislation was the notion that there ought to be some type of remuneration package for holders of high offices and that that package ought to be determined on an individual basis, one to one with the holders of those positions. The reason for this is very easy to understand when one considers that the people we require in such offices obviously would have the ability in private enterprise to attract very large remunerations and other benefits in their business enterprises. Thus, for the Commonwealth to be able to compete and get people of the very highest quality in those jobs we have to give a remuneration commensurate with the remuneration that those people could gain if they remained in private practice. In doing that, one has to take into account the persons being appointed to those offices and not see the offices merely as offices to be filled. I hope that in subsequent movements in a number of these offices we can tailor remuneration packages to particular individuals so that the Commonwealth can be served by the very best people in the community available for the jobs that the Commonwealth wishes them to do. It is no good our burying our heads in the sand and believing we can achieve that without paying these people appropriately and in ways that fit in with their personal organisation; that is, their family life , where they wish to have their family home, where they hope their children, if they have any, will be educated and other matters of concern at a personal level . I hope that people in this chamber are cognisant of the fact that very little regard is ever paid, certainly in this chamber and in the other place, to the personal lives of people who hold office in this chamber and in the House of Representatives. Personal lives often suffer because of the rather absurd way that we manage to organise our lives. Let us at least not visit that absurdity on other people. Let us retain that if we must for ourselves, but arrange more congenial personal and family organisation for people we ask to come into various offices of the Commonwealth. Thus, on those grounds and on grounds of simple efficiency, cost and the desirability as a matter of policy to make better arrangements than we have in the past in these matters, I indicate that the Australian Democrats do not oppose the amendment proposed to be moved by the Attorney-General. The second matter we are considering is the status and rights of the Chairman of the National Crime Authority. In this regard, we are dealing with an individual, Mr Justice Stewart, the retention of the title of Justice and the status that must necessarily go with that. The National Crime Authority has made specific provision for the Chairman to be a judge. Mr Justice Stewart, when he accepted his appointment as Chairman of the NCA, did so on the basis that he would retain his salary and all other entitlements, including pension and long leave. Mr Justice Stewart, we believe, should not be disadvantaged in the taking up of a nationally important task. Again, it is a matter which should be dealt with on an individual basis. We need no longer take the rather narrow view that we must establish regulations and that these regulations will apply to absolutely everybody. The inflexibility of many of the Public Service regulations has been a detriment rather than a support to the interests of the Commonwealth. In the areas in which regulations do not fit appropriately, we should no longer seek constantly to have them apply to all and sundry without any interest taken in the individual we seek to take on these necessarily onerous tasks. The appointment of the Chairman in this instance is for four years. He is not reappointable. At the conclusion of his term, Mr Justice Stewart will be just short of 60 years of age. The Bill will allow Mr Justice Stewart to retire on pension or to take up a position as a deputy president of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal with provisions to avoid the payment of double salary and pension entitlements. We believe it would be an injustice if the Chairman of the NCA were disadvantaged in any way in accepting this appointment. In particular I draw the Senate's attention to the fact, and I emphasise again that each item has to be taken on its merits, that Mr Justice Stewart resigned as a New South Wales Supreme Court judge because there was some feeling that the positions were incompatible. I think it is understandable that if Mr Justice Stewart has taken what he perceived to be the right course it would be totally unjustifiable for this place to penalise him for doing so. I believe that because Mr Justice Stewart has done the right thing we should do likewise and not in any way seek to disregard the personal understandings of Mr Justice Stewart and all of the other people involved in the negotiations in relation to the appointment about the way in which this matter would be handled. Indeed, I think if we seek to go backwards we would in fact be engaging in our own little bit of retrospective retribution of someone to whom I would have thought the Opposition would have wanted to give as much support as possible. Hence, I indicate that the Australian Democrats will support the National Crime Authority (Status of and Rights of Chairman) Bill. We believe that the appointment of Mr Justice Stewart as Chairman is the correct course to take on this occasion. I hope that if changes need to be made to meet specified problems when a new head of the Authority is appointed in four years time the way we are dealing with this matter will not be seen as the only way of appointing a person to head up the Authority. I think we need flexibility in these matters, flexibility which takes account of people. We should not be subject to mindless regulations into which people have to fit. The last matter we are debating is the message from the House of Representatives concerning the establishment of a Joint Statutory Committee on the National Crime Authority. Senator Missen reiterated a number of points when he spoke during the debate. I do not wish to go back over all of what he said. However, it seems to me that a great deal of recent debate on this subject has been massively uninformed. I think it would be useful if the people who were writing on this matter read what was said in this chamber on the legislation to set up the National Crime Authority. I am not only talking about Opposition claims, I am also talking NVALID COMMANDabout some comments that the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) made in this place yesterday during Question Time . The Attorney talked about the extra strength that the National Crime Authority undoubtedly has and which the Costigan Royal Comission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union does not. Unfortunately, he did not also indicate that a number of those factors were the result of amendments moved to the original Bill and passed against the wish of the Attorney. Senator Gareth Evans —That is the most ungracious thing you have said. Be fair, that was an outrageous infringement of civil liberties. Senator MACKLIN —I particularly remember the first amendment which I had to move because Senator Chipp was ill at the time. That amendment related to the retention of individuals who were likely to flee the country. However, the Attorney-General said yesterday that this was one of the additional strengths that the Costigan Royal Commission did not have. Indeed, it is. However, I think that the central debate that has taken place has suggested the Inter- Governmental Committee in some way will be a weakness. Although I did not play a great part in the debate on the legislation to set up the National Crime Authority, I contributed only because of the illness of the Leader of the Australian Democrats, as a senator who had to vote on this matter I thought it was my duty to discuss this matter with the people of my own State. Therefore, I met the Queensland Police Commissioner and representatives of the police union in Queensland. We discussed this matter at quite some length. I must say that I was perfectly satisfied in my own mind that if we wanted to have a useful involvement of my own State's law enforcement agencies we had to have an Inter- Governmental Committee. I believe that this view would apply to every State. I would like to refer to some points that Senator Missen raised and actually put them in the context of the real world. Senator Missen talked about the Inter -Governmental Committee meeting in secret. Indeed, it will. But I ask honourable senators to consider who are going to sit on the Inter-Governmental Committee. The members of the committee will be the Commonwealth Attorney-General and the State Attorneys-General. In the real world these people will belong to opposing political parties. Indeed, members of the Inter-Governmental Committee belong to the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the National Party of Australia. With all the best will in the world, with all of the supporting people and staff who will be involved and with the massive amount of paperwork that will be needed, if that organisation does not leak like a sieve, I would be very much mistaken. If it is possible to get Cabinet leaks, notwithstanding the fact that Cabinet is made up of members of the same political party, it is fairly certain that an organisation such as the Inter-Governmental Committee will leak like a sieve. I wish people would be clear about what we are talking. We are talking about the jurisdiction of a State. We are not talking about Commonwealth jurisdiction; we are talking about jurisdiction which is solely within a State, jurisdiction which does not even go across State borders because if it did another State would be involved. We are talking about something that is totally within the jurisdiction of a State. What will happen if a particular political party that runs the government of a State attempts to stop a reference on a certain matter? Everyone will know what happened when they read in the National Times on the following Sunday the transcript of the previous meeting. Everyone will then be asking why there is a cover-up. Let us be very clear that that will be political situation. Let us talk about the real world in which we are involved. I believe that the Inter-Governmental Committee will be a body of great strength. I am personally convinced from talking to law enforcement agencies in my own State that such bodies will co-operate to the full in the fight against organised crime only because of the existence of this committee. We will not be able to combat crime in Australia if we do not have the involvement of State police forces. If anybody thinks that we can, they know nothing about how to go about fighting crime in Australia. The law enforcement agencies are staffed by people on the ground, who have the contacts, who know their own States and who know the local area inside out. This sort of information cannot be provided by someone from outside. We have heard much in recent times about the weaknesses of the National Crime Authority from members of the Opposition parties. I just ask again that people go back and read the debate. I ask them to look at the divisions that took place . I ask them to look at the amendments that were moved. I acknowledge that Senator Missen has the right to stand up and express his view. Quite frankly, he is the only senator on the Opposition side who should be saying anything because he did not have the support of the Opposition at the time the legislation was being discussed. He can say those things, he is being totally consistent when he says them, but no other members of the Opposition parties are being consistent when they talk about that. If they are being consistent, given the whole debate, why did they not move substantive amendments in each of the areas which they believe could be strengthened? That question must be asked of the Opposition parties. People who remember the debate will recall that we amended the Bill substantially. The legislation was amended twice. It was amended by a series of amendments that the Government accepted and which were recommended by the Committee which this chamber set up, and it was amended during the Committee stage by the Opposition parties and the Democrats. If further things needed to be changed and further strengthenings needed to be undertaken, that should have been done at the appropriate time in this chamber when we had the power to do so . The last point I make on this matter is that when Mr Justice Stewart feels that there is a deficiency in the Act he has stated, and stated publicly, that he will come back to the Parliament and seek those additional powers. I ask honourable senators: Which government, no matter which party is in power, will deny Mr Justice Stewart those additional powers? I think that question ought to be asked in the real world, and I think the answer is self-evident. The establishment of this Committee of the Parliament, I believe, is a very useful proposal. It was debated quite extensively during the previous debate and I do not intend to debate its usefulness again now. I hope that it will contribute well in the parliamentary oversighting of the matter on which I think everybody is now at least in agreement-that is, the necessity of this operation. I hope that in the ensuing debate everybody will remember that we now have a National Crime Authority. The important thing for everybody to do-this goes for members of all political parties-is to support as much as we can the actions of that Authority and not by our actions, particularly in the coming election campaign, pull it down and destroy its effectiveness. We want it to succeed; it must succeed. I believe that the constant attacks on and denigration of that Authority will destroy its effectiveness. Part of its effectiveness, as I have already argued in terms of the status of its Chairman, depends on its standing in the community. Everybody knows that law enforcement depends very heavily on the acceptance of the law enforcement agencies by the community. Let us not, in anything we say during the ensuing campaign, in any way take away from the ability of the National Crime Authority to pursue the tasks it has been given by this Parliament. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(11.13) —I wish to refer to two aspects of the matters that are before us this morning. I refer firstly to the Judicial and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Allowances) Bill 1984, which gives the Solicitor-General a Canberra allowance. I do not for one minute suggest that he should not be paid an adequate salary, but I regard it as offensive in this day and age to grant a Canberra allowance to anybody who is working or living in the national capital. It is something which was appropriate many years ago when people were encouraged to come to Canberra and had to come here because of their employment. If it is necessary for his salary to be at a particular level, that figure should have been negotiated. I regard this action as totally inappropriate and, as I said, offensive. There may well have been other people who sought the job. I do not know how one goes about advertising and getting a solicitor-general. I reject totally the notion of adding a Canberra allowance to his salary as an appropriate course of action. The other Bill to which I wish to refer to is the National Crime Authority ( Status and Rights of Chairman) Bill 1984. It has been canvassed to some extent, but there is an aspect of it to which I wish to refer specifically. The Bill deals with the appointment of Mr Justice Stewart as Chairman of the National Crime Authority. It specifically deals with his appointment and it is clear that that is so. It deals with his status in making him, I suppose, an honorary judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. I totally reject that as an appropriate course of action. I do not know how it could possibly have come about that this has occurred. I do not understand what the reasoning might be that makes this in the eyes of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) an appropriate way to treat our court. The fact that a former Labor Attorney- General did it in appointing Mr Justice Else-Mitchell a courtesy judge does not make it right to do so a second time. I hope that this will not occur. This action has been criticised, as the Senate will know, by the Chief Justice of New South Wales, the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory, and the Bar Association of the Australian Capital Territory. There has been adverse Press comment, and it was certainly pointed out most forcefully by the Chief Justice of the Australian Capital Territory that Mr Justice Stewart is not a judge of our court. Had he been a working judge of the court as a fourth resident judge, I am sure the community would have been more than pleased. As the Attorney knows, relevant members of the community have been lobbying for this to occur. But he is not and will not be a judge of this court. It is really a great affront to the people of the Australian Capital Territory to treat the title of judge in this way and particularly to treat our court in this way. If it were seen as necessary to give him a title, why not appoint him an honorary judge of the Federal Court? That option was also open to the Attorney-General. If it is necessary for the man to be seen as being different from the rest of the race, he could have been given a knighthood. He may or may not have accepted it. I am not suggesting for a minute that he is not well qualified for the job he has taken on, but to treat our court in this high-handed manner is unacceptable. The Government is rushing this community into self-government. At the same time the Government treats our court in this manner by appointing someone to it, as a matter of convenience, as an honorary judge. With regard to self-government, I am not certain whether the community would vote for it or against it if they had the opportunity. It is very clear that many people believe they ought to have the opportunity to have a say. If there were a referendum and self-government were rejected, it would not be proper or open to me, I believe, to question the right of the Attorney to make this appointment. Of course, he will no doubt say that self-government does not exist and therefore he is entitled to make the appointment. Given government policy and the statement of Government Ministers and members on the matter of self-government, their clear rejection of consultation with the community, it is offensive to proceed in this manner. As I have said, I fail to see how it could possibly have come about. It is inappropriate to use the title in this way. It downgrades our court. It is quite clear that we are proceeding to self-government. Only last week we had the education statement dealing with the issues and impact in relation to how education would be dealt with under self-government. We have had the Grants Commission report on finances for the Territory. As to the report of the task force set up by the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) on the implementation of self-government in the Australian Capital Territory, the Minister made it perfectly plain when he tabled the report that he was not talking about whether there was to be self-government. He was talking about the process of implementation. At the same time as this is going on, and self- government is to come into effect initially next year, the Attorney-General has taken this action. The task force report, in relation to the Supreme Court and its future, states: . . . a superior Court of record with unlimited civil and criminal jurisdiction ; it has both appellate and original jurisdiction and hears and determines appeals from inferior courts having jurisdiction in the ACT; although the court is closely linked with the Federal Court, the function does not, strictly speaking, have national elements; while it is recognised that the question of the development of an integrated court system in Australia is relevant, the transfer of responsibility for the Supreme Court is nevertheless recommended. I see no good reasoning, of course, in that paragraph for its coming to that conclusion, but that is the conclusion of the task force as presented in this document. It is interesting that it should say that the function does not, strictly speaking, have national elements when we find the Attorney totally ignoring that in appointing the Chairman of the National Crime Authority, which clearly is a national element, to this court and not to a court that is more clearly a Federal court. The people of the Australian Capital Territory are also entitled to ask the Attorney whether he consulted the House of Assembly on whether this action should proceed. It is clear that the statements of the Minister for Territories and Local Government that he said he would have close consultation with the Assembly on legislation that affects us. But I know of no consultation on this matter. No doubt the Attorney has some explanation of why it was not appropriate. The only other outstanding example of lack of consultation was, of course, the casino legislation. We never found out much about that either but I think we are entitled to know why it is that, when it suits the Government to consult, it does and, when it does not suit, it does not. Anybody who supports this legislation cannot be heard again to say that there should be self-government in the Australian Capital Territory. One would be flying in the face of the concept of self-government if one were prepared to use the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory in this way. The proposal should be rejected. I would not in any way wish to interfere with the rights of Mr Justice Stewart as far as salary, leave and those matters are concerned but I fail to see why the title is so important. I endorse some of the remarks that have been made about the appropriateness in any event but I leave my case in this matter on the argument of whether, on the issue of the Government's policy on self-government, this should proceed. I say to those who vote for it that they cannot subsequently talk about self-government in the Territory. If a referendum were held it could well be that people would vote for self- government, even though a vocal group is opposed to it. Present mismanagement of the Territory in many respects of housing and health is such that I am sure many people would feel that the appropriate course should be to move to self- government. This action would encourage people in that direction-the fact that the Federal Attorney-General would treat our Supreme Court with so little respect as to proceed in this manner. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.22) —in reply-With the conspicuous exception of Senator Reid I wish to thank all honourable senators for the moderate way in which they have approached the series of topics now before us, which topics have of course in recent weeks and months attracted a great deal of immoderate debate. I will deal quickly and shortly with the various matters that have been raised in the course of this basically moderate debate that we have heard over the last hour or so. First of all, as to the Judical and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Allowances) Bill, Senator Durack raised the question of the treatment of Family Court of Australia judges and indeed that as part of the whole question of relativities of salary within the Federal judiciary. I draw his attention to a public document, a submission from me to the Remuneration Tribunal of 1 March this year, in which I set out a series of proposals on how in my view this question of relativity should be determined. In particular so far as relative status within the Federal judiciary was concerned I submitted the following propositions: (a) the salary appropriately fixed for the Chief Judge of the Federal Court of Australia should become the bench mark for salaries for other federal Judges. (b) the salaries payable to other Judges of the Federal Court should be fixed to the present level of relativity with the salary of the Chief Judge, that is, 92% of that salary. (c) the status of the Family Court of Australia within the Australian judicial hierarchy does not do justice to the difficult and important jursidiction exercised by that Court-it should be seen as intermediate in status between the State District County Courts- as the case may be- and the Federal Court of Australia. (d) to reflect the proper status of the Family Court of Australia, the salary of the Chief Judge of that Court should receive a salary fixed at 95 per cent of the salary payable to the Chief Judge of the Federal Court. (e) the present differences in salaries payable to the Senior Judges and Judges of the Family Court of Australia should be abolished, and the salaries payable to the Judges of that Court (including the Senior Judges) fixed at 90 per cent of the salary payable to the Chief Judge of that Court. In order to get to the basic bench mark, that is to say the salary of the chief judge of the Federal Court, later in my submission I proposed: . . . the ultimate aim should be to establish the salary of the Chief Judge of the Federal Court at approximately the mean of the salaries of the Chief Justices of N.S.W. and Victoria. When that is achieved, other federal judicial salaries could be established according to the formula I have proposed. I regret that in the recent report of the Remuneration Tribunal the Tribunal found it possible to produce only a catch-up formula for the judiciary generally and not to resolve some of these questions of relativity which I believe deserve to be treated as anomalies, for some of the reasons that Senator Durack outlined and with which he is certainly familiar. I will certainly make it my business as events unfold over the next few months to pursue the matter of relativities because I believe there are some real problems in the way the Federal judicial salaries are structured at the moment. I hope that is sufficient information for him. It may be appropriate for me to table the letter to which I have referred and I now do that. Senator Durack —Would you like to incorporate it? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have read the relevant bits into the record; it is enough if I simply table it. As to the question of the Solicitor-General's remuneration, that will be the subject of debate at the Committee stage in a few minutes. I simply record my indebtedness to Senator Macklin for the support foreshadowed from the Australian Democrats in this respect. I indicate my support for what I thought were some very sensible remarks he made about the need to approach the salaries and remuneration packages for high statutory officers in a flexible way which is responsive to the needs of each particular position as it arises. The second matter dealt with in this cognate debate was the motion to establish the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority. I welcome the Opposition's support for that course now being proceeded with, as indeed it had to be under the terms of the National Crime Authority Act. Inevitably the matter of the establishment of that Committee was used as the occasion for another feeble little serve from Senator Durack on the question of the transition from the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union to the National Crime Authority but I do not think even Senator Durack thought that his contribution to today's debate deserved a response from me. Senator Missen used the opportunity to flog a familiar couple of hobby horses of his as to the structure and functions of the Committee, reliving yet another of his great dissents of yesteryear in the process-what has become a fairly familiar course of action for the old parliamentary war horse sitting opposite in this chamber and no doubt he will be doing that for many years yet to come. Senator Missen —It is the Opposition view, not just mine. Senator GARETH EVANS —But it was put most articulately by Senator Missen as always, as one would expect. The third matter dealt with was the National Crime Authority (Status and Rights of Chairman) Bill. This attracted a degree of debate put with various degrees of passion. Senator Durack acknowledges no difficulty in principle with the appointment of a judge to head the National Crime Authority. Indeed, of course, he could hardly do otherwise, given that the Liberal Party of Australia neither in government nor in opposition ever contested the appropriateness of the appointment of a judge to such a position. It certainly did not do so in this chamber when the issue was debated at the seminar last year. It certainly did not do so in the parliamentary debate on the Act or in the internal debate which took place at the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs which was established to review that Act. Senator Durack —And we nearly appointed one. Senator GARETH EVANS —Indeed, as Senator Durack rightly takes me to, he appointed Mr Justice Williams of the Queensland Supreme Court as the Chairman designate of the proposed National Crimes Commission. So the burden of the criticism had to descend from the grounds of high principle where it was sought to be placed by some others who ought to know better and became a criticism of the way in which the matter of Mr Justice Stewart's appointment was handled. That appointment was the subject of full consultation with the New South Wales Government and what I would regard as appropriate consultation with the Chief Justice of the New South Wales Supreme Court. I do not believe that any useful or constructive purpose would be served by tracking over the controversy which subsequently ensued. It is enough simply to note that at the end result of that controversy Mr Justice Stewart felt himself under pressure to resign his position from the New South Wales Supreme Court, and it accordingly became necessary for the Commonwealth to endeavour to pick up the pieces. I am glad to note Senator Durack's saying that Mr Justice Stewart should not be made to suffer as a result of that course of events. But I would say in turn to him that the suffering that is involved by someone in those circumstances cannot be measured just in financial terms. It is also a question of the status and the prestige of the positions which the person leaves and occupies, and it is a question of the dignity of the individual concerned. With that in mind the Government, after considerable consultation with a number of people, including senior judicial officers of the Commonwealth, decided to follow the precedent established in the early 1970s with the appointment of Mr Justice Else-Mitchell to head the Commonwealth Grants Commission and to give Mr Justice Stewart the status, designation, precedence and entitlements of a judge of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court. Might I say in this respect that Senator Reid's contribution reflected a quite spectacular misunderstanding as to what the legislation actually accomplishes. It is not the case that Mr Justice Stewart was in any way appointed to the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court. It is not the case that he was in any way appointed to become or should be regarded as an honorary judge of that court, which is the terminology that Senator Reid repeated on a number of occasions. It is the case that Mr Justice Stewart is not in any sense a judge of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court. What is the case is that that court is being used as a benchmark simply to identify his entitlements, his rank and precedence when situations arise-largely confined these days I suspect to the order of placement around the Governor-General's dinner table-as to the priorities he ought to enjoy in the protocol order of things. Again the reference was made, as it was in the case of Mr Justice Else-Mitchell , to the position of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court simply because that court is regarded-I think Senator Reid ought to acknowledge the compliment that is involved in this-as a court which is equivalent in all respects to the Supreme Court of the States of Australia and the New South Wales Supreme Court in particular. It exercises the role of a superior court of record for a particular geographical area, as does the Supreme Court of New South Wales and the Supreme Court of every other State. It is the only court, apart from the Northern Territory Supreme Court, within the Commonwealth's constitutional control, which does have that geographical definition of its jurisdiction which makes it a peculiarly appropriate benchmark accordingly to be taken into account for someone coming off another court with a geographical jurisdiction-that is to say, the New South Wales Supreme Court. The great edifice of neurosis that was erected by Senator Reid on the basis of that reference in the legislation to the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court was I believe wholly misconceived and ought to be treated accordingly by the Senate in its response to this legislation. As to the larger criticism of the appointment that was made by Senator Durack on behalf of the Opposition generally about the use of a judicial title here at all, I simply say that there are many variations in the way in which judicial titles are used and have been used in this country. One of the most obvious variations from the norm, that is to say the confining of it to people who are judges properly, so-called, with a task to perform in particular courts, lies in the designation to which deputy presidents or legal deputy presidents of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission are entitled. True it is, as Senator Durack said in answer to an interjection that I offered, that that owes its reality to the historical circumstances that existed after the boilermakers case, when there were a number of people who were already appointed as judges who it was desired should perform non-judicial roles and as a matter of courtesy and decency it was thought appropriate that they should be able to retain their judicial titles. But the use of the courtesy title of 'Justice' that occurred in that circumstance was not just a transitional phenomenon. What has happened subsequently of course-and with the precedent being set by successive Liberal governments before we came into office-was that successive new appointments to the positions of deputy presidents to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission became also entitled to the designation of 'Mr Justice' or 'Justice' as the case may be. I think it is sheer humbug once again for this particular appointment now being made to be singled out as some great breach of principle well established in this country. It is nothing of the kind. I do not suggest by that that it is appropriate for judicial titles to be flung around with gay abandon as the mood strikes, but I do say that it is appropriate that that course of vesting a judicial title should have been followed in all the delicate and difficult circumstances of this case. I believe, in the circumstances of this case, that it would be, as Senator Macklin says, a very real injustice were Mr Justice Stewart to be treated otherwise than as entitled to the continuation of his judicial title. Finally, I believe it is a great pity that the Opposition should choose to be so churlish and so insensitive about this matter in pursuing its opposition as it has. Senator Missen —Before you sit down; I take it you are not disputing anything I said in the speech last night or this morning? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am disputing all sorts of things that the honourable senator said. I just do not propose to dignify them with a detailed reply, particularly given the size of the parliamentary timetable and the extent to which these matters have already been canvassed and no doubt will continue to be canvassed in a feeble way in Question Time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.38) —I move: That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment: Page 6, after clause 6, insert the following new clause: Allowance payable to Solicitor-General ''6A. (1) On and after 1 January 1985, there is payable to a person- (a) who holds the office of Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth; (b) whose principal place of residence was, at the time when the person's appointment, or first appointment, as the case may be, to that office took effect, at a place outside, but not in a part of New South Wales that is adjacent to or in the vicinity of, the Australian Capital Territory; and (c) whose headquarters for the purposes of payment of travelling allowance are in the Australian Capital Territory and who, in accordance with a requirement made upon the appointment of the person to that office, has established the person's principal place of residence in the Australian Capital Territory or in a part of New South Wales that is adjacent to or in the vicinity of the Australian Capital Territory, an allowance at such rate as is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal for the period in which the person maintains the principal place of residence established as mentioned in paragraph (c). ''(2) An allowance payable by virtue of sub-section (1) shall be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which is appropriated accordingly.''. What I have circulated in my name is technically a request rather than an amendment. It involves the insertion of a new clause 6A which makes provision for an allowance to be paid to the Solicitor-General. This matter was briefly canvassed in the second reading debate. The purpose of the request is to authorise the payment to the Solicitor-General of what might be informally called-notwithstanding Senator Reid's reaction to it-the Canberra allowance to assist him in making his working headquarters in Canberra. At present this type of allowance is given only to justices of the High Court of Australia. Senator Durack —It is a non-Canberra allowance. Senator GARETH EVANS —The honourable senator is entitled to so describe it, I guess. The essential justification for advancing this proposal is as follows: The arrangement with the previous Solicitor-General was that he should retain his principal place of residence in Sydney and commute to Canberra three days a week. That arrangement involved, conservatively, expenditure to the order of $20 ,000 per annum and was the subject of parliamentary criticism, as I recall, from the Opposition in general and Senator Durack in particular. The proposed Canberra allowance for the present Solicitor-General will be determined by the Remuneration Tribunal but we anticipate that the rate will be of the order of $9 ,900 per annum, which is the rate currently payable to justices of the High Court. Given that the present Solicitor-General lives in Melbourne and would, were he not to shift to Canberra, have to be paid travel expenses for approximately 40 trips per annum that is 40 days worth of travelling allowance, this proposal means a saving of more than $20,000 a year. The proposal is to be treated as a one-off one involving the degree of flexibility to which Senator Macklin so sensibly referred in his contribution on the second reading. There are particular reasons for regarding it as appropriate that an allowance of this kind be paid to the Solicitor-General. Those reasons essentially flow from the fact that the Solicitor-General is in various other ways, in terms of his position, assimilated to that of a High Court justice. A number of movements in the Solicitor-General's entitlements that have been approved by Parliament indicate a clear intention to equate the Solicitor-General with judges of Federal courts generally, and the High Court in particular. The most recent was the amendment to the Law Officers Act last year, giving the Solicitor-General the same entitlement to pay in lieu of long leave as High Court and other Federal judges have. Pension entitlements are also the same. Against that background the analogy of the allowance paid to High Court justices is valid. The essential purpose in both cases is to encourage the incumbents to regard Canberra as their working headquarters. It is on that basis and against that background that I warmly endorse this proposal and hope, as has been indicated by the Australian Democrats, that it will not only maintain their support but also win the support of the Opposition. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(11.43) —I want to speak briefly to the schedule of the Bill and refer to my concern that salaries of statutory officers and public servants should be increased at a time when the rest of the community is expected to exercise some restraint. The Government has claimed credit for a reduction in inflation simply because it has followed the policy that was established by the Fraser Government is suggesting that a wage pause should persist. I register an objection to the fact that we have set up an elitist section of the community that will be provided with an 11.7 per cent salary increase from 1 January next year. I have no quarrel with providing additional allowances or travelling expenses which are necessary, but I object quite strongly to the fact that while the rest of the community is expected to exercise restraint-as have members of parliament and others-we are providing statutory officers and heads of department with considerable salary increases. The numbers of people involved extend from page 105 to page 184 of the Remuneration Tribunal 1984 Review. This represents a considerable number of people at a considerable cost to the Government. I cannot let this go by without saying that I had in mind to move that the Senate disapprove these salary increases because they are unfair to the rest of the community. The Australian Council of Trade Unions and others may well bring pressure to bear on the Government to concede to them the same sort of treatment that we are meting out to the people referred to in the Tribunal report. I believe that the Government should have another look at the Remuneration Tribunal, its cost to the community and its effectiveness. Time and again we in this Parliament have rejected the recommendations of the tribunal. It seems to me that we should return to a sensible situation in which we make a determination in respect of parliamentary salaries, for example, to tie them to a division of the Public Service. When the economy permits salaries should all go up together in a responsible way, rather than isolate tribunal determinations in respect of members of parliament and others referred to in this review. I register that disapproval personally. This view is held by a number of people throughout the community and I suggest that the Government give some consideration to reviewing the whole question of the existence of the Remuneration Tribunal from now on. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.46) —What Senator Jessop's contribution utterly fails to take into account is that the decision made by the Tribunal in relation to these officers was completely in accordance with the wage fixing principles applied by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to the wage and salary earners in the community at large. This simply represents a catch-up for a slippage which had occurred in terms of those salaries keeping pace with the consumer price index. It was further proposed, and it is relevant from the terms of the Bill, that that catch-up should be phased in, with 6 per cent effective from 1 July 1984 and 5.7 per cent from 1 January 1985. There is nothing in the Bill which attracts or deserves anything like the criticism that has been directed to it by Senator Jessop. There has been nothing selective in the way in which the Government and its organs have approached wage entitlement determination. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(11.47) —The Attorney-General is still evading the issue. I am prepared to concede that the Government has done this in a reasonable way. Nevertheless, it has selected a certain section of the community for special treatment-- Senator Gareth Evans —Rubbish! Senator JESSOP —It is quite true. I am trying to point out to the Government that it is a dangerous practice to create an elitist section of the community when we are all expected to exercise proper restraint. That is the only point I make. I recognise that the Government has done this by giving 6 per cent and following on with 5.7 per cent, but I still think that the point has to be made. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.48) —I realise that the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) might want to get his amendment in relation to the Solicitor-General out of the way first. I wish to speak about the remuneration of Family Court judges, but I might do that separately. The Attorney-General's amendment is another ad hoc, ad hominem type of amendment, if I may use a Latin tag in this place in this day and age. We have two matters before us in one debate today, about which I have considerable reservations. Senator Reid has already made some reference on behalf of the Canberra community, but my reservations are much wider than that. I am not in a position to say that the Opposition supports this amendment. On the other hand I do not think it is a matter on which we would want to register our opposition in a very determined way, such as by having a division. In fact, I am not in a position to speak on behalf of the Opposition because we have not had an opportunity to consider the amendment in view of the time since it was sprung on us. But I do not believe it is a matter of sufficient significance to require an adjournment to obtain its view. I will express my own views on this amendment with the object of indicating that we do not believe that this is really an appropriate course to be taken. The problem arises, again, because of the way in which the present Solicitor- General was appointed. It appears that there was no real consideration of this question at the time of his appointment, otherwise presumably the matter would have been fixed up long before now. Indeed, it was the subject of some discussion at an Estimates committee meeting earlier this year. That indicates that the situation was in a state of flux at that time despite the fact that the Solicitor-General had been appointed from 1 January this year, and has now been in office for most of the year. If at the time of his appointment it was perfectly clear that he would be required to live in Canberra, unlike his predecessor with whom arrangements were made in the first place by the Whitlam Government which appointed him, the appropriate course would have been for that matter to have been resolved one way or the other at that time. This proposal puts the Solicitor-General in a totally special position as far as statutory officers are concerned. A number of other important statutory appointments have been made by the Attorney-General in the last 12 months. I instance the Director of Public Prosecutions and the new Chairman of the Australian Institute of Criminology, both of whom have had some special but interim travelling arrangements. There is no suggestion whatever that they should be paid any ongoing benefit in the nature of a Canberra allowance. As Senator Reid has said, a Canberra allowance was paid to people coming to Canberra, at a time when there were real disadvantages for anybody having to come here. I suppose we had to encourage people to come to Canberra before it achieved the status it now has as the Australian capital and one of the country' s major cities. Senator Gareth Evans —Who introduced it for the High Court judges? Senator DURACK —I will come to the High Court judges in a minute. The idea that people have to be paid something extra for the burden of having to live in Canberra is rather odd. I would have thought it would be no more expensive for a person from Melbourne to come to live in Canberra, and it may even be cheaper. It would certainly be cheaper for people from Sydney to come to live in Canberra . It seems to be a matter of strange principle that in this day and age a person appointed to a job in Canberra be paid an allowance. Other statutory officers do not receive any such allowance and public servants who come to Canberra, even people who come as permanent heads of departments, or secretaries as they should now be called, are no longer paid an allowance. Yet here we have this whole idea being revived by this Bill in respect of only this person. Senator Jessop has just spoken about the special advantages being granted in this legislation, as it is at present, to an office-holder. Despite what the Attorney said, it is a proposal at which some criticism can be levelled, as Senator Jessop has done. Here we have another example of where some special provision is being made available, fortunately in this case for only one statutory office-holder. Nevertheless, it is a provision which for that reason alone is even more subject to criticism. Senator Jessop —It is a dangerous precedent. Senator DURACK —This provision certainly is a dangerous precedent, and one is left to wonder why on earth it has become necessary. If it is done in this case, it will be clearly a precedent for other people in future cases. I do not know how we would stop. It may well be that in view of the high earnings of senior members of the legal profession a special salary package is required to attract these people to take on the office of Solicitor-General. This group is not confined by any means to one or two people, but certainly the present Solicitor- General belonged to that category. I think Senator Macklin had that in mind as the reason for this legislation. That did not apply to Dr Griffith. As far as I can ascertain, Dr Griffith was quite pleased to become Solicitor-General. He did not require any special salary package. Senator Gareth Evans —You must have heard some different conversation. Senator DURACK —At least he accepted the position. This is a situation of great interest, and obviously of great value, to leading members of the profession. No salary package was negotiated with him. The Attorney seems to be suggesting that Dr Griffith was not pleased to become Solicitor-General, and maybe he had to be persuaded. Senator Gareth Evans —He was delighted to be Solicitor-General; the trouble is, he just woke up the next morning. Senator DURACK —The fact of the matter is that no salary package was negotiated, or demanded. He may well have assumed that he was entitled to continue to live in Melbourne. But that was not his fault; it was the fault of the Attorney- General who did not make it clear to him that he had to come to Canberra. As I said, coming to Canberra is not in itself a significant financial disadvantage. On a purely financial basis, it could even be an advantage when coming from some parts of Australia. I am really addressing myself to the argument Senator Macklin has used, that the real problem in getting people to take these jobs is the provision of a salary package. I do not know whether this allowance is said to be some sort of a sop to the Solicitor-General, some sort of compensation for the fact that he woke up next morning, to use the Attorney's words. If that is the case, I am even more horrified by this proposal. Senator Gareth Evans —No. Senator DURACK —As I understand it, that is not the reason. I can well understand that we may have to change salary arrangements if we want to get the best people to take these jobs but that is irrelevant to whether or not they are expected to be in Canberra. The issue here is whether some special Canberra allowance should be given to this office-holder, after he has accepted and been appointed to the position. We have here an additional benefit over and above his salary or the salaries of any other people who come to Canberra. It is a completely wrong approach in principle and the only explanation of it is that there was a bungle by the Attorney-General at the time the appointment was made and Dr Griffith did not realise he had to live in Canberra. In view of the fact that his predecessor had lived in Sydney that was not an unreasonable assumption for him to make. The Attorney seeks further to dress up this proposal by using the analogy of High Court judges. He seems to be anxious for that matter to be canvassed further. As I pointed out in my interjection, what has been granted to High Court judges is not a Canberra allowance as such; it is a non-Canberra allowance . It is an allowance the judges are given if they choose to remain living in their home city after their appointment. I suppose that is the only analogy one can make with Dr Griffith, and that is why I say it is the reverse of the Dr Griffith situation. Senator Gareth Evans —Except that it is now applicable to all of them. Senator DURACK —I do not think so. It is applicable only to those who do not live in Canberra. Am I right? I think what the Attorney may have in mind is that it was given only to those judges who were sitting on the court when the transfer occurred. Subsequently it was extended to all future appointments. Senator Gareth Evans —That was the original intention. Senator DURACK —Yes. It does not apply to those who choose to live in Canberra. That is an interesting analogy with the situation of Dr Griffith. I understand that two of the seven judges live in Canberra by their own choice. I do not know whether any others have elected to live in Canberra. The payment of this allowance to the High Court judges simply follows from a decision that they should be allowed to continue living in their home cities. When they come to Canberra, like anyone else who travels from home base they receive an allowance. In the case of the High Court judges, this lump sum was settled upon in lieu of their ordinary daily travelling allowance to which they would otherwise have been entitled, like any other public servant or member of parliament who is away from home overnight on the business of government or Parliament. The decision was made on the basis of very high policy considerations. (Extension of time granted) As I said, it was a matter of high policy considerations that High Court judges should be allowed-I might even say encouraged-to remain as part of the community in which they have always lived. They are not serving the Government, as are the Solicitor-General and other public servants who come to Canberra. They are members of the highest court in the land, the final court of appeal under not only Federal law but also State law. They are the interpreters of the Constitution. It was thought, in the highest considerations, that they should remain part of the general Australian community and not be confined simply to working out of Canberra and losing contact with the rest of the Australian community. Public servants travel around a good deal, even when they live in Canberra. If High Court judges live in Canberra they do not have the same opportunity of keeping in touch with the rest of the community. That was the reason for encouraging High Court judges to remain in their own cities. The High Court is in a unique position and it should not be used by way of analogy as an argument for this provision. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.05) —I do not want to prolong the debate. Let me say just this: It was not in any sense a bungle that the matter of travel arrangements for the Solicitor-General was left unresolved at the time of his appointment. It was a matter of deliberate decision to leave the matter unresolved for further consideration because of a variety of circumstances, professional and personal, that were relevant to the decision made by both the Government and the Solicitor-General in this respect, and it was desired to see how things would work out. Certainly it was always my desire that the Solicitor-General work out of Canberra and do so on a perhaps more sustained basis than had been the case with his predecessor. It was a matter of leaving it to be worked out, by the most appropriate means, as to how that objective could subsequently be ensured. The matter could have been resolved by the Government simply making an appropriate request to the Remuneration Tribunal for the determination of a particular allowance-that is within the capacity of the Tribunal-to apply without the need for a specific statutory provision of this kind. We felt it was appropriate that there should be statutory provision to emphasise the uniqueness of this allowance that is proposed and to make it absolutely clear that it was not to be regarded as a precedent for other statutory officers around the place, whose allowances are not the subject of detailed statutory provision in the way that is here now proposed to be set out. We were anxious to make it clear that the Solicitor-General, as the Second Law Officer of the land and as someone whose position in other ways has been assimilated to that of High Court judges in terms of entitlement, should continue to be regarded as a very special and very one-off case. I take the point Senator Durack made that the so-called Canberra allowance for High Court judges is perhaps better described as a non-Canberra allowance. Nonetheless, there is something of an analogy with the High Court allowance in this instance in that the real rationale for the allowance being paid to the Solicitor-General in this instance is to enable him or any of his successors who may come from outside Canberra to maintain a residence in his home State in order that he will not be financially disadvantaged if or when, at the expiry of his statutory term he were to return to that home State and re-establish himself . I think it needs to be appreciated, if one is minded to regard the remuneration package for the Solicitor-General as being generous, that it is a term of years appointment. It is not a permanent appointment, ongoing into the future, as is the case with High Court judges or indeed, with Senator Reid's contribution in mind, public servants generally. As such there are additional expenses and disruptions associated with the position as a result. It is not a matter of the earnings of the position being supplemented, as is the case with the High Court judges, by very substantial pension entitlements into the future. None of those considerations apply with anything like the same force to short term, fixed term statutory appointments of this kind. That brings me to the final point I want to make quickly. It is necessary to have a degree of flexibility in one's approach to the filling of these very high , one-off, statutory positions. A very great difficulty confronts all governments-not just the present Labor Government but also the Liberal Government which preceded us-in finding appropriate remuneration packages that do not generate precedents which will flow through to the Public Service generally, but which at the same time recognise the market realities. There is an acute problem for government in getting those statutory officer remuneration packages right. It is a difficulty very acutely felt so far as commercial public authorities are concerned, as we are all well aware. It is also a difficulty when one talks about professional positions of this kind where the candidates, as it were, for such positions are remunerated on an extraordinarily generous basis in their private professional life. The present Solicitor-General has made the scale of his own remuneration a matter of public record in his submission to the Remuneration Tribunal on this question. It is evident that it is very great indeed. Despite all the honour and glory associated with the position-at least the honour and glory that was involved in it before people in this chamber started tearing him apart when they did not like some of his opinions-there is a very great financial sacrifice involved in the acceptance of it. It is a sacrifice which is particularly great when one considers that it is not a permanent position. Unlike the positions of High Court judges, there are no compensating pension and superannuation entitlements for the future, and in many ways the highest earning period of one' s life is being taken away from one by accepting a position of this kind at this stage of one's career. All those considerations were taken into account by the Government in coming to the decision that in the particular circumstances of this case, this ought to be treated as a one-off entitlement and legislated for accordingly, and I think it does deserve the support of the Senate. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(12.10) —I do not want to prolong the argument on this subject except to say that some of those arguments that the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) used in relation to Dr Griffith's home in Melbourne, and so on, were a little hard to follow. Nevertheless, the situation has arisen and I think it would have been far better if it had been organised as a salary package in the first place rather than in the way that it has been presented to us, apart altogether from the other questions that have been canvassed in the debate. I conclude on that point by saying that I believe that there are still enough people in Australia, and I hope there will continue to be , who are prepared to perform some public duties even at salary or income disadvantages to them. I think the fact that Dr Griffith is taking this position , with or without the present benefits, is probably a good example. I am sure when he took the job he did not believe that he would not be subject to public criticism in this chamber or anywhere else if he deserved it. Such criticism must be accepted as part of his office. The other matter I wanted to raise briefly follows upon what the Attorney said in reply to the question I raised about the Family Court judges. I am pleased to learn that he has made a submission in the terms that he has indicated to the Remuneration Tribunal, but I also observe that he has had the same disappointment as I did in submissions of that kind, which apparently seem to be fairly similar to ones that I made, in that they do not seem to impress the Tribunal. So we have something in common in that regard. It appears to me, in view of the constant rejection of these arguments that have now been made to the Remuneration Tribunal by successive governments in regard to the Family Court judges that the question of seeking to establish a proper status for Family Court judges in the Federal judicial hierarchy, is one which will really have to be determined by parliament. I would like the Attorney to indicate whether he believes any further steps can be taken without that step being necessary or whether he feels that the time has come when some legislative decisions will have to be made in order to resolve what I think has now become a matter of deep and continuing concern to Family Court judges. It is particularly a matter of concern in light of the challenges that that Court has made and of the very considerable sacrifices that Family Court judges have made and are continuing to make. I believe that because of the very heroic way that they are handling the grave problems and the terrible threats to which they are subjected, it is time that they should be relieved of the continuing disappointment and dissatisfaction that they have held in relation to this matter. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.14) —As to Senator Durack's last remarks, I believe it would be premature for me to put any kind of firm position on the public record because the matter has not been the subject of Cabinet deliberation at this stage. I simply indicate that I do have some personal sympathy for the position that Senator Durack is espousing. It may indeed be necessary ultimately to resolve this matter by legislation. It is nice to know, accordingly, that I am on a promise from the shadow Attorney-General as to the Opposition's support were I minded to take that course. Request agreed to. Bill agreed to with a request. Bill reported with a request; report adopted. Consideration resumed from 12 September, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 4-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 5 (Status). Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(12.17) —As I indicated in my speech on the second reading debate of the Bill, the Opposition is opposed to the provisions of clause 5. We will not move an actual amendment to clause 5. I think the appropriate course is simply for the Opposition to vote against it. It is the only clause in the Bill to which we are opposed. As I have said, we believe that Mr Justice Stewart should not suffer any financial disadvantages as a result of his decision to resign from the Supreme Court of New South Wales, but having decided to resign from that Court, he should not be accorded the courtesy title of Judge or Mr Justice. I have given the reasons for that view, and Senator Reid has also indicated her support, particularly in relation to the aspect of this clause which gives him the status and precedence of a judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) responded to the arguments in his speech in reply on the second reading debate and emphasised the importance that status as such may well have and that it is not just a matter of financial compensation. I certainly appreciate that argument. It was one of the arguments that would have been weighed, no doubt, by Mr Justice Stewart in making his decision to resign from the Supreme Court of New South Wales. He has not been forced to resign from the Supreme Court of New South Wales. That was certainly a voluntary decision of his, albeit an understandable one and perhaps it may even be thought to be appropriate in all the circumstances that arose. Nevertheless, unfortunate as that may be, the fact remains that we have here a very major question of principle. Even though in some way Mr Justice Stewart's status may be affected, although his financial situation will not be affected as a result of that decision, I do not believe that that is a sufficient consideration for the serious erosion that will occur as a result of this measure to the standing and indeed the status of the judiciary in this country. As other people and I have said, if the title of Justice is detached from those who are performing judicial functions, the notion of the judiciary is thereby devalued. People will not know whether a person who has the title of a judge is a judge or not. People will then cease to have the same respect for the judiciary. Even if this Bill went through, when all is said and done Mr Justice Stewart would retain the title only for the time in which he is Chairman of the National Crime Authority. At that time he will be just short of 60 years of age. If he had remained a judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales he would not have had to retire until he reached 70 years of age. It is very likely that he will be reappointed to some other Commonwealth position in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. As he will not then have the title of judge, the proposal that he retain the title while Chairman of the NCA is a strange one. He will keep the title of Justice only for the next four years while he is Chairman of that body. The status argument really does not seem to be particularly relevant to Mr Justice Stewart personally wanting to retain the title as much as to the Government wanting the Chairman of the Crime Authority to have the title of Mr Justice. Thus I think this argument has become a bit muddied. It boils down to a fairly narrow compass. Be that as it may, the fact that the Opposition is opposed to this in no way is a criticism of Mr Justice Stewart whom, indeed, we praise for the course of action he has taken in light of the circumstances that arose and for which the Government has to carry some considerable responsibility . We oppose the measure on the ground of the misuse of the judicial status and title. If this measure is passed, because of the precedent it will give, it will lead to an erosion of the community acceptance of and attitude to the judiciary. It is simply misleading the community if people are given this courtesy title. The community is entitled to believe that those who have that title are in fact performing the functions of a judge. In this case, the person with that title will not be performing the functions of a judge. It is really a very simple case of the Parliament and the Government misleading the community if this legislation is agreed to. For those reasons, the Opposition opposes this clause. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.24) —The Opposition's reaction is unfortunate, extravagant and unjustified either in principle or in practice. I have probably said almost everything I can appropriately say about this matter in the second reading reply and I do not wish to retrack over that ground. I simply add this: Neither the Government nor I believe it will in any way erode the status and standing of the Australian judiciary to have someone being vested with the title of Justice if he is doing a job which it is appropriate for a judge to do, albeit not a strictly speaking judicial job. The Opposition has always acknowledged, as we heard earlier in this debate, that it is appropriate for a judge to be Chairman of the National Crime Authority. It will not, secondly, erode the status and standing of the judiciary if the person vested with this title performs that task with the dignity and the competence which Mr Justice Stewart is bringing to the chairmanship of the Crime Authority. What erodes much more seriously the standing of the judiciary in this country is the kind of campaigning against individual members of the judiciary that lacks, and is subsequently proved to lack, substance, but which is undertaken for reasons of short term political expediency. I refer to the kind of campaigning we saw with Mr Sinclair's attacks on Mr Justice Cross in New South Wales, the kind of campaigning we have seen in the attacks which have so far been made on Mr Justice Murphy on a whole number of matters which I referred to yesterday as having nothing to do with the present proceedings of the Parliament. I refer in particular to the Sala matter, the Saffron matter and the Moll matter-proceedings, or rather campaigning, undertaken for motives which can at best be regarded only as suspect. I do not want to open up that whole debate again, but it would set us off in other directions. I simply make the point that before people attack members of the judiciary, before they raise allegations, before they bring alleged peccadilloes, defaults or misbehaviour into the public domain, it is terribly important for them to be a lot more sure of the foundations on which they make those attacks or allegations than has been the case in so much of the public debate in this area over the last few months. It is that kind of thing, not what is being proposed here in relation to Mr Justice Stewart, that really does give rise to the kinds of concerns which Senator Durack quite legitimately raises. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(12.27) —The Attorney-General has just made gratuitous and unnecessary attacks on the Opposition. They may have been of a veiled kind, but in one case they were not so veiled when he cited debate that occurred in another place in relation to Mr Sinclair and Mr Justice Cross and indeed to questions which have been asked quite appropriately in this chamber in relation to some matters that arose from Press allegations not about Mr Justice Murphy as such but about him when he was a Minister and a member of this chamber and about actions he took then. Nobody has ever suggested that the status of the judiciary and its standing in this country depend upon the fact that members of it are not criticised. Indeed, they may be heavily criticised. One might even say that they can be attacked if that is appropriate to the circumstances of the case. In debates in this chamber earlier this year, I believe I quoted the ringing words of Lord Atkin in a well known case. He said that justice is not a cloistered virtue and that judges do not have immunity from criticism of the decisions they take or, indeed, criticism in relation to any of their conduct. My argument in this case has been that overwhelmingly the Australian judiciary has deserved and earned its reputation because of the standard it has adopted so far as the conduct of its members is concerned, the quality of the work they have performed and their dedication to it. That is why the Australian judiciary has that standing; it does not have it because it is not criticised. Members of the judiciary do not want to be immune from criticism. It is quite justified that they be criticised from time to time. Certainly, sustained or unjustified criticism is not deserved by anybody. I am not suggesting that sort of criticism should be made, but I take exception to and strongly differ from the comment that the Attorney made implying that there had been some actions in this place and in another place which had reduced the standing of the judiciary in the eyes of the Australian people. That is not the case at all. The judiciary does not demand immunity from criticism. Such a principle has never been put forward. The Opposition believes that the judiciary has earned its standing and respect in the eyes of the community and the title that it has is seen to epitomise that standing. We believe that that title should not be misappropriated in the way that this Bill proposes. Question put: That the clause stand as printed. The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman-Senator K. W. Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 21 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Childs, B. K. Jones, G. N. Chipp, D. L. McIntosh, G. D. Coleman, R. N. Macklin, M. J. Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Mason, C. V. J. Crowley, R. A. Primmer, C. G. Evans, Gareth Ray, RobertEvans, Jack Reynolds, M. Foreman, D. J. Richardson, G. F. Georges, G. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Gietzelt, A. T. Ryan, S. M. Giles, P. J. Sibraa, K. W. Grimes, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Hearn, J. M. Zakharov, A. O. Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller)Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Martin, K. J. Carrick, Sir John Missen, A. J. Chaney, F. M. Rae, PeterCollard, S. J. Reid, M. E. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Scott, D. B. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Coates, J. Townley, MElstob, R. C. Hill, R. McClelland, Douglas Withers, R. G. Tate, M. C. Watson, J. O. W. Bolkus, N. Messner, A. J. Haines, J. Lewis, A. W. R. Button, J. N. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Question so resolved in the affirmative. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(12.36) —I refer to clause 9 of the Bill which deals with the possible appointment of Mr Justice Stewart to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The clause provides that when he ceases to be Chairman of the National Crime Authority, he may, if he so elects, continue in employment in a Commonwealth office, as he would be entitled to do as a deputy president of the Tribunal, until he reaches the age of 70 which, of course, would be his ultimate retiring age if he continued as a judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. This, of course, has nothing to do with the continuance of his title or anything like that. He ceases to hold the title of judge, now to be conferred upon him, during the period he is Chairman of the National Crime Authority. I raise a matter which is of some concern to me. It is not clear whether it is intended to appoint Mr Justice Stewart as a deputy president of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal from the time he resigns as a judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales or whether this is simply an enabling provision and he will be appointed to that position, if he so desires, at the end of his term as Chairman of the National Crime Authority. I believe that for appearances sake it would be better if Mr Justice Stewart was in fact appointed as a deputy president of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I understand that it would not be necessary for him to perform any function as a deputy president during the period that he is Chairman of the National Crime Authority. It is a question of what is the policy. Is it intended to appoint Mr Justice Stewart or is it intended only to keep open that possibility? I am concerned that if it is only intended to keep open that possibility it is really not in principle a desirable situation for a person performing the role of Chairman of the National Crime Authority to be in a sense the subject of possible favour of the Government at a subsequent date. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.40) —I take the point that Senator Durack has raised. I think that if he looks carefully at the second reading speech, he will see that it has been addressed. The second paragraph on page 3 of the original typescript of the speech makes it clear that we would propose to appoint Justice Stewart as a Deputy President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal upon his resignation from the New South Wales Supreme Court. He would not, however, be an active member of that Tribunal until such time as his period as Chairman of the National Crime Authority wound up. The necessity to put this in statutory form is because of the need to make special provision to ensure that there is not double payment of salary for the respective positions while he is both Chairman of the National Crime Authority and also a Deputy President of the AAT. The reason it is not possible to put it otherwise than in hypothetical terms is that he cannot be appointed to the AAT until such time as he resigns from the New South Wales Supreme Court. He cannot in turn resign from the New South Wales Supreme Court until he has wound up the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Activities of the Nugan Hand Group which he has vested in him in that capacity. I think that is the basic reason, according to my recollection . So the point that Senator Durack raised has been taken on board, for the very reason that he indicated. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(12.42) —I thank the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). I appreciate that it cannot be done now. Perhaps I misread the second reading speech. It did not appear to me to be clear. I am pleased that that is very clearly the policy of the Government in this matter. Remainder of Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: (1) That the Senate concurs in the resolution transmitted to the Senate by message No. 317 of the House of Representatives relating to the powers and proceedings of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority ; (2) that the provisions of the resolution so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders; (3) that the foregoing resolution be communicated to the House of Representatives by message. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, until 2 p.m. this day, matters of public interest may be raised and discussed by honourable senators, provided that no senator shall speak for more than 15 minutes. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(12.43) —I take the opportunity afforded by this quiet time in the Senate to raise two matters, one relating to the Chamberlain case and the other to outback communications. Honourable senators will recall that Senator Mason, on the adjournment debate on 2 October, made some remarks regarding the Chamberlain case which were reported in the Canberra Times of yesterday, 3 October. The article is headed 'Everingham ''misleading and inaccurate'' on Chamberlain'. The article quotes these remarks taken from Senator Mason's speech in the Senate: Everingham's misleading and totally inaccurate public utterances on this matter do not do him any credit nor do they help the appearance of his attitude towards the Chamberlain case. I took the opportunity of referring Senator Mason's statement to the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Paul Everingham, to give him the opportunity of commenting on a statement made in this House. In his reply to those criticisms he says: 1. The material provided by Senator Mason relating to the Chamberlain matter to the Solicitor-General was not new. The allegations contained therein were known for a considerable time prior to Senator Mason's intervention and have been widely canvassed in the media. Some of it had been previously forwarded in a different form direct to the Northern Territory Government. 2. Release of the exhibits has not been denied. The solicitor for Mrs. Chamberlain sought the return of only some of the exhibits which had come from the possession of the Chamberlains. In the opinion of the Solicitor-General those exhibits, having been tendered to the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, they should be returned to the custody of that Court and arrangements made for their release. The exhibits are presently with the High Court. In the meantime, a request was made by those solicitors to have access to a number of other exhibits as part of their further investigation into the matter. That request was agreed to and agreement reached that the exhibits would remain in the custody of the High Court where they would be more accessible to those solicitors and anybody else authorised by them. Given the further investigations being made on behalf of Mrs Chamberlain, it is considered that all exhibits should be retained in the custody of either the High Court or the Supreme Court of the Territory for the time being. 3. A ''briefing'' from Mr Tipple would hardly be worthwhile in the absence of the material upon which the briefing is based. No briefing has been received and , as indicated above, the further investigations are still going on. 4. It is most important to note that in a personal letter to me tabled in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, Mrs Chamberlain expressly disassociated herself from the activities of some people who have been generating a great deal of publicity with their alleged new evidence and theories. Her solicitors have confirmed that position in writing. The Northern Territory Government will only have regard to material provided by legal advisors authorised by Mr and Mrs Chamberlain. None has so far been received. Further, I specifically requested that the material given to Senator Mason be made available to the Solicitor- General so that it could be considered and commented upon in the event that it became the subject of debate in the Senate. I think in fairness to the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory that that statement should be acknowledged in the Senate. Mr Deputy President, if any person wishes a copy of that particular statement before the Hansard is available, it can be obtained from my office. I turn to the other matter I wish to raise, communications in the remote areas of Australia, with particular reference to the cyclone tracking and warning system in the Gulf of Carpentaria region. Residents of the Northern Territory are well aware of the devastating effects of tropical cyclones. They have only to recall Cyclone Tracy which caused such destruction and tragic loss of life in Darwin on Christmas Eve 1974. More recently, Cyclone Kathy caused extensive damage to the township of Borroloola when it crossed the western coast of the Gulf of Carpentaria in March this year. As well as damage to the township itself , the cyclone left in its wake, three prawn trawlers run aground, one trawler sunk and a crew member of the sunken vessel drowned. Tropical cyclones in the Gulf of Carpentaria region are of major importance to local communities in the area, to people working in the area, and to the prawn fleet as well as the mining companies, Aboriginal settlements and cattle stations. It is essential that there is an adequate early warning system to alert the people in these areas of any likelihood of cyclonic conditions in the region. During Cyclone Kathy, despite the fact that the cyclone had been tracked for six days and almost 24 hours warning had been given to the township of Borroloola and other people, difficulties did occur, particularly in the Burketown area, in receiving a number of warnings. Of course, Burketown is in northern Queensland and naturally, the people of northern Queensland were affected too. This led to some public criticism of the cyclone warning system. Honourable senators would be aware that I raised the matter in this chamber earlier this year, and I am now pleased to see that the Government is taking steps to upgrade substantially the radar facilities at Gove-Nhulunbuy. I welcome the intended provision of a 'current state of the art' radar facility for this area which the Minister for Science and Technology, Mr Barry Jones, has advised me will hopefully be operational by the 1985-86 tropical cyclone season. I understand that the design work on this project has almost been completed and the project is intended to go to tender shortly. The station will be equipped with a radiosonde facility for the measure of upper air temperature profiles used to aid the provision of forecasting warning services. In addition to the weather observation station, three residences will be built to house the four staff members who will operate the station in the Nhulunbuy area. No doubt the provision of these services will be welcomed by those who recall the difficulties experienced during Cyclone Kathy earlier this year. Communications in the outback are difficult, particularly in this part of Australia. I also understood that it is intended to replace the aged weather watch facilities at Cairns with a modern unit in 1986 and to provide a new radar facility at Weipa in the late 1980s to improve further radar coverage in the Gulf area. Such services will be welcomed by the people of the Northern Territory and north Queensland. I commend these proposed upgradings and urge the Government most strongly to implement these facilities as soon as possible. On this issue of outback communications as it relates to cyclone warnings, I also make mention of the proposed transmission system to be used once the Aussat satellite is launched. The Minister for Communications, Mr Duffy, has announced that the B-MAC system will be used to provide transmission of radio and television services to outback and other remote regions once the satellite is in service. I understand that this system has been chosen for its superior technical capacity to deliver a number of services such as a teletext service, educational services and an on-screen emergency warning service in addition to its capacity to deliver radio and television services. I urge the Government to ensure that the on-screen warning service capacity is utilised from the outset of the service, or at least implemented as soon as practically possible. This service has the potential to provide people living in isolated areas with a source of information and support in the face of natural disasters such as cyclones, floods, bushfires and all those other things that make life difficult for people, particularly in the remote areas. Related to the introduction of the B-MAC system of transmission, I might also raise the question of the expected cost of the receiving dishes which will be required to pick up the television and radio signals. The Minister has said that the receivers are expected to cost some $1,500 plus installation and delivery costs, which of course can make the cost considerably more. The provision of a television service is something which is very much taken for granted by those people living in the eastern States and the more populated areas of Australia. The cost to these people of a fitted television antenna is not much more than $ 100. So it seems to me that it is inequitable to ask those people living in the remote regions of Australia to pay up to some 15 times more than the amount paid by their fellow Australians for the same service. I think it should be borne in mind that for these people living in outback areas, television might well offer the only chance they have to enjoy cultural presentations of music, dance and drama and educational programs. In view of this matter of parity in way of life, I think it would be appropriate for the Government to consider the provision of assistance or a rebate to those people who purchase what are, after all, rather expensive pieces of equipment, to receive a service most Australians regard as being theirs as of right. In closing, Mr Deputy President, I merely once again say that I am most pleased to see that action is being taken to improve the facilities to track cyclones and to upgrade communications in these very remote areas. Despite the fact that the outback and the north are developing and the population there is increasing, there are still very many areas which are very remote. Telephonic communications are slowly improving, but only in some areas. There is another wet coming on very soon and it is likely, on the law of averages, that we will have another cyclone in the north. The next cyclone, of course, could be considerably dangerous to the people. It could be very strong, as was Cyclone Tracy and Cyclone Kathy, for that matter. So once again I urge the Government to continue on with the plans that it is carrying out now, to implement the various safeguards that have been indicated by the Minister for Science and Technology, to ensure that in the future there will be many more safeguards for those people who, at particular times of the year, in the wet, come under the threat of these very dangerous cyclones. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(12.55) —I refer to a matter that occurred last year in relation to the review of the operation manuals for charter aircraft operators and the removal from many of those charter operators of the ambulance and police functions. The licence requirements are such that when these particular items are removed from their licence, certain problems follow. I wish to outline one problem that followed. I will give an example of what I believe are the sometimes mindless operations that go on in terms of regulations under many of the Public Service Acts. A particular incident occurred in western Queensland, at Cunnamulla, where a five-year-old boy was injured in a motorcycle accident. The doctor at the local hospital was a relieving doctor and judged that the child needed specialist treatment for head injuries. The particular specialist treatment that the doctor judged was urgently required was available only in Brisbane; hence the hospital made contact with the Queenland State recovery unit in Brisbane at 5.30 p.m. It so happened that at the same time a violent storm struck the Cunnamulla area and took out all communications. The post office technicians restored two lines-I believe they were restored via Bourke. One line was held open exclusively for the doctor, but the other line soon became jammed and the recovery unit was hence unable to re-contact the doctor. The boy's father owned a plane and had a private operating licence. He said he would fly the boy to Brisbane but, because of his licence and because of his experience, he was unable to undertake that alone. However, the local charter operator then offered to give navigational assistance so that that flight could be undertaken. While they were preparing for this the Charleville flight service unit was contacted regarding conditions for a mercy flight. That unit rendered all possible assistance and held open its service to assist the father in flying the child to Brisbane. At that point the hospital staff advised that they would be unable to fly in a private plane because of insurance problems as laid down in their instructions. The father was then advised that the rescue unit was on its way from Brisbane. Hence, because he felt unwilling to take his son in that critical condition without anybody with medical knowledge for the hospital assisting him, he dropped his efforts to take his own plane and waited for the arrival of the rescue plane from Brisbane. The plane did not leave Brisbane until 9.20 p.m.; that is, the unit had been contacted at 5.30 p.m. and did not leave Brisbane until 9.20 p.m. The boy all this while was in a critical condition, blood flowing from his ears and at one stage stopped breathing. The pilot has subsequently advised that he did not receive any notification of even a possible emergency-which is the first contact that is made-until 8 p.m. The turnaround time between Brisbane and Cunnamulla is at least four hours. The point I am raising is that what we have done, not only in this area but in other areas-I instance the Bass Strait situation-in our desire to centralise, is overlooked the fact that in many cases the most appropriate people to provide the type of assistance that is necessary are the local people, the people on the spot. If the local charter operator had been able to offer the service, as has always happened in that area up until the licence renewal in April when the ambulance and police functions were deleted, the accident victim would have been in Brisbane before 9.20 p.m. when the plane actually left Brisbane. I offer here no criticism of the rescue service in Brisbane or of the hospital people. They are all simply tied down by the bureacratic requirements that are increasing in this area. The insurance problem is linked to the requirements of the licence. Provided the licence specifies that the charter operator is licensed to conduct ambulance and police functions, there is no problem. I believe that what we need to do is review that removal of the police and ambulance functions from local operators, particularly in the west, and allow them to perform the task they have traditionally performed, allow them to undertake the work that they have done, in most cases free of charge, as a service to their local community, and what is more, allow them to use their local knowledge, understanding, and expertise in the service of their own local communities. In addition, it has been put to me, particularly by people involved with operating when they need police functions, that the police would probably end up ignoring the requirements and simply take over the operation of the flight themselves. That would be one way that the police could get around it. Many people have also put to me that if they were lost in the west the person they would like to be searching for them is somebody with some local knowledge, not somebody from Canberra. It is an extraordinary operation that has gone on. It may seem trivial now. It may seem to offer no problems because of the rescue service which has been upgraded and based in Brisbane. However, I think I have pointed out in relation to this one instance that even when the father had his own plane that child was put critically at risk. In that particular case the attention that the child received when he arrived in Brisbane on the following day was successful and the prognosis is that there probably will not be any after effects. That was, I believe, pure luck. I ask what would happen if that child had died in Cunnamulla , waiting for a plane to arrive when there was a plane sitting on the tarmac that could have taken that child to Brisbane. The point I am making is this: Doubtless the review that was done was done in good faith and doubtless the review was done on the basis of ensuring safety; but if a charter operator can operate a chartered aircraft flying people who are well, why should that person be denied, if he wishes to do so and for no remuneration, being able to fly a child who is sick, particularly when he is requested to do so by the doctor who, after all, is in charge of that medical emergency? I do believe that eventually, in the interests possibly of safety, we arrive at the absurd situation of jeopardising lives for the sake of keeping regulations. I think that this situation needs looking at and looking at closely so that those communities who live in remote parts of Australia have the best possible service. Here is a circumstance in which they are willing to help themselves, they wish to help themselves and they are the best people positioned to help themselves, and they have been denied the chance to do so by regulations. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(1.06) —I want to take this opportunity this afternoon to speak briefly on a subject that I feel is of great importance to the Australian public, and that is the matter of marriage and divorce. There is a ludicrous situation in this country at present whereby benefits to divorcing parents are now costing the taxpayer more than $900m a year while only $3.8m is being spent on marriage counselling. I do not think that I would be overstating the situation to suggest that a large number of Australians are certainly confused, to say the least, by the present system of priorities that have been established in this regard. On the one hand we know that the Government says, particularly at election time, how important the family is-I think we would all agree with that-and how the Budget measures that are brought forward are going to assist the family. Yet on the other hand, I would say that the actions of the Government suggest a complete ignorance of what is really happening to Australian families and of their real needs and problems and of the way in which the policies affect family life in this country. It is all very well, and I suppose this is the job of the Government really, to determine how taxpayers' money is to be spent to benefit the community. But I seriously question whether spending great wads of money on providing free counselling through the Family Court of Australia for divorces while a couple who wants counselling to try to resolve their marriage difficulties are having to pay more is really fair. I have had representations only in the last couple of weeks from the Queensland Marriage Guidance Council, which is in desperate need of financial assistance because its counselling offices are bursting at the seams due to reduced funding . From what the Executive Director of that organisation, Mr Ian MacDonald has told me, it seems that the present Government is doing more to promote divorce than to help marriages that can be saved. To me it is an indictment of the Government's priorities that we have the situation developing whereby a couple who wish to divorce can receive free counselling through the Family Court whereas a couple who want counselling to resolve their marriage difficulties are having to pay more. In Brisbane, if couples want some marriage counselling they go to the marriage guidance counselling people. It costs $15 a visit. They have to pay for that. In fact I was told also that people living in Sydney have to pay up to $45 a visit but, of course, that is means tested. So if couples want some marriage guidance counselling it is certainly going to cost them money. I feel that the status of marriage is being put in a very poor light in this way. In fact I would go as far as to say that it is putting the cart before the horse. It was drawn to my attention that while the Government is prepared to allocate $30m for the retention of the America's Cup, it was hardly prepared to do anything for families in this country who are in trouble as far as their marriages are concerned. I was also given to understand by Mr MacDonald that the Queensland Marriage Guidance Council is awaiting a reply from the Federal Government to a request that the Council made in March this year for funds to replace its 110-year-old building in St Paul's Terrace in Brisbane, which is very inadequate for the job that it has. During the past three years the Council's workload has increased by nearly 60 per cent and yet funds from the Attorney-General's Department have diminished from 85 per cent to 72 per cent of the Council's expenditure. Most certainly I would agree that in the unhappy event of a couple having to divorce the separation should be made as humanely as possible, but I do object to the fact that couples who are making an attempt to save their marriage are not afforded the same respect or assistance. It is a sad reflection, I would say, on the Government, that the bulk of services in Australia are designed to enter at the time when a family is at breaking point or when neglect of children has resulted in court action which all too clearly indicates that there really is a problem there. It does seem to me to be a paradox that we still continue to put all our energy and money into coping with family breakdowns rather than trying to prevent it from happening in the first place. I feel that the Government should be channelling more funds into family support systems which would greatly help to reduce economic and psychological stress- support systems such as marriage guidance and counselling. But as I said earlier , only $3.8m has been allocated for marriage counselling and a mere $80,000 for marriage education. I have often thought that if more time were taken to talk to couples about marriage before they got married, if there were more money made available for this type of work, we might perhaps not have quite so many breakdowns of marriage in the community. The Government does not seem to me to understand that if it were to employ a more systematic approach to funding for the welfare of families, perhaps this would help to prevent some of the conflict , hardship and incompetence that leads to marriage breakdown. We, as legislators , should be implementing positive action for the well-being of families rather than just merely implementing patch-up solutions to problems as they arise. I would like to quote from the first paper published by the Institute of Family Studies. In that paper the Executive Director of that Institute, Mr Don Edgar, said: The family has always been the first line of support (both emotional and financial) for the individual facing the social structure. Other mediating structures (the Church, community groups, clubs, the Boy Scouts, etc.) may have declined in influence, but the family still nurtures, protects, feeds, teaches, bullies, restricts and opens up basic life possibilities for the individual. The family 'interprets the world' to every child, gives it a language and basic skills that make interaction with the world possible. The family either provides a sense of competence, of self worth, a sense of power and of social respect; or it provides the reverse sense of incompetence, powerlessness, lack of respect and self-denigration that says your place in the world is of low status and your chances of influencing anything are limited. I conclude my remarks by making the point that I sometimes feel that the Government is pre-occupied to the point of ridiculousness with the equality of adult relationships rather than looking at the family as the interaction of parents with children. I do believe that we as a country will ultimately pay dearly for this folly. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(1.14) —Today I want to bring before the Senate an issue which I believe is concerning many Australians at the moment, and that is the undue influence that I believe the Australian Council of Trade Unions is having on the Government of this country. On 21 and 22 February, three weeks prior to the last election, the Australian Labor Party signed a prices and incomes accord with the ACTU and soon after Mr Hawke's electoral success on 5 March last year he called together a number of people, such as the captains of industry and the unions, at the National Economic Summit Conference, out of which the Economic Planning Advisory Council was born and the prices and incomes accord was born, which further legitimised the ACTU's role in running the affairs of this country. The ACTU now has a major voice in EPAC, which consultative committee has set up its own bureaucracy which is costing the country something like $2m. This places the ACTU in an extremely powerful position in this country. One of a number of the initiatives that the ACTU has pushed through EPAC and through the prices and income accord-and has won-is the job redundancy claim. The ACTU's own estimate is that it will cost the business of this nation $165.6m . Of course this will add a tremendous amount to the on-costs of our businesses and our rural sector. It will make our businesses even more uncompetitive than they are at the moment, and I know that this Government has put a major emphasis on creating jobs. The point is that continued on-costs to business such as this redundancy claim-the scheme is going to cost $165m-will price businesses and rural industry out of the market. I would have thought, listening to all that talk from the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, on containing on-costs, that he would have opposed, or his Government would have opposed, the ACTU's case to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Yet I understand that the Government backed the redundancy case in the Arbitration Commission. On 26 July this year we saw the ACTU on behalf of metal trades unions and other unions introducing a union controlled superannuation scheme. This scheme calls for a contribution of $11 per week, per worker, per every employer and I believe that this scheme will be one that the ACTU will try to implement right throughout the nation. It will try to have every employer paying $11 per week for every employee in the work force. Again it is another tremendous on-cost that is added to business. Business cannot afford it, and I say to the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, as a senior Minister in the Government, that every on-cost that goes on to business increases the length of the dole queues. I would like him to keep that in mind. It is even suggested-I do not know how true it is, but I believe it is true- that the National Capital Development Commission is advising the building industry that unless building companies are in that superannuation scheme they will not be in line to get any work out of the National Capital Development Commission. It is costing $109 per week to employ someone and pay him $300 per week; in other words, to pay a person $300 per week there is $109 on-cost, and that is before the superannuation and the redundancy costs go on. I have not costed it out but I can assure the Senate that they would increase that cost considerably. The ACTU's latest drive is to force business and executives to reveal their asset earnings and expenses. The ACTU believes this is in line with the prices and incomes accord and Mr Kennan, who is the Attorney-General in the Victorian Government, has said that all businesses should reveal their expenses and incomes because it is in line with the accord. I suggest that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the prices and incomes accord what a director is paid in director's fees or what the other expenses of a business are. That is entirely the prerogative of that business. We even saw the other day a Press release where EPAC has been called upon to investigate the prospect of setting up a capital gains tax to reduce the deficit. A capital gains tax would affect small business and the rural industry much more than it would affect large business, or the unions, although small business and the rural industry have only two voices on EPAC. One could ask what other deals the ACTU is going to bring before EPAC? Can we expect a capital gains tax and can we expect a death duty tax? There are a number of other issues that I believe the ACTU will be pushing for after the next election, if the Government is returned. Even yesterday we saw the ACTU dictating to the Government what helicopters should be used. I realise, of course, that the Government is interested in saving jobs in the Australian aircraft manufacturing industry, but I again say that the ACTU would have no expertise on which are the best helicopters that should be used for the Australian Navy. Again, yesterday, we saw a Press release from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, saying that through EPAC he would investigate the consulting engineers' fee scales. I do not think it is any business of EPAC who earns what. We have seen Medicare try to control doctors' fees and we are seeing engineers' fees going to be controlled through EPAC. I think what influence the ACTU is having on this Government is of very large concern to the people of Australia and I commend to the Senate a look at where we are going on this matter. Sitting suspended from 1.21 to 2 p.m. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I direct a question to the Minister representing the Special Minister of State. I preface my question by reminding the Attorney-General of the concern which has been expressed by the Opposition as recently as Question Time yesterday about the restriction on the operations of the National Crime Authority posed by the possibility of a political veto. I ask: Is the Attorney aware of a letter from the National Crime Authority to the Special Minister of State dated 21 August asking the Government to pass legislation to provide that the Authority be informed of the reasons should any State government veto an investigation? Will the Government agree to this amendment to the National Crime Authority Act? If so, when will it be introduced ? Secondly, were other changes sought by the Authority in the 21 August letter or in any subsequent correspondence? If so, has the Government decided on any further amendments to the legislation? Senator GARETH EVANS —I became aware of this letter only in the last couple of days. There were several proposals in it for relatively minor legislative change . I suppose the most substantial proposal is the one to which the honourable senator has just referred, which proposed that there be a statutory provision requiring the Inter-Governmental Committee of Ministers to give reasons for any refusal to implement or vest a reference requested by the National Crime Authority. The Government has indicated, through the Special Minister of State, Mr Young, a willingness to support such a proposal. We do not see it as strictly necessary, for all the reasons that have been spelt out on many occasions by Government spokesmen and indeed this morning by Senator Macklin, namely, that the political pressures that would operate against any State refusing a reference in relation to itself in circumstances where that reference was clearly justifiable would be so great that there would hardly be a need for a formal statutory provision of this kind to bring the matter to light. Notwithstanding that, the Government indicated yesterday, through the Special Minister of State, that we will be happy to support such a legislative proposal. One obvious vehicle for that would, I suppose, be the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill now going through the Parliament, and some consideration has been given to that in the last couple of days. The difficulty about that is twofold. The perhaps not so substantial point is that the matter might be regarded as one of policy significance and, as such, not appropriate for a Bill which is supposed to be confined to essentially administrative or clean-up matters rather than breaking new policy grounds. The more substantial difficulty we felt about introducing this immediately is that it really imposes an obligation upon the States and members of the Inter-Governmental Committee. As such, firstly, it ought not to be imposed upon them without a process of consultation, which consultation the Special Minister of State proposes to have at the forthcoming meeting of the Inter-Governmental Committee. Secondly, and perhaps even more importantly than that, it cannot really be imposed upon the States by the Commonwealth's own legislation for constitutional reasons. The advice I received this morning from the Parliamentary Counsel, which conforms with my reading of the situation, is that it would appear to be an obligation, if it is to be placed upon the member States and to be in a sense enforceable, that would have to be imposed upon them by their respective complementary legislation rather than by that of the Commonwealth. That is a long answer but I hope it comprehensively deals with the points that have been raised. It is arguably unnecessary, but there is no difficulty as far as we are concerned about accepting the proposition in principle. We would be perfectly happy to raise it with the States and we believe that technically it is necessary for it to be done by their complementary legislation rather than ours. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —Are there any other amendments? Senator GARETH EVANS —There was one other amendment that was the subject specifically of a request. I am just trying to remember what it was. It was to section 20. The relevant part of the letter states in relation to section 20: The Authority believes that some of the difficulties which can be expected to arise could be alleviated by providing those Agencies which will enjoy an immunity from the right of the Authority to demand production of documents, with a discretion to refer evidence disclosing the commission of relevant offences to the Authority. We rather believe that that discretion existed anyway, without the necessity for a statutory provision to put it beyond doubt. To the extent that it becomes apparent that there is a need for some further statutory provision of that kind, we will give it the necessary attention. It may be that is being attended to by the draftsmen at the moment and that it can be incorporated in the current Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill before the Parliament, since it does not seem to raise a significant policy issue. That is something on which I will have to get further advice. From personal recollection, I do not think there is anything more than those two particular items in the Authority's request for legislative change, although some other matters were raised. Senator ROBERT RAY —My question is to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. To what extent will business be stimulated by changes to group taxation and depreciation allowances? Which particular areas of business will benefit most from these changes? Will there be any significant loss to revenue from these measures? If so, how much? Senator BUTTON —The Government made a number of changes to the business taxation regime in the recent Budget. The purpose of that was to provide a boost, as it were, to business initiative and to help business to grow. The particular proposal to which Senator Ray referred relating to group taxation is regarded by the Government as an important and overdue reform. It removes an artificial and unnecessary impediment to business risk-taking and operating flexibility. Previously, groups of companies could achieve this effect only by complicated and costly manoeuvring. This proposal means that group taxation will be available for 100 per cent commonly owned companies from 1984-85. We believe this will help with a necessary process of industry restructuring and investment by companies in new subsidiaries. The need will be removed for complicated business arrangements to spread legitimately common losses among members of a company group. In essence, the effect is that companies will be able to take more high risk activities through a subsidiary company, knowing that if losses are incurred they will be able to be written off against the taxation of the whole group. Senator Ray asked me for an estimate of the cost to revenue of that. That is very difficult to estimate. The Fraser Government when it was considering this matter in 1981 or 1982 had an estimate of $200m as the cost to revenue. It is very difficult to ascertain whether that is a correct figure. At that time Broken Hill Proprietary Co Ltd was a company which was expected to enjoy considerable benefits from the introduction of group tax. Since then it has made a number of arrangements which may mean that it no longer wishes to avail itself of group taxation. Other companies will. The precise cost is difficult to estimate. A number of other business taxation matters were dealt with in the Budget. I suppose the most important is the introduction of new arrangements for depreciation on industrial buildings. That new regime will apply on all buildings on which construction commences after Budget night. Effectively, buildings can now be written off over 25 years rather than 40 years, as was the case previously. We believe that removes a significant impediment to industry rationalisation and to investment. Another business taxation measure in the Budget was the extension of the investment allowance provision relating to the time at which an investment had to be in place, on the ground, as it were. That has been extended from 1986 to 1987. It is believed that all these matters will help stimulate investment and continue the process of economic growth which has characterised this Government' s period in office and which we believe will continue to do so. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I refer to his tabling yesterday of correspondence between the Fraser and Cain governments concerning the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and the transition to the proposed National Crimes Commission. Why did the Attorney try to misrepresent the position revealed by that correspondence by suggesting that there might have been less than a six-month transition period? Does he agree that the Fraser Government's National Crimes Commission Act had passed through both Houses of Federal Parliament by December 1982? Does he further agree that the then Government had appointed Mr Justice Williams of the Queensland Supreme Court to head the Commission? Does he accept that only the calling of the 1983 election prevented establishment of the Crimes Commission in February or March of last year? Given the commitment revealed in the correspondence to extend Mr Costigan' s term to as late as 31 December last year will the Attorney now admit that there would have been at least a six-month transition period under the previous Government? Why has the Hawke Government not been prepared to allow this time for the National Crime Authority to get up and running and for proper briefing to occur? Senator GARETH EVANS —Given the snail-like pace with which the previous Government, and in particular the previous Attorney-General, implemented or sought to implement every conceivable thing it touched, and given the way in which most of the gold that it did touch turned to dross in this respect, given also the fact that the Chairman had not been appointed as Chairman but was only Chairman designate, given the fact that the Commission had not been formally established, albeit the legislation had been through both Houses, and given the general dilatory and incompetent performance of the previous Government, it is an entirely reasonable supposition that the Authority might not indeed have been established until after June last year, in which case the transition period would indeed have been less than six months. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Mr Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that we strip the answer of abuse and get down to the hard facts, and given the dilatory nature of the answer of the Attorney-General to the hard facts, is it not a fact that the letter from the Prime Minister to the Premier made it perfectly clear that more than six months-whatever the time would be- would be allowed before the Crimes Commission was set up. I refer to the second paragraph of the letter, which stated: As the Acting Attorney-General has discussed with you, the Commonwealth has agreed to extend the Royal Commission to 1 July 1983 on the assumption that the National Crimes Commission will be available to commence operations early in 1983. I move to the bottom part of that paragraph, which states: I have advised Mr Costigan that the Government would, if necessary, consider extending his Commission beyond 1 July 1983 to ensure that this occurs. Is is not a fact that there was a clear understanding that there would be at least six months from whatever time that Mr Justice William's Commission was set up? Senator GARETH EVANS —I can understand the Opposition's embarrassment on this matter. It is feeling rattled and under pressure. It has had some difficulties over the last few days and I think we ought to be suitably understanding of the difficulties that Senator Sir John Carrick is obviously experiencing in coming to grips with the realities of the previous Government's commitment, because if there is one thing clear from that correspondence which I tabled yesterday and had incorporated in Hansard it is that, however long the transition process took , the windup date for the Costigan Commission on the expectation of the previous Government would be 31 December 1983, whether the transition process took more than or less than six months. It is now October 1984. There have been extensions given to the Costigan Commission. They have been given by the Australian Labor Party Government. They have been given in circumstances where, as we all know, there are loose ends outstanding. They have been given in circumstances where it was equally apparent to the previous Government that, whenever the transition process expired, whenever the Costigan Commission terminated, there would equally well be loose ends. That was clear from other correspondence which I tabled yesterday. There is nothing to apologise for, nothing further to explain and nothing to retract about what I put on the record yesterday. The record is perfectly clear. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation. I refer to the difficulties experienced by Trans Australia Airlines flight 24 from Melbourne to Adelaide on Tuesday last week, when the aircraft cabin apparently depressurised, with passengers experiencing bleeding from the ears and other medical problems. Has the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation prepared a report on this incident, which apparently was followed by a rapid descent from 20,000 to 7,000 feet? If so, what are the findings of the report? Was the aircraft one of those which were refurbished in recent years , including installation of new pressurisation systems? Is it proposed to upgrade medical facilities at Australian airports as a result of the events which unfolded near Melbourne last week? Senator GIETZELT —It is true that on a DC9 flight from Melbourne to Adelaide on 25 September last a problem of depressurisation took place, which did create a great amount of distress both to the passengers and a section of the crew. Oxygen masks were deployed in flight as a result of the fluctuating cabin pressure. Consequently the aircraft was required to descend and return to Melbourne. However, I am assured that at no time during the flight was there any danger to the aircraft. Having said that, I must say that on the evidence available to the Government a considerable amount of discomfort and distress was caused to passengers. One of the lessons we should appreciate is that when incidents such as this occur-fortunately they occur on very odd occasions-many of us tend to take as routine what is to happen. It is claimed that when this circumstance did take place on the aircraft not all were aware of their responsibilities. I am advised that some 12 passengers reported ear problems and other cases of distress, and that they received treatment from the airport medical staff. Naturally the aviation industry in Australia, which has a very good reputation in respect of aircraft safety, regarded the incident as one which required immediate investigation, and a report will shortly be available to both TAA and the Government about the incident. However, I am able to provide the honourable senator with the assurance that steps will be taken to ensure that everybody is aware of what should happen should a similar occurence take place in the future. I am also able to tell him that the aircraft concerned was not one in which a new pressurisation system had recently been installed. All I can say is that whilst we recognise that the incident did take place, and we recognise the degree of distress, the Department of Aviation will be taking every step to ensure that a similar incident will not take place in the future. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Attorney-General and it follows his confession to the Senate a few minutes ago that for some days he has known that Mr Justice Stewart sought certain amendments to the National Crime Authority legislation. I note that that admission came after that fact had been published in a newspaper this morning. Given that it has been his knowledge for some days-- Senator Gareth Evans —I said 'for two days'. Senator CHANEY —For two days, that is fine. Why did the Attorney refer the Senate yesterday, in answer to a question from Senator Durack, to the contribution Mr Justice Stewart had made to public debate, and in relation to Mr Justice Stewart state: . . . he was perfectly satisfied with the powers of the NCA as they presently exist and believed that the Authority and everyone else should allow it a fair trial to get on with the job that it is carefully constructed to do. Why did he omit to tell the Senate the pertinent fact that he has admitted this morning? Senator GARETH EVANS —Because Mr Justice Stewart is still perfectly happy with the powers of the Authority as they exist, and the particular matters that I referred to in answer to Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle this morning do not go to the powers of the Authority, as even the smallest pea brain in this place would be capable of appreciating. They do not go to the powers of the Authority in terms of its capacity to apply coercive sanctions about people not supplying information or doing any of the other things which the Authority might want to countermand. They have nothing whatsoever to do with that. Senator Chaney —You couldn't lie straight in bed. Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr Deputy President, there is a flow of insults of a kindergarten kind coming from the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney. I think it would be appropriate if he was asked to curb his febrile brain. If there was any charm or class about his interjection I would not interrupt him, but-- Senator Chaney —On a point of order Mr Deputy President, I am concerned about that comment from the Attorney-General, given that I am simply quoting the expression that he used in the Senate yesterday. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point or order. Senator GARETH EVANS —That comment was much better directed and much more appropriately directed in the Senate yesterday than it was today; that is the difference. The difference between what was said by Mr Justice Stewart about his happiness with the powers and the particular suggestions that were made about possible refinements of the legislation should be apparent to anyone who has the faintest familiarity with the terms of the legislation and what it is all about. There is no reason, yet again, to give any nourishment to the fantasies and obsessions of the Opposition. Senator REYNOLDS —Can the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs inform the Senate about the Government's plans for supporting the work of non-government business colleges in 1984-85? In particular, can the Minister outline the new guidelines for funding? When will the future role of non-government business colleges be clarified for long term planning beyond 1985? Senator RYAN —The Government has decided that institutions currently supported under the program of financial assistance for non-government business colleges will continue to receive per capita grants for 1985. This decision was the response to a review of the program completed earlier this year. No new colleges will be added to the number already supported under the program. The content of the courses submitted for approval for 1985 will be examined by an advisory committee which has distributed new guidelines to the colleges. Courses should provide training in basic skills and techniques which have an application to a variety of office functions, and financial controls will be strengthened. The future of the program will be considered in the 1984-85 Budget context when the forthcoming Tertiary Education Commission reports on increasing tertiary education participation and enrolments and on the Commonwealth's role in relation to technical and further education should be available. The Government is aware that colleges need adequate notice of the future of the program as the basis for their forward planning. Senator MASON —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. On 12 September this year the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment announced that the Prime Minister had written to the Queensland Premier to discuss the fate of Daintree and other threatened rain forests in north Queensland. Did that letter, presumably sent before 12 September, raise the question of preparations by the Queensland and Federal governments for nomination of the wet tropics of north east Queensland for the world heritage list, since that has been recommended by the Australian Heritage Commission? Has the Prime Minister received any response from the Queensland Premier to that letter? If so, what was that response? Senator BUTTON —I do not know the answer to that question. My recollection is that it was the intention to raise the question of world heritage listing, but I do not know whether the Prime Minister's letter has been answered. I will obtain an early answer and provide the honourable senator with the information. Senator ROBERTSON —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Transport been drawn to the Opposition's policy on Federal funding for local roads as announced in Canberra on 25 September? Can the Minister confirm that the Opposition wishes to cease providing special purpose grants to local government for country roads and, if so, what implications would this have for country people? Senator GIETZELT —Yes. I am aware- Senator Chaney —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy President. I would be quite happy if you allowed the fielding of questions to Senate shadow Ministers on Labor Party policy but, in the absence of that quid pro quo, questions directed to Ministers on the policies of the Federal Opposition should not be in order. I believe that our policy has nothing to do with the administration of Ministers' portfolios, so perhaps the Minister would sit down and we could get on with a few questions on the quite inadequate administration of this Government. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —It is proper for a Minister to be asked what the effect of a proposal would be on his portfolio. Senator GIETZELT —I am aware that the Opposition spokesman on transport has made a statement which this Government regards as a sell-out of country people. His statements indicate that he disagrees with the policies that are being pursued in respect of the funding of rural roads throughout Australia. He has said, in effect, that the Opposition is not prepared to directly fund local and arterial roads, but rather that the matter should be dealt with by the particular State authorities. We are all aware that this means that for every by-pass, bridge, road, maintenance or construction undertaking, local government would have to go cap in hand to the State authorities and beg for funds to deal with the particular project. This Government recognises that the road systems in rural areas require Commonwealth and State assistance and it has passed legislation to that effect. We recognise that the construction of rural roads is beyond the economic resources of many rural councils. The Opposition's policy, as expressed by Mr Lusher, amounts to an abandonment of that principle at a time when this Government recognises that there is a grave need to approach the problem of adequate funds for rural shires and local government areas with Commonwealth and State assistance. We have, in the legislation, provided funds which would have the effect of giving local government that sort of assistance. However, on the basis of the federalism policy pursued by the Opposition and as expressed by its spokesperson, this has the effect of saying that all the funds should be redirected through the State authorities. That, of course, is unacceptable to local government and to the shires associations. I am aware of the grave concern that has been expressed by many local government authorities in rural areas as a result of that policy change. I remind the Senate that funds to local government for local roads have increased by 60 per cent since we have been in government to a record level of $293 billion. Despite severe economic restraints we are committed as a government to our nation's roads whether they be in rural or urban areas. One can only regret that here again the Opposition does not seem to understand or appreciate its obligations to various people throughout Australia. Senator LAJOVIC —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, or whoever might be responsible for this question. Has the Minister noticed an item on the second page of the August issue of the Austcare Refugee Bulletin entitled 'How to Sponsor your own Guerilla'? It states : $10 a month for four months would equip one soldier with two uniforms, a pair of shoes, two pairs of socks, a knapsack, a hammock, a plastic sheet and a cotton scarf- presumably red. It goes on: A sponsor gets both a letter of thanks and a snapshot of the guerilla with his new gear. Will the Minister not agree that such articles appearing in this kind of publication make a mockery of Austcare's appeals for funds for genuine refugees suffering in refugee camps? Will the Minister ensure that no public funds are used in the production of such publications? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am no more clear than Senator Lajovic on whose ministerial responsibility this is. It might conceivably have something to do with me to the extent that it concerns the foreign incursions legislation aimed at dealing with people who engage in activity as mercenaries, but that does not seem to be getting too warm. It may have something to do with the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I will endeavour to get an answer from the appropriate Minister and advise the Senate accordingly. Senator CROWLEY —Has the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs seen the article in the Age of Tuesday, 2 October, referring to the Victorian Education Department and the survey that shows that the distribution of women in all levels of employment in the Department is no better than it was 60 years ago and is worse than in 1972 when equal employment policies were introduced? Can the Minister comment on whether this pattern is occurring in other departments? It has been reported to me as happening in South Australia, too. Can she say what steps might be taken to ensure that such a pattern does not continue? Senator RYAN —I am aware of the very disappointing facts about women in promotion positions in the Victorian teaching service and it is even more disappointing that this problem is not confined to Victoria alone. A similar pattern has emerged in New South Wales, and perhaps also in South Australia. It is disappointing because-I am sure many honourable senators will agree with me-in the early years of school particularly students form their values about what is appropriate for males and females to aspire towards in terms of work and so forth. The absence of women in leadership positions in primary and secondary schools in Australia is no doubt one of the reasons why girls are still failing to pursue subjects which might more adequately prepare them for the work force than those they now pursue, and why they may fail to develop their abilities and talents at school and in subsequent years. So it is a serious problem and one that is occurring generally throughout Australia. I should add that this is occurring not only in State education departments. My attention has been drawn to the fact that in the independent school sector, which at one time was able to offer leadership positions to women-many fine women educators have worked as principals in private girls' schools over the years-there seems to be a trend to replace women principals with male principals . This is particularly disappointing, given that progress has been made in providing opportunities for women in other areas of the work force and in the professions over the last decade. The steps that the Commonwealth Government can take to change this pattern cannot be direct because within the State education departments-Senator Crowley' s question referred specifically to Victoria-teachers and employees come under State government authority and not under Commonwealth government authority. For example, they are not covered by our Sex Discrimination Act or our equal employment opportunity plans. Victoria has had equal opportunity legislation in place for some time, but clearly it is not effective in the area of teaching. I expect the newly established portfolio working party on the education of women and girls to address this matter and as there is State as well as Commonwealth representation on that committee it may be able to draw up strategies for Commonwealth action. It is a disappointing development and one on which the States and the Commonwealth should co-operate to find some solutions. Senator JESSOP —I direct my question to the Attorney-General. Recognising the Labor Government's preoccupation with major crime in Australia, I refer the Attorney-General to his decision to cut off Commonwealth finance to the national secretariat of the Australian Crime Prevention Council. Does the Attorney- General realise that the miserable Commonwealth sum of $28,000, first granted and regarded as quite important in 1974 by his predecessor, the then Labor Attorney-General, now Justice Murphy, which funds were deemed important enough to survive the necessary belt tightening years of the previous Government, is essential for the running of the national secretariat of the Crime Prevention Council and for the publishing of its extensively read and respected journal, The Forum. What justification can the Attorney-General offer for going against the wisdom of his predecessor and withdrawing these funds to an organisation which embraces a wide range of people such as members of the public, those in corporations, academics, police, correctional service officers, insurers, commissioners, lawyers and judges who are all concerned with crime prevention in Australia and whose consensus view should be very important to the so-called Hawke consensus Government? Senator GARETH EVANS —The principle adopted in withdrawing this year the grant-in -aid of $27,000 or $28,000 was one I would have thought Senator Jessop would regard as the wholly admirable one of not wasting public money on an organisation which was utterly unable to justify the expenditure of that sum despite numerous and repeated requests to do so. I will be perfectly happy to table correspondence with the organisation on this matter, which I do not have with me at the moment. The reality is that it works very well and successfully at a State level. That is where the real action in the Crime Prevention Council takes place. A grant was given some years ago to establish a national secretariat in order that that could operate as a co-ordinating body, a central secretariat for keeping membership records and matters of that kind and, I think , for giving some organisational input on a national level. In practice, it has not worked out anything like that. I could be rather ruder about it if I were so minded, but I will not be. I just reject out of hand another squalid little attempt by the Opposition to beat up out of absolutely nothing an allegation that this Government is less than assiduous in the extreme in dealing with questions of crime and its prevention. Senator RICHARDSON —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is the Minister aware of a report in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald which claimed that according to a survey conducted by the Melbourne University Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research and by the Morgan research people, consumer confidence and optimism are at an all time high? Can the Minister confirm that this confidence about personal finance is beginning to show up in recent retail sales figures and, further, does this survey put paid to the claim by the Opposition that the average Australian is $23 a week worse off under Labor? Senator WALSH —I am aware of the survey to which Senator Richardson referred. Indeed, I think an assessment of it and a graph was published in the morning Press. As Senator Richardson stated, it does show that consumer confidence and optimism is at an all time high. He also asked whether this confidence is beginning to show up in retail sales. The answer to that is also yes. In the three-month period ending July, retail sales were 7.3 per cent higher than they were for the same period of the previous year. That, along with a wealth of other evidence, puts the lie to the claim by the Opposition that the average Australian is $23 a week worse off since this Government was elected. I return to the survey which was the subject of the question. Apart from the fact that the level of consumer confidence and optimism in September is higher than it has ever been in any other September-there has been a seasonal pattern over the last several years in consumer confidence, which tends to fluctuate throughout the year; September is historically a fairly low month-this is the highest level of confidence in September that has shown up in this survey over a 10-year period, and the gap between the September average and the 1984 September figure is greater than the gap for any other month. The final point I make is that consumer confidence hit an all time low in November 1982-an indexed figure of 75 compared with the figure of 116 recorded in the most recent survey in September of this year. The November 1982 figure, of course, followed immediately upon the presentation of the 1982 Budget by the discredited former Treasurer. Immediately on the election of the Labor Government in March 1983 the consumer confidence index figure rose to 97.4 per cent and has been, I think it is fair to say, on a steadily rising trend ever since. Senator PETER BAUME —My question, which is addressed to the Attorney-General, concerns the operations of the Family Court of Australia in Sydney. Have work bans been imposed by the Chief Judge and judges of the Family Court which have prevented the expeditious hearing of defended Family Court actions in the Temple Court building in Elizabeth Street, Sydney? Are those work bans still in place or have they been resolved? Is it a fact that there is already a delay of between 18 and 24 months in the hearing of most defended Family Court actions in Sydney? Is it likely that any work bans will increase the delay which is faced by members of the public? Will the Attorney advise the Senate what action he has taken or proposes to take to ensure that those seeking to be heard before the Court will be heard so that we can avoid the old dictum that justice delayed is justice denied? Senator GARETH EVANS —The term 'work bans' is a rather extravagant description of the decision taken by the Chief Judge of the Family Court not to hold hearings in the third floor courtrooms at Temple Court because of security problems which have become so intense and of so much concern to the members of that Court that they felt unable to continue. As a result, difficulties have been created with the hearing of some defended cases in the Sydney Registry. Although some of them have been able to be relocated to Parramatta, difficulties are anticipated for a number of months until we can complete the process of reconstructing the interior of Temple Court, which has now been set in train. I have taken steps to see whether we can acquire from the State Government the use of at least three other courtrooms in other buildings around the place. I am awaiting a reply to correspondence on that subject. There has been some difficulty about reaching a final strategic conclusion on this because of the variety of options which existed and the difficulties with tenants in the existing Temple Court building in pursuing the initial objective of making the building one wholly for the Family Court. The latest advice, which I received a few days ago, was that those difficulties have now been resolved, the tendering process is rapidly proceeding and the work that will be necessary to reconstruct the interior of Temple Court to make it an effective and secure environment is proceeding. As I have advised the Senate previously, this is only an interim arrangement. The only long term way of dealing with the security problems of the Family Court will be to have a specially custom designed building. That process is now under way as a result of this year's round of budgetary decisions. Obviously, the completion of such a building is four or five years down the track. What we have to do is create a satisfactory work environment. I do not think that this is the occasion to be scoring points about the speed and the conduct of the judicial process. I am acutely conscious of the need, perhaps more in the Family Court jurisdiction than elsewhere, to expedite cases. The tension that builds up when custody matters, in particular, are the subject of delays is undoubtedly a contributor to the kind of violence which has occurred and which we all deplore. I can assure the honourable senators and the Senate generally that we are doing everything we conceivably can to resolve this extraordinarily difficult problem, which is essentially a legacy of the initial well-based decision, which in practice has proved ill-conceived, that the Family Court could be conducted in essentially non-judicial surroundings, in the environment of an ordinary office building. That has proved to be an assumption which was, I think, ill-conceived. It was probably pretty clear several years ago that it was ill-conceived but, regrettably, the previous Government did not find it possible to mobilise the resources to get the building's program going. We have tackled that problem head on. I hope that as a result the sorts of problems to which Senator Baume adverted will not arise in the future. Senator McINTOSH —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In light of proposals to revise the Contadora group's draft peace plan for Central America, will the Government lend its support to the original peace treaty which has been endorsed by Nicaragua? Senator GARETH EVANS —Nicaragua has stated its intention in a formal communication to the United Nations to sign a revised Contadora Act without reservation. Support for the Contadora process has been an important element of Australian policy towards Central America. Mr Hayden's recent visit to the region confirmed the need for a dialogue among Central American countries to restore peace and stability in the area. I remind the Senate that during Mr Hayden's visit he called for the implementation of the Contadora revised Act as a basis for developing a peaceful negotiated solution to the problems of Central America. The recent San Jose meeting of the European Economic Community and Central American Foreign Ministers called for the rapid conclusion of the Contadora process through the signature and practical implementation of a comprehensive agreement which would bring peace to the region. They described the revised Contadora Act as a fundamental stage in the negotiating process for the attainment of peace in the region. I think that is as much as I can advise the honourable senator about the process. If there is anything more remaining unanswered I will ensure that he gets a supplementary response. Senator CHANEY —I remind the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs of the concern which has been expressed in the Senate by her colleague Senator Walsh about the difficulties being experienced in the Northern Territory in negotiating agreements between mining companies and traditional Aboriginal land owners. I also draw the Minister's attention to the announcement by Premier Burke of Western Australia that his Government will not agree to an Aboriginal veto on exploration and mining activity on Aboriginal land in the legislation which that Government proposes to put forward. I ask the Minister: Will the Hawke Government accept Mr Burke's decision or will it follow its Party platform in the five non-negotiable principles laid down by Mr Holding on behalf of the Government and introduce overriding national rights legislation which will give Aboriginal people the right to veto mining on Aboriginal land in Western Australia? Senator RYAN —The Commonwealth Government has available to it the Seaman report and the Burke Government's response to that. We are having discussions about the implications of the report and the Burke Government's response for us as a Commonwealth Government with Commonwealth responsibilities in this area. I understand that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding, is consulting with various Aboriginal bodies to find out their responses to the Seaman report and the Burke Government's response. I understand that there will be discussions between the Premier of Western Australia and the Prime Minister quite soon when these matters can be progressed further. The Commonwealth is very clearly aware of its own responsibilities. We are certainly anxious to see principles about land rights accepted uniformly as far as possible throughout Australia. The matter of our longer term response to the situation in Western Australia is still under consideration. Senator CHANEY —Mr Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister seek from either the Prime Minister or the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs a clear statement on how the Commonwealth intends to exercise its responsibilities with respect to Aboriginal people in this regard? Will she obtain an undertaking that that position will be put clearly before the Australian people before the next Federal election? Senator RYAN —The implication of my answer to Senator Chaney is that the Government is formulating its position. Of course, Aboriginal people will be most anxious to know what that position is going to be, as will other citizens of Western Australia. I will pass on Senator Chaney's request for a specific statement to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I am sure that he will respond in due course. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence and concerns the building of the new Royal Australian Navy submarine fleet. Does the Minister agree that, as the submarine replacement program will be more concerned with engineering and electronics than traditional shipbuilding, the industry should be based around a purpose built plant rather than an existing shipyard? Does he feel that South Australia would have an advantage over other States in this respect because it has vacant land available at Port Adelaide and also because it has the technological and industrial capacity to carry out the project? Does he agree that the establishment of the submarine assembly plant in South Australia would help to counteract the high unemployment level in the State? Senator GARETH EVANS —My colleague the Minister for Defence has advised me that the RAN Oberon class submarines will reach the end of their life between 1991 and 1998 and that planning is proceeding toward the acquisition of new diesel- electric submarines to replace them, as Senator Foreman has said. The submarine project is one of the most costly and important defence projects planned in the coming years. The project is still at an early stage of development and two companies will be chosen in 1985 to undertake project definition studies. These studies will include the identification of the Australian industry participation implications of the project. They will examine the capabilities of companies located in South Australia and other States to take part in the project. A contract for the provision of the submarines is planned for 1987. There appear to be good prospects for significant Australian industry participation in a wide range of aspects of the project, but it is too early to be precise. In particular, it is much too early to be precise about the prospects for South Australia in relation to this project. Senator KILGARIFF —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs aware of a report that, out of moneys provided by the Aboriginal Development Commission to the Tangentyere Council, an amount in excess of $20, 000 has been used to erect pre-fabricated buildings at Karga Well on Tempe Downs in the Northern Territory without the consent of the owners? Can the Minister advise me whether it is correct that the Central Land Council has not been prepared to discuss this squatting on alienated land with the representatives of the pastoral lease? Does the Minister condone this action of using what are presumably Government funds? Who authorised the payment of the moneys to erect these buildings? Will the Government refer this reported misuse of taxpayers' money to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure for consideration in the context of its current inquiry into the efficiency and effectiveness of expenditure by the Aboriginal Development Commission? Senator RYAN —I do not have any information on the specific matter to which Senator Kilgariff's question refers. I will refer the matter to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and seek a response for the honourable senator. Senator HEARN —My question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health relates to Alzheimer's disease, from which there are an estimated 1,600 sufferers in southern Tasmania and an unknown number in northern Tasmania. That is a medical estimate. Is the Minister aware that Alzheimer's disease is causing considerable community concern and problems for families and in acute bed hospitals? Are any preventive therapies being pursued and what amount of funding is being provided for research in Australia into the causes of this disease? Is any future planning being undertaken to assist families caring for patients, to provide properly designed institutional care when the community can no longer assist, and to provide Tasmania with the necessary support systems, domiciliary nurses and services? Senator GRIMES —The Minister for Health, as with everyone in this place, is very much aware of the problems that are created by Alzheimer's disease and similar disorders that in recent times have received greater recognition, both inside and outside the Parliament. Honourable senators will realise that persons with this condition suffer from memory loss, irrational behaviour, confused speech and a tendency to wander. Unfortunately they become a considerable burden on their families and on those who are caring for them. Research into Alzheimer's disease is supported by the Government through the National Health and Medical Research Council. In 1984 two grants were provided for research in this area, and I will arrange for details of those grants to be supplied to Senator Hearn. Research into this disease happens to be one of the main activities of the Council's social psychiatry research unit. The NHMRC undertook a study to determine the extent of research into aging generally and into Alzheimer's disease in particular. It found that the present level of research in this area is neither commensurate with the national needs and capabilities nor at a level acceptable to research in other areas and it is taking steps to correct this. Assistance for families who have a member suffering from the disease is provided by the Department of Health through the domiciliary nursing care benefit, which is available to people caring for patients with conditions such as this. In the Budget a new home care and community care program which will make $300m available over three years for services to the aged and disabled was announced. Services will be funded in this area to provide special facilities to look after patients with Alzheimer's disease. The Government already provides financial support for nursing home care and care in hostels for people assessed as needing such care, and many Alzheimer's disease sufferers come into that category. Senator Peter Baume —Would it include all patients with dementia? Senator GRIMES —It would include all patients with dementia. Senator Baume has pointed out a definition problem. Some doctors, unfortunately, are unwilling to certify people as suffering from dementia and therefore we have some difficulties in getting benefits through in those areas. Recently the needs of this group have been recognised by both Dr Blewett and me. The Department of Social Security is funding the Masonic Peace Haven Homes in Launceston, Senator Hearn's home town, to provide special attention for those with Alzheimer's disease. There is also the Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Society, which is raising the consciousness of people in the community and providing support for families, friends and sufferers. This society complements the considerable financial research the Government is providing through services and benefits for these unfortunate people and their families. Although I am not pretending that all that could be done is being done, considering the attention that has been given to this disease in recent times, we are very conscious of the problems. I am afraid that I do not know, and I do not believe anyone else knows, of any therapy, diet, exercise or anything else that can act as a preventive for Alzheimer's disease. If we did get to a stage of developing such a method of preventive medicine, it would certainly be a great advance, particularly for those who suffer and those who have to care for them. I dare say that research will be concentrated in this area at some time in the future. Senator JACK EVANS —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. In view of a recent State survey which has found that two-thirds of Australia's major industry groupings pay an effective tax rate significantly below the so-called 46 per cent rate, with one complete industry group averaging less than half the official rate, and that individual large companies are paying as little as 0.11 per cent effective tax, I ask: Is this an indication that corporate tax avoidance continues to be widespread? As the report reveals that five major corporations are paying tax on their profits at less than 2 per cent, will the Minister tell the Senate what action the Government will be taking to ensure that a fair share of the tax burden is paid by profitable big businesses, thereby alleviating the tax burden on small businesses and pay-as-you-earn taxpayers? Senator Robert Ray —Your mates. Senator JACK EVANS —Not my mates, my friend. Pick your mark. Senator WALSH —I am not aware of the report to which Senator Jack Evans has referred. I will pass on the basic request to the Treasurer to see whether he has any response to the substantive matters raised in the question. I wish to make one or two observations. The fact that effective tax rates are somewhat below 46 per cent is not of itself evidence of any malpractice, but some of the other figures Senator Evans quoted certainly sound alarming. However, without a lot of further investigation I would not like to jump to the conclusion that that is clear or decisive evidence of continuing tax evasion. If I picked up correctly the exchange of interjections that preceded the start of my answer, if we are in a situation where tax evasion-or, as those who like to be legally pedantic would put it, tax avoidance-is still widespread, I commend not to Senator Evans personally, because his record in this area is in my view completely satisfactory, but to other senators who do not have such a satisfactory record that the most effective way of ensuring that tax evasion cum avoidance is killed forever is the credible threat of retrospectivity. That is a clear warning to all actual or would be tax evaders avoiders that they will not be allowed to keep their ill-gotten gains if they do manage to exploit loopholes in the law because this Parliament will legislate to ensure that the taxes that ought to have been paid will be paid sooner or later. I regret to note yet again that because of the actions taken by half of the members of this Senate that threat of retrospectivity is not credible. Senator BUTTON —Earlier today in Question Time Senator Mason asked me a question regarding a letter sent on 12 September by the Prime Minister to the Premier of Queensland concerning the Daintree Rainforest and its nomination as a World Heritage List area. I undertook to obtain further information for Senator Mason. I give such information as is now available. The Government has received the Australian Heritage Commission's report evaluating the international significance of the Daintree region and recommending nomination of the area for a world heritage listing. The report is being considered. The Commonwealth, however, will not take unilateral action to nominate the region for listing. The Prime Minister has called on the Queensland Government to explore with the Commonwealth ways to achieve the long term protection of this area. The Commonwealth has offered financial assistance for a land resource survey of the region and has indicated its preparedness to provide immediate assistance to develop a management plan for the greater Daintree area. The Queensland Government has rejected both these proposals, maintaining that the control and management of the area is a State responsibility. The Government will consider the matter in the light of the Queensland Government's decision which was indicated to the Commonwealth Government in a letter from the Premier of Queensland dated 25 September 1984. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —Mr Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Before I call on the honourable senator I would like to clear up some confusion that seems to exist on the purpose and limitations of what are variously called claims to have been misrepresented and personal explanations. By standing order 408 a senator may, by leave of the Senate, explain matters of a personal nature, but no debate should follow this explanation which should be strictly limited to the explanation of the personal matter concerned. If a senator claims that something he or she has said in a speech in a debate has been misquoted or misunderstood by a subsequent speaker in the same debate the senator may speak again without leave of the Senate to explain what he meant to say. This is in fact a very limited right to speak a second time in the same debate. This procedure, of course, does not apply to committees where a senator may speak more than once anyway and cannot be exercised once the relevant debate is concluded. Whether a senator is making a personal explanation under standing order 408 or correcting a misunderstanding under standing order 410 the senator must limit himself to the precise nature of the explanation, and should not debate the issue or criticise any other senator. These are the two provisions for explanations provided by standing orders. They are deliberately made very limited. If a senator wishes to make a more elaborate explanation or initiate debate on these subjects the adjournment debate is an appropriate occasion. I take it, Senator Walters, that you wish to make a personal explanation. Is that correct? Senator WALTERS —Yes. I claim to have been misrepresented. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —It is a personal explanation you are making. Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. Senator WALTERS —Yesterday in the debate on the assets test Senator Grimes spoke after me in the debate. On page 1132 of the Hansard Senator Grimes said: Senator Walters said that I should say in this place that pensioners will be able to convert all their assets to jewellery, that all of that jewellery will be excluded and therefore they would be able to leave it to their children. Of course they would not be able to do that. I have never suggested by way of interjection or any other way that they could do that. I said: Oh, you fraud. Senator Grimes then said: I have never said that. I now refer the Senate to page 1131 of the Hansard of 3 October in which I was speaking on the assets test. I said: What woman would consider her engagement ring, bought for her perhaps 70 years ago by her husband, an asset? Not many. I would never have considered my engagement ring or other jewellery my husband bought me an asset. This Government considers those items an asset. The following exchange then occurred: Senator Grimes —That is a lie. Senator WALTERS —All personal effects will be considered an asset. At that stage, Mr Deputy President, you made Senator Grimes retract. I went on to say: If Senator Grimes is saying that I am not telling the truth by including jewellery as an asset I will finish my remarks early to enable him to say so . . . If he is not prepared now to say to the Senate that jewellery is excluded from the assets test-because that is what I am saying; he tells me I am not telling the truth-everything he has claimed by way of interjection is a complete untruth . It is very obvious that Senator Grimes was not truthful yesterday. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! I will repeat the explanation I gave earlier. Under these personal explanations criticisms must not be made of other senators otherwise we would have a debate with counterclaims going on all the time. You are limited very much along the lines I gave. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Durack proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The failure of the Government to respond to the widespread public concern about its legislation on the censorship of video material. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.03) —The subject which I put down for debate today as a matter of public importance is one which has been considered in this Senate on a number of occasions in our previous sittings. Indeed, I spoke last on it at the end of those sittings on 14 June when I was particularly concerned that the Government should give a clear indication of its attitude to the proposal for a joint committee on the subject of video censorship which the Senate had passed on my motion on 7 June this year. Because of the extensive debate that has taken place both then and since, I do not propose to speak at any length today on the subject. Rather, I simply bring into focus the matter as it stands at the moment and support my complaint that the Government has failed to respond to the widespread concern about its legislation in respect of this matter. As I said, I do not propose to speak at length because a number of senators wish to speak on this subject. Within the limited time of two hours available, I think it would be preferable if a number of them were able to speak. Since the last matter of public importance on this subject that I proposed was debated in the Senate on 14 June, there have been quite considerable developments in relation to the subject matter of the concern which I have referred to here and which I referred to before. The situation was that at the time I spoke the Western Australian Government had just announced that it would not allow X-rated video material in its State. Already, the Tasmanian and Queensland governments had indicated their opposition to that. Since the debate on 14 June, the New South Wales Government has made a clear decision to ban such material in New South Wales. At that time, incidentally, the Premier of that State had already indicated his great concern about that matter and more or less foreshadowed the decision which has now been made. He more or less foreshadowed the decision which has now been made. Only yesterday we had an announcement from the Victorian Government that it proposed, at least for the time being, to ban X-rated material which was one of the major features of the new uniform scheme for the classification of video material generally throughout Australia under an alleged agreement that the Attorney-General had entered into with State Ministers responsible for censorship over a year ago. So that whole scheme has fallen down. The necessary State legislation has not been passed. Indeed, there is very clear opposition to some aspects of it in the States. The concern that had already been expressed up until 14 June when I last spoke has grown even greater. It was quite clear when we debated this subject during the Autumn sittings that there was growing and widespread concern about it which , as I said, had been expressed by Premier Wran and Premier Burke. That concern had also been expressed by no less a person than the Attorney's own colleague, Senator Susan Ryan, in answer to a question I asked her on 10 May during those sittings. Indeed, it was a concern which was expressed in another place by the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) in response to the proposal from this chamber for the establishment of a joint select committee. His response even then was very different from that of the Attorney-General in this place who, when I proposed the joint select committee on 7 June, said: 'We indicate our opposition to the course proposed'. But only a few hours later in the House of Representatives his colleague Mr Young said: The Government is very sympathetic to the proposal now that we have a joint committee to look at these matters. The matter will be treated with some urgency by the Government. Indeed, it did appear that the Government was going to treat this matter with some urgency and that it was recognising the widespread concern in relation to it. During the parliamentary recess there was an interesting education of many supporters of the Government, particularly Labor back benchers who discovered, after speaking to their constituents and finding out what they felt about the Government's legislation on this subject which was introduced by the Attorney- General by way of regulation and ordinance during the summer months, that there was a very great concern in the community about the effects, particularly the X- rated aspects, of this legislation; so much so that motions were passed in support of the establishment of such a committee at the Caucus meeting on 20 August this year. It looked as though this matter would be brought on very quickly because of the pressure the Government was being put under by members of its own back bench. There could not be any greater proof of the widespread concern in the community than the expressions that were made at that time by such prominent back benchers as Mrs Elaine Darling, Mrs Ros Kelly and, indeed, I believe Senator Tate who also had something to say. I do not want to go into the details of that; no doubt other senators will. I simply want to emphasise the feeling of urgency and deep concern about the Attorney-General's legislation. The scheme that he allegedly had entered into with the States had not only become a complete shambles but also, as I said, there was great concern about the major features of the legislation within the Government party itself as there was in the community at large. The Government proceeded in a rather strange way on 24 August in that it did not deal with the message that it had received from this chamber on 7 or 8 June just before the House rose for the winter recess. The House of Representatives did not deal with our message, which would have been the normal procedure to follow. Instead, Mr Young, the Special Minister of State, introduced his own proposal for a joint committee with terms of reference which, incidentally, are broadly acceptable to the Opposition. However, the Opposition would suggest some amendments if it is given the opportunity to debate this matter in the Senate. We would also want to change the membership. The Special Minister of State moved the motion at a very late hour on the Friday afternoon of the first week of the sitting when there was really no opportunity for proper debate in another place. When this fact was pointed out to him he indicated that an early opportunity would be given to have the matter thoroughly debated. Presumably the motion would be passed by the House of Representatives, the Senate would then have the opportunity to deal with it and the Committee could get into business as quickly as possible. It is very interesting to note some of the things that Mr Young said when speaking to his motion. He said: The Government recognised, at the end of the last sitting of Parliament, a genuine concern on all sides of the House, and in the country, about censorship arrangements as they related to privately owned videocassette recorders. He went on to say in another part of his speech: . . . we have identified a number of areas which could be valuably scrutinised by a joint committee, with the object of recommending legislative action should existing provisions for the protection of children and safeguards against the exploitation of women-and for that matter, men-appear inadequate. He went on to recognise that the wisdom of creating the X-class had been challenged on the ground that it can in practice become accessible to children. He went on to say: The Government shares this concern, and is most anxious for the Joint Committee to assess it and to recommend reforms if any are needed. Mr Young gave greater emphasis in the House of Representatives to the views that he had expressed back in June. The situation is that the Government has in fact failed to carry through with the concern that its Special Minister of State expressed. There appeared to be an acceptance of the urgent need for the committee to be set up, that the whole scheme that the Attorney-General had introduced earlier this year should be thoroughly looked at, that community concern should be examined, that the various proposals should be examined and, indeed, that the whole matter should be reviewed and clearly that the legislation should be reviewed and probably reformed. However, it is perfectly clear that the Attorney-General himself has never shared that concern. I have just mentioned what his reaction was to the proposal back in June. It is very interesting to compare what the Attorney said when he announced the decision of Cabinet and Caucus on 20 August with the words I have just read to the Senate that were used by Mr Young on 24 August. The Attorney is very lukewarm to the whole thing. In fact, he is still very defensive about his legislation despite the shambles that it was in even then. The Attorney, in his Press release of 20 August, said: There is no reason to believe that the basic principles underlying last years inter-governmental agreement . . . are misconceived or need fundamental revision , but there may well prove to be a need for some tuning of the legislation-- 'Some tuning of the legislation'-that is all he thought. No doubt that is what he thinks today despite the views of his colleagues Mr Young, Senator Ryan, Mrs Darling, Mrs Kelly, Senator Tate and, indeed, the whole of the Caucus which supported the establishment of a joint committee. His lukewarm attitude was revealed again yesterday when he was asked a question by Senator Reid as to what the Government was doing about setting up a committee . Senator Evans replied: The Government is proceeding with the establishment of the committee. It certainly hopes to have it off and running within the next fortnight or so. The committee could have been established four months ago, in June. The urgency of it was acknowledged then by Mr Young and again when he introduced his proposals in the House of Representatives on 24 August, which is nearly six weeks ago. All the Attorney is doing is saying: 'We hope to have it off and running within the next fortnight or so'. What a hypocritical stance that is when the dogs are barking. The House of Representatives will be dissolved within the next fortnight or so. The Government will be off and running, not in regard to the establishment of the committee but to its quite unjustified and unnecessary early election. The House of Representatives will not be able to participate in that committee. This is a typical example of stonewalling and stalling by the Attorney-General to satisfy his own ego and his determination that his brain storm scheme which is a total shambles will not be examined by a joint committee as long as he can possibly avoid it. What could be greater proof of the need for this examination and the need for change than the meeting with the State Ministers responsible for censorship which he organised-I suppose it was another rearguard attempt to stall any further consideration of this matter-which took place in Melbourne last Friday. A statement was issued after the meeting in these terms: Noted the widespread concern that has been expressed about the existing 'X' category . . . and the present unwillingness of a majority of State Governments to legislate to allow the commercial distribution of such material . . . Noted further widespread concerns expressed about the extent of permissible violence in existing 'M' and 'R', as well as 'X', classified films . . . The Ministers decided to investigate the possibility of having a new classification which would be called 'R+' and agreed to meet again in a month's time. So there we see the confession of the guilty people-the people who, over 12 months ago, allegedly agreed on a uniform scheme containing the 'X' certificate. Finally, about 15 months later they recognise that their scheme does not have widespread support; in fact, it has generated widespread concern. They are still fiddling around, trying to salvage the wreckage of their scheme. There is widespread feeling among the Government and its supporters, as well as in the community, that a parliamentary committee should be established. The urgency is apparent to all except the Attorney-General. Therefore the proper thing for this Government to do is to set up that committee without any further delay. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(3.23) —The sight and sound of Senator Durack frothing and raging is one of the seven wonders of the parliamentary world, particularly when it occurs, as is the case here, on an issue when he knows and I know there is not a paper tissue's thickness between us on the underlying policies and principles involved. It is perfectly evident, I suspect, that Senator Durack's performance here today is the product of a guilty conscience-a guilty conscience involved in selling out on his basic principles which are perfectly civilised and valuable, because he knows, as I know, that he has been stood over by the neanderthals and troglodytes in his Party on this issue. That is a great shame because it is an issue which demands careful and emotion free consideration. It is a sensitive and difficult one. It is unfortunate that it has been dealt with so often in this place otherwise than in that way. The issues involved here are, as I say, not easy to resolve. Video censorship, as with other forms of censorship, is a matter on which passions in the community and certainly within the Parliament-sensitive as always to community currents of opinion-run high. I readily acknowledge that there have been difficulties in getting the resolution of a national policy on this issue; difficulties made acute, of course, by the fact that it is not wholly within the constitutional competence of the Commonwealth to set the parameters. It is a policy issue which demands a co-operative response from both the Commonwealth and the States. But I believe that there is nothing to apologise for in either the character or the speed of the response that this Government has made to this growing issue. Certainly our performance leaves absolutely nothing to be desired when it is compared, as is so often the case, with the indolence and non- achievement of the previous Government. Senator Walters —There are a lot of troglodytes in Australia. Senator GARETH EVANS —That is perfectly true and there is a significant concentration of them in the Opposition benches in this Parliament. I think anthropologists of the future will confirm that fact. Let me begin by making it clear for those who may have forgotten that there was no effective law in existence in relation to video censorship during the lifetime of the previous Government. The controls which existed at the Customs barrier were those which had been contained in Customs regulation 4 A for many years. They were quite general in their application and implied the necessity to operate all sorts of discretionary rules of thumb in determining what would come in and what would not. As a result they were not operating as effective filters of the kind of material coming through the Customs barrier. Equally obviously, nothing more than the most rudimentary point of sale or point of hire controls were in place in only a handful of jurisdictions within the country. There was no systematic system of classification in place for video tapes; no systematic and common system of labelling of those tapes for consumer protection or for ease of law enforcement; no systematic, comprehensive, uniform point of sale controls on access to the sale or hire of this material by children, in the case of the higher classification categories of tapes; and no controls on the public display of this material, other than those which, of course, existed under the general obscenity or censorship laws of the respective jurisdiction. Here, as with the import controls, the level of generality with which those censorship laws were expressed in every jurisdiction was such as to make them for all practical purposes not capable of effective on the ground law enforcement. So we were having an explosion of visible access to video pornography. Let there be no mistake about that. Let there be no lapses of memory about that state of affairs. It was to confront that state of affairs that very shortly after coming to office I convened on the part of the Commonwealth Government a meeting of Ministers responsible for censorship, which meeting has reconvened on two subsequent occasions, as we have wrestled with the task of getting into place a national system of video censorship. I should make it clear for those who, like Senator Durack, are inclined to scoff at the achievements or the subsequent difficulty in holding together meetings of this kind and the products of them that the agreements reached at these meetings have never been anything more than agreements to recommend to respective governments and respective Cabinets the courses of action which have emerged from the relatively calm round table discussions at those meetings. One of the difficulties in this regard, as is the case elsewhere-and I am sure Senator Durack will remember the phenomenon-is that the most rational discussion and full appreciation of a problem by those most intimately involved with it can become rather less rational when the same problem is then taken back and dealt with by Cabinets and parliamentary parties of the participating governments. That has been one of the problems in this area. Whereas reason has tended to prevail at the ministerial meetings, emotion has tended to overtake it on the inside when it has been discussed in at least some of the Cabinet and party rooms around the country. Notwithstanding that, we have made the effort and we have, I believe, as a group of Ministers, satisfactorily resolved most of the outstanding issues which have required resolution in this area over the last 18 months. The only issue on which disagreement continues to exist and on which there is an evident measure of disunity in the approach taken by the different jurisdictions is on the question of X-rated material, and I will come back to that in a moment. But let it be appeciated that there is a general acknowledgment and a general acceptance of the changes that have been made by the Commonwealth to the Customs legislation and the precise identification which now exists of those prohibited categories at the Customs barrier, namely, child pornography, bestiality, material containing detailed and gratuitous depictions in pictorial form of acts of considerable violence or cruelty or explicit and gratuitous depictions in pictorial form of sexual violence against non-consenting persons and the category of promotion or incitement of terrorism or promotion or incitement of the misuse of certain drugs. There is general agreement about the aptness, the appropriateness of those criteria. To the extent that that needs any further consideration, it will be given it under the terms of reference of the parliamentary committee to which Senator Durack has referred. Equally, there is general agreement about the aptness and the appropriateness of the point of sale and hire controls and the accompanying system of compulsory classification of videos administered through the Film Censorship Board which has been set in place in the Australian Capital Territory and which is being progressively adopted elsewhere. There are no significant variations in the way each of the relevant jurisdictions has reacted to the agreed proposals in this area. There is agreement about the broad parameters of the classifications adopted in the less restricted categories of G, PG, M and R although we are anxious to give further consideration in the next few weeks at a ministerial level to the question of violence in the M and R categories. These things are all working well and some of the more extravagant reactions to the whole censorship system as it is now operating are simply unjustified by the kind of evidence that is coming to me from the operation of these systems on the ground. To the extent that there is any residual concern or that there are any enforcement problems showing up, we are happy for those to be thoroughly investigated and to be the subject of recommendations by the parliamentary committee when it is established, as it will be before the end of this session, on the information available to me. It is out of my hands at the moment to the extent that this is in the House of Representatives where all those people to whom Senator Durack referred have the carriage of the matter at the moment. As soon as it is dealt with in the House of Representatives it will be back in here and that committee will be set up. The third point I wish to make, having made it clear that the system was a vacuum and a mess before we came into power and that we have satisfactorily resolved the great majority of the outstanding issues in the period since then, is that in the area in which we clearly have not reached resolution, that is, the X category, significant progress is nonetheless being made. It is a matter of systematically and steadily trying to find out what the areas of agreement and disagreement are and working towards a practical on the ground solution which will acknowledge the concerns that exist in the community but which will produce a solution which does not totally sell out on the basic principles that it is important to maintain here. There are two basic considerations which have impressed censorship Ministers from around the country who have been wrestling and grappling with this issue. Those two considerations are, first of all, the issue of principle involved in dealing with material of a less generally acceptable kind than the present publicly visible ceiling classification of R. The second matter is the implications for criminal behaviour in the community of proceeding to ban outright material in this more extreme category. As to the first of those two matters, it is still the case that around the country, with the conspicuous exception of a couple of jurisdictions, there is an overt willingness to accede to the principle that adults should be able to view adult material in the privacy of their own homes if by doing so they are not causing harm to anyone else; if, in the course of obtaining that material, offence is not being caused to other people; and, in particular, if it is the case that access to such material, to the extent that it is controllable by legislation, is not being granted to children and otherwise impressionable young people. That principle is terribly important to maintain. My Government believes that, and indeed all the other reasonably civilised governments around the country have been willing to continue to insist on the force of that, even though that basic principle tends to get lost sight of a little by some of the people holding more extreme positions in this debate. The other matter that is particularly important to realise is that we have become much more acutely aware in the recent consideration of this matter that banning of X material, or at least that part of it which involves simply sexually erotic material rather than so-called aggressive pornography, which simply involves adult people doing their own sexual thing-- Senator Durack —Straight forward. Senator GARETH EVANS —I will leave it to Senator Durack's perhaps limited imagination in these matters to contemplate what that might involve. Straight forward erotic pornography without violence does occupy, by all accounts, far and away the greatest porportion of what is presently in the X category. I am not talking about that extreme material which is in the refused classification bag at the moment, namely, child pornography, bestiality and so on. I am talking about, within the X category, the fact that the overwhelming percentage of it is material which is described by the Chief Censor, Janet Strickland, in the following terms: . . . hard-core porn without any violence, just the explicit depiction of sexual acts performed by consenting adults. It is estimated that that is the appropriate description for 95-99 per cent of that material. The reality is that if that material is banned outright as well as some of the sado-masochistic material or material involving perhaps violence but not violence so extreme as to justify being banned outright-if that erotic pornography which constitutes the great bulk of the present X category, although not necessarily all of it, is banned totally-we will confront a situation in which there will still be a huge market demand for it. There will be a huge consumer demand for it. As we all know, or ought to know, where there is a huge consumer demand for material, black markets will develop in order to satisfy it. Where there are black markets, almost by definition there is the potential involvement or the actual involvement of organised crime. That point seems to be acknowledged by most people involved in this debate. I wish it were more explicitly and overtly acknowledged by Senator Walters and some of the others who so stridently beat the drum on this matter. There have been some rather bizarre inuendoes in some recent newspaper comment on this matter. I am thinking in particular of an extraordinary piece by Max Walsh, I think in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald, which seemed to imply that the New South Wales Government's decision to ban X-rated material was just another demonstration of that Government's enthusiasm for doing things which would appeal to organised crime. That is an extraordinary proposition to make. It is like saying that Senator Walters and Fred Nile constitute somehow the Mr and Mrs Big of porn and Kings Cross vice rings by virtue of their strident opposition to X-rated material. While that concept may be true in some respects in the sense that by their opposition to X-rated material they are undoubtedly giving aid and comfort to the extent that that is carried through into legislative bans, it is an extraordinary proposition to suggest any such motivation for the New South Wales Government. What all this boils down to, and I will finish simply on this point, is that it is necessary for us to think rationally and cooly about how to deal with this matter. Where the debate is going so far as the ministerial council is concerned at the moment is towards the establishment of some sort of R plus category in substitution for the present X rating which will be a significantly modified variation of the existing X classification which will focus wholly on erotic pornography without allowing any room for some of the perhaps limited kinds of violence that might be permissible under the existing X-rating, particularly in a sadism context. Senator Durack —What about calling it RS? Senator GARETH EVANS —I suppose we ought to get that little sally into the Hansard. It does not happen very often that there is any ray of lightness of touch emerging from the other side of the chamber. I do not think it is much of a precedent, but, congratulations, nonetheless. There is one other point I wish to make, apart from drawing attention to the developments which are now occurring and our willingness to assist those developments to continue, both through Ministerial Council meetings and through the processes of this Parliament. I finish this time with the point that the resolution of this matter is really not helped by extreme and fanciful claims being made, as they so often are by participants in this debate, about what the law presently does. It really is irritating in the extreme to see over and over again people confusing the X classification with the really extreme kinds of video nasty material involving extraordinary violence, sexual violence in particular, child pornography, bestiality or other forms of aggressive pornography. It is not the case that this is so or was ever so. I wish people would try to keep the debate on more accurate and factual lines. The other way in which I think it is crucial that emotion and fancy be kept out of this is in relation to some of the extravagant claims that are made about the effects of this material on children. I have noticed that Senator Walters has long since abandoned her reliance on Dr Clifford Hill of Oxford Polytechnic- Senator Walters —Not on your life! Senator GARETH EVANS —If she has not, I am afraid I am going to have to spend two more minutes reading into the record a couple of things from the British Press. On 25 February 1984 the Times referred to a 'comprehensive demolition' of the qualitative aspects of that report. More particularly, on 30 March 1984 the London Times, which I cannot forbear but to read into the record, stated: The survey that claimed that nearly half of children aged seven to sixteen had seen an horrific video film has been questioned by evidence which shows that children do not know the difference between television programmes and films. Two psychologists from Aston University were so concerned about the research produced by Dr Clifford Hill, of Oxford Polytechnic, that they took his questionnaire into schools-but changed one crucial aspect. They substituted some fabricated film titles for real films. They reported yesterday that 68 per cent of 11-year-olds claim to have seen films which do not exist. The psychologists said: 'Our opinion is that Dr Hill's questionnaire-- this is the fellow on whom the British parliamentary group so graphically related- is far too, confusing for even 11-year-olds in junior schools'. . . . . The researchers said: 'Frankly we found it embarrassing to waste the time of children and teachers on it'. That is the kind of factual material which so often intrudes into this debate. For God's sake, get the debate back on to rational and factually accurate lines. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(3.43) —That is exactly what I was going to say. The contribution of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has had little relationship to the actual topic before the Senate this afternoon , which states: The failure of the Government to respond to the widespread public concern about its legislation on the censorship of video material. The Attorney-General has gone into a lengthy justification of the legislation, but he did not really deal with the fact that there is widespread public concern about it. He may say that that is misguided. Of course, the best way to clear up that point would be to have a committee where the legislation and the public concern could be discussed. It looks as though this joint committee, if it does eventuate, will be the shortest lived in the history of this Parliament. It will probably be dissolved either the same day or the day after it is set up, if it ever gets set up at all. As a joint committee, of course, it would not survive the Parliament being dissolved for an election. That is why I suggested yesterday that we set up a Senate select committee, which could continue its work after Parliament is dissolved, until the next Parliament is formed, and get on with some of the issues that need to be discussed and allow the public to express its concern in a meaningful way. When the Attorney had the opportunity to proceed along that path he called the motion not formal and put it to the bottom of the list. We are entitled to believe that he has little regard whatever for the idea of setting up a committee or giving the public a forum in which to express its concern. What has happened is that there has been a technological explosion in recent times that has caused a revolution, I guess, in many aspects of our lives. Perhaps one of the significant events is the advent of the video cassette recorder. It certainly is a technological change that is very relevant to this discussion. The Attorney's contribution indicates that he has little comprehension of the role of the video cassette recorder in this topic. He says that previously there was little enforcement of the legislation, and that may well be true, but then again at that time the means of disseminating this material were not available to this extent. There is no doubt that the video cassette recorder has many benefits for many people, and that cannot be and is not denied. However, it does enable the wide dissemination of, in particular, the X-rated violent videos, and it is the violent videos we are talking about. Pornographic movies have been around for a very long time but now are freely available for sale and hire and can flow throughout the community with great ease. The debate today focuses on our criticism of the Government for failing to recognise the community reaction to this and for not giving an opportunity for discussion. There can be no doubt that it is known that there is widespread concern. The shadow Attorney, Senator Durack, has already referred to the Attorney-General's Press statement of 28 September, where the Attorney said that the Ministers and Government representatives 'noted the widespread concern that has been expressed about the existing 'X' category'. That is what we are talking about. Of course, he resorts to name calling. Yesterday, in answer to a question of mine, he referred to those in opposition to himself as being pig-headed and narrow-minded. I am not sure whether the standard has gone up or down, but today it is Neanderthals and troglodytes. I do not mind in the slightest. If it turns him on to call me those sorts of names, he is very welcome to do so. I take some exception, on behalf of the electorate I represent, to those names being used to refer to so many of the people who have expressed their concern about his legislation. Senator Ryan has expressed concern. She asked the police to be careful to see that the material did not become available to those who are under age and that the restriction was enforced. As is reported in the Canberra Times of 9 August this year, Senator Ryan said in a statement: this was crucial to protect young people from unsuitable or damaging material. The article went on to say that she had received complaints that had indicated that minors were not being physically restricted from access to X-rated tapes. She also said she had received many complaints from the public about the changed law. I personally think that in the Australian Capital Territory the law is being enforced and I do not accuse video retailers here of allowing this material to become available to minors through them; but I think it becomes available to minors very readily once it is away from their shops. Dr Jocelyn Scutt spoke at a meeting I attended in Canberra and referred to pornography as 'central in creating and maintaining women's inferior social status'. The meeting that Dr Jocelyn Scutt and others addressed was held in Canberra on 13 August and was attended by no fewer than 2,000 people, which I would have thought indicated widespread public concern. Many petitions have been presented in this place. Many letters have been written to newspapers and have been received by myself and clearly by Senator Ryan and, I think, widely amongst members of parliament in other parts of Australia. An editorial in the Age on 31 August also referred to this issue, but it was wrong in one respect. It referred to the legislation and then went on to state: Since then the Government has been inundated with complaints that, far from closing the doors, the legislation has opened the floodgates to all kinds of undesirable video material. Concern was also expressed that this kind of material was being sold or hired out to minors by unscruplulous retailers. The Government, to its credit, acknowledged that there may be a problem and that, in the words of the Attorney-General, Sentor Evans, 'there could be a need for fine tuning'. It is amazing how he can master the understatement when it suits him. Accordingly- and this is where the editorial is wrong- a parliamentary inquiry has been set up to see whether the new law needs to be changed and import restrictions tightened up. Senator Harradine —Who said that? Senator REID —It was an editorial in the Age. Senator Harradine —But the Attorney-General in Victoria said that in his Press statement as well. I have got it here. Senator REID —It was quite reasonable for them to think that a committee had been set up, but in fact that has not yet been done. I seek leave to incorporate a letter in Hansard. It is an open letter to the Attorney-General written by Brother Alex, a Jesuit who works among children in Melbourne. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Come on a journey with me-it will be one you will never forget. I want to show you some broken children-hundreds of them. I want you to meet children curled up into themselves through abject fear . . . Children consumed with rage . . . Children so battered by exposure to depravity they will never recover any semblance of normality. I have just returned to Australia from Times Square-the putrid core of the Big Apple of New York. I was there for a month. But it needs only minutes to see the human sewer it is . Every second shop-literally-is a blatant sex and violence trap for kids. Spruikers stand outside luring children in. They offer them free gifts-with slogans to match . . . Have a watch and get a watch free. The movie titles are interesting-remember this is a young audience . . . Life summed up in a day . . . Journey into the unknown . . . Back from the grave . . . Life after death . . . The movies behind the titles are the utmost in depravity. Times Square is a sewer-and Soho in London is a cesspool. I was there, too. Kids of any age have absolute access to videos and movies beyond depravity in Soho. The market is saturated. And a very lucrative market it is. You don't have time for a flying trip to Times Square . . . to Soho? You don't need it, Senator. Look in your own backyard. Look around Canberra streets, come to Melbourne, Sydney any of our capital cities will do. Because Australia is now in the big time in porn. Our country, our kids, are the major target of porn purveyors the world over. Other markets are saturated. Governments in the United States and Britain are trying desperately now to stem the flood. All too late, because their kids have drowned in filth. Oh! There's still a flourishing market overseas but the big producers, the multinationals, Senator, the respected businessmen behind the high-tech porno trade, have competitors now. The very kids who were their main customers have gone into competition. You see, watching videos is an educative process. And kids learn fast. Now the kids are making their own porno movies and entering the market place with their wares. Canberra is the worst place in Australia for the easy availability of pornographic videos. Did you know that? Do you know the people who are behind the trade? They aren't your average criminal, Senator. They are 'responsible' businessmen. They have money, they have influence and they have found a very lucrative market for filth. Do you know just how bad it is? Come to Melbourne. I'll show you. Let's go for a walk on a fine evening through the streets. Bring your money-the going price is anything from $50 to $500. Of course, there's some status attached to getting the latest, paying the most. But any one of the offerings will do and we won't have any trouble finding them -they are sold openly in the streets. You can choose your subject-any kind of filth, any depths of depravity-it's all there. Or you can sample the latest wares of the trade-try a 'snuff' movie. Let me tell you what that is. It's a video murder movie. The genre is a shade different to your average run of murder moves. In the interests of realism-or profits-the victim actually is murdered. Right there on film. Sounds unbelievable? A lot of what is happening out there sounds unbelievable. That's why I'd like to show you in person. These particular movies are made like this . . . the cast is chosen and one or more of them, without their knowledge is marked for murder. And they die . . . violently. All filmed in focus . . . in close-up . . . in detail and in full colour. What more could anyone ask for? That's one question I can't answer . . . each time you think the trade has plumbed the depths of depravity you find they've managed to sink a little further. There seems no end to it. But then, Senator, if your advisers have been doing their jobs you should know all this. If that is so I can only think that you do not understand either the way the trade works or the devastation it causes. I do know the way it works. I see it, and its effects, first hand, every night out in the streets. And through my own knowledge I tell you categorically there is no way your new legislation will stop it . . . You won't even slow it down. You just might succeed in pushing up the prices, but that will benefit only the traders. Is that really what you want-to help pornographers reap more profits? I don't think so, but I know that's what could well happen. Let's talk about the results . . . let me introduce you to some of our kids. Right now, tonight, around St Kilda, we have 141 kids hurt by this evil. It takes time-and absolute honesty-to get their confidence. Those confidences when they do share them are horrifying. I have 18 helpers on the Open Family team-we work with these kids for as long as it takes, talking it through with them, giving them back some measure of health. But I don't fool myself, Senator-at best its a band-aid job. If as many as two of these 141 young lives can be straightened out into some semblance of normality I will give all credit to God-the job's getting beyond man. Society-and governments-have made kids a punching bag-and this pornographic exploitation of them is the most vicious blow of all. You want more proof from someone else? Talk to the Victorian police. Talk to the members of Delta Task Force-police officers who work with these kids and do their damnedest to help them. Ask to see their collection of photographs . . . not imported from overseas, Senator Evans, but taken right here. They have 40 photographs of children forced to pose in the most sickening, sub- human, degrading way . . . No-one-in Delta or the Open Family-has the words to adequately describe those photos. And the kids are lured into this mire through deliberate exposure to pornographic and violent videos. Some of the kids I'd like you to meet are just crushed. They have no spirit, no life, they're curled up like dry leaves. This is the result of sheer terror-it's just one way the pornography trade hurts kids. You can't reach them, Senator-they cringe in abject fear of humanity. Or there's another reaction. Rage. Rage that consumes them. They rage at everyone and everything. The terrified kids just go on being preyed upon-they are completely helpless. The raging kids are dangerous-to themselves maybe most of all. Some of them are twisted-brutalised by over-exposure to depravity that has become their norm. And yet they are still our children. Sure, these are street kids-but once they were children with parents . . . Families. Homes of their own. What has happened to them through sexual exploitation is going to happen to the ''good'' kids now, from ''good'' families. Because these same videos already are finding their way into homes. I can give you names and addresses of parents who have telephoned me appalled, angry-make that blazing mad-because their kids have been exposed in homes to this filth. Maybe, Senator Evans, if you take this trip with me, you too, will become street-wise. Maybe, then you will see why your legislation cannot work. Maybe you will even see the horrendous dangers to society-all society-from legislators who distance themselves from reality. Maybe you will understand that you are dealing with people in your legislation. Not products. Maybe you will understand there is only one way to treat a cancer-as a whole. You have to kill every single cell. Or it spreads faster and more virulently than ever. If your legislation succeeds in driving the worst pornographic videos underground again-and I doubt that it will even do that much-you will simply have a cancer spreading in darkness. At best, your new legislation is naive and stupid. It is too late for New York, too late for London. And it is almost too late in Australia. This country is now the main target on the multinational pornography market. You have made it the responsibility of parents to keep the vile products of this market away from their children. But you don't tell them how. How, Senator Evans? How does Mum shield her child from the high-tech, high power marketing wiles of the multinationals after the porno dollar? While pornography is allowed into the country, while it is sold and shown legitimately in homes or anywhere else, while the black market and the underground trade flourish she simply can't. There is no protection. You could provide it. You could ban the imports totally. You could help police enforce laws to curb it. You could give kids a chance. Sadly, I must admit that it has been my experience that very few people take a determined stand against this worst of all trades. Not, that is, until it has touched them personally. Not until it has happened in their own family. How will you protect your own children, Senator? Please accept my invitation-it is made in absolute sincerity. Wade through the mire with me-they could be the first steps to social sanity. Senator REID —The writer of the letter invites the Attorney-General to go with him and see some of the children and some of the effects of pornography. I would like to read out the whole of the letter. It is very worthwhile. I hope the Attorney-General will respond to it. I would like to see his response to that letter as it is very important indeed. I wonder whether the Attorney-General is waiting for the same sort of increase in crime figures in this country as has occurred in the United Kingdom before he responds. There is evidence of a great increase in crime in the United Kingdom over a four-year period. That corresponds with the period in which the video cas- sette recorder has become freely available. Whether that is the only reason for the increase remains to be seen. But I suggest that the Attorney-General does not wait until a similar increase occurs here. There is plenty of evidence of widespread public concern, including statements from Mrs Darling and Mrs Kelly. Mrs Kelly is reported in the Canberra Times as saying that she would ask Senator Evans to change the law relating to X-rated video tapes. Senator Martin —She took her time. Senator REID —Yes, the honourable senator is right. This was not reported until 16 August 1984. That article refers to remarks by Mrs Kelly and states: It was clear that there was widespread community feeling against X rated video tapes. The X rating was 'light years' ahead of community opinion and she wanted to see the law changed. The article goes on to express other concerns. Senator Martin —What did Mrs Kelly do when it was voted on in the House of Representatives? Senator REID —Perhaps she, like the Attorney-General, did not realise what she was doing at the time. Then on 21 August in the Canberra Times we saw the headline 'Evans announces 'porn' inquiry'. Honourable senators will recall that we had suggested that in June the inquiry could have been set up but none the less the Attorney-General is at last on to it. Of course he had the chance that very day, on 21 August-the day that Parliament resumed-to do something. But the inquiry still does not exist. The Attorney-General admitted then that there was to be an inquiry and that it was needed but the committee still does not exist. Late in the day on 24 August the matter was listed for an hour and then it was adjourned. Since then it has been listed once, right at the end of a program when there was no chance of its being reached. Yesterday the Attorney-General had the gall to suggest that it was our fault that the matter was not being debated. In response to my question he said: If the honourable senator can give us some guarantee that her parliamentary colleagues will not use the occasion of setting up the committee for another four, five or eight hour debate . . . All of us here know perfectly well that in the House of Representatives members push legislation through just as fast as they can when it suits them. If the Government had wanted this committee brought forward, set up and dealt with it would have been done weeks ago. It is not right to give some feeble lame duck excuse that we might talk on the matter. We might like to talk on it but we want the committee set up, and now that the Attorney-General has allowed the matter to go on so long there is no chance of a joint committee actually being set up and being able to achieve anything. Some time ago I suggested that there should be a moratorium on the sale of X-rated videos in the Australian Capital Territory until the inquiry had been held. I wrote to the Attorney-General and I put out Press releases. I got a reply dated 27 September and I seek leave to incorporate that reply in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Dear Senator Reid, I refer to your letter of 29 August 1984, concerning the sale and hire of 'X' rated videotapes in the Australian Capital Territory. With regard to your request for a moratorium on the sale and hire of such material I wish to inform you that I still hold to the view that I expressed in the Senate on 21 August 1984 which was that I do not believe there is any case at all to be made for any radical revision of the existing law. In the Australian Capital Territory there is in existence a rational system for the regulation of videotapes offered for sale or hire. This system which entails the compulsory classification of videotapes by the Film Censorship Board, places effective point of sale controls on 'X' and 'R' rated materials. I am advised by officers of my Department that these point of sale controls seem to be working effectively in the A.C.T., there being a high level of co-operation between the video traders, the Australian Federal Police and my Department. Finally, I wish to advise you that I will be meeting this month with other State and Territory Ministers with responsibility for censorship to further discuss aspects of the uniform classification scheme and the treatment of 'X' classified videotapes will be an agenda item. Yours sincerely, GARETH EVANS Senator REID —That letter from the Attorney-General really indicates his lack of comprehension of the matter we are discussing and the need. It totally disregards the fact that it appears that the Australian Capital Territory is a cute little island unto itself as far as video material is concerned. Very clearly Mr Wran does not like X-rated material and he vows to ban hard core pornography or 'video porn', as was headlined in the Australian on 27 August. Legislation is to be introduced in New South Wales. Whether or not the Attorney- General feels that it is right for it to be available in the Australian Capital Territory to flow to the rest of Australia, I do not know, but it seems inappropriate. I am not suggesting that he should ban it for all time but surely it cannot hurt for there to be a moratorium while a committee looks into it. I would also seek leave to incorporate in Hansard an article from the Newcastle Herald on 30 August entitled 'The link between sex and violence', by Daniel Goleman in New York. Leave granted. The article read as follows- Films that portray extreme violence against women sexually stimulate nearly one -third of all men-even though the films may contain relatively little that is explicitly sexual-according to newly reported findings. Several researchers have found, moreover, that repeated viewings of violent films such as Friday the 13th and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre instill attitudes in the minds of the viewers that are similar to those found in rapists. For instance, viewers including women, become more callous in the face of violence towards women and male viewers are more likely to say they would rape a woman if they could get away with it. Other data shows that such scenes have proliferated in commercial films in the past two years. A survey found that one in eight movies commercially released in 1983 depicted violent acts against women, a sharp increase from 1982 when the rate was one movie in 20. These results were announced recently at a symposium on the effects of violent pornography, at the meeting of the American Psychological Association. The new findings are prompting psychologists to broaden their definition of pornography to include depictions of violence against women that have little or no overt sexual content. In a series of tests of the effects of graphic non-sexual violence against women, Dr Neil Malamuth, a psychologist at the Los Angeles University of California, told the symposium that he found that 30% of the men studied were aroused by non-sexual violence. Psychologists had previously thought that this pattern was unique to men who actually raped women. To be certain that the men in the study were being aroused by the violence rather than by the image of an attractive woman on the screen, the research was conducted using audio tapes only to describe the violence. Some of the research describing the specific effects of repeated viewings of such films was done by Edward Donnerstein, a psychologist at the University of Wisconsin. The study assessed the psychological effects on men of watching over a period of several days five 'slasher' movies, which feature graphic scenes of bloody violence, mainly to young women. The men were given psychological tests before and after seeing the series of films. After seeing the films, according to data described at the symposium, the men expressed more willingness to rape a woman if they would not get caught, and found the movies to be progressively less upsetting, more enjoyable and less debasing to women. When asked to sit in as a mock jury of a rape case the men more often judged the rape victim to be at fault for what had happened, according to Mr Donnerstein. Women who viewed the same movies had a somewhat parallel reaction. They became emotionally desensitised, finding the movies progressively less upsetting. They were also more likely to judge a rape victim to be at fault, according to Mr Donnerstein's results. John Briere, a psychologist at the University of Manitoba, has found that attitudes among men that were once thought to signify the thinking of rapists were held in some degree by most men. Speaking at the symposium on 'Sexual Violence in the Media', Mr Briere reported that his survey found rape itself to be far more common than had been thought: 10% of college men admitted to having physically forced a woman to have sex against her will. Those who admitted to rape shared the attitudes held by convicted rapists, Mr Briere said. These included subscribing to such myths about rape as that women want to be forced to have sex, that rapes do not occur but are instead women's lies and that women enjoy sexual violence. These men reported also being sexually excited by one or more non-sexual aspects of rape, including the subjugation, degradation or domination of women. According to Mr Briere, these men were not particularly heavy users of pornographic films or magazines, although they reported reading more pornographic books than other men in the study. Other research has found myths about rape, which violent pornography seems to promulgate, to be more widespread than experts had thought. According to Dr Malmuth, a survey of high school students in Los Angeles found that half the males interviewed thought it was 'acceptable for a guy to hold a girl down and force her to have intercourse' when, for example, 'she gets him sexually excited '. Close to 50% of college men hold the same sort of attitude according to data reported by Dr Malamuth. And in another survey of more than 2000 men, 35% said they might rape a woman if they could get away without being caught. Other studies presented at the symposium reported that men who had watched films that combined sex and violence-even the critically acclaimed Swept Away, which was directed by a woman, Lina Wertmuller-became more callous towards women . Moreover, the association between violent, sexually explicit movies and violent attitudes is increasingly evident. The link between pornography and violence diverges from the findings of the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography, published in the United States in 1970. That report found no connection between sex films and violence. But Dr Malamuth observed that in 1970 pornography with a component of violence was relatively rare. A study published recently in The Journal of Psychiatry reported a large increase in portrayals of violence towards women on the covers of such commonly available sexually explicit magazines as Hussler. In 1970 such images were infrequent, according to the study. By 1981 they were second in frequency only to couples engaged in sexual activity. Some of the new findings have already been used in several cities, including Indianapolis, Los Angeles and Minneapolis, in arguments favouring anti- pornography ordinances. Writing in Pornography and Sexual Aggression (Academic Press), an anthology to be published next month, Dr Malamuth notes that there is 'ample reason for concern about the effects of aggressively toned pornography'. For one, 'the coupling of sex and aggression in these portrayals' might lead some people to similarily combine sex and aggression in their lives. That effect seems most likely to occur among children and adolescents who have not yet established strong sexual preferences, Dr Malamuth said. He has found, however, that men who are shown films such as Swept Away, which depict women resisting and then enjoying violent sex, become more accepting of the idea that women want to be forced to have sex. This change in the attitudes men hold toward women, the researchers at the symposium pointed out, may be socially significant. While individual pathology may be one factor that leads a man to rape, experts agree that the overall climate of attitudes toward women is also a factor. Even though rapists are aroused by the fantasy of violence to women, they do not seem to be among the most frequent users of such pornography, according to Ronald Johnson, social worker at a Minnesota treatment centre for adolescent sex offenders. He said that most young rapists have rigid and moralistic attitudes about sex, and have had little or no exposure to pornography. More than 90%, however, were victims of sexual abuse as children. 'I don't think pornography has that much influence on those who rape,' Mr Johnson said in an interview. 'More important is what's happening to them in their past.' A similar view on the use of pornography by rapists is held by Dr Abel, a leading authority on rapists. 'Men who rape don't need pornography to stimulate their violent fantasies about women; they're obsessed by these fantasies,' he said. 'Many rapists have been masturbating to the fantasy of violence against women since they were teenagers. The rapist's obsession with rape fantasies is so great that it warps his sense of reality about women. They tell themselves things like, ''Women really want to be raped''. Watching violent pornography, in Dr Abel's view, is 'only' of consequence if a man then begins to have that fantasy in masturbation or intercourse, and only then if it becomes an obsessive fantasy for him. 'That ups the ante considerably ,' he said. 'Even so, there are probably many men with that fantasy who will never be rapists.' 'The most telling effect of scenes of violence toward women may be on our children, who are still forming their sexual outlooks,' Mr Briere said, 'The ready availability of violent pornography increases their chances of seeing graphic scenes of women being maimed and multilated, scenes where what starts as a rape ends as pleasure sex. We won't know for years exactly what the effects of that exposure will be. But it is unlikely to be very healthy.' Senator REID —There is a lot that I would like to read to the Senate from that article but I cannot do so in the time available. I refer particularly to the reference to the film Texas Chain Saw Massacre which has come up before. The Attorney-General himself dealt with the film on 4 April when he said that he could find 'no redeeming social virtue' in that piece of nastiness. There are all sorts of reasons for supposing that no community could tolerate circulation of that material in any form. I make it clear that I am with those who acknowledge the existence of a category of material which is brutalising without having any redeeming social features. Only a couple of weeks ago I asked a question relating to the advertising of that film, Texas Chain Saw Massacre, in the children's holiday video program. Let us review some of the matters we are discussing today. Last Friday's meeting of concerned Labor Government Ministers, belatedly reacting to the public outcry against this material and its free availability, looks like some sort of last ditch stand to justify what has occurred. The Attorney-General had misread public opinion when he stated earlier this year that community attitudes had changed to the point where people wanted that kind of X-rated material available for home use. I do not know where he got that from but it is quite clear that it is not the case at present. He seems to ignore the crime figures which exist in the United Kingdom and which, I think, serve as a warning to us, at least until we know of any other reason for them. He continues to ignore calls from women who see violent pornography as central in the creating and maintaining societal attitudes of women as being of inferior social status. He continues to ignore research which shows that repeated exposure to violence and pornography reinforces tendencies in some people towards violence and sexual exploitation. He appears to ignore the sorts of pleas that Brother Alex made, in the letter to which I referred, to have a look at some of the places in his own community, and he seems to ignore the fact that films like Texas Chain Saw Massacre can be advertised in children's video programs. There is ample evidence of public concern about the availability of this material and ample evidence of lack of government response to that public concern. That is what we are talking about. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.58) — Today we are discussing a matter of major public importance, a matter which has so stirred the community that petitions in their thousands have been presented to this Parliament. Those in a position of responsibility have not adequately responded to those petitions which express serious concern about the actions of this Government, which legalised for the first time the general importation of hard core pornography, violent and obscene material, including videos. Their commercial exploitation was brought about for the first time in Australia, using the Australian Capital Territory as a model for the States. Today I reveal for the first time to the Senate the information that I have received from the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs, which was previously the Department of Customs and Excise, under the freedom of information legislation. These documents, which I have obtained officially under the Freedom of Information Act, reveal that there has been a calculated and secretive attempt to change community attitudes radically and undermine Commonwealth and State laws on pornography, violence and obscene material. The documents contain departmental advice in 1973 to the then Attorney-General and the Minister for Customs and Excise, Senator Murphy, now Mr Justice Murphy after he had told his public servants that the policy should be: Adults be entitled to read, hear and view what they wish in private or public and that persons (and those in their care) be not exposed to unsolicited material offensive to them. Of course honourable senators will realise that this policy is a libertine rather than liberal policy. It contains fundamental contradictions, is now irrelevant given the advances in video and copying technology and, whilst espoused by the current Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), is in fact denied by his action of banning videos depicting child pornography, certain types of sado-masochism and, to use his term, offensive bestiality which are, in his words, beyond the pale. So even he does not believe the philosophy. The documents I now have and will table in the Senate are dated 30 May 1973. They advised Senator Lionel Murphy that for the policy to become law, amendments would be required to the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations, the Customs ( Cinematograph Films) Regulations and a new law would need to be drafted to cover the distribution, sale, advertising and display of offensive materials to adults in the Australian Captital Territory. However, the departmental advice warned the Attorney that such steps could lead to the negation of the Federal Government's policy. I quote that advice: It is considered that almost all the States would be hostile to a policy which could lead to the circulation of so-called hard-core pornography and material dealing with hard drugs and extreme violence, anarchy and sedition. Furthermore, with advice that raises real questions about our system of federalism, responsible government and parliamentary democracy, the documents indicate that the Minister 'may wish to consider whether the policy should be brought fully and immediately into effect, or by stages'. After noting that 'the Australian public is notoriously conservative, whatever its political affiliations', the key public servant advised the Attorney: . . . the Government's policy might best be achieved by a strategy of hastening slowly. The public servant warned the Minister: . . . the greatest hindrance to radical change would be the Senate which may disallow any amending regulations. History shows that the then Attorney-General, Senator Murphy, chose not to pilot the Government's policy through the democratic parliamentary processes but rather imposed his policy upon the public by the simple device of a ministerial directive which, according to evidence given to the Mahony Review of Customs Administration and Procedures, was 'tantamount to asking Customs officers to turn a blind eye to blatant breaches of relevant Customs regulations concerning films and prohibited imports'. The rot then set in and the trickle of obscenity has become a flood, aided by advances in technology and copying techniques. Not until 11 years later, in February of this year, did the Parliament see any of those amendments which the Public Service and the Minister in 1973 recognised would be necessary for the legal expression of the Government's policy. In February of this year the Attorney-General did amend the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations and he introduced an Australian Capital Territory ordinance which legalised for the first time the general importation into Australia of hardcore pornography and other grossly obscene or violent publications, including videos, and their commercial exploitation in the Australian Capital Territory as a model for the States to follow. His reasons for doing so include his assertion that previous regulations were virtually unenforceable-we heard him say that again today-that he was implementing recommendations contained in the report of the Review of Customs Administration and Procedures, and that he was doing so at the behest and with the agreement of the States. All of those reasons are absolutely specious. Let us take the first one, that the law was virtually unenforceable. Of course it was virtually unenforceable, because of directions that it be not enforced, including directions made under his authority. The second point, concerning the implementation of the decisions of Mahony, is false. It is absolutely untrue. Mahony did not recommend that the law be changed; he said that there was a conflict between the law and the practice and that that conflict should be resolved. He did not say it ought to be resolved by the law being changed. In fact, he even referred to Willett, who said: If the law was to be observed then the practice ought to be brought into line with the law. The other reason that the Attorney-General then gave was that the proposal had the agreement and consent of the States. Of course we know subsequently that that is a lot of nonsense. What is the current situation? Five out of six States have said they want to ban X-rated videos. So the whole thrust of this Government's package is in a shambles. There is massive concern amongst the people, as evidenced by the mass of material that honourable senators and members of the House of Representatives have received. Even experts have come out and expressed concern. I was at a public meeting in Hobart where two of those experts expressed serious concern about what was going on and the fact that hard core pornographic material could get into homes and be available to children. The facts of technological life are that it is impossible to keep this material from children. I quote what Dr John Court said at that meeting: Bringing videoporn into the home goes a long way to sexualising the home environment in a manner likely to multiply our existing problems of incest and sexual abuse. He then quoted a news report of 17 September 1984 to the effect that one in seven Australian children will be sexually abused before reaching the age of 12 years. That is a devastating situation. It can only be exacerbated by the bringing in of the type of video porn now available thanks to the Attorney- General and the Government allowing it into the home and sexualising the home environment in a manner that is likely to multiply our existing problems of incest and sexual abuse. We now hear the Government say: 'Five out of six States want to ban X-rated videos. No worries. We will set up a new classification and shove almost all, around 97 per cent, of the material now in the X-rated category into this new classification and call it erotica'. What a shame the word 'erotic' can be so debased to describe the type of material that the Attorney-General would now place into this category called erotica. There is a vast difference between erotic material-erotica-and hard core pornography. Senator Gareth Evans —What is the difference, whether you have got your clothes on or off? Senator HARRADINE —If Senator Evans wants to know the difference let me read to him what was stated in the leaflet that went out to people calling them to the meeting in Canberra. It said: Pornography is not art. The dividing line between pornography and art is not always easy to draw. Pornography is made and used solely to stir up sexual feelings. Art is made and used to stir up aesthetic feelings . . . Pornography focuses on the pleasure of one's own body. It is selfish. Art draws one beyond and outside self, to wonder at the mysteries of creation, including human beauty and sexual love. I remind Senator Evans that one of the most wonderful erotic poems ever written is in the Song of Songs. To lower the word 'erotic' to include the types of material that are included, such as depiction of sexual acts involving adults, including explicit penetration, masturbation, ejaculation, fellatio, cunnilingus , insertion of objects in orifices, et cetera, is a grave travesty of the English language. It is a deceit on the people of Australia. They are being deceived by the Government's refusal to establish a committee. The Government has refused, now that its policy is in a shambles, to place a moratorium on the material that is so offensive that it is not able to stand up to the reasonable adult person test. I point out that this call has been made not only by people such as myself and the last speaker, Senator Reid, but also by Senator Tate and Mrs Darling. I hope- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Sibraa) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria)(4.13) —I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter of public importance as it gives me the chance to counter some of the morass of misinformation which is being spread, I fear often deliberately, in an attempt to make the Australian public believe that the Government has 'opened the floodgates to pornography and is undermining the moral fibre of our society' . As the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has pointed out on many occasions, this government has acted to clarify Customs regulations and is now spelling out specifically which categories of material are excluded from importation. It has also acted to impose point of sale controls for this material in the Australian Capital Territory where none existed before. The classification of videos for this purpose parallels the existing film classifications, with the exception of the X classification for material not suitable for public viewing, but which should not be denied to adults who want to view explicit erotica, for example, in the privacy of their own homes. I believe that in recent years there has been general bipartisan support-there are some exceptions to this-for the view that adults should have the right to see and to read what they like, subject only to the right not to be exposed involuntarily to matter which they find offensive. Hence we have advisory notices outside cinemas and theatres. There has been bipartisan support for the need to protect children against exploitation and exposure to material which may be harmful to them. I think that this bipartisan view reflects general community attitudes which have become more tolerant in recent years. That brings me to the wording of this matter of public importance. It refers to widespread public concern. I represent Victoria. I have received one letter on this subject from my own State and very little overall. If there were widespread concern one might expect to receive at least as many letters as I have received on issues such as the levy of tax on local government or the matter of student accommodation, but that has not been so. However, some of my interstate colleagues, particularly those from Tasmania and Queensland, tell me that they have received a great deal of correspondence. It is interesting to note that those two States had, at least as of August this year, no legislation to regulate the hire or sale of videotapes. In other words, the only protection-- Senator Martin —I raise a point of order. We have a standing order which prohibits the reading of speeches. Senator Zakharov is very clearly reading her speech. She is making no pretence about using copious notes or anything else. Mr Acting Deputy President, I suggest that you call her to order. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Sibraa) —There is no point of order. I have been watching the honourable senator. She is reading from copious notes. In my opinion she is not reading her speech. I ask her to continue. Senator ZAKHAROV —I want to be quite sure that I get my facts straight. Honourable senators are welcome to try to read my notes if they wish. The thrust of this so-called widespread public concern seems to be coming mainly from a couple of States which have no legislation on this matter. Therefore, people are confused and think that the Federal Government can do something which, in fact, it cannot. Last week I had the opportunity to speak with a large number of women in the north west of Tasmania. I was surprised to learn how many of them expressed concern on this issue. As I have said, I have heard very little in my own State in spite of the fact that one might think that the only woman Government senator in that State would be the target for this sort of correspondence. In talking with these women in Tasmania I discovered that the basis of their concern was information which had been circulated to them which was misleading and erroneous. Some of these women told me the immediate source of their information but, unfortunately, I was not able to discover the ultimate source. One example will illustrate what I mean. One of the women-she was very concerned and, in fact, quite agitated-showed me a list of topics on videos which she claimed the Federal Government was allowing to be brought into the country or hired. The list of topics which she showed me was the list that had been refused classification. All the women with whom I spoke were amazed to find that the point of sale control was a matter for their own State Government. I understand that many of them will now be directing their anxiety in that direction. Obviously, a campaign is being waged in the community to misinform the public on this issue. In my view, the motivation can only be political. This campaign of misinformation and misrepresentation smacks of other campaigns that we have seen in recent years which were about denying the rights of young people to education in human relationships-sex education in particular-and the rights of women to control their own fertility. I repeat that it is a political campaign which whips up anxiety on a false basis and so attempts to divert attention from the real issues which face our society, for example, economic and peace issues. The Government has a clear responsibility to protect minors against exploitation or exposure to material which may harm them in some way. This Government has done what no previous Government has done to achieve their protection within its jurisdiction and to promote agreement between the States on what actions they might take. We should step very warily in taking away the rights of adults to view materials unless there is strong evidence that there is a link between watching the portrayal of a piece of behaviour and actually imitating that behaviour. The research evidence is equivocal, even the research which is based on much more solid grounds than that from which Senator Evans was quoting before. Not only is research evidence equivocal but also some of the research that is quoted is based on faulty methodology. We heard one example before. However there is support for the view that watching depictions of gratuitous violence may lead to violent action. Those who have bothered to read the guidelines that were published on the Customs regulations and Australian Capital Territory ordinances will know that this subject was covered by the Government's actions. As a parent, I can understand the concern that children may be exposed to material bought or hired by adults and then left open to unsupervised use. This is one of the matters I understand to be addressed by the proposed Joint Committee on Video Classification but I do not believe that in those circumstances governments really have the ability fully to protect children against their own parents or possibly the parents of their friends when they go to visit. I found it difficult enough when I was working as a school counsellor to protect children from the violence or the sexual assaults of their parents, let alone to try to protect them from what they might see or read. It has always been possible for children to be exposed to pornographic print material in a similar way. My experience as a parent and as a student counsellor is that children shut off mentally from what they do not want to know about, and the real protection against occasional exposure to materials which may be harmful really lies in the attitudes and the values which their parents express in bringing up their children. I would be much more concerned about the dangers from parents who leave quantities of cigarettes or alcohol lying around the house unsupervised or, worse still, guns and ammunition in a cupboard. It seems somewhat incongruous to me that members of the Opposition talk a lot about the sanctity of the home and the family and at the same time want to legislate on what may happen if some adult is careless about leaving his or her videotapes in the machine. In other words, the Opposition wants an outside body to move in and supervise the family. In practice, point of sale is the last point of control that any government has and we have dealt with that in the Australian Capital Territory ordinances and regulations, and most States have also done so. I draw attention again to the fact that the Government is continuing discussions initiated last year with the States to try to reach agreement on uniform legislation. Senator Harradine —I thought they had reached agreement. Senator ZAKHAROV —They have reached some agreement, certainly. Senator Harradine —The Attorney said that they had last year. Senator ZAKHAROV —I understand that they had done so in principle. It is difficult to see what more the Government can be expected to do, given its limited jurisdiction. It has placed restrictions where there were none before and it has produced guidelines which were more specific and therefore more enforceable at the Customs barrier than those which operated previously. I believe the Government has succeeded in establishing a balanced and informed approach to censorship and I hope, though I fear it may be a vain hope, that those who are spreading this information and causing unnecessary anxiety will take a more responsible attitude in the future. I see I have a little time left and I wish to refer to a couple of the arguments that were put forward by previous speakers and to draw attention to errors of logic in those speeches. I draw attention to Senator Reid's speech because I have seen the same argument used elsewhere. She referred to two facts. She said that crime had escalated over the last four years and that videos had proliferated over the same period. I am taking the sense of what she said. I do not have it down verbatim. She then inferred that there was a casual connection between the two, when there is really no logical basis to that inference. One could just as logically or illogically argue that the rise in crime resulted from the rise in thefts of videotape machines in order to watch video tapes. One cannot draw conclusions from facts which are only associated in time without having any other reason for drawing a causal connection. A similar logical slide was made by Senator Harradine. I know he usually does not make errors of logic, but I think he did so in this case. He was trying to connect video porn with incest. Again, he used the same argument that a large number of children-I think the number he cited was one in seven-were at risk of incest and much video material was being shown. From my wide reading on the subject of incest, I would say that those figures are no higher than they have ever been. It is just that because treatment and help are available this problem is now becoming more visible-- Senator Harradine —I merely quoted Dr Court. Senator ZAKHAROV —Maybe it is Dr Court's error of logic, not the honourable senator's; I acknowledge that. Senator Peter Rae —I seek to have the document quoted from by Senator Zakharov tabled under standing order 364. Senator Gareth Evans —Let Senator Martin do her own dirty work. Senator Peter Rae —I was asked to do it. I am only doing what I was asked. Senator ZAKHAROV —Senator Rae is welcome to it, if he can read it. The document is my notes. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Sibraa) —The document is tabled. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.26) —We are debating a matter of public importance and seeking to find out why the Government is ducking for cover and not setting up a joint committee on video classification, as was promised by Mr Young in the other place, to review the Customs regulations that Senator Evans introduced on 1 February. We have come a long way since the debate first started back in April , when Senator Evans said it was only a few troglodytes-that is what I think he called us-like me, the Festival of Light, Senator Harradine and a few members of the Liberal Party who were against the regulations. Now the whole of the State of Tasmania, under the Premier, is refusing X-rated videos. Queensland is refusing X-rated videos. Western Australia, Mr Wran in New South Wales and now Victoria have all deserted Senator Evans and those wonderful uniform classifications that he said were all agreed upon by the various Attorneys- General. I guess South Australia will be next and he will be left with the Australian Capital Territory as the only area in Australia that will be prepared to rent out or sell X-rated videos. Furthermore, groups like the Australian Children's Television School, Victorian psychologists, every feminist organisation, the Jaycees, the Lions Club, the Country Women's Association, and every church oppose the regulations. Tens of thousands of signatures from all over Australia opposing the regulations have been received. We have newspaper headlines such as 'Wran asks Button to ban porn videos'; 'Jaycees demand government action against pornography'; 'Ban X-rated videos says Tasmania'; 'Violent porn really does affect us, the psychologists find'; 'Video reforms'; 'New move for action on videos'; 'Feminists attack porn laws'; and, finally, 'Evans agrees to back video censorship inquiry'. Why did he finally agree? It was because his own troops were deserting them in their thousands. He had all the State Labor parties objecting strongly and found his own backbench deserting him. Senator Reid told us how Mrs Darling and Mrs Kelly backed off. Indeed, Mrs Kelly said she had no idea the material was so bad. She voted for the regulations, but she had no idea the stuff was so bad. Senator Tate from Tasmania issued a statement which was reported in the Press under the heading ' New move for action on videos'. The report stated: Tasmanian Labor Senator Michael Tate will move to establish a Federal Government backbench committee to consider issues surrounding pornographic and violent home video movies. He will move! This proposal had been moved by us and sent to the House of Representatives long beforehand. Then he said the most incredible thing: 'I believe the debate earlier this year was led off the rails by political point-scoring and attempts to personally vilify the Attorney-General,' he said yesterday. 'This may have led to an overly defensive stance by Government members.' He said: . . . the Labor Caucus, which meets today at the start of the next Budget session, should take advantage of widespread consultation which members had with their electors over winter. Senator Tate tells us it was all because we attacked poor Senator Evans that they voted that way in the Senate. What an incredible statement! Senator Crowley is now backing off; she is not participating in the debate today. She has had enough and handed over to Senator Zakharov. Privately, every other Labor senator and member is backing off in the electorates, saying that they will do something about setting up this committee. Of course, the Prime Minister says: 'Well, everybody has the right to hear, read and see whatever they want to in the privacy of their own homes'. The Prime Minister has told us that it is all too horrific to see in the cinemas and that we must not allow X-rated video material to be shown in public cinemas, but that they are all right for home entertainment. What an indictment of any Prime Minister! What an indictment of any Attorney-General! This material is too horrific to be shown in the cinemas, in the public places where viewing by children can be controlled, but it is all right for home entertainment. Wonderful stuff! Through the Freedom of Information Act provisions we were able, as Senator Harradine has already indicated, to get some of the guidelines. I seek leave to have the Film Censorship Board guidelines, copies 1 and 2, incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- FILM CENSORSHIP BOARD Attorney-General's Department GUIDELINES FOR CLASSIFICATION OF VIDEOTAPES/DISCS FOR SALE/HIRE G General (suitable for all ages) Parents should feel confident that all children may view material in classification without supervision, knowing that no distress or harm is likely to be caused. Language: Some infrequent coarse language (e.g. ''bloody'', ''bastard'', ''arse '', ''piss'') may be found, if non-assaultive. Sex: Very discreet sexual references or implications only. Violence: Minimal and incidental depictions of violent activity only. PG Parental Guidance (suitable for persons 12 years and over) Material will be found in this classification which would be considered to be too strong for unsupervised viewing by children. While adult themes may be dealt with they should be handled in a way that would not cause distress or harm to children in a family viewing situation. Language: Some infrequent crude language (e.g. ''shit'', ''screw'', ''arsehole' ' possibly ''fuck'' in exceptional circumstances) and mild sex-oriented dialogue and jokes. Sex: Discreet verbal and/or visual suggestions of, and reference to, intercourse and discussions about, for example, menstruation, masturbation, labour and childbirth; visuals of occasional full frontal nudity and head-and- shoulders photo of implied intercourse. (No implications of, for example, oral- genital sex or homosexual sex activity). Violence: Discreet and sporadic depictions, but if continuous (e.g. kung-fu films) should be inexplicit and/or stylized. Other: -mild supernatural and/or ''horror'' themes. -informational drug references. M Mature (suitable for persons 15 years and over) Material which is considered likely to disturb, harm or offend those under the age of 15 years. While most adult themes may be dealt with, the degree of explicitness and exploitiveness of treatment will determine whether they can be accommodated in this classification. Language: No word or phrase is proscribed-''fuck'' and ''cunt'', for example, may be found, if not used excessively. (A high degree of assaultiveness or of verbal sexual explicitness is not acceptable.) Sex: Implied sexual activity, but no ''full length'' depictions of intercourse. Implications of fellatio, cunnilingus, masturbation, etc. may be depicted, if visually discreet. Violence: May be strong, realistic and sometimes bloody, but not exploitive, relished, very cruel or very explicit, e.g., dismemberment or beheadings, limited to flashes only; sexual violence, e.g., rape, only if very discreet. Other: Drug abuse depictions, if not advocatory. R Restricted (18 years and over) Adult material likely to be harmful to those under 18 years and possibly offensive to some sections of the adult community. Language: Sexual explicit and/or assaultive dialogue. Sex: Implied, obscured or simulated sexual activity. Violence: Explicit depictions with some gratuitous and exploitive violence; decapitations, dismemberment, disembowelling, etc. if briefly shown; discreet sexual violence. Other: Depictions of use of drugs which might be construed as mildly advocatory . X Extra Point-of-Sale Controls (18 years and over) All overt and explicit material, except such as described under ''Refused Classification''. Language: No proscriptions. Sex: All depictions of sexual acts involving adults (except those of an extreme sexually violent or cruel nature) including explicit penetration, masturbation, ejaculation, fellatio, cunnilingus, insertion of objects in orifices, urolagnia, necrophilia, coprophilia, sado-masochism, fetishism. Violence: Explicit depictions (except those referred to under ''Refused Classification''). Other: Depictions of use of hard drugs which might be construed as advocatory. Refused Classification Material considered to be harmful to society, viz: Language: No proscriptions. Sex: Child pornography; bestiality. Violence: Explicit detailed and gratuitous depictions of act of extreme cruelty including extreme sexual violence. Other: Instruction ''manuals'' for (i) terrorist-type weapons and acts. (ii) abuse of hard drugs. JANET STRICKLAND Chief Censor January 1984. FILM CENSORSHIP BOARD Attorney-General's Department GUIDELINES FOR CLASSIFICATION OF VIDEOTAPES/DISCS FOR SALE/HIRE G General (suitable for all ages) Parents should feel confident that all children may view material in this classification without supervision, knowing that no distress or harm is likely to be caused. Language: Some infrequent coarse language (e.g. ''bloody'', ''bastard'', ''arse '', ''piss'') may be found, if non-assaultive. Sex: Very discreet sexual references or implications only. Violence: Minimal and incidental depictions of violent activity only. PG Parental Guidance (suitable for persons 12 years and over) Material will be found in this classification which would be considered to be too strong for unsupervised viewing by children. While adult themes may be dealt with they should be handled in a way that would not cause distress or harm to children in a family viewing situation. Language: Some infrequent crude language (e.g. ''shit'', ''screw'', ''arsehole' '-possibly ''fuck'' in exceptional circumstances) and mild sex-oriated dialogue and jokes. Sex: Discreet verbal and/or visual suggestions of, and references to, intercourse and discussions about, for example, mestration, masturbation, labour and childbirth; visuals of occasional full frontal nudity and head-and-shoulders shots of implied intercourse. (No implications of, for example, oral-genital sex or homosexual sex activity). Violence: Discreet and sporadic depictions, but if continuous (e.g. kung-fu films) should be inexplicit and/or stylized. Other: (i) mild supernatural and/or ''horror'' themes. (ii) informational drug references. M Mature (suitable for persons 15 years and over) Material which is considered likely to disturb, harm or offend those under the age of 15 years. While most adult themes may be dealt with, the degree of explicitness and exploitiveness of treatment will determine whether they can be accommodated in this classification. Language: No word or phrase is proscribed-''fuck'' and ''cunt'', for example, may be found, if not used excessively. (A high degree of assualtiveness or of verbal sexual explicitness is not acceptable.) Sex: Implied sexual activity, but no ''full length'' depictions of intercourse. Implications of fellatio, cunnilingus, masturbation, etc. may be depicted, if visually discreet. Violence: May be strong, realistic and sometimes bloody, but not exploitive, relished, very cruel or very explicit, e.g., dismemberment or beheadings, limited to flashes only; sexual violence, e.g., rape, only if very discreet. Other: Drug abuse depictions, if not advocatory. R Restricted (18 years and over) Adult material likely to be harmful to those under 18 years and possibly offensive to some sections of the adult community. Language: Sexually explicit and/or assaultive dialogue. Sex: Implied, obscured or simulated sexual activity. Violence: Explicit depictions with some gratuitous and exploitive non sexual violence; decapitations, dismemberment, disembowelling, etc. if briefly shown; discreet sexual violence. Other: Depictions of use of drugs which might be construed as mildly advocatory . X Extra Point-of-Sale Controls (18 years and over) Language: No proscriptions. Sex: All explicit depictions of sexual acts involving adults (except those referred to under ''Refused Classification'') including explicit penetration, masturbation, ejaculation, fellatio, cunnilingus; insertion of objects in orifices; miscellaneous other sexual activities and fetishes. Violence: Explicit depictions (except those referred to under ''Refused Classification''). Other: Depictions of use of hard drugs which might be construed as advocatory. Refused Classification Language: No proscriptions. Sex: Child pornography; bestiality. Violence: Detailed and gratuitous depictions of acts of significant cruelty; explicit and gratuitous depictions of sexual violence against non-consenting persons. Other: Instruction ''manuals'' for (i) terrorist-type weapons and acts. (ii) abuse of hard drugs. JANET STRICKLAND Chief Censor April 1984. Senator WALTERS —I thank the Senate. The first document contains the original Film Censorship Board guidelines that Senator Evans wanted before there was debate in this place. The second document was put out as a result of debate in this place. The Attorney-General has been rather sneaky because in the first document describing X-rated videotapes he mentions several words in connection with the depiction of sexual acts. When people look up those words in the dictionary they find that the meanings are appalling. Senator Gareth Evans —Ha! Senator WALTERS —The Attorney laughs. He does not think they are so appalling. I am referring to coprophilia, necrophilia and urolagnia. Senator Gareth Evans —I just got a picture of you poring over the dictionary. Senator WALTERS —I can assure the Attorney that people were looking up those words in the dictionary. Senator Evans might find it amusing, but people have no idea because their imagination does not sink as low as his. They have to look up those words. Senator Evans thought they were a bit much so he had them ruled out of the second copy of the guidelines in which, instead of mentioning them, he calls them 'miscellaneous other sexual activities and fetishes'. The Attorneys- General cannot get away with that sort of thing. There has now been a new meeting of the Attorneys-General. Again, they all came to an agreement. We were assured in the Age of 29 August that the meeting decided they were going to have a new R-plus classification. Senator Harradine —No, it did not decide that. The Tasmanian contingent did not agree to that. Senator WALTERS —Senator Evans decided it would be a good idea to have an R-plus classification. We are not talking in this place about blue movies. Senator Evans may well want to make the people think we are talking about blue movies, but we are not. Senator Robert Ray —What are you talking about then? Senator WALTERS —We are talking about horrific acts of sexual and other forms of violence. We are talking about material that we saw on the program Four Corners about which Senator Evans said that had he been on the Censorship Board he probably would not have made it X-rated material, as it was a bit tough. The Censorship Board made it very clear that it was going to make that material X- rated. Let us make very clear what we are talking about. Do not pretend to hide under the blue movie stuff. It does not work. That was reported in the Age, but a couple of days later the Victorian Government deserted the Attorney-General. Under the headline 'Ban on X-rated videos', it was reported: The State Government has decided to ban the sale and hire of X-rated videos, . . . Thus the fifth State has deserted him. The Attorney-General had the warning in three or four different areas. He had the Victorian psychologists saying that they were doing work that made it very clear that people viewing this material were desensitised by continual viewing. We had the United Kingdom report, which Senator Evans on every occasion tries to discredit. We had a report from the European Parliament. We had a report from West Germany. We had a report from the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. In that, Government senators said that the Goverment loses control of children's viewing when those types of videos are allowed to enter the home. The Australian Children's Television School report said: . . . more than 60 per cent of children over the age of 10 surveyed in Sydney admitted to regularly watching X and R-rated video movies after school. Senator Evans says that all this means nothing. With his great libertarian views , he believes that people want to watch it and ought to be able to watch it. A woman came to me and said that her 11-year-old son had gone to a birthday party, the parents were not home, and they put on an X-rated video. From the description her 11-year-old gave her, it was a dreadful video. She said: 'I could weep. That, as far as I am aware, is the first sexual viewing my son has ever had. For it to be of that variety appals me'. She said that she had asked her son why he did not leave. He replied: 'I couldn't, Mum, not in front of all my mates'. Of course the child could not. The Attorney just makes some flippant reply. Parents cannot control the viewing of their children. It is impossible. Indeed, they would be bad parents if on every occasion they followed what their children were doing. They would suffocate them if they did. Senator Evans has today sheltered behind the House of Representatives, saying that that House has not yet reached the debate on whether we should set up a committee. I ask him whether he has asked Mr Young in the House of Representatives to speed it up so that we can get that committee set up before this Parliament rises. He is free with his interjections when he wants to be. Senator Gareth Evans —Yes, I have actually. Senator WALTERS —And what was Mr Young's reply? Senator Gareth Evans —He said: 'Yes, sure, as long as you lot don't talk for four hours, which you can be expected to do'. Senator WALTERS —Are we getting that debate in the other place tonight? Senator Gareth Evans —I do not know whether it will be today. I hope it will be this week. Senator WALTERS —The Attorney hopes it will be this week, but we will see. Senator Evans has challenged me on the United Kingdom report. He has attempted in the most despicable fashion to discredit that report. He has done that through various little newspaper reports handed to him by his Department. Has he rung the chairman of that committee of the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Senator Robert Ray —Have you? Senator WALTERS —Yes. Not only have I rung him, but while I was in London I visited the committee and its chairman. I had a long meeting with that committee . I also visited Scotland Yard and spoke to its legal experts. I have the full information from both that committee and Scotland Yard, which I intend, as much of it is in camera evidence, to give to the committee if and when Senator Evans ever allows it to be set up. We will not see this committee set up, I do not believe, before the Senate rises. Senator Zakharov said that people have been misled by the comment: 'Open the flood gates to hard core pornography'. She does not even know that her Attorney-General in a memo to his Department said 'The barriers to hard core pornography have been lifted', with his couple of little exceptions. That was the memo to his Department. Senator Gareth Evans —Would you like to table that document? Senator WALTERS —Yes, but I do not have it with me. I have it in my room. Senator Gareth Evans —A couple of little exceptions. What is that? Senator WALTERS —The couple of little exceptions were 'except for child pornography-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Sibraa) —Order! There are too many interjections. I would suggest that Senator Walters address the Chair and not the interjectors. Senator WALTERS —The Attorney-General knows very well that he sent that memo to his Department. I presume that Senator Zakharov was unaware of this. She said that people in Tasmania were horrified or very surprised to know that the State had full control over video material in Tasmania. What utter rot. Of course, Senator Zakharov did not tell the people of Tasmania about the Constitution. She did not say that people quite legally can bring any video material into Tasmania by the case load. The Constitution allows free traffic between the States. I could take back a case of material to Tasmania next week. She did not tell them about that. She did not make them understand that the Federal Government has control over the importation of this rubbish. I sincerely hope that the Government allows the Senate and the House of Representatives to set up a joint committee before we rise for the election that is to be held far earlier than is necessary. The Government will have to answer to the people of Australia if the committee is not set up. We will be asking the Senator Tates of this world as well as Mrs Kelly, Mrs Darling and all of the others who have backed off support in this action. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Sibraa) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(4.42) —I am entering this debate for the first time. I hope that Australian Democrat senators who are not participating in this debate will not be accused, as the previous speaker just did, of ducking the issue. I wish to make it very clear at the outset that I am averse to censorship in any form. I believe that people should have material available to them. They should be free to read, see and hear that material. They also should be free to visit other countries or have visits from people of other countries so that a world-wide range of information is available to them. They should be able to do so-there is a caveat-provided that no real harm is done either to individuals or to the society at large. We have a problem because films, and videotapes in particular, are capable of causing harm. This is particularly so of videotapes which can be kept in a home for some time and which, therefore, may be accessible to children. To children in particular. There is the potential for lasting psychological damage to children. There is also a risk with videotapes of damage to mentally or psychologically unbalanced adults, particularly in terms of those people learning about different kinds of violence and different kinds of weapons. There is also danger to society at large because there is the potential for a degeneration of standards of the whole community which could lead to the acceptance of brutality, rape, et cetera as a norm, as an acceptable thing. The debate in this Parliament has been valuable despite its high and low spots. At times there has been a debasement of the debate. However, I believe that many honourable senators have made a very worthwhile contribution to a subject which is novel to the people of Australia. We need to have full and open debate about this matter so that the community can let us know the standards that it wants for Australia and Australians. However, the debate in this Parliament, and particularly in this Senate, which I have found valuable, has not been conveyed to the community at large. Regrettably, the community has not read all of the Hansards. The sad concomitant to that is that certain parliamentarians have purveyed deliberately false and misleading information to the public, particularly-I stress this-to community and church leaders. It is very sad that only one point of view has been purveyed to those leaders in our community by these parliamentarians because the alternative points of view-there are many-may have caused them to modify their stance, look again at the debate and consider much more carefully the advice that they give to people for whom they are responsible for counselling on matters of morals and in other areas. The classification of video material in this country is probably one of the most widely misunderstood subjects in the community. I would just like to outline briefly the recent changes to the relevant regulations simply to put them on record. A new regulation was proposed by the Government in March this year to tighten up the Customs regulations governing prohibited imports. Until then, banned material was anything which was 'blasphemous, indecent or obscene or which unduly emphasised matters of sex, horror, violence or crime or was likely to encourage depravity'. It is obvious that this description is very vague and must have led to a great deal of confusion in a lot of areas, but in particular in the key area of Customs because Customs officers found it almost impossible to apply in a regulated and consistent manner as a result of which this country was flooded with pornographic material. In April this year my colleague Senator Mason moved to disallow the new regulation and also the Australian Capital Territory Classification of Publications Ordinance No. 59 of 1983. The reason for this was that the new regulation, while giving much more detailed guidelines as to the material which would not be allowed into Australia, could have been construed as allowing in scenes of extreme violence or cruelty, especially when combined with a sexual element if they were considered by Customs officers not to be gratuitous within the story line. After a lot of negotiation with the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) the regulation was changed so that all explicit depictions of sexual violence against non-consenting persons would be banned. The Australian Capital Territory Ordinance, which was to act as the model for classification of publications, including videotapes and discs, in all States and territories, was deficient, we felt, in that censorship of material was voluntary rather than mandatory. Again, the Attorney-General agreed with our objection and the Ordinance was duly altered. Having achieved what we set out to do, having further tightened up the regulations, which were a decided improvement on the old regulations, we then allowed the new improved regulations to be put into force because we then had something. It has to be recognised that until that point Australia had nothing with which to protect our young people in particular . Senator Harradine —That is not so. Senator JACK EVANS —That was absolutely so in the application of the previous regulations, Senator. Senator Harradine —It is not so. Senator JACK EVANS —I will provide Senator Harradine with the evidence to prove that it is so. Members of the Opposition, and Senator Harradine in particular, obviously did not understand the implications of what had happened because then, as now, they maintained that the new regulations opened the flood gates of the Australian Customs Service to an inundation of hard core pornographic video material. Let us recognise what happened. Before the new regulations were gazetted, there was no specific mention of video material in the Customs regulations. Hard core pornographic material was most certainly entering this country and being sold under State regulations which also did not specifically mention these products. I want Senator Harradine and Senator Walters in particular to hear and understand the accusation that I now make. I notice that Senator Walters is not listening. She is obviously not interested in hearing an alternative point of view and that is evident from the one point of view that she puts out in the community. I make the accusation that the State laws were chaotic if they existed at all. The dear little 11-year-old whom Senator Walters described this afternoon as having viewed pornographic videotapes was probably seeing a videotape purchased or imported under the previous laws. I am certain of that and I am equally certain that a great injustice was done to this Parliament by the fraud which was wrought on us by the lady who had her daughter purchase or hire a videotape in Canberra. The videotape would have undoubtedly been introduced to Canberra under the old regulations. I am glad that I have Senator Walters's attention for a change. Therefore, Senator Walters should blame herself and the previous Government, of which she was a member, and not the existing Parliament and this Senate. It might be worth while if she looked at the background, because she seemed to have been very proud to have been able to produce evidence, but it was evidence which shot down her own argument. Senator Mason —Senator Harradine was involved in that, too. Senator JACK EVANS —It was undoubtedly a put-up, and it was a put-up which caught them out absolutely. The problems of videotapes and discs being kept in the home are obvious. Adults who buy or hire these videos are not the only ones who are exposed to them. A recent British study determined that 60 per cent of children had seen a pornographic videotape or disc and these children obviously did not buy them themselves. They were watching tapes which had been bought by their parents. Let us make this quite clear because what is being put forward by the Opposition in this debate is that we should force underground the distribution of pornographic videotapes, X-rated videotapes, which otherwise would be rigidly controlled, so that they cannot be hired for an overnight viewing. But under such circumstances parents have a very high degree of control of a hired tape. The tape must be returned the next morning. It is hired for one night only. Obviously, if the parents have hired that tape for themselves, they will be present in the home for that one night. The tape will be controlled in the home. Senator Walters —Wake up. Senator JACK EVANS —Senator Walters has not heard. She should stop rambling and listen to the argument. The tapes will be forced underground so that the only way in which people have access to them is to purchase them, because the underground does not hire; it sells. When they are purchased-- Senator Walters —What about heroin underground? Senator JACK EVANS —Is the honourable senator saying that heroin is hired? Listen to the argument: X-rated videos would be able to be hired only under the regulations that are now in force. If we force them underground, they will be purchasable and they will sit in the home so that kids are given access to them. Not only on the night of hire, but also at any time in the distant future those children will have access. If Senator Walters has not realised that fact she is living in Disneyland; she is living out of the world of reality. Perhaps she has never hired a tape. Perhaps she does not know that they have to be returned the next morning. Perhaps she does not know what happens when one buys a tape. It sits in the home in a place which is accessible, as are the Penthouse magazines, which the kids inevitably get hold of. We need to recognise that this measure provides a degree of protection for our children. It is not total and it cannot be total. But it is a damn sight better than having that tape lying around the house forever. What we need in addition is a degree of uniformity throughout Australia. I believe we are likely to achieve that. We have headed in that direction and, with a bit of give and take on both sides, there is the potential for the States and the Federal Government to agree on the rules, regulations, ordinances and laws which will control the importation and the distribution-and the distribution is the key-throughout Australia. It must be uniform. If only one State opts out of that system, it makes X-rated material available without control in that one State. Through the underground it can be imported from another State and then, as I said a moment ago, once it is imported it sits in the home and it is accessible to kids. I hope we get a degree of commonsense in this debate from now on. The tragedy in my State is that people have not recognised that those who will be most harmed if we do not have this control system will be the very children who all of us want to protect. I believe that Senator Walters and Senator Harradine are absolutely genuine in their endeavours to protect the children, as is Senator Gareth Evans and as are all honourable senators who have spoken. But let us recognise that the way to protect the children is to control videotapes, not to pretend that they are not there by trying to legislate them out of existence. One cannot do that because of the fact that there are probably already hundreds of thousands of them distributed around Australia at the moment. The new ordinance already provides better controls. Let us hope that the new committee will get the agreement to give even better controls than we have now. I believe that with good will we can achieve that. But we will not achieve it if we do not face up to the arguments realistically and honestly. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —Mr Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented by the previous speaker. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I call Senator Harradine. Senator HARRADINE —My name was specifically used by the previous speaker, Senator Jack Evans, as having misled the Parliament and the people in my understanding of the operation of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations. Senator Jack Evans stated that those regulations did not cover videos-that is, old regulation 4A did not cover videos-and that nothing was contained in the previous regulations which would prevent the importation of hard core pornography. Senator Jack Evans —That is not so. I did not say any such thing. Senator HARRADINE —The fact is that he did say it. He said that the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulations did not cover videos. Regulation 4A (2) of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations, the old regulation, states: 'in effect , that the importation of goods to which the regulation applies is prohibited unless permission, in writing, is obtained from the Attorney-General'. Those goods are described in the regulation. Goods is a generic term and, of course, includes videos. Therefore, it cannot be said that I misled anybody when I said that the previous regulations applied equally to videos as they did to anything else. Senator Mason —But they were ineffective, weren't they? Senator HARRADINE —They were ineffective only because the Attorney-General told the Customs officers to turn a blind eye to the blatant breaches of that regulation. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! I explained to you today that when you claim to have been misrepresented you must merely make clear what you actually said that was misrepresented and not debate the issue. Senator HARRADINE —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. The second thing about which it was stated that I had somehow misled people was that the previous regulations provided a barrier to the importation of hard core pornography. Of course, that is true. The previous regulations did provide a barrier against the importation of hard core pornography, otherwise the circular of the Attorney-General's Department of February this year is inexplicable. It stated: Barriers to the importation of hard core pornography . . . have been lifted. Senator McIntosh —Point of order, Mr Deputy President. Senator Harradine is now debating the issue. He was asked to make his explanation of where he thought he was misrepresented. He should have done so and finished at that. He is cutting out the time of the next speaker. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Harradine, I have made clear several times that when senators claim to have been misrepresented they must confine themselves to making clear what they actually meant to say or did say and no more than that. They should not open a new debate on the issue. Do you have anything to add to what you have said? Senator HARRADINE —I have made the position perfectly clear that what I have said is correct and what the Democrats are saying is not correct; they do not understand it. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(5.02) —It is a pity that today is not a broadcast day because I can just imagine the boys down at the 'Foresters Arms' tuning in all day to this thrilling debate on pornography, to be followed by debate on the flag, followed by de factos. I know just how relevant they think all that debate is. The only thing that is really missing today is a move to put creationism back into schools. I guess that is a treat in store for us next week or the week after. The reality of this as a matter of public importance really shows the threadbare nature of the Opposition. Senator Durack admitted that we have debated this on many occasions. We could tell that today because he made the same speech, with nothing new introduced; he was just filling in time. Of course , those opposite do not want to discuss the economy or any of the really relevant issues. I will let honourable senators into a secret. The reason for that is that today they have the results of their internal party research. If honourable senators want to know why all the Liberals are walking around with their jaws on the floor, it is that the research has just shown them to be down the tube. We have these sorts of irrelevant debates in the hope not of winning government but maybe, by some sort of moral crusade, pegging back a couple of points in the pecking order. That is all they are after. We had the suggestion from Senator Reid that if the committee was not set up in time we would have to set up a Senate select committee. We already have six Senate select committees operating and two joint select committees. One of the reasons why a joint committee is being proposed is the enormous interest shown in the issue in the House of Representatives. The Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, is wrong to describe those opposite as neanderthals and troglodytes on this issue. From reading the House of Representatives debate one would think we have enlightened libertines sitting on the other side of the chamber here. We really do need a joint committee to give those specials over the road a chance to enjoy themselves. I have read those debates. Some of the most disgraceful things I have ever seen in print in terms of attitude and intolerance in any Parliament came from the House of Representatives debate. I did enjoy Senator Walters's tirade today because she really would have us believe that 19 months ago there was no pornography in Australia, no crime in Australia and everything was wonderful. It is only in the last 19 months, with a Labor Government, that suddenly pornography has flooded into Australia. That was the implication in her speech. But we never really get a definition of pornography. I ask Senator Walters what it is. She said she was not talking about blue movies so what was she specifically talking about? If she was talking about violence in films related to sexual activity, no one on this side would disagree with her that that material should be banned. It is in the legislation. It is in the regulations. No one on this side of the House believes that that sort of material should be available, but the difficulty with her argument always is that it is a step by step argument. She tried a salami slice approach. She tried to get one lot banned first of all. Being reasonable people we think there is a case for that. But where does it stop? That is her problem. She will never tell us. That is always the problem of censors in society. They are never satisfied. Once they get one thing removed from films, they want to get other things removed until people are left with absolutely no choice. The accusation of tardiness in setting up this committee was raised. We have already elected our people to go on the committee and we are ready to serve. Whether we had set it up four or five weeks ago or now, we would not have been able to have got a result before an election. I suggest that we should look towards setting up the committee and getting the processes under way. Those processes take six, eight, 10 or 12 weeks. Senator Walters knows the processes. We have to advertise in the Press for submissions, et cetera. Senator Walters —Why don't you? Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Walters asks: 'Why don't you?' The reason is that we have legislation to get through. On a debate such as this we know that we are in for a six, eight or 10-hour session. If she would guarantee that the Opposition would put the issue of the setting up of the committee through virtually without debate, because we have already debated it, it would go through. We are waiting for the guarantees from the Opposition Whip and from the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) to that effect. What we will not do is prevent the supply Bills from going through for another eight or 10 hours. Certain legislation has to have priority and that sort of legislation has priority from our side. This issue is being exploited. I do not doubt the sincerity of most of those opposite. I would not accuse them of an interest in the subject in order to get a vicarious thrill out of it. I do not make that point. But I have looked at the attitude of some Liberals. I refer particularly to Peter Shack, the Liberal Party candidate for Tangney. He tries to exploit it as an electoral issue. He puts an advertisement in the paper accusing the Australian Labor Party of letting pornography flood into the country. He gives people a hot line to ring and he gives them advice. All he is really trying to do is to whip up minority politics in an effort to get back into this place. If the Opposition is sincere on this subject and wants something done about this topic, we will go ahead with this inquiry. Most of the States have gone their own way. That is a pity in one way because the one thing we really need is uniformity. It is no use having one or two States standing out against the rest. Queensland has done it for years with printed material by banning the sale of certain editions of Penthouse. Every time the Queensland Government bans Penthouse in Queensland, not only do the Penthouse sales increase in other States but also copies flood across into Queensland via the mail. If we really want to tackle this question I believe this select committee will rationally approach it, I hope on a bipartisan basis, and we can get a solution. We will not get a solution to the problem by going out into the community and trying to rack up Brownie points. That will benefit absolutely no one. If there has to be censorship the one major decision that this committee has to make is where the line is to be drawn. We will not accept a situation in which that line changes day by day and year by year and adults are not allowed to see anything other than the views of a narrow minority. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The discussion is concluded. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.09) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. In the annual report of the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which I do not have in front of me, there is an indication that the ABS is intending to conduct a number of surveys, to prepare and collate statistics relating to youth, particularly youth unemployment, with a view to having it published later this year or early next year in the International Youth Year. I commend generally the intention of the ABS to concentrate its attention on this area which is of great concern to those of us who are interested in the problems of youth, particularly youth unemployment. Too often we hear in this place, not only from the Opposition but also I heard this given some credence by a Minister, that the cause of youth unemployment is youth wages. At some stage next week, or perhaps the week after-depending on when I can get an opportunity-I intend to talk about this matter and to prove that that is a fallacy. If people run away with the idea that the cause of youth unemployment is in fact youth wages, they are not attacking the real issue. I do not propose, nor would you allow me, Mr Deputy President, to launch into my reasons for making that statement at this time. Now that I have the documents in front of me, I refer to page 6 of the annual report of the Australian Statistics Advisory Council which states: There is currently in the work program a project to produce a social report on youth. This report (which is scheduled for the fourth quarter of 1984) will bring together statistics on persons aged 15-24 relating to a number of areas of social interest and concern, particularly education and manpower. I for one will be most interested to study that document when it does come forward. At page 22 the annual report of the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the report which I have moved that the Senate take note of, states that the activities during the year included: . . . a publication, to be released about the end of 1984 as an ABS contribution to International Youth Year (1985), drawing together statistics on young people in Australia. I assume that that publication referred to in the annual report is the same publication that was referred to in the report of the Australian Statistics Advisory Council. If that is so I will be very interested to study it. I believe it ought to be studied by all persons interested in the problems of youth. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(5.13) —In referring to the 1983-84 annual report of the Australian Bureau of Statistics I reiterate my concern about the household survey that is presently being carried out in Australia, which I understand extends until December of this year. I have raised the matter before in the Senate by way of questions. On one of those occasions I asked the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) whether he could give me information with respect to the survey. I referred to tabled paper No. 2005, which was tabled in November 1983, dealing with the household expenditure survey of about 7,500 homes at an estimated cost of $3.3m. In this survey householders are required to complete a large number of questions put to them by specially trained people who, I understand, were trained in how to enter houses in spite of the fact that people may not particularly wish them to enter. I asked the Minister at that time whether certain rules applied in relation to the matter, and he answered that he thought that was correct and stated: . . . subject to confirmation, that officers do not have power of entry into a house . . . the ABS has the power to compel people to fill in the diaries once they have been selected as respondents to the survey. This survey requires people to enter into a diary, over a period of two weeks, and in country areas over a period of a month, as I understand it, every item of expenditure, even to the extent of ice creams, bottles of Coke and the like. It seemed to me to be quite an incredible survey. I understand that it is necessary to get statistics in relation to consumer demand on large items because I think it is essential that Australia does have that sort of information, but it seemed to me to be nit picking in the extreme to go into that sort of detail. I would be very surprised if that survey is accurate. I cannot imagine anybody in this chamber accurately recording every cent they spend on ice creams, glasses of beer or whatever. They are required to indicate what form of payment they make for those items, whether it be by cash, Bankcard, cheque or whatever. I believe it is an unnecessarily bureaucratic bungle. A number of people have referred this matter to the Ombudsman. I have a letter dealing with the subject which was written to the Australian Statistican, I quote the letter in part: I note the enclosed forms HE2 and HE3 are stamped front and back ''SAMPLE COPY' ' and therefore have no legal standing. The person who wrote the letter stated: I also note from your letter the imperious ''Six diaries-one to be completed- he makes the point that this is his emphasis- by each person . . .'' This imperious command appears to be inconsistent with the enabling document tabled in both Houses of Parliament which stated inter-alia respondents ''would be asked'' to keep diaries; the wording of page 2 of the diary which states inter alia; ''we now seek your assistance'', page 9 of your Annual Report tabled 3 October which states inter alia: ''all household members aged 15 . . . Page 3 of the document refers to the number of hours worked each week but it has no provision to record anything more than 30 or 35 hours. One would think that members of parliament work 70 or 80 hours a week, and I would have thought that might be important as well. I reiterate my concern about the matter. I understand that the Ombudsman has had several complaints and I hope that in future a more realistic approach will be applied to the question of such surveys , if they are required. I believe that the accuracy of that survey would be about one per cent. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.18) —I would like to go on from where Senator Jessop has just left off. I too have had representations on this matter. I know of about three people who have been interviewed. I have personally dealt with one of them. She was a businesswoman with a family who was very short of time, but the person collecting the statistics demanded that she fill the form in. She appealed through her local member of parliament, through a Government senator, through me, through the Ombudsman and through the State Government. I wrote to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the answer was 'Yes', she could be compelled to do this, and she had to fill in the forms. Ultimately, at considerable trouble, she did complete the documents and she has now finished her part in the survey. When I came to talk to her about it I said initially: 'Has it affected your purchasing pattern?' She said: 'Yes, of course it has. We have not bought anything that we can possibly do without. We are not going to be under complete scrutiny of the things we buy. I have included what we have bought but the things we would have otherwise purchased, such as luxury items or any larger items, anything that we could do without for another week or two, we did without '. I believe that would be a fairly normal reaction from people who object to being pried upon to that extent in their daily lives. I think it is ridiculous to spend $3.5m, when we say we are short of money, to produce a survey which is going to be as inaccurate as this one is certainly going to be and then have it quoted back to us for the next five years. The Treasurer should be aware, before he starts quoting this back to the country during the short while he will remain Treasurer, that people have not filled in these forms as he might have wished. They have filled them in in a manner that is in keeping with the feeling of persecution that has accompanied them. That attitude would be typical of a considerable number of the people who have filled in the forms. Other members and senator's who have had dealings with people in the public area who have filled in forms report the same reaction. As a result, I believe that the survey and the answers it produces will be highly questionable. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.22) —I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. Because these papers are the intermediate step between the announcement of the guidelines and the consideration of legislation which will be before the Senate fairly soon, they are important. However, it is not necessary to have a debate on them at this stage. In the next couple of weeks we will consider in detail the matters to which they refer so I shall delay my detailed remarks until that time. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(5.23) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This is an important report. Its background is that the Fraser Government in its last year of office established a National Water Research Council. That Council was a significant new step in the Commonwealth's responsibilities for water research and control in Australia. The incoming Hawke Government decided to set aside the National Water Research Council and set up an institute of freshwater studies. In the past the States, through their Ministerial Council, had considered the question of an institute of freshwater studies and had rejected it and had said that in their view what was needed was a national water research council. Such a body was set up and the personnel were people of great distinction and of various disciplines throughout Australia. We now have a situation in which an interim body was asked through terms of reference whether an institute of freshwater studies should be established and what it should do. That body has concluded that such an institute should not be established. It has concluded that in its place there should be a national water research advisory council. Indeed, this report has vindicated the Fraser Government's actions and has rejected the Hawke Government's proposals. I am bound to say that the work-or the non-work-of the Hawke Government on water is something that deserves a mention. The Government has done nothing. Since it came to office, some 18 months have passed and still no national responsibility has been assumed for water research. At the very least the Government could have had the National Water Research Council doing its job while its position was being reviewed. It is fascinating to note that the Hawke Government has abdicated its role and responsibility for the one limited physical resource that Australia has. Australia, the most arid continent on earth, lacks water whereas it has all other main minerals. Not only has the Government been wrong in this matter, but recently the responsible Minister, Senator Walsh, came out with a statement saying that the Government would no longer initiate capital works which it regarded as being of a national quality. In other words, no longer will there be national works initiated by the Commonwealth, paid for by the Commonwealth, and therefore part of an overall plan. The Government has rejected the bicentennial water resources program; it has rejected a $640m program, of which $350m was in direct capital grants without strings to the States. All that has gone. It has been rejected. In its place in future there will be no initiatives of any significance from the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth proposes to wait for the States to ask for a particular project and then not make capital grants but give them loans on a subsidised interest rate. Let us make it perfectly clear that the Hawke Government has abdicated its responsibility for the vital role of water conservation, storage and distribution in Australia. This report proves that the Government has been wrong in setting aside the National Water Research Council. I hope now that the Government will accept its error and immediately reinstitute that body that has been set aside, get it going, and equip it with the necessary functions, powers and money so that this 18 months that the locusts have eaten will not be too deep a tragedy for Australia. I repeat that what the Government has touched has been deadened. What we did in the past has been proved right. What is needed now is a reversal back to the proven and effective policies. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(5.28) —I was very interested to listen to the comments of Senator Sir John Carrick on the report of the Interim Council on the Proposal for an Institute of Freshwater Studies. I rise to speak on this report because, as a South Australian senator, I have a particular interest in matters relating to water. South Australia is not a State that is richly endowed with water. In fact it gets a lot of its water, certainly for the metropolitan area of Adelaide and for the Iron Triangle, from downstream Victoria, so to speak, and even sometimes from downstream New South Wales. We have a particular interest in water and also its filtration. While we welcome the fact that we abut other States we do not necessarily like to drink all the contributions they make to our water supply. So South Australians have a particular interest in water. This matter has its own history, and the history as reported by Senator Sir John Carrick is one way of describing what happened. It is also important to know another piece of this history. In 1981 a private member's Bill was introduced into the Senate on behalf of its initiator, Mr Jacobi, and it is no surprise that he is also a South Australian. He is the member for Hawker in South Australia. His Bill proposed to establish an institute of freshwater studies. That Bill was debated in the Senate in February 1982 and passed to the lower House, where it remained on notice until Parliament was prorogued in March 1983. Consequent partly on that Bill by Mr Jacobi and partly because of his and other people's interest in it, the Labor Party had a platform before the 1983 election proposing to establish an institute of freshwater studies to do all the sorts of things that were outlined in this report. I do not disagree with Senator Sir John Carrick-it is quite clear that the report says that what is needed, particularly if one looks at a cost effective way of doing it, is the establishment of a national water research advisory council. If we break down the institute of freshwater studies into three parts we have firstly the council overview; secondly, a water research assistance fund so there is a continuing guarantee of research money, but that money is to go to existing research organisations that are doing considerable research in the area already; and thirdly, a national office of water research should be established within the Department of Resources and Energy to support both of those things. As to the importance of all that, I do not conclude as Senator Sir John Carrick concluded that, firstly, nothing has been done or, secondly, one can just sail ahead and say that all the things done by the Fraser Government were very good. When the Labor Government came to office it was concerned about proposals to spend some $600m-plus in capital money on such projects around Australia. Just one example indicates that those capital intensive projects do not necessarily benefit Australia at all, in either the short term or the long term. The example I have in mind is the Ord River Dam in northern Western Australia. It still serves as a monument to wildly extravagant expenditure for absolutely no gain. Senator Sir John Carrick —It wasn't in the program. Senator CROWLEY —It is illustrative of a point I will make. I take the honourable senator's point that it was not in the program but in many ways the program was not unlike it. The Ord River Dam stands as a monument to cost inefficiency and is a monument a complete change to the ecology of that area. It is a continuing ecological hazard which is rapidly becoming a disaster. I would have thought the importance of water resources in this country would be acknowledged by both the Labor and Liberal sides of this Parliament. What we are really disputing is the best way of proceeding down the line. Clearly there is need for research not only into our water quality and where our water is-in fact , we may discover there is more water in Australia than we previously acknowledged, particularly in underground river resources-but also into how we can most effectively use our water resource dollars in research. Building large capital monuments may be necessary but some more consideration and deliberation may be required as to the need for research. I will be interested to see the Government's response to this Interim Council report. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.32) —I too would like to speak on the report of the Interim Council on the Proposal for an Institute of Freshwater Studies. When the Government was building up for the last election not only did it go to Tasmania and say it would continue with the water program there, not only did it say that yes it would have an institute of freshwater studies, but also it made all sorts of other plans and promises. The easy way out of a promise is to refer it to a committee, and so far the Government has been totally successful in that it has stalled another 18 months and has not spent a dollar. Water is the greatest single need in Australia, and everybody knows it. Every day that we procrastinate, hedge, fudge and carry on, the worse the situation will get. What has been achieved in the last 18 months? Chapter 5 on page 37 of the report lists the last six reports brought down. If the Government had just read those reports it would be a lot better off than it is now. Instead of that, we now have another report which refers to those six and says that what they said was right. I do not know how many more times we will have to say: 'Yes, this is the system, this is the way to go. Let us get on with it; let us start doing something'. We have only to look through the early part of this publication to see its major conclusions and recommendations. It is all there. I have read it over and over again. Will it be another 10 years before we see any progress? Is the outback of Australia-even the cities and towns-still in the position, according to this Government, that it does not need water and we had better spend our money on useless health systems or something like that and let the place go dry? I find it depressing to see a document like this repeating the things we know so well. It is a monument to the Government's procrastination and unwillingness to do anything on a national basis. It spends its money on sociological revolution instead of doing something sensible. It is quite bewildering and I just do not know what this Government needs now to spur it into some sort of action, to make it do something about the water needs of Australia. Question resolved in the affirmative. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Pursuant to the provisions of the Audit Act 1901, I present reports of the Auditor-General on financial statements prepared by the Minister for Finance for the year ended 30 June 1984 and upon other accounts together with the financial statements, and certificates of the Attorney-General and the Minister for Foreign Affairs relating to exempt accounts; the report of the Independent Auditor, for the year ended 1983-84; and on certain efficiency audits dated 4 October 1984. Debate resumed from 11 September, on motion by Senator Durack: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland; (5.36) —In leading the debate in support of Senator Durack's Bill amending the Flags Act 1953, I commence by outlining the purposes of the Bill. The purposes are two-fold. First of all, it is to prevent any change to the national flag at the whim of the government of the day and, secondly, it is to provide a mechanism for change by a majority vote of the people of Australia. The effects of the amendment to the Act will be to retain the present flag for Australia and provide a means for change by popular mandate when that need is apparent. The current legislation covering the flag used as the Australian national ensign is embodied in the Flags Act 1953. Curiously, it is the only illuminated or coloured piece of legislation on our statute books because it has incorporated into it the design of the Australian national flag and the Australian Red Ensign. The defect in that legislation is that it permits change to be made by the government of the day. That should not be a problem, except that at present we have a Government that has the declared intention of taking Australia down a republican path. I will come back to that in a moment. I deal first of all with a specific part of the Act. Section 5 of the Act states: The Governor-General may, by Proclamation, appoint such other flags and ensigns of Australia as he thinks fit. In practical terms, that means that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, through the Executive Council, can instruct the Governor-General as to what flag they wish to be used as the Australian national ensign without recourse in any way at all to the views and wishes of the people of Australia. The Bill proposed by Senator Durack adds a second part to section 5 of the Flags Act, which states: Nothing in sub-section (1) empowers the Governor-General to make regulations appointing a flag or ensign other than the Australian National Flag as the standard for the Commonwealth of Australia, the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia or the Australian nation. Part (2) of that clause states: Every Proclamation in force under section 5 of the Principal Act immediately before the commencement of this Act continues to have the force and effect that it had at that time but may be repealed by regulations under section 5 of the Principal Act as amended by this Act. Senator Durack's Bill then goes into the details of how the change shall take place. It will insert a new section at the end of the Act, clause 9 of the Bill, which states: The Australian National Flag declared by section 3 shall not be altered except in accordance with a proposal to alter that flag that has been- (a) submitted in each State and Territory to the electors qualified to vote for the election of members of the House of Representatives; and (b) approved- (i) in a majority of the States by a majority of the electors voting; and (ii) by a majority of all the electors voting. '(2) In this section, 'Territory' means any Territory referred to in section 122 of the Constitution in respect of which there is in force a law allowing its representation in the House of Representatives.'. So the Bill sets out clearly to do the two things that I outlined at the start- to prevent any capricious change taking place to our national ensign and, secondly, providing that that change takes place as a result of a popular vote. Why is there a need for this sort of legislation? As I said a few moments ago, normally there would never be any need to contemplate changing or amending the legislation in this way. Countries do not change their flags very often. It is very rare in the life of a nation for it to change its flag. Unless the whole system of that nation has been overthrown by a coup and a different system of government has been introduced, it simply does not change its flag. If we look at the changes which have taken place this century in the established and stable nations of the world we will see that there have been very few. The problem we have in Australia is that the Australian Labor Party has an open, avowed intention to create a republican Australia. It has made it quite clear that the flag is one of the things it wishes to change. Most importantly, the Government wishes to change it by the bicentenary in 1988. The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, on an Australian Broadcasting Corporation program on 26 January 1984, in a discussion on republicanism, said: I believe that this is something that ought to and will happen. We do not have to move out of this chamber to refer to what the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has said. He speaks on every topic, but in the Age newspaper of 7 September 1981, on the subject of the flag, he said: Maybe the solution is for us to get on with the task of choosing for ourselves before 1988, a new, genuinely homegrown flag of which we really can, for one, be proud. There was the usual grammatical mix-up that the Attorney-General usually uses with words, but I think his intent is quite clear despite his grammatical inadequacies on this matter. Part of the tactics of change that the Labor Party is following here is, first of all, to create dissent by promoting discussion and debate about the flag through Ausflag and bodies such as that and, secondly, to very quietly and covertly dismantle the practices, the customs and the symbols that the Australian society has. We have gone a long way down that path already. Since Mr Hawke came into power we have seen the portrait of the Queen as the head of the Commonwealth removed from Australian Government buildings and the substitution of the smiling visage of Mr Hawke. We had the very well popularised change to the national anthem. The change was made without any forewarning, let alone any discussion, with the Australian community. Changes have been made to the Australian Citizenship Act, which legislation has not yet gone through the Senate. There has been the change to the oath of allegiance and the English language requirement. There has been the abandonment of the status of British subject and changes of that nature. We have seen the cessation of the granting of imperial honours. We have seen the great disturbance in the Australian defence forces coming from the review of military decorations which we have traditionally awarded. We have seen the recent changes in the letters patent relating to the Governor-General and the obfuscation by the Government of the point that despite what it might say about its interpretation of the letters patent the Governor-General still is the Commander-in-Chief of the Australian Defence Force. Only a few nights ago when we discussed in this chamber the estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs we learned that the American-Australian Association, which received a grant of $100,000 last year, is no longer funded by the Hawke socialist Government. The Australia-Britain Society, which last year had a grant of $150,000, is no longer funded. We find that cultural relationships with Vietnam are benefiting to the tune of $50,000 this year. We find that cultural relations with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics are benefiting to the extent of $75,000 this year. Various peace and disarmament activities around the world will receive a contribution of $267,000 from the Australian taxpayer, no doubt matching dollar for dollar what the Soviets are putting into those organisations on the international forum. The consequence of all this is that every politician in this Parliament is aware that people are concerned about the preservation of the flag. All politicians, whatever their party affiliations, are conscious of the great concern that the community manifested over the high-handed way in which the national anthem was changed. They are still conscious of the anger that is out there in the electorate at the way it was done. Coincidentally to Senator Durack bringing in this Bill, in the earlier part of this year, in April, I wrote to every newspaper in Queensland asking people to write to me with their views on the Australian flag. I was scrupulously careful not to foreshadow a preference one way or the other and I did not expect to receive much of a response. I thought that if I received 500 to 600 replies I would have done very well, from a response point of view. I was involved in various surveys in my professional life before I became a member of the Senate. The response I received was absolutely staggering. Over 4,000 people took the time to write to me. Of those 4,000 only 50-odd were form letters of a roneoed type or coming from the one source. I received over 1,000 telephone calls. Over 5,000 people from all over Queensland and around Australia took the trouble to communicate with me. They came from every age group. They came from locally born people and from overseas born people. Reading the letters was very interesting because they were not one paragraph letters saying 'Keep the flag' or 'Change the flag'. Most people wrote highly personal, two or three page letters expressing their views in great detail to me. A lot of effort went into this. When it was all done the statistics showed that over 90 per cent of those who contacted me wanted to retain the Australian flag the way it is. There is no way the intensity of those feelings could be misinterpreted. I recognise very well all the statistical imperfections of a survey of that type. I do not quote it with a very high degree of confidence in the statistical sense. Having been involved in teaching statistics at a graduate level I know that one can attach some degree of significance to a sample of that size. That impression is confirmed by all the surveys that have been carried out in Australia. The most recent of which I am aware showed that 60 per cent of the Australian community across this nation wished to retain the ensign that we have at present. A majority of 66 per cent of the community is no knife-edge majority . It astonishes me in the face of that expression of public support for the ensign that anyone could contemplate changing it. It is just simply not a tenable proposition. I have had conversations with my Labor colleagues on the other side of this chamber and the other House-all the saner members of the Labor Party; those in touch with what is going on in the community outside-and they recognise the point that it would be the height of folly for them to get involved in changing the flag given community attitudes at present. I wish to take the time of the Senate to review briefly the arguments that are posed for change, because I have taken a bit of interest in this in the light of this survey experience. The first point is that no common design is proposed by those people who wish for a change. A whole range of designs have been suggested in the community and there is very little agreement as to what design the new flag should take. There are also widespread views as to what is wrong with the present flag, and there is certainly no common view. I wish to deal with three or four points that are most commonly brought up by critics of the present design. One of the most common things that people say is that many Australians do not know what the flag stands for. If they do not know that, the way to correct it is through a public education campaign. After all, if we can spend $750,000 of the taxpayers' money this year on an infertile television advertising campaign about orchestras and accord in order to sell the Government's wages pact with the unions, we can certainly spend some money on educating the children and the adults of this country on what the Australian flag stands for, its historical association and how it came to be accepted as the national symbol. The second point raised by critics is that people abroad do not recognise the Australian flag. It is hard to take that criticism seriously because it is so absurd. How many Australians would know the flag of Kiribati, which is one of our closest neighbours in the Pacific? Would the people of Kiribati be prepared to change their flag because no one in Australia recognised which country it belonged to? That argument is nonsense. The third criticism in support of changing the flag is that Canada changed its flag. Anyone who was in Canada in the late 1950s and early 1960s and saw the great unrest in the Canadian community between the French Canadians in the province of Quebec, particularly around Montreal, and the rest of Canada would understand very well why the Government of the day tried to bridge that gap to bring those people together by changing the Canadian national emblem. Having done that, despite what some of the people writing to the papers might say, it has not been terribly successful. There is still much opposition in Canada to the present maple leaf design. The provinces of Manitoba and Ontario have reintroduced the Union Jack on their provincial flags. Of course, Newfoundland and British Columbia never deleted the Union Jack from their provincial flags. Another design that is frequently suggested is the Eureka flag. The Eureka flag was a single issue flag, along with the Murray River flag and the Australian transportation flag. It really has no national significance that merits its preference over the present design. I suppose the most common objection of all relates to the inclusion of the Union Jack in the upper left quadrant of the ensign. That Union Jack represents our historical foundings as a British colony. It does not represent any servile association with Britain today; it just represents a historical fact on precisely the same basis as it does on the Hawaiian flag. Goodness me, one would not meet a more vigorously independent nationalistic group in any of the States of the United States of America, yet the Hawaiians are quite happy to retain the Union Jack in their flag purely because of its historical association. It is something we live with. It is part of our history. The final criticism that is made of the present flag is that it does not represent anything to the migrants who come to this country. In my experience, that is not an argument that can be sustained. The argument rather is that migrants come to the country to be Australians. They do not come here to be Czechs, Spaniards, Indonesians or Singaporeans in exile; they come here to be Australians. While a percentage of those people would like to see a different flag, in my experience, the majority of them are quite happy to have the flag that is presently the national ensign for Australia. Society needs to be able to change because it is a living, growing, dynamic thing, and it must have the ability to change in a peaceful and reasoned way. At the same time, there has to be something that binds a community together and some of the symbols of government and some symbols of the established practices of that society are the glue that keeps the community together. They give the stability to that community that it needs in time of stress. A flag is a very central part of the symbol of being a nation. I am not being jingoistic about this. It is not a matter of saying, 'My country, right or wrong', or anything like that; it is a matter of having a stabilising element in the community, something that is not changing from day to day. If we look at the United States and the way its people fly their flag outside their homes, in schools and in all their government institutions, we realise that Australia is a very faceless country with respect to any national expression. I think we are the poorer for it. Our country has an open policy on migration. We take people in from all over the world, and that is as it should be, but we have in a pleasant way to unite them as Australians. We have no future as a country of 1,000 different social or ethnic groupings, and in that system the flag plays a very important part. The Australian flag has a great deal of significance to the majority of Australians and all of us have feelings of support and admiration for it. I have always admired it. I think it is a beautiful design. About 12 months ago in September last year I was privileged to be at Newport for one of the days of the America's Cup races. On the day I was there Australia was down 3-1 and the waitresses in the motel and the commentators on the radio were saying: 'Well, this is the last day of the America's Cup because we will win it today and the Australian challenge will fail. It will be 4-1 by sunset'. History did not quite work out that way because on that day we finished up a score of 3-2 and we won 4 -3 at the end of the rubber. As we sailed into Newport harbour, and there would have been thousands of Australians following the race that day, the biggest Australian flag I have ever seen in my life-it must have been well over 30 or 40 feet in length-was flying on the mast of a ship at the quay at Newport. That sight at the end of the day was of such magnificence that I do not think there was one Australian who was not extremely proud to be an Australian and to have a symbol like that flag representing him. This Bill provides that the flag shall stay as it is and that it cannot be changed on any ideological whim by a government of the day without recourse to the people of Australia. It provides the mechanism by which the views of the people of Australia can be sought. It does not deny them the right to seek to change the flag but it is done in a way that will preserve a very important institution in a position of stability within this society. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.58) —We have before us the Flags Amendment Bill which is a private member's Bill introduced by the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Durack. That there is a need for this Bill is a disgrace to the government of the day. The need for this Bill is very clear. It is necessary as a result of the action of one man, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), who stood up one day when it suited him best and said off the top of his head: 'We will change the national anthem and, by the way blokes, I do not like the words. They are too sexist. We will change those too'. That is the reason why the shadow Attorney-General has introduced this private member's Bill. The need for this Bill has been demonstrated very clearly by our Prime Minister. We have never needed this sort of Bill in the past. There has never been any suggestion that the people of Australia have felt any disloyalty to their flag, but we certainly have heard that suggestion now. All sorts of surreptitious things have been going on. One day when it suited him best the Prime Minister stood up and said: 'We will change the anthem and we will change the words too. We do not like them. They are sexist. We will not stick by the time-honoured English language. We will change the words '' Australia's sons let us rejoice'' to ''Australians all let us rejoice''.' There has been no debate in this Parliament by the people elected by the outside community. This would-be President decided to take it on his own shoulders. We have seen the way he works. As I said, very surreptitious things clearly are going on in the community of which the people out there are completely unaware. As a whole, not many people travel overseas, but those who do and who go to get their passports will suddenly find that the crown has gone. The crown is no longer on passports. There was no suggestion that it be removed. Nothing was said by the Prime Minister or anyone else that the crown was going to disappear from passports. It just happened overnight. I guess the Prime Minister just said: 'Take it off'. It is just another step towards the republic that the Prime Minister wants to create. There has been quite a lot of talk about bringing in the new flag for the bicentennary. I assure the Government that will not happen. It will not be in power. There is no way that it will be in power in 1988. But the Government thinks it will be and the Prime Minister is so arrogant that he thinks that by 1988 there will not only be a new anthem and the crown scrubbed from the passport, but also a new flag. There is no way the Australian people will put up with that. We know that in the Boyer lectures he said that a republic would be a good idea. He made that very clear. He is a centralist who thinks we are over- governed and do not need the States. He thinks the one parliament, the Federal Parliament with him as its head, is all Australia needs. The crown has gone from our passports and the flag may go. The Prime Minister would have us deny the Queen in our oath of allegiance. We would no longer swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen. Indeed, all we have to do is abide by the laws of the country. The Queen is no longer mentioned in the oath of allegiance. Only one small step is needed to turn this country into a republic if this lot ever get back into power after the election. We should perhaps have a look at a bit of history of our flag, because as Senator Durack said- Senator Grimes —Beauty! Senator WALTERS —Senator Grimes has just said 'Oh, well, here we go'. He is not interested in the history of this flag. He is not interested in the slightest. He just groans when we mention the history of the flag. He is a Minister of the Crown who has already sworn allegiance to her Majesty. Maybe with this lot the Prime Minister took that out too. I would not know. But the people of Australia would not know because they are the last to learn when these sorts of things happen. Despite what Senator Grimes might groan about let us look at the history of our flag, because in 1901 we had a competition and our flag was chosen at that time. It was flown for the first time, as Senator Durack said in the second reading speech, at 2.30 p.m. on 3 September 1901. The Prime Minister of the day, Edmund Barton, said: . . . it was apparent . . . that a Commonwealth flag, to be representative, should contain: the Union Jack on a blue or red ground; a six-pointed ''star'' representing the six federated States of Australia, immediately under the Union Jack and pointing direct to the centre of St George' s Cross, and of a size to occupy the major portion of one quarter of the flag; the Southern Cross in the flag has been indicative of sentiment of the Australian nation. What is wrong with that? It shows our history, our association with Britain and the Southern Cross, which is very dear to the Australian people. There is nothing wrong with it at all and so say the majority of Australians. Indeed, 61 per cent of Australians say: 'Save our flag'. That appeal is one to save our flag from our Prime Minister because it is the Prime Minister who wants to destroy it. Let us get it very clear. Sixty-one per cent say we should save our flag, and 34 per cent say we should change it. What on earth do the people who want to change it want to change it to? They cannot even get together and decide that. We have had all sorts of suggestions. There has been a suggestion that we put a koala bear in the top corner. They ask that the Union Jack be removed and that British connotations be removed. What are we asked to put in place of the Union Jack? Would it be a koala bear or a kangaroo? Whatever those who want to change the flag say, they cannot agree. It does not matter what it is. They want different colours; the Eureka flag; some want green and gold. Whatever it is they cannot agree. The flag is prescribed by the Flags Act 1953. However, under that legislation the Governor-General can appoint such other flags and ensigns of Australia as he sees fit. What we are concerned about-this is why the shadow Attorney-General brought forward his private member's Bill-is frankly that we do not trust the Prime Minister. We believe that he may well advise the Governor-General to appoint a new flag for any odd occasion. In particular, if he could get away with it, he would ask the Governor-General to appoint a special flag that he can raise over the new Parliament House in 1988. I do not for one little minute believe that he will raise the flag over Parliament House in 1988. I believe he will raise a flag of his own design. It does not matter what it costs, but if he is in office he will raise a flag of his own design. The Australian people will not see that happen. Senator Sibraa —What nonsense! Senator WALTERS —We will see just what he does on those occasions. Senator Macklin —Come on, Kerry. You get into the debate. Senator WALTERS —Senator Macklin just challenged Government members to enter the debate. There is only one Government senator willing to put a case forward either for a new flag or for a change of flag. On the list of speakers we have Liberal and National Party members one after the other. The Democrats have one speaker, only one out of the five of them, but the Labor Party members are just not interested. I wonder why they are not interested. It would not be that they are perhaps showing their colours a bit early. Would it be that if they stood up and protected the Australian flag they would put the Prime Minister on a spot? Would they be prepared to stand up and be honest and say: 'Yes, that is our intention. We are going to change the flag, and by 1988 you will see what we put up'? During a visit to Pakistan I and a group of people were feeling quite insecure because we could not find accommodation. We got into a taxi and said: 'Take us to the Australian embassy'. I can assure the Senate that, after feeling fairly insecure all day, the sight of the Australian flag at the embassy gave me a wonderful feeling and did a tremendous amount for my morale. I can just imagine the feelings of the soldiers who served in both world wars. I think, as Senator Durack said in his second reading speech, this is perhaps best explained by the story related by Mr Frank Cayley in his excellent book Flag of Stars. I would like to read that story: The first allied flag raised in Singapore after the Japanese surrender in 1945 was an Australian ensign that had been made in secret by Australian prisoners of war. A small Union Jack, which has escaped discovery during the many searches made by Japanese guards, was stretched onto the corner of some blue material ' borrowed' from Japanese stores; handkerchiefs from Red Cross parcels provided the necessary white for the Commonwealth star and the stars of the Southern Cross-and the flag was in readiness when news was heard by secret radio that Japanese surrender was imminent. When surrender came, the flag was raised over ' X3' working camp at Bukit Panjang and later over AIF headquarters at Changi. I am appalled that Government members are not entering this debate. I am appalled that they are not willing to stand up in the Senate and say just how they feel about whether or not the Australian flag ought to be maintained. Senator Grimes —Don't be stupid. I am speaking after you. Senator WALTERS —There are a dozen names on the list of speakers, of which Senator Button is the only Government speaker. Maybe I have created a challenge. Senator Grimes has now belatedly decided that he is going to enter the debate too. I can assure Senator Grimes that I am referring to the official speakers' list put out before this debate started. Senator Grimes has accepted the challenge and has decided that he will speak after all. I will be very interested to hear what he says. He should be careful that he does not commit himself too strongly because he does not know for sure what his boss is going to do. He might find himself out on a limb. Senator Boswell —The Leader of the Government is giving him his riding instructions. Senator WALTERS —As Senator Boswell says, he has just had his riding instructions from Senator Button. The advocates of a new flag will resort to anything at all. They accused Prince Charles of wanting a new Australian flag and Prince Charles had to enter the public arena and deny that charge and say that he had never pressed for a new flag. Mr Scrubby, the secretary of Ausflag, said that he believed it was a shame that Prince Charles had not entered the debate. These people use all sorts of devious means. However, I believe that the Australian people understand exactly what they are up to. I will be interested to hear what Senator Grimes says. He says he is following me in this debate. I do not know where he is on the speakers' list. As far as I can see, Senator Kilgariff is to follow me. If Senator Grimes is to speak after me he had better hurry back into the chamber because I have finished my remarks. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(6.16) —In speaking to the Flags Amendment Bill 1984, which was introduced by the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Durack, I support the view of my colleagues and the vast majority of Australian people that our national flag, which flew first in 1901, has become the symbol and standard of the Commonwealth of Australia. It is the flag under which Australians have fought and died, and there can be no greater example of the strength of feeling for the flag and what it has come to represent to Australians than the example of those who laid down their lives under that flag in many wars. Happily, today the flag is not called upon to provide a symbol for Australian soldiers. It is much more likely to be raised as a standard for victorious athletes. For example, the familiar Australian flag which was raised in recognition of the victories of our olympians in Los Angeles recently has come to represent the diversities within Australian society as much as our history. Those who oppose the retention of the Australian flag or oppose alternatives have suggested that it does not reflect the increasingly diverse nature of the Australian population. That assertion does not appear to be supported by the surveys conducted to gauge attitudes towards the flag and the suggestion that it might be changed. In the Northern Territory, for instance, a private poll revealed that only 40 per cent of people were in favour of some change to the flag while 60 per cent of those polled expressed in very strong terms the view that the flag should be retained. In a poll conducted by the Bulletin, of which mention has been made, 66 per cent of those surveyed were in favour of retaining the present flag and in another gallup poll 61 per cent were in favour of retaining the flag. This is a quite reasonable majority of people. I submit that amongst those people polled one would find a fair proportion of people who were either not born in this country or whose parents were not born here. It is ludicrous to suggest that those people would not be able to identify or feel an affinity with our flag. The clear indications are that most Australians not only have no desire to change the flag but also feel very strongly indeed that it should be retained. That is what this amending Bill is designed to do, and I congratulate Senator Durack for introducing it. The amendment will protect the flag which Australians obviously wish to retain. Earlier this year the Hawke Government, without discussion, changed the national anthem from God Save the Queen to Advance Australia Fair. It apparently did not consider that the Australian people had a right to be consulted on the issue. This Government of consensus is apparently prepared to extend that principle only as far as it suits it. Under the previous Government the Australian people were at least accorded the right to express their preference for a national song. They chose Advance Australia Fair. That song should not have been elevated to the national anthem without a similar poll being held. The Australian people were not accorded an opportunity to express their opinion. The refusal of Government senators to accept this amending Bill can be taken as an indication that the Government very likely has similar ideas about changing the flag, without recourse to the opinion of the Australian people. This whole question extends further than the flag and the national anthem. It reflects on the fact that we have a socialist government which is determined to downgrade our ties with the United Kingdom and the monarchy in general. Another example of this downgrading is apparent in the supply of Australian flags to schools and community groups. This incident has apparently happened recently. The previous Government used to present not only flags to groups such as those I have mentioned but also a cassette, one side of which contained God Save the Queen and the other side Advance Australia Fair. God Save the Queen has been dumped. Senator Grimes —Did we not have a referendum? Senator KILGARIFF —I have covered that situation. No doubt the Government has it in mind to replace the present flag with a symbol such as the Eureka flag. That flag flies these days over strike bound building sites. One wonders which Australians that flag represents. This amendment to the Act will strengthen and reinforce the flag as the standard of the Commonwealth of Australia, the Government and our nation. I say that the Government's opposition to this amendment shows clearly that it intends to attempt to alter the flag. This amendment would not totally preclude that possibility. All it asks is that before any such change is effected, the Australian people are consulted. Senator Macklin —You don't even know yet. Senator KILGARIFF —Apparently there has been a strong indication. As I was saying, I believe that the Australian people should be consulted, and they have every right to be consulted. I say to Senator Macklin that we will give them a chance. A rejection of this Bill will demonstrate the Government's contempt for the rights of Australians and show up the intentions which lurk beneath the Government's veneer of consensus. I strongly support this Bill, as have others this afternoon, which was introduced by Senator Durack, the shadow Attorney- General. I believe he is to be congratulated for bringing this very important matter before the Senate and giving the Senate the opportunity of expressing its views and, I believe, the views of the majority of Australians. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.22) —We are debating the Flags Amendment Bill 1984 which is a private member's Bill introduced by the Opposition to amend the Flags Act 1953, a very significant Act, one which I have discussed in relation to some other flags. But I will refer to that at another time. The Bill introduced by the Opposition parties contains only a few clauses, some of which I must admit I am rather concerned about. For example, clause 3 seeks to omit section 5 of the principal Act. Section 5 states: The Governor-General may by proclamation appoint such other flags and ensigns of Australia as he thinks fit. Probably one would find, certainly in Queensland, a fair amount of disagreement on the part of a number of people about whether we should be so discourteous to the Governor-General, who is the Queen's representative in Australia, as to think that the actions that the Governor-General might take would be not in the interests of this country. Members of the Opposition talk about a number of other matters in regard to how they wish this matter to be dealt with. With a new found fervour in consulting the people, they suggest that we should have a referendum on this issue. The Australian Democrats have for quite a long time in this chamber fought unsuccessfully to have installed a Bill on citizens' initiative. On every one of those occasions every member of the Opposition voted against it. This is precisely the type of proposition that we are talking about which would be able to be available to the people if they wish to exercise their right to have a referendum on this issue. Senator Haines —Only when the Liberals want it. Senator MACKLIN —It is precisely as Senator Haines has pointed out. The only issue on which members of the Liberal-National parties want people to have a say are the ones on which they want the people to have a say; not ones on which the people want to have a say. They are highly selective. They do not wish that right to be accorded to the people other than for political purposes-for their political purposes. Quite frankly it is not because they are interested in the national flag or any another item. They are interested in this exercise because of the impending election and they think there may be a few votes in it. If they had been interested in this matter they could have voted for the Australian Democrats' private member's Bill on three separate occasions in the last three years. They chose not to do so. I think that that shows how barren this particular exercise is. Nevertheless, in keeping with our interest in enabling the people to vote on such matters, we will support the proposition. But in doing so I point out that we are the only people to show any consistency on the matter of consulting the people of Australia on matters which affect them and in which they have an interest. I notice that Senator Button has entered the chamber. I know that he will speak later and I am sure that he will speak enthusiastically in support of the same type of proposition. Senator Walters gave an interesting view of history when she spoke about the matter of the national anthem. The situation is other than she described to the chamber. On 11 February 1974 the Whitlam Government commissioned a poll through the Australian Bureau of Statistics which took a sample of about 60,000 people. Senator Button —Was that a flagpole? Senator MACKLIN —No, actually it was a people poll-a non-sexist poll in Senator Walters's terms. She did not want all Australians to be rejoicing in this country, but only men. The 60,000 people who were polled turned out a listing of Advance Australia Fair, Waltzing Matilda and Song of Australia, which I must admit I had not heard of up to that point, but it came in at No. 3 anyhow. The Fraser Government in 1977 went to the people in relation to a number of referenda issues and at the same time held what I think was called a canvassing of the people. I understand that it was not technically a referendum. Senator Haines —A straw poll. Senator MACKLIN —A straw poll of everybody in Australia. In that poll 43 per cent chose Advance Australia Fair, 28.3 per cent chose Waltzing Matilda, of which I was one and unfortunately- Senator Button —So was I. Senator MACKLIN —Was Senator Button one as well? I was very upset by that vote. Senator Haines —What happened to the Road to Gundagai? Senator MACKLIN —No, that was not listed in the poll. God Save the Queen came in next at 18.7 per cent, presumably sliding out of the hit parade at that point. Song of Australia came in at 9.6 per cent. Senator Grimes —What about the Aeroplane jelly song? Senator MACKLIN —No, that was not listed. Song of Australia came in at 9.6 per cent. I am glad to say that that was the last that we heard of it. It is very interesting, of course, that Advance Australia Fair was composed by a Scotsman in 1878. There is nothing wrong with Scotsmen. I notice that Senator Scott is applauding that proposition. Indeed, as I understand it, it was first played in Australia on St Andrew's Day in 1878. Professor Blainey probably has not realised how diverse this country is in that we have even adopted as a national anthem something written by somebody who was not born in this country and something which was not played on our national day, but on the Scots' national day. So we have had a canvassing of the people in relation to the national anthem. I think probably that that matter will now slide into history. But certainly the flag issue will not. If honourable senators get the same type of mail that I am getting, it seems that it is a matter of vital concern to a large number of people. I am not sure why the Opposition actually brought forward this measure, considering the other vital issues which are on the agenda. But if it has run out of private members' Bills to debate, we are quite happy to bring on some of our 48 private members' Bills which deal with matters like unemployment, youth education-- Senator Haines —Consumer affairs. Senator MACKLIN —Consumer affairs, human rights and a number of other important matters which we consider ought to have higher priority than this item. As I understand it, I have never heard any member of the Government actually suggest that they planned to do anything about the flag. I have heard them only back pedalling very rapidly whenever it is raised, saying that they will not touch it with a barge pole. The Government will not touch this issue. The Opposition is looking at making some political play on the matter. I will speak when the debate resumes after the suspension of the sitting because I wish to raise some other vital matters on this topic. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator MACKLIN —Before the dinner break I had made some preliminary remarks on the Flags Amendment Bill, a private member's Bill introduced by Senator Durack to amend the Flags Act 1953. I wish now to refer specifically to parts of the Bill, particularly the proposition that the design of a national flag ought to be submitted to the electors. I want to go through some of the arguments that have been presented against putting such a proposition to the electorate. These particular arguments have not been put by the Government but by the Opposition parties in previous debates that we have had, particularly in the Australian Democrats' private member's Bill relating to a citizens' initiative. The major point that has been made by most of the Opposition speakers when they have spoken against having a popular citizens' initiative, in other words of submitting to the people items such as the flag, is the notion that it is a denial of the legislature, that it would result in the decline of the legislature and that it would diminish the legislature and the work that it has to do. It seems to me in many ways odd that political parties will attach themselves to a cause such as the flag and then decide that the only way of doing anything about it is to seek the protection of a referendum and still at the same time deny people the chance of initiating questions on matters of importance to them. I believe that this proposition has been derived specifically for a political purpose. It is a pity in many ways that in this Bill the referendum process should be used purely for those types of purposes without considering the important principles involved. As I have said, the principle used by the Opposition parties to argue against our Bill was the notion of the decline of the legislature. It is an important issue that we have addressed on a number of occasions. The Australian Democrats have always argued that the notion of having people vote on other issues, particularly if those votes are taken in conjunction with an election, can only enhance the democratic process. I hope that, as a result of introducting this Bill, the Opposition parties will reconsider their rather inconsistent stance in the past. Instead of using this as a political device for those types of purposes, they should actually try to address themselves to the fundamental issue of asking people for their opinions on issues that are of concern to them when they go to elections for the legislature. The notion of asking people about the flag is a good one. But it is also good to ask them about other important issues. How indeed is it now proposed to do that? What is proposed here is not that the people should ask for a referendum on this issue but that the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia should ask for a referendum on this issue. If indeed, as they have argued already in this debate, it has such overwhelming popular support, I imagine one can easily leave it to a popular initiative. Indeed, according to their arguments, there should be overwhelming evidence to show that if we had a popular initiative there would be a referendum on this issue. To me that seems a far better way of dealing with this matter than dragging it into the political debate. The Australian flag ought not to be made the subject of partisan politics. Rather it should be a matter of concern to everybody in Australia and it should not be used for one party or another to wave around when there is an election coming. I was recently in the United States of America at the Democratic Party convention. The American flag was used a great deal. But at the Republican Party convention the flag was also used a great deal. It was seen as a matter not of partisan politics but as being above partisan politics. The exercise that is taking place out in the electorate-I certainly have been the recipient of a large number of letters which show that such an exercise has taken place-has been the case of one political party trying to grasp the Australian flag and say : 'It is ours and we are going to protect it'. That seems to be essentially a base operation which drags the flag down in a way that should not be done. It would be far better if the Liberal and National parties, if they are interested in the protection of the flag of Australia, ensure that it does not become a plaything of political parties. Such an exercise is far better done by allowing the people, through a popular initiative, to say that they want a referendum on this issue-not that the Liberal and National parties want a referendum on this issue. Senator Boswell —How do they do that? Senator MACKLIN —Senator Boswell can do it by supporting our citizens' initiative Bill which the Liberal and National parties have voted against every time it has come up. In other words, they have said that people are not intelligent enough to know whether they want a referendum on the Australian flag but that the Liberal and National parties are intelligent enough to know that the people need a referendum on the Australian flag. That is the essential contradiction of the position of the Liberal and National parties on this issue. The Liberal and National parties, when they were debating our private member's Bill, attacked us and said that all sorts of frivolous items could be put to the people. Quite frankly many people may even believe that this is a frivolous item . Who is to judge what is a frivolous item? Our proposition is that if a sufficient number of people want this as a referendum issue it cannot be considered frivolous. Essentially in this debate the Liberal and National parties have agreed with us on that, yet in the other debate they contradicted us on it. It is about time there was some consistency from the Opposition parties if they are to bring an issue like this forward for serious debate in this place. If it is not a frivolous matter, as the Opposition parties have suggested, and we agree with them, it is one that would come forward under a popular initiative. It does not need to be done through this back door way as a party political operation. It is also suggested that if we went down this road we could end up with unsound legislation; in other words that we could derogate from the rightful position of the Governor-General in Australia; we could say that the Governor- General is not a responsible person, as this Bill effectively says, to sign those types of regulations to change the flag or the national anthem. I need not use a hypothetical example. The attacks made on the Governor-General when he signed for the new national anthem a little while ago suggest that that very well would happen. The attacks were made on the Queen's representative in Australia when he signed the regulation for the national anthem. It is about time that the Opposition parties got some consistency into the operation and recognised that the Governor-General is the Queen's representative in Australia and that when he signed that regulation he expressed the Queen's view on it. That is the technical situation. Senator Boswell —No, that is not right. Senator MACKLIN —I am sorry, it is right. If the honourable senator looks at the Constitution, he will see that that is the Governor-General's constitutional role. Senator Boswell —Does he not take the advice of the Minister or the Government? Senator MACKLIN —Senator Boswell, I suggest you go back to the debates of 1975 and find out what the Governor-General is and is not capable of doing. Senator Boswell —I know what he is capable of doing. Senator MACKLIN —Right, and that is the position which the Opposition parties supported at the time, and that is the Governor-General's constitutional role. Again we have the rather odd view flowing through here that the Governor-General is not capable of making these types of judgments. Another argument used by the Opposition parties was the interest group domination. Again, there is no problem with that and the Bill presents no problem. If we use the normal referenda proposal-that is, if we have a majority of States and electors-it will undoubtedly be the view of the Australian electorate that that ought to be the Australian national flag. But it is recognised in this Bill and then denied in relation to our private members' Bill . That is the essential inconsistency. The Opposition says, yes, it is perfectly all right in relation to this item but not in relation to other items that people may wish to vote on which are of importance to them but possibly not of importance to the National and Liberal parties. Mention is also made of the ideological domination in this area. It might very well be such an area, and it has been suggested that it is, but that cannot be. That was one of the views put forward by the Liberal and National parties in the last debate on this issue. Again they have used the opposite technique here and implicitly say that there will not be any ideological domination. Of course there will not be, of course the proposition that the Opposition has in its Bill is correct. Of course if the people vote on it and express their view, that would be the view of the Australian people. Senator McIntosh —Not necessarily if there is a majority of people-- Senator MACKLIN —No. It is true that in the last referenda campaign a majority of people voted for a proposition that was not passed. I acknowledge the interjection. The other issue which was raised in the earlier legislation, but which was not raised by the Opposition parties in this debate, was the expense of referenda campaigns. None of the Opposition speakers so far has raised that issue. Yet it was one of the important planks that a number of Opposition speakers used against the Australian Democrats proposal on citizens' initiative. At that time we argued that if a referenda campaign is held in conjunction with elections, the cost will be minimal if a significant group of people in the community wish to hold a referenda on that issue. We were looking at a quarter of a million people- Senator Jessop —Are you talking about the plural? You use the plural all the time. Senator MACKLIN —I am sorry, I am using the plural about myself and my colleagues in talking about our private member's Bill, that the Opposition opposed. Senator Jessop —You obviously don't understand Latin, do you? Senator MACKLIN —I understand Latin. If the honourable senator wishes to talk in Latin, I am quite happy to do so. As a matter of fact I taught Latin. If the honourable senator wants to talk in Latin, he can give us a few Latin phrases and sentences and I will respond to them. Otherwise keep your ignorance to yourself. I am sorry, but the honourable senator does not know my background. Otherwise he would not have interjected. The expense of the proposition is a matter which the Opposition parties totally ignored at the time, yet they wish to use it in their Bill. I am not criticising the Bill, but I am criticising the inconsistent stand of the Opposition parties in relation to it. The costs are undoubtedly there, but the Opposition ought to have been arguing that on this issue those costs are warranted, which is what the Australian Democrats have been arguing all along. If a quarter of a million people, not 33 people, want such an issue raised it definitely is warranted. It ought to be something, we believe, which can be borne by the people in terms of the importance of the issue as they see it. We have been arguing constantly that if a significant portion of the population of Australia petition the Government and say 'This issue is of such concern to us'-such an issue would gain those signatures-it would meet the criteria for a popular initiative. The question would then go to the people and we would have a resolution of the matter. That seems to me to be a far better way than to make these issues issues of partisan political concern. We do need symbols in the country. I think everybody acknowledges the usefulness of symbols to any nation, whether they be anthems, flags or a whole host of matters. Symbols play a very important part in the life of any democracy and in any country and have always done so. It is not a matter of whether we should have those symbols-we necessarily will have them-but it is a matter of how best to make sure that they are symbols of unity and not symbols of disunity. That is why I believe it is important that whatever we are debating-a national anthem, a national flag or whatever-we keep the debate out of the political arena as much as we are able so that we can keep them as some symbol in this community of the little bit of unity that we have left. On my understanding this is the first time that an Opposition party has brought into this chamber a Bill which wants to use referenda as a basis for a decision-making procedure- Senator Jessop —A referendum. It is the singular you are talking about. That is what I am trying to educate you on. Senator MACKLIN —I am talking about referenda. If the honourable senator had listened before the suspension of the sitting, instead of swanning and dining elsewhere he would know that I have been talking about referenda and I am not talking about referendum. I am talking about the plural in the negative, Senator . If the Opposition parties are going to embark on a campaign of using referenda , it would be useful, as I have said all along-- Senator Jessop —That is better. Senator MACKLIN —If the honourable senator looks at the Hansard record he will see that I have used the word correctly. The Opposition would then extend its proposition to other matters and not confine it simply to this matter. I think that is the essential argument that we have against the Opposition's approach. I said before the suspension that we will support the Opposition parties on this. We believe it is a matter for people's consideration and deliberative vote . It is a matter that needs to be supported by the wider Australian population as a symbol for this country. They are matters of interest to the wider population; hence they should be matters of deliberation by the entire community . We have emphasised, and we again emphasise, that not only ought they to be matters also of concern to the wider community but also indeed many other matters should be. We hope that following a successful vote on this proposition the Opposition parties will look at their previous votes and realise the inconsistency of their stands, and the next time we introduce a citizen's initiative Bill during General Business, we hope the Opposition will for the first time support it. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(8.09) —Senator Macklin pointed out quite clearly in his speech that this is a political exercise. I suppose nothing demonstrated that more than the fact that we had Senator Macklin , the only person I believe in this place who is capable of getting up and making a speech in Latin, being corrected on Latin grammar by Senator Jessop, who could no more get up and make a speech in Latin or any other language in this place. I think that is typical of what this Flags Amendment Bill is all about. I find it incredible that we have General Business in the Senate-and probably one of the last General Business sessions that we will have in this place if all the things that people say are true-used in this way. We have issues which are of great importance to this country, small matters such as unemployment, economic development, manufacturing industry and all the other things that are important to the people in the community. On a Bill put forward by the shadow Attorney-General calling for a referendum on whether the flag should be changed we have no fewer than 11 speakers from the Opposition. We have social security legislation going through this place which will cost the taxpayers of this country something like $16,000m a year and we have never had anything like 11 speakers on it. We have Bills coming into this place which are of vital importance to individuals in the community, disadvantaged people, workers and so on. I cannot remember a debate on any Bill in recent times, except the Budget legislation in which we have had 11 speakers. It is not just 11 speakers, it is 11 speakers in General Business time-time that is supposed to be precious to the Opposition. Senator Jack Evans —Ten of them carbon copies. Senator GRIMES —Yes, 10 of them carbon copies. Let us look at what the previous speakers have said and the attitude they have taken to illustrate what a political exercise this is. Let me deal first with Senator Kilgariff. He huffed and puffed and based his whole speech on the fact that the Government would oppose this Bill. Well, I am sorry, Senator Kilgariff, but the Government is not opposing this Bill. It has never indicated that it will oppose this Bill and has never suggested any such thing. We would not waste our time opposing legislation such as this, the way the Opposition is wasting its time proposing it. Senator Kilgariff's colleagues, Senator MacGibbon and Senator Walters, have said how terribly important it is to retain the Union Jack up there in that corner of the flag because it reflects and demonstrates our history. If we look at the flags of the States and the Northern Territory of this country we can always tell the flag of the Northern Territory: The Union Jack ain't there. It is not very important in the Northern Territory. It is terribly important in Queensland, in Tasmania, but not in the Northern Territory, where Senator Kilgariff comes from. Yet he waxes and carries on, huffs and puffs and accuses the Government of doing something that it is not going to do. He and his colleagues such as Senator MacGibbon have carried on with a lot of jingoistic nonsense. Senator Walters justifies the Bill by saying that this terrible Prime Minister we have came out one morning and announced that the national anthem had been changed-no debate, no nothing. A previous Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, had a referendum-it was not called a referendum; it was just a vote of all the people of Australia and was conducted with other referendums-and everyone was asked to vote. Advance Australia Fair won easily, and the anthem Senator Walters wanted came third. Yet he did nothing about that at all. Senator Boswell —That was for a national song, not a national anthem. Senator GRIMES —If it was not about a national anthem, what was God Save the Queen doing in the list? As Senator Macklin has said, the majority of people wanted Advance Australia Fair. It won easily, yet Senator Walters says that no one was consulted. The other charge against the Prime Minister was that he changed the national colours. Well, the national colours have been changed many times without consultation with the people, including by Sir Robert Menzies. They have been changed from blue and gold to green and gold to blue and gold and back to green and gold again. No one is questioning that anyone who has anything to do with this country overseas recognises that green and gold are the national colours. Every sporting organisation, every team that goes from this country, everyone who represents this country overseas, whether it be for sport or anything else, represents it in green and gold blazers. It was absolute nonsense to perpetuate the farce that our colours were blue and gold. As Senator Macklin said, this piece of legislation, if one can call it that, is political legislation to allow people to get up and huff and puff and declare their loyalty to the flag and whatever else people want to declare their loyalty to. Of course flags are important to us all, particularly when we are overseas. I have stood at Cardiff Arms Park and had a lump in my throat when the Australian flag went up and the crowd sang Waltzing Matilda when Australia beat Wales at rugby union. I have stood at Headingley at Leeds and had a lump in my throat when the Australian flag went up and the crowd sang Waltzing Matilda not God Save the Queen or Advance Australia Fair-when Australia beat England at rugby league. We have all watched television and seen the Australian flag being raised when someone wins a gold medal at the Olympic Games or Commonwealth Games and they play Advance Australia Fair. At one Olympics they played Waltzing Matilda. We all feel proud about that. Quite frankly, changing the flag is way down on my list of priorities in this country. I would like to see more people in work, I would like to see fewer people poor, I would like to see women with children getting a better deal, and I am not going out on to the streets to march up and down trying to change the flag. We are told by Senator MacGibbon and others that the flag is important because people fought for it in two world wars and strove vigourously to maintain that flag. But they fought for other things as well. They fought for the right of free speech. They fought for the right to get up to advocate a change in that flag if that is what they feel is important. They fought so that if someone wanted to get up and advocate a change in the flag that person would be free to do so without being badgered, abused and accused of being disloyal, and all that sort of nonsense we hear in this place and outside. What is happening in this country at the moment? A group of citizens has decided that perhaps we need a new flag. These people are not socialists, they are not radicals. I doubt whether Sir James Hardy has ever voted Labor. He is certainly a very successful businessman and a credit to his country. Those people say: 'When we go overseas no one recognises our flag. What is even more important, people mistake our flag for something else'. I will tell honourable senators of an occasion on which that happened to me recently. When Sir James Hardy said that and advocated a change, what was the reaction? First of all, he was accused of being disloyal. Secondly, maniacs in a well-known organisation refused to buy the wine that is produced by his company. Thirdly, he was abused right and left as being a traitor to his country, to such an extent that he said 'What is the use, I will give the game away', and he resigned from the organisation. What sort of sane and sensible debate is that? What sort of country have those people who fought under that flag fought for when that sort of nonsense goes on? Senator Crichton-Browne —That is not reflected in this legislation. Senator GRIMES —No, but it is reflected in some of the speeches that have already been made on this legislation. I want to correct some of the things that have been said by Senator MacGibbon. He says that people want to change the flag because no one recognises it. He quite rightly points out that most of us could not recognise any flags other than those of Britain and the United States; that we would suspect that a red flag with a hammer and sickle on it was Russian and that possibly some of us could recognise the tricolour of France. It has been pointed out that in Western Australia recently they did not have an Australian flag so they put up the New Zealand flag. It was up for a week and nobody noticed that it was not Australian. That is a real problem. What people are saying is that our flag is mistaken for other flags, and I think that that is sometimes a problem. Recently on an overseas trip I went to a country where I had six security guards around me the whole time I was there. The reason for that was that three weeks before I got there a representative of the British Council was shot in that capital city. The Australian Ambassador decided that the best thing he could do to protect himself and everyone else in the Embassy from being shot was to festoon the car in which we drove around with Australian flags. Obviously, there was considerable dissension in the Australian Embassy at the time, particularly between the Ambassador and the local staff, about this behaviour. I asked the Ambassador what it was all about and he said: 'People here do not like the British; they shot a British person here a couple of weeks ago. We have put these flags on the car so they will recognise that we are Australians'. We then went for a drive to a well known place in that country and we stopped at three shops on the way-it is terrible that parliamentarians should do this but we did stop for postcards-and at every place the shopkeeper came out and said 'Ah ha, you are British' and looked at the flags. I said to the Ambassador: 'For God's sake, if you want to get us recognised as Australians go and get some of Bondy's boxing kangaroos and put them all over the car, but for Heaven's sake get rid of these flags'. The next day they were all gone. Sir James Hardy and others have raised a valid point. Because they are nationalists and loyal Australians they do not want to be considered to be someone else when overseas. Frankly, as I pointed out when I first spoke, it is way down on my agenda of the things we need to change. I point out that the arguments used have been false. We did have a national ballot, whether or not we call it a referendum, on the national anthem. That was held by the present Opposition parties when they were in government. No one was surprised when the national anthem was made Advance Australia Fair. No one was surprised when the colours were officially made green and gold and I have not seen anyone racing up and down in the streets complaining about it. Frankly, when I read the Morgan polls I do not see that many people in this country have been too fussed about it. This Government has not announced any intention of changing the national flag. We have far more important things to deal with following the mess that those opposite left behind them than to sit here and worry about what should or should not be a new national flag. Although flags are important symbols, people can get too worked up about this subject. I can remember when there was a fuss in Canada about what the new national flag would be. The suggestion of a well known Canadian politician was that they should have a sheet with 'flag' on one side and 'drapeau' on the other, and that would solve everyone's problems. As Senator Macklin said, this debate is about symbols and about how we feel about those symbols. If we have been born and have grown up under the Australian flag as it is at the moment, of course we are proud when that flag is run up. Of course the majority of people in the community at the moment certainly do not want the flag changed. So we wonder what all the fuss is about. We wonder why there are 11 speakers. We wonder why Senator Kilgariff gets up and waves his arms around and screams and shouts that the Government will oppose the Bill when it has no intention of doing so. We wonder why Opposition members get up and scream and shout that the most vital thing for this country is that the Union Jack stay in the corner of the flag. That includes Senator Kilgariff, even though his own Territory's flag has no sign of the Union Jack on it. We do not have to wonder long. As Senator Macklin says, all the arguments used by the Opposition tonight in favour of this referendum procedure were used by the Australian Democrats when they put up their Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill. Any argument one can think of in opposing this Bill tonight was used by the Opposition when it opposed the Democrats' citizens' initiative Bill. I think a reading of the two debates would demonstrate that, as I said, this is just a political exercise, a phoney stunt. We will let the Opposition have its 11 speakers. We could let members of the Opposition talk as long as the time allocated for General Business allows, but at the end of it I do not think they will have moved anyone much. I do not think anyone will be very impressed by the rhetoric and nonsense that has gone on here tonight but they particularly will not be impressed by the fact that 11 speakers on the Opposition side can huff and puff the way they have so far on an issue like this when on issues such as social security, health, taxation and all the other issues we never get anywhere near as many speakers. I can remember when, on one very large piece of taxation legislation, we had only one speaker from the Opposition. I think also that the people will recognise that the Opposition has two and a half hours of General Business each week during which it can decide what will be debated, but it has ignored the fact that it has a whole series of General Business items on the agenda of this Parliament which relate to vital issues and which concern ordinary men and women in this country who have been concerned for some time about the state of the economy, about the state of disadvantaged people in the community and everything else. Of all the issues they could have chosen, they have chosen a phoney issue like this-an issue which in itself is important but which has been put up in such a phoney way and for which they will parade out 11 speakers. In answer to Senator Walters, we have only two speakers because we will not waste our breath answering the nonsense we have heard tonight. If members of the Opposition want to waste their time on General Business the way they have, they can go ahead but we will not waste our breath and our time on it. We will put up a couple of speakers merely to point out that we are not opposing the legislation. We will put up a couple of speakers to point out some of the inanities used in argument by those on the other side. Other than that, we will leave General Business to the Opposition, as we should leave it and as we would have liked it to have been left when we were in Opposition though it never was. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(8.35) —Mr Deputy President, I shall be brief. There is a saying that when rape is inevitable, you might as well relax and enjoy it. It would not be fair to say that the speech of the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, should necessarily be summed up like that, but I could just extract the word 'relax'. It was one of his more laid back speeches and he was saying: 'Relax, what is the fuss about?' I have a reason for concern. It is a concern that goes back some time, and I hope Senator Grimes listens to my concern because it relates to actions of Ministers in his Government about which he is probably unaware. For some time I have had an active interest in the subject of national symbols, going back several years into the time of the Fraser Goverment. After the referendum of 1977 when a majority of voters-not a majority of people, I might say, but around 40 per cent of the vote-did vote for Advance Australia Fair as the national tune, I took up with the Government the subject of the national anthem. There was some confusion following that referendum on what people had actually voted for. I regret that I do not have with me in Canberra this week the correspondence that relates to that. It goes back some time and I am perfectly willing to make it available next week if anyone wants to dispute my recollection of the facts. My recollection of the facts is that the subject of the national anthem went off to an inter-departmental committee, which I will admit is a good way of doing nothing. However, my interest did not die when the Hawke Government was elected. Shortly after that election I wrote to the relevant Minister, asking what was happening about the national anthem and what were the Government's intentions on the subject. I have a series of letters on the subject signed by Mr Kim Beazley. What I got were fob-offs and the word 'relax'. Senator Grimes said tonight that this matter is way down on his agenda of what is important to this Government. That is what Mr Beazley said to me in answer to all the letters that I wrote to him on the subject of the national anthem. He said it was way down the agenda, that the Government would be looking at it in due course but it did not consider it to be significant. Then, bang out of the blue, we had an announcement: Advance Australia Fair, with some amended words, was the national anthem. I do not give a fig for Senator Grimes standing here and saying it is way down the agenda because I have gone down that track with the Hawke Government and its word on the subject is not worth two bob. It just says to relax. It is a bit like the Citizenship Amendment Bill, about which I asked a question this week. It is five months since that Bill came into the Senate and we have had two hours debate on one critical section in it-the removal of the requirement to swear allegiance to the Queen. For five months Senator Grimes, the Minister who represents in this place the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West), has been very relaxed about that Bill. There is no earthly reason why we should not have debated that Bill and voted on that clause . Senator Grimes says it is on the list of Bills for this week and indeed it is. It is the very last one listed and any government knows that the last Bill listed for a week is unlikely to get on that week. This is particularly significant when one looks at the Bills listed ahead of it. That is the citizenship Bill, and the oath of allegiance to the Queen. I have told the Senate how relaxed the Government was about the anthem and then, out of the blue , the change came. Then we had the colours changed. Senator Grimes said some interesting things about that. I have been interested in the colours, too. I agreed to be a Vice-President of an organisation called Ausflag, an organisation represented to me as being interested in national symbols-the flag, the anthem and the colours. I made it very clear when the approach was made to me that I was committed to the present flag; however, if a majority of Australians voted for a different design I would accept the rules of democracy, but until that happened I was committed to the present flag. On those conditions I went into Ausflag. In the entire time during which I was a member of Ausflag it paid no attention to the subject of colours or the anthem. The Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, who is in the chamber, made-I shall watch my language-a smart-Alick comment in the Senate one day in reponse to a question which Senator Bjelke-Petersen asked in relation to the dollar coin and whether the Queen's image would be on it. While Senator Walsh was answering I walked out and resigned from Ausflag because he misrepresented my position. He had no idea why I was a member of Ausflag but he chose, in answer to that question, to try to make a phoney division between Senator Bjelke-Petersen and me. I did not announce it publicly. I have never given a reason until tonight for resigning from Ausflag because I would not have my views in relation to the flag misrepresented, and certainly not by the likes of Senator Walsh. However, three months later Mr Hurford, another Minister of this Government, saw fit to give a Press interview in which he said that I had been subjected to political pressure by the Liberal Party. I denied that, but I did not give the reasons. The reasons were that Ausflag was a 'change the flag' organisation and nothing else and my other interests were not being taken any notice of. After my resignation Ausflag turned its attention to a couple of other things. I will come back to Ausflag because there is a matter in relation to that that I find curious in the context of a totally non-credible case put by the Government on the subject of its intentions on the flag. The Minister for Social Security, after being terribly laid back and relaxed about the flag-just as Mr Beazley was so laid back and relaxed on the subject of the national anthem until for some reason which I am sure Mr Beazley could never give, it was changed-said that the late Sir Robert Menzies changed the colour several times and it was nonsense to perpetuate the farce that our colours were blue and gold. Nobody changed the colours. Until the Hawke Government declared our sporting colours, green and gold, to be the national colours we had unofficial colours. Tradition has it that the colours on the scroll on the Australian crest are our national colours unless other colours are decreed. The other colours were, of course, decreed. The colours on that scroll were blue and gold. It is no accident that the Australian Tourist Commission, which sells tourism to Australia overseas, and the Australian Bicentennial Authority have logos in blue and gold. It is no accident that national bodies, Australian government bodies, have logos in blue and gold. It was because that was the requirement. They were considered to be our national colours until such time as the Government decreed otherwise. Out of the blue-this is another subject about which the Government was extremely relaxed-colours were green and gold. What is the significance of that? I might say that I obtained most of this information during my experience with Ausflag. There is a tradition in heraldry that if a country has official colours they are the colours used on the flag. The colours used on our flag are red, white and blue. There was no conflict in that principle so long as blue and gold had not been decreed by the Government as the official colours. Now the colours have been decreed as green and gold, appalling colours, I might say, for a flag, and my authority on that is Sir James Hardy who has been pronounced an authority on some other matters this evening. We have official colours. And have a flag that is red, white and blue. It was always in my mind that there was a possibility with the present flag. A couple of months ago Woolworths, I think, sent us all a poster depicting all the flags that had ever been used in Australia for one reason or another. There was a flag used by an organisation called the Australasian Anti-Transportation League back in the mid-nineteenth century, which was almost the same as our present flag. The only thing missing was the Federation star. It had the Union Jack and the colours were red, white and blue. It has a blue background and the Southern Cross was in gold. It is a beautiful flag. It was always possible, if people wanted to distinguish between New Zealand's flag-there are some significant differences between our flag and that of New Zealand-to just change the colour of the stars to gold, which would have made it a distinctive flag. Presently it is a beautiful and distinctive flag. It worries me not at all that New Zealand has a flag like it. I never knew what the New Zealand flag looked like until I saw it at the Commonwealth Games in Brisbane. It did not trouble me that I did not know what the New Zealand flag looked like because I would have recognised about four of the flags used at the Commonwealth Games, and they were those of British Commonwealth countries. All that mattered to me was that I recognised the Australian flag, and I think that is all that matters to Australians. Let me get back to the colours. The present flag cannot be translated into green and gold. It cannot be done. There is no difficulty at all in mounting an argument that we need a new flag because the present flag cannot be translated into green and gold. Blue and gold would have been an easy adaption. Why did the Government not make it blue and gold? If it was necessary for us to have official colours why were they not blue and gold? I asked a question of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in this place about the cost to organisations, such as the Australian Tourist Commission and the Bicentennial Authority, of changing the colours given that they would have to change their logo and everything on which it appeared. I asked whether the Government has sought this information before making the decision and, if so, what was the cost . Senator Evans treated my question with the usual sort of contempt with which he treats any question to which he does not know the answer. In due course the answer came that the Government had not considered the cost and, yes, it is considerable to the Bicentennial Authority and the Tourist Commission to change the colours. The Government had not looked at any of those implications. It had another reason for making the colours green and gold. I just do not see why they are better. Green and gold are our sporting colours. There is no problem with having sporting colours different from national colours. I for one was very surprised when the Australian athletes marched on to the oval at the Commonwealth Games wearing blue and white. I would have thought, as all my colleagues who were around me thought, that it would be green and gold, but they were not official sporting colours. It is tradition that we use green and gold. So we were not that closely linked into the colours green and gold. Over a number of years there has been a sporting tradition. I see no difficulty with a sporting flag. If one wants to have the boxing kangaroo-if that is one's feelings about sport; putting on the gloves-I say have it, but I would hate to see a kangaroo on our flag. But that is my view. If the people are given a choice and they vote for a kangaroo I will take it on the chin, but that is my view. Senator Grimes has said that the Government will support the legislation. Well it might. It could have no possible reason for opposing it. But the Minister cannot be so scornful about the reasons for concern in the community-regarding the removal of reference to the Queen from the oath of allegiance, changing the national colours without any consultation with anyone, even those bodies who were tied financially to the previous national colours, and a fob off to anyone who wanted to ask about the anthem. Last but not least I raise the subject of the anthem. I used to give out to groups a cassette which had on one side Advance Australia Fair and on the other God Save the Queen. That cassette came into being during the time of the Fraser Government. With no announcement, no warning-nothing-we now have a cassette courtesy of the Government that has Advance Australia Fair on both sides. Why was there no announcement? I say to Senator Grimes: Why, indeed, would Opposition senators not be feeling a little cautious about the intentions of the Government? I saw one newspaper story on this matter in the Australian otherwise I would not have known it happened. I get these cassettes and give them to people. I do not play them before hand. I present them in good faith. I think the real concern relates to the fact that God Save the Queen to be played only in the presence of royalty. What is the situation with regard to the Governor of a State and the Governor-General? I always understood they were regarded as the monarch in the absence of the monarch. So if a State Governor is present at a function we should pay to him the courtesies we pay to the monarch. If the Governor-General is present we should pay to him the courtesies that are due to the monarch. I believe that if the Government had said that Advance Australia Fair was for non-vice-regal occasions and God Save the Queen was for vice-regal and royal occasions a lot of the sting would have been taken out of the matter. I think that the decision was never explained for the same reason that God Save the Queen is no longer on the cassettes we give out. That song will be played so infrequently that it will reduce in significance to new generations of Australians. I come back finally to the subject of Ausflag. A feature article by Ron Saw, feature writer for the Bulletin and now President of Ausflag since Sir James Hardy resigned, was printed in the Bulletin on 1 May this year. This statement appears: The Ausflag plan is that the new flag will be the result of the co-operation of the nation's three top designing bodies: the Design Arts Committee of the Australian Council, the Design Institute of Australia and the Industrial Design Council of Australia, and that prizes will total $100,000. It would be quite wrong of me to reveal here in the Senate the knowledge I have of Ausflag's finances as at the time I resigned, but I was astounded when I read that there would be a prize of $100,000. I would like to ask the next Government speaker to assure the Senate that that is not $100,000 of public funds and that there has been no indication to this totally unofficial body of financial support for plans to come up with new designs for the flag. I guess the reason I shook in my shoes when I read that statement was the history of the behaviour of this Government on the subject of national symbols. The Bill certainly deserves support. The Government deserves no support at all in the way in which it has treated this matter. Senator Grimes spoke scornfully about the number of speakers on certain Bills. He knows very well agreements are entered into on certain Bills. This week in the Senate he said: 'We will get the citizenship Bill through and voted on provided you do not talk too long'. So on these subjects which are of basic importance to many people we are to shut up and put up. We will not do so because I know from my experience in the electorate that the reservations and worries we express in this debate are reservations and worries that many ordinary Australians have. Certainly, we will talk about unemployment and tax on occasions, and we will talk about the assets test too. I know that bores Senator Grimes now, but we shall also talk about these other issues which are of concern to ordinary Australians and we will not be bluffed, on the grounds of time, out of talking on them. I say to the Government that if it has brought itself unnecessary worry and trouble on this subject, as it claims, it has only itself to blame. A greater demonstration of bona fides on all the subjects I have covered in my speech might have saved much of the Senate's time. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(8.55) —The Flags Amendment Bill 1984 before us today deserves support and I am glad to say that the Government will support it in this House. I hope that it is given a speedy passage in the other place because the flag belongs to the people of Australia. It is their flag. At the moment it can be changed by a Federal Executive Council decision calling on the Governor-General in an Executive Council minute to alter the flag. Whilst the Bill has been introduced in this House by the shadow Attorney-General, I think that the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) deserves to be commended for his actual research on the Bill. I will take Senator Grimes to task on a couple of issues. He made mention of the fact that a referendum was called on the issue of the national anthem. The fact is that the referendum was called to choose a national song. People voted in that referendum for a national song not a change to the national anthem. That must be made very clear to the Senate and to the people of Australia. I was one who voted for Advance Australia Fair as the national song but not as the national anthem. A number of people are concerned because they feel the stealth with which the Government changed the national anthem could be repeated and that the national flag could be up for the same treatment. This is why it is absolutely essential to vote for and to pass this legislation to ensure that the stealth that the government used not only in changing the national anthem but also in taking away the Queen's Medal, in reducing imperial honours and its actions on a number of other issues are not repeated. Previous speakers have covered a great deal of these issues but the facts remain that people are terribly worried about the Government's stealth, because on 26 January 1984, only a matter of six or seven months ago, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said: Again, I take the view that there is a strong case for Australia's distinctive emblem . . . I think as with the issue of the republic, that some time down the track, then it will probably be changed to reflect our distinctive Australianism . The chief law officer of the land, the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, has been vocal in his advocacy of changes to the Australian flag by 1988. In answer to the question, 'Is Australia moving closer to a republic?', Mr Hawke answered: Personally I believe that this is something that ought to and will happen at some stage. So the Prime Minister of Australia has said that he wants a republic. Senator Grimes who is sitting opposite, said: 'Why should we worry? We have plenty of other things on our plate'. Senator Grimes can sit over there and laugh but his Leader has said that he wants a republic. I believe that this is the whole issue which is at stake: In 1988 honourable senators opposite would like to see a republic and have a new flag rise over the new Parliament House of Australia. Senator Jessop —With a hawk on it. Senator BOSWELL —With a hawk on it. The Prime Minister in the Boyer lectures called again for a republic in Australia. The Returned Services League has expressed concern on this issue. Its members have continued to express their desire to keep the Australian flag as it is. I think we have to support their conviction. For them to change the flag would be a complete sellout to every Australian who has gone to war in the two world wars and in other conflicts. These people deserve some recognition of their contribution to Australia. At a recent Queensland local government conference, a resolution supporting the continuance of the present flag was overwhelmingly carried. Only three or four Australian Labor Party controlled councils in the whole of Queensland voted against the motion. Every poll that has been taken shows that around 64 per cent to 65 per cent of the people of Australia support the present Australian flag and do not want any change to it. Absolutely no change is needed and no change is asked for. Senator Grimes —There is no change suggested. Senator BOSWELL —There is a change suggested. The Prime Minister and the Attorney-General have been quoted time and time as saying that they want to change the flag. They know, of course, that that would be electorally unpopular at the moment; the point is that they would like to do it. I am glad that the Government will support this legislation. It may be appropriate now to look at the position with regard to the manufacturing of the flag in Australia. I am glad Senator Grimes finds this amusing. Sixty-seven per cent of the people- Senator Grimes —You're sick. Senator BOSWELL —I call on the Minister to withdraw that remark. I find it offensive. Senator Grimes —I withdraw. I am sorry you are so sensitive. Senator BOSWELL —Thank you. The position at the moment in Australia is that a number of flag manufacturers are being put out of business because the Government has given contracts for the bicentenary flag and the Australian flag to be manufactured in New Zealand. Senator Grimes —That is not true. The Government did not do that. Senator BOSWELL —The Australian Bicentennial Authority, a semi-government department, did. I accept Senator Grimes's point on that. It is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs when semi-government departments buy flags and Australian symbols outside Australia with taxpayers' money. I ask the Minister whether he can, and I call upon him to-- Senator Grimes —What are you saying? Senator BOSWELL —I ask Senator Grimes to see whether he can remedy the situation whereby the bicentenary flags are being manufactured in New Zealand. Senator Grimes —They complained about that when your Government was in too, and it did nothing about it. Senator BOSWELL —Nevertheless, it should not happen. I call upon the Minister's Government to see that it does not happen and that the Australian flag manufacturers receive the contracts for the bicentenary flags. While recognising that the Australian flag is a symbol of our nation, we should also recognise that this flag at an earlier stage was made from Australian wool. We can all recognise the great contribution that the Australian wool industry has made to this nation. This nation has risen to greatness on the sheep's back. Until a few years ago the flag was made from a woollen fibre; it is now made from a petro-chemical substance. I would think there would be no greater honour we could bestow on the Australian wool industry to recognise its contribution to this nation than to have the Australian symbol, the Australian flag, made out of the Australian fibre-wool. In 1988 I would like to see the national flag flying over the new Parliament House, a flag made of Australian fibre in recognition of the great contribution that the wool industry has made to Australia. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(9.04) —I commend Senator Durack for bringing the Flags Amendment Bill 1984 before the Senate, because I think it is an important matter. I agree with Senator Grimes that unemployment is important as well, but I always have a feeling that on occasions in Australia there seems to be a lack of national pride. A debate of this character tends to emphasise that the Australian people are capable of rising to the occasion when it comes to the suggestion that I have heard from time to time that our flag should be changed. I do not think there is anything at all wrong with the historical development of the flag and the traditional association with the United Kingdom from whence a majority of Australians emanated. I always look upon the Australian flag with a great deal of pride. I look back to the days when I was at school. At the beginning of the week we saluted the flag and pledged our loyalty to our country . These days there is a tendency to regard that as being unimportant. Senator Durack is to be congratulated for bringing this subject before the Senate tonight, and I support what he had to say. Not only do I support it, but according to a survey conducted in May this year and reported in the Courier- Mail under the heading 'The flag should stay', 61 per cent of Australians favour keeping the existing flag, 34 per cent favour having the flag changed, and five per cent are unsure. I believe that if we had a referendum on the flag we could assess the position. I was glad to be able to give Senator Macklin a lesson in Latin this evening. Senator Grimes, who is a Latin scholar in a professional sense, will recognise that Senator Macklin realised that the lesson I was giving him was correct. He modified his language and conformed to the singular when talking about a referendum. It interests me that the Australian Democrats seem to carry out referenda on all policies associated with their programs, or so they claim. Some years ago they came into this place and said that they consult their members. I am not sure how many members are in their party, but it would not be more than 400 or 500, or thereabouts. But each time an issue arises, according to what I have been given to understand, they are supposed to have a referendum on it. Senator Boswell —You have business of the week and you go and tick it off. Senator JESSOP —Yes, they do that. So I was very pleased that I was able to contribute to the education of Senator Macklin with respect to the Latin language. It seems to me that there is a growing concern in Australia that the present Government has republican tendencies and wants to isolate Australia from its original ties with the United Kingdom. Of course, we are in fact for the most part independent of the United Kingdom. However, the fact that the Union Jack happens to be in the corner of our flag is an historical fact that ought to be maintained. I heard mention of our national anthem. Some reference was made to a Scot writing Waltzing Matilda, which is quite true. I think Waltzing Matilda, if properly orchestrated, would make a very good national anthem for Australia. I think a disparaging comment was made about Song of Australia, which is very familiar to South Australians because it was written by a German migrant in South Australia called Carl Linger. So we have a Scotsman writing an Australian song called Waltzing Matilda and we have a German writing Song of Australia, which was sung regularly throughout the schools in South Australia and would have made a very satisfactory national song had it been adopted in other States. The words themselves are quite attractive. Senator Ryan —Sing it for us. Come on. Senator JESSOP —I have on many occasions conducted the local town choir at Port Augusta which has sung this song. However, I do not think it is permissible that I sing it to the Senate. The words are very significant. For example, the song commences with the words: There is a land where summer skies Are gleaming with a thousand dyes, It is a pity that the honourable senator did not know that this German migrant had such a poetic vision of what a wonderful country Australia is. An Austrian gentleman called Henry Krips, who also migrated to Australia, wrote a patriotic song called Land of Mine. This is a very interesting and poetic song about the land of his adoption. These migrants are proud to be Australians and they recognise that our flag is significant and is worthy of national support. It was gratifying to hear a lot of comment this evening commending the flag and expressing a wish to retain it. The Returned Services League of Australia, of course, has demonstrated its spirit of national pride by expressing its anxiety that the national flag be retained. Many of its members who came from other countries fought for our freedom. What more important section of the community should we pay regard to than the returned servicemen of Australia, who all say that they want to retain the present flag? That flag waves proudly over this Parliament House. I, for one, can sense a spark of national pride in Senator Ryan, who has been singing something or other. I cannot recognise the tune because I hold the view that she is tone deaf with respect to national spirit or anything else. I think the credibility of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs would benefit if she reintroduced the concept-- Senator Ryan —God Save the Queen. Senator JESSOP —I am not talking about God Save the Queen. She should reintroduce the raising of the flag in Australian Capital Territory schools. If she suggested to the schools that the students should pledge loyalty to Australia the result could be a revival of national pride amongst the young people of Australia, which I believe is quite important. I remember that I made that comment some time ago when I addressed a gathering in Adelaide on Australia Day. The comment was published, strangely enough, in the local Press in South Australia. The next day I was required to comment on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and local commercial stations because the editor of one of the commercial stations regarded what I had said as old hat. He rubbished what I said about the need for Australia to revive some sense of national pride, some national spirit, some drive to ensure that Australia regained its competitive spirit, not only in sport but also in the international trading area. The station was flooded with calls of support for what I had to say. If Senator Ryan has any regard for public opinion, I think she would do well to consider reintroducing the saluting of the flag and the pledging of student loyalty to Australia. The honourable senator is shaking her head. She thinks that is old hat. She would rather disregard the need to foster or revive national spirit in this country, and that is about what the Labor Party's thinking is with respect to the national spirit and fervour of this country. That is one of the reasons why it will survive in government for a very short period. In a survey carried out not long ago people were asked what government was going to be in control of Australia for the longest period over the next 30 years. Obviously the retort to that was the Liberal and National parties. The Labor Party has a history of failure. The only reason why the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has been successful-I believe he is the most over-rated Prime Minister Australia has ever seen-is simply that he has been following the policies of the previous Government. He has claimed responsibility for the breaking of the drought. However, he has forgotten the importance of encouraging national spirit and national pride in this country. The Prime Minister has broken most of his promises. However, the things he has introduced into Australia-the assets test, the tax on superannuation and Medicare-have been abysmal failures. I think the Labor Government and the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, who is slightly tone deaf and sang slightly out of tune, are certainly out of tune with the spirit of the majority of the Australian people. They should regard what I have said seriously. In the national interest not only should the Australian flag be raised every week in schools throughout Australia, but also, perhaps, encouragement should be given to the Australian national song being sung as well. Senator Grimes —Keep going. Senator JESSOP —Unless Senator Grimes wants another Latin lesson, I conclude by again complimenting Senator Durack for having the intelligence, courage and spirit to give us the opportunity to debate this very important question. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(9.19) -I rise to participate in the debate on the Flags Amendment Bill 1984. I believe that the matter being discussed tonight in the Senate is very important, and Senator Durack is to be commended for having brought this matter before us. Indeed, Mr Ian Cameron intends to move in the same way in the other place. It is important for more reasons than one may have originally imagined. It has become more important as I listened tonight to the comments of one or two members of the Government. It does not surprise me, for instance, that after an hour or two the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, should have majestically announced that the Government would support the legislation. He and several others said that it was purely a political exercise. I cannot imagine a more political approach than the approach of Senator Grimes in making that statement, especially in view of his earlier comment when he said that we were tonight wasting our time. Further, he said that it is a phoney issue. Senator Macklin, after alleging that he had some knowledge of the Latin language, said that this was purely a political exercise. Let me make it quite clear that it is not merely an exercise involving the actual changing of the Australian flag; it is an exercise that has been seen to be necessary because of what has happened to a number of things that are held, have been held and I believe are still held to be of some significance in the Australian community. It is an exercise that resulted from the sudden elimination of reference to the Queen from the oath of allegiance. It resulted from people's reflection on the fact that virtually overnight the national anthem had been changed. Those are the reasons that made people, and particularly the Opposition parties in this Parliament, think that the same thing could happen to a whole range of other important measures. One of those measures clearly was the Australian flag. It was with that in view that this legislation was brought about. It does not change anything. It merely makes certain that if it should be seen to be necessary for some reason or other to change the Australian national flag at any time in the next 10, 50 or 100 years, there needed to be a specific measure by which it could be changed. Members of the community needed to be certain that that sort of change would be handled by them and not by the sudden determination of the government of the day, whether it be a Liberal-National Party government or a socialist government. That was and is the purpose of this legislation. It is to make sure that if change is ever sought to the Australian national flag, it can only come about as a result of a decision made by the Australian people and not by some executive authority sitting in the Parliament in Canberra. That is the reason why we are talking about the national flag and that is the reason why we are talking about-as this legislation identifies-the manner in which that flag can be changed, if it is ever changed in the future. Senator Macklin continued to talk about his party's policy for referenda on a whole range of issues. Of course, why would he not talk about that? But it is a totally different thing because the referenda on the whole range of issues that appeal so much to Senator Macklin and which brought him into this debate merely indicate that he is a member of a party that has virtually an ad hoc attitude to almost every issue. A simple way of achieving a solution to that sort of situation is to ask the people what they think about this, that and the other matter. Of course, that sounds very good on the surface. But politics really is a more serious business, a more significant thing and not quite as simplistic as all that. Politics surely relates to a philosophy, a determination of a way of life, and the sort of development of a country and to its people. In order for that to occur a party must have a political party philosophy. Consequently, parties believe in private enterprise or in a socialist state. There are some in the world today who still believe in a fascist state. It is because Senator Macklin and his colleagues perhaps do not know to what political philosophy they are beholden that this idea of a referendum in the case of changing the Australian flag is attractive. It reminds him of his solution to all of his problems, which relate to his ad hoc attitudes to this, that and the other thing , which might well be found in having a referendum on virtually everything that occurs to him. So much for the citizens' initiative which Senator Macklin dwelt on for so long. Let me say one or two things about the Australian flag which we are discussing tonight-not so much about the flag itself but the means by which it may be changed. That is all that this discussion is about. The flag dates back to 1901 and I think it is reasonable to say that it has been flown proudly in the four corners of the globe and is well and truly recognised by Australians. As Senator Martin said, the significant thing surely about any national flag is that the people of that nation recognise it, respect it, fly it and are prepared to defend it and promote it. Indeed, Australians basically have exactly that attitude to our national flag. The reason that brought this about, of course, as I said in the first place, was that suddenly overnight we found that the national anthem had been changed more or less at the stroke of a pen, at the whim of an executive government. That was not regarded as satisfactory. So we looked at the Flags Act 1953. It designates the Blue Ensign as the Australian national flag and empowers the Governor-General to appoint by proclamation other flags and ensigns of Australia. It has a significant history, as I said, dating back to 1901. It is not a flag which arose as a result of somebody's dreams. I understand that about 30,000 designs-all those years ago when, after all, there were only 4 or 5 million people in this country-were forwarded before ultimately the design of the Australian national flag was agreed on. It is not an irrelevant design if one examines it and thinks about it for a moment or two. It is not irrelevant because it has within it the Southern Cross which identifies Australia around the world. The Southern Cross and Australia seem to be almost synonymous. Indeed , the fact that in one small top left hand corner it has the Union Jack does not mean that this is necessarily a British country; but it does mean that the United Kingdom has some sort of relevance in our history, as does the Union Jack and what it stands for. The Union Jack is a combination of a number of crosses of a number of countries. There is no need for us to be constantly concerned with apologising for our past. We are not saying that everything in the past was perfect. We are not saying that everything in the past was necessarily good. But we are saying that the past has a real relevance to the present and to the future. The present constitution or makeup of this flag certainly bears reference to the past, to the history of this country, through the existence of the Union Jack and certainly it geographically indicates the significance of Australia under the Southern Cross and by that it cannot be mistaken. As we talk here tonight on such a wide range of issues, it is important to realise what this Bill does. First, it will allow the Governor-General to declare other flags and ensigns of Australia only by regulation and not by proclamation. Secondly, the Governor-General will not be able to appoint other flags to challenge or detract from the Australian flag as a symbol of our nation or national institutions. Thirdly, and finally, and most importantly I believe, it requires that a referendum be held before there can be a change to the national flag. That purely and simply means that from that time on, if Australians want to change their flag, they will have to indicate that desire through a referendum. It will have to be a decision made literally by the Australian people-a majority of States and a majority of people. I think that is a perfectly realistic and proper circumstance. I am glad that the Government, when coming into this debate tonight-a debate that has resulted from Senator Durack's Bill in this place-has seen fit to say that it supports this proposition. Indeed, the number of Australians poll-wise who support that proposition is even greater percentage-wise than those who support the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). It is no wonder that the Government has indicated it will support this legislation. The important thing is that the legislation is here and that we should seriously bring it into being. It gives the Australian people the right to control the change at any time, if change there must be, to the Australian flag. Let us be quite clear: Change is inevitable in our society. Of course there will be change. The important thing is that we maintain a measure of control over the rate of that change and, more particularly still, especially with a view to this legislation, that we maintain a control of the nature of that change; in other words, how it is to be brought about. Here in our Australia surely there has been extraordinary change over the years-change in lifestyles, change in a range of priorities, change in the compostion of our population, change in the development of our culture and change in the whole socio-economic circumstances in which we are developing. But, as I was saying a short while ago , that does not mean that the past is irrelevant. The facts are that the Australian national flag, as it is today, has a relevance to Australia as it is today and where it is, under the southern cross. It has a relevance to its history and development as a part of what was once the British Empire. It has a relevance indeed to the past and the present and significantly, I hope, a relevance to the future. I fear that as the time for debate has virtually expired, I should round up my comments by saying that this legislation and this debate tonight, which has brought out a measure of humour and lightheartedness and has brought out even a measure of song from the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan), who is sitting opposite , has emphasised the great need to have within the control of the Australian people a real capacity to determine whether their national flag should be changed, and in what nature. That is what the legislation is about. That is what it promotes. It is extremely important that this Parliament should indicate its determination that, if at any time there is a move to change the national flag, it will not occur on the whim of some part of the Executive of some government, whatever government that may be; it will occur only at the command of the Australian people. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(9.35) —I support Senator Durack's Bill, the Flags Amendment Bill 1984, because I believe that any changes to the Australian national flag should be approved by referendum. I was certainly very pleased this evening to hear the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, say that the Government intends to allow a referendum to be held before any thought is made of changing the flag. Most certainly I am glad to join with other members of the Opposition because we feel that there is a great concern in the community that the Flags Act of 1953 is not adequate to ensure the preservation of our Australian national flag. A referendum was taken and came out in the Queensland Courier-Mail which showed that 61 per cent of the people were in favour of the existing flag. We all agree that this is the flag under which many Australian soldiers fought and died. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time allotted under sessional order for the consideration of General Business has expired. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Ryan) 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 Ryan) read a first time. Second Readings Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(9.37) —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- TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL 1984 This Bill implements measures announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his Budget Speech to strengthen existing mechanisms for the collection of tax, to increase the levels of penalty for breaches of the taxation laws, and to modernise provisions for the prosecution of such breaches. The measures in the Bill demonstrate in a tangible way the Government's determination not to let up on those members of the community who could cheat on their fellows, whether by outright tax evasion, participation in artificial avoidance schemes or the use of delaying tactics to postpone tax collections. The Bill arises from a comprehensive review of the penalty offences and collection provisions of the various taxation laws, and it will be evident to honourable senators that the reforms it contains have been painstakingly developed over a considerable period of time. Three broad kinds of improvements to the taxation laws are being implemented. The first relates to existing offence and prosecution provisions, the second to penalty taxes, and the third to the procedures for collection and recovery of taxes. Offence and Prosecution Provisions It goes without saying that while there is a high degree of voluntary compliance with the taxation laws, successful enforcement of those laws depends on adequate sanctions being available for any breaches. Most of the existing penalties are sadly out of date. The maximum penalty, for example, for failure to lodge an income tax return has stood at $200 since 1936. That deficiency is being rectified. In most cases there is to be a 10-fold increase in the maximum monetary penalty for a taxation offence and, where offences carry a term of imprisonment, that term is also being increased. To deal more appropriately with habitual taxation offenders, a tiered penalty structure will operate for second and subsequent offences and will include a liability to imprisonment. The tiered penalty structure will apply to existing offences, such as failure to lodge a return or information or refusing to give evidence when attending before the Commissioner of Taxation, and also to a new group of offences to deal with tax evasion practices in a more complete and certain way than the existing law seeks to do. Under the new rules, it will be an offence to make false or misleading statements or to keep accounting and other business records that do not correctly record and explain the matters contained in the record. For such an offence, the maximum penalty for a first offence will be $2,000. Yet higher penalties will be imposed where a person recklessly or knowingly makes a false or misleading statement or keeps records incorrectly. For those kinds of offences, first offenders will face maximum penalties of $3,000 and second and subsequent offenders penalties of $5,000 or 12 months imprisonment, or both. It will be an express offence to keep records incorrectly or conceal them with the intention of deceiving or misleading the Commissioner of Taxation in the administration of the taxation laws. Falsifying or concealing the identity, address, place of residence or business of a person with the intention of deceiving, hindering, obstructing or defeating the purposes of a taxation law is also to be proscribed. These offences will be punishable by a fine of $5,000 or 12 months imprisonment or both for first offenders and a fine of $10,000 or 2 years for second and subsequent offenders. An important complementary measure to the new offences and penalties will empower courts to order persons convicted of tax evasion offences to pay to the commissioner an amount up to double or treble-according to the nature of the offence-the amount of tax sought to be avoided through the Act that constitutes the offence. Where a tax agent is convicted of an offence of knowingly making a false statement or failing to keep proper records or of falsifying or concealing the identity of a person with the intention of deceiving or misleading the Commissioner, the registration of the tax agent will be suspended for a minimum of three months. To give further impetus to the new penalties, and speed up the prosecution process, the Commissioner of Taxation will be able to institute prosecutions in courts of summary jurisdiction for taxation offences carrying terms of imprisonment not exceeding 12 months and for all offences carrying only a pecuniary penalty. That will enable the majority of taxation offences to be instituted in courts of summary jurisdiction. I now turn to measures that will directly affect companies in breach of taxation laws. Existing provisions that specify a fine or term of imprisonment for breaches of a taxation law apply unevenly as between individuals and corporations. To bring the deterrent effect of those penalties closer together, the maximum monetary penalty to be imposed on companies is to be five times that applicable to an individual for offences which also carry a term of imprisonment . So that persons responsible for breaches of the taxation laws by companies are appropriately dealt with, a director, officer or other person who is concerned in, or takes part in, the management of a company will be dealt with as having committed any taxation offence committed by the company, and be punishable accordingly. This measure is modelled closely on a similar provision in the companies code, but a person able to show that he or she did not aid or abet in the act or commission of the company that constituted the offence and was not, directly or indirectly, knowingly concerned in that act or commission will not face conviction. Some may baulk at this measure but it is important to bear in mind that, before any conviction may be recorded against a person, it will be necessary to prove to the satisfaction of the court that the offence was committed by the company concerned. The only way in which a company can commit an offence is through the actions of its officers or those who control it. In tax matters up to now, such individuals have been able to escape responsibility for their actions or omissons by shielding behind the corporate veil, with the result that prosecutions against corporations have often proven fruitless-usually because there are little or no funds left in the company. In many cases, the persons who would suffer if a fine was imposed on the company are innocent creditors of the company. The new measure is directed against those who are fully responsible for breaches of the taxation laws by a company. Directors and company officers who act honestly and with reasonable competence in their management of a company's affairs have nothing to fear from this measure. All taxation offences committed by companies will be capable of being instituted in a court of summary jurisdiction, but where the maximum penalty for an offence exceeds $25,000 the company being prosecuted may elect to have the matter tried in a supreme court. A similar choice will be available to an individual who is prosecuted for an offence carrying a penalty of more than $5,000. The new offence and prosecution provisions are being enacted in the Taxation Administration Act 1953 so as to provide a uniform code for offences against the various taxation laws. Penalty Tax Provisions A major reform is implemented in the revised penalty tax provisions. Under the existing income tax law, a taxpayer who fails to furnish a return or information when required to do so is liable to statutory additional tax equal to the tax assessable. On the other hand, a penalty of double the tax sought to be avoided may be imposed where assessable income is omitted from a return, a deduction or rebate is falsely claimed, or where tax is sought to be avoided by means of a tax avoidance scheme to which the general anti-tax avoidance provisions of the law apply. Also at present additional tax of only 10 per cent per annum is imposed on tax avoided through international transfer pricing arrangements. The penalty in each of those instances will, under the new measures, be standardised at double the tax sought to be avoided, with a minimum penalty of $20. To remedy an anomaly, an equivalent penalty will be extended to cover attempted avoidance of income tax through participation in blatant tax avoidance schemes in respect of which there is specific anti-avoidance legislation. Where tax is avoided by means of international profit shifting, but it is clear that avoidance was not the sole or dominant purpose of the particular arrangement, the penalty will be 25 per cent per annum of the amount sought to be avoided. Apart from the standardisation of maximum statutory penalties, the new provisions will enable penalties to be imposed in relation to various acts or omissions that, while having an intended effect of avoiding tax, are not presently penalisable. Such activities include the misdescription of expenditure so as to maximise a tax deduction, the claiming of a share of a partnership return and the use of objection procedures to claim a deduction under a tax avoidance scheme where the claim would have been subject to penalty if it had been made at the time of lodgement of the relevant tax return. Several other measures will streamline the penalty tax provisions. One will permit the Commissioner of Taxation to sue in a court of competent jurisdiction for the recovery of unpaid penalty taxes, including late payment penalty, imposed under the various taxation laws. A second will ensure that penalty tax continues to accrue in respect of unpaid tax notwithstanding that judgment for payment of the unpaid tax has been given or entered in a court. Collection and Recovery Procedure Improvements The third major set of measures contained in the Bill is designed to bring about improvements to the procedures for collection and recovery of taxes. Provisions by which the Commissioner of Taxation can recover income tax due from persons who owe money to a tax debtor are being extended to apply to amounts payable to the Commissioner in respect of pay as you earn deductions or deductions made under the prescribed payments system. As well, a defect in those provisions, and equivalent provisions in the Australian Capital Territory payroll tax, sales tax, Australian Capital Territory stamp duty or tax, and wool tax laws is being remedied so that money held in a form of deposit in a building society that in strict legal terms represents share capital of the society may be called on to meet taxation debts. That will place such assets on the same footing as investments in financial institutions generally. Measures are being enacted to counter a practice by which some companies have been able to prevent company tax instalment notices being sent to them by routinely and falsely estimating their incomes below $1,000. Such actions will attract statutory penalty of 20 per cent per annum. Under the existing provisions, statutory additional taxes are imposed for certain breaches of requirements under the prescribed payments system. Equivalent penalties are to be enacted for breaches of the PAYE system and they will apply where an employer fails to make appropriate deductions of tax from salary or wages, fails to forward deducted amounts or fails to affix tax stamps. Further rationalisation of rates of penalty tax is being made in relation to provisional tax estimates and mining withholding tax deductions. The rate of additional tax for a significant under-estimate of income for the purpose or reducing a provisional tax liability will increase from 10 per cent to 20 per cent. A corresponding increase will be made to the penalty for failure to deduct mining withholding tax from a payment for the use of aboriginal land for mining or mineral prospecting purposes. The Commissioner of Taxation is to be authorised to prevent persons fleeing Australia to escape payment of tax in limited circumstances. The Commissioner will be able to serve a departure prohibition order on a person if he believes on reasonable grounds that there is a likelihood of that person departing Australia without discharging an outstanding tax liability or making satisfactory arrangements for it to be discharged. It will be an offence punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 or 12 months imprisonment for a person on whom a notice has been served to ignore the notice unless departure is authorised by the Commissioner. A departure authorisation certificate will enable such a person to leave Australia temporarily, if the Commissioner is satisfied either that the person will return and the tax liability is likely to be discharged, or that temporary departure should be allowed on humanitarian or general policy grounds. A departure prohibition order is revocable when the person's tax liabilities are discharged and the Commissioner is satisfied that any liabilities arising out of completed transactions will also be discharged or would be irrecoverable. The aid of the Australian Customs Service and the Australian Federal Police and, in appropriate cases, the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, will be invoked in detecting and preventing the unauthorised departure from Australia by a person subject to an order. An appeal will lie against the making of a departure prohibition order, and against a decision by the Commissioner not to revoke an order or to refuse to issue a departure authorisation. Other Amendments Some further measures are being implemented in tandem with the improvements to the penalties, offences and collection provisions. The Taxation (Interest on Overpayments) Act 1983 is being amended so that the Commissioner of Taxation will pay interest on certain refunds of sales tax, Australian Capital Territory stamp duty or tax, estate duty, gift duty, Australian Capital Territory payroll tax, tobacco charges and wool tax that are made following the resolution of a dispute in favour of the taxpayer. Interest is to be payable in respect of those taxes which are, under other provisions of the Bill, exposed to penalty tax of 20 per cent per annum if they are not paid by the due date for payment. The measures are consistent with those applicable in relation to income tax refunds. The opportunity is also being taken to enunciate in the income tax law the principle that any pecuniary penalty, additional tax or other amount imposed on a person for failure to comply with a law is not an allowable deduction. Finally, the Bill will enable applications for tax clearance certificates required for the purposes of the revised tax screening arrangements announced on 19 June 1984 to be made under and considered in accordance with the established legislative basis contained in the Taxation Administration Act 1953. A technical explanation of each provision of the Bill is contained in the memorandum circulated to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate. INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 4) 1984 This Bill will amend the income tax law in various respects, primarily to give effect to the Government's Budget proposals in the business and personal tax area. It will also modify the prescribed payments system along the lines foreshadowed by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on 4 September 1984 following the Government's review of the first months' operation of the system. I will briefly address each of the main provisions of the Bill. Transfer of Loss Within Company Groups One of the important initiatives announced by the Treasurer in his Budget Speech on 21 August 1984 to stimulate business activity concerns the taxation treatment of losses within a company group. To give effect to this measure, the income tax law is to be amended to allow a resident company which incurs a loss in the 1984 -85 income year, or a later income year, to transfer the right to an allowable deduction in respect of the loss to another resident company in the same company group. The mechanism by which this will be achieved will be the giving by the respective companies of a formal notice to the Commissioner of Taxation of the amount of the loss incurred in a year which is desired to be transferred between them. The system will be a straightforward one. A loss available for transfer by a company will be determined in accordance with established income tax principles, that is, the available loss will be the excess of allowable deductions-other than carry-forward losses-over the assessable income and any exempt income of the company. Subject to existing anti-avoidance rules in this area, the right to an allowable deduction for a loss incurred by one company in an income year may be transferred to another company for deduction in that year where there is 100 per cent common ownership between the tranferor and transferee companies in that year. Similarly the right to an allowable deduction for a company loss may be transferred in an income year after the year in which the loss was incurred if the 100 per cent common ownership test is met by the transferor and transferee companies in the loss year, the transfer year and any intervening period. Subject to these basic rules, a loss of one company in a group will be able to be transferred to other members of the company group in any of the seven years succeeding the year of the loss. Losses incurred in carrying on a business of primary production will be available for transfer without limit as to time. The amount of the loss which may be transferred to a company in any year will be limited to the total of the net exempt income and taxable income of the transferee company. Finally, I would note that this change in the taxation treatment of company groups will not affect revenue collections in the current year. From an initial estimated revenue cost of up to $200m in the 1985-86 financial year, the cost is expected to decrease over time to an eventual ongoing full-year cost estimated at about $50m. Capital Expenditure on Non-residential Income-Producing Building The annual deduction allowable in respect of non-residential income-producing buildings, including short-term traveller accommodation, is to increase from 2.5 per cent to 4 per cent of the cost of construction. Like other Budget initiatives in the area of business taxation, this measure will encourage greater investment by the business sector. In particular, it will provide a significant boost to the construction industry. The amendment will apply to buildings or extensions, alterations or improvements to buildings that commence to be constructed after 21 August 1984. It is estimated that the increase in the annual deduction will cost $5m in 1985-86, with the cost to revenue growing each year over a number of decades. Investment Allowance Under the existing law, the 18 per cent investment allowance would last apply to eligible capital expenditure incurred under a contract entered into before 1 July 1985, provided the subject property is used or installed ready for use before 1 July 1986. That latter cut-off date is being extended by one year to 1 July 1987. While the extension will be of particular assistance to firms undertaking large projects with lengthy lead times it will not be restricted to such projects. This limited extension to the investment allowance concession will have no cost in the current financial year, but in total it is estimated to cost in the vicinity of $70m to $100m, of which about 40 per cent should occur in 1987-88. Mineral Exploration and Prospecting Expenditures Expenditure incurred on exploration and prospecting on a mining tenement in Australia for minerals other than gold or petroleum is presently deductible only from a taxpayer's mining income and associated income. This Bill will give effect to the Government's decision that such expenditure, where incurred after 21 August 1984, is to be deductible from income derived from any source. This measure which will be of considerable assistance to the mining industry is estimated to cost $8m in 1985-86 and $10m in 1986-87. Zone Rebates Amendments proposed by this Bill will increase by 25 per cent the basic component of the rebates available to taxpayers in both zones A and B, and in the special areas of those zones. The rebate for zone A will be increased from $ 216 to $270, for zone B from $36 to $45 and for the special areas from $750 to $ 938. The basic component of the rebates available to taxpayers serving outside Australia with a United Nations armed force or with an Australian Defence Force in a designated overseas area-which since their inception have been set at levels corresponding with the prevailing zone A rebate-also will be increased by 25 per cent from $216 to $270. Because these increases are to apply from 1 November 1984, the basic rebate in 1984-85 for zone A and for overseas forces will be $252, for zone B it will be $42 and for the special areas of zones A and B, $875. A further measure announced in the Budget which this Bill will implement is the extension with effect from 1 July 1984 of eligibility for the special basic zone rebate to people in or near urban centres the populations of which fell below 2,500 since 1976. Those in or near urban centres where populations have increased marginally beyond 2,500 since 1976 will not lose their entitlement to rebate. The cost to the revenue of these changes will be $ 5m in 1984-85 and $11m in a full year. Dependent Spouse Rebate The Bill will also implement the Budget proposal that, with effect from 1 July 1984, entitlement to the income tax rebate for a dependent spouse will be extended to persons living in a de facto relationship. For these purposes a de facto relationship is to be defined as a man and a woman living together as husband and wife on a bona fide domestic basis although not legally married to each other. Recognition of a de facto relationship will benefit couples who, for some time, have been treated for social security purposes on the same basis as those legally married. Until now people in such circumstances have not been entitled to a rebate for a de facto spouse and have therefore been required to pay more tax than a legally married taxpayer in comparable circumstances. Under the proposed amendments a housekeeper rebate will not be available for a de facto spouse nor will a taxpayer with a de facto spouse be entitled to a rebate for a daughter-housekeeper. Recognition of de facto relationships will flow through to the variable components of zone and overseas forces rebates that take account of dependants. A taxpayer who contributes to the maintenance of the parent of his or her de facto spouse will similarly become eligible for the dependent parent rebate. Finally, and subject to the threshold of $2,000 which applies, eligibility for the general concessional expenditure rebate will be extended to such expenditure incurred by a taxpayer in respect of his or her de facto spouse. These changes will involve a cost to revenue of $2 million in 1984-85 and $7 million in a full year. Rebate for Pensioners As announced in the Budget Speech, the taxable income level at which the $250 tax rebate for pensioners begins to shade-out is to be increased to reflect the effect of the new personal income tax rate scale to apply from 1 November 1984. The taxable income level at or below which the maximum rebate of $250 is available will be increased from $5,429 to $5,533 for the 1984-85 year and to $5 ,595 for subsequent years. The rebate will shade-out above these income levels, resulting in some rebate being available until taxable income exceeds $7,532 in 1984-85 and $7,594 in subsequent years. Social Security Beneficiary Rebates A measure implemented by this Bill to assist low income earners is the introduction of special taxation rebates for unemployment, sickness and special benefit recipients. The rebates will ensure that persons wholly or mainly dependent on social security benefits do not have to pay tax. The maximum rebates of $50 for single beneficiaries and $75 for married beneficiaries will mean that in 1984-85 no tax will be payable on taxable incomes up to $4,783 for single beneficiaries and $7,989 for married beneficiaries. The rebate will shade-out above these income levels, resulting in some rebate being available until the 1984-85 taxable income exceeds $5,182 for a single beneficiary and $8,588 for a married beneficiary. Provisional Tax As provisional tax complements the pay as you earn system and is designed to collect tax on income other than salary or wage income within the year in which the income is derived, it is generally accepted that the amount of provisional tax charged should approximate as closely as practicable the amount of tax actually imposed for the year. Incomes for 1984-85 are expected to be higher than for 1983-84 and, due to the changes to the personal income tax rate scale applying from 1 November 1984, effective rates of tax for 1984-85 will be lower than for last year. Accordingly , as in past years, it is proposed to vary the basis of calculating provisional tax for 1984-85 to be notified in assessment notices to issue this year. This Bill thus provides for 1984-85 provisional tax to be calculated on the basis of 1983-84 taxable income increased by 10 per cent and by applying the lower rates of tax to apply for 1984-85. Also reflected in the provisional tax calculation will be the full year medicare levy rate of one per cent. The increased low income thresholds and ceiling to apply for levy purposes in 1984-85 will be taken into account. Generally, rebates will be allowed in the provisional tax calculation at the levels allowed in 1983-84 assessments. Taxpayers will continue to have the right to 'self-assess' and have the provisional tax for 1984-85 recalculated on the basis of their own estimates in appropriate circumstances. Deduction of Certain Expenditure on Fences The scheduled termination of the immediate deduction for expenditure incurred on fencing to help eradicate bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis in livestock will be extended by two years, to 30 June 1986. The proposed extension of this concession will further assist primary producers in those areas, particularly the remote regions of northern Australia, which have the most difficult and continuing eradication problems. The revenue cost of extending the concession is estimated to be $0.1m in 1984-85 and $0.5m in each of 1985-86 and 1986-87. Gifts The Bill will also extend the gift provisions of the income tax law to give effect to proposals announced by the Treasurer in the Budget Speech. One extension will authorise deductions for gifts made after 20 March 1984 to the Work Skill Australia Foundation. Another will authorise deductions for gifts made after 21 August 1984 to the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia. A further extension will ease in two respects, the requirement that a donor of property must have purchased the property within the 12 months preceding the making of the gift. The first of these concerns gifts to national trust bodies of property that is listed in the register of the national estate. Because of the timing and manner of its acquisition property of this kind would generally be precluded from deduction. The Government recognises the great importance of the work of the national trust in preserving properties of historical and heritage significance and this measure will assist the trust in carrying out its valuable work. The second change concerns gifts of trading stock made to an authorised fund, authority or institution. Under the present law, gifts of trading stock that is not purchased within 12 months of the making of the gift are not deductible but the value of the trading stock is, under ordinary assessment rules, included in the assessable income of the donor. In contrast, had such a donor first sold the trading stock and then donated the proceeds, the proceeds would be taxable but the donor would be entitled to a deduction for the gifts. The amendment will ensure that the income tax law applies neutrally as between donors of trading stock and donors of the proceeds of a sale of trading stock. This further extension will apply to gifts made after 21 August 1984. Australian Trading Ships As announced by my colleague the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) on 2 July 1984, the Government has decided to amend the provisions of the income tax law that authorise special concessions for eligible Australian trading ships. Honourable senators will recall that these concessions were introduced earlier this year in order to provide greater incentives for the Australian shipping industry. These concessions are intended to promote greater efficiency in the manning of Australian ships. The amendments will modify the requirements that are imposed upon the secretary to the Department of Transport in determining the maximum complement of officers and crew which, in his opinion, is appropriate for the safe and efficient manning of ships eligible for the tax concessions. Primarily the amendments are to remove any suggestion that industrial relations considerations are a dominant or overriding factor to be taken into account when determining manning levels. They will make clear that industrial relations considerations, where relevant, are but one of the factors to be considered. Substitution of Semi-government Securities On 7 August 1984 the Treasurer announced the intention to amend the law to remove unwarranted tax effects where securities are issued by State central borrowing authorities in substitution, on a matched term basis, for semi- government securities previously on issue. The Bill will do this. Since that time, it has come to the Government's attention that at least one state has in existence a central borrowing authority which is similarly empowered to consolidate the borrowings of local government bodies. Some other States are expected to follow this lead. Accordingly, the amendments will extend also to substitutions of local government securities. Under the present law such a substitution may be treated as a realisation of the original securities at their market price on the day of substitution and an acquisition of the replacement securities at the same price on that day. Dealers would stand to be taxed on any gains and could deduct any losses on the realisation of the securities being replaced although no effective change of investment occurs. The Bill will ensure that tax effects of this kind do not arise as an incidence of such substitutions. Any new securities received as a consequence of a substitution by a central borrowing authority, if on a matched term basis, will be treated for the purposes of the income tax law as if they were the original securities, and as having been purchased on the same day and at the same cost as the original securities. The amendments will apply to substitutions that occur on or after 8 August 1984. Prescribed Payments System Honourable senators will recall that this system was designed to deal with the significant tax evasion problem of non-reporting and under-reporting of income in certain industries. It has been very successful in that regard. However, the Government has always acknowledged that some changes to the operation of the system could be warranted, and undertook to review its first six months' operation. That review was completed recently, and on 4 September the Treasurer announced details of the major changes which the Government had decided to make to the prescribed payments system. There are three changes that will significantly improve the practical working of the system. The first will enable the expiry dates of deduction variation certificates and obligation transfer forms for the majority of taxpayers to be spread between the period 30 June and 31 October each year. Another will allow a payer who, by the obligation transfer form procedure undertakes to complete deduction forms for a payee, to renew that procedure automatically each year. The third will give to a payer using that procedure the option of completing a deduction form for each payee annually instead of completing them on a monthly basis. Further changes will exclude from the scope of the system liquidators of companies that are being wound up and trustees in bankruptcy, allow excess deductions resulting from a genuine oversight or error to be refunded by the Commissioner of Taxation, and remove the existing no tax to pay basis of issuing deduction exemption certificates. The Government is satisfied that these modifications will not affect the anti-evasion objectives of the system, but will significantly lessen the administrative and paperwork burdens associated with it. The amendment will also clarify the responsibilities of accountants who are required to support their clients' applications for exemption from this system. This matter has caused some disquiet within the ranks of the accounting profession since the system's introduction. Finally, the amendment will make some changes of a housekeeping kind which, in his statement on 4 September, the Treasurer indicated would be announced at this time. The first of these changes will relieve householders who do not have to report payments made to exempt payees in connection with a construction project of the obligation to notify the Commissioner of Taxation of the project's completion. Another will provide a basis for the allowance of credit for tax deducted from prescribed payments in situations where a trust estate sustains a loss. The last such change will make it clear that the benefit of a deduction variation or exemption certificate can only be obtained in relation to prescribed payments made when the certificate is in force. The changes will be particularly welcomed by all persons associated with the system, and by affected industry and other bodies which contributed to the review. Detailed explanations of the measures proposed in this Bill are contained in a memorandum and a supplementary memorandum that are being circulated to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate. INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS) AMENDMENT BILL 1984 This Bill will amend the taxation law in relation to Australia's international taxation agreements in several respects. First, it will make clear Australia's right to tax distributions by Australian business trusts to residents of countries with which Australia has concluded a comprehensive taxation agreement. The Government's intention to clarify the operation of our taxation agreements in this area was announced on 19 August 1984. Secondly, it will give the force of law in Australia to a protocol signed on 20 March 1984 to amend the existing taxation agreement with Belgium, and to a comprehensive taxation agreement with Malta that was signed on 9 May 1984. Details of the protocol and the agreement were announced when each was signed, and copies of both were made available to the public at that time. The Bill will also make minor technical changes to the law. I turn now to detailed comment on the main features of the Bill. Foreign Beneficiaries This measure is in response to a technical argument to the effect that Australia would be unable to tax distributions of business profits derived in Australia by a trust where those distributions are made to a beneficiary-or unit holder in the case of a unit trust-being an enterprise resident in an agreement partner country. It is claimed that, since the trust does not represent a permanent establishment of the beneficiary in Australia, the business profits article in our taxation agreements would operate to shield the beneficiary from a liability to tax in this country. The Commissioner of Taxation has advised the proponents of that argument that he does not accept their view and would contest any such cases coming to his attention. However, if a court were to uphold the argument, Australia's taxation agreements would have a completely unintended effect that could lead to substantial revenue losses. Against this background the Government decided that, to guard against potential revenue losses, legislative action consistent with Australia's domestic tax policy and with what was clearly intended when our taxation agreements were negotiated was needed to put beyond doubt Australia's right to tax distributions of the business profits in question. To that end, the provisions of this Bill will amend the present Australian domestic law so that a beneficiary or unit holder resident in a taxation agreement partner country who is entitled to a share of trust income derived from business operations carried on in Australia, will be deemed to be carrying on the business of the trustee through a permanent establishment situated in Australia. This will ensure that, in accordance with the rules contained in the business profits article of our various taxation agreements, the non-resident will be subject to Australian income tax on that share of business income. This clarifying measure will apply to distributions of business profits to which a beneficiary overseas became entitled after 19 August 1984, the day on which the Treasurer announced-after all of our agreement partners had been informed-the Government's intention to legislate in the manner outlined. The Belgium Protocol The Protocol with Belgium will amend the existing agreement with that country to take account of three developments in the taxation field in Australia since the agreement was signed in 1977. The first two amendments will fully preserve Australia's right to apply its revised transfer pricing provisions to our own resident enterprises, and specifically recognise the 'branch profits tax' provided for in our domestic law. The third change is necessary to overcome certain technical deficiencies in the definition of the term 'royalties' contained in the existing agreement. That definition applies to 'payments' for the right to use property, but does not cover amounts that, instead of being paid, are merely credited. A further deficiency in the definition occurs in relation to arrangements under which, instead of agreeing in the normal way to a formal grant of the exclusive right to use industrial property, the parties agree that the owner receive consideration for not granting the rights of anyone else. The new definition of the term 'royalties' to be inserted in the existing agreement by the amending protocol will rectify these shortcomings. These changes will bring the agreement with Belgium into line with Australia's other recently negotiated agreements and with Australia's current tax treaty practice. The Maltese Agreement I now turn to the comprehensive agreement that deals with all forms of income flowing between Australia and Malta. In general, comprehensive taxation agreements have two primary objects-the elimination of international double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion. The first of these objects is achieved by the contracting countries agreeing to allocate taxing rights between them. There are various ways by which this is done, depending upon the nature of the income. For example, some classes of income will be taxed only in the country of residence while others will be taxed only in the country of source. A third category is comprised of income which may be taxed in both countries, with the country of source generally agreeing to limit its tax, and the country of residence of the taxpayer agreeing to allow a credit against its tax on such income for the tax paid in the other country. The agreement with Malta accords in all essential respects with the position that Australian governments have taken over the years in relation to comprehensive taxation agreements. It provides for the country of source to limit its tax on dividends. For its part, Australia will reduce the rate of withholding tax on dividends flowing to Malta from the normal 30 per cent rate to the 15 per cent rate specified in the agreement. In the case of Malta, the agreement provides that the Maltese tax payable by Australian residents on the gross amount of the dividends received from a Maltese company is not to exceed the company tax chargeable on the profits out of which the dividends are paid. This reflects the Maltese system of taxing company profits and dividends whereby the income tax on company profits distributed as dividends is treated, in effect, as tax paid by shareholders on the dividends. The agreement also provides for the country of source to limit its tax on the gross amount of interest and royalties flowing to residents of the other country . The limit is 15 per cent for interest and 10 per cent for royalties. As the rate of withholding tax on interest under Australia's domestic law is 10 per cent, this will not be affected by the limit on the source country tax provided for in the agreement. In Australia, royalties paid to non-residents are taxed by the ordinary assessment basis on the net amount, after deduction of expenses and, accordingly , the limit specified by the agreement by reference to gross royalties will not affect the amount of Australian tax on royalties unless the tax which would otherwise be assessed on the net royalties is greater than 10 per cent of the gross amount of the royalties paid to Maltese residents. Malta may, however, in some cases, in accordance with its industry incentive legislation, wholly or partially exempt from Maltese tax certain dividend, interest and royalty payments made to Australian residents. If nothing were done to avoid the situation, the tax so forgone by Malta would simply result in a corresponding reduction in the credit to be allowed by Australia against its tax on the relevant dividend, interest and royalty payments. In other words, the Australian revenue would pick up the tax forgone by Malta, thus nullifying the incentive. To avoid that result, provision is made in the agreement for Australia, as a 'tax sparing' measure, to allow a credit against its tax for tax forgone by Malta under agreed Maltese incentive legislation, as if notional tax equal to 15 per cent of the gross dividend income and 10 per cent of the gross interest and royalty income had been paid to Malta. The agreement contains measures for the formal relief of double taxation of income that may be taxed in both countries, with the country of residence of the taxpayer affording the necessary relief by the allowance of a credit against its tax for tax paid to the country of source. So far as Australian residents in receipt of income from sources in Malta are concerned, income in respect of which a limit is imposed by the agreement on Maltese tax-dividends, interest and royalties-will generally be taxed here with credit being allowed for the Maltese tax. However, because of the general rebate on inter-company distributions, there is effectively no tax on dividends received from foreign sources by Australian resident companies. The Bill does not disturb the position that other income that is taxed in the country of source is exempt from Australian tax. So far as the object of preventing fiscal evasion is concerned, provision is made in the agreement for the exchange of information and for consultation between the tax administrations of the two countries. Apart from the provisions I have mentioned, the agreement also contains usual provisions of a kind common to taxation agreements relating to the taxation of business profits, professional services, employees, public entertainers, students, pensioners and so on. The protocol and agreement contained in this Bill cannot enter into force until all necessary constitutional processes are completed both by Australia and the other partner country. For Australia, this Bill will, when assented to, complete the processes required of us. Neither the Maltese agreement nor the Belgium protocol is expected to have any significant net effect on revenue. A memorandum containing more detailed explanations of technical aspects of the Bill and of the protocol and agreement is being circulated to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Ryan) 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 the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration 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 Ryan) read a first time. Second Readings Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(9.39) —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- HEALTH LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1984 By this Bill the Government proposes to make certain amendments to- The Epidemiological Studies (Confidentiality) Act 1981, The Health Insurance Act 1973, The National Health Act 1953, and The Tuberculosis Act 1948. The Epidemiological Studies (Confidentiality) Act 1981 provides for the confidentiality of information on personal affairs which is collected for those epidemiological studies prescribed under the Act. The amendments to that Act, proposed in clauses 3, 4 and 5 of this Bill, are designed to ensure that the Act provides for confidentiality in relation to information regarding the affairs of deceased persons as well as the living. The need for the amendment arose out of concerns that the references to ' population' and 'persons' in paragraph (a) of the definition of an ' epidemiological study' in sub-section 3 (1) of the Act might be construed so as to exclude the affairs of deceased persons from the scope of the Act. The proposed amendment is intended to resolve any possible doubts for the future and is not seen to effect an alteration in the law. I now turn to that part of the Bill which amends the Health Insurance Act. The Medicare legislation which came into effect on 1 February this year removed the Commonwealth's power to approve public hospital beds. This reflected the Government's policy that such matters, relating to the administration of public hospitals, were the responsibility of the States. However the Commonwealth, through its health insurance responsibilities, retains an interest in ensuring that fund benefits are paid in the correct circumstances. The amendments proposed at clause 7 and 8 remove any doubt that fund benefits are payable to private patients in both private and public hospitals. Clause 8 of the Bill will allow certificates under section 3B of the Health Insurance Act to be issued up to 14 days before they come into effect. At present they can be issued up to seven days before they come into effect. Section 3B certificates are issued by medical practitioners and state that a long stay in-patient of a hospital is in need of acute care for a certain period . This certificate entitles the long stay patient to the full level of health fund benefit, and exempts him or her from the requirement to pay a patient contribution. The amendment allows more time, in cases where section 3B certificates are referred for review by an acute care advisory committee, for the determination of whether the certificate is to be varied or revoked before it comes into effect. This will reduce the likelihood of such patients being faced with a retrospective payment to the hospital. I wish to emphasise that this legislative amendment is only one facet of a comprehensive review of the operational aspects relating to the arrangements for long stay patients in hospitals. A number of other matters are being addressed administratively, with the aim of removing many of the concerns that have been expressed. These matters include the development of uniform national guidelines on what constitutes 'acute care' for use in the context of the section 3B arrangements. In the near future these guidelines will be distributed to all doctors and should assist in achieving a greater understanding of the whole assessment and decision making process. It is emphasised that despite the formulation of these guidelines, it will continue to remain the responsibility of individual doctors, based on their professional judgment, to assess whether patients are in need of acute care. In addition, the form of the section 3B certificate is being re-designed and, among other things, the revised certificate will include a statement making clear that the penalties which apply for the provision of false information, and which have been of concern to the medical profession, will not apply to the bona fide expression of medical opinion. A general streamlining of the section 3B processing procedures is also being undertaken in the interests of reducing the possibility of patients incurring financial hardship when section 3B certificates are referred for review by an acute care advisory committee. The effect of clause 9 of the Bill is to enable the Minister for Health to determine that a health service and its associated fee, which are not listed in the medical benefits schedule, shall be treated for the purpose of the health legislation as if that health service and fee were included in the schedule. Currently there is a 'pay-under' scheme which ensures that Medicare benefits are paid where a medical service not listed in the schedule but regarded as a legitimate service, is carried out. The practice for many years has been to pay benefits under the nearest item in the schedule. New section 3C, which would be inserted into the principal Act by this clause, applies both to individual health sevices and classes of services. Determinations made under section 3C would be subject to tabling in both Houses of Parliament and scrutiny by either House. Services specified in determinations would be subject to the same legal provisions which would apply if they were in the medical benefits schedule. Modifications were made to the 'pay under' scheme from 1 November 1983. This reduced, but did not entirely remove, the need to continue to use this practice for certain categories of sevice. The Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) subsequently indicated that as the arrangements were not authorised by legislation, appropriate action should be taken to remedy the situation. I should point out that it takes some time to have new items introduced into the medical benefits schedule, and of course it is unacceptable to defer payment of Medicare benefits while this is taking place. In addition, it is undesirable to clutter up the schedule further by including services which are used only infrequently or are transient in nature. Taking all these factors into account, the mechanism which this clause contains is both appropriate and essential for the proper payment of Medicare benefits in those cases where a legitimate service is not covered by the medical benefits schedule. I now turn to the clauses in the Bill which provide for the nursing home benefits provisions in the National Health Act to be amended. These are clauses 11 and 12, 15 to 21 inclusive and 26. The proposed amendments will enable Commonwealth nursing home benefits to be paid for patients temporarily absent from nursing homes. It is anticipated that this will also facilitate the admission of respite care patients who will be able to take the place of patients temporarily absent. The proposed amendments will authorise one of a number of initiatives announced in the Budget to assist aged and disabled people . The Government has been concerned that these people should be helped to maintain maximum independence. The present rigidities in the nursing home benefits arrangements have inhibited this, and have led to some nursing home patients incurring severe financial burdens. The arrangements have deterred nursing home patients from leaving nursing homes for short periods, consequently restricting the beds available for respite care. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) has received many representations on behalf of patients who have had to be temporarily hospitalised and who have experienced severe financial difficulties through having to pay the full nursing home fee during their absence to ensure that their bed is available upon their return to the nursing home. At present such a patient is often required to pay both the patient contribution and an amount equivalent to the Commonwealth nursing home benefits to ensure his or her bed is retained. Similar problems are experienced by patients who temporarily leave a nursing home, for example to stay with relatives. Clause 12 of the Bill provides for the proprietor and the patient, or a person acting on the patient's behalf, to enter into a common form of agreement covering the patient's temporary absence. The purpose of the agreement will be to record clearly but simply the essential obligations of the patient and the proprietor in relation to the patient's temporary absence. While clause 12 refers to some of the matters that may be covered in the agreements, it is the intention of the Miniser for Health to consult with the nursing home industry and with organisations representing patients to ensure that the common form of agreement enables clear and equitable arrangements to be entered into. Where the temporary absence of a qualified nursing home patient is covered by an agreement, clause 12 also provides for Commonwealth nursing home benefits to be payable for a period or periods of temporary absence totalling up to 28 days in a year. Should the agreed periods of temporary absence exceed 28 days, the benefits will cover the first 28 days. So, during these periods of up to 28 days in each year, it is proposed that patients will be required to meet from their own resources a bed retention fee not exceeding the difference between the full fee and the commonwealth nursing home benefits. Proprietors will be encouraged to use the beds of temporarily absent patients for the provision of short term respite care whenever practicable. Clauses 15 and 17 of the Bill provide for such respite care patients to be subject to admission procedures similar to those applying to other patients. Proprietors will only be able to admit patients approved as needing respite care in a nursing home. Provision is made, in clause 26 of the Bill, for reconsideration by the Minister for Health and, subsequently, review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of refusals to approve the admission or persons as respite care patients. Short term respite care patients will not be charged fees greater than the difference between the full fee for the bed, less the Commonwealth nursing home benefits. The new arrangements will ensure, therefore, that neither the temporarily absent patient nor any respite care patient will suffer any disadvantage in respect of fees paid compared with other patients accommodated in the home. The discussions with the nursing home industry will include an exploration of the practical measures that can be taken to maximise the use of temporarily vacant beds for short term respite care. The Government fully recognises the sacrifices that can be involved for relatives and others involved in caring for frail aged people in the community. It knows that there are occasions when short term respite care is of vital importance to the welfare of aged and disabled people and of those caring for them. I believe that this respite care initiative has the potential to assist significantly in meeting such needs. The proposed amendments will permit comparable arrangements to apply to repatriation patients as well as to other nursing home patients, and will enable a separate common form of agreement to be developed to meet the special circumstances of those patients. It is also proposed to negotiate similar arrangements for patients accommodated in deficit-financed nursing homes. This measure will not have any significant financial impact for the government. Its full year cost to the Commonwealth in additional nursing home benefits is estimated to be less than $4m. It will, however, alleviate a source of financial hardship for a significant number of aged and disabled people and offers the promise of improving the quality of life of them and of those caring for them. The Bill provides for the arrangements to come into effect from a date to be proclaimed, giving time for their proper negotiation and development. Clause 13 of the Bill proposes to amend the National Health Act to permit the Commonwealth to fund the maintenance of privately purchased wireless hearing aids and associated equipment. Honourable senators will no doubt know that the National Health Act empowers the Commonwealth to make arrangements for the supply of hearing aids, which it does through the agency of the National Acoustic Laboratories. Wireless hearing aids in particular are supplied for the teaching in educational institutions of children who are deaf or have severe hearing defects. Unfortunately the acoustic laboratories have been unable to keep pace with the demand for aids in recent years, and some institutions and individuals have had to purchase wireless hearing aids privately. This situation is regrettable. The Government is anxious that these institutions and individuals should not be forced to pay the cost of batteries and maintenance for which the Commonwealth would otherwise have paid had the institutions or individuals not purchased their aids privately. The proposed amendment to the Act will authorise the Commonwealth to meet the battery and mantenance costs. It should be noted that even when the Commonwealth is meeting these costs, there will still be some saving to the Government over the capital outlay that would be required if the privately purchased aids which become faulty were to be replaced at Commonwealth expense. I am pleased to inform honorable senators, however, that negotiations are under way with private sector suppliers of wireless hearing aids to ensure that the National Acoustic Laboratories will be able more adequately to meet community demands for these devices. Clause 14 of the Bill deals with the provision of aids to sick and disabled people. As honourable senators will be aware, the Commonwealth provides funds for the supply of medical and surgical aids and for other assistance such as the modification of homes to help the sick and disabled in their daily lives. Clause 14 provides for the Commonwealth to enter into arrangements with the States, the Territories and certain bodies corporate, which will avoid undue complexity in the administration of such schemes. The proposed arrangements provide for the Commonwealth, while funding the schemes, to transfer ownership of certain medical and surgical aids to the State or other body concerned. This latter provision is seen as being desirable since some aids, wheelchairs for example, are recycleable in nature, and would be distributed only to persons in need on a loan basis. The transfer of ownership to the States of such aids will facilitate the accountability of those aids and assist considerably the administration of the schemes. I refer now to clauses 22, 23 and 24 of the Bill which relate to the Health Benefits Reinsurance Trust Fund. These proposed amendments, which are of a technical nature only, would have the effect of making the trust fund a trust account for the purposes of the Audit Act. At the time of the establishment in 1977 of its predecessor, the Hospital Benefits Reinsurance Trust Fund, it was intended that the trust fund be incorporated within the Commonwealth public account and thus be subject to the Audit Act. However, the Attorney-General's Department recently advised that the existing provisions of the National Health Act have the effect that it is not part of the Commonwealth public account. Consequently the present Health Benefits Reinsurance Trust Fund also cannot legally form part of the Commonwealth public account. Notwithstanding the legal position, the transactions of the trust fund have been audited by the Auditor- General and the proposed amendments would enable that to continue. The proposed amendments would have no financial impact on registered health benefits organisations nor on the Commonwealth Government. I turn now to clause 25 of the Bill. This is a purely machinery change which takes account of the fact that the protection afforded to 'authorised persons' under the principal Act is adequately covered in the Crimes Act 1914. The clause removes the provisions prescribing offences for molesting, intimidating, bribing or influencing authorised officers. By the clauses 27 and 28 of the Bill, the Government proposes to amend the Tuberculosis Act 1948 to phase out the operation of tuberculosis allowances in the light of the almost total eradication of the disease in Australia. In March 1950 the then Government approved the current scheme of allowances, which came into force on 13 July 1950. The scheme was one of several measures adopted at that time to implement the nation-wide campaign against tuberculosis. The purpose of the scheme was to help prevent the spread of tuberculosis by providing financial assistance to persons, and their dependants, who were required to refrain from working and to undergo treatment while they were infected. When the allowances were originally introduced, they were set at levels which were generally higher than those for social security beneficiaries. Over the years the difference in money terms of about $5 per week maximum between tuberculosis allowances and other benefits, for example invalid pension and sickness benefit, has not changed so that the added value of the tuberculosis allowance is now relatively small. At the peak of the scheme-at 30 June 1951- allowances were being paid to 6,605 sufferers. This compares with 299 sufferers receiving the allowance at 31 December 1976 and only 150 at 31 December 1983. The Government considers that the scheme of tuberculosis allowances has achieved its aim and that there is no longer any justification for continuing to pay higher benefits to the few simply because they suffer from a particular condition, which no longer represents a serious threat to the Australian community. Accordingly, the Government has decided to treat tuberculosis as it would any other disease for social welfare purposes. The amendment of the Tuberculosis Act 1948 will remove the necessity for special handling by the Department of Social Security of tuberculosis cases. The entitlement of people currently receiving tuberculosis allowances will continue. The Bill does not effect any change in the rights of existing sufferers. I commend the Bill to the Senate. SOCIAL SECURITY AND REPATRIATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 2) 1984 This Bill is an omnibus Bill to give effect in the main to those Budget measures for 1984-85 which require- amendments to the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954; amendments to the Delivered Meals Subsidy Act 1970; and legislation to make further provision for the Anzac Hostel in Brighton, Victoria. Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954 Under this Act, the Commonwealth currently pays a hostel care subsidy and a personal care subsidy to approved organisations providing hostel type accommodation and services for aged and disabled people. In the near future, a respite care bed subsidy will commence to be payable to approved organisations to assist those families and individuals who care for aged and disabled persons in their homes but who require a facility to allow short breaks from the demands of care at home. The rates of subsidy payable are- $10 per week per eligible person provided with hostel care services; and $50 per seek per eligible person provided with both hostel care and personal care services. The respite care bed subsidy will be- $10 per week per eligible person provided with a respite care bed for a period of less than 15 days in a period of 28 days; and $50 per week per eligible person provided with a respite care bed for a period of 15 days or more in a period of 28 days. The Bill will increase these rates of subsidy from $10 to $11 per week, and from $50 to $55 per week, respectively, as from 15 January 1985, which is the first prescribed date for payment in January 1985. The new arrangements are estimated to add $2.9m to outlays in the remainder of 1984-85 and $6m in the full year 1985-86. Up to 38,000 people are estimated to benefit by receipt of services under the program. Delivered Meals Subsidy Act 1970 Under this Act, the Commonwealth currently pays a subsidy to approved organisations providing meals under the meals-on-wheels program. The rates of subsidy payable are- 55c for each meal which includes a vitamin C supplement; and 50c for each other meal. The Bill will increase the rate of subsidy for each meal which includes a vitamin C supplement to 65c per meal where the approved organisation meets new conditions of service delivery as from 1 January 1985. These conditions have not yet been finally determined, but will relate to the operation and management of approved organisations concerning service delivery. An example of such conditions is that service delivery would have to be made on at least 5 days in each week. The new conditions will be published in the Gazette. An approved organisation which decides not to meet these new conditions would remain eligible for the current rates of subsidy. The new arrangements are estimated to add $750,000 to outlays in the remainder of 1984-85 and $1.5m in the full year 1985-86. Up to 50,000 people are estimated to benefit by receipt of services under the program. Anzac Hostel, Brighton, Victoria The Anzac Hostel at Brighton, Victoria, has been held by the Repatriation Commission since World War 1 on a trust created at that time and subsequently varied by the Repatriation Fund (Baillieu Gift) Act 1937. A term of the trust has been that the Anzac Hostel should be used as a hostel for permanently and totally incapacitated Australian soldiers and sailors of World War 1. Since the creation of the trust, the Repatriation Commission has assumed responsibility for providing medical treatment to many thousands of veterans of World War II and the later conflicts and to eligible dependants of deceased veterans. In view of the declining number of World War I veterans and the increasing number of frail aged veterans, especially of World War II, it has been decided to utilise the Anzac Hostel more effectively by enabling the Repatriation Commission to provide an expanded range of residential and day care services at the hostel for those eligible to receive repatriation treatment. It is proposed to introduce a Southern Melbourne Aged Care Service centred on the Anzac Hostel. The need to travel long distances for care is a very significant problem for aged persons. This facility will reduce that burden for many veterans and war widows. In order to be able to so utilise the Anzac Hostel, it is necessary to change the terms of the trust by varying the purposes for which the Anzac Hostel may be used by the Repatriation Commission. The revised purposes of the trust are set out in Part VI of the Bill. Other changes The Bill will also amend the Social Security Act 1947 and the Repatriation Act 1920. First, both Acts will be amended to ensure that a dependent child who is in receipt of an income security payment under the Social Security Act 1947 or the Tuberculosis Act 1948 will be disregarded in calculating the entitlement of another person under the Social Security Act 1947 or the Repatriation Act 1920. It is already the case that a dependent child in receipt of invalid pension, a rehabilitation allowance in lieu of that pension, or a supporting parent's benefit under the Social Security Act 1947 is disregarded under those Acts. This measure will therefore provide a general rule in these situations which will remove some minor anomalies. There will be no savings in 1984-85, with savings of $0.15m in 1985-86. Second, the Social Security Act 1947 will be amended to remedy a minor anomaly which disadvantages some people receiving family allowance. Currently, the Act requires the Department of Social Security to be satisfied within three months of the child's sixteenth birthday that a dependent child who turns 16 years of age became a student child. While there are administrative procedures designed to enable the Department to be satisfied that such a dependent child becomes a student child, there are some cases which fall through the net. The amendment will ensure that a person receiving family allowance will not lose entitlement merely because the administrative procedures do not work as intended. There are no savings in this measure, but the program will operate more effectively and efficiently. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Ryan) 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 the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration 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 Ryan) read a first time. Second Readings Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(9.40) —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- CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 3) 1984 The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1984 which is now before the Senate proposes amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1982. The Bill contains six schedules and is necessary to enact tariff changes which have been introduced into the Parliament by customs tariff proposals during the 1984 autumn and budget sittings. The bill also contains amendments to two sections of the Customs Tariff Act 1982 which have not previously been introduced into the Parliament. Some of the changes contained in the Bill relate to Budget decisions to alter the customs tariff rates applying to certain beer, manufactured tobacco and aviation fuels. These changes are complementary to changes proposed to the Excise Tariff Act 1921. The relevant customs tariff rates are varied by the same monetary amounts as the respective rates in the Excise Tariff Act. A number of amendments contained in the Bill arise from Government decisions on the following Industries Assistance Commission's reports: (1) Computer hardware and software, typewriters, calculating and other office machines, parts and accessories, recording media, and (2) Electric motors (interim report). The Bill also contains amendments relating to: (1) The interim tariff arrangements for the period 30 May-31 December 1984 decided upon by the Government in the context of its motor vehicle industry assistance package; (2) The concessional and preferential tariff arrangements to apply to certain goods or to imports from certain countries and places; (3) The restoration of the level of assistance intended for certain locally manufactured goods following rulings handed down by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or a court; (4) A number of technical or administrative amendments to correctly reflect the intention, scope or wording of various provisions of the Customs Tariff Act; and (5) The further simplification of the Customs Tariff Act. The Bill also contains two changes to sections of the Customs Tariff Act which have not previously been introduced into the Parliament. The first of these changes relates to an amendment to sub-section 13 (4) to ensure that a reference to phasing rates of duty in relation to paragraph (A) of that sub-section is made only in respect of tariff classifications in Schedule 3 to the Act. This change merely corrects a drafting oversight in the Act. Secondly, the Bill includes amendments to sub-sections 26A (2) and 26A (3) of the Customs Tariff Act. These amendments are technical in nature and are made in order to clarify, for the purposes of the indexation of certain amounts of customs duty, that substitution of those amounts of customs duty shall occur on a particular day. The changes in the Bill which emanate from the Government's Budget decisions are complementary to changes made in a budgetary context in respect of the Excise Tariff Act. The combined financial impact of these measures is contained in statement No. 4 of Budget Paper No. 1. In regard to the decision on the IAC report on computer hardware etc., it is not possible to provide meaningful estimates of the customs revenue forgone. Rapid changes in the nature of products, demand and sourcing for many of the goods covered by the decision create difficulties in predicting the composition and level of imports and thereby calculating duty collection changes. A particular complication with the computer decision involved the removal of duties on computer software. It is not possible to determine the proportion of imports that were previously attracting duties. It is also not possible to determine with any degree of accuracy the financial impact of the customs duty change in the decision on the IAC interim report on electric motors. Other amendments contained in the Bill are not expected to have a significant financial impact. There are no additional significant administrative costs associated with the Bill. A summary of amendments for each schedule of the Bill has been prepared and copies are available from the records and tables office. I commend the Bill. EXCISE TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1984 This Bill proposes to amend the Excise Tariff Act 1921 to incorporate into the Act the excise alterations introduced during the winter recess and tabled in the Parliament on 21 August 1984 and the excise alterations emanating from the 1984- 85 Budget. On 18 April this year new taxation initiatives were announced to apply to the petroleum sector from 1 July 1984. One of the initiatives was the introduction of an excise on crude oil produced from areas discovered after 17 September 1975, called ''new oil''. By way of background I should mention that the taxation arrangements on crude oil produced from areas discovered on or before 17 September 1975, called ''old oil'', were modified from 1 July 1983 to correct a number of anomalies. The excise scale was restructured so that increased production from each prescribed production area, as defined in the Excise By-laws, attracted progressively higher rates of excise. In formulating the policy on ''new oil'' the Government had to find a reasonable balance between the interests of the community as a whole and those of the oil exploration companies who must be adequately rewarded if they are to continue in the high risk activity of oil exploration. Several generous concessions have therefore been made in the ''new oil'' excise scale compared to the scale applicable to ''old oil''. There is an annual excise free allowance of 500 megalitres (approximately 3.1 million barrels) exempting the majority of onshore fields from any levy at all. Also, the ''new oil'' excise scale imposes excise rates far below those imposed on ''old oil''. The rate on ' 'new oil'' at the beginning of the ''new oil'' scale is 10 per cent compared to 80 per cent for the same level of ''old oil'' production, while the top rate is 35 per cent for ''new oil'' compared with 87 per cent for ''old oil''. The excise payments for all prescribed production areas in relation to ''old'' and ''new'' oil are determined by applying the excise scale to the ruling Government determined import parity price for Bass Strait crude oil. The modest rates for ''new oil'', which are set out in clause 7 of the Bill, reflect the Government's desire to encourage and maintain exploration and development incentives in the oil industry. Clause 4 of the Bill proposes to clarify the procedure for imposition of duty on ''new'' and ''old'' oil. The practice has been to back allocate elements in a crude oil mixture through a mass balance procedure to the production areas from where they were derived. Excise duty is then determined for each production area by applying the excise scale accordingly. Legal advice has been given that the current legislation might not extend to the ''back allocation'' of all elements in a crude oil mixture. This method of imposing duty on crude oil production accords with the Government's intention when the modified arrangements were introduced from 1 July 1983. For this reason the provisions of clause 4 are proposed to operate retrospectively from that date. The retrospective operation of this provision will not impose any additional liabilities upon producers. In keeping with previous practice, on 27 June 1984 the Minister for Resources and Energy announced a revision in the excise rate applying to naturally occuring liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) from 1 July 1984. As in past determinations, the excise rate has been calculated using a weighted export and domestic LPG price over the preceding six months. The reduction in the excise rate by $12.27 per kilolitre to $36.96 per kilolitre, as contained in clause 9 of the Bill, reflects the current soft state of the world export market for LPG. The provisions in clause 8 of the Bill remove the excise on grape spirit for fortifying wine with effect from 8.00 p.m. standard time on 22 June 1984 as announced by the Treasurer on the same date. Re-introduction of the duty on this spirit at a rate of $2.61 per litre was announced in the 1983/84 Budget. The rate was subsequently reduced to $1.50 per litre with effect from 23 August 1983 . In his speech on the 1984/85 Budget the Treasurer announced that, with the introduction of the general sales tax on wine and alcoholic cider and to avoid double taxation on fortified wines, excise paid in 1983/84 on fortifying spirit will be refunded in full. Necessary amendments have been made to the Excise Regulations to allow the refunds to be paid and persons who believe they are entitled to a refund should submit their applications to the Collector of Customs in their State as soon as possible and no later than 30 June 1985. With effect from 18 July 1984 the number of decimal places in the excise rate for beer was increased from 2 to 5. This change, which is set out in clause 10 of the Bill, follows representations by the brewing industry that the excise duty rate on beer had suffered repeated roundings upward as a result of the application of indexation. The Government believes that the increase in the number of decimal places will alleviate this problem. The other provision in clause 10 of the Bill omits on and from 18 July 1984, the requirement that Australian gin must be made only from grape, grain or fruit spirit. A similar provision relating to imported gin was removed from 1 January 1983. The removal of this requirement is consequential upon a review of wines and spirits legislation, conducted by the National Health and Medical Research Council in conjunction with Commonwealth Government Departments. That review identified that this imposition is outdated and results in unnecessary costs on the industry. I now turn to the excise alterations emanating from the 1984/85 Budget. The provisions of clause 11 of the Bill operate at 8.00 p.m. on Budget night and alter, as a consequence of the new taxing arrangements for beer, the definition of beer in the Excise Tariff Act and introduce new excise rates which vary according to the alcoholic strength of beer. The other changes in this clause increase the excise duties on tobacco, aviation gasoline and aviation kerosene. The increase in the tobacco excise represents a further step towards aligning the excise on that product with that applying to cigarettes and cigars. Increases in the excise on the fuels are made as a cost recovery measure. Finally, the provisions of clause 5 of the Bill modify, as announced by the Treasurer on Budget night, the arrangements for six-monthly indexation of excise duty rates, except for crude oil and LPG, so that Consumer Price Index decreases are taken into account in a similar manner to the treatment of pensions and benefits under the Social Security Act. Financial Impact Statement In 1984-85 the introduction of the excise on 'new' oil is expected to yield about $317m in revenue and the lower LPG excise is expected to reduce Commonwealth revenue from LPG excise by approximately $24m to about $70m. Refunds of excise on fortifying spirit between 21 August 1983 and 22 June 1984 are expected to amount to about $5m. The reduction in the excise on low alcohol beers is expected to reduce Commonwealth revenue by approximately $10m in 1984- 85 and $12m in a full year. Increases in the excise on tobacco, aviation gasoline and aviation kerosene are expected to yield about $7m in revenue in 1984-85 and $8m in a full year. The modification of the indexation arrangements, in line with pensions and benefits, is expected to result in a decrease in excise revenue of approximately $4m in 1984-85. However, it is important that I mention that the nature of the last measure is such that a reliable estimate cannot be provided. I commend the Bill to the Senate. CUSTOMS TARIFF (COAL EXPORT DUTY) AMENDMENT BILL 1984 This Bill proposes to amend the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Act 1975 to provide an exemption from the payment of the export duty under that Act on high quality coking coal produced from certain open-cut mines if specified quantities of underground coal from those mines are included in production for export. The Government's decision to exempt this coal from the $3.50 per tonne export duty on and from 28 May 1984 was announced by the Minister for Resources and Energy on 29 May 1984. The Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Act was introduced in 1975 because the Government of the day wished to channel to the community a proportion of the windfall profits then being made by coal export producers. The duty arrangements have been varied on a number of occasions to the extent that the only coal now dutiable is high quality coking coal mined from depths no greater than 60 metres in open-cut mines in production before 1 July 1980. In practice duty is currently only paid on production from eight mines in Queensland. The Government considers that the most desirable course is to incorporate the coal export duty into a Commonwealth/State resource rent tax package. However, we recognise that this may not be practicable in the immediate future. In an international market characterised by a substantial over-supply of coking coal, the intense competition for available markets will continue for some time to come. Producers have been forced to accept price reductions and a substantial up-turn is unlikely in the immediate future. Against this background, in 1983 the Government received representations from CSR and Thiess Dampier Mitsui for relief from the export duty on production from the Moura and South Blackwater mines located in the Bowen Basin in Queensland. Both mines must blend significant quantities of higher quality coal from their underground operations with coal from their open-cuts in order to obtain product of a quality suitable to meet export contract specifications. The addition of higher cost underground product to their open-cut coal increased costs to the point where the imposition of the export duty on the open-cut coal in the exported product was having a significant impact on the rate of return to the producers. In order to assist the viability of these operations, the Government has decided to exempt from duty open-cut production in the situation where mines are , and have been, dependent on significant underground operations to maintain coal quality. The Government considers that the maintenance of underground operations in the Bowen Basin will retain skills which will ultimately be of benefit to the industry as a whole in that region. It also demonstrates the Government's concern to assist employment security in the industry in the present difficult international marketing environment. Financial Impact Statement It is estimated that this exemption will mean an annual loss to the revenue of less than $10m. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Ryan) 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 the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration 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 Ryan) read a first time. Second Readings Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(9.42) —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- OVERSEAS STUDENTS CHARGE AMENDMENT BILL 1984 The purpose of the Bill is to amend section 6 of the Principal Act to set the upper ceiling for the new levels of charge to be fixed by regulations. The new levels, representing about 15% increase on the existing charges, were considered necessary in order to keep pace with the increase of costs in providing higher education. It is also equitable from the Australian taxpayer's viewpoint that overseas students make a fairer contribution towards the cost of their education in Australia. As from 1 January, 1985, the new levels of student charge will be, subject to regulations, as follows: $3,350 for masters and doctorate degrees; $3,100 for courses in medicine, veterinary science or dentistry; and $2,500 for all other courses. As honourable senators will recall, two reports, the Gold- ring Committee Report on Private Overseas Student Policy and the Jackson Committee Report on Overseas Aid, were tabled in both Houses on 6 and 7 June respectively. The Goldring Report advocated: a planned approach making overseas students an integral part of eduction planning and funding; fees covering only part of education costs (as at present); and a modest increase in scholarships. The Jackson Report on the other hand advocates: a market approach to the promotion of education; fees covering the full economic cost of student's education; an increase in numbers and types of scholarships to meet development assistance aims. Both reports raise important and complex issues which will require very close examination before the government draws any definite conclusions with regard to future policy directions. For this purpose, an interdepartmental task force was set up to examine the issues involved and report to the Government in the near future during these sittings. The aim is for any new policies to be implemented in time for the 1986 intake. The proposed amendment to the legislation is not intended to preempt any future government decisions on overseas student policy following its consideration of the task force report. The overseas students charge raised $25. 5m in 1983-84 and is expected to raise $32.3m in 1984-85. This is due to increases in the charge rate ($3.8m) and an increase in the number of students liable for the charge ($3m). I commend the bill to the Senate. INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTASSOCIATION (FURTHER PAYMENT)BILL 1984 The purpose of this bill is to authorise a contribution by Australia of $A200 million towards the seventh replenishment of the International Development Association, or IDA as it is commonly called. IDA, established in 1960, is the concessional lending affiliate of the World Bank. It assists its poorest member countries by providing long-term, interest-free credits for sound development projects, utilising in the main grant funds provided by donor countries. The poorest countries have great need for development assistance on concessional terms. They therefore depend upon loans from IDA which bear no interest and can be repaid over 50 years with a 10 years grace period. Honourable Senators will recognise that IDA, in its turn, depends upon developed donor countries like ourselves to provide most of the resources to carry on its work; donor funds are critical to the development needs of these countries. This, the seventh replenishment of IDA's resources, has been beset with problems including the postponing of the replenishment for one year. Australia helped tide the Association over this period by making a special contribution of $A68 million. After a long series of meetings, all donors including Australia but with the exception of the United States were prepared to support a replenishment of US $12 billion. However this level of replenishment was not achieved. The United States announced that it would not take up a share in the replenishment above 25 per cent and that its annual contribution would be US $ 750 million, implying a maximum replenishment of US $9 billion. Australia and other IDA donors considered the result to be ''gravely inadequate'' and expressed regret and disappointment. However, by January this year, they felt that to avoid a hiatus in IDA's lending they must accept the figure of US $9 billion. Many, including Australia were prepared to examine together and with IDA Management the possibility of mobilising additional resources. Unfortunately due to complications in reaching agreement on the related issue of a selective capital increase in the Bank adoption of the replenishment resolution by the Bank's Executive Board was delayed until 24 May. Our share in the replenishment based on our usual share of 1.91 per cent was $ A192.58m. In addition to this we have responded to a request by Mr Clausen, President of the World Bank, for Australia to increase its share to help fill a shortfall of 3.12 per cent in the US$9 billion target. In this regard the Government has agreed to increase our contribution by $A7.42m, to bring our total contribution to $A200m. As in previous replenishments, Australia has the option of paying its contribution either in cash or by lodging non-negotiable, non-interest bearing promissory notes encashable on demand as and when funds are actually required by IDA for loan disbursements. In accordance with past practice, and in line with the practices of most other members of IDA, we propose to lodge promissory notes. This will spread the impact on the Budget over about 10 years starting with a small encashment in this financial year. During the discussions on the seventh replenishment, it was agreed that essentially the same voting power arrangements under the sixth replenishment should continue to apply. Accordingly, although contributions to replenishments, as opposed to the original subscriptions to IDA do not carry voting rights, a small proportion of donors' contributions is counted as a subscription. This is designed to ensure that the relative voting power of each of the developed member countries of IDA can continue to correspond broadly to the relative share of total resources contributed by these countries. The calculations undertaken by the staff of IDA indicate that, included in the total amount which Australia will make available under the seventh replenishment, an amount of $A161,410 will take the form of an additional subscription with voting rights. The balance will represent an additional contribution. This distinction is provided for in Clause 4 of the Bill. Honourable senators will be disturbed to learn that assistance from IDA to the world's poorest countries, including India, China, Bangladesh and countries in sub-Saharan Africa, will be reduced in real terms to levels significantly lower than under the previous replenishment. The IDA-7 replenishment of US$9 billion is significantly smaller than the IDA-6 replenishment of US$12 billion in 1980. Because of the emphasis on helping the poorest countries, IDA credits are increasingly concentrated on the countries I have just mentioned. They serve to complement our own, relatively limited bilateral aid efforts to these countries. Australia was willing to support proposals by the World Bank for the provision of supplementary resources for the IDA Seventh replenishment. We are disappointed that it has not been possible to achieve international donor agreement to hold negotiations. The Government has the matter under review and will consider how best it might further assist. Honourable Senators will know that Australia has a solid record of support for IDA since its inception. There has been general agreement, on all sides of the House, that IDA is a highly effective channel for disbursement of development assistance to the most impoverished countries of the world. That view was strongly expressed by the Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program whose report the Honourable Bill Hayden tabled in the House of Representatives on 7 June. This Bill provides an opportunity once again to demonstrate support for IDA and our willingness to recognise, through our support for this institution, the development assistance needs of the poorest developing countries. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Debate resumed from 5 September, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.43) —We are resuming debate on the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 which has been introduced by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) to make some small but very important amendments to the Telecommunications Interception Act which governs the power to tap telephones in this country. I think it is generally known as the Interception Act, and I will refer to it in that shorthand description during this debate. As is well know by now, due to the discussion that there has been about this subject, it is illegal to tap telephones in this country, apart from certain exceptions, unless a warrant has been obtained for that purpose. Only in certain cases can a warrant be granted for that purpose; firstly, in the interests of security, and secondly, in respect of investigations into major drug offences. There are some very strong provisions in the legislation concerning the use which may be made of the intelligence information obtained from the interception of telephone conversations, and that applies whether that interception has been obtained legally or illegally. Therefore situations arise from time to time when the stringent provisions of that legislation may require moderation. We had some examples last year where special legislation had to be passed through this Parliament on, I think, two occasions in regard to investigations being conducted in New South Wales, in the course of which material which had been obtained quite legally under warrant by the Australian Federal Police could not, under the existing provision of the Act, be conveyed to the bodies conducting those investigations. We passed legislation to enable that to be done. This legislation from the Government is of that character in that it enables information which is in the possession of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and which came into his possession in his role as Special Prosecutor under the Special Prosecutors Act, to be made available to two other inquiries which, under the existing provisions of the Interception Act, it would not be legally possible for Mr Temby to hand over to those two inquiries-one being the Royal Commission being conducted by Mr Justice Stewart into the Mr Asia drug syndicate , and the other being the Judicial Commissioner of Public Complaints, recently appointed in New South Wales. The Opposition has no difficulty whatsoever with the proposals in this legislation. We believe that it is quite appropriate that the material which is held by Mr Temby should be made available for the purposes of both those inquiries, and therefore we support the measure. However, the major matter which this legislation refers to, and the major concern of the Opposition, is of a wider character than the nature of this legislation itself. This is because of the particular material which is held by Mr Temby which, as I said, came into his possession because of his appointment as Special Prosecutor by the Attorney- General in February of this year. I refer to the great deal of material which has become known and indeed become notorious as the Age tapes. As I have said, this material, which has been widely publicised and has been the subject of a great deal of controversy and widespread concern in the community, purports to be in the form of tape cassettes or in the form of documents purporting to be transcripts of other tapes. All this material purports to be, as I said, the recordings either of the tapes themselves, taped by audio method, or a documentary form of recordings of telephone conversations which had been made over a period. We know that some of this material was made available to the National Times at the end of last year and that all the material in question- there are something like over 500 pages-was made available to the Age newspaper either at the end of last year or earlier this year and parts of it were published by the Age early in February of this year. A great debate has been raging as to the provenance of this material. Just how did it come into existence? Is it genuine material or is it all a gigantic hoax? If it were actually recorded, is it authentic in the sense that it is a true record of actual telephone conversations that took place? Is it the record of the conversations of the people it purports to be a record of and how did it come about that these recordings were made and these transcripts brought into existence? Who was responsible for doing it and where were these recordings made ? We assume that they are perfectly genuine productions. They purport to be genuine records, they were presented by the Age and by the National Times as genuine in the sense that they are not hoaxes and that they are authentic recordings in the sense that they fully and accurately record the conversations that they purport to record of a number of people over a period. We are told that these recordings are largely concerned about criminal activities of one sort or another. Some peripheral conversations have been recorded because in any process of telephone tapping a whole lot of incidental information may be picked up. That is one of the major reasons why it is illegal to tap telephones in this country in the interests of people's privacy. There have been only a limited number of occasions when telephones have been tapped for purposes of criminal investigation in this country. Whether it might be justified to widen those grounds is another matter, and a matter of great concern, but it is not an issue at this point. There is in this material allegedly a great deal of relevant information, of criminal intelligence about organised crime and the numbers of people engaged in it, as well as other peripheral matters which are not relevant for consideration tonight, but which have been the subject of other debates and other decisions in this chamber. As I have said, none of these is relevant to the matter we are debating tonight. When this material was obtained by the Age, the editor of that paper handed it over to the Attorney-General who, in my view, acted perfectly correctly at the time in getting a police report on it. Senator Gareth Evans —Thank you. Senator DURACK —I have never said anything else, Senator. 'At the time' I stress , and qualify it to that extent. Having had a police report on it, the Attorney- General again acted quite correctly in respect of the matters we are now discussing by referring the material to a special prosecutor. I have been critical about the fact that the matter was referred to a special prosecutor who was about to become the Director of Public Prosecutions, but that is an incidental and separate issue. It was a very appropriate matter for referral to a special prosecutor because it raised unique and very serious questions. Certainly it justified some special action. The Special Prosecutor, Mr Temby, was appointed to do the job and he has reported to the Government and Parliament in accordance with the Act under which he was appointed. His report has been tabled in this Senate and we have had the opportunity to study it. The report itself is disappointing in the sense that Mr Temby has not been able to get to the bottom of these matters at all. He says that apparently there have been, as far as he can ascertain, some police investigations and some police action in regard to some of the matters referred, but he has not been able to obtain any clear information about the actual origin of the material, who made it, why it was made or whether it is, in fact, a recording of actual telephone conversations. There is a fairly clear thread through Mr Temby's report that he has, in fact, a prima facie belief that there is something behind all this and that it is certainly not a hoax, although he does not actually put it in that way. But what he does say in a very disturbing aspect of his report is this-and I quote from paragraph 31: The matter could be taken further by the materials generally being referred to somebody or person having coercive powers. Mr Justice Stewart as Royal Commissioner has those powers. So does the Senate Select Committee. If only to avoid duplication of effort, my recommendation is that the matter be left as it is until the Judge and the Committee have completed their respective tasks. In giving some effect to that view the Government has proposed that the material be sent to Mr Justice Stewart in his capacity as Royal Commissioner investigating the Mr Asia syndicate. The terms of reference that Mr Justice Stewart has in relation to the Mr Asia syndicate are only concerned with one aspect of the mass of material known as the Age tapes. Although Mr Justice Stewart will be obliged to ascertain the authenticity of the material insofar as it refers to him, his brief does not extend to the whole gamut of allegations, suspicions, innuendo or whatever, which may arise from the mass of this material . The Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge, which had the brief of looking at this material from the same point of view-that of determining its authenticity as well as other matters-was able to take the question a little further than Mr Temby had been able to do. In paragraph 39 of the report the Committee had this to say: The Committee took evidence from the person who supplied the material to The Age newspaper. So that was a distinct advantage that the Committee had over Mr Temby. The report continues: That evidence, which was not available to Mr Temby, was to the effect that the materials were composed by officers of the New South Wales Police Force as part of operations of surveillance of persons believed to be associated with criminal activities. It appears that the police selected certain persons as 'targets' for this surveillance, and that the records of conversations were intended for the purpose of gathering intelligence which would facilitate the further investigations of criminal activities. It was said that the tape recordings were obtained by means of devices, operated by police officers, which intercepted and recorded telephone conversations, and that the purported transcripts and summaries were composed by police officers as they listened to such tape recordings. It goes on to a matter which is perhaps not relevant to my case at the moment, and that states: In order to reach firm conclusions as to the source of the materials, however, the Committee would have to obtain admissions by the police officers who actually took part in the interception and recording of telephone conversations and who composed the transcripts and summaries. The evidence available to the Committee sufficiently indicated that such admissions have not been forthcoming and all efforts by the Committee to pursue such admissions produced no useful results. It should be said, in fairness to the Committee, that for the purposes of its inquiry it was able to make other inquiries that enabled it to come to its conclusions without having to pursue that question any further than it did as described in those paragraphs of its report. So the position is that we are still left up in the air as to this problem of the Age tapes. Maybe Mr Justice Stewart will clarify it to some extent, but again he has a limited interest in it. As a result of that advice from the Senate Committee, we are now clearly confronted with some very disturbing and serious questions indeed. It has been revealed in the evidence the Committee received from a person who would appear to have had quite a lot of knowledge about the matter that this material was the result of a major exercise conducted over quite a long period by officers of the New South Wales Police. In fact, there is some reference in Mr Temby's report to this and to some payments apparently made by the Australian Federal Police at one point to maintain this facility. These very serious questions need to be properly investigated. It has been the view of the Opposition from the word go that we needed a thorough investigation of what may be very important material and that there were very good reasons to believe-not just suspicions but reasons which have been supported by the Senate Committee report-that these Age tape materials may well be genuine. I do not say it can be established that the actual recordings clearly are authentic in the sense that they are a continuous record of conversations actually taking place, made as they took place, but there is now evidence in a general sense that these Age tapes are certainly not a hoax. A genuine exercise conducted by a major police force in Australia in recent years obtained extensive information in relation to serious criminal activities by persons in Australia over quite some time. Apparently the exercise was conducted in a way which was widely known in criminal investigation circles in this country and which must have been known at least in some political circles in New South Wales because of the volume of material and the people who may have been engaged in its collection. This is a matter of quite unique character and a problem of quite unique proportions which has been presented to the Government and, I believe, to this Parliament. Many possible breaches of Commonwealth laws are involved. The Attorney-General and the Government have always concentrated on the breaches of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act that may well have occurred. We do not really know at this stage whether there have been breaches of that act, but there seems good reason to believe that there probably have been. Certainly there is enough suspicion to form a basis for proper inquiries to be made about that. Breaches of many other Commonwealth and State laws have been suggested-I put it no higher than that-sufficiently strongly to require serious investigation of this material. The Opposition has never been satisfied that such an investigation, uniquely directed to this material itself, has been made. Certainly peripheral investigation has been made by the Senate Committee and peripheral investigation will be made by Mr Justice Stewart or perhaps by the Commissioner for Public Complaints. However, there has been no broad, in depth investigation by a body such as a royal commission with adequate powers to investigate these matters. That is the reason why I move on behalf of the Opposition the following amendment to the second reading motion: At end of motion, add ', but the Senate calls upon the Government to establish a Royal Commission with terms of reference to investigate and report upon: (a) the origins of the tapes and documents, the subject of the Bill; (b) the authenticity of the information contained in and upon the said tapes and documents; (c) whether such information reveals any offences against laws of the Commonwealth; (d) whether, arising from such information, any criminal charges should be laid ; (e) whether any action has already been taken by any law enforcement agency arising out of the said information; and (f) whether any immunities should be granted to any person to enable the Royal Commission fully to investigate the above matters'. Some serious questions have arisen because it has been placed on the public record by people who are alleged to know about these matters that in fact a lot of the intelligence obtained from this exercise has been directly used not just in criminal investigations but even in prosecutions. We ought to know to what extent this material has been used in that way. Furthermore-again it is on the public record-it has been said that there is a great deal more of this material. Indeed, there have been threats that if proper action is not taken a whole lot more of this material will be put on the public record, I suppose in the way some of it has already been put on the public record. It is totally unsatisfactory for matters of this kind to become available and be made the subject of public debate in this country in this way. The only appropriate way, as the Opposition has contended and as the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock, suggested in another place as long ago as March, is to establish a royal commission. At that stage we did not take it any further because the matter had been referred to Mr Temby and there was some view that perhaps Mr Temby would be able to get to the bottom of it. As I have said, Mr Temby has said, in his report, tabled in this Parliament only a few weeks ago, that he cannot take it further but that it would have to be referred to a person with the necessary coercive powers. The Opposition believes that this is the proper course that should be taken now, and clearly it should be taken in view of the findings of Mr Temby, in view of the further evidence that was obtained by the Senate Committee in the course of its investigations, and in view of the information that has been made public in one form or another about this material . The suggestions are, in view of the information contained in the appendix to Mr Temby's report as to the knowledge of the Australian Federal Police in regard to at least some of this material, that further material is available. We in the Opposition believe that this is a very serious matter which probably goes to the heart of at least some organised crime in this country. We do not know the extent to which it points to it, but there is every indication that this material may well uncover a great mine of information in relation to organised crime in this country. It is certainly a very special problem, a unique one. It is the sort of problem that is quite appropriately dealt with in a manner on its own, a discreet manner, by a body such as a royal commission. Despite the investigations of the Senate Committee and despite what Mr Justice Stewart may find, the material is of such importance and extent-it deals with matters of such serious consequence to the Australian community-that it justifies the establishment of a royal commission to fully penetrate the full facts relating to this material. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.12) —The Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill (No. 2), which is before us, is supported by the Australian Democrats. It is a Bill, as was outlined by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in his second reading speech, and by Senator Durack just now, which will provide materials, documents and tapes held by the Director of Public Prosecutions to the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking, the New South Wales Commissioner for Public Complaints, or both. I believe that no one in this place has any argument with that proposition, hence I do not think it is useful to rehearse again the whole operation, except to say that I think we still obviously have a problem in this area; that is, the whole question of the apparent increase in illegal telecommunications interception. The existing legislation, even when it has been amended, obviously is and will not be effective legislation. Indeed it seems to us that that substantive issue needs to be dealt with as a matter of urgency, therefore I will limit my brief comments to the amendment moved by Senator Durack to the motion that the Bill be read a second time. Senator Durack has called for the establishment of a royal commission in relation to the material on the so-called Age tapes. We should at least acknowledge that that material has been worked over already by a number of people. Commissioner Costigan has had the material. Mr Justice Stewart, in his capacity as the royal commissioner of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Nugan Hand Group, has had a reference of that material made from Costigan to that Royal Commission. Indeed, the materials, as part of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, have gone to the Government and, through the Government, to the National Crime Authority, which is a body which will have a considerable amount of resources available to it to enable it to undertake any further investigation which it deems necessary. That Authority would be able, if it wished to do so, to go to the Inter-Governmental Committee to seek a reference on this matter and to pursue it. It seems to us inappropriate to set up a body, with the checks and balances which this Parliament has already given that body and with the types of wide sweeping powers that have been given to it, and then to say that the matter which is already in its possession ought to be placed before a royal commission. I think that we can look at this issue at a later stage if the Parliament finds itself dissatisfied with the actions of the Authority. It seems rather odd to pre-empt the Authority's action in this regard, having just set it up, by demanding that there be a royal commission into material which would be in its hands. As I said this afternoon in another debate, I think that it is important to show the confidence of the Parliament in the Authority which it has just established. I believe that this chamber by passing this motion, although it would do nothing other than express the view of this chamber, would in that sense express a lack of confidence in the ability of the Authority to involve itself in these matters. To that extent the Australian Democrats, while accepting that more needs to be known about those matters, will not support a motion which in its intent expresses a lack of confidence in the ability of the National Crime Authority to carry out the work that this Parliament has set that Authority in motion to perform. I think it is a matter of regret that the amendment should have been introduced as an attachment to the Bill. It seems to me that the motion moved by Senator Durack was one of some substance. Although we disagree with it, we believe such a motion ought to have been moved in a different form as a substantive motion in its own right. Hence it could have been discussed as a matter of urgency or in some other form before the Senate and not simply as an attachment of an opinion to a second reading. In this respect we are dealing with matters of the utmost importance, which are very much before the public eye, and I think it behoves us to deal with them in a constructive and useful manner. I indicate that for those reasons, because we would see this as expressing, at least in a veiled way, a lack of confidence in the National Crime Authority to perform the tasks which it will be able to perform in relation to the Age material, we are unwilling to support this call, although we are sympathetic to some of the points that Senator Durack has raised in addressing himself to that attachment. Senator Durack has had distributed in the chamber a number of amendments which I understand he proposes to move at the Committee stage of the Bill. I think it is probably more appropriate if I leave the remarks which I want to make on those matters to the Committee stage which, presumably, will be tomorrow. However, I would say that in many ways we are rehearsing time and time again material that was debated during matters of public importance, urgency motions, debates on other Bills, matters such as conditions under which the staff is brought in, and the like. We are going around in circles. After all, the Senate has decided on a mode of operation in relation to these materials. For goodness sake, let us allow that mechanism to operate. After it has operated for some time we may be in a position to actually have some constructive criticism to make on the whole affair. It seems to me to be very odd that, having gone through that process, we now rehearse time and time again various other types of mechanisms of dealing with identical material. Having had that debate and the opportunity to move substantive motions in relation to various materials and having got together a Senate inquiry to look at that particular way of operating , let us put some trust in our own judgment as a Parliament and see how it operates. After all, today this chamber established itself as part of the Joint Statutory Committee on the National Crime Authority to supervise this whole mechanism. Let us at least have some confidence in the ability of the people we are appointing to oversee this matter. We have set up the mechanisms. For goodness sake, let us allow them to operate so that we can then at a later stage see whether or not our judgment has been correct. I say in conclusion that it is very odd that we are rehearsing even before the Committee has had that chance to say that it is not working. Let us give it a chance and then make those types of criticisms, if necessary. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.21) —I rise briefly to support the proposition that has been considerably explained by Senator Durack tonight. I believe the amendment proposed by the Opposition to the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 is constructive. I was interested, listening to Senator Macklin's remarks, to hear him say that to follow such a line would really show a lack of confidence in Mr Justice Stewart's authority. I do not believe that is so. The whole purpose of the amendment to the legislation, legislation which incidentally the Opposition supports, is to facilitate the capacity of the National Crime Authority to pursue its various objectives. So the proposition really cannot be defined as Senator Macklin wants to define it, as an indication of a lack of confidence. That is not the position at all. I think the position relates to the measure of uncertainty that has arisen in the community over a very long period. We are talking about an awareness of these matters that dates back to March of this year. In March on two or three occasions and again on a number of occasions in August of this year there was widespread comment by some of the most responsible newspapers, certainly by some of the largest newspapers in this country, referring to the need to establish a royal commission, a body with significant powers of investigation sufficient to delve into the matters that are contained within this amendment, which calls for an investigation into: (a) the origin of the tapes and documents . . . (b) the authenticity . . . (c) whether such information reveals any offences against laws of the Commonwealth; (d) whether, arising from such information, any criminal charges should be laid ; (e) whether any action has already been taken by any law enforcement agency arising out of the said information . . . The amendment seeks that sort of determination through such a commission or appropriate body, a body that was, as I said, recommended months ago by a significant area of the Australian Press, not to show in any way a lack of confidence in or to embarrass the Authority under Mr Justice Stewart, but rather to extend his capacity successfully to prosecute the important job he has in hand. It is a most important operation and no stone should be left unturned in the efforts being taken by the Government and being pursued with great energy by the Opposition in restoring in Australia a real measure of confidence in the matters that relate to the livelihood and lifestyle of this community. As a result of a whole range of problems in the drug trade and in other areas, there has developed in the community an element of doubt and insecurity. It is that type of insecurity, that questioning of the basic authorities within whose realm we as a community move, that has to be put to rest. I believe the proposition put here tonight in some detail by Senator Durack is a line that should be accepted by the Government. I am sure that by this time the Government is convinced that it has a very great duty to the Australian people to get to the bottom of the problems that confront them and to get to the bottom of the causes of public uncertainty that is so rife in Australia today. I hope that in taking the responsible view that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) now takes he will recognise the value of the propositions that have been put to him tonight in this amendments and that he will pursue the matter, certainly not as an indication of a lack of confidence in the body that he has set up and which we support but as an indication of the way in which the performance and the excellence of that body may be greatly added to. I support the amendment and I hope that the Government will take a realistic view in its attitude to it. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.26) —in reply-I thank the Senate for its support of the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill ( No. 2) 1984 which is a relatively simple measure to enable the so-called Age tapes and transcripts to be further investigated both as to their provenance and as to their content, to the extent that that comes within the terms of reference of the particular bodies referred to. The Government rejects the call that is made by the Opposition in a second reading amendment for a royal commission, half-hearted call though it was, and indeed deservedly so. It is true that the tapes did potentially disclose, let me put it that way, a number of Federal offences. I said as much in my original statement to the Senate on this matter on 28 February. I referred to the following matters: possible offences arising out of an immigration racket; possible improper release of information by AFP officers; possible currency regulation charges in relation to a money courier; possible tax evasion; and possible fixing of a case in the Australian Capital Territory. I referred as well to a number of State offences, particularly involving gambling, race-fixing, and so on, that appeared to be possibly disclosed. But so far as the Federal content of this material is concerned, it has, of course, been looked at rather closely already by Mr Temby, wearing his hat as Special Prosecutor, who, in relation to this material in his report tabled in July, came to the following conclusion: I have sought to detect all offences disclosed against Federal law. In my view none of them are worthy of further investigation. He drew that conclusion on the basis of both his own scrutiny of this material and certain investigations carried out by the Australian Federal Police. Moreover, it is the case that a bipartisan committee of this Senate has, of course, unanimously concluded so far as the authenticity of the material is concerned that the authenticity is simply unable to be established. I refer to paragraph 56 of the report to the Senate tabled on 24 August of the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge which states: The Committee is unable to conclude that any or all of the tape recordings and transcripts delivered by The Age newspaper to the Attorney-General and relating to the conduct of a federal judge are authentic or genuine in whole or in part except to the extent that limited acknowledgements have been made to the Committee as mentioned in this report. It is true, of course, that the Committee was not dealing with a whole batch of materials but only a limited proportion of them, but it is not insignificant that the bipartisan Committee was able to reach a unanimous conclusion to that effect. I readily acknowledge that there may be some useful intelligence material here that could usefully be further scrutinised in particular by Mr Justice Stewart wearing his hat as the Mr Asia Royal Commissioner and by the New South Wales Special Commission of Inquiry to the extent that that material does prove to be authentic, and that is why the Bill is brought forward in the form that it is, in order to enable that material to be looked at. It is clear also that the question of the provenance of this material as well as its authenticity should be determined. That will be perfectly possible in the inquiries that it is anticipated will be conducted by Mr Justice Stewart or the New South Wales Special Commissioner which are provided for in this legislation. The notion that a Federal royal commission would be the answer to all our prayers is a misconceived one, given the fact that a Federal royal commission could not exercise coercive powers to determine the possible relevance of this material to State laws. Debate interrupted The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.30) —The conference to mark the end of the Decade for Women is to be held in Nairobi from 8 to 26 July 1985. The first part of the period is to be taken up with a forum for non-government organisations. The latter part will be taken up by the formal conference. It is an important event. The mid-decade Forum for Women was held in Copenhagen in 1980. The then Liberal Government invited 21 women from non-government organisations around Australia to become a representative group to attend. It provided funding, with some women receiving half and some two-thirds of the fare to Copenhagen. A number of organisations presently wonder whether they may similarly be able to send representatives to the final conference. They need to know the position as they need to be able to make plans. I understand that block bookings are being planned for this month. International non-government organisations in this country should be able to nominate delegates to attend both the forum and the formal conference, but they need to know the Government's plans. I ask whether the Government has made any decision about funding non-government organisations from Australia to attend the conference. If the Government will make funding available, to what extent will it do so and when will that fact be known? The organisations concerned and I would like to know the answer. I hope that tomorrow I will get an answer from the relevant Minister; if not tomorrow, perhaps at the latest early next week, because this is a crucial month in the planning process. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.32 p.m. The following papers were presented: Remuneration Tribunals Acts-Remuneration Tribunal-Determination 1984-No. 24- Remuneration payable to holders of certain public offices-Sex Discrimination Commissioner and others, dated 17 August 1984. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Notice of Variation of the Plan of Layout of the City of Canberra and its Environs (82nd Series), dated 4 October 1984. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 882) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 9 May 1984: (1) Has there been a dramatic fall in employment in the tool making industry since 1974. (2) Has the decrease been in the order of 50 per cent, with two-thirds of this occurring between 1981 and 1983, and much of it occurring in South Australia. (3) Has this been caused by a lack of local investment, by a change in labour retention policies and especially by the unrecorded import of substantial quantities of tooling materials. (4) Will the Government respond positively to the proposal of the South Australian Government that for every one per cent of tooling exported by a vehicle producer, the same amount be deducted from the duty payable on imported completely built-up units, in view of the state of this industry. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: It is difficult to obtain official statistics which clearly demonstrate what is the situation in the sector of Australian manufacturing industry producing dies. Indications are however that both the number of establishments and numbers employed have fallen since the early 1970's. Dies fall within ASIC 3,367 (with saw blades and machine tool accessories) and official statistics show that in the 10 years to 1982-83 average employment in that area fell by around 37 per cent to 4,097 and the number of manufacturing establishments involved contracted by about 37 per cent to 358. The honourable senator is probably aware of the report by the South Australian Department of State Development on ''Tooling for the Automotive Industry''. The South Australian study showed that between 1974 and 1983, employment in the tool -rooms surveyed fell from about 3,000 to around 1,500, or 50 per cent. The report adds that most of this reduction occurred in 1981 and 1982. The Australian Toolmakers Association claims that the industry may have more establishments than indicated by official statistics. The Association claims the number of companies in Australia is in excess of 800. The Metal Fabrication Industry Council has also commenced a study of the industry sector and a working party has been established. I look forward to receiving a report from the Council later in the year following which the Government will be in a position to consider what action, if any, would be appropriate. In regard to the proposal by the South Australian Government, the Commonwealth Government did not consider the assistance arrangements for the motor vehicle industry to be the appropriate avenue to address the problems of the tooling industry. For this reason the Government did not take up the South Australian Government proposal at the time it was considering the question of motor vehicle policy. The Government however recognises the importance of the tooling industry to South Australia. We are co-operating with the South Australian Government in its examination of the feasibility of establishing an industry consortium to produce tooling for Australian vehicle and component manufacturers. The $150m being made available for design and research activities within the motor vehicle industry over the next five years will also be of benefit to the industry in South Australia. (Question No. 1053) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 23 August 1984: (1) Could the Minister for Transport advise whether the Government has yet taken a decision on the future of the Alice Springs-Darwin Railway. (2) Have significant criticisms been made of the Hill Inquiry's findings by the Northern Territory and South Australian Governments and by union and employer organisations. (3) Did the Inquiry adopt a methodology for ascribing costs and benefits to the project which is not only heavily biased against the railway, but which is also inconsistent with the approach normally taken to investment analysis of such major projects. (4) Does the Minister accept the view that the Alice Springs-Darwin railway would be an integral part of the national rail network and that the benefits of the railway could therefore impact on the whole of this national network; if not , why would these benefits not occur. (5) Is the Minister satisfied that the Inquiry adequately discharged its responsibility to undertake a rigorous assessment of costs and benefits given that its approach to the critical question of freight volume was to present hypothetical scenarios. (6) Can the Minister advise what steps the Government took to satisfy itself that these scenarios were more soundly based than is evident from the report itself. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. There was no allocation to commence construction of the Alice Springs- Darwin railway in the 1984 Budget. This decision was taken as the Northern Territory (NT) Government declined to participate in the funding of the railway' s construction. In light of the Hill Inquiry's conclusion that the railway ' would constitute a major misallocation of the nation's resources' and the Defence Department assessment that there were no compelling defence reasons to construct the railway, the Federal Government was not prepared to allocate funds to this project. However, $5 million was allocated to accelerate construction of the Stuart Highway to a high, virtually all-weather standard between Alice Springs and Darwin and to improve rail services to Alice Springs. (2) and (3) Whilst some criticisms from vested interests have been made, the Bureau of Transport Economics (BTE) confirmed that the approach adopted by the Inquiry is reasonable for such a project and that its report reflects considerable effort to reach a fair assessment. (4) The railway, if built, would form an integral part of the national rail network. The Hill Inquiry concluded that any additional benefits for traffic on the balance of the network would be available even if the railway did not exist. Any additional system-wide benefits that could be attributed to the railway are likely to be small as a large proportion of the freight carried in the corridor south of Alice Springs is already predominantly transported by rail. Rail's share of this freight is unlikely to increase because the railway would encounter more intense road competition as the Stuart Highway is progressively upgraded to national highway standards. The highway in South Australia is scheduled to be completed to a sealed, virtually all-weather standard by late 1986. The BTE considers that the Hill approach of restricting the assessment of benefits to the Alice Springs to Darwin corridor would provide a reasonable approximation of the benefits likely to be realised. (5) and (6) As pointed out by the Hill Inquiry, projections of freight traffic well into the future are subject to uncertainty, particularly when starting from such a small base. In this case, the uncertainty is increased because of the difficulty in determining which of the number of potential mineral projects will actually be undertaken. Accordingly, the Hill Inquiry decided that two illustrative projections of freight level should be used. Even by adopting an optimistic view of future growth, the Inquiry still found the investment in the railway cannot be justified. Furthermore, the Inquiry found that even using the NT Government's own projections did not change this conclusion. Under these circumstances, the Government saw no need to do other than accept the conclusions of the Hill Inquiry. (Question No. 1081) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for Transport, 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 Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) 114. (2) 32. (Question No. 1118) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 7 September 1984: What trade commissioner posts have, for the period 1 July 1983 to 30 June 1984, been (a) closed; (b) downgraded; (c) upgraded; and (d) opened. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The following changes were approved during 1983-84: (a) Posts closed: Nil. (b) Posts downgraded: Mexico City-Establishment reduced by the Senior Trade Commissioner position. (c) Posts upgraded: Toronto-Establishment increased by one Trade Commissioner position. Bahrain, Singapore-Establishment increased by one Trade Commissioner ( Agriculture) position. (d) Posts opened: Nil. Senator Walsh —On 7 June 1984 (Hansard page 2759), Senator Archer asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice concerning the Government's attitude towards encouraging the consumption of lower alcohol beer and levying appropriate and proportionate excise charges. The Treasurer has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question: The tax arrangements for low alcohol beer were changed in the 1984-85 Budget. First, to correct an anomaly, a sales tax of 20 per cent was introduced on very low alcohol beer (beer containing not more than 1.15 per cent alcohol by volume) , which was previously both exempt from sales tax and not subject to excise duty . The rate of sales tax on very low alcohol beer is now the same as that which applies to most other carbonated soft drinks. The 20 per cent rate of sales tax on very low alcohol beer compares with the sales tax equivalent of the excise on full strength beer which is around 80 per cent for bottled beer and around 150 per cent for bulk beer. Secondly, excise rates on beer have been restructured in recognition of the reduced alcohol content on light beer and the consequent lower costs to society associated with its consumption. The rate of excise on beer with an alcohol content of not more than 3.8 per cent by volume, but more than 1.15 per cent by volume, has been reduced from 66 cents per litre to 58 cents per litre, equivalent to a reduction of about 3 cents a can.