Tuesday, 9 October 1984 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: National Flag To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of the Australian people should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Collard (from 392 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament ( Canberra) assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: That the present Flag symbolises Australia's continuity of the past, the present and the future; we therefore request no change be made to endanger the heritage it represents. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian Flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 19 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That governments have a responsibility to maintain standards acceptable to society's wishes. 2. It cannot be guaranteed that X rated video material will not be viewed by children. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should: Not adopt the X Classification for Films and Video Tapes, nor Category 2 for Printed Material. Further, that tighter restrictions be applied to R rated Films and Video Tapes and Category 1 Printed Material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 29 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That we hail as a victory for the not-so-silent majority the decisions of the Federal Government to now conduct an inquiry into the effects of hard-core pornography and violence upon people and especially children; That we view with grave concern and deplore the decision of the Hawke Government to allow the sale of this objectionable material to continue and become more widespread during the period of the inquiry. Your petitioners pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Request the Federal Government to immediately re-enact the previous laws which banned the entry into Australia and the sale of hard-core pornography and violence in video and publication form. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bjelke-Petersen (from 262 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament House assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we support Senator Chipp's 'Australian Waters (Nuclear Powered Ships and Nuclear Weapons Prohibitions) Bill 1984', a Bill for an Act to prohibit the passage of nuclear-powered ships, and of vessels carrying nuclear weapons, through Australian waters or in the airspace over them, effectively declaring Australia a nuclear weapons free zone. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that all Senators, regardless of political affiliations, support this Bill-not just for our sake but for our children. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from 17 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we are greatly concerned with the extent to which serious crime including murder, major drug financing and massive tax frauds have penetrated into the highest levels of Australian society as shown by the investigations of various Royal Commissioners and in particular by Mr Frank Costigan, Q.C. That we are concerned that the National Crime Authority has too many restrictions and possible lines of veto placed upon it for it to be an effective successor to the Costigan Inquiry 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 in 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 Messner (from 91 citizens) and Peter Rae (from 26 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned, having great concern because of the spread of moral pollution in our nation call upon the Government to introduce immediate legislation: 1. To provide strict controls over importation, production, sale, hire or mailing of video-cassettes with the open sale of only G, PG, and M rated video- cassettes; and the total prohibition of the sale of R rated video-cassettes so that R rated films can only be viewed in an adult theatre by persons over 18 years. We totally reject the concept of 'X' rated video-cassettes which would allow the legal sale of hard-core pornographic films for screening in the homes of our nation, which endanger our children. 2. To dramatically improve the Federal Attorney-General's Guidelines for Classification of Video tapes/discs which restrict the importation, production, sale or hire, screening in private homes and mailing by Australia Post so as to include the total prohibition of any pornographic, obscene or blasphemous video cassette, or film containing child pornography, bestiality, sodomy, group sex, violent sex 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 Senators Collard (from 28 citizens), Mason (from 51 citizens) and Robertson ( from 10 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 Ryan (from 702 citizens). Petitions received. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —I table papers 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. Export Development Grants Board-Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to section 31 (4) of the Export Market Development Grants Act 1974 and section 20 (4) of the Export Expansion Grants Act 1978. 2. Trade Development Council Panel 75 on Invisibles Trade-Report-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Trade relating to the report. 3. Papua New Guinea Superannuation Scheme-Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to section 21 of the Papua New Guinea (Staffing Assistance) Act 1973. 4. Commonwealth Fire Board-Annual Report 1983-84. 5. Australian Egg Board-Statement of reasons for the delay in tabling the Australian Egg Board Annual Report for 1983-84 under the Acts and Interpretation Act 1901 as amended. 6. Burdekin Falls Dam-Document relating to the provision of financial assistance to Queensland for the construction of a dam on the Burdekin River- Pursuant to section 6 of the National Water Resources (Financial Assistance) Act 1978. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I remind him of his answer yesterday in which he expressed concern at the timing of Mr Wran's attack on Chief Magistrate Briese when Mr Briese was still giving evidence to the Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge. Has he now seen the statement issued yesterday by Mr Wran in which he rejects the view that '. . . any comments relating to the Senate Committee inquiry are inappropriate at this time'. He further states: I will not be muzzled or intimidated at what I perceive is my duty in respect of matters which relate to the administration of the State's affairs. Does the Attorney agree that, in ignoring the substantive point that Mr Briese was, at the time, still in the course of giving his evidence, Premier Wran has served only to compound his original error? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have seen Mr Wran's Press statement issued yesterday along the lines indicated by Senator Durack. I have also seen the transcript of his comments to the radio program AM this morning, in the course of which he said: I must confess that I thought Mr Briese had finished his evidence some time ago. That clearly indicates a state of mind on the part of the Premier which cannot possibly be construed as one of intending to influence the evidence given by Mr Briese to the inquiry. I believe that the Premier's remarks ought to be looked at in that light. Beyond that I have nothing to add to what I said yesterday. Senator DURACK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. What would be the position if Mr Briese was re-called to give evidence? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not in the business of dealing with hypotheticals. Senator ROBERT RAY —Is the Minister for Industry and Commerce aware of the concern expressed yesterday at the annual convention of the Australian Institute of Steel Services Centres by the Chairman of the Steel Industry Authority, Mr Roberts, over the apparent withholding by some steel distributors of information relating to steel imports? Whilst I accept that imported steel has a specific but limited role in the Australian market, what implications for the Government steel industry plan of reconstruction might this failure to obtain full details of certain steel imports have? Finally, does the Government intend to propose that the Steel Industry Authority take any specific action to overcome the lack of co-operative spirit which may be hindering its capacity to monitor the industry? Senator BUTTON —I did read the newspaper reports of Mr Roberts's speech to the Steel Services Centres convention, conference, or whatever it was, in Melbourne yesterday. I noted that the Authority, in the Chairman's view, was being frustrated by inadequate information being provided by steel importers and distributors to the Steel Industry Authority. The steel industry plan is based on the assumption that the local industry will increasingly become more competitive under the provisions of the plan and will be in a position to satisfy a substantial proportion of the market for steel in Australia in addition to any export activities in which the steel industry is engaged, and they are quite considerable. Of course, in respect of that plan, imports have an important role, in particular imports of certain steel products. There are some steel products which we do not make in Australia and it would be foolish for the industry to attempt to make because they are very specialised and they are made better in countries such as Sweden and Japan. Of course, imports have an important role. In an industry of this kind it is important that the market share, which the Australian industry attains by one means or another, be high in order that where volume of production is important it may maintain prices and, over the longer term, reduce prices, relatively speaking, of its products so that it can retain the market share. As I understand Mr Roberts's comments-I might by way of digression compliment Mr Roberts on the very incisive role he has played as Chairman of the Steel Industry Authority-the burden of the complaint in his speech yesterday was that there was frustration of the Authority and, if that did not cease, the Authority would exercise its powers to hold a public inquiry and to summons, or to otherwise require, the presentation of accurate statistics to that public inquiry. That may be statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics or it may be information from the individual companies. That seems to me to be a course totally consistent with the Government's plans for this industry because any decisions which have to be made have to be based on accurate facts. I take it no further than to say that I note Mr Roberts's statement of intention regarding that matter. I have no doubt that he will carry it out if he thinks it appropriate. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade. I note the Prime Minister's confirmation that the Federal Government will not issue an export licence to Queensland Mines Ltd to permit a shipment of 200 tonnes of uranium to France, due this month, and that the Australian Labor Party has banned uranium shipments to France until France ceases testing nuclear weapons. I ask the Minister: Has the Government made any decision to compensate the mining company concerned for the loss of the sale, both immediate sales and future shipments, which are due under contract? Can the Minister provide details of any compensation agreement or arrangement made by the Government with the company and the cost of such agreement or arrangement to taxpayers? I further ask: What action has the Government taken to guard against retaliatory action such as the dumping of subsidised products into Australian export markets or other retaliatory actions by the European Economic Community? Senator WALSH —I did not get down all of the first three or four parts of the question that Senator Chaney asked. He asked similar questions some weeks ago; I do not remember exactly when. I do not at this stage have anything to add to the essential answer I gave then; that is, that negotiations have been under way but a final decision has not yet been made. I undertake to make public within a short time, a matter of days rather than weeks, once a final decision is made, the details of the arrangement made. The latter part of the question referred to retaliatory action. I will refer that to Mr Bowen but, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no suggestion that the French intend to take retaliatory action of the nature suggested by Senator Chaney. While Mr Bowen may have some contingency plans, there is, in my view, no need to have any plans to deal with such action because it is not likely to be taken. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. Arising from that answer, I ask the Minister: Are the negotiations which are under way as to whether or not compensation should be paid or as to the quantum of compensation to be paid? Do the negotiations cover the immediate contract, that is, the immediate shipment, or do they cover shipments in the future which may be barred by this Government? Senator WALSH —They cover the immediate future, that is, the shipment that was due this month, and for some time into the future. The financial details I will not disclose at this stage, other than to say that they are of a nature which would protect the cash flow of Queensland Mines. Senator COLEMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I am aware that the Collie Mail may not be high on the list of reading priorities for the Minister, so I draw his attention to allegations made last week by the honourable member for Forrest, Mr Peter Drummond. As part of the general fear campaign of the Opposition, Mr Drummond alleges that the Government intends to abolish the dependants' pensions. Further, he says that delays in the introduction of the Veterans Entitlements Bill are leading people to think that the Government wants to wait until after the election before making unpopular changes to the principal Act. Will the Minister now set the record straight on both of those matters? Senator GIETZELT —The statement made by Mr Drummond and published in the Collie Mail in Western Australia is very misleading and can be described only as an act of desperation by a candidate contesting the forthcoming election. There is absolutely no truth at all in the assertion that the Government intends to abolish dependants' pensions for the wives of totally and permanently incapacitated pensioners. There has never been any suggestion that the abolition of the $8.10 per fortnight paid to wives of TPI pensioners is being considered in respect of the Veterans Entitlements Bill. There has never been any suggestion that the wives of disability pensioners would lose any part of their dependants' pensions. But I must say that, after the advice was handed to me by the advisory committee that reviewed veterans' legislation dating from 1920 onwards, some consideration was given to providing an option for dependants' pensions to be commuted to a lump sum equal to three years of fortnightly pension. That proposal was canvassed because some dependants' pensions amounted to as little as 30c a week and, therefore, it was costing more than it was worth to post such an amount to a dependant. However, if the honourable member for Forrest or, for that matter, any other member of the Opposition is concerned that dependants' pensions may be threatened, it might be appropriate for me to remind the Senate and the honourable member for Forrest that the dependants' allowance for children has not been increased for 32 years and that in respect of wives has not been increased for 20 years. So if the Opposition is concerned about the low amount, it had plenty of opportunities, in all the years since the dependants' allowance was last increased, to take legislative action while it was in government. The previous Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Messner, made the point on many occasions-and correctly so in my view-that successive governments were giving priority to increasing the main pensions for ex-service men and women so that the whole family could benefit. I stress that there is no truth whatever in the assertion that the Veterans' Entitlement Bill has not been introduced in this session of the Parliament because unpopular decisions are being proposed in the legislation. That is not the reason why the Parliament has not been able to deal with the legislation this session. Senator JACK EVANS —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Following the ruling of the Federal Court of Australia last Friday week which overturned an interpretation by the Commissioner of Taxation that retread tyres should be taxed at the new tyres rate, will this decision be appealed to a higher court? As the Government has consistently refused to legislate to clarify this anomaly, which puts all repaired items in jeopardy of having a sales tax imposed on them, will it now end this farce and legislate this week to distinguish between new goods and repaired items such as tyre retreads? Finally, will the Government guarantee that at the very least it will immediately refund the sales taxes imposed on tyre retreaders and alleviate the unfair disadvantage imposed by a tax commissioner's wrong interpretation of the law on this group of small businesses? Senator WALSH —I do have a note on this matter from the Treasurer-it originated in the Australian Taxation Office-but I have had it for a few days and it may not be up to date. I preface my answer by asking Senator Evans to bear that in mind. The Commissioner has told the Treasurer, who has told me, that on 28 September, before Justice Beaumont, an action was brought by Jax Tyres Pty Ltd that the operation of retreading tyres does not involve manufacture and that the retreaded tyres in question are not liable to sales tax in the manner contended by the Commissioner, and the court-the honourable senator should bear in mind that this information is a few days old and could be superseded-has not yet delivered a final order on the matter. The Commissioner has stated that in due course he will appeal against the decision and seek a stay in the proceedings. The Commissioner has further informed the Treasurer that he is issuing a tax ruling to this effect which will also advise taxpayers that they will continue to be liable for payment of sales tax pending the outcome of the appeal. As I said, that information was given to me last week and may have been overtaken by events. I will refer it to the Treasurer to see whether there is anything additional to report. Senator JACK EVANS —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The Commissioner of Taxation has subsequently issued a ruling, No. FT2087, which directs his officers to continue to impose this tax. I put it to the Minister: If the Commissioner's appeal to the High Court of Australia also fails, will this necessitate the Government legislating retrospectively to ensure that the Commissioner's high handed action is made legal? The PRESIDENT —I do not know whether the question is hypothetical, but I will pass it on to the Minister. Senator WALSH —Yes, it is rather hypothetical. I am not sure whether it seeks legal opinion, which I am certainly not qualified to give. I suppose it is safer for a layman to give legal opinions than it is for a lawyer to do so; a layman's reputation is not at stake. I would think that in the hypothetical situation that Senator Evans outlined-that is, the situation in which the High Court upheld an appeal that the Commissioner had not correctly interpreted the Act-the Commissioner would be obliged to refund the sales tax which had been levied. I will have the matter clarified by the Treasurer. Senator FOREMAN —Is the Minister for Industry and Commerce able to comment on the recent record of industrial disputation in this country? How do current figures compare with those of previous periods? Will he comment on any influence the prices and incomes accord has had on the current level of industrial disputes in Australia? Senator BUTTON —I have said on a number of occasions in the Senate that the industrial relations record in the past 12 months has been the best in Australia for 16 years; but Senator Foreman is more probing than that, as I would anticipate from a diligent senator from South Australia. The latest figures on industrial disputes, released last week, point out the success of this Government's industrial relations policies. The number of working days lost through industrial disputes in July 1984 was over 65 per cent lower than the average time lost for that month over the last 10 years. Days lost figures in the 12 months to July 1984 were the second lowest for any 12-month period in more than 15 years, the lowest being the 12 months to June 1984. Senator Walters —Unemployment is so high it has got to be so. Senator BUTTON —Senator Walters says that unemployment is so high it has to be so. She had better explain the figures for the last two years of the Fraser Government, when unemployment reached record levels, and has since declined. Industrial disputes in 1982 also reached record levels. If Senator Walters wants to interject here, she can do so; but I suggest that she go out on the stump and explain those figures to the people of Australia, as I shall be doing; and she might get some information from the answer to this question which will help her. I was referring to the great improvements which have been made under this Government. In the 18-month period from January 1983 to June 1984, a little over two million days were lost through industrial disputes. That represents a 28.3 per cent improvement on the time loss of the comparable period-- Senator Walters —On a point of order, Mr President: Senator Button has suggested that I go out and stand on a stump. I do not need a stump; perhaps he does. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator BUTTON —What I am suggesting to Senator Walters is something that she might say. These figures represent a 28.3 per cent improvement on the time loss of the comparable period in 1982-83. They are a massive 53 per cent lower than the average for the 10 similar 18-month periods in the years 1972 to 1984. In 1979-1980, for example, nearly six million days were lost-testimony to the Fraser Government's ineptitude in industrial relations. Senator Chaney —What about 1974? Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney says: 'What about 1974?' The Fraser Government came to power with the promise of turning on the lights. Does he remember that? In seven years it did nothing about improving that situation. The plain fact is that this Government came to office-- Opposition senators interjecting- Senator BUTTON —This is obviously very painful to members of the Opposition. I am sorry about that. Sometimes one has to go through periods of pain in order to be cleansed. This Government came to office with a workable wages policy and a determination to engender industrial harmony. Senator Foreman asked what role the prices and incomes accord had to do with all of that. That is a matter for judgment; but it is either one thing or another. It is the prices and incomes accord which has brought about this success, or it is the general policies of this Government. You can have it one way or the other. But the fact is that the success is there. Australia is enjoying almost unprecedented industrial harmony in sharp contrast to the divisive and bitter years of the Fraser Government. This question of industrial disputation is of crucial importance to the future of this country. If one asks people why Australia was not competing on international markets 2, 3 , 4 or 5 years ago, everyone would say and the glib answer would be that it was the fault of industrial disputation, the high levels of industrial disputation. That was the alibi for years of failure by previous governments. That alibi no longer exists. This country has a much greater capacity to be competitive in international markets and in the domestic market because of the improved record of industrial disputation. I will be saying those things when I go on the stump. I hope Senator Walters will be saying them. If I want a big stump to stand on I will select a tree as thick as her. The PRESIDENT —Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the Gallery of the Hon. John Beattie, Chairman of Committees of the Tasmanian House of Assembly of Tasmania and one of the three representatives of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for this region. On behalf of all honourable senators I extend to Mr Beattie a warm and friendly welcome to Canberra. Senator CHANEY —I draw the attention of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to the statement by the Chairman of Australian Consolidated Press, Mr Kerry Packer, on 28 September and in particular to the section which deals with the arrival of a box from Katmandu addressed to the Chairman of World Series Cricket . I quote from that statement: The normal practice of the A.C.P. Customs Department is that when parcels arrive at the airport addressed to a Consolidated Press group company, the Customs officers at the airport are advised of the contents of the parcel and duty is then paid on the basis of that advice. It is rare that boxes are opened to be inspected given the good working relationship that exists between the A.C. P. Customs Department and the Customs officers at the airport. I ask the Minister: Was he aware of the practice referred to by Mr Packer in his statement? Is it a general practice? Does he believe that it is an adequate procedure to be adopted by the Australian Customs Service with respect to that or any other importing company? Senator BUTTON —The answer to the first part of the question is no, I was not aware of the practice. I believe that it is not a general practice, but it depends what the practice described in Mr Packer's statement amounts to. I will have the matter investigated and give Senator Chaney a detailed and comprehensive answer as soon as possible. Senator CHILDS —I refer the Attorney-General to the article in today's Sydney Morning Herald concerning the Casey diaries. Did the Attorney-General provide a correct answer to Senator Richardson's question without notice in the Senate on 24 August 1983 as set out on page 136 of Hansard? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am indebted to Senator Childs for raising this question because it gives me an opportunity to clarify the record in the absence of Senator Richardson who asked this question last year. The answer I gave in the Senate last year was based on briefing provided to me by the Department of Foreign Affairs and by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. From information that was provided to me earlier today in response to inquiries initiated by me following the appearance of that front page article, I am now in a position to say that the information contained in my answer given on 23 August last year was incorrect in one respect, namely, that on 18 July 1983 the Department of Foreign Affairs forwarded to ASIO references to 57 extracts of the Casey diaries for comment by the organisation. The briefing that was provided to me on 24 August 1983 in anticipation of Senator Richardson's question stated that comment was sought of ASIO by the Department of Foreign Affairs in relation to only one matter of detail concerning a particular person. In the light of what I have just said that information is clearly incorrect. That is not to say that everything in today's article in the Sydney Morning Herald is to be regarded now as being correct. If it is the case that there was a Department of Foreign Affairs briefing note to the office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, as today's article suggests, I am advised that ASIO did not initiate the matter. There was no request by ASIO that its interests be looked after by the Department of Foreign Affairs. Rather, the Department of Foreign Affairs officer in question offered to advise ASIO of any references in the material to the organisation and ASIO accepted that offer. Again, as to the question which is clearly inherent in the article about ASIO's vetting the material and possibly seeking embargoes on aspects of it, I am able to say, on the information available to me today, first of all from the Department of Foreign Affairs, that ASIO has not, in fact, sought an embargo on any of the entries in the Casey diaries that were referred to it. ASIO itself stated that the officer of the Department of Foreign Affairs dealing with this matter was informed on 29 July 1983 that ASIO did not wish to seek an embargo for any of the material extracted. The extracts largely referred to retired or deceased ASIO officers. Accordingly ASIO did not make any contribution to the alleged editing, altering or interfering with the Casey papers. As to whether there were any embargoes of material in the Casey papers from other sources. I am further advised today by Foreign Affairs that the Director- General of the National Library of Australia agreed to embargo certain names in the diaries during the lifetimes of the people concerned on the grounds of personal reputation. This had been done at the request of the Casey family and, in some instances, of the Department of Foreign Affairs. The Department of Foreign Affairs considers that some passages in the diaries still retain diplomatic sensitivities concerning the late 1950s. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has endorsed this view. However, the library proposes to release the diaries under the 30-year rule in accordance with the wishes of the Casey family . Passages which are now considered to be of some sensitivity will be examined again closer to the time of the scheduled release of the diaries for the late 1950s. Finally, in relation to the matter on which I was incorrectly briefed I do not regard that as a satisfactory state of affairs. Late this morning I signed letters to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Director-General of ASIO requesting that inquiries be instituted as to why I was not made aware of any contact between ASIO and the Department of Foreign Affairs additional to the contact that was referred to in the original briefing provided to me and, further, why, after my answer given on 23 August last year, the deficiency in that briefing was not immediately detected and brought to my attention so that I could advise the Senate accordingly. I add that prior to today neither I nor my own Department had any knowledge of these matters other than the original briefings provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs and ASIO. I hope that clears the matter up to the extent that it is possible to do so. Senator REID —My question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate concerns the fate of Government advertising campaigns in the light of yesterday's election date announcement by the Prime Minister. I ask: Has a review been conducted of all current Commonwealth advertising in the print media and on radio and television to determine which campaigns should be cancelled or suspended because of their overtly political nature? For example, will the Government stop the advertisements for Medicare? Which campaigns are to be stopped or discontinued and which are to be allowed to continue through the election period? Senator BUTTON —I understand that consideration has been given to those matters particularly by the Special Minister of State. I am not able to give Senator Reid a comprehensive answer but I am able to answer in relation to the question of Medicare. The current Medicare advertising campaign is being conducted by the Health Insurance Commission and has been planned for some time. That campaign will conclude this Saturday, 13 October. No further advertising of this kind is planned before December 1984. The Government fully accepts that during the caretaker period before the election, which formally begins on the date of the dissolution of the House, no major advertising campaigns should be conducted. The Medicare campaign which, as I said, will conclude on Saturday, does not contradict this principle. Senator HEARN —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services to my question of 4 September regarding Australian Council of Trade Union criticism of the implementation of government policies on preference for Australian made goods. The Minister in his answer to my question referred to a major company with a large contract with his Department which was contemplating moving its manufacturing operations off-shore and observed that, if it did so, he would review that contract. I ask the Minister whether the company has indicated to him its intentions in this regard. If so, what action is he considering regarding its contract? Senator GIETZELT —I recall the general sense of the question that was raised with me by Senator Hearn about a month or so ago when I indicated the Government's policies in respect of the purchase of goods with a preference for Australian made goods. I remember that I undertook to take up with my Department a matter brought to my attention in respect of one of the major suppliers of goods to my Department. It was reported that this company was going off-shore in its manufacturing operations. Therefore, I made some inquiries and looked at the contract to see whether there was a violation of its terms relating to preference for Australian-made goods. I checked with the particular company and it has advised me that its attitude has not changed; it will be persisting with supplying Australian-made goods in response to that contractual arrangement. The company was advised of the Government's position and my personal attitude on the matter, and it has given an assurance that it will continue to supply the Australian market, including my Department, with Australian-made goods. The company indicated that it had purchased an interest in a Singapore company which manufactures and supplies goods for the Asian market, but that this would in no way affect the contractual arrangements with the Department of Veterans' Affairs. On the general question raised by Senator Hearn concerning Australian manufacturing companies which are successful tenderers to the Commonwealth and which subsequently reduce the Australian content of their manufactured goods, I am advised that this is sufficient ground for reviewing the contract, and further that, if this review were to show that a 20 per cent notional discount for Australian content was the decisive factor in awarding the contract in the first place, there would be ground for terminating that contract. I reassure the Senate and Senator Hearn in particular that this matter is being constantly monitored by all Ministers in the Hawke Government. Senator JESSOP —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. In view of the large profits being made through the organised illegal trade of heroin and the related financial and social costs to the community which lead to house break-ins, hold-ups and gangster style murders, has the Minister or the Department given any consideration to making heroin available to medically registered addicts free, or at a minimal cost, either through public hospitals or special clinics with the objective of rehabilitating these unfortunate victims of murderous drug pushing? I am informed that this system is being used with some success overseas. Does the Government consider that such action could be helpful in reducing the problems of heroin addiction to the community and to the victims themselves, and could lead to more effective control being exerted on this tragic social problem? Senator GRIMES —I know, as does Senator Jessop, that from time to time in Australia there is a body of opinion that believes that the best way to handle the problem of heroin addiction would be to do as he says, and that is to supply heroin to registered addicts. This is a method that was used in England and for many years seemed to be more effective than the more prohibitive methods which were used in other countries, although in recent times it seems that it has broken down there. I know from my experience on the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare that this matter has been continually under discussion in Australia. I think one of the great difficulties in introducing such a system in Australia is, first, the doubts about its ethics, and, secondly, the large number of jurisdictions we have in Australia, State and Federal, all of which would have to agree entirely on that process if it were to be successful. I think that is unlikely. I do not know of any recent consideration by the Department of Health of this sort of method of treating addicts. Certainly the Government has not had this method under consideration recently. I will refer the question to the Minister for Health and find out the latest details. Senator MAGUIRE —Does the Minister for Social Security have up to date information on the numbers of persons receiving unemployment benefit and, if so, how does the total compare with that for last year? What has been the trend in benefit payments in the various States over the last 12 months? How does the latest national figure compare with the Budget estimate for the current financial year? Senator GRIMES —In the week ending 28 September the number of unemployment beneficiaries in Australia was 565,348. That represents a decline of 5,205 during the month of September and a drop of 7.4 per cent in the 12 months since September 1983 when there were 610,379 beneficiaries; that is, a drop of 45,000- odd in people on the unemployment benefit. That has been the pattern for most of this year. In fact, the amount of money spent on unemployment benefit payments in the social security budget was some $300m less than we estimated in the Budget before last. In the individual States the reduction in the number of unemployment beneficiaries over that time has been 8.4 per cent in New South Wales, 13.4 per cent in Victoria, 9 per cent in South Australia, 3 per cent in Western Australia, 2.8 per cent in Tasmania and 20.2 per cent in the Australian Capital Territory. There have been increases in the number of unemployment beneficiaries of 0.8 per cent in Queensland and 2.3 per cent in the Northern Territory. The fall in the number of unemployment beneficiaries is a further indicator, I believe, of the success of the Government's economic policies which in the last year have transformed Australia from a no-growth economy to the fastest growing economy in the world. We have halved the rate of inflation, we have created a quarter of a million new jobs and interest rates have lowered, with the consequent increase in investment and reduction in mortgage payments, et cetera. The measure of unemployment beneficiaries is an exact measure. At the moment, with 565,000-odd, we are 5,000 below the average that we estimated we would have over this year, but whether that average is reached depends on the increase in unemployment beneficiaries which inevitably occurs over the Christmas period with the school leavers. It is just another indicator of the success of the Government's economic policies and another reason why people will be aware of the success of those policies over the past 18 months. Senator MACKLIN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. It concerns the so-called road through the Daintree Rainforest. Is the Minister aware that on 12 September this year Mr Cohen, at a Press conference, announcing the Australian Labor Party Government's refusal to save the rain forest, stated: 'I am informed it is now negotiable by most conventional vehicles'? Given that during the victory parade by those who had destroyed the rain forest to build a road a vast majority of vehicles were bogged, one had its axle broken, two overturned and a tourist party of pensioners were so terrified they refused to go back down the road, will the Minister now publicly declare that the road is not passable by most conventional vehicles and even by most four-wheel drive vehicles? Is the Minister concerned that when heavy rains come vast amounts of the road will end up being deposited on the Great Barrier Reef, an area over which the Federal Government has a responsibility and in respect of which it has a duty to prevent such an environmental disaster? Is the Federal Government monitoring the impact on the Great Barrier Reef of those early rains and the washaways of the so- called Daintree Road? If so, what are its conclusions? Senator RYAN —I read in the newspapers of problems with the passability of the road through the Daintree area to which Senator Macklin's question referred, but I have no idea whether the attention of my colleague Mr Cohen has been drawn to that or whether he is in a position to assess the consequences of the flooding of that road in terms of damage to the Great Barrier Reef or anything else. I presume that Senator Macklin would understand that the condition of the road or the access to the road is not the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government. Clearly, the protection of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is, so I will draw the Minister's attention to any possible dangers to the Barrier Reef Marine Park arising from flooding of the road. I also remind Senator Macklin that our Government is committed to developing a conservation plan in co-operation with the Queensland Government for that area. Obviously any threat to the remaining rain forest is something of concern to us. I will draw all Senator Macklin's beliefs about what will happen as a result of the road being flooded to the attention of Mr Cohen and ask him to assess their consequences in the areas where the Commonwealth has a responsibility. Senator PRIMMER —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. In light of the recent findings of the International Commission of Jurists amongst Irian Jayan refugees in Papua New Guinea, would the Minister consider sending an official delegation to the refugee camps in Papua New Guinea to assess whether any of these refugees would be suitable for settlement in Australia? Senator GRIMES —I have no details of the matters raised by Senator Primmer. I will refer the matter to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and get a detailed answer. Senator MESSNER —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I refer to his interview on the Mike Schildberger show yesterday. Does the Minister's refusal to rule out the possibility of a mini-Budget add weight to the comments of Mr Barry Jones, the Minister for Science and Technology, that taxes will have to be raised after the election? Does it further suggest that the assets test may be tightened in line with the statements by Senator Grimes in his contributions to Labor Essays of 1983 when he indicated that such a test should be run concurrently with a wider assets tax? Senator BUTTON —The Government has given no consideration to next year's Budget proposals, but certainly no decision has been taken on, and there has been no discussion of, any mini-Budget as suggested by Senator Messner. Insofar as the question about the assets test is raised, I did not mention anything like that in the course of my discussion on the Schildberger program. What I did say was that the Government was committed to a broad review of the taxation system; it was concerned about inequities in the taxation system; any such review would be designed primarily to remove such inequities from the system; in having any review of the taxation system, the views of a wide range of organisations would be taken into account; and the question of a capital gains tax would not be excluded from the agenda, just as it would not be excluded from the agenda by the next leader of the Liberal Party, Mr Howard. Senator ROBERTSON —I refer the Minister for Resources and Energy to a proposal to construct a natural gas pipeline between Alice Springs and Darwin and the associated proposal that the new Darwin power station be fuelled by natural gas. I further refer to recent newspaper reports that the Northern Territory Government believes that the pipeline proposal is 'a definite goer'. Can the Minister advise the Senate of the progress of discussions between the Northern Territory Minister and himself on this matter? Senator WALSH —Mr Tuxworth had a meeting with John Dawkins and me about a month ago, as a result of which it was agreed, or I thought it was agreed between the three of us, and Mr Dawkins thought it was agreed, that there was no point in holding further ministerial meetings until there was approximate agreement, between the Bureau of Mineral Resources, the Northern Territory Department and some consultants which it has engaged, on the gas reserves in the fields which the Northern Territory Government proposes to tap. I might add that there is a wide discrepancy, particularly in one field, between the Bureau of Mineral Resources estimates and the consultants Van Poollen and Associates who were engaged by the Northern Territory. Notwithstanding that, Mr Tuxworth rang about a fortnight ago and asked for another meeting. I sent a letter to him on 5 October drawing attention to our original agreement; that is, that there was no point in holding further meetings until there was agreement, or something approaching agreement, on the gas reserves. Obviously it would be futile and stupid to build a gas pipeline in the expectation that there was sufficient gas to supply a market for 30 years and then discover that there was only sufficient gas to supply it for 15 years. The economics of the project, which are probably marginal in any case, would, in those circumstances, clearly be negative. I must say that I am becoming a little worried about some of the comments that Mr Tuxworth has been making recently. I suppose that he is making his run for the leadership of the Northern Territory Government after Mr Everingham is forced to resign and thereby end his parliamentary career because he is not likely to be coming into the House of Representatives as he seems to believe. For example, my concern about Mr Tuxworth was greatly stimulated when I saw a Press clipping from the last issue of the Sunday Territorian which is headed ' Bid for Smelter', which reports that Mr Tuxworth is going to South Korea in order to negotiate to construct an aluminium smelter in the Northern Territory. It is common knowledge that electricity to aluminium smelters is normally sold at around 2c per kilowatt hour in Australia and that the cost of producing electricity in the Northern Territory is, according to the Territory Government, in the vicinity of 18c per kilowatt hour. Even with the most optimistic expectation of the cost of electricity from its gas project it would still be of the order of 15c a kilowatt hour or thereabouts. I find it very surprising that Mr Tuxworth should be going to South Korea to negotiate to sell electricity at presumably a price in the vicinity of 2c per kilowatt hour when, on the most optimistic expectations, the production cost of that electricity would be 15c per kilowatt hour. The same Press report also forecasts-Mr Tuxworth, has apparently warmed to his subject of throwing pies in the sky-that if the central Australian gas reserves were exhausted the off-shore gas which will be discovered very shortly off Darwin would be piped down through the pipeline towards the south instead of the north in this case and fed into the national grid. He said also, of course, that it would need to be sold at uniform prices-a suggestion which I must say I find extraordinary. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I take a point of order. This seems to be an extremely rambling answer to a specific question. The Minister is now going into all sorts of extraneous matters. I ask you to bring the Minister to order so that we can ask a few more questions at Question Time. The PRESIDENT —I listened to the question asked by Senator Robertson. The Minister is within the ambit of the question but I ask him not to debate it in any way. Senator WALSH —Mr President, I am certainly not debating the question. The suggestion to pipe Northern Territory gas all over Australia and sell it at uniform prices-this is not a matter of debate but a matter of fact-for example, to pipe it from Darwin to Sydney and sell it in Sydney at the same price as it would be sold in Darwin, clearly would disadvantage any industries which may or may not at some time in the future be thinking of locating in Darwin and it would encourage them to locate instead in Sydney. Senator MacGIBBON —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Now that the national mapping program for mapping Australia on scales of 1:200,000 and 1:250,000 is coming to an end, as this task was the reason why the Division of National Mapping was set up, and in view of the increased capability of the States at larger scale mapping, what is now the future role of the Division of National Mapping? Senator WALSH —I am not sure off the top of my head when the current activities of the Division of National Mapping are scheduled to finish. I will check that out, but I do not think it is in the near future. I can, however, tell Senator MacGibbon that a review is currently in progress at departmental level of the mapping activities of the Australian Army survey unit and the Division of National Mapping with a view to co-ordinating those activities more effectively. That also, I might add, is a subject which has been hanging around for about the last five years under both the previous Government and this Government in the desire to make more efficient the joint operations of those two organisations which are engaged in mapping. Senator MacGIBBON —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. Is there then no question that the activities of the Division of National Mapping will be wound up? Will it be kept in existence into the foreseeable future? Senator WALSH —In the near future there is certainly no plan to wind up Natmap. Senator CROWLEY —Has the attention of the Attorney-General been drawn to an article by Sir James Killen in the Melbourne Herald of 8 October 1984? In this article Sir James makes clear his disapproval of the way in which the Opposition is behaving on a number of matters, with particular regard to the Age tapes and the setting up of the Costigan Royal Commission into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union by the Fraser Government and the provision of an early report from that Commission to a selective, small group of the previous Government's Cabinet. Finally, he gives his reasons for leaving the parliamentary Liberal Party as partly, amongst other reasons, his profound disagreement with its style of management and the bestowal of ersatz patronage. Can the Attorney-General comment on this article, particularly in light of the Opposition's behaviour in debate on these matters in this place? Senator GARETH EVANS —I did see the article in the Melbourne Herald and it was in fact a fine piece of praiseworthy prose. Senator Chaney —I take a point of order, Mr President. Given the usual inability of the Attorney-General to remain on the subject, I thought I would get in early . I ask you, Mr President, to keep the Attorney-General on those aspects of the question which relate to his ministerial responsibility. The PRESIDENT —I draw the attention of the Attorney-General to standing order 99 which says that questions shall not ask for an expression of opinion. I hope the opinion will not be too long. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am deeply conscious of my parliamentary responsibilities and I will accordingly refer the Senate only to matters which are unequivocally not my opinions but those of Sir James. Senator Peter Rae —Or those which come within your responsibility. Senator GARETH EVANS —Indeed. I do not comment though on any part of Sir James's article which relates to the Costigan Commission because I think, in all the circumstances of an impending report and public controversy about the Commission , it would be inappropriate to do so. What is pertinent is that part of Sir James's article refers to the Government's handling of the Age tapes affair which I think even Senator Chaney and Senator Rae would acknowledge to be squarely within my previous and present representative ministerial responsibilities. What Sir James has to say in this respect is in fact very pertinent indeed. Referring to the parliamentary Liberal Party, he said: The ambition of office seemed paramount to an observance of fundamental philosophic principles. The Opposition's conduct of the 'tapes affair' was a polished piece of ineptitude and blunder. When preference is given to the glow of political advantage over integrity and proper process of inquiry then let there be no complaint from those who are left to warm their hands at the dying embers. That strikes me as a splendid epitaph for the Opposition's performance on this matter and could very nicely grace its tombstone at the forthcoming election. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I refer to the answer given today by the Leader of the Government in the Senate to the effect that the last two years of the Fraser Government's unemployment record were bad by comparison with the record of the Hawke Government. I draw attention to the August 1984 document of monthly economic and social indicators which is in my hand and which was prepared by the Parliamentary Library. I ask: Is it not a fact that the seasonally adjusted statistics for unemployment in this document show the average unemployment for the last two years of the Fraser Government to be 5.8 per cent for 1981 and 7.2 per cent for 1982? Do these statistics also not show that the average unemployment rate for the first nine months of the Hawke Government in 1983 was 10.1 per cent and, for the first eight months of 1984, 9.2 per cent? Does the document also show that the participation rate of employment was 59.6 per cent in August? Is this not a lower rate than any recorded in the past 10 years? Does this not show that there is a growing and chronic rate of unemployment under the Hawke Government? Senator BUTTON —My answer was basically directed to the question of time lost through industrial disputes, but in response to interjection I did make some comment about the unemployment record of the Fraser Government. Senator Sir John Carrick has been kind enough to give us the pattern of developments under that Government by referring to the figure in 1981 as 5.8 per cent, in 1982, 7.2 per cent and in 1983, 10.4 per cent. The honourable senators will recall, I have no doubt, because it is a source of some concern at Question Time, that his Government was defeated in an election in March 1983. Two figures the honourable senator did not give us were that for the December quarter of 1982 and that for the March quarter of 1983 which, I believe, showed unemployment at a figure of about 11 per cent. That is the point about which the people of Australia made a judgment in March 1983. One can do this exercise and pick periods which-- Senator Chaney —You picked calendar year 1981 and calendar year 1982. You picked those two years. Senator BUTTON —All right. Calendar year 1981 and calendar year 1982 saw a considerable growth in unemployment which continued into 1983. The other part of Senator Sir John Carrick's question related to participation rates. He plucked out the figure for August, I think, of 1984. The participation rate in August 1984, as I recall it, was 59.6 per cent. In 18 months of answering questions about the unemployment issue I have continually stressed that, while the record of this Government has shown a decline in unemployment during the last few months, we could not in any sense rest on our laurels in relation to the current unemployment figures. I have no doubt that honourable senators will have seen today on the front of the Australian Financial Review an Australian Bureau of Statistics Survey on what is called the disguised unemployment in the Australian community. All these matters are of great concern. I do not pretend, and have never pretended, that this Government, or any other government, in the current situation, could be proud of its success in the reduction of the rate of unemployment. We are, I think satisfied-perhaps satisfied is not the right word; gratified may be the better word-that, given the problems which we have, the rate of unemployment has declined in the last few months. However, there is no doubt that during the last few years of the Fraser Government unemployment reached a peak, and that is the point I was addressing. If, in the course of my earlier answer in regard to the record of the Fraser Government throughout those two years I lumped those two years together, I regret that that inference was capable of being drawn. Of course the record was not a good one. It was a rising record of unemployment coupled with a bad level of industrial disputation. I make the point that what I said about unemployment related to an interjection made by the ubiquitous Senator Walters which suggested that the reduction in the level of industrial disputation had been achieved because of higher unemployment than existed under the Fraser Government. That is not true. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The Leader of the Government in the Senate referred to the participation rate and wanted to show that there had been a peak in unemployment. I ask him: Is he aware that the participation rate in March 1983-the last months of the Fraser Government-was 61.2 per cent compared with 59.6 per cent now and that never again in any months since the Hawke Government took office has the participation rate been anything like 61.2 per cent? In other words, there has been a decline in the participation rate and therefore chronic unemployment. Senator BUTTON —March 1983 was not the last month of the Fraser Government. That Government was out in February 1983. March 1983 was the first month of the Hawke Government. It might have been a result of growing confidence in the community that the previous Government had been defeated. It may seem that we make points about this matter, but in response to numerous questions, basically from Senator Chaney, I have made the point that it is dangerous to take out any one month in respect of participation rates and to seek to draw any conclusions from that. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —Mr President, I table correspondence between the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and His Excellency the Governor-General relating to the election scheduled for 1 December 1984. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.06) — by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. I seek leave, Mr President, to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debated adjourned. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(3.07) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The Export Development Grants Board annual report for 1983-84 again reflects the fact that we should pay tribute to the service provided by the Board and the high calibre of its members and staff. The Grants Board has performed a very great function in the last few years and has given considerable assistance to a very wide range of people who have become interested and involved in the export market. This country, being a trading nation, by what it produces and by its geographic location depends very heavily on the productive sector and on the exporters in that sector. I am extremely concerned to see that in the allocation of funds for 1984-85, as per Budget Paper No. 1, on page 209, undetermined claims before the Board as at 30 June 1985 could amount to as much as $95m. This is almost twice as much as that carried over from the previous year, when it was $57m. This is a very serious trend and it certainly gives some credence to the general rumour that it is part of the attitude of the Government to dispense with the scheme, the Board and the lot. I believe that it would be a disastrous state of affairs if the Board were disbanded and the effort that has gone into establishing the system up to this stage were interfered with in any way. In support of that, we also know that the Board has been required to reduce staff to 81 staff years in the current financial year. This will mean that the delays are going to be greater and that the likelihood of the scheme falling into disrepute will be even greater. This adds even more credence to the rumour that this Board is due for destruction. It is quite difficult to understand why the Government would feel that an organisation such as this should be targeted for this sort of treatment. If we are to become any sort of a force in the world it will be only by encouraging people to export and by giving those exporters the encouragement that an organisation such as this is able to provide. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(3.10) —I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. The report of the Trade Development Council Panel 75 on invisibles trade is appreciated for the insight it gives into Australia's invisible deficits and the weakness in Australia's assessment, for its perception of the situation which has contributed to the deficits and for the constructive and realistic recommendations that should help to remedy the present imbalance if the Government has the fortitude to implement them. It is important to voice Australia's concern about its trade and the invisibles imbalance. The major source of Australia's net invisible deficit is largely the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development group. That deficit on invisibles reflects , firstly, the servicing costs on foreign debt which are becoming larger and larger by the day; and, secondly, a disadvantage in the provision of tradable services. The source of the net invisible deficit is attributed predominantly to the United States, the United Kingdom and Japan, followed by the countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations, especially Singapore and Indonesia. If we look at the figures for the European Economic Community we notice a deficit on ordinary trade of $1.7 billion and a deficit on invisibles of $1.8 billion, making a combined total of $3.5 billion. While trade in imports and exports always provides plenty of avenue for exploitation by one partner to the detriment of the other, the Labor Government must accept much responsibility for our increasing foreign indebtedness. Governments have seemingly overlooked the increasing tendency for foreign capital to be directed into consumption rather than, as preferred, into investment. A re-ordering of priorities which lessens the emphasis on recurrent technological activity while strengthening the emphasis on innovation is highly desirable and very necessary. So, too, is the protection of Australian development through patents and copyright which will ensure that Australian initiatives get the credit, success and reward they deserve and are not open to duplication by overseas predators. Aggressive promotion of Australia's technological capabilities and capacities in the areas where we display particular talent and have an edge on our foreign competitors, such as the biological sciences, will generate new export potential. John Menadue, head of the Department of Trade, said in April this year that one in nine jobs are created by exports. As we all believe that a reduction in unemployment is a realistic and feasible expectation, there are considerable incentives to ensure that our high technology industry becomes viable and successful. The establishment of an Australian re-insurance industry is advocated in the report and is needed. The large insurance payments Australia makes overseas renders such a development essential if we are to make a serious effort towards reducing the invisibles deficit. I also believe that if there were more realism on the part of the Australian Seamen's Union we would become less dependent on overseas shipping. Excessive crewing requirements keep costs unnecessarily high and preclude Australia's chances of using its own ships in the short term. I also draw the Senate's attention to the provisions in relation to aid. I think that the Government should apply its mind to a number of emphases in relation to the recommendations on page 6 of the report. In summary I say that while our invisibles deficit warrants gloom and doom, Australia can take heart knowing that there are many options for reducing the deficit and many benefits to be gained from doing so if the Government has the will. I commend the report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(3.15) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I rise to make some comments on the annual report of the Commonwealth Fire Board largely because of my continuing interest in matters of safety and occupational health. This report addresses those issues, albeit briefly. I found the report quite fascinating, not least to discover that this Board was first constituted in 1909 and disbanded in 1930 because at the time there was a large reduction in the number of Commonwealth Government buildings being built. I presume the buildings that had been built were still assumed to be a fire danger but curiously at the time the Board was disbanded because of a reduction in the number of Commonwealth Government buildings. The Board was reconstituted in 1946 and its history over the next few years is one of various comings and goings through government departments. In 1975 with the creation of the Department of Administrative Services the Board was transferred to that Department. The report is a nice little report from a nice little Board. It tells us that the Board lives on the ninth floor of the Commonwealth Government Centre in Melbourne and has a staff ceiling which remains at five consisting of one technical staff, three clerical staff and the full time chairman. It has a nice budget of $200,000. I think the report is a fair credit to a small team that addresses fairly significant issues. The report has some interesting figures on the cost of damage done by fires in Commonwealth departmental areas. Of course, the principal function of the Board is to review the safety and fire arrangements and provisions in all Commonwealth buildings and plants that come under the responsibility of the Department of Administrative Services. Of course , the Board looks at the ordinary fire and safety provisions in Commonwealth government buildings. As well as that the Board is very interested in research and testing activities. Under the previous Government there was a decision to dispose of the Experimental Building Station to the private sector but on 15 September 1983 Mr Hurford, the Minister for Housing and Construction, who has the departmental responsibility stated that the Federal Government had decided to reverse that decision and that the Experimental Building Station would remain under Commonwealth control, which allows for the continuing and immediate research that the Commonwealth Fire Board judges to be necessary. From a reading of the Board's report quite clearly this continues to be so. One of the areas the Fire Board is interested in is the implementation of the Australian Uniform Building Regulations Co-Ordinating Council recommendations. The Board collaborated very carefully with the Council. Another matter of interest for the Board is the Hazchem labelling system, that is labelling of hazardous chemicals, and notification on the vehicles transporting those chemicals. This system is fairly universally accepted throughout Australia. Of course, it brings to our attention a dimension of the Commonwealth Fire Board which is largely outside of buildings but which is very significantly a part of its considerations. The report addresses special buildings. I note that there is considerable input by the Fire Board into the overall fire protection to be installed in the new Parliament House in Canberra. While I am delighted that sufficient planning is going to proposals for fire safety in that building I find it stands nicely against the problems we are having with the provision of child care facilities in the new Parliament House. Perhaps in time we will see sufficient and equal attention given to the provision of child care compared with fire safety matters . The report also refers to special buildings with particular safety requirements which fall outside the uniform building regulations. I refer in particular to the Commonwealth Centre to be built in Currie Street, Adelaide which apparently has a proposed atrium space which has created unusual considerations for addressing matters of safety particularly in regard to the exhausting of smoke, fire and so on. Mostly the Board lists problems associated with large buildings and Commonwealth offices. But it also looks at the problem of egress from split- level domestic residences particularly in Darwin and Woomera. I presume that multi-storey buildings with many people living in them are a serious fire risk. The Board's recommendation was that after it had examined the matter it did not see any particular need for extra consideration to be given in regard to people getting out of a building, but if occupants were concerned about their safety the Board suggested they could purchase and install single station smoke detectors to give early warning of fire. I am a little concerned that the Board should recommend that people should instal early detection mechanisms in their own flats but, presumably, that is because the Board feels the building is safe enough under ordinary standards. It has addressed the question that I raised first of all, that is occupational health and safety and it acknowledges-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator CROWLEY —I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator SIBRAA(New South Wales) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, I present a report on Australia and ASEAN-Challenges and Opportunities, together with the minutes of proceedings of the Committee and the transcript of evidence. I seek leave to move a motion relating to the report. Leave granted. Senator SIBRAA —I move: That the Senate take note of the report. It is now 17 years since the Association of South East Asian Nations-ASEAN-was established by Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. Brunei became the sixth member in January of this year. It is now ten years since Australia began its formal relationship with ASEAN. The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence considered this year an appropriate time to conduct a detailed review and evaluation of Australia-ASEAN relations. ASEAN has become a most important focus for Australian foreign relations. ASEAN is central to the security of the South East Asian region and therefore of major significance for Australia's own security. The economically dynamic ASEAN region presents significant opportunities for Australia's economy. A number of socio-economic issues of major current concern to Australia are associated with our relations with ASEAN-for example, immigration and refugee policies, and policies towards overseas students in Australia's education system. The report first examines ASEAN's evolution and development of economic and political co- operation among its members. It concludes that ASEAN has made a very substantial contribution to regional security and therefore to Australia's own security, a contribution greater than generally realised. The spirit of trust and confidence and improved stability developed through ASEAN co-operation has also enhanced the growth prospects of its members' economies. The report goes on to consider a range of issues in Australia's relations with the ASEAN region. It assesses recent Australian and ASEAN policies towards regional security, especially the ongoing conflict over Cambodia. The report discusses Australia's recent approaches towards these issues in the context of Australia's policies since 1975. Australia, like ASEAN, is concerned about the degree of instability and heightened major power competition posed by the Cambodian conflict. The report argues that Australia sees its efforts to explore bases for dialogue as being pursued in the context of a close relationship with ASEAN. As a state located close to the South East Asian region, Australia is especially concerned at problems of insecurity and major power competition in the whole region. Immigration and refugee issues continue to be of major importance in the relationship and the report details recent trends in both areas. The refugee situation in the region at present is substantially less serious than it was in 1978-79, but major problems persist for the ASEAN members. The report argues that Australian policies towards Indo-Chinese refugees have been an area of extensive co-operation in Australia-ASEAN relations and that continuation of this co-operation is in our mutual interest. The Committee concludes that Australia's immigration and refugee policies in relation to the ASEAN region need to try to accommodate at least two important sets of interest: Firstly, the capacity and willingness of the Australian community to welcome and accept immigrants and refugees arriving into Australian society, and, secondly, the interests of Australia's ASEAN neighbours, who wish to continue the process of regional and international co-operation pursued since 1978 which has helped substantially to alleviate the burdens imposed on the countries of ASEAN. Economic relations are examined at length. The report highlights significant increases in trade flows between Australia and ASEAN countries, but considers Australia's export performance in the ASEAN region to be somewhat disappointing, especially in the area of sophisticated manufactures for which ASEAN demand is fast growing. The report identifies other promising areas for the expansion of trade, provided Australian exporters maintain international competitiveness and Australia and ASEAN countries continue to liberalise their trade access policies . The services sector, for example, financial and information services, business consultancies, education and health, appears to provide particularly valuable export opportunities. In the area of education, the report considers the issues of overseas students and Australia's education system in the context of the report of the Jackson Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program and the report of the Goldring Committee of Review of Private Overseas Student Policy. The Committee considers that study in Australia by students from ASEAN countries is a most important avenue towards greater personal contacts, improved mutual awareness and expanding commercial opportunities. The report sets out proposals intended to encourage continuing and increased educational opportunities for ASEAN students in ways which can accommodate both the interests of the ASEAN region and those of Australian education. Ten years ago-in April 1974-Australia became the first country outside South East Asia to develop a relationship with ASEAN as a group. The Committee has concluded that the relationship overall has been successful, but it sees important challenges ahead for Australia if it is to maximise opportunities for consolidating the relationship. The report sees a need for greater co-ordination of efforts to develop the ASEAN relationship in economic, educational, social and cultural fields. It has suggested that the establishment of an Australia-ASEAN council, modelled on the Australia-Japan Foundation and the Australia-China Council, could do much to further this goal. The report sees a major need to heighten awareness among the business sector of economic opportunities for Australia in the region and for Australian industry to become more export-oriented. The report also considers that Australia's frequent expressions of interest in the ASEAN region, as well as Asia in general, should be backed up by a commitment at the national level to promote and co-ordinate efforts in Asian studies. This is particularly relevant to Australia's economic prospects in the ASEAN region. The report supports the establishment of an Asian studies council to provide the co-ordination that is much needed in this area. The Committee considers that the first decade of Australia's formal relationship with ASEAN has already produced a valuable expansion of co- operation on vitally important political and socio-economic issues. The reports suggests that there are close interconnections between Australia's political and economic relationships with ASEAN. In particular, Australia's economic prospects will benefit from maintenance of a mature and co-operative political interrelationship. The report concludes that with continued emphasis and innovation in several specified key areas, the relationship can be developed further to the mutual benefit of both Australia and our ASEAN neighbours. In presenting this report I observe that I think it is a good example of the work being done by committees of the Parliament in general and the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence in particular. Recent reports of this Committee have attracted favourable attention. In commenting on a recent report of the Joint Committee on conflict and the superpowers in the Horn of Africa, a European journal recently stated that the report was notable for its clarity and objectivity and that it was of considerably higher quality than similar products of the European Parliament. Of course, these reports would not be possible without the dedication and support of the Committee staff. Whilst all the staff attached to the Joint Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee assisted in this report, special mention should be made of Mr Ian Booth, the Sub-Committee secretary, and Dr Frank Frost, a specialist adviser to the Committee. Both of them worked long hours and in difficult circumstances arising out of a need to complete the report before the Senate rises. The completed report is a testament to their efforts. I hope that the report I present today may come to be regarded as a significant contribution towards greater understanding of the important issue of Australian-ASEAN relations. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act, I present the report relating to the 132 kilovolt subtransmission development at Tuggeranong, Australian Capital Territory. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator FOREMAN —by leave-The Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority purchases electricity from the Electricity Commission of New South Wales and the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority. Once received at the bulk supply substation at Holt electricity is distributed throughout the Australian Capital Territory along a system of 132,000 volt subtransmission lines to zone substations, where it is transformed to 11,000 volts and then fed into residential and commercial areas where it is further transformed to a more usable voltage. The Tuggeranong Valley is one of the most rapidly developing areas of Canberra. Predictions indicate that the population of the valley will increase from its present 43,000 people to 62,600 by 1988 and will possibly peak at 100,000 during the late 1990s. The valley is currently supplied with electricity from a zone substation at Wanniassa, which reached 95 per cent of its capacity during the last two winters. Clearly if development is to continue the provision of additional electrical power is essential. The proposal is for the construction of a zone substation at Gilmore and for the erection of 20 kilometres of high voltage subtransmission line to connect it at zone substations at Wanniassa and the Causeway. The Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority prepared an environmental impact statement on the proposal and delivered copies of it to all persons and organisations who may have been affected by the proposal. The Authority examined all responses and compiled a final environmental impact statement which was subsequently cleared by the Department of Home Affairs and Environment. The Committee is of the opinion that the proposal meets all the relevant criteria and recommends that the work proceed. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The following message has been received from the House of Representatives: Message No. 359 MR PRESIDENT, The House of Representatives transmits to the Senate the following Resolution which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day, and requests that the Senate concur and take action accordingly: (1) That a joint select committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the operation of Regulation 4A of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the ACT Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983 in relation to videotapes and videodiscs and in particular- (a) the effectiveness of such legislation by comparison with previous legislation purporting to govern the importation, production, reproduction, sale and hire of violent, pornographic or otherwise obscene material; (b) whether the present classification system, as applied by the Film Censorship Board, is adequate as a basis for import and point of sale controls; (c) whether video retailers are observing the conditions of sale or hire attached to 'X' classified material, particularly in relation to children under 18 years; (d) whether Regulation 4A of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations is adequate in identifying categories of prohibited material, and operating effectively in preventing the importation of videotapes/discs falling within the prohibited categories; (e) whether children under the age of 18 years are gaining access to videotapes /discs containing violent, pornographic or otherwise obscene material; (f) whether the ACT Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983 should be amended to make it an offence for persons purchasing or hiring videotapes/discs classified above 'R' to allow, suffer or negligently permit children to view such material; (g) whether cinemas should be permitted to screen for public exhibition material classified above 'R', subject to prohibition from entry of persons under the age of 18 years; (h) whether films which would merit a classification above 'R' are being produced in Australia and if so whether Australian men and women are adequately protected by existing law from pressure to act in such films, and (i) the likely effects upon people, especially children, of exposure to violent , pornographic or otherwise obscene material. (2) That the committee consist of 9 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 1 Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (4) That the committee elect a Government Member as its chairman. (5) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chairman and the deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting . (6) That 3 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee. (7) That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to move from place to place. (8) That the committee report by 30 April 1985. (9) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. H. A. JENKINS Speaker House of Representatives, Canberra, 9 October 1984 a.m. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That consideration of the message be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) 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. First Readings Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the Bills be now read a first time. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) 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 Gareth Evans) read a first time. Second Readings Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(3.35) —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- FISHERIES LICENCES LEVY BILL 1984 The purpose of this Bill is to provide basic authority for imposing a levy on Australian boats to raise revenue to support fisheries management measures and costs of associated research for the effective management of fisheries. Foreign boats already pay levy under the Foreign Fishing Boats Levy Act 1981. Boats licensed by Papua New Guinea to fish in the Torres Strait protected zone are exempt from payment of Australian levies and statutory fees by virtue of article 26 (2) of the Torres Strait Treaty. The Budget includes greatly increased allocations to support implementation of new and improved management arrangements for our major offshore fisheries. While the Government has been moving quickly to address the problems of excess capacity in many of our fisheries and low returns to fishermen, the situation has been reached where we must look to the fishing industry to contribute to the costs of management programs offering long term benefit to the industry. It is proposed to impose levies on the grant of renewal of prescribed kinds of fisheries licences or on making prescribed kinds of endorsements or entries on licences, as the case may be. These prescribed authorisations will relate to particular managed fisheries in which measures are being implemented for the benefit of that sector of the industry and it is clear that industry should meet all or part of the cost of administering the management program. Rates of levy will be set by regulation and may be different for different fisheries. Each levy rate and the method of calculating the amount payable in respect of the authorisation for a particular boat will take account of the operational characteristics of the fishery in which it is imposed and the nature of the management program which the levy will be used to fund. The time at which levy becomes payable is when the licence is granted or renewed or an endorsement or entry is made in it. The holder of the licence is the person liable to pay the levy. Mr President, this is a straightforward Bill that does no more than establish flexible machinery for subsequently imposing levies. It is not intended that the fishing industry levy should be a means of raising general revenue. Levy will be imposed only to fund specific management programs or associated research activities in particular fisheries, after consultation with the segment of the fishing industry and the State or States concerned. I now turn to the financial impact of this legislation. The Minister has discussed the proposal to impose levies with his State colleagues in the Australian Fisheries Council and their major concern has been the effect it will have on State revenue. The Minister has assured them that the levy will apply only to fisheries which the Commonwealth has the sole or a major responsibility for managing and will not apply to fisheries for which States are solely responsible. The percentage of cost recovery in any managed fishery will be determined in the light of the costs and benefits that flow from that management. For example, in a situation such as the proposed buy-back of authorisations to use boats in the northern prawn fishery, it is already apparent that the principal long-term beneficiaries will be those licence-holders who remain after their colleagues have sold their entitlement to operate in the fishery. Those beneficiaries will over time meet the full cost of the buy-back program. To support the initial phases of the program, the Government has authorised the raising of a loan to be repaid from the levy collected in the northern prawn fishery. It should be clearly understood that all levy moneys collected will be spent on the fishery management programs and associated research which each levy was imposed to fund. However, a portion of the levy will be applied to cover the overhead costs of the Department of Primary Industry in collecting and administering it. The Taxation Office has advised that under existing tax laws, all levy money paid will be fully deductible from income as business expenses for taxation assessment purposes. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. FISHING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1984 The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Fisheries Act 1952 and the Torres Strait Fisheries Act 1984 to facilitate collection of the levy to be imposed under the provisions of the Fisheries Licences Levy Bill 1984 now before the House. Honourable senators will be familiar with the requirement that one Bill impose a levy and one or more Bills deal with its collection and disbursement. The two Acts which the present Bill amends provide for the implementation of the fisheries management plans that the fishing industry levy is intended to support . Incorporating the levy collection provisions in those Acts gives recognition to the concept of fisheries management and fishing industry levy as closely related elements of a single package. Proposals to strengthen the management powers in the fishery laws of the Commonwealth to facilitate the imposition of certain levies are being considered and the Minister expects to introduce appropriate amendments into Parliament early in 1985. I mention this because I consider it very important to be aware of the close relationship between the fishing industry levy and fisheries management. To facilitate collection of the levy, the Bill provides for the refusal of a prescribed kind of authorisation, which could be the grant or renewal of a licence or making an endorsement or an entry on a licence, on which levy is payable, unless the holder of the licence first tenders the amount of the levy, together with any statutory fee, to the licensing authority, the grant or renewal of the prescribed kind of authorisation will serve as evidence that the levy has been paid in respect of the period for which the authorisation is valid , if the management rules of the fishery concerned require the licensing authority to refuse to grant the authorisation applied for, there will be a refund of the amount of levy and any fee tendered with the application. To enforce the payment of levy, the Bill provides for the imposition of higher monetary penalties in circumstances where a boat was used in a fishery without the appropriate authorisation on which levy was payable. The maximum fine in these circumstances will be $5000. The court may, along the lines of similar provisions in the Income Tax Assessment Act, also order convicted offenders to pay an extra penalty not exceeding the amount of levy and such an order will be enforceable as a civil debt to the Commonwealth, in addition to the foregoing, the other non-monetary penalty provisions in the two acts being amended will be applicable. This range of penalties will provide a strong deterrent against the unauthorised use of a boat and avoidance of the levy. Because boats licensed by Papua New Guinea to fish in the Torres Strait protected zone are exempt from payment of Australian levies and statutory fees by virtue of article 26 (2) of the Torres Strait Treaty, the Bill does not impose the additional monetary penalties on persons convicted for breach of the Torres Strait Fisheries Act 1984 involving the use of such boats. The Bill amends both Acts by inserting the powers, offences and penalties I have outlined, at the relevant points in each act. As well, the Bill adds to the existing power of officers to go on board a boat, the power to inspect the boat, its engines or its fishing equipment for levy assessment purposes, using professional assistance such as a qualified ship surveyor where necessary, and also provides power for joint authorities to refuse to grant leviable authorisations unless the levy has been tendered. The Bill provides power in each of the Acts to make regulations for remission or refund of levy or statutory fees in specified circumstances. It will be apparent to honourable senators that this Bill, together with its associated Fisheries Licences Levy Bill, simply constitutes the framework for imposing and collecting the levy. Details of particular levies will be contained in regulations made from time to time in accordance with the provisions in the Fisheries Licences Levy Bill. As the prime function of this Bill is to allow collection of the levy it has no direct financial impact. It is proposed that levy will be paid into consolidated revenue and made available for expenditure on each specific management program for which it was collected through the annual appropriations to the Department of Primary Industry, where appropriate, trust accounts can be set up under the Audit Act, into which individual levies, particularly those recovering the full cost of the relevant management program, will be paid and from which they will be disbursed for purposes of that program. I would emphasize that the Government does not intend to use the levy as a general revenue-raising measure and that no levy will be imposed in respect of a fishery except after consultation with the people in that fishery and the state or states concerned, about the management program and the levy to be imposed to fund that program. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. Motion (by Senator McIntosh for Senator Robertson)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That paragraph (8) of the resolution of the Senate of 10 May 1984, as amended, be varied by adding after the word 'Committee', 'and any sub-committee' . (2) That a new paragraph (8A) be added to read as follows: That the Committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 2 or more of its members, and to refer to any such sub-committee any of the matters which the Committee is empowered to consider, and that the quorum of a sub-committee shall be 2. Motion (by Senator Colston)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That if the Senate be not sitting when the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts has completed its report on a national language policy, the Committee may send the report to the President, or, if the President is unable to act, to the Deputy President, and, in that event- (a) the report shall be deemed to have been presented to the Senate; (b) the publication of this report is authorised by this resolution; (c) the President or the Deputy President, as the case may be, may give directions for the printing and circulation of the report; and (d) The President or Deputy President, as the case may be, shall lay the report upon the table at the next sitting of the Senate. (2) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution have effect notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives. (3) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, insofar as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Senator McINTOSH(Western Australia) — On behalf of Senator Ray I present the report from Estimates Committee A on the particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1984-85 and expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance for the year ended 30 June 1984, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator McINTOSH —I also table additional information received by Estimates Committee A and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. Senator GILES(Western Australia) —I present the report from Estimates Committee B on the particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1984-85 and expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance for the year ended 30 June 1984, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator Harradine —Did Estimates Committee B deal with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation or was it Estimate Committee E? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Is the honourable senator taking a point or order? The motion to print the report has been passed. There is nothing before the Senate at the moment. Senator HARRADINE —Mr Deputy President, I will seek leave to speak after all the reports have gone through. Senator PRIMMER(Victoria) —I present the report from Estimates Committee C on the particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1984-85 and expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance for the year ended 30 June 1984, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator PRIMMER —I also table additional information received by Estimates Committee C and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —I present the report from Estimates Committee D on the particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1984-85 and expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance for the year ended 30 June 1984, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COLSTON —I also table additional information received by Estimates Committee D and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. Senator McINTOSH(Western Australia) — On behalf of Senator Sibraa I present the report from Estimates Committee E on the particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1984-85 and expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance for the year ended 30 June 1984, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator McINTOSH —I also table additional information received by Estimates Committee E and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory) —On behalf of Senator Georges I present the report from Estimates Committee F on the particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1984-85 and expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance for the year ended 30 June 1984, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator ROBERTSON —I also table additional information received by Estimates Committee F and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —I seek leave to make a statement about the inadequacy of material provided to Estimates Committee A. Leave granted. Senator HARRADINE —I sought leave to do this at this point because, as I understand it, once the motions for the matters to be printed are decided upon it is very difficult for chairmen to obtain further information from the various departments. Under those circumstances, if it is not too late I will write to the Committee chairman and save the time of the Senate. INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 4) 1984 Consideration resumed from 8 October. Clause 2 (Commencement). Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(3.47) —Yesterday I moved by way of amendment: 1. Page 1, sub-clause 2 (1), leave out 'sub-section (2)', insert 'sub-sections (2) and (3)'. 2. Page 1, after sub-clause 2 (2), add the following new sub-clause: '(3) Paragraph 9 (1) (b), insofar as it inserts paragraph 78 (1) (ad) into the Principal Act, shall be deemed to have come into operation on 1 July 1982.'. I indicate that the debate on these amendments has already taken place. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(3.48) —Madam Temporary Chairman, correct me if I am wrong, but I think the Opposition's amendment of similar purport has already been moved. Senator Messner —No. Senator Jack Evans's amendments have actually been moved at this stage. Senator WALSH —Does the Opposition intend to move an amendment? Senator Messner —We intend to move an amendment. Senator WALSH —Thank you. I am not sure whether I should say this but I am advised that the Australian Democrats amendments appear to be technically defective. But they have broadly the same intention as the amendments to be moved by the Opposition. The Government will be opposing both amendments. I gather that if what has been said in the debate already is correct they will, however, be carried. Let me state my reasons for the rejection. Every honourable senator on the other side of the chamber has adopted populist, gimmicky response to support the argument that the operation of this concessional change to the Income Tax Assessment Act should be backdated to 1982-83 so that people who donated fodder in the wake of the Ash Wednesday bushfires of 1983 would be able to take advantage of the concession. Superficially, I suppose that that might seem to have some merit. But it opens the question: How far back do you want to go? I can remember bushfires in Western Australia in 1950 when exactly the same thing happened. Most of the lower south-west of Western Australia was burnt out and large quantities of fodder donated by farmers were trucked down from the wheat belt. Once we have embraced the principle of a retrospective operation, just how far back do we go if it is accepted that there was an anomaly in the past? That is the principal reason for the Government opposing all the amendments. One or two speakers on the other side of the chamber attempted to amend the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill to make the concession effective in the 1982-83 financial year. Reference was made to statements which had been made in the Senate by me in 1983 when another taxation amendment Bill was before the Senate. I have checked the statement that I made. My recollection of the facts concerning that statement was correct. In answer to a question on this subject asked by Senator Harradine on 25 May 1983, I said: I can, however, see that an argument could be mounted for making a distinction between the two types of donations. That is, donations in cash and donations in kind. I continued: Expenses incurred by a farmer in producing the two commodities that Senator Harradine has cited-fodder and animals-have been tax deductible. If, in addition to that, the item that was donated was allowed as a tax deduction at full market price there would be an element of double counting. Whether that is the basis for the Taxation Office's distinction, if in fact it draws such a distinction, I do not know. But I just raise the point that that could well be the case. I will seek a definitive answer from the Minister. I have acknowledged that some sort of case can be made but I have added a caveat to that acknowledgment, and I think it is important to note that in the record for the reason I am about to move into, particularly as Senator Harradine-I think he named me-cited my comment in the Senate last year as his justification for retrospectively extending a concession. Indeed, he said that it would not be inconsistent with the Government's attitude to tax measures if this measure were to be operative from 1 July 1982, having previously referred to a statement I made. I will be very interested to see whether Senator Harradine applies the same principle in a less rigid form when some other legislation comes before the Senate. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has issued a statement saying that he intends to take action against trust stripping arrangements, in particular an arrangement under which a trust was set up and the income from that trust was passed on to a subsidiary trust, the beneficiary of which was a charity, and a tax deduction claimed. The appeal by the trust beneficiaries on whom the Commissioner of Taxation had served a notice of assessment was successful on the grounds that it had been donated to a charity, which in one sense it had. The catch was that the money was not actually paid to the charity for 80 years and the $100,000 receivable by the charity in 80 years time at a 10 per cent discount rate has a net present value of less than $50. In other words, the real value of the donation to the charity was $50 but the deduction effectively claimed by the taxpayer was $100,000 and, on the marginal tax rate, the amount of tax evaded by that obviously highly artificial manoeuvre was $60,000. The previous Treasurer issued in 1982 a Press statement-I have not been able to track down the precise Press statement-in which he said that it was believed that trust stripping operations of that nature would be voided and picked up by Part IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act which became operative on 28 May 1981 and added that, if that proved to be wrong, that is, if such a highly contrived means of evading tax were not voided by Part IVA, the previous Government would introduce legislation to close the loophole. It was subsequently shown that the loophole was there and that indeed it was effective. The previous Government did not introduce the legislation forecast by the previous Treasurer, but the present Treasurer issued a statement some time ago saying that this Government would introduce such legislation. Unfortunately, it seems unlikely, because of the pressure of parliamentary business, that the legislation will be voted on in this session of Parliament. To relate that back to what I was saying earlier, I will be extremely interested to see whether the principle which Senator Harradine enunciated last night, that is, that because I gave qualified support-and I stress 'qualified'- to the notion that there was an anomaly in the Income Tax Assessment Act with respect to donations made in kind instead of donations made in cash, the latter being tax deductible and the former not, there was an obligation to backdate to before the time of that statement the benefits of the concession. I will be very interested to see whether, when the trust stripping evasion Bill comes before the Parliament, Senator Harradine adopts the same principle and at least supports legislation that backdates to the financial year in which the former Treasurer made his statement about trust stripping the recoupment of tax from people who manipulated the tax laws to their own benefit in that way. I will be extremely interested to see whether Senator Harradine votes for that legislation when it comes before the Senate, as he has indicated he will vote for this amendment, or whether he digs up some spurious excuse as he has done in the past for adopting an inconsistent approach to taxation measures and for switching his vote. I will also be very interested to know-I hope that the Tasmanian media notes this in particular-now that Senator Harradine has established a party recognised by the Electoral Act, whether the person standing in the name of the Brian Harradine Party, Mrs Venn, should she be elected to the Senate, will adopt Senator Harradine's voting practices on retrospective tax legislation or whether she will adopt some other practices. Indeed, that is a question which I think the people of Tasmania are entitled to have answered. Will Mrs Venn, should she be elected to the Senate, vote, for example, for the Bill twice rejected by this Senate after the present Government introduced it to repeal section 3 (12) of the Fraser Government's tax recoupment legislation; will she vote for a Bill consistent with the principles which Senator Harradine expressed last night to close off tax avoidance or evasion through trust stripping, backdated at least until the financial year in which the former Treasurer made his statement on the subject-he made it on 11 May 1982; I have just received a copy; or will she vote in different ways at different times on what in one case was exactly the same piece of legislation or in other cases were closely related pieces of legislation and give different reasons for voting in different ways at different times, as Senator Harradine has done? I invite the Tasmanian media to take up with Mrs Venn whether, if the Bill to repeal section 3 (12) of the Fraser Government's 1982 tax recoupment legislation is presented in the Senate next year and she is a member of that Senate, she will vote for it; whether she will vote for the legislation forecast by the present Treasurer to recoup tax evaded because of the manipulation of trusts, notice of intention of which was given by the former Treasurer in the financial year 1981-82; and, if the media wishes to extend the question a bit further, whether she will vote for any of the other tax recoupment measures which have been introduced by the present Government and rejected by the Senate. Amendments negatived. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(3.59) —I do not wish to reiterate the arguments which we propounded last night on this matter except to say once again that I believe that tax deductibility or otherwise of fodder and other gifts in kind made in the circumstances surrounding the Ash Wednesday fires on 15 February 1983 in South Australia and Victoria was a definite undertaking by the then Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser. As far as I can recall, that decision was properly communicated to the Premier of South Australia at the time. Consequently I believe a binding undertaking was given to the people of South Australia that this tax deduction would be made available. Accordingly, we on this side of the House feel perfectly justified with the amendment we propose. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.01) —I do not want to get into debate again about the matter. I was not aware of the fact that Senator Messner has just mentioned but I do observe for the record that that undertaking would necessarily have been given during the period in which the Fraser Government was supposed to be in a caretaker position. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Coleman) —I think we need some clarification. Senator Messner's amendment relates to clause 9 but we are in fact still on clause 2. We will need to dispose of clause 2 first. Clause agreed to. Clauses 3 to 8-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 9 (Gifts, calls on afforestation shares, pensions, &c.). Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.01) —I wish the remarks which I made earlier to refer to this clause. I move: 1. Page 6, sub-clause 9 (3), lines 17-19, leave out the sub-clause, insert the following sub-clauses: '(3) Sub-paragraph 78 (1) (a) (lxxxi), and paragraph 78 (1) (ac), of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 apply to gifts made after 21 August 1984. '(4) Paragraph 78 (1) (ad) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 applies to gifts made after 30 June 1982.'. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Messner's amendment) be left out. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Macklin, M. J. Carrick, Sir John Martin, K. J. Chipp, D. L. Mason, C. V. J. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Messner, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Missen, A. J. Durack, P. D. Rae, PeterEvans, Jack Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Childs, B. K. Jones, G. N. Coleman, R. N. McClelland, DouglasColston, M. A. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Crowley, R. A. Maguire, G. R. Elstob, R. C. Primmer, C. G. Evans, Gareth Ray, RobertForeman, D. J. Reynolds, M. Georges, G. Robertson, E. A. Gietzelt, A. T. Ryan, S. M. Giles, P. J. Sibraa, K. W. Grimes, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Hearn, J. M. Zakharov, A. O. Lewis, A. W. R. Coates, J. Haines, J. Richardson, G. F. Reid, M. E. Button, J. N. Chaney, F. M. Tate, M. C. Kilgariff, B. F. Bolkus, N. Baume, Peter Cook, P. F. S. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment agreed to. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.08) —I heard my name mentioned in dispatches by the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh. I was not clear what he was saying. I will read the transcript to see what he said and I will give it due consideration. I heard him say something about being inconsistent. I wish that he would study these matters carefully and look at what I have said previously and, in particular, look at what I said on 12 September which proved him wrong on that occasion. As to my running mate, of course, she understands perfectly and agrees with what I have done in respect of matters of principle in this place and the actions that I have taken on the major measures that are before this chamber including this one. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.09) — Senator Harradine mentioned his statement of 12 September. What that statement was essentially about was his defence of the way he voted on that occasion on the grounds that people are entitled to certainty before the law. To the extent that that argument has any validity at all, it was equally valid for the Fraser Government's legislation in 1982, for which he voted, as it has been for any subsequent piece of legislation. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.10) —If Senator Walsh looks at pages 894, 895 and 896, he may one day learn that what he has just said is totally wrong. He will have his opportunity of hearing about that when the evidence is presented. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 10 to 13-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 14 (Transfer of loss within company group). Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.11) —I move: 2. Page 8, clause 14, after proposed new sub-section 80G (2), insert the following new sub-section: ' ''(2A) Where the existence of non-voting, redeemable preference shares in a subsidiary does not have any relevance to the beneficial ownership of that subsidiary, they will be disregarded for the purposes of paragraph (2) (a).'. The point at issue here is simple. The Government to its credit, has brought in a Fraser Government measure, which is to allow companies within a group to transfer losses. That was a subject of some debate in this place, either last night or on some previous occasion. The point I want to draw attention to here is that this amendment touches the area in which there is not a 100 per cent ownership of shares in a subsidiary company transferring its loss because of the existence of non-voting redeemable preference shares. Therefore, the point of the amendment is merely to bring about a situation so as to render that minor and ineffective difference to account, so that a company in that situation and being part of a company group can take advantage of the provisions included in this legislation. This is a minor matter, but we believe that it would be just to seek the Australian Democrats' support on the matter. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(4.12) —Whilst the Australian Democrats have a degree of sympathy for the case put by Senator Messner, we see the potential for 'loophole-ism' rearing its ugly head once again. After many years of the deliberate insertion of taxation loopholes into the Income Tax Assessment Act, we are very concerned that a last-minute insertion of a possible loophole such as this into a new area would do more harm than it might do good. We are willing to consider this matter. In fact, we believe that it is something that the Commissioner of Taxation should study with the object of the matter being brought before the Parliament again in the next session. But we would like some pretty firm assurances from the Commissioner of Taxation that it did not do the thing that I fear it might well do. For that reason, at this stage the Democrats will be voting against the Liberal amendment. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.13) —In the light of the remarks of Senator Jack Evans, perhaps I may join with him in requesting the Commissioner of Taxation for further advice and study on this matter. I ask whether the Minister might be prepared to produce some information for our benefit, either now or on a later occasion. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.14) —I can respond partly to that right now because I have a note delivered to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) by the Commissioner of Taxation on this subject. Among other things, it says: The existing law contains very complex provisions to guard against misuse of the concession now in the law, which allows a company to carry forward a loss for deduction in the succeeding year. Redeemable preference shares have a long history of use in tax avoidance arrangements. Other complex anti-avoidance provisions could also be necessary if anything less than a 100 per cent common ownership of all shares test is adopted. This would all add to the administrative complexity of the scheme. The Opposition will also remember that a concession along the lines proposed was considered by both the Asprey Taxation Review Committee and the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System. Those committees recommended a 100 per cent common ownership test, although the latter suggested that consideration would be given to lowering the limit at some future date. The principal reason why the Government is opposing the amendment proposed is the fears expressed by the Australian Taxation Office, with its long experience, that it opens up at least the possibility of avoidance or evasion, and that if the Government were ever to extend the concession in the way that the Opposition has proposed, it would need at the very least considerable time to comb carefully through the Act and other provisions of the Act in order to guard against the possibility of use for avoidance. For those who are interested, I also draw attention to the comments made by the Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer, Mr Hurford, on this matter in the House of Representatives on 2 October, as reported at page 1405 of Hansard. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(4.16) —As regards the substance of the amendment and the clause, the Australian Democrats place on record the fact that we applaud the Government. We believe that this is a constructive step in the tax system as applied to corporate bodies. In itself, it will take away the current inducement to avoid taxes through a whole lot of manipulations which should be unnecessary and which the change will render unnecessary. I commend the Government and the Commissioner of Taxation for his advice. This is a very progressive step. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.17) —Clause 19 extends the spouse rebate to de factos. I have no amendment to move, by reason of the fact that I understand that there is apparently an attitude on the part of the Opposition that this is somehow a Budget measure and that although the Opposition disagrees with the proposal, it believes that it is a Budget proposal and, as such, it wants the Government to live with it. A number of people expressed their views in regard to this matter in the second reading debate. I wish to express my views about the matter now, in order particularly to get some clarification from the Minister for Resources and Energy as to what guidelines are to be used by the Australian Taxation Office in administering this measure. To situate my remarks in their proper context, I wish to refer to a letter sent by the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, the Most Reverend Dr Donald Robinson, to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), with copies to various other people, including all of the leaders of the various parties in the Parliament and to me. Dr Robinson says: I write to express the growing concern of many within the Diocese of Sydney, which is reflected across the Anglican Church in Australia, concerning moves by legislation and regulation which confuse de facto relationships with marriage. Leaving aside, for the purpose of this letter, the moral and spiritual issues, it needs to be clearly recognised that marriage is a public contract entered into by the parties; to it attach certain privileges and responsibilities. The community, through Parliament in the Marriage Act and the Family Law Act, has articulated the concept that marriage and family life are basic to the strength of society. By contrast de facto relationships are in essence private affairs and are often temporary, where the people concerned have chosen to avoid the legal commitment. Consequently, they should not be accorded privileges by the community. It is not in the interest of any to erode this distinction by sentimental or pseudo non-discriminatory pragmatic appeals that 'everybody should be treated alike'. For example, it may well be appropriate for a wife who has carried more than her share of family responsibilities while her husband served the community in the public arena, to receive some special consideration in terms of travelling allowance or opportunity to accompany her husband on a study trip. The giving of such privilege is in accord with the overall good of society-to uphold and support the marriage relationship. No such argument can attach to a de facto liaison. . . . The letter goes on to talk about the situation of the spouses of parliamentarians which, of course, anticipates some of the debate which is likely to take place on Thursday of this week. The Archbishop continues: I believe that this is an issue of social policy and that it is important that, in such matters, parliamentarians should be seen to be upholding basic principles of what is best for the future of our society, and not appearing to succumb to pragmatic or self-regarding convenience. I hope therefore that you will give a lead in rejecting the extension of privilege to those in de facto relationships as if they were married. Appended to the Archbishop's letter is a copy of a statement by Archbishop Keith Rayner of Adelaide, who argues the matter in some depth. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard that statement, printed in the Adelaide Church Guardian in September 1984 and entitled 'Marriage and de facto relationships'. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Marriage and de facto relationships Certain decisions by government agencies and statutory authorities have recently given rise to widespread public concern. First there was the decision that politicians travelling on official business overseas might use public funds for defacto partners to accompany them. Then there was the decision of the A.B.C . that employees living in homosexual relationships would enjoy the same benefits in areas such as bereavement leave as were enjoyed by married employees in relation to their spouses. Apparently heterosexual couples living in de facto relationships already enjoy these benefits. These changes are part of a climate of though, reinforced by recent legislation , which is opposed to any form of discrimination, there must be no discrimination of the ground of marriage or ''sexual preference'' (as it is termed)! In financial terms, what is at stake is probably quite small. But two important matters of principle are involved. The first is that these principles signify a very real change in official attitudes to marriage. In saying this, I am not thinking of the spiritual and sacramental understanding of marriage as held by Christians. I am thinking of the way the law, and society at large, regard marriage. The thing that has always distinguished marriage from defacto relationships ( whether heterosexual or homosexual) in our society is that it is an open, publicly recognised relationship which is subject to objective, legal tests. This is why the law has always closely regulated both marriage and divorce. It is important for a whole host of reasons that the community knows who is related to whom in this most intimate of human relationships. Marriage is not a private thing between two people alone. It has a public face, and the stability of marriage is crucial to the stability and ordering of society. In the past this has been well recognised and universally understood. All kinds of implications follow from it in the life of the community. Once we give de facto relationships the same legal standing as married relationships, marriage itself is threatened and family life and society are disordered. It is one thing for the norm to be broken unofficially; it is quite another thing to say officially that the normal and the abnormal are the same. The change probably began with the recognition of the needs of deserted defacto spouses and their children. Often they were left in real financial distress, and most of us would agree that compassion demands that they receive support from public funds. It is fallacious and dangerous to extend this principle of compassionate assistance to a point where de facto partners are regarded as having the same status in all respects as married partners. The other principle at stake relates to the matter of discrimination. In general, most of us would agree that discrimination on grounds of sex, race or religion is wrong. But carried to extremes the anti-discrimination principle can lead to ridiculous conclusions. There are circumstances in life where we are bound to exercise discrimination. Is a school to be required to accept as a teacher a person whose moral conduct is a bad example to students? Is a church to be required to employ an atheist simply because he has the best technical qualifications for the position? If anti-discrimination laws require us to make no distinction in cases where principles or morality or belief are involved, then our freedom to make moral judgments is seriously curtailed. I repeat: in principle, discrimination on grounds of sex, race or colour is wrong. But if the principle is applied in doctrinaire fashion, it is in danger of falling into disrepute. As Archbishop Robinson said, this is a matter of social policy. Archbishop Rayner also put it clearly when he stated, talking about certain principles: The first is that these principles signify a very real change in official attitudes to marriage. In saying this, I am not thinking of the spiritual and sacramental understanding of marriage as held by Christians. I am thinking of the way the law, and society at large, regard marriage. That is the essential point. We are talking about fundamental values. Those values are of unquestionable good, not only to the Christian ethic but also to human society and to human moral values. I speak to this matter on that level; that is, the recognition by society of the importance of the married state. Concern is being expressed within the community at attempts to undermine that recognition by placing de facto relationships on the same basis as bona fide married relationships. However, as the archbishops have said, there are occasions, when of course persons who are in a de facto relationship, who should always be treated with understanding and tolerance, should also be granted some of the entitlements that go with the married state, but for different reasons. I instance the case of when de facto spouses are in charge of children. Quite frankly, society should have regard to such cases and should provide those spouses with certain benefits which normally accrue to those responsible for the upbringing of children. I point out to the Committee an oddity in this matter. I refer to the second reading speech of the Minister which, of course, is an extrinsic aid in the interpretation of the law in this area. The Minister, in his second reading speech, said: 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. As a reason for saying that, the Minister said: 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. Under the freedom of information legislation I obtained the basis of the Department of Social Security for the recognition of de facto relationships. It is very important to be aware of that if we are to have proper consideration here and now as to what interpretation, what guidelines, the Australian Taxation Office is to use. The Minister said that the decision was made on this basis: Recognition of a de facto relationship will benefit couples who, for some time, have been treated for social security purposes of the same basis as those legally married. What is the situation with regard to the Department of Social Security provisions? Basically those provisions fall within two categories. One category includes de facto relationships as defined in the interpretation section of section 18 of the legislation. I read from an official document dated 12 March 1965 headed 'De-facto Relationships. Pensions and Allowances.', issued by the Department of Social Security: Where a claimant for, or a person in receipt of, an age or invalid pension has formed a de-facto relationship which has been in existence for at least three years, the position is, of course, covered by the definitions 'dependent female' and 'wife' respectively in section 18 of the Act. That is in respect of a de facto relationship which has existed for a period of three years or more. We then come to de facto relationships which have existed for less than three years. In respect of those relationships the Department says : Where a relationship has not existed for at least three years, the Department adopts the attitude that the parties should not be placed in a better position than a married couple. That matter ought to be considered by the Committee because the Minister says in his second reading speech 'We are extending the entitlement that is now available to legally married spouses to cover de facto spouses' and is then calling on the Department of Social Security provisions in support of that extension. Senator Coleman —It must say more than that in relation to the determinations, Senator, surely. Senator HARRADINE —I am happy to table this whole document. Senator Coleman —I just think the Social Security Act goes a bit further than you have said. Senator HARRADINE —No, this is the material that is now available under the freedom of information legislation. I am perfectly happy to table it. In effect, the original reason of the Department of Social Security for recognising de facto relationships was that if two people were living together in a de facto relationship and were not regarded as a married couple for the purposes of receiving pensions they would each receive a single pension. They would be better off than the legally married couple. In fact, that is the raison d'etre for recognition of de factos by the Social Security Department. Over a period that has somehow or other been latched on to by the Government in order to extend benefits, which are appropriately and properly those to be applied to legally married spouses, to de facto couples. I add that it has done that without any explanation of what guidelines are to be used in respect of the application of this law. I want to know from the Minister for Resources and Energy the precise guidelines to be used by the Taxation Office for the application of the provisions contained in clause 20 of the Bill. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.33) —I wish to make the Opposition's position on clause 20 particularly clear. Of course, it is true that my colleague Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle has already spelled out our position during the second reading debate. However, I want to emphasise and refer to a couple of the remarks Senator Harradine made. Firstly, I believe that there is an important issue at stake. It is, if honourable senators like, an issue of symbolism but it is one that identifies very clearly in the public mind the legal and proper status of marriage in the community. It is a matter, without relating it to questions of religious scruple or principle or ethic, of law having been established on that basis. Consequently orthodoxy has been regarded as a basic principle. As Minister Assisting the Treasurer I had quite a large number of representations on behalf of the Treasurer on this matter. I recall very vividly the arguments put in favour of the kind of action which the Government has taken . I also recall very vividly the kind of comparison that was made with the social security legislation. Indeed, I think it might have been Senator Grimes who through interjection at an earlier stage in the course of this tax debate made some reference to the matter that indeed, if the principle of de facto relationships were acknowledged for the purposes of social security legislation, it was consistent to apply it in the taxation area. I follow Senator Harradine's comments in that regard and agree wholeheartedly with him that there should not be positive encouragement in favour of the de facto relationship as would exist had the social security legislation not been drawn in the way it has been. It seems to me that both sets of principles and the acknowledgement of the two matters are quite separate. Indeed, it is quite possible and very easy to make a distinction between the two. Like Senator Harradine I look to the Government for some further comment about the guidelines that would be applied by the Commissioner of Taxation in this respect because there is, as I think the Minister would no doubt acknowledge, considerable area for possible abuse here, apart from anything else. Of course, there is also the principle of intrusiveness. I think that Senator Grimes in the course of his earlier remarks indicated that the Taxation Commissioner would be applying the same provisions of inspection and intrusiveness as would the Director-General of the Department of Social Security. Senator Coleman —No, in actual fact, Senator, he said as that which pertains in other departments, because there is more than one. Senator MESSNER —Fair enough. I acknowledge that. The point I want clarified is whether this is so and to what degree it will vary because there is a very considerable concern in the community about the application of those very intrusive guidelines as they apply today, especially in relation to the Department of Social Security. Quite apart from that there is, as Senator Harradine has spelled out, a question of whether this will be more or less open to very extensive abuse. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.35) — Senator Harradine asked a question about the guidelines to be applied for defining a de facto relationship for the purposes of clause 20. I understand that the guidelines that will be used are the same as those which are used now in determining liability for the Medicare levy but probably somewhat different from the guidelines used to determine de facto relationships for the purposes of the first home owners scheme. I think the situation is somewhat different in the latter respect in that there is no requirement for a couple applying for the first home owners scheme loan to have one partner financially dependent on the other. I understand that for the Medicare levy liability and for the defining of a de facto relationship for the purposes of the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 4) the same guidelines will be applied. Whether they are the same as those applied by the Department of Social Security I do not know. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.37) —I would like to hear from the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) what the guidelines used by the Taxation Office are in respect of the consideration of de facto relationships for the purposes of the Medicare levy. I cannot bring such guidelines to mind. To be quite frank, I do not think I know what they are. I think it is reasonable for the Committee to know those before it continues with the consideration of this matter. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.38) —I do not have the guidelines with me. I will see the Treasurer (Mr Keating) about obtaining them from the Commissioner of Taxation and forwarding them to Senator Harradine by post. Senator Messner —And the Opposition. Senator WALSH —Yes. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.38) —I thank the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh). I point out that perhaps the Taxation Office should have regard to what is in the second reading speech. If those Medicare levy guidelines are different from those stated in the second reading speech that is a matter which must raise in departmental officers' minds certain legal problems because, they would know, as I know, that the second reading speech is an extrinsic aid at best to the interpretation of the law. I am not sure it is a guideline to the administration of the law. At least in respect of the interpretation of the law when it comes to matters which judges may take into consideration, the second reading speech of a Minister is such a guide. Under these circumstances it is clear that after having stated there would be the extension to persons living in a de facto relationship of an entitlement now peculiar to a legally married spouse it is stated, and I reiterate: 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. There are two occasions when that occurs-one in respect of people who have been legally married for more than three years. That is covered in section 18 of the old Social Services Act. The definition in section 18 has now been changed and the new provision does not specify a three-year period. That makes matters even worse in regard to its application by the Department. It will be interesting to see how the Department applies the provision. The new provision in the Social Security Act, as amended, reads: 'de facto spouse' means a person who is living with another person of the opposite sex as the spouse of that other person on a bona fide domestic basis although not legally married to that other person. The purpose of that provision, as explained in the freedom of information document, was to ensure that a legally married spouse was not placed at a disadvantage to a de facto spouse. I will table this document in the hope that people will look at it because it contains a number of examples which show what the departmental officers were required to do. It also shows the letters they were required to write to persons who were suspected of living in a de facto relationship but who were receiving two single pensions and thus were at an advantage compared with a bona fide legally married couple. The whole point of the recognition of the de facto relationship in the social security area is not to place a de facto relationship on the same status as a married relationship, but to ensure that a de facto couple is not placed at an advantage compared to a legally married couple. That is not the case with this provision. Either the Government has tried to hoodwink us all-- Senator Coleman —Oh, come on. Senator HARRADINE —Well, I will put it another way. Either the Government does not understand the basis of the social security provisions which are outlined in the information I have received from the Social Security Department files or, alternatively, the Government is putting the Taxation Office in an impossible position. The Government is almost requesting the Taxation Office to recognise for the purposes of a spouse rebate any de facto relationship. I raise that matter because I feel it will give the Office a great deal of headache. I believe that the matter could be open to serious question. I seek leave to table the document to which I have referred. Leave granted. Remainder of Bill agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS) AMENDMENT BILL 1984 Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bills reported with amendments; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a third time. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —by leave-In the remarks I made last night on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill I gave notice that I would move a reference to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on certain matters. The motion I intend to move reads as follows: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. Reversal of onus of proof, as reflected in provisions contained in the amendments made by the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill 1984 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953. This matter revolves around the question of the so-called reversal of onus of proof as included in the amending Bill which the Senate has just passed. The Opposition, as has been stated in the debate, has strong feelings on these questions. I wish to deal with the remarks made by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) last night in answering our criticisms. Firstly, he drew attention to what he described as the technical defects of our amendments to these Bills. I thank him for drawing attention to that particular problem. He said that the amendments we proposed last night tried to remove some of the mitigating legislation which would tend, as he described it, to help the taxpayer in the circumstances he described. Senator Walsh —It is a question of removing the Commissioner's discretion to make a judgment between an error and a sin. Senator MESSNER —I thank the Minister for that clarification. He has made the point more clearly than I could make it. The reason for our seeking to move those amendments was to bring about a situation in which one relied totally on the Commissioner of Taxation applying the law so that he would have to take action against the individual taxpayer. As a result the taxpayer would come back to the normal legal situation-that of proving his innocence where charged. For that reason I believe that the amendments were consistent with the general proposition. Perhaps that helps us to make the point that this matter is complex and raises considerable matters of principle. Although last night the Minister made some remarks about the present state of the law in regard to companies and taxation, indicating that there were already existing circumstances where these principles applied, we still strongly adhere to the view that this would and should require further examination by a Senate committee. We will therefore be seeking a reference to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. Senator Missen —Has it been consulted? Senator MESSNER —I believe not at this point. I make the point that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee drew the Senate's attention to this problem of the reversal of the onus of proof. We on this side of the House believe quite strongly that we should further examine that question as a general issue. Accordingly, I move: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs: Reversal of onus of proof, as reflected in provisions contained in the amendments made by the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill 1984 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(4.50) —The Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs is not here. I think I am the only member of the Committee who is here at present. I am not aware of the nature of the reference but I gather that it is in connection with the onus of proof. The Committee produced a report on the onus of proof generally a couple of years ago . I am rather concerned, as I am at any time when a reference is moved which has not been discussed by the Committee, to ascertain the Committee's view on it. I think it usual in these matters to speak to the Chairman before moving the reference. I am not saying that the Committee might not be quite conveniently able to deal with this matter. It is an area in which it has had considerable discussions. I think the Committee is meeting later today. I do not know whether it is desired to proceed immediately to a vote on this matter. It seems to me that it would be a bit unfortunate if the reference were just sent to the Committee without any consultation and if we started a practice whereby we refer matters to committees without consulting the committee in question. Debate (on motion by Senator Walsh) adjourned. [COGNATE BILL: PETROLEUM RETAIL MARKETING SITES AMENDMENT BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 22 August, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(4.53) —We are dealing with the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Amendment Bill 1984 and the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Amendment Bill 1984. The Bills result from a review of the operation of legislation which was introduced in 1980 by the former Government to endeavour to overcome some of the problems which had arisen in relation to petroleum retailing in Australia. The Opposition not only instigated and advocated the review which was undertaken by the Department of Industry and Commerce but also supported and encouraged the expedition of its completion. As a result of the review and of very substantial consultation within the industry these two Bills are now before the Parliament to make more workable the legislation which was introduced in 1980. The amendments to the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act and the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act now before the Parliament have been developed after lengthy discussions between members of the Department of Industry and Commerce and all sectors of the industry. The industry has made it clear to me and I have no doubt to some others in the Parliament that it is most concerned that this legislation should go through forthwith. In consideration of the representations which were made to the Minister for Industry and Commerce ( Senator Button), to the Opposition and, I imagine, to the Australian Democrats, the Opposition undertook to assist the Government by ensuring speedy passage of this legislation if it were listed early. The industry as a whole, irrespective of whether it likes the legislation or not, believes that the amendments are desirable and will make the operation of the legislation more workable. The Australian Institute of Petroleum, which comprises representatives of all major petroleum refining and marketing companies, is in agreement that it is very important that the amending legislation is proceeded with and passed in the current session. Institute members have indicated that to me and to others with the request that this be expedited to ensure that the changes which are proposed , some of which are already in the course of implementation in anticipation of the passage of the legislation, will not be held up as a result of the premature election which the Government is calling to avoid the inevitable problems which it will run into as a result of its economic mismanagement. The Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Amendment Bill proposes to amend the legislation which was introduced by the previous Government and which refers to the basic rights of lessee franchise service station dealers. The Bill contains a number of provisions to clarify the relationship between the franchisees and the franchisors, simplifies various mechanical and administrative procedures and clarifies the original intention of the Act not to apply to predominantly wholesale establishments or depots. This is done by introducing a description of a bulk site agreement to enable the removal of existing bulk wholesaling establishments from the ambit of the Act and to provide the basis for the exclusion from the Act of new outlets with predominantly wholesaling characteristics, and by replacing the current percentage-based application test for determining whether particular agreements are subject to the Act with a more precise and administratively less cumbersome volume based test, which is the subject of comment by the Senate Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills, to which I will come back at a later stage. I simply draw attention to the fact that whilst the Committee commented on some aspects of the Bill, it finished up saying: The Committee acknowledges the need for flexibility in the administration of this scheme and notes that, since the regulations may be disallowed by the Parliament, some measure of parliamentary scrutiny of the powers delegated to the Minister is retained. The Bill achieves its purpose by adding a new provision to ensure that payments made by a franchisee under a franchise agreement cannot be increased unreasonably during the term of the agreement; by adding several new grounds for the termination and the non-renewal of franchise relationships, to assist with the orderly rationalisation of retail outlets; by clarifying the mechanical and administrative procedures relating to renewal and assignment negotiations; and by amending the injunctions and compensation provisions to allow franchisors the opportunity, currently available only to franchisees, to seek relief under the Act. As I said, the proposals are a result of a review which was undertaken by the Department during 1983. Clause 8 of the Bill inserts a new section which is designed to protect franchisees from 'unreasonable' increases in amounts payable under franchise agreements, but it does not specify what is to be regarded as ' reasonable' or 'unreasonable'. Perhaps one of the Ministers-we have had several playing musical chairs in the chamber this afternoon-will be able to indicate to us what he understands the words 'reasonable' or 'unreasonable' to mean. Clause 22 seeks to amend section 26 of the Act so that the State and Territory inferior courts can deal with certain matters. This is designed to lower costs and facilitate settlement of any disputes, and is particularly applicable to small businessmen and is welcomed by the Opposition for that reason. Consultation indicates that the industry, including oil companies and service station operators, are happy with the general provisions of the Bill. As I indicated earlier, there has been wide consultation. I compliment the Government on the extent to which there has been-from everything that I can gather-wide consultation in the course of the review and as a result of the product of the review, with all sections of the industry. There is what I have described as an overwhelming desire to ensure that irrespective of whether one likes the legislation or not, what is proposed now will be an improvement on what has been . The point I was trying to make earlier, and having now caught the Minister's attention, I would like to make again, is that the Opposition is not committing itself to the legislation by supporting the proposals for the amendment. As I said a moment ago, we compliment the Government on the consultation and review which has taken place and on improving the legislation. Whether we would, in government, seek to further reconsider the legislation is another matter. Whilst we will support these proposals and will give, as I indicated to the Minister, speedy passage to the Bills, I do add that qualification. The Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Amendment Bill 1984 proposes to amend the principal Act, which again was introduced by the previous Government in 1980, by changing the number of company operated sites and by simplifying various provisions of the Act and, in particular, by replacing the current percentage based application test for determining whether a particular site is subject to the Act with a more precise volume based test; by removing current exemptions from quota for market research and training sites and clarifying the remaining exemptions for diesel fuel and temporarily operated sites; by adding new provisions to define which motor fuels and which sales of those motor fuels will be subject to the Act, and by altering the application of the Act from a basis of sales made on a particular day to a basis of sales made during a particular month to accord more closely with commercial practice and to reduce the administrative requirements on prescribed corporations. I pause there to say that I understand that these are all matters which are likely to reduce cost and improve efficiency, something which the Opposition would obviously wish to support. There is provision for repealing the section relating to associates to clarify that direct company operation is not restricted where the only link between companies is that they are associates; for amending the pecuniary penalty provisions to ensure that each site operated in excess of quota and each contravention of the returns provisions of the Act constitutes a separate contravention, liable to a separate pecuniary penalty; for introducing a new transitional provision to protect incumbent commission agents at sites which a prescribed corporation ceases to operate directly during the 18 months phasing period-that is, 1 January 1985 to 30 June 1986-effected by the new quota allocations scheme, and for changing the number of sites to reflect current market shares held by various companies. It is beyond dispute that there have been very considerable problems in the retailing of petrol throughout Australia which have lasted over a number of years. The previous Government sought to overcome those problems with the legislation which it introduced in 1980. It sought to ameliorate the disadvantages which it appeared were being suffered by those who were in a weaker bargaining position than the major companies. As I indicated, there is the question as to whether a self-regulatory system following the introduction and operation of this legislation may not achieve as desirable, or even more desirable a result than the sort of continuation of the authoritarian legislative approach which was adopted to solve the problems that had been going on for some years and which are being improved by this legislation. The Opposition notes that all sections of the industry support the amendments as improving the legislation. I undertook to speak for no more than 10 minutes on this matter; I have spoken for 11. I have exceeded myself by one minute for which I apologise. The Opposition supports the legislation as an improvement on the existing legislation and, in supporting it, does so with the qualification which I indicated earlier. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(5.07) —The Australian Democrats endorse most of the comments made by the previous speaker, Senator Peter Rae, and, in fact, support the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Amendment Bill and the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Amendment Bill in principle. I wish to speak only very briefly because I would like to see the Senate get on with the job of some controversial legislation as quickly as possible so that we can handle it with adequate time and not have to rush it in the last couple of days. This legislation introduces a description of 'bulk site agreement' which enables the removal of existing bulk wholesaling establishments from the ambit of the Act and excludes new outlets with predominantly wholesaling characteristics from the Act. I think that the Government is heading in the right direction. The previous Government was also heading in the right direction , but despite the suggestion in Senator Rae's speech that the Government had resolved the problem or resolved most of the problems associated with petrol retailing in Australia-- Senator Peter Rae —I think I said improve; I do not think I suggested that it had been resolved entirely. Senator JACK EVANS —I thank the honourable senator-we believe that the improvement was not great enough. The legislation before us goes further down that path because at least it recognises that those 348 depots should not be included in the 50 per cent divorcement formula which was set up by the previous Government. That will be an improvement. It will get us down to 425 permissible sites, but it is still inadequate because it entirely misses the principle that there should be a total divorcement between the wholesale operations of petrol companies and the retail operations of other retail organisations. The great bulk of retailers of petrol in Australia are small businesses. They cannot stand up to the majors who dominate this industry, particularly when those majors have access to their own retail sites where they are able to compete quite unfairly. In 1980 there were nine major oil companies in Australia . In 1981 Golden Fleece was taken over by Caltex. In 1982, Total was taken over by Ampol and in 1984 Amoco was taken over by BP. There are now only six major oil companies, and that has to rate as one of Australia's massive oligopolies. When one bears in mind that four of those six companies are totally overseas owned and controlled-that is, Mobil, BP, Shell and Esso-then we can start to recognise that the oil industry in this country is not directed or controlled from within Australia. It is quite clear that the policies and directions are from outside this country. I mentioned that two companies are not entirely overseas owned and controlled. One is Caltex Oil Australia Pty Ltd, of which the predominant shareholder is Caltex Petroleum USA, which owns 135 million shares of a total of 151,488,600 shares. In other words, it owns 89.4 per cent of the shares. So, to all intents and purposes, five of Australia's six oil companies are owned overseas. The sixth is Ampol Petroleum Ltd, which is predominantly owned by Pioneer Concrete Pty Ltd. Ampol is an Australian-owned company. What the Australian Democrats would like to see is the total divorcement of retailing petrol from wholesaling petrol. I believe that the people of Australia , the automobile chambers of commerce around Australia, with whom we have been in contact, would want this Government to indicate at least that it has a timetable for total divorcement. I, on behalf of the Australian Democrats, intend to put before the Government, by way of an amendment at the Committee stage, a timetable to phase out the wholesalers prior to 1 July 1985. If the Government finds that date unacceptable-I believe that it is not an objectionable proposal from the point of view of Australian Labor Party policy-I and the petrol retailers around Australia would value an indication from the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) of what would be an acceptable phase-out date for the retail operations of the multinational overseas-owned and controlled petrol wholesalers who are operating in this country. The Australian Democrats will support both pieces of legislation before the House at this moment. We commend the Government for an improvement. In the event of anything happening to our amendment we certainly would not stand in the way of this legislation going through this Senate to ensure that we get at least that modest improvement. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(5.12) —We are debating the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Amendment Bill 1984 and the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Amendment Bill 1984. I am sure I am correct when I say that every service station proprietor and every lessee of service stations would welcome this legislation. It goes a long way towards improving the lot of all service station owners, but it does not pick up all the points and problems that the service station owners are experiencing. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, and his Government made a number of promises prior to the last election. This is one of the very few points that this Government has picked up to help small business. I suppose that Senator Button should be congratulated on that because he has shown some understanding of the needs of small business, which is more than his colleague, the Treasurer (Mr Keating), has shown. The Treasurer was completely insensitive to members of the small business community when he said in Brisbane: 'They have to stop complaining. They cannot live any more in a world on their own'. This was a total insult to all the small business people, who make up 60 per cent of employment in this nation. Senator Button has brought forward this legislation and he should be applauded for it. I live in the shadow of two oil refineries. I certainly respect them for the jobs they create, the sites they provide, the product they provide and the stability of supply they provide. I live at Wynnum, where I think 700 people are employed by Ampol Petroleum Ltd and I would not know how many are employed by Amoco. On reflection it probably is time, as Senator Jack Evans said, that we had a policy of total divorcement of the oil companies from the market. This legislation goes somewhere down the road towards a 70 per cent divorcement of the oil companies from the retailers, but that still leaves 30 per cent. I believe that a 100 per cent divorcement would alleviate some of the problems that the lessees or the service station proprietors are having with the continual price cutting that is so rampant, certainly in my State of Queensland. At the moment 1,800 service station proprietors are working very long hours. Their margins are being reduced. Some of them are working on such a fine margin that they are not able to show any great profit. When we take into account the fact that their wives are probably inside the business running the cash register and they are outside at the pumps we see that they are not getting any- Senator Jack Evans —They are not even getting wages. Senator BOSWELL —They are flat out getting wages and they certainly are not getting compensation for the effort that they are putting in. Some of them have told me that they are putting in 80 hours a week and they are barely making one wage, let alone two. Of course, if we went down the track of 100 per cent divorcement we would prevent this price cutting, this continuous fighting for a market share. We would leave the service station proprietors in a position where they could fight for their market share without any outside interference. Another point that the Bills fail to pick up-I ask Senator Button to pick this up in his reply-is that under the present legislation, service station proprietors are allowed to buy 50 per cent of their fuel and diesel from the company that can sell it to them at the lowest price. In point of fact what happens is that, whilst the legislation says that they can do this, the oil companies say: 'You can do it all right but don't pump the fuel through our pumps and don't put it in our tanks'. I ask Senator Button to reply to this point: Does this legislation help in that situation? I do not think it does. It is one of the main contentious points service station proprietors are facing at the moment. The legislation is absolutely useless on this point. Service station proprietors are not allowed to put such fuel through the oil company bowsers or tanks. The Minister should look at another matter. This Government has appointed a number of industry advisory committees, but I know of no advisory committee to advise this Government on fuel, petrol retailing and petrol distribution throughout Australia. It is a big industry. I do not know how many people would be employed at these service stations but if we were to add that number to the number of people actually working in the oil refineries and driving the trucks distributing oil we would find that it is a very big industry. I think this Government would solve a lot of its problems if it had an industry advisory committee. I understand that this Government has spent $6m on industry advisory committees for the fishing industry, small business and so forth, yet it has not picked this one up. I commend that idea to him. I turn now to the matter of the elimination of petrol retailing through oil company bulk depots. It is totally unfair to the service station industry for an oil company to set up a service station with a proprietor and, around the corner , to have a wholesale depot which is undercutting and selling from an industrial bowser, without the infrastructure a service station must have-the driveway, the lights and everything else that is needed to dispense petrol. The other point I raise in this debate relates to the establishment of an industrial tribunal. Again, I believe that this point has been taken up by the Queensland Government in its retail lease legislation. The Government, shopkeepers, tenants and landlords were being caused tremendous problems. Under the legislation a mediator and a tribunal have been set up. The mediator has taken the first step towards solving the problems between the parties and has solved 99.9 per cent of the problems before they have even got to the tribunal. The mediator brings the warring parties together. He sits them down and explains the legislation and the law. He tries to talk a little bit of common sense to them in the hope of putting out the fire before it actually develops. As I said before, the legislation goes a long way towards solving the problems of the service stations and the service station lessees, but it does not go far enough. If Senator Button picks up those points and works them into a Bill, puts them in some amendments or uses them in further legislation, I think we will have a pretty good Bill which will solve all his problems and the service station lessees will be happy with the legislation. I suppose one could say that the Bill is half a loaf, but it is better than no loaf. Therefore, I support the legislation. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(5.20) —in reply-I thank honourable senators for their contributions to the debate. The Government does not pretend for a moment that this legislation is perfect. Anybody dealing with a can of worms, if that is an appropriate expression, like the petroleum retail marketing business in Australia would be bold, arrogant and conceited if he claimed that legislation he introduced would solve all the problems. Senator Rae gave what I regard as totally understandable notice that, while the Opposition supported the legislation, it would not be committed to it ad infinitum, were it elected to government in future. I do not think that is anything but reasonable because it is an evolving industry and an evolving saga subject to constant change and restructuring. Much of the change and restructuring taking place is for the better both for the industry and for consumers. But, like all restructuring and change, it is a painful and difficult process and governments can intrude from time to time only to try to provide legislatively some of the parameters within which those changes will take place. Senator Boswell made a number of useful suggestions which might be considered by any government in the future, and I certainly take note of the suggestions he made. Some of the problems which he attributed to the existing legislation could be more directly laid at the door of the Trade Practices Commission, but that is another debate and a matter for consideration perhaps on another occasion. At this stage the Government certainly does not believe that it would be desirable to try to introduce 100 per cent divorcement, however idealistically desirable that might be. I do not believe that at the present time of evolution of this industry, if that is the right word, it is in the best interests of consumers for that to take place. Overseas studies of the effects of full divorcement have shown conflicting results in relation to retail prices, the profitability of dealers and operating hours, some of the things to which Senator Evans quite properly addressed himself. The Government does believe that a greater diversity of retailers will promote competition, and we concede that the 50 per cent divorcement level, although arbitrary, is probably less so than any other level, apart from 100 per cent or zero which are clearly highly arbitrary. We have tried in this legislation to provide a compromise between two extremes. I think it was recognised by Senator Peter Rae that the preparation of this legislation has been something of a tour de force. It is not something for which I personally take credit, although I was interested in the progress of the legislation and have been for time. One perhaps should not use this forum for bestowing compliments on one's own Department, but I think it is very much to the credit of the officers of the Department who carried out a long series of consultations with all sections of the industry. Senator Peter Rae —And one in particular to whom I think you should give credit. Senator BUTTON —I think Miss Virginia Stretton was largely responsible, and the two officers here had a considerable part to play. In the course of those series of negotiations they reached the position of being able to say to this industry: 'These changes have to come about and they are in the best interests of the total industry. You dealers and you petroleum majors cannot have all that you want because that is not in the overall interests of the industry and we have to try to reach some accommodation about these issues'. That was done. From the comments that have been made, I think it is widely recognised that in the circumstances a progressive and sensible accommodation has been reached. I make the point again that this industry is subject to a great deal of change, and I say to Senator Jack Evans that it takes a little time to accommodate some of those changes. In fact a number of majors will have to divorce themselves from sites. Those things are not brought about overnight without quite serious repercussions for those involved if attempts are made to bring them about overnight. Another point I should make is that there are very few areas of industry in Australia in relation to which franchise legislation of this kind has been thought desirable or necessary. Having regard to the history of this industry, which has been characterised by some of the situations which Senator Boswell rightly drew attention to, the franchise legislation is in our view necessary for this industry and has been accepted as necessary by the industry as a whole. I do not think it appropriate at this stage for me to say any more and I welcome the generally constructive spirit of the debate. We cannot let this go as quickly as Senator Evans would like. On the other hand, I say to Senator Rae that if in government in the future he sought to progress the history which this legislation represents, I would understand that. But this legislation provides a desirable and sensible compromise. Above all, it is acceptable to all sections of the industry, although each of them might like something better. It is a very important step forward because if these changes are to be brought about it is desirable that they be brought about with a degree of acceptability and not with conflict or strife. I hope that result can be achieved and I commend the legislation to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(5.30) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 4, clause 4, after proposed sub-section 6 (1D) insert the following sub-section: ' ''(1DA) Where- (a) a corporation operated premises as a retail site on a day (in this sub- section referred to as the 'relevant day'), being 1 August 1984 or a day after that date and before 1 January 1985; (b) if a franchise agreement in relation to which the premises were marketing premises was in effect immediately before the relevant day-the agreement did not continue in effect, and the franchisor in relation to the agreement was not required by this Act to renew the agreement, on or after that day; and (c) the premises have been operated as a retail site by the corporation or a related corporation on every day after the relevant day and before 1 January 1985, other than a particular day referred to in sub-section 11 (9) of the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act 1980, then, in relation to any franchise agreement (whether entered into before, on or after 1 January 1985) in relation to which the premises are the marketing premises, this Act does not apply at any time before the end of the first month during which neither the corporation nor a related corporation operates the premises as a retail site.'. (2) Page 4, and 5, clause 4, proposed paragraphs 6 (1E) (a) and (b), line 42 ( page 4) to lines 7 (page 5), leave out the proposed paragraphs, insert the following paragraphs: '(a) a franchise agreement (in this sub-section referred to as the ''relevant agreement'') is entered into in relation to marketing premises on a day (in this sub-section referred to as the ''relevant day''), being 1 January 1985 or a later day; (b) if a franchise agreement in relation to which the premises were marketing premises was in effect immediately before the relevant day-the agreement did not continue in effect, and the franchisor in relation to the agreement was not required by this Act to renew the agreement, on or after that day; and'. (3) Page 5, clause 4, proposed paragraph 6 (1E) (c), line 8, leave out 'the franchisor has served on the franchisee', substitute 'the franchisor in relation to the relevant agreement has served on the franchisee in relation to that agreement'. (4) Page 5, clause 4, proposed sub-section 6 (1E), line 19, before 'agreement', insert 'relevant'. (5) Page 5, clause 4, proposed sub-section 6 (1F), lines 22 to 24, leave out, the proposed sub-section, insert the following sub-section: ' ''(1F) Expressions used in sub-sections (1D), (1DA) and (1E) have the same respective meanings as in the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act 1980, disregarding sub-section 7 (3) of that Act.'. (6) Page 13, clause 16, proposed paragraph 17 (5) (c), lines 3 and 4, leave out the proposed paragraph, insert the following paragraph: '(c) the lease is granted as described in sub-paragraph (1) (d) (i) or the disposition occurs as described in sub-paragraph (1) (d) (ii), as the case may be;'. (7) Page 13, clause 16, proposed sub-section 17 (6), lines 8 and 9, leave out ' no agreement of a kind referred to in paragraph (1) (d) has been entered into', insert 'the lease has not been granted as described in sub-paragraph (1) (d) (i) or the disposition has not occurred as described in sub-paragraph (1) (d) (ii), as the case may be'. (8) Page 14, clause 16, proposed paragraph 17A (7) (c), line 33, before 'the court is satisfied', insert 'except where a ground so established is a ground referred to in paragraph 17 (1) (d),'. (9) Page 14, clause 16, proposed sub-section 17A (8), line 40, at end of proposed sub-section, add '(not being a ground referred to in paragraph 17 (1) ( d))'. (10) Page 23, paragraph 25 (6) (a), line 35, leave out 'sub-section 6 (1)', insert 'section 6'. (11) Page 23, paragraph 25 (6) (c), line 41, leave out 'sub-section 6 (1)', insert 'section 6'. (12) Page 24, sub-clause 25 (7), line 11, leave out 'sub-section 6 (1)', insert 'section 6'. (13) Page 24, paragraph 25 (8) (b), line 20, leave out 'sub-section 6 (1)', insert 'section 6'. I understand that there are no other amendments to this Bill. The amendments to clause 4 are designed effectively to remove a five months suspension in the general exclusion of franchise Act application to sites operated directly by companies under the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act. I clarify that the exclusion applies not only to new marketing premises but also to existing marketing premises which legitimately change from a lessee-franchisee operation to a direct company operation. The five-month suspension period was originally proposed to guard against possible abuse of the new franchise Act exemption to the detriment of lessee- franchisees. However, following consultations with members of the petroleum industry after the introduction of the Bill in this place on 22 August 1984, advice was received from the industry that premises were likely to commence as direct company operations during the suspension period. The purpose of the original legislation was therefore likely to be aborted. The continuation of the suspension therefore would unnecessarily disadvantage legitimate commercial transactions proposed by franchisors during the period and would not be consistent with the Government's general policy that both Acts should not be capable of applying concurrently to the same marketing premises. Similarly, the restriction of the general exclusion I mentioned earlier to new premises would not be consistent with the Government's policy. However, both amendments will ensure that the exclusion of franchise Act application to direct company operated sites will not be capable of abuse by franchisors to the detriment of lessee-franchisees. The amendments to clause 16 are proposed to correct a potential loophole in one of the grounds for non-renewal embodied in the clause. The potential loophole was identified by members of the petroleum industry following the introduction of the Bill on 22 August. As presently worded, the relevant provision in the clause would appear to allow a franchisor to enter into an agreement of lease or sale within the prescribed six-month period yet the actual lease or sale might not occur until well after that period. Such an occurrence might frustrate a franchisee's legitimate expectation of franchise renewal and would go beyond the Government's intention to assist the orderly rationalisation of retail outlets when it is commercially sound to do so. The amendments now proposed to clause 16 of this Bill will ensure that a franchisor will have only an unconditional ground for the non-renewal of franchise agreements where the lease is actually granted or the sale actually occurs within six months of the date of expiry of a franchise agreement. The amendments to clause 25 are technical drafting changes to the proposed transitional provisions of the Bill and are consequent upon the amendment which I have moved to clause 4. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.33) — The Opposition had intended to move certain amendments to this Bill but, with a view to ensuring that it is passed with expedition, I propose to seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the amendments which the Opposition was considering putting forward for debate so that they may be considered by the Government and the matter brought forward again in the next session by whichever party is in government after the next election. In other words, I wish to place the amendments on record but I do not wish to debate them . The reasons for them are self-evident. The Opposition will support the Government's amendments. I think they were previously made available to the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button). I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the amendments which would otherwise have been moved by the Opposition and which were sought by a section of the industry. Leave granted. The amendments read as follows- (1) Page 3, clause 3, after proposed sub-section 3 (13), insert the following new sub-section: ' ''(14) A reference in this Act to the economic consequences to the franchisor shall include the consequences to the franchisor of not only the specific issue in question but also the consequences to the franchisor if that issue were to be decided in the same manner if it were to arise in respect of all franchise agreements to which the franchisor is a party.'' ' (2) Page 11, clause 15, after paragraph (b), add the following new paragraph: '(c) by adding after 'circumstances' in paragraph (6) (b) ''including the economic consequences to both franchisor and franchisee'' '. (3) Page 14, clause 16, proposed sub-paragraph 17 (7), line 34, after ' circumstances', insert 'including the economic consequences to both franchisor and franchisee'. (4) Page 15, clause 16, proposed sub-section 17A (9), line 1, after 'may', insert ', after taking into account the economic consequences of both the franchisor and franchisee,'. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(5.34) —I am not sure whether I have a copy of the amendments. Senator Rae has indicated that they are being put forward for consideration. That consideration will be given to them in due course. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 22 August, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. The Bill. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(5.36) —I move: Page 6, clause 6, proposed new sub-section 10 (1), line 23, at end of proposed sub-section, add 'prior to 1 July 1985, but shall not so operate on or after that date'. I will not repeat the arguments that were given earlier. I simply make the request again to the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) that it would be helpful to us, and I believe to the industry at large, if he could give some indication of a timetable for ultimate total divorcement, whether we are looking two years ahead, five years ahead or 10 years ahead. That information would certainly provide us with some comfort. We believe in the principle, as I expressed earlier, particularly for this industry which is dominated by overseas controlled petroleum majors, that we need to give the local small businesses the freedom to operate without unfair competition at the retail level. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.37) —The Opposition will not support the amendment moved by Senator Jack Evans on behalf of the Australian Democrats for similar reasons to those outlined by the Minister for Industry and Commerce ( Senator Button) when he concluded the second reading debate. At this stage it would be rushing at a rate which the industry would not be able to digest. There may be other reasons into which I will not go at the moment as to why the Opposition would not wish to see the proposal for total divorcement, which is a very authoritarian regulatory action, being adopted where it may be possible to achieve, by deregulation and self-regulation, the same or better objectives. For those reasons the Opposition will not support the amendment. I simply take this opportunity-as a Tasmanian I cannot miss it-to say that anything which enables some sorting out of the chaos which exists in Tasmania in relation to petrol prices and the high extra price which is paid by all Tasmanian motorists would be welcome. If anybody can think of any amendments which would achieve some improvement in that situation I am sure that they would be applauded by all Tasmanian motorists. It is a situation which is extremely unfortunate. We are told that it is a function of market size. I remain to be convinced but I will not detain the Senate to debate that matter any further. The Opposition will not support the amendment. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(5.39) —I thank Senator Rae for his remarks about Tasmania. I too am concerned about the Tasmanian situation. I am sure that we all will be in the next few weeks. I also thank Senator Rae for his observations about the amendment moved by Senator Jack Evans. I cannot give a timetable for total divorcement because the Government is not hooked on total divorcement. The Australian Democrats are, I know. The Government is saying that the total divorcement notion, which has had a lot of attractiveness about it in the past, particularly because of practices in this industry, is something of a fetish. It may be correct; it may not. We want to see this legislation working and how things sort themselves out as a result, certainly before we give any further attention to that question. It may be that it would require examination in the future. But the Government has no timetable for proceeding to total divorcement. That is consideration which has to be addressed in two or three years' time, I think, when we see whether the needs that might have been perceived in favour of total divorcement in the past are still valid. For those reasons, we do not accept the amendment. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Senator Jack Evans's amendment) be added. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 52 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 47 —— Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J. (Teller)Evans, Jack Mason, C. V. J. Harradine, B. Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. F. Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I McClelland, DouglasButton, J. N. MacGibbon, D. J. Carrick, Sir John McIntosh, G. D. Chaney, F. M. Maguire, G. R. Childs, B. K. Martin, K. J. Coleman, R. N. Messner, A. J. Collard, S. J. Missen, A. J. Colston, M. A. Primmer, C. G. Crichton-Brown, N. A. Rae, PeterCrowley, R. A. Ray, RobertDurack, P. D. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Elstob, R. C. Reynolds, M. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Scott, D. B. Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Hearn, J. M. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Jones, G. N. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Motion (by Senator Button) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.48) —I simply invite the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) to let the Senate know what he proposes to do about the outrageous price of petrol in Tasmania, having joined with me in expressing a concern about it. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(5.48) —I regard that as a matter more appropriate to be dealt with at Question Time. If Senator Peter Rae asks the question then I assure him that I will ask that it be placed on notice. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Assent reported. [COGNATE BILL: ALIENS ACT REPEAL BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 9 May, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Senator Martin had moved by way of amendment: At end of motion, add 'but the Senate- (a) disagrees with the Government's action in seeking to remove reference to Her Majesty The Queen from the oath of allegiance and the affirmation of allegiance; and (b) views with concern- (i) the Government's deliberate devaluation of the importance of the honour of Australian citizenship, (ii) the Government's overall failure to consult properly with the people of Australia before bringing into this Parliament such radical republican legislative proposals, and (iii) the Government's refusal to put such a fundamental change in citizenship to the people of Australia in a referendum'. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(5.49) —The Senate is in continuation of the debate on the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill and the amendment moved by Senator Martin. I rise to support that amendment and to continue my remarks. The attempt to remove reference to the Queen from the oath or affirmation of allegiance is not an attempt simply to remove the name of the Queen of Australia but to remove the principle that an oath or an affirmation should not be made to the head of state. In most democratic countries there is a head of government, who is called the Prime Minister or something similar. That person necessarily receives only divided support. There may be majority support but nevertheless there is an opposition. Most countries choose to have a unitary head of state, a head of state who represents the whole of the country and not just one political party or division. In my judgment the United States of America has made a mistake in combining the head of state, the head of government and the Commander-in-Chief of the defence forces in one person, the President. The volume of work that is placed upon that person is impossible. Moreover, it is not possible to discharge the unitary function of a head of state through the person who is also the Prime Minister. The key thing to understand about this issue is that Australia has a head of state. That head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia. No one has suggested that we should do away entirely with a head of state. The extraordinary position of the Australian Labor Party is that it is seeking to bring about republicanism by stealth. In wearing away the stone it is seeking little by little to remove all reference to the monarchy and, incidentally, to other institutions such as the flag, and bring about by attrition a republic. Let me make it clear that the Hawke Labor Government has absolutely no mandate to do what it proposes. Public opinion poll after public opinion poll has made it clear that at least two-thirds of the people of Australia want a head of state and want that head of state to be Queen Elizabeth II. That has been quite clearly stated. Equally, the Australian people have given the same indication of their support for the Australian flag in its present shape, retaining with the Southern Cross the Union Jack in the top left hand corner. Nevertheless, although the Government knows that, it is working insidiously to break it down. What is the Government putting forward? It is putting forward the silliest argument I have ever heard. It is saying: 'Australia is a nation that is no longer tied to the United Kingdom; it is multinational in its composition, drawing people from Europe and Asia-from all parts of the world-and therefore we ought not look to a head of state who is the Queen of England being also the Queen of Australia'. I cannot think of a more fallacious argument. If one were looking to a head of state who is representative of the widest multi-racial community one would have to look to Queen Elizabeth II. I sought information on how many multi-racial communities have chosen Queen Elizabeth II as their head of state. I found that something like 160 million people of diverse races, languages and cultures have done so. So if the argument is: Let us have a person who represents a wide cross section of races, who symbolises the multi-racial concept that is the Australia of the future, whether those races come from Europe, Asia, Africa or wherever, one could not choose a more logical symbol than the present Queen of Australia who, as I say, presides over some 160 million people whose individual states and nations have said: 'You are the active symbol of our head of state'. Previously I put the proposition that the Hawke Government should come out and state two things: Whether it believes in a head of state as distinct from a head of government and, if it does, how that head of state will be chosen. The Government may, of course, decide, as it obviously has done at the moment, that it believes in the presidential system of having a Prime Minister who is all powerful except, of course, for the intervention of Caucus and the biennial conference. A head of state run by a partisan, biennial conference-what a concept of disunity. Let the Government stand up and say: 'No, we do not see the removal of the head of state; no, we do not see the Prime Minister trying to follow the American pattern of combining the head of government with head of state'. If the Government says that, let it say what methodology it would apply in choosing a head of state. Would it elect that head of state? What difference would there be between electing a head of state and having one's Prime Minister as head of state? There would be partisanship by the ballot box. Would we not elect the head of state but have the Government appoint that person and make its own rules in so doing? By doing so, of course, there would clearly be partisanship. What I said previously in this Senate is important. By the ordinary accident of history, through the years of tradition and evolution, we have evolved a system for choosing a head of state which is not old-fashioned but is the most modern that we can devise. The head of state in a democratic community symbolises the values of the human family. If one is asked the duties of the head of state, one must say: 'That person, family or group is there to symbolise the values that our nation, our state, our individual families treasure and want to permeate through the community.' How better to have chosen a head of state than by the evolution of the family which has produced Queen Elizabeth II as our head of state? Senator Robert Ray —This sounds like the same speech you gave to the '49 Liberal State Conference. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —How nice of Senator Robert Ray to have even thought of it. As you will know, Madam Acting Deputy President, the 1949 Liberal Conference was a great and massive success. The values that were put down in that Conference were adopted by the people of Australia for some 23 years as the values that they wanted. How grateful I am to Senator Robert Ray. If I were to ask him to confirm my views as being right I would say; 'Yes, indeed, because that Conference- Senator Robert Ray —The good old days. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —They were the good old days. In fact, in the whole of the history of Federation, in the whole 83 years of Federation, the people of Australia have been very wise. For all but 21 or maybe 22 years they have said: 'It is the Liberal way we want; it is the Liberal values we want'. Of course, by the accident of history occasionally there pops up a Senator Robert Ray, but that has been an accident, a freak of history and not the norm. I enjoy the honourable senator's interjections. Nothing could focus this debate more properly than to talk about, as Senator Robert Ray interjected, the good old days. It is the good old values that this debate is all about. It is about the desire of the Australian Labor Party to get rid of the good old values. Since Senator Robert Ray is so good at interjection I ask him to answer some questions . Does the Labor Party believe in a separate head of state? Senator Colston —It's not question time now. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Is it not funny how Government senators are happy to interject noisily for the purposes of diversion but when I ask questions in regard to the absolute fundamentals of this debate- Senator Childs —He is pregnant with anticipation. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I repeat the question because Senator Childs has become excited: Does the Labor Party believe in a head of state? Senator Robert Ray —Tell us about a cosmic mix again. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —Order! Senator Sir John Carrick, I think it might assist the debate that is now taking place if you would address your remarks through the Chair. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Madam Acting Deputy President, with the greatest respect, that is exactly what I have done. I have not directed any question except through the Chair. I believe that Standing Orders allow me to say that I ask through the Chair: Does Senator Childs believe in a head of state? I stand corrected if that is not so. It may well be that others in the Senate have interjected improperly. However, I say to you that I have been absolutely careful to direct all my remarks through you and I will continue to do so, with your blessing no doubt. I welcome the interjections because I have invited Government senators to answer: Do they believe in a head of state? If they do, I ask: How will they bring about this head of state? Will it be by election, nomination or the evolution of history? Senator Robert Ray —Raffle it. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Indeed, Government senators talk about the old values. Senator Robert Ray referred to the good old days of 1949. In fact a new Prime Minister of Australia was elected that year and remained for a record 17 years term. That was a term never to be surpassed by other Australian Prime Ministers because that Prime Minister stood for the very values I am now espousing-the values of the human family. Just about every worthwhile social service ever brought in in this country was brought in during that time. These consolidated the individual family and developed individual dignity. If indeed the giggles should rise I will recite those reforms. I am very happy to recite the history of the great social service reforms of between 1949 and 1965. Those reforms were based on the belief in the family. Now what have we got? We have the ridiculous argument that Australia must have its own identity. That is interesting. On the one hand it is stated that Australia must have its own identity and on the other hand it is stated that Australia is multiracial with a mix of people who cannot be symbolised by one leader. What a conflict of views this represents. I repeat, the head of state is an evolutionary process. We have had immense luck with this. Senator McIntosh —Who was Elizabeth I? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I would hope that Senator McIntosh would respect the fact that the Queen of Scotland-that is her primary title-is in herself, in her values, in her work, in her symbolism, an ideal head of state. Senator McIntosh —Are you referring to the first or the second? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —If the honourable senator wants further identification , Madam Deputy Speaker, the present Queen of Scotland is the Countess of Carrick , as a matter of interest. Senator Robert Ray —A vested interest. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Yes, that is perfectly true. I have an absolute vested interest in trying to preserve in this country the kinds of qualities-the values of the human family-which in fact the present monarchy evinces. That is not said at all with any suggestion of awe of monarchy. That is said simply on the basis that here we have an evolution of a head of state that has proved successful. The monarchy has done one much more important thing; it has proved that it is thoroughly acceptable to a wide number of races of people. Black, white-any colour, any race, any language-these people have accepted, have supported, have in fact advocated the symbolism that the present Queen stands for. What are we saying? We are saying that we are going to take out of the oath any reference to allegiance to the head of state. What will it be next if by an accident of fate the Government is re-elected? Will we have to take oath of allegiance to Mr Hawke? Is that the situation? Senator Robert Ray —You are like a walking Women's Weekly. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I so much enjoy Senator Robert Ray. He helps me greatly. I wish he would interject more. Senator Robert Ray —It's better than Medicare, isn't it? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —In fact, it is far better than the deception of that Medicare advertisement that the Government has been putting in the paper, which is absolutely untruthful. Senator Robert Ray does not like this. Senator Robert Ray —No, it's that finger I don't like. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —He does not want to hear that there is an unqualified statement in that Medicare advertisement to the effect that every Australian is perfectly free to insure as much as he or she wants to. There could not be a greater deception than that advertisement. There could not be a greater example of tyranny within a democracy than that of a government passing a law which takes away from people the freedom to insure themselves. I think that nowhere else in the free world has this been done. It is no wonder that we want the values and symbolisms of democracy to be represented through a head of state rather than a head of government. I encourage those people who want that representation to continue to do so. The same argument applies to the further tradition of the flag-a tradition not so much born of the first, but on the sideline of it. There is no jingoism involved in wanting to say that the traditions born out of the union flag are the traditions that this country espouses. In fact, this very Parliament is the creature of the mother of parliaments; it is the creature of the House of Commons. In fact, the union flag stands exactly for those kinds of principles. We stand for the rule of law-the British evolution of common law down through the centuries. In fact, the very principles that we are elected to support have evolved with the history that has produced that symbol. So we throw the flag away, do we? It is not a question of something that is English or of the United Kingdom. It is a question- Senator Sibraa —What nonsense! What rot! Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Madam Acting Deputy President, I say through you to Senator Sibraa that this idea of throwing out the baby with the bathwater is as silly as saying that the French national anthem-the most stirring national anthem on earth-ought to be rewritten because it is bloodthirsty, cruel and ugly . I ask Government senators to have a go at that. It is out of time. Do honourable senators remember the last line, which states that an impure blood should water the furrows of our land? What an ugly situation, but everybody sings it lustily. Senator Robert Ray —You always were a counter revolutionary. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —The only time that I am tempted to use capital punishment and Madame la Guillotine is when I look across the chamber. I am tempted indeed, except that I do have a minor affection for Senator Robert Ray, so he is safe from Madame la Guillotine. If we want to reduce all this symbolism of the past, let us reform the Marseillaise. Let us reform 'qu'un sang impur abreuve nos sillons'-that an impure blood should water our furrows. How can we get anything more ugly or brutal than that? The French have a habit of saying to themselves: 'We like these values. We think they should continue'. The amendment to the Bill says what the people of Australia through the gallup polls have said . They want the symbol of the Queen, the Crown; they want the oath or affirmation. Some 85 per cent of people in the census said that they had a link with and the support of some established religion. Australia has a series of values that are known. The amendment is saying what the people of Australia through gallup polls have said should be done. The people want to keep as head of state a system which, by evolution, has proved to represent human values. If those who laugh and giggle want to counter this, let them answer the questions I have posed. Let them say where they stand as to a head of state. Do they want one, or do they want only a head of government? If they stand for a head of state, what is to be the nature of the head of state? If they stand for a head of state, what is their objection to taking an oath of allegiance to the symbol of unity of the country? That is what it is all about. Do they want to take an oath of allegiance to the symbol of unity to the country, to the family itself, and to the kinds of values we have entrenched, including the parliamentary system, the rule of law and the whole system of freedom which evolved from the Magna Carta and history. This is a debate about human values. There has been an attempt by the Government to remove one of the basic symbols of human values. Nothing in a jingoistic sense leads me to say things. If there were a better system than the evolutionary monarchy, I would look to it. Those who want to knock the present system have something of a responsibility to themselves to say: 'I reject it. I want to put in its place this kind of system'. They should be honest enough to let the Australian community know where they stand. As it happens at the moment they are trying to get an attrition, republicanism by stealth. They are doing a dishonest thing because they are failing to say what they would put in its place . I commend the amendment. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.14) —The Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill is a very useful piece of legislation. It covers a very wide area of material and is not the end of the Western world as we have come to know it. It does what is necessary in the area of citizenship. If one looks at the recent history of Australia, one of the generally evolving ideas that have been presented is the notion of an Australian citizenship. Last year when we discussed the electoral legislation for the first time citizenship became the criteria for a person in Australia having the right to vote. I think that was a milestone in itself. It made an important contribution to our understanding of ourselves and where we were going as a country. On that occasion the Australian Democrats strongly supported the notion of enhancing as much as we can the notion of citizenship in this country and surrounding it with privileges that do not accrue to other people who live in this country. In other words, to become an Australian citizen must be seen as something important. The only way in which that can be done is by providing rights and responsibilities that do not descend on other people who are living here for one reason or another. This Bill goes through a whole series of machinery items in that regard. Hence, it is a very important Bill which regularises in its scope the relationship between those people who have come to Australia and who had British citizenship, for example, or people who came to Australia and who had citizenship from other countries that still recognise the notion of dual citizenship. All these are complex matters of international law and this Bill comprehensively deals with them. It is a pity that the debate will not address itself to any of those issues, but will be concerned with the matters raised by Senator Sir John Carrick. It is important for me to say where the Australian Democrats stand on that issue. We believe that the Queen as the head of state ought to appear in the oath of allegiance. We believe that because Australia happens to be part of a monarchy. Whether or not one wishes it to be so, it is so. That simply means that one does not have to rehearse in any way the type of argument rehearsed by Senator Sir John Carrick. Whether or not this amendment is carried, the Bill in no sense can be regarded as introducing republicanism by the back door, or creeping republicanism, or whatever else we have heard bandied about so far in this debate and doubtless, in view of the speakers who are to come, about which we will hear a lot more tonight. It is not that and cannot be that. I appeal to those honourable senators who intend to speak after me to address themselves to the insuperable problem of the Constitution, namely, that Australia cannot become a republic without a vote of the people. If Senator Walters has a fascinating constitutional interpretation of how we are to become a republic without altering the Constitution, perhaps she would like to say so. It has bedevilled many people in this country as to how that precisely is to take place. That is the insuperable obstacle that those people who want to talk about those rather stupid silly ideas have to overcome. They must address themselves to that central point. One cannot take that step without changing the Constitution. If Senator Walters bothers to read the Constitution, she will find embedded in it the notion of the Queen as head of state, the notion of the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Governor-General and it goes on and on . Senator Walters —You were not here in 1975. Senator MACKLIN —That had absolutely nothing to do with republicanism. If Senator Walters wishes to address the question directly I would be happy to sit here and listen to her, but the question is: How does a country become a republic without changing the Constitution? Senator Colston —She is going to keep it a secret. Senator MACKLIN —She certainly will keep it a secret. Senator Walters and the rest of the Opposition contributors to this debate know it, yet they will never talk about it. There is no other way of taking that step, as they well recognise . Senator Walters —You sit down and I will tell you. Senator MACKLIN —I am saving the people of the other side of the chamber for those delights after dinner. They can come in here and listen to Senator Walters then. The item that we have had bandied about as introducing republicanism by the back door is the oath of allegiance. We do not find acceptable the mode contained in Schedule 1 of the Bill. I understand that is also the reasoned position of those in the Opposition parties who have spoken about this matter reasonably. That does not mean to say that one would not wish to approach some form of change in terms of the oath of allegiance. Indeed, I think that what we should be seeking is an oath of allegiance to be used in schools and on public occasions. It should be written in a way that is attractive and recognises the legal position that this country faces. In facing that legal position Australia has to face the fact that it is a monarchy, and hence the head of state will be a monarch. Whether that be the Queen or the King, under the present constitutional arrangements would depend on who is around at the time. Nevertheless, there will still be a monarch to head up a monarchy. Presumably, at some later stage in our constitutional development there will be a reasoned debate on this issue. I hope there will be. I personally hope that we can have a reasoned debate about our form of government as we evolve into the next century. Unless we constantly address ourselves to the way in which this country is governed we run the dire risk of losing the essential elements upon which the Federation was based. Essentially, it must be based on the people of this country. At a later time the people of this country may wish to have a different form of government. If they do, they will vote that way in a referendum. We will then have a different form of government. That seems to us to be a perfectly legitimate and reasonable subject for debate. At present that is not the case. The Government has no proposals to go to the people to change this country's Constitution. We have nothing before us to indicate that the Government intends to do anything of the sort. Hence I believe, probably more as a matter of logic than anything else, that to take the Queen out of the oath of allegiance is not to do justice to our current constitutional structures. The suggestion is made that the oath of allegiance as it appears in the Bill, which says, amongst other things 'I pledge that I will faithfully uphold the Constitution' implicitly involves the Queen, and it does. The Queen is an essential part of our current Constitution, as I have already said. I raise the argument as to why one would seek to change it. It seems somewhat odd. I understand the argument to be this: Some people may be affronted by the fact that the Queen is referred to in the oath of allegiance, hence we will explicitly take out the Queen from the oath of allegiance but, of course, she is implicitly contained within the Constitution'. That seems to me to be simply a subterfuge, a move to cover up what is clearly the case in Australia's constitutional structure. We do not believe that an argument along those lines can be or, probably more correctly, should be sustained. I do not think anyone would want to put anywhere the argument that we should put in an oath of allegiance some type of subterfuge concerned with whether or not the Queen is the head of state in the Commonwealth of Australia. Undoubtedly she is, and a pledge of allegiance should recognise that fact. A wider question is involved here. It concerns the pledge itself and who ends up taking it. It is part of a debate which, unfortunately, has been moving into areas which I think most of us and I hope all of us in this chamber regret. It is probably in that context that one looks at this Bill in a different way from the way one would have tended to do even six to nine months ago. It seems to me that the people who take the oath of allegiance and become citizens of Australia , making it their adopted country, as I did, are quite willing to undertake whatever oath of allegiance is required for them to become citizens. I suggest that such a decision is not made on the words contained in the oath of allegiance but because one wants to adopt Australia as one's country, to live here, to see the country progress and grow and to contribute to that. In other words, a much more human decision is made. I doubt very much whether anyone making the decision to become an Australian citizen would have even seen the oath of allegiance before being asked to take it on the day. We talk about all sorts of things in this place. It is often very useful to talk about what people actually do in real life. They do not look at the oath of allegiance and make decisions as to whether they will become Australians on that basis. They make a human decision based on human values and concerns-concerns for themselves, their families and their loved ones. Those seem to me to be very important decisions for people to make. The legalistic stuff comes along afterwards and is filled out only as a matter of course. I say quite openly that I do not even remember the words of the oath of allegiance that I took. I thought: 'At last I have become a citizen of Australia'. That was the important thing to me, not the oath of allegiance and its wording. I do not want to put the Australian Democrats' case in a very strong form. We do not really want to get terribly hung up on the actual words. The point we want to make and the reason why we will not vote to have the current wording of the pledge changed is that we believe it is a matter of being quite open with everybody who comes to this country about the fact that Australia is a monarchy which has a queen or king as head of state and a constitutional structure that follows from that. There is nothing wrong with that. If I or anybody else who comes to this country and becomes a citizen does not feel that that is the way Australia should be organised, as soon as that person becomes a citizen he or she has 100 per cent as much right as everybody who was born here, a child of a person who was born here or a child of a child of a person who was born here, to seek to change that, to argue through the democratic forums in this country that this is an inappropriate way for it to be governed and that we ought to have a different type of mechanism. That is what every citizen gets from citizenship. I know that everybody in this place would fight to preserve the right of an Australian citizen to say how we will be governed. Over and above Australia being a monarchy, over and above our having a Senate, a House of Representatives and everything else, Australia is essentially a vibrant democracy, one of the very few left in the world. It is a country which is run by its own people. We can tell that it is run by its own people because our Constitution can be changed only by the people. That is what makes us strong , not the words on the paper; it is our people and the fact that they ultimately have the control over their own destiny, their own lives and their own forms of government. That is why I believe that if we want Australia to move away from being a monarchy or from whatever other structures we disagree with, as citizens we should argue that in the market place of political ideas. We should not believe that we will achieve that by changing words. I am not at all sure what the intent of this legislation was. I believe the intent was good. I believe it was to meet a number of legitimate feelings that many people who have come to Australia have had about that pledge. Although I do not accept those feelings, I respect them. However, my Party does not believe that this is the way to go about acknowledging them. As I understand it, the Government-I thought Senator Walters might be interested in knowing this but she is not-will acquiesce in that because the Bill itself is far too important to be lost simply for the wording in a pledge. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.00) —Tonight we are debating the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill 1984. This is an attempt by the Government to scrub from our oath of allegiance all reference to the Queen. While not wanting to make a great song and dance about it, Senator Macklin has just said that the Australian Democrats do not believe that there is any need to change the oath. So the Government will be thwarted in its attempts to do this, and I am delighted to hear it. Senator Macklin challenged me to say that we, on this side of the chamber, believing that this is republicanism through the back door, are not stating the facts as they stand. He went to great lengths to say that a referendum was needed to change the status of Australia to a republic. All I can say is that Senator Macklin was not here in 1975. He obviously did not take a great deal of notice of what occurred during those dreadful years of the Whitlam Government. I acknowledge that it does take a referendum actually to change Australia and turn it into a republic. In the Whitlam years we watched the removal of photographs of the Queen and photographs of Mr Whitlam being put up, the change of titles of government buildings and all the other steps that were surreptitiously taken at that time. We realise that what is going on today is just one more step in that line. We all know that Mr Hawke, before he came into the Parliament, was very public in his ideas about how Australia should be governed. He spoke at the Boyer lectures. From the speeches that he made we know that he believes in a centralised government. We know only too well that he does not understand the meaning of State's rights. He has said that there should be no State governments because Australia is overgoverned and, indeed, Australia should be governed by the central government. He did not add that the leader of that central government could then become a president, but that was well on the way. He has not resiled from that. Indeed, he has said that while he believes in a republic, it is not one of his priorities at the moment, or not before the election anyway . Things have been happening since this Government came to office; some little, some major. Some people call them little things, such as when they want to get a new passport they find that the crown has been removed from the front of the passport; the crown has just disappeared. No-one mentioned it; it just happened that one day directions were given to the Department of Foreign Affairs. When a person handed in an old passport with the crown on the front and got back a new passport without the crown he was not meant to notice. That is just one more little step in getting rid of all connotations about the Queen of Australia, just one more step on the road to republicanism. Senator Macklin went to great lengths to pooh-pooh the suggestion that that would occur in Australia. I am saying-I told Senator Macklin that I would be speaking on this matter-that when a country reaches a certain stage it does not take much to push it just that little step further, to hold a referendum and say: 'What is the use, we are there already, we may as well become a republic'. Let us have a look at what has happened. The other day we spoke on the flag. During that speech I mentioned that while many people in Australia think it might be a good idea to have a purely Australian national anthem with no reference to Her Majesty, it is not the prerogative of one man to stand up and say: 'We will change the anthem and, by the way, I do not like the words of the new one, they are too sexist, so we will change those too'. On that occasion Senator Grimes said: 'Don't you know we have had a referendum?' Of course, he spoke later and, in his usual fashion, deliberately confused the situation, and deliberately referred to the referendum as a referendum on the national anthem. It was not a referendum on the national anthem; it was a referendum that was held to see what the Australian people would choose as their national song, which would be played at the Olympic Games and functions of a national character . It did not have anything to do with the national anthem. To say so is a complete distortion of the facts. Senator Grimes knows this, but he is so used to distorting facts that it is really quite beyond his power to recognise when he is doing so. I believe that all Australians think that the changing of the anthem should be debated in the Parliament by the people who were elected by them to represent them and their ideas. But that is old hat to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). He likes to be the man who stands up and says: 'I will change it'. Indeed, that is what he did. We know that committees have been set up to look at alternative patterns for the flag. There is no doubt that that is what the Prime Minister will do and, indeed, is doing slowly but surely and in the most surreptitious fashion. He is already putting up new colours for the bicentennial flag. I would love to know the cost of that exercise. We have not been told the cost of changing the colours of the bicentennial flag but, no doubt, we will get those answers in Estimates committees. Senator Macklin and many people sit back and complacently say: 'Look, there has got to be a referendum. We have not got to worry about a republic, a referendum has got to be held in Australia before that can occur'. Let me just warn these people that by the time a referendum is called, if this lot are in power for much longer, it will be such a small step that no one will care any more. That is what the plan is and that, indeed, is what is happening. Why would the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) and the Prime Minister decide to alter the oath of allegiance? I believe that what the Minister has said was the biggest insult to the ethnic community, to those groups of people who have come to Australia because we are a stable society and their own country was unstable, and for so many other reasons. Mr West said at a meeting of 25,000-odd migrants: 'You will not have to swear allegiance to a monarch living in a foreign country'. What a disgraceful thing for a Minister of the crown to say! That was his excuse for changing the oath of allegiance in this legislation. The Queen is not a monarch living in a foreign country; she is the Queen of Australia, and I am very proud of the fact that we have a Queen of Australia. Whether Mr Hawke, Mr West, or indeed any of the socialist rabble opposite believe in swearing allegiance to a monarch in a foreign country, the people of Australia know that that is not the case. Of course, last year the Government was not only considering scrubbing reference to the Queen from our oath of allegiance but also considering scrubbing the religious connotations. The bishops acted on that and said that they believed this was tremendously wrong. They were able to get enough support from the people of Australia to make the Government change its mind. So we now have the Minister saying in his second reading speech: . . . we recognise that many people wish to swear an oath before God when giving allegiance to their new nation. A Prime Minister who says that he is an atheist has suddenly decided that people might like to swear allegiance to God even if this Government was going to scrub reference to the Queen. I wonder why he suddenly decided that? It is all out of context with his thoughts. Senator Colston —He has a lot more tolerance than a lot of Christians. Senator WALTERS —I will tell the honourable senator what tolerance he has. A poll showed that 85 per cent of Australians have religious connections. That is the sort of tolerance he has-a real vote tolerance. He backed off because he saw from the poll that 85 per cent of Australians would not like it. That is the sort of tolerance that this man has and this is the sort of legislation that he wants to put through. As far as the Government is concerned the legislation before us at the moment is a half-baked proposition. The Government is not getting rid of the lot; it is only getting rid of the Queen. As I said earlier, I believe that this is the greatest insult to our ethnic community that we could possibly have. Indeed, there was considerable reaction to it. Ethnic groups denied that they wanted this change. They did not want to be used as the Prime Minister's excuse for changing the oath of allegiance. I know; I have had very irate calls from some members of the ethnic groups. I have had irate calls from people saying: 'Don't let them get away with it. Don't let them say that it is us who want this change'. I would like to read from an article in the Mercury of 25 October which is headed 'Move on oath upsets council'. It states: The Good Neighbour Council of Tasmania will protest to the Federal Government about any move to delete allegiance 'to God and the Queen' from the oath of allegiance. The annual meeting of the Council at Launceston on Saturday voted to write to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, 'strongly objecting' to the proposed change. The State secretary, Mr A. Schluter, of Glenorchy, said last night that he and many other new settlers felt very strongly about the issue. ''We have a system that has worked for many years,'' he said. ''We don't want change for the sake of change.'' Mr Schluter said many settlers were against the presidential government system. ''And we feel deleting 'God and the Queen' from the oath of allegiance is a step towards a presidential government, he said. In his annual report, the council president, Mr E. Baulis, of Launceston, said withdrawal of Federal Government support five years ago had been 'a surprise and shock' to members. So it is no use this Government trying to blame the migrants for changing the oath of allegiance. As Mr Schluter said, they came to Australia because we had a stable monarchy. They do not want it changed. It is this Government, with its presidential-type ambitions, that wants it changed; no one else. What will take the place of the oath of allegiance? According to the second reading speech of the Minister, the wording will be: 'I renounce any current citizenship and all allegiance to any state other than Australia. I pledge that I will faithfully uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of Australia and fulfil my duties as an Australian citizen'. Senator McIntosh —Ah, the Constitution. Senator WALTERS —Senator McIntosh says: 'Ah, the Constitution'. As Senator Macklin pointed out a little earlier in this debate the Constitution indeed acknowledges the Queen. So why take out the reference? What is the Government's excuse for taking it out? We are told that at all the meetings of all the ethnic communities that went on all round Australia, all these groups were saying how obnoxious it was for them to be swearing an oath of allegiance to a foreign Queen. Senator Crichton-Browne —That is a lot of rubbish. Senator WALTERS —We know that it is a lot of rubbish. We know that it is not only rubbish but also untrue. We know that the Department put this up and honourable senators opposite grabbed that chance to do it. I will tell honourable senators opposite what I also know. The Queen visited Australia when the present Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, was a member of parliament; he certainly was not Prime Minister. Of course, he is meant to be a great republican and he is now deleting the Queen's name from the oath of allegiance. When the Queen visited Australia he made sure that he was not just in the crowd; he pushed his way through the crowd. We all stood back and watched him make such a fool of himself. It was absolutely incredible to watch as he pushed his way through the crowd to make sure that he met the Queen. Having pushed his way through he took up so much of her time that the then Prime Minister had to ask him to leave. He then rushed over and met the Duke. I do not think any other person in that room met both the Queen and the Duke, but Bob Hawke made sure he did. It really made me quite sick to watch it. He really does debase himself. Of course, he took the oath, publicly, to become Prime Minister. Senator Colston —Affirmation, didn't he? Senator WALTERS —No, he did not take an affirmation. He is such a hypocrite that he took an oath and, as an atheist, that cannot be anything else. Senator McIntosh —Mr Deputy President, I take a point of order. Fun is fun but that is going a bit too far. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! I will rule on the point of order shortly. Senator Walters, you should withdraw that remark. You cannot make reflections of that nature on a member of the other House. Senator WALTERS —I withdraw, Mr Deputy President. A man who says that he is an atheist and then takes the oath has great question marks over him. Let us get on to other matters in this Bill, which also provides that a person must be a resident for a period before being permitted to become a citizen of Australia. That period was three years. That has been reduced to two years. We are the only Western country with such a low residential qualification period. In America it is five years; in Canada, three; in France, five; in Germany, 10; in Greece, three; in Italy, five; in Sweden, five; in Switzerland, 10; and Australia has reduced hers from three to two. It is quite incredible to care so little or to consider the matter to be so light that we are the only country of those I mentioned to make that period so short. We were told by Senator Robert Ray today that we were talking about the good old days. I suppose we are talking about the good old days. Senator Grimes —Indeed you are. Senator WALTERS —I am sorry; I did not hear the Minister's interjection. Senator Grimes —I agreed with you. Senator WALTERS —I believe that we are talking about the good old days, or, as Senator Sir John Carrick said, the good old standards that this Government is dragging down further as it goes. In this Bill the requirement regarding the ability to speak the English language has also been changed. I am not quite sure what the purpose of that is. I am not quite sure of the difference between ' adequate' and 'basic'. No doubt we will learn the difference at the Committee stage. Senator Grimes —If we ever get there. Senator WALTERS —We may not get there. As I said, the English language clause has been changed. The thing that concerns me is that we are allowing people who are not able to write English to become Australian citizens. In other words, they do not have to be able to fill in all the necessary forms such as drivers' licence applications, voting forms and all other things that I believe essential when one becomes an Australian citizen. They do not have to be able to write English. They do not have to be able to converse or communicate very well. They do not even have to be able to understand English very well. I do not believe that is in their best interests. I believe it is in the best interests of Australian citizens to encourage them to speak and understand the Australian language before they become Australian citizens. It may be more difficult, but I think encouragement is necessary. I believe that unless we do that we will not be doing things in the best interests of Australians; indeed, we will be doing the opposite. I think that the Government has gone too far on this occasion. It is not going to pass the legislation. It is going to have to back off. It will have to bring forward all those consequential amendments that will be necessary. It is going to find that the people of Australia are completely disenchanted with the fact that the Government is not able to put forward a good excuse for wanting to get rid of the Queen from our oath of allegiance. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(8.25) —The Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill 1984 started out to make some relevant changes to the legislation, but unfortunately it got distorted along the way and got carried away on a wave of Labor socialist dogma or perhaps, given the present Labor leader, one might say Labor theology. The general inadequacies of the Bill have been covered more than adequately by honourable senators on this side of the chamber. I will be voting in support of the amendment moved by Senator Martin. The first point I would like to make is that there must have been very few second reading speeches put down in this chamber as inconsistent in content or as full of contradictory statements as this one. It is so bad that I think the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) wrote the speech himself rather than have a clerk in his Department do it. It would not be a bad idea if in future he got someone in the Department to write his speeches if this is the best he can do, purely from a technical point of view apart from its legislative content. In the second paragraph of his speech he says: The Government is committed to ensuring that the Act reflects the national identity of all Australians. I simply do not know what that expression means, and I have pondered it for quite a while. Then we come to the contradictions in the speech. Paragraph 4 finishes by his saying: . . . as well as removing what many people see as the disincentives to acquiring citizenship contained in the present Act. He goes on to contradict that by talking about rapid increases. In paragraph 5 he says that the reasons for the rising application rate are varied and in paragraph 7 says: 'In the face of the increased rate of applications'. He cannot really have it both ways at the one time. On page 6 of his speech he talks about the knowledge of English and extols the virtue of knowing English, saying that the knowledge of English is 'essential to full participation in Australia's social, cultural and political life', but later in the same paragraph says: The Bill therefore proposes that applicants for citizenship must have only a basic knowledge of English. It just does not hang together. I do not want to take up too much time tonight because I have a committee meeting, but the points where I depart quite markedly from a legislative point of view-- Senator Grimes —Ha, ha! Senator MacGIBBON —Well, there is only Senator Grimes for an audience on this side, and he is hardly worth my time for much longer. I would like to deal seriatim with the points to which I have a marked objection from a legislative point of view. The first is the oath of allegiance. At the bottom of page 9 of the speech the Minister said that he eliminates the requirement to swear allegiance to a sovereign resident elsewhere. That is a very cheap and demeaning remark which really does no credit to a person who describes himself as a Minister of the Crown. Senator Grimes —What about Professor Zubrzycki? He said that. Don't you like him either? Senator MacGIBBON —Professor Zubrzycki is not a Minister of the Crown. I am quite happy to listen to what Professor Zubrzycki has to say, but I am going to have my say on the same topic. The term 'sovereign resident elsewhere' really has no meaning. I do not suppose that Mr West knows it, but the Governor-General is a representative of the sovereign and the State Governors are representatives of the sovereign. Furthermore, they are present at all times in Australia. If they are absent overseas or if they are ill, official administrators are appointed in their place. Going beyond that minor pettiness, the illogicality of the statement is mind boggling because Mr West cannot deny the existence of the sovereign in Australia. We are a constitutional monarchy whether we like it or not. We need only read section 1 of the Constitution which says in part: The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate and a House of Representatives . . . In all our legislative processes the place of the sovereign is enshrined. The only reason for Mr West going on in the way he did was to satiate those feelings for republicanism that are so strong in the present Australian Labor Party. At present we are dealing with an ALP in the Federal Parliament which has raised xenophobia, particularly with respect to our traditional friends in the United Kingdom and the United States of America, to a height that we have never seen before in Australia. That xenophobia is particularly manifested in respect of the United Kingdom and this Bill. There is absolutely no point in not mentioning the sovereign in the oath of allegiance because in that oath that people are swearing they are swearing to uphold the Constitution of Australia. They are swearing to renounce all former allegiance. There is a commitment to observe the laws of Australia and a declaration of new allegiance to Australia. Later on the pledge states: I will faithfully uphold the Constitution . . . The Constitution provides, whether we like it or not, for a sovereign. So it is an absolute nonsense and a deception for this Government to maintain that by deleting a reference to the sovereign in the oath of allegiance somehow or other we do not have a monarch in this country as the head of state. The second point I would like to deal with relates to the reduction in the period before one can apply for citizenship. I have a very strong view, having lived out of Australia for quite a part of my life, that citizenship is not a trivial matter. I have met stateless people and I know that the privilege of holding title as a citizen of a country is something that a lot of people in this world do not have. While we have an open door policy and a non- discriminatory migration policy which accepts implicitly that all migrants who come here will become Australian citizens, it does not follow that there is an automatic entitlement to citizenship just for the asking. I believe that people have to earn that entitlement to be a citizen and one of the best ways of earning that entitlement is through the passage of time. As time passes we can assess the mutual compatibility between the migrant and the host country and we can work out the acceptability of one to the other. To do the things we are doing in this Bill, of reducing to a ridiculously low period the residency qualifications-a reduction from three years in eight, which it was, to two years in five, or for the continuous case, from 12 months in the preceding 12 months to 12 months in the preceding two years-is, I believe, absolutely untenable. It belittles and demeans Australian citizenship. It puts the earning of Australian citizenship at a lower level than that of any other comparable country that I know of. I am forced to the conclusion that if the Government wants to go to that level why does it not sell citizenship? Why does it not have a $50 fee or something and say: 'If you migrate to Australia, pay your fee and you can be an Australian citizen'? Make no mistake about it, there is a marked community reaction to this debasing of the requirements to be entitled to call oneself an Australian citizen within the Australian community and it is within both the migrant community and the native born population. The sole justification for this that the Minister advances is to be found in his statement: . . . difficulty which the current requirement can cause to people in a world which is increasingly internationally mobile. That is a fatuous statement. It applies as much to Australia as to every other country. Other countries are not saying that they will cut back their residency requirement to these ridiculously low levels. I believe that the granting of citizenship carries some privileges with it, not the least of which is the entitlement to carry an Australian passport. It gives the bearer of that passport some respectability in the international scene and also places an obligation on the Australian taxpayer to defend his interests and look after him if he gets into trouble around the world. I do not want to dwell for too long on the mobility of the international criminal fraternity but it is well known that people do move from country to country and operate on both legitimate and bogus passports. By having weak and meaningless periods of residency we enable people to exploit the system for nefarious purposes. The next point I turn to is the English language requirement and the reduction from an adequate to a basic standard of English. Surprisingly, what is involved in basic English is not defined in any way at all. I ask the Senate: 'Am I basic in Italian, German, Spanish or Indonesian?' I might be because I can go into shops and get what I want. I can go for a ride in a bus or in a taxi, but it is nonsense to suggest that I have a basic level of competence in those languages because I simply cannot converse and I cannot comprehend what is being said. I can read French quite well because I spent four years learning it, but I would not advance the case that I have a basic knowledge of French because I am not fluent in it. I am forced to the conclusion that, in the absence of a definition of the words 'basic English', the Minister means a person need have no English at all. Australia has been involved in some of the biggest per capita migration programs of any country. The overall record of Australia with respect to migration is one of very great success. I believe that we have been more successful in that assimilation of migrants than any other country, certainly this century. We have been building a new Australian community. We have done that without creating disadvantaged sections in the community. But I believe that by the abolition of the requirement to have an adequate level of English we run the risk of creating a disadvantaged section in this community, even a second class of citizens in the country. The first requirement of equality in a community is that everyone have an equal opportunity to compete for a job; everyone have an equal opportunity to advance his or her career. If we do not have the ability to converse in the language of the country in which we live we are not in the event; we start with a very great handicap. The consequence of this is that we end up with enclaves; we have communities that do not relate to the larger community. Where we get these enclaves we very often get declining economic standards and end up with ghettos as there are in the large cities in the United States. That has never been a part of the Australian scene and it is something I would hate to see develop now. I remember talking a month or two ago to a food manufacturer who complained to me about competition in Sydney and Melbourne. The competition was coming from new migrants to this country. He said: 'I cannot compete with them on a fair basis because when the health inspectors and union representatives go into their factories they meet a blanket response from the management who say: ''Sorry, we do not speak English here. Out you get'' '. The health inspectors and the union representatives do not press the point. They take the easy way out and they leave them alone. However, they went to the person who was talking to me about the matter. He meets those standards with the economic penalties involved, and the result is he cannot compete. It is a nonsense for the Minister to talk about new citizens undertaking their civic duties as he did later on in his second reading speech. One cannot serve on a jury or be part of the larger Australian community unless one can speak English. The whole situation we have got into here is one of the tragic end points of the Labor view of what multiculturalism involves. I move to a minor point. The Minister talked about the obtaining of citizenship through fraud and deceit. He said: In the case of a person obtaining Australian citizenship by fraud, deceit, the concealment of information or any other dishonest means, the Minister will have discretion to deprive that person of citizenship. My view is that where citizenship is obtained through fraud or deceit, there should be automatic revocation of that citizenship. I close on a minor point which illustrates the extreme touchiness of the Australian Labor Party. The Minister makes a very big thing out of using the word 'alien'. He said: The existing definition of 'alien', which is discriminatory on the grounds of nationality and country of birth, is also being repealed. That really is enshrining Mr Al Grassby in legislation. It is an absolutely nonsensical line to follow-every bit as bad as the support of genderless speech by the ALP. The term 'alien' is an honourable and honest legal term. I have been a non-resident alien in one country, and I have suffered no embarrassment and no discrimination as a consequence of it. It is a perfectly proper legal term to use. It illustrates an extraordinary point of touchiness that the Minister should refer to it in his speech. This Bill treats a matter of great importance to the Australian community in a very muddled and insensitive way. The Minister's second reading speech accurately reflects his whole approach to this Bill, with its woolly-minded and jingoistic style. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(8.41) —In considering the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill, it is appropriate to go back and look at how all this started in Australia. Act No. XIII of 1825 was 'An Act to Naturalise Timothy Goodwin Pitman '. That Act was passed on 5 July 1825. Senator Peter Baume —In which Parliament? Senator ARCHER —In the Parliament of New South Wales. It states: Whereas Timothy Goodwin Pitman a citizen of the United States of America hath been for some time resident in the Colony of New South Wales and is desirous of settling therein. And whereas it is expedient that certain of the advantages and privileges which are enjoyed by His Majesty's natural-born subjects should be extended to him the said Timothy Goodwin Pitman. Be it therefore enacted by His Excellency the Governor of New South Wales with the advice of the Council that when and so soon as the said Timothy Goodwin Pitman shall have taken and subscribed the oaths and shall have subscribed the declaration directed and appointed in and by a certain Act passed in the first year of the reign of His Majesty King George the First entitled 'An Act for the further Security of His Majesty's Person and Government and the Succession of the Crown in the Heirs of the late Princess Sophia being Protestants and for extinguishing the Hopes of the pretended Prince of Wales and his open and secret Abettors' (which said oaths and declaration the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales is hereby required and empowered to administer and receive in manner and form as in the said Act is prescribed) and when and so soon as the said Timothy Goodwin Pitman shall also have complied with all other the provisions in the said Act contained and enjoined he the said Timothy Goodwin Pitman shall thereupon be deemed taken and esteemed a natural-born subject of Great Britain and be entitled to all the rights privileges and advantages which are conferred on foreign Protestants by the said Act or by any other Act of Parliament now in force for naturalising such foreign Protestants and others as are settled or shall settle in any of His Majesty's Colonies in America save and except only the holding or exercising of any place or office of trust in the Courts of Law or what relates to the Treasury of the said Colony or its Dependencies. And be it further enacted that the said Chief Justice shall immediately after such oaths shall have been taken and such declaration subscribed before him as foresaid certify the same and cause the certificate thereof to be recorded in the Supreme Court of the said Colony and such certificate shall be deemed and taken to be a sufficient proof of the said Timothy Goodwin Pitman being a natural-born subject of Great Britain to all intents and purposes whatsoever save and except as aforesaid and as such shall be allowed in every Court within the said colony and its Dependencies. That was the way in which the naturalisation process started in Australia. I will not go to the extent of reading the oaths that were appended, because they are considerable and even more ponderous in their wording. But this goes to show the importance with which Australian citizenship started-and we look this evening at what it has got to now. It virtually means that one can almost acquire citizenship between aeroplanes as one passes through. It is another example of the great destroyer at work. The standards of pride and prestige that used to be held with Australian citizenship are destroyed by the fact that it now takes so little time to acquire, it involves so little recognition, and it can virtually be administered by almost anybody. By our Constitution, we are a monarchy. No amount of huffing and fluffing by the government of the day can overcome the fact that, whether it likes it or not , the Constitution provides for it, and there is no way of going round it and no way that the people of Australia will allow it to be gone around. I have made every effort, without success, to find out what other monarchy will allow naturalisation without even having to swear allegiance to the sovereign. I believe that that is fairly important. I do not know of one other nation which is a monarchy where one does not need to swear allegiance to the monarch. It is not only sad; as I say, it is another example of the great destroyer at work. It is a matter of residence of convenience; clause 13 makes that not difficult. Plenty of people come here on a work permit that would entitle them to citizenship. One has only to take note of the activities in this building and in certain States and other places to see that not everybody in Australia is completely honest, and that all sorts of people in Australia would take all manner of trouble to obtain a passport if it would suit their purposes. Not all of the people qualified under this arrangement to conduct naturalisations may be above some sort of examination, let alone the people that they are examining. Anyway, whose qualifications, anywhere, are weaker and of less consequence than those in Australia? I do not see this as an oath of allegiance. It is no tie to people to say, 'I renounce any current citizenship and all allegiance to any State other than Australia, and I pledge that I will faithfully uphold the Constitution, obey the laws and fulfil my duties as an Australian citizen'. It is just an absolute nonsense. At one stage I wrote to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr West. A couple of paragraphs from his reply are well worth recording . He made much of a report which stated: The strongly-held and predominant view emerging from the consultations was that swearing allegiance to a sovereign, and especially to a named sovereign resident elsewhere, was inappropriate in Australia at its present stage of history. This view was shared by persons from a variety of backgrounds, including holders of Imperial awards and persons who maintained that they were not republicans. What a sweeping generality! A little later, he went on to say: Many such people have made it clear that their reluctance to become citizens results from their unwillingness to swear the oath in its current form. He did not mention, of course, the thousands of people who have written to various members of parliament in various States to say that they wanted it. But because the Minister has managed to rough up a handful of people to suit his point of view, he says that people have a reluctance to become citizens because of their unwillingness to swear the oath in its present form. In his final paragraph, he stated: The Government believes that this pledge of allegiance is distinctly Australian in character, expressing a clear commitment to Australia, its laws and Constitution, and avoiding what is for many people a confusing requirement to swear allegiance to a sovereign resident elsewhere. While there are legitimate differences of view on the Monarchy, they should not be invoked in an Australian citizenship ceremony. My proposals bring everyone together, allowing them all to make a full commitment of allegiance to Australia. What absolute nonsense. I have never seen anything that has been so divisive in this area as the attempt to remove the important part of the oath of allegiance. I find it quite extraordinary that the Minister could claim that that was the case. I then started to wonder why members of this Parliament were prepared to sign or commit an oath or an affirmation of allegiance. I followed this up with a letter to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). I said: 'If you are so keen to get the Queen out of the oath of allegiance why do you not take it out of the other Acts where it is required by law?' He favoured me with one of his gracious letters which read: Thank you for your letter of 6th March 1984 concerning the oath of citizenship and the parliamentary and other serving oaths. There is no intention on the part of the Government to seek to repeal or amend the Schedule to the Constitution which sets out the parliamentary oath and affirmation of allegiance to the Queen. Similar oaths and affirmations are contained in some 17 Commonwealth Acts. In relation to those Acts administered by my Department there are no current proposals to remove the reference to the Queen. I believe that that is a gross act of inconsistency, the likes of which we have come to acknowledge and expect, admittedly. The 17 Acts under which the Attorney -General's Department administers and is responsible for the oath are the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act 1933, the Bankruptcy Act 1966, the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, the Copyright Act 1968, the Defence Force Discipline Appeals Act 1955, the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, the High Court of Australia Act 1979, the Parliamentary Counsel Act 1970, the Australian Institute of Marine Science Act 1972, the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act 1972, the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971, the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982, the Defence Act 1903, the Naval Defence Act 1910, the Norfolk Island Act 1957, the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 and the Public Service Arbitration Act 1920. Why would we suddenly choose to remove the reference to the monarch from the oath of allegiance and then say that we have no intention of removing it from these other Acts? The Attorney said: There is no intention on the part of the Government to seek to repeal or to amend the schedule to the Constitution which sets out the parliamentary oath and affirmation of allegiance to the Queen. Why not? If it is so important, if we are so hell bent to distance ourselves from our history, heritage and Constitution, why pick on one Act? If we are so keen on it, why go for one that does not require an amendment to the Constitution. Therein lies the whole story. If it were a matter of applying to get an amendment to the Constitution I think we would find that there was no case for removing the reference to the monarch. But while ever it is possible to sneak it through there is every possibility that it would be done. If those other Acts could be changed in a similar way I venture to suggest that it also would have been done. I believe that only a couple of other topics would have produced more mail through my office than this topic. It is considerably offensive to a great proportion of the population. It is offensive to people who have been brought up with loyalty, dignity and dedication to the Parliament, to the Crown and to the Commonwealth. It is quite outrageous that a matter such as this should be taken out of the hands of the people without it even having been discussed. I have not had one letter from anybody seeking my support for the legislation. I have had no suggestion that the Government would be prepared to consider having a referendum on this matter in which everybody was given the opportunity to express an opinion. In the circles I move in I find that people are loyal. They do express their loyalty. They are proud to do so. They believe in the Queen and in the monarchy. They believe in the Queen of Australia. I repeat: This disreputable statement that we are left with says nothing. I wish that there had been more public communication on this matter. I am sorry that the Government believes that what it is doing has sufficient acceptance for it to try to sneak it through in the way it has chosen. I believe there should have been greater option. I believe that those people who wish to establish their loyalty should, at least, have been given the opportunity. It is all very well to make provisions that people may take either an oath or an affirmation and that people who have a belief in God should be able to express it and swear by it, but why not give them the same opportunity-if the Minister were in any way reasonable-to take the oath to the monarch? The Minister established that there was an alternative for those who wished to swear to God and those who did not. But no such opportunity was given to those who wished to express loyalty to the monarch as the Constitution of the country provides. Apart from that, most of the mechanical alterations in the Bill will, of course , be supportable. It is only the manner in which the legislation was brought forward and what it changes in material ways that I find so objectionable. I felt that the letter I received from the Attorney-General clearly showed that although we are a country of somewhat limited history we at least go back now almost 200 years and we have very strong connections with other parts of the world. We have connections which many people who have come to Australia only in the last few years find very important. It seems to me that the Attorney-General , in particular, takes the attitude that if anything is older than about 9 September 1944 it should be destroyed. To take the attitude that beyond that date something is archaic and should be up only for demolition is what the matter comes back to now. The way that this revolutionary Government, the great reformers, are heading will leave this place in tatters. To destroy the very framework of the society on which the whole country is built is deplorable. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(9.00) —In speaking in this cognate debate of the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill 1984 and the Aliens Act Repeal Bill 1984, I address my remarks in particular to the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill. This Bill is designed to make some substantial changes to the Australian Citizenship Act 1948. Those changes include the reduction of the qualifying period for citizenship from three years to two years, allowing for appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal where citizenship has been denied; reduction of the standard of English required from adequate to basic; the repeal of the definition of British subject status and the removal of reference to the Queen of Australia from the oath or affirmation of allegiance. With most of the changes, including some not mentioned above, I have no argument. However, as with other Opposition senators I take offence at a number of proposed other changes to the Act. I refer particularly to the elimination of reference to the Queen of Australia from the oath or affirmation of allegiance, a matter mentioned by many honourable senators on this side during this debate. I also object to the reduction of the residence eligibility period for citizenship from three years to two years and the amendment which will reduce the requirement that an applicant for citizenship have an adequate knowledge of English to a basic knowledge of English. With the removal of reference to the Queen from the oath of allegiance it is clear that the Government has taken a decision while having no mandate whatsoever for it from the Australian public. Yet again this Government and Prime Minister of consensus are proceeding on a politically emotive and divisive issue on which there has been no consultation. This is a presumptuous pro- republican move, a part of the playing down of the monarchy already demonstrated by the changing of the national anthem. That was another example of the refusal of the Government to take into consideration the wishes of the Australian people . The imposition of this unwanted national anthem continues to be flouted by those Australians who, given the opportunity, would certainly not have supported this Government's actions in a referendum. If the Government wants to dismantle the institutions which are such an integral part of our system of constitutional monarchy it should state its intention in its party platform. As I see it, Mr Hawke has the perfect opportunity in the forthcoming election to set straight once and for all his Government's intentions as regards our relationship with Britain and our constitutional ties with that nation. Of course, as we have heard, we will have an election in the next two months, so there the Prime Minister has the opportunity. I believe that Mr Hawke should be honest with the electorate as to his republican intentions-as they appear-or else he should provide some real justification for his actions in changing the national anthem, doing away with the imperial honours and now removing reference to the Queen from the oath of allegiance-changes which have hurt very many people of Australia. At the same time the Prime Minister may care to explain to the Australian people why it is that he has proceeded in these matters, riding rough- shod over the wishes of the electorate. Despite all his ideals of consensus one wonders just where the consensus is. Of course, the simple fact is that had he taken the democratic course and consulted the Australian people on their views by having a referendum on the issue he would have had to face the fact that the Australian people do not want the republic towards which he is obviously working. If the wishes of the majority of Australians had been followed we would still have God Save the Queen as our national anthem; we would still have imperial honours and we would still have an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen of Australia. The Government's actions in this matter are anti-British. It is the clear intention of Mr Hawke and of this Government to wind up in the position where the Queen of Australia will be a constitutional anomaly. It appears to me that this Government's intention is to eliminate all references to the Queen of Australia and, where possible, all connections with Britain. As I see it the Government's actions will create two classes of Australians- those who owe allegiance to the Queen and those who do not. Those of us born here owe allegiance to the Queen by right of birth. However, there are very many of us who have chosen to take that oath and have taken it with pride. It is very obvious when one goes to the citizenship naturalisation ceremonies. I would have thought that a government that campaigned on a policy of bringing Australia together would see the irony in this proposed change, which will result in pulling Australia apart. The Government's amendments will not stop there in creating two classes of Australians. The Government's proposal to reduce the requirement that applicants for citizenship have an adequate knowledge of English to a basic knowledge will mean that we will have two classes of Australians-those who speak English and those who do not. Here I am talking about the ordinary migration system because at the same time I acknowledge, of course, the responsibilities of Australia in accepting refugees from war-torn areas of the globe who would, of course, have some difficulty with the tests. However, I look upon the accepting of these refugees as an exceptional circumstance, although perhaps it is not so exceptional these days with the problems of Indo-China and other regions. Because of the refugees' lack of English I would expect Australia to continue to provide even better educational facilities for refugees. I have no argument with the proposal that applicants for citizenship over 50 years of age be exempted from the language requirement. I acknowledge the difficulties many older persons have in learning a new language. However, surely if a younger person intends to take the significant step of adopting a new country he or she could be expected to accept that an adequate knowledge of the language is required. I do not put too much emphasis on the word 'adequate' although I do believe that he or she should have an adequate knowledge of the language. I refer also to the responsibilities of citizenship. Citizens are expected to know the laws of their country. Our laws are in the language of our country, which is English. It is not good enough to confer citizenship on someone ill- equipped to deal with the responsibilities that go with it. Indeed, it is far from fair for the people concerned. The Government's proposed reduction of the period of eligibility for citizenship from three years to two years is very controversial. I believe it amounts to a devaluation of the importance and honour of Australian citizenship. In knocking around Australia as I do I see that it is our much valued latterly arrived citizen looking for a new home and accepting Australia as such saying that a shorter period ignores the value of Australian citizenship. As I have said, I find indeed that in discussing this aspect of the Bill with the older Australian and with the latterly arrived Australian it is the new Australian-the person who has arrived in the last few years-who knows the value of being in Australia and who queries why it is that Australia wishes to reduce the period from three years to two years. Australia already has one of the shortest qualifying periods for citizenship in the world. As I said, currently it stands at three years. The United States of America requires five years qualification for citizenship recognising in that longer period that many new settlers take at least a year or so to settle and to make up their minds as to whether they wish to take out citizenship. I suggest that the same situation apply in Australia. As I said at the outset of my speech these are the amendments that many find difficulty with. I have no hesitation, however, in supporting the other changes which include provisions for appeal against decisions of the Minister. This, I believe, is part of our democratic life. It is another way of saying that if a decision goes against a person he has the means of applying to a type of ombudsman. I believe that they have that right. I support the amendments moved by Senator Martin and I believe that some common sense should be applied to the amendments. Indeed I suggest that in some of its actions the Government in this instance has gone too far. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(9.10) —I wish to make some personal remarks about the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill and express my support of Senator Martin's amendments to the second reading motion. I want to pay particular attention to some aspects of the Bill which I find most disturbing. I preface my remarks by stating at the outset that I believe those of us who are privileged to be representatives of the Australian people in this place, and in the other place, have a great responsibility with regard to this piece of legislation. I know that honourable members on the Government benches feel that it is all very matter of fact and probably not worth everybody getting stirred up about. But, to me, it is a matter that is very important indeed. I feel that we are at the crossroads. I consider that this piece of legislation will go quite a long way towards further adding to or detracting from-depending on the way one looks at it- the way Australians perceive themselves and the country in which they live. I believe the Australian public is being treated like a group of second class citizens. The attitude is: 'Don't worry about it, we know what is best for you'. I did not agree when the Government took away our national anthem. It might be said that the Government had a referendum for a national song. I feel that had people thought they were voting for a national anthem they could quite easily have voted differently. I think the national anthem should be there for royal occasions and also vice-regal occasions. The Governors of each State represent the monarch and the Governor-General does likewise. I have been to many functions where both anthems are played. At Country Women's Association functions in particular a cassette containing the national anthem is played and then Advance Australia Fair. Those attending are asked: 'Let us stand while the band plays Advance Australia Fair'. If it is fair enough to call it the anthem, I suggest that people should learn the words. I am sure there are many people who would not be able to sing it anyway because they would not know the exact words. I feel very strongly about the way this Government has altered the oath of allegiance to God and the Queen. I think they are very important national decisions and to my way of thinking the people of Australia most certainly have a right to be consulted. Before our eyes the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), and the Labor Government are severely altering the face of Australia, changing nearly 200 years of hard work and tradition, with the stroke of a pen and a lot of watered down rhetoric. The Bill that is now before the House contains some very far reaching amendments to the Australian Citizenship Act-the Act by which new Australians pledge their commitment, their allegiance and their energies to the country which they believe to be the best in the world. The first point I want to make is that the Bill reduces the qualifying period for Australian citizenship from three to two years, and in doing so the Government has discounted the process of citizenship to the extent where a person needs to spend an aggregate of only 12 months during that two-year period to qualify. I certainly do not believe that that is a desirable amendment at all. Who is to stop shady businessmen, or drug runners, or other such undesirable characters from using Australia as a base for their operations over the two-year period? Why should we allow people who are not prepared to make a commitment in terms of their residency in our country to become permanent citizens? If it is good enough for them to want to become Australians, I feel that it is good enough for them to reside here for at least three years, on a continuous basis. The Bill will also amend the requirement that an applicant for citizenship demonstrate an adequate knowledge of the English language. Not only is it debatable as to what constitutes 'an adequate knowledge' of the language, but I feel it is also important for Australia to require its immigrants to have the basic skills required for assimilation into our Australian way of life-and most certainly I feel that a good grasp of our English language is essential to assimilation. With regard to the treatment of those of British origin, the present Australian Citizenship Act allows the automatic acquisition of Australian citizenship by British subjects resident in or with close connections with Australia in 1949, when that Act came into force. This amendment appears to be deliberately discriminatory and biased against British and European migration . This Government is certainly in a very big hurry to get rid of everything to do with Great Britain. It has removed the reference to the monarchy from the oath. It has changed the national anthem. The Government started out to remove the Queen's Medal last year, but changed its mind. I feel, too, that it is gearing up for a change in our flag. In a debate last week the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) said that the Government did not intend to change the flag and was quite happy with the present one. I hope that is the Government's view after the election is over. However, there is concern that the Flags Act of 1953 is not adequate to ensure the preservation of the national flag. Most certainly if one can believe what Mr Hawke said in 1979 in his Boyer Lectures-'I would prefer to break the link with the British crown and have our own President as head of state'-I am sure people would not have too much trouble in guessing who would be the future President; but that, as we know , is the policy of the Labor Party. Senator Harradine —King Malcolm of Nareen, of course. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —He unfortunately has gone now, and I am afraid we are looking towards a President of a republic. Senator Harradine —King Gough of Blue Poles, then. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Probably, by the bicentennial. I do not know why the present Labor Government has this urgent need to rid Australia of its very proud history. When one looks back in our history one realises that it is less than 200 years since Captain Arthur Phillip came over here. In fact, we shall celebrate the bicentenary in 1988. One knows what tremendous progress has taken place in our country over that period of years. When I was in China earlier this year I saw the Great Wall of China that was built some 2,500 years ago. One looks around China and comes to the view that that country is not as well developed as Australia is now. It has certainly done a lot better as far as people are concerned. However, China itself seems to have stopped, yet Australia has developed and done so many things in the past 200 years. I feel that our history is in many ways connected with the links we have enjoyed with Britain. Then, of course, there is the deletion from the oath of allegiance of reference to the Queen of Australia. The removal of this reference to the Queen removes the protection of the citizen against any government of the day. This Government is removing the constitutional position of the Queen, which I feel is important to the citizen. It can reduce the so-called oath to a pledge. I accept that councils are given two choices when swearing in new citizens at the ceremonies at council chambers. One choice is to make an affirmation and the other is to refer to God and the Queen in the oath of allegiance. Unfortunately, so many councils place the affirmation first. This oath is really the most insignificant oath that any citizen in the world could take. I say it is meaningless by international standards. The Government has no mandate to delete the reference to the Queen from the citizenship oath, given that the oath is the most important aspect of a migrant' s new life in Australia. I consider that this is just another step by the Government in eventual creation of a republic of Australia. I feel very strongly indeed about the need to maintain our traditional values, values which are based on Christian foundations. I feel that we are not interested in change just for change's sake. As far as I am concerned, these amendments chip away at the very core of the commitment to the traditional way of life-our heritage, our culture, our belief in this wonderful country-and at the history that has made this country what it is today. It is a commitment to a heritage of which we are proud and it saddens me that on the whim of this Government, the very fabric of our society can be changed. Any alteration of the respect for and commitment to the constitutional monarch, the Queen of Australia, to the flag, to the anthem and to the values placed on the citizenship of this great country is to be deplored. The Labor Government may be able to take the Queen out of the oath but it will get more than it bargained for if it ever attempts to take the Queen out of the State which I am proud to represent in this chamber, the sovereign State of Queensland. I certainly support the amendments that have been moved to the motion for the second reading of this Bill by Senator Martin. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.22) —I enter this debate to make a few brief comments mainly directed to proposed new sub-sections (6), (7) and (8) which are part of clause 4 of the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill 1984. I will deal with those in the Committee stage, but before I do so I feel bound to say something about the debate thus far. We are dealing with the motion that the Bill be now read a second time and the amendment moved by the Opposition to that motion. At this stage, I am in agreement with the first part of the amendment, that is, that the Senate disagrees with the Government's action in seeking to remove reference to Her Majesty the Queen from the oath of allegiance and the affirmation of allegiance. The second part of the Opposition's amendment views with concern the Government's deliberate devaluation of the importance of the honour of Australian citizenship. To the extent that the Government has done a number of things including juxtaposing the affirmation and the oath, I suppose an argument could be sustained in support of that proposition. I would have thought that that was not warranted, that the Government should not have done that in Schedule 1. I think the wording should have been similar to alternative forms of pledges and so on. At any rate, I will leave it at that. Whilst I go along with the first part of the amendment, and indeed with the rest of it, I feel that the wording of the existing Schedule needs tidying up. I feel that it needs to reflect more appropriately the feelings of those who wish to take the oath or the affirmation and become citizens of Australia. I think citizenship is a two-way thing. Firstly, Australia should have regard to the sensibilities of those who wish to become Australian citizens. Thus at some stage there is a need for the words to be amended. I think that is generally agreed around the chamber. I believe that the Opposition also has the view that a tidying up of the actual words would be appropriate. However, as I said, at this stage it is inappropriate to take out the reference to the Queen of Australia from the oath of allegiance and the affirmation of allegiance. It is particularly inappropriate to to so without consulting adequately the people of Australia. Whether this is done by means of a referendum is another matter, although if a government seeks to take out the name of the Queen of Australia from the pledge of Australian citizenship that is a very important reflection of its attitude. I am not a rip-roaring, blue-blooded, pro-monarchist in any shape or form, but I say that we need to consider a number of factors in this republican versus monarchy debate. Whilst I suppose that for most people the debate is not of pressing urgency-other matters are of more pressing urgency-we must face the fact that it will grow in significance during the years leading up to our bicentenary year. I think the debate will probably grow in significance. The fact is that all people need a head of state to personalise the core values and symbolise the unity of their nation. In an interjection to Senator Bjelke- Petersen, I said: 'Maybe it is King Malcolm of Nareen or King Gough of Blue Poles'. But, more importantly, a head of state must be either born or trained to act within the constraints of a constitutional or historical straitjacket and possess the authority or moral force to preserve power for the people. In my view, that cannot be done in a presidential system because of the very nature of the political expressions in a parliamentary democracy, such as the Westminster system, of responsible government, as distinct from the United States of America system of representative government. Honourable senators will recall the coup in Spain in 1981. The attempted takeover of its parliament, which was televised internationally, shocked viewers right throughout the world. We will recall the would-be dictator, goose-stepping with flailing arms and the wild look which resembled John Cleese of Fawlty Towers but that was a crisis to which Spain was subjected. It was a serious challenge which was defused only by the constitutional action and moral authority of King Juan Carlos. How the republicans must have winced at the sight of a Bourbon king of Spain acting to preserve power for the people. One wonders whether South American republics would have been better served had some form of Spanish Commonwealth and constitutional monarchy been developed. Nearer our shores the recent attempted coup in Thailand in 1981 was also defused by the King of Thailand using his moral authority and constitutional powers. These matters ought to be seriously considered, even by those who have not a great deal of time for the monarchy. Here are three examples in which a constitutional monarch has saved democracy. Another important point was made by Senator Bjelke-Petersen; that is, that we are a Federation. Not only is the Queen the Queen of Australia, but also there are representatives of the Queen in the various States of the Federation. This must be borne in mind during the republic versus monarchy debates. If Australia is to become a republic, in what way would the States be guaranteed the same reserved protection now available to them in recourse to the common understanding of existing constitutional principles and the moral and legal force of the constitutional monarch's own representatives in the States to uphold the rights of the States in the Federation? Senator Crichton-Browne —The power of the States would be reduced dramatically. Senator HARRADINE —I am just raising these matters for consideration by people who may wish to take Australia into a republic. These matters must be seriously discussed and debated if this debate is to be removed from the sort of sloganeering that it has developed into. I now turn to the other matter that I wish to deal with; that is, the provisions in the legislation which deal with the citizenship of persons conceived by artificial insemination by donor or in- vitro fertilisation. These provisions are contained in the interpretation clause 4 (f) which proposes new sub-sections (6), (7) and (8) which provide fixed rules for deciding, for the purposes of the Act, the descent or immediate ancestral line of a child born to a married woman as a result of artificial insemination by donor or of in-vitro fertilisation. I believe that this Bill is not a suitable vehicle for seeking to settle or even to contribute to the current public debate on the acceptability or otherwise of artificial insemination by donor or in-vitro fertilisation procedures generally and on how the performance of these procedures should be regulated by law. If the provisions of the kind proposed in this legislation were essential to the operation of the Australian Citizenship Act, that might be a different question. However, that is not so; they are not essential to the legislation. In fact, any doubt as to the citizenship of a person who is born as a result of AID or IVF procedures could readily be resolved by the exercise of the general powers conferred on the Minister by section 32 of the Act, which states: . . . grant a certificate of Australian citizenship to a person with respect to whose status as an Australian citizen a doubt exists. So those provisions are not essential to this legislation. My concern about their being placed in the legislation is that the medical procedures of AID and IVF raise bioethical questions of considerable importance to the whole of the Australian community. They are questions on which public debate is continuing amongst well informed sections of the community. I attended part of one of the seminars that were conducted in Melbourne in respect of these medical procedures . They have not been finally resolved in an informed and responsible way by legislation or otherwise. In the circumstances, I ask this question of the Senate: Should this Parliament contribute in a wholly uninformed way to the resolution of these questions? The Parliament is uninformed. These matters have been shoved in here and the Parliament is uninformed. If we are to debate these procedures let us have a substantive, informed debate about them. Unless the paragraphs that I propose to be omitted in the Committee stage are omitted from the Bill the very existence of those paragraphs in the legislation will be used by those who would seek to legitimise AID and IVF procedures, irrespective of the cut-off point, I might add, and use those provisions as legislative recognition or endorsement of their legitimacy. The debate on the Australian Citizenship Act is not the occasion for this Parliament to get itself involved in bioethical issues raised by AID or IVF. I consider that this is a very real question. I will be seeking to delete from the Bill paragraph (f), sub-paragraphs (5), (6), (7) and (8) of clause 4. I hope that the Senate understands that that will not place those persons who are born as a result of those procedures at a disadvantage. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) already has the ability to deal with those situations. It is also not administratively difficult because the Minister also has power to delegate that authority. I hope that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) and the Government give that matter due consideration in their response to the second reading debate. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(9.42) —We are debating the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill 1984. This Bill represents one of the Labor Government's most blatant moves in the direction of a republic for Australia. If this Government wishes to turn Australia into a Republic it should come out and categorically and clearly state that this is its aim and allow the Australian public to express its views on the matter. Of course, the Government knows what the outcome of such a move would be, which is why it resorts to taking steps by stealth towards such an end. I am, of course, referring in particular to the proposed change in the oath of allegiance contained in this Bill. The current oath or affirmation of allegiance, which I remind honourable senators was given its present form by the previous Labor Government, if my memory serves me correctly, requires intending citizens to state: . . . will be faithful and bear allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia, Her heirs and successors according to law, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Australia and fulfil my duties as an Australian citizen'. This Bill proposes to change this oath to a pledge of Australian citizenship, requiring the intending citizen to state: I renounce any current citizenship and all allegiance to any state other than Australia. I pledge that I will faithfully uphold the constitution, obey the laws of Australia and fulfil my duties as an Australian citizen. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr West tells us that this pledge is 'distinctly Australian in character', and 'it avoids the requirement to swear allegiance to a sovereign resident elsewhere', a requirement he described in a letter to the Age newspaper on 28 March this year as 'confusing'. Where is the confusion in recognising the fact-it is still a fact, however much the Australian Labor Party would wish otherwise-that Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen of Australia, and has a full time representative in Australia; the Governor-General. As such the Queen is the Australian head of state. Surely no one would disagree that she is an exemplary head of state without peer in the world. As long as she is the head of state in Australia intending citizens should recognise the Queen as such. Not only is the Crown an integral part of our laws, institutions and the constitution, but also the monarchy represents those values of freedom and justice that Australians have come to accept as their birthright. It ought to be remembered that many migrants come to Australia because it offers them the civil and political liberties so lacking in their countries of origin. In affirming their allegiance to the Crown they are, in their own way, embracing those values. There is no constitutional argument for removing the reference to the Queen from the oath of citizenship. In pledging their allegiance to Australia, it is quite natural for people to direct that allegiance to the head of state, who ought to be the focus of their loyalty and who embodies the values and spirit of the nation. It is interesting to note that Canada and New Zealand, the two other Commonwealth nations which have the most in common with Australia, still retain reference to the Queen in their citizenship oaths. Intending Canadian citizens are required to swear or affirm that they will: . . . be faithful to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, her heirs and successors according to law . . . Likewise, people wishing to become citizens of New Zealand must swear that they will: . . . be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the grace of God, Queen of New Zealand . . . Evidently these countries do not believe that the requirement to affirm allegiance to the Queen is an impediment or a cause of confusion to people wishing to affirm citizenship. Indeed, they recognise the value of their heritage and wish to preserve their Commonwealth links. In support of this Bill, the Government has advanced the argument that many of the 1.2 million residents of Australia who are eligible for Australian citizenship, but have not taken it out, are unwilling to take the oath in its present form. It is interesting to note that in 1982 the report of the Human Rights Commission into the Citizenship Act suggested that it was the requirement to renounce all other allegiance that was: . . . felt to be an impediment in the way of taking out Australian citizenship by substantial numbers of immigrants. These people do not wish to renounce 'all other allegiance', although they wish to become loyal Australian citizens. If the Government's real motive in deleting reference to the Queen from the oath was indeed to remove impediments to acquiring citizenship, as it claims is the case, why does the renunciation of all other allegiances remain? In November 1983, Jonathan Kelley and Ian McAllister from the Australian National University published the results of their research into the factors which are likely to influence the decision to adopt Australian citizenship. Their conclusion was: Age and length of residence (are) the major influences on the decision to become an Australian citizen. Clearly, the real motive behind deleting reference to the Queen in the citizenship oath, and certainly the effect of such a step, is to bring Australia one step nearer to a republic. It is an attempt to promote a narrow Australian nationalism by severing our links with Britain. I quote from a recent speech by the Honourable Justice Kirby who said: We do not advance Australia by ignoring our history, overlooking our majority population and denigrating fine institutions inherited from Britain. The concept of multiculturalism has been mentioned during the debates on this Bill, as if the changes proposed will advance the cause. In my view, when we sever ties with Britain, we are moving away form the aim of a tolerant multicultural society. Britain has a record of tolerance and freedom which we in Australia have inherited. Again I quote Justice Kirby: The tolerant principle of multiculturalism actually flourishes best in a country which derives its institutions, laws and basic culture from Britain. I think it a great shame that this Government sees fit to deny Australia's inheritance in this regard in pursuit of its socialist republican aims. This Bill, of course, also seeks to make substantial changes to the criteria by which a person is judged eligible for citizenship. The English language requirement has been reduced from 'an adequate knowledge of the English language ' to 'a basic knowledge of the English language'. Of course, we all know and understand that the Act presently provides and will continue to provide exemption for people in certain age categories. Until now, as I understand it, the age limit has been 60. Under this proposed legislation it is to be reduced to 50. I think there are very obvious, reasonable and compassionate grounds for the age limit to be 60, but I would have thought that 50 is not an age which necessarily requires those compassionate grounds. I notice that in reply to a ministerial statement on the Australian Citizenship Act on 6 May 1982, Dr Theophanous told the House of Representatives: It is the policy of the Australian Labor Party to remove the English language requirement for citizenship. At least on this occasion we are fortunate that this Government shows little regard for Labor Party policy. Of course, such a stance is quite inappropriate in a country whose national language is English. Indeed, I believe there is no justification for any lowering of the English language requirement. Australian citizenship carries certain rights and responsibilities with it, including jury service, the right to stand for elective office and the right to vote. It would be impossible to carry out these duties and rights without an adequate knowledge of the Australian language or the English language. These days the distinction is becoming more and more apparent. Indeed, an adequate knowledge of English is vital for any person wishing to integrate with the community and to undertake his or her proper role as a citizen of Australia. The requirement of an adequate knowledge of English language as part of the criteria of eligibility for citizenship is a good incentive for new migrants to equip themselves with this skill. I believe that lowering the English language requirement in this regard is a retrograde step. This Bill also seeks to reduce the length of time for which a person must have been resident in Australia to qualify for a grant of citizenship. The previous requirement of a total residency period of three years has now been reduced to two years. In addition, the stipulation that a person must be resident in Australia for 12 months prior to the grant of citizenship has been removed. In its place it is proposed that periods of residence totalling 12 months in the two years before the grant of citizenship are deemed to be sufficient. The argument for this change is that we live in an increasingly internationally mobile world. While this undoubtedly is the case, I do not believe that that fact is sufficient justification for such a radical reduction in the number of years a person must spend in Australia before being entitled to claim citizenship. The decision to become a citizen of a new country is an important one in the life of an individual. Migration involves a tremendous and traumatic upheaval in many cases and the process of settlement is invariably lengthy. A new home must be found and a new job established. Time must be spent in making new friends, learning local customs and perhaps on many occasions learning a new language. It is quite proper that sufficient time should be allowed for this process before people make the final commitment of becoming Australian citizens. If we believe that Australian citizenship is a valuable acquisition, which I trust most of us do, it is quite reasonable to ask that the applicant should have spent sufficient time in Australia to demonstrate a commitment to and association with the nation. After all, no other country has a shorter residency requirement. The United Kingdom, the United States of America and Italy, to name just three, require applicants to have residency totalling at least five years. Canada and New Zealand, I understand, require a residency period of at least three years. Frankly, I cannot understand why this Government should think it necessary to reduce the residency requirement in Australia to only two years. I believe that if the Government wishes to provide greater flexibility in this regard the proposals of the previous Government outlined in the ministerial statement on Australian citizenship on 6 May 1982 offered a much more satisfactory solution. At that time it was suggested that the residency requirement be changed to specify that: . . . an aggregate period of three years would need to have been spent in Australia over a period of . . . five years, but including a period of 12 months in the two years preceding the grant of citizenship. This, I believe, would allow for adequate provision for the problems of people who, for example, are in jobs requiring frequent travel abroad while still requiring a sufficient period to be spent in Australia for an informed decision about citizenship to be made. As it stands, the Government's proposal to shorten the residency requirement will have no demonstrable benefits and, by requiring less from applicants, will tend to debase the vital and intrinsic value of citizenship of Australia. Australian citizenship is a privilege and ought to be regarded as such by those who acquire it. This Bill will do nothing to enhance the meaning and the value of that citizenship. This Government is simply using this Bill to further its own ends in forcing Australia towards a republic in an insidious, pernicious and devious way which tends to circumvent the will and the wishes of the great majority of Australians. If the Government had the courage of its convictions and was prepared to put these sorts of things to a referendum , it would be ignominiously defeated. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(9.57) —I thank the honourable senators who contributed to this long debate. The length of my speech will not be in proportion of the number of speeches or, I hope, the repetition. I particularly thank this evening Senator Macklin and Senator Harradine for what I consider very thoughtful speeches on this subject. I cannot say the same for all the others. I think it unfortunate, as Senator Harradine said, that in debates of this type we end up getting repetition of the sorts of things we have just heard from Senator Crichton-Browne tonight. As Senator Macklin pointed out- I do not mind quoting someone from the other side of this place-Australia cannot become a republic without changing the Constitution. We cannot change the Constitution without a referendum. Senator Crichton-Browne —Kick the crutches away first. Senator GRIMES —That interjection is typical. We cannot change the Constitution without a referendum. In light of the fact that that is the constitutional situation in this country, the debate, the arguments and, with respect, the second half of the amendment about this legislation being creeping republicanism are nonsense. The fact that so many Opposition speakers spent most of their time talking about attempts to get republicanism by the back door demonstrates the paucity of their arguments, how they are absolutely bankrupt of ideas in their approach to this debate tonight and that what they really are about and continue to be about is trying to score political points out of the argument. It is clear to the Government that the majority in this place wish to retain the reference to the Queen in the oath or affirmation of allegiance. We did not need 19 speakers or whatever number we have had in this debate to indicate that to us. We think the rest of the legislation is very important. We think it important that we pass this legislation. We accept that the Senate will pass the proposed amendment and that the legislation will be passed with that amendment. To suggest, as many speakers tonight have, that that provision was put into the legislation because somehow the Government wants to bring in republicanism by the back door when there is a constitutional requirement to have a referendum in this country is nonsense. I think the great tragedy-Senator Harradine implied this-quite apart from this legislation is that we cannot have a decent debate about republicanism in this country because people such as Senator Crichton- Browne and Senator Sir John Carrick in particular persist in insisting that anybody who suggests that it may be better to have a republic in this country is disloyal, is a traitor and all the other nonsense that we hear. In other words, no one in this country can advocate such an idea without copying the sort of abuse that they have copped here tonight. The legislation has in it a provision to change the oath and affirmation of allegiance and it was introduced as a result of national consultation which was conducted by the previous Fraser Government. That consultation was held all around this country. Meetings were held all around this country and the former Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr Hodges, went to every one of them. Professor Zubrzycki, who cannot be considered an extreme lefty in this country, brought down a report which was published by the previous Government. The report was entitled 'National Consultations on Multiculturalism and Citizenship'. Senator Archer tonight described everyone else as huffing and puffing. I do not know what he was on about. He read quotes which he attributed to Mr West but which were quotes of Mr West quoting from this report, quoting from Professor Zubrzycki. However, no Opposition honourable senators would admit that. They all attributed those words directly to Mr West when Mr West was quoting this report. Senator Watson —The Fraser Government didn't endorse that report. Senator GRIMES —I did not say that the Fraser Government endorsed that report; I said that the ideas from that report came from a consultation which Senator Watson's Government conducted. Senator Townley —Where is the Minister who did it now? Senator GRIMES —The Minister who did it is not here now. I will quote from Professor Zubrzycki's report. On page 23, in a section on the oath of allegiance , the proposal was that the oath or affirmation should be reworded. The report stated: The strongly-held and predominant view emerging from the consultations was that swearing allegiance to a sovereign, and especially to a named sovereign resident elsewhere, was inappropriate in Australia at its present stage of history. This view was shared by persons from a variety of backgrounds, including holders of Imperial awards and persons who maintained that they were not republicans. No hostility was expressed towards Her Majesty, though one speaker did pose the conundrum as to where her own allegiance would lie if Britain came into conflict with Australia. Few speakers were in favour of retaining a mention of the Queen in the Oath of Allegiance, and spoke mainly to register their support, rather than to advance a reasoned case for its retention. To accuse, as has been a thread through this debate tonight, all those people who came to those consultations and expressed honest views of being disloyal-and according to Senator Crichton-Browne stupid-is not debate; it is just personal abuse. To carry on with this nonsense and to have some sensible debate-- Senator Peter Rae —Be fair. He did not say that. Senator GRIMES —Senator Rae should read Hansard and the words Senator Crichton- Browne used to describe Mr West and people who oppose this measure. He said that the statement that people had trouble swearing allegiance to a queen who was resident elsewhere was stupid and meaningless, and so did Senator MacGibbon. That is absolute nonsense. Senator MacGibbon —Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I will not be wilfully and maliciously misrepresented on statements of fact by any Minister in this place. Senator GRIMES —I will not put up with abuse from someone who owes his allegiance to a republic overseas, and he knows about it. Senator Crichton-Browne —What does that mean? Senator GRIMES —He knows what it is about and I notice that he is not jumping up about it. I point out that this provision was put into the legislation after consultation with the migrant communities in this country. Senator Townley —Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. On occasions in this place we have seen Ministers make accusations against honourable senators on this side when they cannot always defend themselves without looking as if they are protesting too much, as the Minister is now about his wanting Australia to be a republic. I object to the way in which Senator MacGibbon has been maligned. To say that a member of this Senate-- Senator MacGibbon —It does not apply to me. Senator Townley —The statement was applied to you. Senator MacGibbon —I definitely take a point of order then. Senator GRIMES —If the cap fits-- Senator Townley —Excuse me, let me finish mine. Senator GRIMES —I did not mention anyone, but if the cap fits. You sit down. I thought you were protesting about yourself. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —Order! A point of order is before the Chair. Senator Townley —I find that the making of that kind of inference against anybody-I think it was directed at Senator MacGibbon-on this side of the chamber is totally against what should happen in this place and should be immediately withdrawn. Perhaps it should have been noted by the Chair. Senator Martin —Madam Acting Deputy President, Senator Grimes made a statement about someone on this side owing allegiance to an overseas republic. It appeared that it was a reference to Senator MacGibbon because he had just been on his feet. During Senator Townley's intervention Senator Grimes indicated that he had not named the person. It is a very serious allegation to say that somebody in this chamber owes his allegiance to another country. Senator Grimes should either indicate of whom he is speaking and have that judged on its merits or withdraw it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Grimes, I ask you to withdraw the statement . Senator GRIMES —I have no problem withdrawing, but if Opposition senators are going to interject all the time they have to cop it back. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Grimes, I have asked that you withdraw the statement that was offensive. Senator GRIMES —I have withdrawn. Senator Townley —Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I do not want to question your ruling but the slight is now against everybody on this side of the chamber that they have an allegiance to a foreign country. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Grimes has withdrawn the statement that was considered to be offensive at the time, Senator Townley. I now call the Minister and ask him to continue his remarks. Senator GRIMES —Madam Acting Deputy President, I must say that if honourable senators interject and are not willing to cop it back-- Senator Crichton-Browne —Are you canvassing the ruling? Senator GRIMES —No, I withdraw. I do not ask people to withdraw things that are said about me. I am not the sensitive one; Senator Crichton-Browne is. However, as it happens, this part of the legislation was included after consultations by the previous Government with groups at large meetings throughout the country. As swearing allegiance to the Constitution-the Queen is part of the Constitution- seemed to remove the difficulty that some people had, it was thought by the Minister and the Government that this measure was reasonable. If the Senate does not agree with it and, as is suggested, amends the legislation in this way, we think that the rest of the legislation is sufficiently important for us to accept that amendment, as I have said before. In doing so we will take the legislation back to the House of Representatives so that we have this important piece of legislation through the Parliament. I repeat: It is most unfortunate that we cannot have reasoned debate on subjects such as this in this place without the jingoism and chauvinism that we have heard here tonight. I certainly do not intend to go on with it any more. I believe it is a pointless exercise when, as Senator Harradine and others have said, there are far more serious things to debate and there will be for a considerable time. Therefore I will not go into details about the amendment. The first part, paragraph (a), of the amendment moved by Senator Martin, that the Senate 'disagrees with the Government's action in seeking to remove to Her Majesty The Queen from the oath of allegiance and the affirmation of allegiance,', is obviously an accurate statement of the numbers in this place. I accept that, but part (b) of the amendment refers to: (i) the Government's deliberate evaluation of the importance of the honour of Australian citizenship, (ii) the Government's overall failure to comply properly with the people of Australia before bringing into this Parliament such radical republican legislation proposals, and (iii) the Government's refusal to put such a fundamental change in citizenship to the people of Australia in a referendum. We reject that part, and I think that Senator Martin will demonstrate that the Opposition realises the stupidity of that second part of the amendment in a procedural motion that she will put later. Senator Martin raised the serious question of the change in the legislation from an 'adequate' knowledge of English to a 'basic' knowledge of English. First , the word was changed from 'adequate' to 'basic' because it is believed that the word 'basic' better reflects the test of English that is required. Before I get to that point, Senator Martin, in the second reading debate, suggested that the Australian second language proficiency rating 1 + would be a better measure of the adequacy of English of the potential citizen. These ratings were developed by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs for use in an adult migration education program, and they are now widely used throughout the country. The '1 +' described survival English, and there are four parts to that test, to each level of that scale. One is spoken; two is listening; three is reading; and four is writing skills. Reading and writing skills have never been required in tests of English language in this country, and nor should they be required. Senator Crichton-Browne said that people who cannot speak English do not deserve to be citizens of this country except under special- Senator Crichton-Browne —Come on, Pinnochio. Senator GRIMES —Let me finish-except under special circumstances, such as provisions for age, et cetera. I heard Senator Crichton-Browne say that; I am accepting that he said that. It does not say much for him. Senator Martin —I said 'speaking and listening'. Senator GRIMES —Just a minute. I am talking now about Senator Crichton-Browne. It reflects his attitude to those Aboriginals in this country who happen not to be able to speak English; but we will pass that over. Senator Walters said that people should be able to write, should be able to fill out driving licence forms , et cetera. That has never been a requirement, under any government, for citizenship in this country. Senator Martin says, quite rightly, that she wants speaking and listening skills but ASLPR 1 + also includes reading and writing skills. That is why I am saying that one cannot put into the legislation the requirement that people do the test. What the handbook currently in use to decide what is now described as an adequate knowledge of English-and the change is only a word change, to 'basic' knowledge-provides is that an adequate knowledge of English should mean an ability to respond in simple English to questions in simple English about personal particulars during the citizenship interview. They should be able to answer yes or no or in simple English to factual questions on responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship. They should be able to respond in English when taking the oath or affirmation of allegiance. An ability to read or write English is not required. It is particularly stated that an applicant's ability to respond to questions is not to be confused by the interviewer's use of complex words or sentence structures. It is essential that where an applicant 's proficiency in English is limited, interviewers speak slowly and carefully, saying each word clearly but without losing the continuity of sentences, and look directly at the applicant when speaking. Those are the basic provisions in the legislation. Those are the provisions that are required of people who are applying for citizenship. It is believed that the term 'basic' refers better to that test than the term 'adequate'. Senator Walters —What is 'basic'? Senator GRIMES —You were not here, Senator. I was just describing what was basic . Senator Walters —You were saying nasty things behind my back. Senator GRIMES —No. I said-and I believe that Senator Walters will agree-that she believes that before people become citizens they should be able to do things such as filling out forms for drivers' licences, et cetera. I am pointing out that under no government has a skill in reading or writing English ever been a requirement for citizenship. Senator Walters may believe that it should be a requirement, but there are plenty of people in Australia who were born here and who cannot read and write. I am pointing out that it never has been a requirement, and it is not a requirement in this legislation. Senator Archer —What about jury service? Senator GRIMES —A requirement to serve on a jury is not a requirement for citizenship; it never has been. It was not a requirement under previous governments and it is not a requirement under this one. Senator Martin —It is a consequence of citizenship. Senator GRIMES —It is a consequence that people may have to serve. They might have to serve, but there would, surely, be an exclusion for people who could not understand what was going on. Is the honourable senator saying that a person has to have sufficient English to understand what is going on in a jury trial before he or she can become a citizen? There would be an awful lot of people in this country who would not become citizens in those circumstances. Senator Harradine raised matters about proposed new sub-sections (6), (7) and ( 8) which are part of clause 4 which refers to methods of artificial insemination . I am informed that the proposed provisions are consistent with similar provisions which are already in other Commonwealth legislation; the health insurance legislation, at least. I am unsure about the family law legislation. I doubt whether in vitro fertilisation is in that, although artificial insemination by donor probably is. They are believed necessary for purposes of removing any doubt as to the legal relationship between the child and his or her mother and father. With reference to citizenship by dissent in particular, the proposed provisions bring certainty into the legislation. I emphasise that they certainly do not seek to give any value judgment as to the desirability of artificial insemination or otherwise, nor do they seek to provide a legal basis by the back door, I suppose some people may say. I understand and respect Senator Harradine's views on this matter, but I assure him that there is no intention in doing this, other than to provide some certainty in the legislation as to the legal relationship between the child and the parents, and it is certainly not attempting to get round the very real legal difficulties which we face in this area and which I believe we shall continue to face for some time. It seems to me that the only other section of the legislation to which people objected was the reduction of the residence requirement to two years for application for citizenship. As Senator Macklin said, the decision to become a citizen of a country is a personal one, whether or not the country is a monarchy . The decision to take that step is usually made within that time. The aim of this legislation is to simplify the procedures, to make them easily understood and to recognise that people who become citizens have obligations and that the country has obligations to those who wish to become citizens. The legislation was therefore introduced for these purposes. To suggest that the legislation is in some mystical way a means of introducing republicanism by the back door is, as both Senator Macklin and I have suggested, a nonsense. However, I know that people will insist on using that sort of rhetoric in these sorts of debates. I wish we could have this sort of debate without that kind of rhetoric for party political purposes, but I suppose that we all indulge in that sort of thing occasionally in this place. I urge honourable senators to support the legislation. The Government certainly opposes the amendment, particularly the second part, part (b), which I believe is nothing more than something thrown in for some perceived political advantage. As Senator McIntosh says, it is largely humbug. I thank honourable senators for their contribution to the debate and urge them to give the Bill a speedy passage so that we can get it back to the House of Representatives and get legislation of this type, amended or otherwise. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia) —by leave-Madam Acting Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented. While the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) was speaking he referred to my comments in respect of the literacy test. He made the observation, although I was not able to write it down word for word, that those comments were a reflection of my attitude towards the Aboriginal community in Australia. I take the gravest exception to that very unkind and cutting comment which in no way reflects my attitude towards the Aboriginal community. There are those who posture and strut around this building and speak so often in this chamber as though they have some intrinsic and very close relationship with the Aboriginal community when, in fact- Senator Jack Evans —Madam Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. I put to you that this is no longer a personal explanation as Senator Crichton- Browne is describing the activities of other honourable senators. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —Senator Crichton-Browne, you can make a personal explanation but you cannot debate the points. You must confine your remarks to the personal explanation. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. The truth is that there are those amongst us who have had- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! You are still debating the point. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —No, I am continuing my personal explanation. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Crichton-Browne, I must ask that you stick to the matters on which you claim misrepresentation. You cannot enter into a full scale debate. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. I accept and understand what you say. Of course I will confine myself to those areas where I have been misrepresented. I have been misrepresented to the extent that it has been put that my attitude towards the Aboriginal community is quite different to what it is. To make a personal explanation I need to expound on what my position really is. Without going into any detailed length or holding the Senate any longer than I need to, I remind Senator Grimes and those on the other side who believe they have a monopoly on conscience, concern and anxiety for the Aboriginal community, that I am perhaps one of the few in this chamber who have bothered to teach Aboriginals, on occasions I have lived with them, employed them, worked with them, encouraged them and, as best I have been able, assisted them at every opportunity. I do not say this in a benevolent way but I consider a great many Aboriginals as personal friends. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —You are now commencing to debate the matter, Senator Crichton-Browne. I must ask you to confine your remarks to the area of misrepresentation. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —The misrepresentation is that my attitude to the Aboriginal community was reflected upon. I cannot put that right without explaining what my attitude is. Senator Grimes —You are abusing your privilege. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —No, I am not. I cannot put my position correctly and respond to the Minister's incorrect allegations without declaring what my real position is. That is a simple, logical thing that even a confused doctor could understand. Senator Grimes —Mr President, I take a point of order. Senator Crichton-Browne sought leave to make a personal explanation, claiming to have been misrepresented. He has clearly explained how he was misrepresented, as he alleges, by me. He is now proceeding with a long explanation of his relationship with the Aboriginal community. We have had repeated episodes of this type in recent times abusing the procedures of the Senate. I suggest that you ask him to desist, Mr President. The PRESIDENT —I ask Senator Crichton-Browne to confine his remarks to his statement of misrepresentation. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Thank you, Mr President. As I say, to put my position clearly requires me to make observation in respect to my relationship-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is not entitled to make observation on or debate a personal explanation. If he claims that he has been misrepresented he should state the ground of the misrepresentation and the correction of it. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Mr President, the allegation that has been made by Senator Grimes was that my comments during my speech in respect to the test of literacy in English were a reflection upon the Aboriginal community. The only way I can clarify that is to debunk it by saying what my real attitude is. Without taking a great deal more time than I already have, let me conclude by saying that there are those in my family who have adopted Aboriginal children, fostered them and brought them up. Senator Grimes sits there looking exasperated because if he met an Aborigine he would not know one. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is now getting away from a personal explanation. I ask him to confine his remarks. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I simply conclude by saying that in many respects Senator Grimes has misrepresented my position in regard to the Aboriginal community. I take great exception to his abusing my integrity in the way he has done. Motion (by Senator Martin) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the question being put separately on each paragraph of the amendment. Question put: That the words proposed to be added by paragraph (a) (Senator Martin's amendment) be added. Question resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the words proposed to be added by paragraph (b) (Senator Martin's amendment) be added. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Martin, K. J. Garrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Chaney, F. M. Missen, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Withers, R. G. Bolkus, N. Hearn, J. M. Button, J. N. Jones, G. N. Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasColeman, R. N. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Colston, M. A. Macklin, M. J. Cook, P. F. S. Maguire, G. R. Crowley, R. A. Mason, C. V. J. Elstob, R. C. Primmer, C. G. Evans, Gareth Ray, RobertEvans, Jack Reynolds, M. Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Haines, J. Rae, Peter, Richardson, G. F. Collard, S. J. Robertson, E. A. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being after 10.30 p.m., in accordance with Sessional Orders, I now put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(10.32) —Tonight on the adjournment I wish to put on the record certain matters which I think should be recorded in respect of the deprival by the Hawke Government of the opportunity for this Parliament to be improved. I want to record the promises made which have absolutely not been brought into force by the Government. I mention particularly the standard of Parliament itself and to the way in which Parliament has operated in the last 18 months. Senator Bolkus —Why don't you look at your own side, gutter-snipe. Senator MISSEN —I ask Senator Bolkus not to worry. He ought to listen to his Government's promises-- Senator MacGibbon —Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Bolkus called Senator Missen a gutter-snipe. I ask for a retraction of that. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Chair did not hear the remark made by Senator Bolkus but if he did make the reference referred to by Senator MacGibbon I ask him to withdraw. Senator Bolkus —Mr President, I did not make the remark to Senator Missen; I made the remark collectively to the Opposition. I withdraw it. Senator MISSEN —Mr President, perhaps these sorts of things indicate the extent to which Parliament has declined in this community and support my point that the standard of this Parliament has certainly so declined that one can say only that its passing, although it is highly premature, will not be mourned by many people . I refer to the state of Parliament and parliamentary government in this country. In the light of the consensus supposed to be prevailing-consensus means 'we agree with me'-we all know that there is no meeting of minds among members of parliament. However, that is what our Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) claimed he was going to do. I refer to some remarks made by people outside this Parliament who have recognised the serious situation to which parliamentary government has come in this country. In the first place I refer to remarks by Professor Gordon Reid-just a few years ago he was once a Clerk of the Parliament-in an article called 'The Changing Political Framework'. He said: The elected Parliament is a weak and weakening institution; the executive government is the principal beneficiary of the Parliament's decline; and the judiciary is tending to compete with the executive government in exploiting the Parliament's weakness, but is having its own independence undermined through the initiatives of the executive government. I am not contending that this weakness started with the Hawke Government. It has been in operation for many years. Of course, the important point is that this Government came into power determined to improve the position of Parliament, and it has failed to do so. In the Quadrant magazine of January-February 1980 there is a revealing remark-- Senator Bolkus —1980? Senator MISSEN —Yes. Senator Bolkus —Who was in government then? Senator MISSEN —Either Senator Bolkus is not listening or he is befuddled because he does not understand that what I am saying is that this is a serious situation that has been happening for some years. It is one in which-- Senator Bolkus —Why don't you blame the Hawke Government for it? Senator MISSEN —The honourable senator will have to be patient; I will get to the promises which his Government made in a minute. In 1980 it was stated in Quadrant: It is not that our Parliamentarians are undignified, it is that the Parliament- executive relationship is such. By stripping our rank and file politicians of continuing responsibility in Parliament, particularly in the House of Representatives, the proceedings have degenerated into a continuous and elementary election campaign. We certainly know that that has not ceased but in fact has got worse. That is a situation which apparently was appreciated by some of the Australian Labor Party leaders at the time they were coming into office. Thirdly, I refer to what Mr Justice Kirby said in June this year to the New South Wales Young Liberal Convention. He stated: In a country where there is so much to do and so many other people doing it, it is a sadness that Parliamentary backbenchers . . . are not better utilised. I refer to those remarks because I think they are relevant to the situation into which Parliament has got itself over the years. One could say that what has got worse is the continual record of short term parliaments. Of course, this Parliament has been brought to an end in one of the most cynical occasions we have seen. We have seen the man who leads this country show his contempt of the parliamentary process by walking out whenever a censure motion is moved in the House of Representatives. For generations Prime Ministers of this country when the most serious motions are moved in the Parliament have stayed and defended themselves. However, this Prime Minister has made it a habit time and again of walking out and leaving it to his lackeys to carry on the fight. It is just one instance of the cynicism which has developed in the parliamentary system. It appeared as though some of the Labor Party leaders had understood the weakness of Parliament. Indeed, on 22 May 1980 in the House of Representatives Mr Bill Hayden, then Leader of the Opposition, said: There is a crying need for reform of procedures in this House. I have to say, having participated on both sides of the House, that Question Time comes more within the description of a game and has rules more akin to warfare than to the development of legislation or a proper search into matters dealt with by the Parliament. We need a committee system to replace this debating technique. One could comment on that statement. Question Time is indeed a game. Unfortunately, in this House it is very difficult to ask a question because of the lengthy answers that are given and the number of Dorothy Dix questions constantly served up to Ministers. I am not saying that this has happened just since 1983: It happened to some extent before, but this Government has turned it into a form of art. Mr Hayden, in the statement to which I referred, emphasised the need for a committee system to replace the debating technique. One thing that is clear is that the House of Representatives never had a proper committee system. It has one that is no better now. It covers no particular wide areas of knowledge and policy. Such reforms were promised by the Hawke Government. On 17 September 1981 Mr Hayden placed a motion on the Notice Paper which sought the establishment of a joint committee to investigate ways in which the broad perspective of the functioning of parliament could be reformed. I understand the motion did not get debated, and it has not since been brought up and developed. From that stage onwards one would have expected the Labor Party, on coming to office, to take considerable action to ensure that the Parliament was changed. Indeed, if one examines the remarks made by the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, during the election campaign one sees that he was gung-ho about the desire to change parliament. Let me read some of the comments he made on station 3UZ on 22 February 1983, a week or two before he became Prime Minister. He then told the interviewer that he had fine ideas for the change of Parliament. He said: I make this point, that when we form the Government I am going to do something that I think has very rarely been done. I am going to be saying to the Opposition as far as is consistent with the position of a government being in power and their being in Opposition and you wanting to oppose them, I want as far as is possible to use the talents that are with the Opposition. I want to get changes in the parliamentary system to enlarge the operation of the committee system so that the talents that exist on the back bench of the Opposition and on the front bench can be used to make Parliament a more effective system, and in all the things that we are going to be doing which will be for the benefit of this country I will give every opportunity to the Opposition, not only in the formal processes of Parliament but in discussions, to have an input and where they make a suggestion which is sensible that will pick it up. That is the way, if you really want to bring Australia together, which is overwhelmingly my mission and the missions of my party, then you have got to recognise that you don't have all the wisdom yourself. They were words of wisdom at that stage, before Mr Hawke got into office. In this Parliament over the years-there are plenty of tedious references I can produce in speeches I have made over the years-I have called attention to the need for that type of consensus. I referred to the fault of the previous Government when in office at the height of its power not to have brought more of the Opposition into government and to enable the Opposition to have a better input into it. This Government has failed in the same way. That was the promise made before election. It was not just in the form of rhetoric by the then Leader of the Opposition, soon to be Prime Minister. Mr Hawke had in his Australian Labor Party policy on Labor and the quality of government this expression: Labor is committed to the further development and expansion of the parliamentary committee system, particularly in the Senate, where we see committee activity as constituting a vital part of that chamber's role as a constructive house of review. I will say something later as to how the committee system here has shown signs of decline under this Government as well, but that was the policy of the Labor Party. We also heard the Prime Minister's words immediately after the election, at the height of victory. I remember his words clearly on the night he was elected when he gave assurances that he would do something about parliament. He said he would ensure that everybody came into the business and that it would not be just one side that had all the say. In answer to a question on 6 March 1983, two or three days after the election, Mr Hawke made some further comments. The questioner asked him: You said during the campaign you envisaged a role in the new . . . reconciliation for people from the other side of politics. Who in the now Opposition would you see having something to contribute and what what role would they play. This was his answer: I think there are many very many of our parliamentary colleagues-and I use that term advisedly-in the Liberal and National Party who will still be in the Parliament who have great capacity and integrity and a role to play. Now obviously they haven't got a role in government. But what I was saying to the people of Australia during the campaign that I believe that one of the great problems that has been confronting this country is that institution of Parliament has become somewhat degraded in that Members of Parliament on both sides haven't had the opportunity to participate fully in a way which allows an input from them because once legislation, proposed legislation, has been decided in the party room the debates to some extent in Parliament itself have become a charade. Well, we know that that is so. It is only mitigated in this Parliament by the fact that the Government has not a majority in both Houses and therefore is not able to enforce its will necessarily in this House. Mr Hawke went on to say: Now I'm expressing a personal view which I think would be shared by a great majority of my colleagues that it would make a great deal of sense to enlarge the committee system within the House of Representatives so that there would be an opportunity for people on both sides to have a greater real participation within the Parliament. I think that would be good for them as Members of Parliament and, to the extent that we can open up those processes to the public as well, I think the whole institution of parliamentary democracy will be enhanced and I think that that's important because it's dangerous for a democracy if the institution of Parliament becomes demeaned. That is an excellent and correct idea. It will be an even better idea with the enlarged parliament as there will be more back benchers and more people who should be doing more effective work. But we know that did not happen. What happened to the committee system was that the Labor Party flirted with the idea for a few months. I understand that the matter was even discussed in Cabinet. It was then postponed into the year 1984, and now the idea has been put aside altogether in this Parliament. Nothing has been done and those promises have been destroyed. The Parliament will not benefit. Prime Minister Hawke, in the Governor-General's Speech on 21 April 1983, said, as he had kept on saying: The Parliamentary Committee system of the national Parliament will be strengthened to give Members of Parliament a more effective role and participation in the great affairs of this nation. That is one of the important ways in which this Government has betrayed the people and its trust. It has failed to take up a position where it is obviously able to give the opportunity to members on both sides of the House to play a more active role. Let me say this about the committee system: The committee system in this Parliament-and I refer to both chambers-is showing every sign of decline, when it should be improving and taking a more vigorous role. I asked a question of the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, to which he replied rather churlishly, in which I said I thought that a lot of the blame was with Labor members of the Senate so far as Senate Committees are concerned because they do not turn up very much to standing committees. They are too concerned with their Caucus committees to attend. This has been my experience in committees I have served on and heard about in this Parliament. Part of the result is that committees therefore very often do not sit in the Senate during the recess weeks . People will not come here for those purposes. They did in previous years; they were anxious to complete reports and references. The results have been seen in the number of committee reports issued. I exclude from this committees like the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills whose reports come in every week as a routine matter. If one takes the legislative and general purpose committee reports, interim, progress and final, one sees that whereas back in 1976 16 reports were set down, in 1977 there were again 16 reports, in 1978, 24 reports, and in 1979, 16 reports, while after that period there is a decline. In 1980 there were 11 reports; in 1981, 10 reports; in 1982, 14 reports; in 1983, 10 reports-and so far, in 1984, five reports. So there is a decline in the number of such reports. When I raised this matter on a previous occasion, Senator Grimes said that maybe the reports are now longer and more extensive. My experience is that that is far from the truth. There is nothing like the high number of reports presented in 1979. One of the reports was the freedom of information report from a committee of mine which sat for about 18 months and which presented a very heavy report. Senator Grimes will remember the reports that we produced on national compensation in 1975. They were very extensive reports that took a long time. My belief is that recent reports have tended to be on the slight side. A number of them are progress reports. Indeed, the output of the committee system in this House-of course, in the other House it is negligible-has been quite deplorable. I do not raise this as a party political matter. I am more concerned with the state of the Parliament. As this one fades away prematurely, that adds to cynicism. In dealing in this Parliament with constitutional amendments the Government has constantly changed its mind, so that an attitude of complete cynicism has developed in regard to constitutional change. Reports such as those of Mr Justice Kirby and the Law Reform Commission remain unattended to. This Government promised that it would do better than the Fraser Government in that it would not take six months to respond to committee reports; it would do it in three months. Yet last night I referred to two reports of the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee which are 18 to 20 months old. One was produced in the dying days of the Fraser Government and one was produced early in the term of this Government. They have not yet been responded to and they deal with important matters. One related to the reversal of the onus of proof, a matter which was debated today. The Government neglects to respond to the serious recommendations in that report. It has not responded in any satisfactory way to the urgent request for attention by the Labor Chairman of the Committee. A report dealing with the qualifications of members of Parliament has recently been responded to but another one, to which I also referred last night, remains unattended to after a long period. I believe that the combination of the neglect by the Government to attend to committee reports, neglect by Government members and senators of their real service on committees and the general shoddiness and misuse of parliament has affected the whole standards of behaviour in the Parliament, which is very much a responsibility of Government. The Government has had the opportunity of doing the things that Bob Hawke promised he would do and did not do. An attitude of cynicism has developed in the community towards the Parliament. The gallup polls show that some years ago parliamentarians had a reasonable reputation. Now their reputation is at rock bottom. That is something of which I think we ought to be ashamed. We should see the end of this Parliament, premature though it is, with a sense of relief that one of the unmourned parliaments of this country will go. Let us hope that in the next one there will be a better government and that it will act more responsibly in carrying out its promises in this area. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.53) —I have heard speeches like that from Senator Missen before but I do not think I have heard one quite as partisan as that before. He apparently blames all the ills that he sees in the parliamentary system on the Labor Government that has been in office for 18 months. I make just three comments. First of all, I think one of the problems with the committee system in this place is that there are far too many committees. There are too many select committees as well as standing committees. That is one of the reasons why people do not attend. Secondly, from my history in this place Senator Missen's claim that Australian Labor Party members not attending the committees is the cause of the committees not sitting is outrageous. I do not know that there would be much between the two parties. To suggest that the Labor Party is the problem is nonsense. Thirdly, when I was on the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs with Senator Missen and on the Standing Committee on Social Welfare with Senator Peter Baume and others we treated the committee system as a bipartisan system. We frequently divided on non-party lines. We tried to do our work in a bipartisan way. I remember a report of the Social Welfare Committee in which Senator Baume, Senator Brown and I were on one side and Senator Melzer, Senator Walters and someone else were on the other. I remember at one stage on the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee, when it was dealing with national compensation, there was an unlikely group of quads in Senators Missen, Chaney, Grimes and Button versus Senators Everett and Wright. I think that was healthy and a good way to operate. All I can say is that there is a view on this side of the House that Senate committees are now used as party political forums by the other side of the House . I think we are seeing an example of that now. I think things are referred to committees using the numbers in this place for party political purposes. While that situation remains I am afraid that people on this side of the House will remain fairly cynical about the way in which Senator Missen's side of the House operates committees. If that situation persists the committee system will stay in the parlous state Senator Missen thinks it is in. I will look at the rest of his speech and we will see what happens. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.56 p.m. The following papers were presented: Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act-Orders 1984- MQ9-Sheepmeat and/or Goatmeat to EEC-1984 Control Scheme. M22-1985 Performance. Lands Acquisition Act-Statement by the Minister describing land acquired by agreement under sub-section 7 (1) of the Act, for specified public purposes. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Determinations made under the following Ordinances- Adoption of Children. Building and Services. Lakes. Machinery. Real Property. Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages. Registration of Deeds. Sale of Motor Vehicles. Governor-General's Message-Assent to Law: A Message from His Excellency the Governor-General was reported, informing the Senate that His Excellency had, in the name of Her Majesty, assented to the following law: 9 October 1984-Message No. 85- Repatriation Legislation Amendment Act 1984. Lighthouses (Question No. 1110) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 5 September 1984: (1) Can the Minister for Transport, following the recommendation contained in the House of Representative's Standing Committee on Expenditure's report on lighthouses, dated December 1983, that the Minister establish a referral committee, to include the Australian Lighthouse Association, which would explore alternatives for continued manning at lightstations which are to be automated, advise if the Committee has been established; if so, who are the members; and if not, why not. (2) Has the Minister or the Department of Transport consulted with the Australian Lighthouse Association since the Standing Committee on Expenditure issued its report. Senator Gietzelt-The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. It would be inappropriate for me to act on any of the recommendations in this report before the Government's decisions relating to the report are announced. (2) No. Companies Allegedly Involved In Criminal Activities Senator Gareth Evans-On 2 October 1984 (Hansard, page 1015) Senator Walters asked me the following question without notice: I refer the Attorney-General to a report in the Age newspaper of last Wednesday headed 'Companies Crime Cartel' which reveals that a special police squad's investigation has uncovered a network of about 40 companies allegedly involved in drug importation and distribution, large scale fraud and disposal of stolen property. I ask: Is it true that the group of companies has been or is under investigation by Commonwealth instrumentalities including the Australian Federal Police, Customs, the Department of Taxation and the Trade Practices Commission? Is it a fact that, as claimed in the Age report, distrust or jealousies between agencies has hampered the investigations? What action is the Minister, as Attorney-General, taking to resolve the reported conflicts and jealousies and to expedite the investigation? Finally, is it true that this report by the New South Wales Bureau of Criminal Intelligence corroborates material in the Age tapes and transcripts about which the Attorney has been so dismissive for the past eight months? The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question insofar as it relates to the activities of the Australian Federal Police: Firstly, individuals and companies mentioned in the Age article have been investigated from time to time by the Australian Federal Police (AFP). However, the AFP is not investigating the people or organisations as a cartel or confederation. In regard to the allegation that distrust or jealousies between agencies has hampered the investigation, I am advised by the AFP that it has not experienced such distrust, jealousies or lack of co-operation by other agencies in the course of those investigations. The AFP has co-operated fully with the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence (ABCI) during the course of those investigations, and also in regard to the exchange of intelligence. Likewise, the ABCI has co-operated fully with the AFP. The honourable senator will appreciate from the article in the Age that the Shelley report was compiled by a member of the New South Wales Police Bureau of Criminal Intelligence, and is thus unrelated to the operations conducted in the past by the AFP. It is therefore not possible to comment on whether the report by the New South Wales Policy Bureau of Criminal Intelligence corroborates material in 'the Age tapes'.