Thursday, 28 March 1985 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: 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 who have great concern for the protection of the unborn child, call upon the Government to reject the Vinson Enquiry recommendation that an Abortion Clinic be established in Canberra. And your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will reject this recommendation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 25 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That governments have a responsibility to maintain standards acceptable to society's wishes. 2. It cannot be guaranteed that X rated video material will not be viewed by children. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should: Not adopt the X Classification for Films and Video Tapes, nor Category 2 for Printed Material. Further, that tighter restrictions be applied to R rated Films and Video Tapes and Category 1 Printed Material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 10 citizens). To the Honourable, the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned Australian citizens respectfully showeth that: (i) The financial situation of students enrolled at Australian post-secondary institutions is already extremely difficult and any increase in the financial commitments of students would gravely worsen their financial difficulties. (ii) The imposition of post-secondary tuition fees of comparable levels to those imposed prior to 1971 would force many currently enrolled students to discontinue their studies and deter many persons willing and able at present to undertake post-secondary study from doing so. (iii) Those students and potential students from social groups currently under-represented and disadvantaged in the education system would be most severely affected by the reintroduction of fees for post-secondary education. Your petitioners therefore pray that: 1. Post-secondary tuition fees not be re-introduced for any category of students. 2. Any form of Stamp Duty or similar system of the 'user pays' principle in education not be introduced. 3. Emphasis should be on increasing access to education by, among other things, increasing student financial assistance. 4. The visa charges upon private overseas students be removed immediately. 5. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs immediately clarify the government's attitude to the reintroduction of post-secondary tuition fees. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Black (from 10 citizens), Chipp (from 14 citizens), Gietzelt (from 15 citizens), Jones (from 14 citizens) and Vigor (from 19 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the honourable members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that 'the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sir John Carrick (from 1,692 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth government: 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognise that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often invovling private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection, storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving 'property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 71 citizens). Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland) —by leave-I present the following petition which is not in conformity with the Standing Orders from 276 citizens praying that the Parliament subsidise the Australian sugar industry and grant loans on a low interest rate: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned in the state of Queensland respectfully showeth that due to the slump in the price of sugar on the world market, cane farmers are unable to meet their commitments, and are unable to support their families. Cane farmers are in great need of assistance. Your petitioners therefore, humbly pray that the Parliament in Canberra will consider the grave situation and endeavour to remedy same by subsidising our Sugar Industry, and grant loans on a low interest rate; please help by positive action. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. Petitions received. Motion (by Senator Grimes for Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 to provide for the granting of exploration permits by way of cash bidding, and for related purposes. Motion (by Senator Mason) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution with respect to the qualifications and disqualification of Members of the Parliament and Parliamentary Candidates. Bill presented by Senator Mason, and read a first time. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(10.04) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to alter section 44 of the Constitution so that any person holding an office of profit under the Crown will experience no obstruction, under the Constitution, in standing for election to Federal Parliament. Under section 44 (iv) of the Constitution, any person who holds any office of profit under the Crown is incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives. This is interpreted by the Public Service Board as meaning that public servants must resign or take unpaid leave of absence from their jobs before they can nominate as a candidate for election to either House of Federal Parliament. The question of the validity of this interpretation of the Constitution has, of course, been raised many times in the past. Bills have been introduced on this topic before now, but came to nothing. In February 1980 I raised the question myself, requesting that the then Government re-examine Public Service General Order 3/D/4 which stated that a member of the Public Service must resign before nomination for election to a House of Federal Parliament. As a result of this motion, the question was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, which reported in 1981 that Commonwealth and State public servants do not have equal rights with other citizens to seek election to the Commonwealth Parliament. The Committee concluded that two important principles should be upheld: (a) to ensure that a member or senator is not simultaneously a member of the Commonwealth Parliament and a Commonwealth public servant and in receipt of two salaries as a result; and (b) to ensure that Commonwealth public servants are not effectively discouraged from standing for the Commonwealth Parliament. The Committee recommended that 'a simple but effective solution lies in taking as the crucial date the date at which a person elected to Parliament becomes entitled to a parliamentary allowance and providing for the resignation of a public servant candidate, who is elected, to be effective from that date. If the Constitution is amended to provide that a person who holds what is presently termed as ''office of profit'' is to be deemed to have vacated that office at the date that he or she becomes entitled to payment of a parliamentary allowance, these two principles will be satisfied'. This Bill puts that recommendation into effect. The Public Service Board has, of course, modified its view that public servants must resign before nomination, and now insists on them only taking leave without pay. Honourable senators will remember the case of Mr Bill Wood, who was refused re-employment after contesting the Queensland seat of Leichhardt in 1977, on the specific instructions of the Queensland Premier, Mr Bjelke-Petersen. Under the present ruling of the Public Service Board, this situation could not occur. However, the Board can change its ruling at any time, and under the existing, often-disputed wording of this section of the Constitution, resignation from the Public Service could again become the necessary precursor to nomination for election to the Federal Parliament. Resignation may carry with it, of course, adverse effects on superannuation benefits and credit loan interest rates, and may even affect housing and, as in Mr Woods's case, jeopardise future employment. It is not good enough that the rights of all Australians in the Public Service are limited so unjustly. Why should they be different from all other Australians? The right to stand for election to Parliament is a most important and cherished right. We must protect it by all possible means. One of the most important means of protecting that right is to be found in this Bill. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Grimes) proposed: (1) That consideration of Business of the Senate, Order of the Day No. 1. Presentation of the report of the Senate Select Committee on Video Material be postponed till a later hour of the day. (2) That, unless otherwise ordered, the order of General Business for consideration this day pursuant to Sessional Order be as follows: (a) consideration of Government Papers pursuant to Sessional Order; (b) General Business, Notice of Motion No. 3, standing in the name of Senator Lewis relating to administration of the Australian Capital Territory; and (c) General Business, Notice of Motion No. 6, standing in the name of Senator Missen relating to the Great Barrier Reef: Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.07) —I move: That the words 'a later hour of the day' be deleted and that the words 'immediately after Question Time' be inserted. I understand that the reason for this postponement is to enable the Government to have some urgent business in the Senate this morning. I feel it would be more appropriate to have this matter dealt with immediately after Question Time. I do not know whether that is involved in the notice. It just says 'till a later hour of the day'. It does not specify when it will come on. If the meaning of the words 'till a later hour of the day' were clarified and meant immediately after Question Time, that would be okay. But if the Senate looks at what is coming on after Question Time, it will see that we have the Appropriations and Staffing Committee report, the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory report and the report of the Joint Committee on Publications. After that we have a notice of motion by Senator Lewis relating to administration in the Australian Capital Territory, and the debate on that matter could be quite extensive. We have Notice of Motion No. 6, standing in the name of Senator Missen relating to the Great Barrier Reef. There could be considerable discussion on that matter. After all, the Senate Select Committee on Video Material needs to report to the Senate. Under the terms of the Senate resolution, this is the last day available and we are required to report. If we are so required that report should be presented in a fashion that will enable us to debate the matter. I give an assurance that I do not intend to debate the matter very much, and I do not know that there is anybody on the Committee who does intend to debate the matter. It would be unfair to other honourable senators to leave this until the death knock at the end of the day and thus truncate any opportunity they may have to debate the matter. I simply propose that the motion moved by Senator Grimes be amended by deleting the words 'till a later hour of the day', and inserting the words 'immediately after Question Time'. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory)(10.10) —The matter is in the hands virtually of the members of the Opposition who look after General Business. If we bring this matter on, as Senator Harradine suggests, at the presentation of papers, it will delay General Business for the Opposition. If that is what the Opposition wants we will certainly be quite happy to vote for it. It seems to me that it is more appropriate to bring it on after general business when we normally handle these things. If we bring this matter on after general business Senator Harradine and anyone else who wishes to speak will have one full hour within which to debate the report. Let me make it quite clear that there is nothing sinister about this. I think that is a most unusual word for the honourable senator to use. The matter was discussed at the Whip's meeting this morning. It was decided among the three-- Senator Harradine —I did not suggest there was anything sinister in it. Senator ROBERTSON —I am sorry, I must have misheard the honourable senator. It was discussed at the Whip's meeting this morning and, as all these things are arranged, it seemed more appropriate to do it at this stage. However, if Senator Harradine wants to get away early today for some reason and he wants to bring this matter on earlier in the day, we will leave it to members of the Opposition to make that decision. I suggest to the House that we stick with our normal practice. This is what we normally do. This is the way in which we handle these things. Let us simply say that, after General Business, there will be one hour within which to handle this matter which should be appropriate as that is as much time as is given to normal reports. I recommend that honourable senators vote for the proposition put forward by the manager of Government Business. Amendment negatived. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-I wish to make a personal explanation because of the statement made by Senator Robertson. I made no suggestion that there was anything sinister. I felt that some of the remarks Senator Robertson made in the latter part of his speech would have been conceived because of his assumption that I had made some suggestion that this was a sinister question. I am not suggesting that anything out of the ordinary be done. In fact, the Government is making that suggestion as this is notice of motion No. 1 and, normally, it would have been dealt with now at this very time. I was prepared to go along with the Government if it wanted to get on some of its Bills. I resent the imputation in Senator Robertson's address to the chamber. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory) — by leave-I thought that in the body of my remarks I had corrected the assumption that I had made. I said that I was sorry; I thought the honourable senator had said that. Having done that I would not have thought it was necessary to raise the matter again. Let me just remind the Senate that what Senator Harradine is saying is not completely correct. Matters which come before us have to be listed early because of the Standing Orders of the Senate. Matters of the day are then arranged at the rearrangement of business. This is a perfectly normal procedure. There is nothing unusual about what we are doing. We are changing the program to fit in this matter at a more appropriate time. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 27 March, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.14) —The International Development Association (Special Contribution) Bill 1985 is supported by the Opposition and I will speak only briefly on it. The Bill seeks approval for the appropriation of $60m from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It provides for the contribution of that money to the International Development Association. The International Development Association (Special Contribution) Bill is designed to authorise an additional voluntary contribution of $60m to the International Development Association. This contribution is in addition to Australia's share, totalling $200m, to the Association's seventh replenishment, covering the period 1985 to 1987 which has been authorised previously by the International Development Association (Further Payment) Act 1984. Established in 1960, the International Development Association is the concessional lending arm of the World Bank. It provides interest free long term loans to the poorest developing countries to promote their development. The resources of the Association come mainly from subscriptions by the industrialised countries stretched in periodic general replenishments. The total of only $US9 billion achieved in the seventh replenishment of the Association's resources was viewed by Australia and most other donors as gravely inadequate. This amount meant that there would be a considerable reduction in the funds available to the world's poorest countries, at a time when the the situation of many, particularly those of sub-Saharan Africa, is extremely serious. Australia's further and voluntary contribution of $A60m to the Association during its current replenishment period would assist not only sub-Saharan countries, but also developing countries in other regions. As I said in opening these remarks, the Opposition supports this Bill. As in the other place, the Opposition in the Senate is concerned about the questions which are being raised and the concerns that there are in the Australian community about the effectiveness of some of these international agencies and some of the projects which are undertaken. We suggest to the Government that it would be valuable if it could report to the Parliament on the use of these moneys, in particular, on the effective use of these moneys. I do not suggest that necessarily should be done as part of this debate, but rather that the Government should take cognisance of the doubts which are raised from time to time about the effectiveness of some agencies for international relief. The Government should make out a case to the public for continued support by Australia of measures which I am sure have the broad support of the Australian community. I do not think there is any doubt that the Australian community believes that Australia should contribute to the relief of international distress and suffering. Any doubts which exist are in the area of whether the considerable efforts which are made are effective. It is unhelpful in the long term if those doubts are allowed to run without the Government addressing them. With that suggestion to the Government, I simply make clear our support for this additional contribution by Australia and, therefore, our support for this Bill. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.17) —I thank Senator Chaney and the Opposition for their support of this worthwhile legislation. I certainly understand, as I am sure everyone here does, the doubts that are raised at various times and which have been raised over many years about the effectiveness of various forms of overseas aid. I am certainly not in a position to make any comments about the effectiveness of any specific moneys used at the moment, but I will refer the matter to the relevant Minister. It is a useful suggestion of Senator Chaney's that we get regular reports on such matters . Again, I will take up the matter with the Minister involved. However, I thank the Opposition for its support. It is largely a bilateral policy in this country that we assist in this way. As we said in the debate last October, it was likely that this contribution would be made after the visit overseas of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). I will not delay the passage of the legislation any more, but I will certainly refer the matter about which Senator Chaney is concerned to the Minister and get an accurate reply. In particular, I will refer to him the suggestion that we get regular reports on the effectiveness of the moneys we spend. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 27 March, on motion by Senator Aulich: That the following Address-in-Reply be agreed to: To His Excellency the Governor-General May it please Your Excellency- We, the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank Your Excellency for the Speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament. upon which Senator Chaney had moved by way of amendment: That the following words be added to the Address-in-Reply ', but the Senate is of the opinion that the Government's program outlined in the Governor-General's Speech fails to address critical problems facing Australia in that- (a) it fails to reassure the Australian people that the country's defence arrangements within the Western alliance will be preserved and strengthened following- (i) the Prime Minister's capitulation to internal party pressures on the issue of Australia providing logistical assistance to the United States for its testing of the MX missile, and (ii) increasing uncertainty as to the future of the ANZUS Treaty fuelled by members of the Labor Government, including a Cabinet Minister; (b) it contains no coherent economic strategy at a time when recovery is threatened by- (i) record government taxation and spending; (ii) continuing pressure within the Government for new taxes on assets; (iii) growing demands for higher wages and other extra cost burdens on industry; (iv) the level of public debt repayments, and (v) loss of value of the currency reflecting world concern about Australia's competitiveness and government instability; and (c) it endorses a rigid, centralised wage determining structure which imposes the same cost burdens on commerce and industry regardless of ability to pay.' Senator COATES(Tasmania)(10.20) —Last night in this debate I began referring to 1985 as a year of major tax reform. I think I said that in 1975, in the Hayden Budget, there had been what we thought at the time was relatively major tax reform in the introduction of rebates instead of deductions, but this year we aim to have a real and important look at tax reform in Australia. I am looking forward to the tax summit. I hope that it will result in genuine reform. It will not satisfy everyone-I guess it cannot satisfy everyone-but what I trust it will do is lead to a more equitable taxation system than we have at present. The system should protect the poor, especially pensioners and beneficiaries. I think everyone agrees that there should be changes to the tax system-for example, the existing sales taxes are chock-full of anomalies; there is an absence of tax on most forms of capital gains which, of course, leads to distortions in the income tax area-but there is no agreement about how these changes should be made. As everyone knows, a lot of debate is going on at present. I think that debate is a good thing; it is healthy and educative. The fact that people are really applying their minds to the taxation system, the problems in it and the way in which it should be changed I hope, will lead to a better taxation system following the summit and the Government decisions which follow it. It is important that more people understand why we have taxation-why we need to share in providing community services. I am talking about the community services which we all use at some stage in our lives. We used education services in the past and our children are using them at present. We have health services and so forth when we need them. On top of that, there are the more general public services, such as defence, which we may not use as such as individuals but which there is general agreement should be funded. We pay for our community services according to our ability to pay, but perhaps at different stages of our life cycle. We do not necessarily pay for our health services at the time we earn an income sufficient to pay taxation. Most people do not pay for their education at the time they pay taxes. So we contribute at those stages of our life's cycle when we can and we use those services at the stages when we need them. It is also important that more people understand how the taxation system works, the effect of different sorts of taxation systems and the justification or lack of justification for each of them. This morning I want to concentrate on the justification for one area of taxation; that is, the taxing of capital on death. The Governor-General's Speech referred to the tax review being designed to make the tax system simpler, fairer and more efficient. With those principles in mind, one of the tax reforms essential to any concept of fairness and efficiency in the Australian taxation system is the reintroduction of a form of death duties and gift tax. I emphasise reintroduction because it is not very many years since death duties existed in Australia. Of course, they fell into disrepute because they were applied at the State and Federal levels, they were applied at different rates in different States and there was competition amongst the States to modify the application of death duties in order supposedly to attract investment. It is important to remember that there have been only a few years when death duties have not applied. They ought to be reintroduced at a Federal level so that there is uniform application and so that there is not the sort of false competition amongst the State to reduce their effect. We should remember that a very detailed review of the Australian taxation system, the Asprey Taxation Review Committee, supported death duties and gift duties as having an essential role to play in the tax structure as a whole. Over the past decade support has come from economists and even accountants. Back in 1978 Mr Bruce Pascoe, an accountant, addressing a seminar in Victoria of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia, made the point: On the old ability-to-pay principle, I have always assumed that it was appropriate for contributions to revenue being made from significant capital wealth and the easiest time for that contribution to be made was when a person had ceased using those assets. Presently Australia is the only member of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development with no form of real capital taxation. The book Taxation in Europe lists 24 European countries; of those, only Iceland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are listed as having no form of tax on gifts or inherited wealth. It is fair to say that there has been a great deal of hysteria and overreaction generated by the mention of death duties or inheritance tax. Some of this displays inconsistency and hypocrisy. Australia can lay no claim to being a country of the fair go, of reward for effort or one where everyone contributes a fair share to community welfare when there is only a limited form of tax on capital. Australia's total reliance on forms of income as a measure of capacity to pay ignores the other dimension, that is, wealth generating assets. It is dependence on monetary income combined with tax avoidance inadequately challenged by the previous Government that has resulted in the distortion in our tax structure so that low and middle income pay as you earn taxpayers are overburdened. I will cite some figures that have been cited before. In the 1954-55 financial years, when an adult male on average weekly earnings was paying tax at a 19 per cent marginal tax rate, the average rate was 10 per cent whereas in 1970-71 that same person was paying a 32 per cent marginal tax rate and the average was 19 per cent. In 1984-85 the same person was paying at a 46 per cent marginal tax rate when the average rate was 25 per cent. In 1954-55 PAYE taxpayers contributed 33.3 per cent of the total tax collected. This year it is about 53 per cent of the total. The present tax structure means that it is possible for those beginning life with considerable inherited wealth to accumulate more by capital gain and pass it on, with all its great economic and social advantages, to the next generation without its being taxed, thus continuing the concentration of Australian wealth in very few hands. Clearly the tax structure is distorted. I do not automatically adopt all of his proposals but Dr David Morgan of the Treasury points out that there is widespread perceived unfairness in the Australian tax system as it fails to include many wealth generating sources, including inheritances. At the same time, with income splitting concessions available only to some people, loopholes are much more available to the rich. A brief analysis of the distribution of wealth in Australia shows that real wealth is concentrated in very few hands. Despite our rhetorical commitment to equality of opportunity, wealth is tending to be more concentrated. For example, late last year the Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research concluded that 5 per cent of adult individuals owned 40 to 50 per cent of Australia's wealth and that there was no evidence that wealth distribution since World War I was becoming more equal. Phil Raskell's research on wealth distribution in Australia showed that the wealthiest 2,000 people own as much as the poorest two and a quarter million. Large disparities in income are dwarfed by uneven ownership of personal wealth. When death duties and gift tax were abolished by the Commonwealth, the Chief Administrative Officer of Perpetual Trustees Australia Ltd stated that 'Abolition of estate and gift duties will mean little to the average worker but to the rich it means money-personal fortunes will get greater. Thus if an individual has the good luck to be born to wealthy parents, he or she may freely inherit a massive fortune'. Where is the reward for effort that the Opposition professes to be so keen on in that? Clearly, wealth can be accumulated irrespective of individual effort. Even archetypal capitalists such as Winston Churchill and Carnegie recognised this and both favoured death duties as a means of encouraging redistribution, initiative, more productive investment and enterprise, which are all agreed to be essential if Australia is to survive in the competitive international economic environment. It is worth noting in this regard that those countries most often given as economic success stories, such as Japan, Sweden, West Germany and the United States of America, all employ forms of inheritance or death taxes and that certainly does not seem to destroy initiative, enterprise and incentive to work in those countries. An Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report in 1980 pointed out that because death taxes relate to past and not present accumulations they may be less of a disincentive to work effort than equivalent additions to income tax. So the tax can be reintroduced in such a manner as to overcome contradictions, loopholes and inflation problems. As I said earlier, it should be federally based. It could be taxed in the hand of the recipient, the estate itself could be taxed, or both. I do not see any reason why the rates cannot be adjusted to ensure that an estate is taxed, but that bequests are also taxed in the hand of the recipient with perhaps exemptions for small bequests to encourage the spreading around of that benefit. Of course, one would include concessions for spouses, as appropriate. I think that actual dependency ought to be taken into account in providing exemptions. If someone who was not closely related-such as an invalid aunt-could prove dependency on the person who died, a concession could be applied in that sort of case. Of course, there would have to be a gift tax as well to ensure that death duties were not circumvented. In the case of farm owners or owners of other types of small business, there can be arrangements to ensure that any children who are supposed to take over that small business or farm obtain equity in that gradually through their lives so that they are not hit, as they complain they would be, by a death duty on the total estate. Of course, one would have to deal with the problems of indexation and methods of valuation. I have, as I guess other people in the Senate have, benefited from the wills of several close, and not so close, relatives over the years. I am not talking about large amounts, but I cannot see any justification for my receiving those sums untaxed or very lightly taxed. I was not dependent on any of those relatives. The community as a whole should have benefited much more than it did, so I strongly support the reintroduction of death duties in Australia. I turn to the question of youth unemployment in Australia, which Senator Harradine claims is his concern alone. I first point out that increasing youth unemployment is not a recent development. In 1969, a year of relatively low unemployment overall, youth unemployment was two and half times that of adults. The youth share of unemployment rose from 13.5 per cent in 1954-55 to 38.2 per cent in 1965-66. The labour market has long been adverse to youth and the present problem results from the interplay of many factors. The economic recession has resulted in greater competition and a tendency to hire more experienced labour. Older people tend to be better qualified and society has changed such that people stay in their jobs longer. Structural changes have abolished many jobs that existed for lower skilled, younger workers. As Senator Harradine pointed out, the young have not benefited so much from increased employment in the expanding service sector and the public sector. The Bureau of Labour Market Research has pointed out that 50,000 teenage jobs have been lost due to changing recruitment patterns in the Public Service. Adults have tended to replace teenagers as clerks and clerical assistants grade 1 in the Commonwealth Public Service and equivalent levels in the State Public Services. I think it is obvious that older people who are seeking employment in the Public Service do better at the entry test than do younger people. It is futile to seek a single factor explanation for youth unemployment. Senator Harradine is very simplistic about lower youth employment in the Public Service. He says there is discrimination against youth. One can acknowledge only that there has not been positive discrimination for youth; there is no actual discrimination against youth. He can decry that as much as he likes, but he does not actually come up with solutions. Perhaps he would suggest that we go back to the 1960s and before when women were forced to resign from the Public Service on marriage. I do not think anybody, even Senator Harradine, would want to see society revert to that situation. We have to acknowledge that society has changed and that there are better qualified and more experienced people available than there were so years ago. Senator Harradine ought to realise that. I am not disagreeing with his concern, but it is irresponsible to suggest that one can wave a magic wand to return the proportion of youth employed in the Public Service to that of 20 years ago. In conclusion, I emphasise that the problems of youth unemployment I have referred to are being addressed by the Government. The Government has given support in principle to the Kirby report concerning the development of youth traineeships. It is looking at the whole question of recruitment practices in the Public Service in order to increase youth intakes. There is the review of the community youth support scheme with a view to developing the suggested Australian youth service, following the Kirby report's recommendation. I worry a little about the title 'Australian youth service'-I think that the word 'service' could be changed because it suggest something like compulsion. Some consideration should be given to changing the name rather than letting it become automatically adopted. The training-related programs are to be co-ordinated by the suggested program and of course there will be wide consultation to ensure that everyone agrees with its operation. A sum of $285m is available for youth unemployment, education and training, and that is an increase of more than 50 per cent since 1983. To some extent there has been success in improving the situation for the young unemployed. Their numbers have been reduced from roughly 27 per cent to 23 per cent since March 1983. That, of course, is by no means totally satisfactory, but at least it is on the right track. I support the motion for the Address-in-Reply. Senator Kilgariff —Mr Acting Deputy President, I draw your attention to the state of the House. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —A quorum is not present. Ring the bells. The bells being rung- Senator Bolkus —On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: Is it in order for honourable senators to be sitting in the gallery and not forming part of the quorum while the bells are ringing, like Senator Rae? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. A quorum is now present. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.44) —Senator Bolkus merely said in his point of order that Senator Rae was sitting in the gallery. It is for Hansard to interpret which Senator Rae that may be. Senator Bolkus —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. It refers to the point made by Senator Peter Baume, I think it was made very clear that it was Senator Peter Rae who was in the gallery. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —There is no point of order. Senator PETER BAUME —The Senate is debating an Address-in-Reply to the speech by the Governor-General which was moved and seconded by Senator Aulich and Senator Cooney and an amendment thereto moved by my Leader, Senator Chaney. This debate has been the occasion for a number of maiden speeches by honourable senators. I congratulate the mover and seconder of the motion for the Address-in-Reply and other honourable senators who have made maiden speeches. I think the last two were Senator Vanstone from South Australia and Senator Black. I congratulate both of them on their first contribution. I have enjoyed all the maiden speeches, some for their content and some for their entertainment value. I have enjoyed some more than others. I say to all the new senators that I wish them well. I wish them a productive service in the Senate. I am sure that their presence here will improve the standard of debate in the chamber. They are very welcome. The ambit of this Address-in-Reply debate is very wide. Honourable senators are able to address matters on a very broad range of subjects. I do have a number of interests relating to policy and the development of policy. There are things I would like to say about the development of education in Australia in the future and about my other shadow portfolio interest, that is, matters relating to the status of women and to the views of the Liberal Party of Australia in this area. I will do so at some stage in the future. I have decided to address my contribution to the Address-in-Reply debate to the question of corruption in public life, particularly corruption in my State of New South Wales. I do it because of the importance of this subject and because of the despair which is felt by many citizens of New South Wales about what is going on in our State and about the reluctance of the Government of that State to face the issues which corruption in New South Wales have thrown up. This year will see two judges-one of them a former Australian Labor Party Attorney-General-a former State Labor Minister and a policeman of high rank all in the courts. A former Chief Magistrate of New South Wales has already been convicted and is already in prison, having begun his term, on a charge of conspiring to pervert the course of justice. The judges are charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice. The Minister is charged with selling ministerial favours. The policeman is charged with trying to bribe a fellow officer. Never before in Australia have we had a circumstance in which a magistrate has alleged that a judge attempted to influence his conduct of a court case. These matters go to the heart of our system of government, to the administration of justice and to the kind of society in which we live. They are serious matters. Senator Grimes —I hope you are going to talk about Sir Robert Askin. Senator PETER BAUME —Senator Grimes mentions the name of Sir Robert Askin. Let me make it clear: My concern about corruption is genuine and wide-ranging. If Senator Grimes has occasion to say 'But there was someone now dead who was corrupt', then so be it. I am not going to try to defend anyone who is corrupt. I make it quite clear to Senator Grimes that my concern is for corruption wherever it falls. At the moment it is the Australian Labor Party that has a problem and I hope that Senator Grimes will be as generous as I have just been. I am not going to try to defend anyone, whether it is a former Party colleague or anyone else. If I find anyone in my Party or if I get any evidence that anyone in my Party is corrupt, I would want to deal with that person properly and to deal with that person effectively. Senator Aulich —That's a laugh. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! I think the honourable senator should withdraw that statement. Senator Aulich —Why? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! I ask that the statement be withdrawn. Senator Aulich —I withdraw. Senator PETER BAUME —More disturbing than just these events has been the lack of enthusiasm shown by the New South Wales Labor Government and the Federal Labor Government in pursuing evidence of organised crime even when it was presented to them and their reluctance to pursue links in the upper echelons of our society between what has been going on and their Government. Both of these governments had to be dragged kicking and screaming by public opinion to take action eventually against the prominent people now in the courts. Almost all of these prominent people were closely associated at some stage with the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party. I want to make it quite clear that the people I mention-I will not mention them by name; the judges and the former Minister-are all still awaiting trial. They are all still innocent men and they remain so until the courts should decide otherwise. It is not my intention to canvass the details of their particular cases. I do not want to canvass their guilt or innocence. I do not know whether they are guilty. What I am concerned about doing is examining the events which have occurred and the reluctance of Labor governments to act upon information when it was available. My concerns are directed to inaction and improper action by Labor governments, by Labor Ministers seeking to cover up the events when they were revealed. Put as mildly as possible, the New South Wales and Federal Governments have shown a marked lack of enthusiasm in their pursuit of these matters even after they came to public light. There is no greater failure of public duty that I know. Innocent or guilty, the people I have mentioned who are before the courts were all eventually found by prosecuting authorities to have a case to answer. Yet through long and bitter months the Labor governments in New South Wales and Canberra 'cleared' them. The Labor governments condemned the Press, they condemned the Opposition for pursuing them and they manoeuvred to delay or avoid holding investigations into the allegations against them. Yet the prosecuting authorities have now found that each of them has a case to answer. This may be shrugged off as tough politics in a tough world but for the legacy those months have left behind. We have seen governments hacking away at the ground beneath the feet of those calling for the investigation of allegations rather than have those governments working energetically to examine the allegations. What has happened is an attack upon the public. We have seen an attack upon the Press and we have seen an attack upon the traditional principles of public duty, liberty and law. The evidence of public corruption in New South Wales has become available over some 10 years or more. I take the Senate back to my friend Donald Mackay. This man was a Liberal candidate for parliament, not once but several times. I had the pleasure of campaigning with him. His children babysat my children in a motel in Griffith. My family was close to the Mackay family. He was murdered by drug interests who were operating, obviously with police connivance, in the Griffith area, and the Government ran dead for almost 10 years. It was only in 1984, I believe, that a coronial inquiry into his death was finally held. That does not give us great cause for confidence. In 1973 the Askin Government, pressed at the time by the Labor Party, established the Moffitt Royal Commission on Alleged Organised Crime in Registered Clubs in New South Wales. I will come back to the Moffitt Royal Commission a little later. During the next two years Mr Wran, then Opposition Leader, complained in Parliament that illegal police phone tappings were probably occurring in New South Wales Mr Wran said that in 1973. He revealed them. He discussed them. He condemned them in Opposition. Later, as Police Minister, he did nothing to stop what he had earlier condemned. As Premier, he expressed surprise when evidence from these taps emerged later. Yet he had known in 1973-74 that it was occurring. He had sufficient concern to raise it in the Parliament of New South Wales. However, when he became the Minister for Police he did nothing about it. He forgot about it, or else he proved incapable of taking effective action as Minister. As far back as 1974 Mr Rex Jackson, who was later a Labor Minister, accused the then Attorney-General of being corrupt and of protecting a poker machine operator from prosecution. So we have a Labor Party that, in opposition, was quite active in pressing matters of corruption and demanding that they be fixed. Since that time there has been a series of royal commissions and other events in New South Wales. What do they show us? The Moffitt Royal Commission showed quite clearly links between the Australian Labor Party and crime in clubs. The Woodward Royal Commission into Drug Trafficking, at the end of the decade, showed links between the Labor Party and drug trafficking, the use of council fronts, including the Leichhardt Council, the role of Danny Casey and Wings Travel-- Senator Puplick —And Balmain Welding. Senator PETER BAUME —And Balmain Welding Company. We have had reports from the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking which have revealed Labor Party links with the Nugan Hand Bank. They were not of an illegal nature. I will mention them later. The Labor Party clearly used its good offices. The good offices of Mr Leo McLeay, Senator Richardson and Senator Sibraa were mentioned. They were detailed in the report of the Stewart Commission which came down recently. Senator Aulich —And they were cleared. Senator PETER BAUME —We might say something about them. Senator Aulich —You are a bucket tipper. Senator PETER BAUME —We might say something about them a bit later. We then had the Age tapes which revealed Labor Party links which have led to former senior Labor Party figures being before the courts now. We have had Department of Consumer Affairs reports in New South Wales which have shown Labor Party links with the Nugan Hand bank. I refer honourable senators to one of the paragraphs in the Stewart report, if they wish to see it. A fearless Press, especially the National Times and the Fairfax Press, has made sure that these events have been revealed and set out for public view. We have had Opposition probing, led first by John Dowd in New South Wales. No one believed John Dowd. He was laughed out of office when he kept claiming evidence of corruption. However, the things John Dowd raised in New South Wales have, one after another, been shown to have substance and sufficient content to the extent that we now see many of the people about whom he spoke either publicly disgraced on the basis of other evidence or facing prosecution on various matters. We had the Australian Senate forcing the Government to take action which it was otherwise not going to take. The investigations which have been forced on these reluctant governments have shown that present and former Labor Ministers have cases to answer, that there are Labor links to groups such as Nugan Hand and that Labor mates have found themselves in trouble. Senator Puplick —Little mates. Senator PETER BAUME —'Little mates', my colleague says. We learn further that Labor governments with the capacity to investigate have been unwilling to do what was required to clean up the situation until forced to do so by public opinion. We found a Labor Government in New South Wales actually proposing to give its former Minister, Rex Jackson, unlimited legal aid until public outrage forced an end to that Labor rort. We now have a Federal Government-I applaud it-which looks like making a better decision than it originally indicated to try to do something to provide a capacity for certain policemen to reveal and to extend some of the further evidence they have had of wrong doing. Senator Missen —We will have to wait to see that. Senator PETER BAUME —I understand that events this morning make things more uncertain. However, I urge the Government, in pursuing corruption, to take the bold step and to realise that one has to pursue the criminals as well as having concern about the illegal telephone taps. It always makes me amused that one is quite prepared to give indemnity to certain criminals-Senator Chipp has mentioned Mr Fulcher on occasions-because that could lead to other prosecutions, but there seems to be considerable reluctance to extend the same privilege to some of the police. Each scandal has been enough to shake public confidence. Take them together and the pattern is one of institutionalised corruption in New South Wales reaching into the Labor Party and into the Labor Government. Each scandal is serious, but the pattern is astounding and astonishing. Some of the events might just be worth setting down. First there were charges against two businessmen, Mr Ainsworth and Mr Vibert, laid in 1981. The charges were that at least $70,000 had been paid by them to political parties and politicians to gain a poker machine monopoly. They are very serious charges. The police investigation into this matter was torrid. One of the investigating police later prepared a memorandum alleging that a senior Labor Cabinet Minister in New South Wales, the senior police and a businessman had all tried to interfere with the proper investigation of corrupt activity. The complaint by that policeman is presently before the police internal investigation unit. Were those charges proceeded with? They were not. Although the men were committed for trial, the charges were dropped on the recommendation of the late Labor Attorney-General in New South Wales, Mr Paul Landa. We have had the scandal, too, of some of the Labor controlled councils. We had the Peter Baldwin bashing which really shocked the people of New South Wales when they came to the realisation that political differences were settled in that kind of way. We had the bashings and concerns in Marrickville Council. We have had the Nugan Hand connections. There was the Botany Council case. I simply set down the facts surrounding that matter. Early in 1975 Mr Laurie Brereton, Labor member for the Botany area, and Mr Geoff Cahill, who was then secretary of the ALP in New South Wales, were charged with attempting to bribe four Botany Council aldermen in an attempt to have a zoning decision changed. The building involved, in fact, was owned by News Ltd. One of the things that have been revealed in the Press is that, had that case gone forward, although Mr Neville Wran was not implicated in any way, he would have been required to give evidence as he had been present at one of the relevant meetings. The New South Wales Chief Magistrate at that time, Mr Murray Farquhar, held that there was a prima facie case for Mr Brereton to answer. However, he dismissed the case on a legal technicality. An ex-officio indictment was then laid, but in August 1976, three months after the new Labor Government came to power, the Labor Attorney-General returned a no bill, a nolle prosequi, and no further action has occurred in that case. Mr Brereton never faced trial on the matter and, of course, he is now a senior Minister in New South Wales. Next, we have the scandals associated with Mr Murray Farquhar and the systematic efforts of the Wran Government to prevent disclosure of these matters, to laugh them off as irrelevant, to divert attention, and to limit the investigations or the actions. I remind honourable senators that in 1977 a magistrate, after pressure from the Chief Magistrate, Murray Farquhar, to pervert the course of justice, discharged Mr Kevin Humphreys, who had been charged with certain matters relating to moneys of one of the leagues clubs in Sydney. Mr Farquhar has now been convicted for that action. In 1978 or thereabouts Mr Farquhar turned 60, the retiring age. He should have retired at that stage. It was already known at that time that Mr Farquhar was associating with a prominent criminal, Mr George Freeman. He had been photographed with him, and indeed, a new photograph has now been produced in the Parliament of New South Wales. The Labor Government in New South Wales, knowing all these facts and knowing the man had reached the age of 60, decided he should continue in office. There was widespread concern in New South Wales. There were even pleas from the Society of Labor Lawyers that it was not in the interests of the administration of justice for Mr Farquhar to be reappointed. Senator Chipp —Another name for that group is the lobby for organised crime. Senator PETER BAUME —I am indebted to Senator Chipp, because the matters are so serious that we need to set them down, and I am trying to do so as calmly as I can. Mr Farquhar was reappointed. The Government knew at the time of matters concerning the association of Mr Freeman and Mr Farquhar, but it did not release that information. Mr Wran went into the Parliament and said that he had information which he would not release. They did not care less about Mr Farquhar's criminal connections. They did reappoint him. Following the Street Royal Commission of Inquiry into Certain Committal Proceedings Against K. E. Humphreys in 1983, Mr Farquhar was charged, tried and convicted of action to pervert the course of justice. He is now disgraced and in prison. His fellow magistrates acted courageously to reveal what they have revealed. Mr Humphreys, who is one of Mr Wran's Balmain boys, was also connected in the matter, and he has now been convicted on the same matter for which he was discharged by Mr Farquhar in 1977. This still leaves us with the Cessna-Milner case. This was a drug case heard by Mr Murray Farquhar on the last day on which he sat on the bench. It was dealt with by him only because the police had written down the value of the drugs involved so that it fell within Mr Farquhar's jurisdiction. Because of this, Mr Farquhar was able to hear the case, and he gave Mr Cessna a bond-a bond, for serious drug charges. Mr Cessna, of course, was represented in that case by the solicitor Mr Morgan Ryan. A week after the case the then Police Commissioner, Mr Mervyn Wood, admitted that he had discussed with Mr Morgan Ryan what the valuation of the drugs should be. My God! What kind of society are we living in? Allegations were made that a conspiracy had occurred between Mr Farquhar, Mr Ryan and Police Commissioner Wood to pervert the course of justice. Those claims were made in 1980. At that stage Mr Wran said he would not release any material. There was a report by the police. There were detailed investigations by the New South Wales Police into the allegation that Farquhar, Ryan and Wood had fixed the Cessna case. Mr Wran agreed that he had a report, but he would not say what it was because it might reflect unfairly on those who were named-Farquhar, Ryan and Wood. He shows a fine sense of care. Mr Wran later refused to table the police report or a report by the Solicitor-General. I give the quotation attributed to Mr Wran: We can only be suspicious that the law was bent by the ex-police commissioner . . . no tracks lead to Farquhar which would demonstrate complicity. And so it goes on. Just this week Mr Greiner has produced a new photograph, which has been in existence all the time, which shows once again the links between Mr Farquhar and Mr Wran. We have the Bill Allen affair, which is a matter of history in New South Wales. In 1981 Mr Bill Allen was made Deputy Commissioner of the New South Wales Police Force against the recommendations of the then Police Commissioner, Mr Jim Lees. Two years earlier Mr Allen had been promoted to the position of Chief Superintendent of Sydney, above 16 others, on the personal recommendation of Mr Wran. At the time of his promotion to Deputy Commissioner, the Federal Police were investigating allegations of misconduct against Mr Allen-at that stage. Following disclosures of this in the National Times and following some intense political activity, a tribunal was appointed. The tribunal made findings adverse to Mr Allen. He was demoted, but he was then permitted to retire. This was a senior commissioner appointed personally by Mr Wran-for what purpose I cannot think; it may well have just been a case of appalling judgment, or it may have been part of this network of corrupt and irresponsible activity which characterises New South Wales. We have had extensive and continuing evidence of police corruption in New South Wales-only a few police; we still have a police force which cares. We have a large number of police who are appalled by what is going on; but a small number in the force have been engaged in systematic, extensive, continuing, uncaring corrupt activity. So bad has it been, so much has a government been refusing to take action or to pursue it, that it has been necessary for certain police to act illegally to produce the evidence and to release that evidence to force the public to take notice of what is going on in New South Wales. While there may be a desire to bring the police to order for what they have done, one also has to pursue the criminals. I come to the events behind the early release schemes, in which the Government, again and again, kept clearing the Minister concerned of any misconduct, saying there was nothing in the allegations. We know where that ended up when evidence finally came through. I remember that on 11 October-1983, I think-Mr Wran told the New South Wales Parliament: There is no doubt that the matter has been thoroughly investigated and the Government has decided that no further action will be taken. I only say that today we see the Minister with whom Mr Wran was clearing it awaiting trial. I could go on, Mr Acting Deputy President. The evidence of corruption is there, right through New South Wales. We had an election called urgently by Mr Wran to get into the people before more of the facts became known. Crime occurs in New South Wales. It is extensive. Corruption is extensive. It has close and organic links with the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales. We have seen Labor Party governments in New South Wales and Canberra resisting to the utmost its detection, its investigation, or its pursuit. There is no more vital subject to pursue in any society. I am not concerned if evidence emerges to show that someone now dead was corrupt. He also should be condemned, and if he was a member of my Party then, or if in the future we find such a person, I would pursue that person. I want all of it exposed. I want the mask stripped away. Liberals would welcome this. It was our candidate, our friend, who was murdered in Griffith because he opposed crime. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. (Quorum formed) Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(11.17) —I rise to speak in this Address-in-Reply debate on Australia's science and technology policies. Before I do so, I add my congratulations to other senators who have made their maiden speeches in the course of this session, in particular, Senator Parer, Senator Brownhill, Senator Knowles and Senator Vanstone who made particularly notable contributions to this debate. The matter which Senator Peter Baume was previously discussing in the Senate, that of organised, institutionalised crime and its association with the Australian Labor Party both in New South Wales and in Canberra, is of very great concern. I do not propose to discuss the matter in detail this morning. Undoubtedly, an opportunity will arise as soon as the Government can find and give to us a telecommunications interception Bill which it thinks is sufficient to protect those people whom it wants to see still protected. We shall await that piece of legislation with interest. The Governor-General, in his Speech at the opening of this Parliament, stated: The Government will continue to formulate positive policy approaches to industry development. One of our objectives is to build closer links between industry and research, so that Australian industry gains the greatest benefits possible from the work being done by the CSIRO and tertiary institutions. I wish to talk about research of science policy generally and to examine the monumental failure of the current Government to live up to the promises made and the expectations raised as far as science and science research in Australia are concerned. Honourable senators would be aware that the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), at the stage when he was still in charge of technology matters, and before he had been significantly demoted to lose the technology section of his Department in recognition of his general incompetence in that field, invited the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to send a group of examiners to Australia to examine the state of science and technology in Australia and to make recommendations. In a Press statement dated 23 February 1984 the Minister for Science, Mr Barry Jones, said: By using the resources of the OECD Australia will get expert advice on the role science and technology should play in the achievement of our national goals. The OECD examiners came to this country and they produced a report which, at this stage, is a draft report. That report had a series of major recommendations, almost all of which have been thrown out by the Government. I give the Senate just one example: Examiners of the OECD, an allegedly expert body, were in Australia in 1974. On that occasion their recommendations were followed very much to the benefit and the strengthening of the science and technology community in Australia. One of their recommendations appears on page 40 of their draft report as follows: We favour a strong voice for Science and Technology at the Ministerial level. We are also convinced that those two topics-science and technology-should be treated within a single portfolio, since they are so completely intertwined. Many of Australia's technological opportunities, as we argued in chapter III, lie in facilitating the process of transition from science to technical application: it would be perverse to divide the two within central government. Of course, that is precisely what this Government has proceeded to do. It has split science and technology into two separate departments in the face of the most expert advice which it had available on the subject and in the face of advice from the examiners of the OECD who were invited here, welcomed here, duchessed here and praised here by the then Minister for Science and Technology. Those examiners then made a significant recommendation about the science and technology portfolio and the Government immediately overthrew that recommendation. This is not only a reflection on the Government's approach to science and technology but also it is the first example that I propose to give of the failure of the Minister for Science to deliver as far as the scientific community is concerned. This Government has a fetish about running down the level of basic research in order, as it sees it, to increase the technological and developmental side of things. I believe that this is a grave mistake. Let us look, for instance, at what is happening in Japan in terms of its science and technology policies. Many examples can be drawn which are relevant to the Australian experience. The latest comment on the Japanese approach to science and technology matters appeared in an article in the Australian Financial Review of November 1984 headed 'Japan downgrades development, beefs up basic research'. The article referred to the Ministry of International Trade and Industry and pointed out the big shift in Japan towards basic recearch and away from the development end of research and development. If we look at an article by Leon Lederman in the Scientific American of November 1984 headed 'The Value of Fundamental Science' we see that the general thrust of science policies in the United States of America, similarly, is to restore some element of greater funding to basic research. Without basic research, which is absolutely fundamental to the development of the scientific and technological community in Australia, there will be no significant progress on the technological side and no significant coming to grips with the major problems which can be addressed in Australia by the science and technology community. The second example of the incompetent way in which science policy is being managed in Australia is that of the progressive downgrading of the emphasis on basic research which ought to be undertaken. To a very large extent, science and technology is dependent on the provision of adequate funds. If there was anything that the Minister for Science, Mr Jones, said to the Australian community when he was in Opposition or, indeed, in his early days as Minister, it was that there would be a new dawn for the provision of funds for basic and applied research in Australia. Let us therefore look at the comments made by the bodies which are intimately affected by this. I turn to the last two annual reports of the Australian Research Grants Committee, the ARGC, the premier body for the funding of research in Australia in the non-medical, scientific area. In its 1984 report the ARGC said: . . . the funds available to the Committee were appreciably less than the amount required to maintain an adequate level of support under the Scheme and limited its capacity to provide proper support for its projects . . . In its 1985 annual report it said: This increase was grossly insufficient to support the number of worthy projects that the Committee considered should be funded. In that report it also said: Acceptance of new projects fell from 46 per cent (1984) to 25 per cent (1985). The number of projects deemed worthy but unable to receive support from the scheme were 361 in 1984 and 732 in 1985. The ARGC chairman, Professor Peter Sheehan, has said that innovative scientific research in Australia will almost cease next year because of severe funding restrictions. Professor Sheehan has tried to intervene unsuccessfully with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to do something about this. An article by Jane Ford, the science and technology correspondent of the Australian newspaper, on 23 May 1984, read as follows: The Australian Research Grants Committee has received a record number of applications this year in the wake of the Labor Government's dedicated 'talking up' of the value of research. However, the Government's enthusiasm seems unlikely to be matched by any significant increase in funding and the scheme is facing a shortfall of well over $40m for grants next year. The Labor Party has taken this approach to science and science research in Australia: Talk it up and leave it swinging in the wind; talk it up and then fail to live up to promises. It is not just the ARGC that has cause to complain. On page 1 of the 1983-84 annual report of the Australian Biological Resources Study it is stated: Inadequate funding of the Participatory Program has meant that many worthwhile, highly recommended, projects could not be funded. Even in that area, a significant one for Australia, there has been a shortfall which has been condemned by the grant making body. I turn now to what this Government is doing in terms of rural research. There was a statement in the Australian Financial Review of 1 March this year that the Federal Government had decided to set an upper limit to its contribution to rural industry research. This is apparently to be dealt with in some omnibus legislation that the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, is to introduce to this Parliament at some stage. One wonders about the degree of success he will have with this, as compared with the degree of success he had with introducing tertiary fees, or whether, having been knocked back by his Party on that particular matter, he is now going to the research sector as an area that is to be trimmed yet again to make up the shortfall. I turn to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation as a final example. One will recall that, in the Governor-General's opening Speech, His Excellency had an important thing to say. He said that there was to be an increased interaction between industry and the CSIRO. What has the CSIRO found in terms of its capacity to deliver on this? I will read from the summary statement that was part of the statement of the CSIRO joint working party with the Department of Finance which was, in the Minister's marvellous words, 'by an inadvertent administrative oversight', not tabled in this Parliament. It was part of the summary document which was simply lost somehow and which was not tabled until I raised the matter in this place and had the Minister table it later, pleading, as I said, 'an inadvertent administrative oversight' which is, I suppose, his bureaucratic term for 'it seemed like a good idea at the time'. The joint working party in its summary document said: CSIRO's Budget allocation provided no additional funds to meet increased operating costs in 1983-84 and 1984-85 and insufficient funds were provided to cover the full cost of the Government directed Repairs and Maintenance and Occupational Health and Safety Program in 1984-85, thereby requiring the CSIRO Executive to cut programs. In other words, the CSIRO, put upon by the Government to undertake maintenance and occupational health and safety programs and to spend money on these programs, was not given additional funds to meet the Government's demands and had to cut those funds from the sorts of programs it ought to support and which it wants to support. This Government's attitude towards research and the promotion of science in Australia is even more apparent when one sees that the Government's programs in other departments contribute to this problem. For instance, serious shortcomings in the Federal Government's offsets programs are alleged to be costing Australian science and Australian scientific industries a considerable amount of money. Why is it, one might ask, that of the $2,000m worth of offsets only $495m have so far been awarded and completed by local industry? It is because this Government is in a total confusion about its support and its commitment for science and for science research and science and technology in this country generally. I turn to the one attempt that has been made by the Government to do something about it, because it once again illustrates the monumental incompetence of Mr Jones as the Minister for Science. I refer to the matter of taxation deductions for research and development. Again, I refer to an article in the Australian on 14 November 1984, following an announcement made in the Prime Minister's policy speech about a 150 per cent taxation deduction for various research and development projects. The article states: Industry last night welcomed the Government's decision to introduce a 150 per cent tax concession for industrial research and development, saying it was the most important step the Government could have taken to boost innovative development and industry restructuring. How was this most important step taken? It was taken in the teeth of the Minister for Science. An article in the Australian of 15 November 1984 stated: The Federal Government's decision to introduce a 150 per cent tax concession on industrial research and development was made little more than 24 hours before the election speech on Tuesday, raising further questions on the ad hoc, dictatorial style of government of the Prime Minister Mr Hawke. It was revealed yesterday that the decision was made with minimal consultation on Monday, totally unknown to the Minister for Science and Technology, Mr Jones, his department or other key sectors. It is believed the decision has angered Mr Jones and senior officials in his Department and is seen as a further sign of the diminishing influence of the minister. His department was apparently caught totally unaware on Tuesday as it is known that the head of the Department of Science and Technology, Dr Greg Tegart, was arguing strongly against tax incentives only hours before they were announced by Mr Hawke. The Australian Science and Technology Council, in a recommendation on page 7 of its January 1985 report, 'Computer-related Technology in the Metal Trades Industry', recommended: That a taxation incentive scheme be introduced as a matter of urgency . . . We know that recommendation was before the Government, but we also know that the Minister himself, Mr Jones, had a quite contrary view. I turn to an article in the October-November 1984 edition of Search. It reports question time following Mr Jones's address to the National Science Forum in Canberra. The question was raised with him by somebody from ASTEC who said: I wonder if you could explain to us the Government's thinking which has placed an initiative such as the Commission for the future-which as I understand it, is based on a New Zealand one which was abolished because it embarrassed the Government-as a higher priority than a taxation incentive for the private sector to increase its R &D activities. The Minister replied: Well the reason it's got a higher priority was that I placed it at a higher priority. I know ASTEC was bitterly opposed to it and no doubt continues to be. So the Minister, in pursuit of one of the most Mickey Mouse enterprises ever undertaken in this country-the Commission for the Future-was more concerned to provide this Mickey Mouse operation and to put his little mate Phillip Adams as Chairman of the Commission than to provide the taxation incentives necessary for industrial research and development, despite the fact that ASTEC and other scientific bodies were arguing in favour of it. His incompetence in the matter was even recognised by the Prime Minister, who overruled him, without consultation, and announced the introduction of the taxation incentives scheme opposed by Mr Jones and indeed unknown by Mr Jones until it tumbled forth as part of the litany of promises from the Prime Minister's lips in his policy speech prior to the last election. Undoubtedly, like the trilogy and all the other things that were promised and have already been dishonoured, it too will be found to be a fairly hollow exercise when we actually see it. Let me say something, therefore, about this Commission for the Future. Let me remind the Senate about the outstanding predictions for the future that experts have always made. I remind the Senate that Alfred Nobel, no mean scientist and technologist, thought that the important thing about dynamite was that it would make wars impossible, because it was so devastating. I remind the Senate that Simon Newcombe, a not undistinguished British scientist of his time, said that flying machines were in fact impossible; they defied all of the known laws. The Parliamentary Committee on Science and Technology of the British Parliament in 1878 said that Edison's electric light bulb was 'unworthy of the attention of scientific men'. I remind the Senate that Einstein thought in 1933 that the unleashing of nuclear energy was not going to amount to very much, and Rutherford, one of the most distinguished scientists of this century, when asked whether splitting the atom could lead to anything useful in a technological or energy sense, said that the whole idea was-I use his precise word-'moonshine'. Nevertheless, despite the fact that Alfred Nobel, Simon Newcombe, the British Parliamentary Committee, Einstein and Rutherford got it wrong, undoubtedly Phillip Adams will get it right. Anybody who is fool enough to believe that should perhaps have a close look at a very perceptive editorial written in the Australian Financial Review on 14 February 1985. The editorial was headed 'A Commission for Bulldust?'. That is precisely what we are going to get, at some public expense, from Mr Adams and Mr Jones. The editorial states: Despite the fact that he deals with an undeniably important range of subjects, Mr Jones has a talent for trivialising them and for making vitally significant matters sound merely silly. One can see numerous examples of exact confirmation of that undertaking in terms of what Mr Jones and his friends have had to say about the so-called Commission for the Future. Perhaps I should remind the Senate of the words of J. B. Haldane, one of the most distinguished members of the scientific community of this century, who said: The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we can imagine. That is a perceptive observation about the future. Yet Mr Jones thinks that the way in which this matter is to be treated is to appoint Phillip Adams as Chairman of the Commission for the Future and believe that the future is well entrusted to their hands. That is the extent to which science policy in this country has become trivialised by a Minister whose understanding of the fundamental requirements is deficient and who replaces all of these significant long term issues with a pick-a-box mentality of knowing the short answer to a silly question at any moment in time. Mr Jones would not be such a concern of mine if he were merely trivialising things. The point is that to a very large extent he is also dangerous in terms of his approach, and in particular his approach regarding institutions such as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. The Age of 20 February 1985 reported: The Federal Science Minister, Mr Jones, said yesterday that one of his top priorities this year would be significant structural change to the $384 million organisation-- that is, the CSIRO- with implications for its relations with the Government, industry and academics. That off the cuff comment was sufficient to alarm the Prime Minister once again, particularly since Mr Jones was proposing to replace the current structure of the CSIRO with something, God spare us, akin to the structure of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. If one can imagine anything more ludicrous for this country it would be to put the CSIRO on the same footing as the ABC-to bring in people like the people of the ABC, whom this Government seems to favour, and put them in charge of our major premier scientific and research organisation. So much so that the Australian of 15 March reported: The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, has begun a far reaching inquiry into CSIRO . . . Why? I quote: The move is seen as a major setback for the Minister for Science, Mr Jones, who wants to introduce legislation in this parliamentary session to revamp the CSIRO's upper echelon to allow a non-scientist to be chief executive. * * * * ASTEC has been urging the Prime Minister for months to set up an inquiry into the organisation, but the move was brought to a head by the discovery of Mr Jones' plans. The matter was not brought to a head by mature consideration in Cabinet, not by mature consideration by ASTEC or any of the other bodies of concern, but because, once again, the Minister for Science was off on one of his rural frolics and produced some idea off the top of his head. The Prime Minister and others have had to get in and rescue the scientific community before Mr Jones gets his paws on them again. Let me take the final example within the Minister's portfolio as the failure of the Government's policies; that is, in relation to the Antarctic. In discussion the financial assistance made available for the Antarctic Division and for our Antarctic research, the National Times commented at one stage in 1984 that the important thing about it was this: Penguins don't vote. In an election year, pork-barrelling in Australia will take precedence over spending on Antarctica. There is considerable concern among government officials and Australian scientific researchers that unless Australia shows it is willing to increase the level of its scientific activity in Antarctica that it will forfeit its privileged place in the Antarctic community. That is absolutely true. The failure of this Government and the failure of this Minister to deal with funding issues for the Antarctic has put at risk Australia's position in that continent. I want to make quickly only two other observations. The first is that in dealing with issues which are of scientific concern Mr Jones should well take a leaf out of the book of his colleague Dr Blewett, because whatever my disagreements with Dr Blewett in terms of Medicare and the administration of the health system in Australia, I give unreserved credit to the way in which he has coped with the acquired immune deficiency syndrome epidemic in Australia-the provision of funds, the provision of support, ensuring that adequate funds are made available for research and ensuring that things are properly thought out and co-ordinated. An area which could have led to all sorts of nonsense and hysteria has been managed in a fundamentally scientific and proper public health fashion. If Dr Blewett has the wit and the wisdom to deal with a major crisis of that nature with some degree of intelligence and sympathy, and with a set of policies which commend themselves, I think to all members of the Australian community, it is clear that it is not simply an institutional fault of the Government as far as this matter is concerned, but rather it can be sheeted home as a specific failing of the Minister for Science. The last comment I wish to make-I will be brief because I think we will at some stage have a chance to debate this-is on the matter raised by Senator Harradine the other day relating to funding by the National Health and Medical Research Council of certain projects. Senator Harradine said that we have to be careful of the NHMRC because it is funding a program which he described in the Senate on 22 March as applying human sperm to animal ova. He implied that this was part of the business of creating some terrible monster out of the whole thing. In the process he upset my dear friend Senator Walters, which is not a nice thing to do, and a considerable amount of debate ensued on that. I actually went and got a copy of the research project to which he referred. It is dealt with at length in the Australian Journal of Biological Sciences, volume 35, of 1982. It refers to a project undertaken by Dr Quinn of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woodville, South Australia. If one reads the document-I will have a chance to speak on this if Senator Harradine does introduce his private member's Bill at some stage-one will see that the project undertaken by Dr Quinn is in fact of a substantially different character from the way in which it was characterised by Senator Harradine and certain other speakers later in that debate. This simply indicates the dangers that will occur if one allows these debates suddenly to rise out of nowhere, without the proper degree of information, without the proper degree of consideration and with accusations that the National Health and Medical Research Council is funding projects to create monsters out of test tubes, Petri dishes and goodness knows what, without going back and looking at the specific program and without looking at the peer review system which is in place and, which is a far better way of deciding what grant should be undertaken than leaving it, with the greatest of respect, in the hands of even distinguished honourable senators. The point I make in conclusion is that, in relation to the whole administration of science and technology in Australia, this Government has been demonstrated to be a failure. The Minister for Science has been demonstrated to be incompetent and I just hope that at some stage this Government will find a Minister for Science who is prepared to pay serious attention to the development of science and technology in Australia rather than to trivialise a matter far too important to be left in his incompetent hands. Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —Mr Acting Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented by Senator Puplick and I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Puplick accused me of characterising certain research that was performed by Dr Quinn and funded under a grant by the National Health and Medical Research Council. I refer honourable senators to what I actually said on Friday of last week. I detailed precisely, using the words of the summary which was provided through the NHMRC, Dr Quinn's work. In fact, I used the words that were used by the scientific journal to describe Dr Quinn's work. I have a copy of the document and it was from that document that I quoted. I certainly reject the suggestion just made by Senator Puplick that I in any way characterised the work. The words I used were specifically those from the scientific journal and I maintain my position that that research goes to the very integrity of the human species. Senator JONES(Queensland) —I present the report of the Senate Select Committee on Video Material. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator JONES(Queensland)(11.50) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. On 20 August 1984 the Government decided to set up a Joint Parliamentary Committee on Video Classification. That proposal passed the House of Representatives, but was not further dealt with in the Senate. The Select Committee on Video Material was established by the Senate on 17 October 1984 to commence work on the issue of videos, until a Joint Committee could be set up. On the day that the Senate Committee was established, the Senate passed a motion calling for a moratorium on the availability of X-rated videos. The Committee was conscious of this motion during its inquiry, and wrote to the new Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen, on 2 January 1985, drawing it to his attention. As all honourable senators know, a joint committee was established last week, enabling this Committee to report and hand over. I now take that action. The Senate Committee advertised widely in mid-November asking for submissions from interested people and organisations. It made a point of allowing as many individuals as possible to put a point of view. As of now approximately 1,500 submissions have been received. Because an election was held during the Committee's inquiry, limits were placed on the amount of work it could do. However, it decided early on to hear as many witnesses from the Commonwealth as possible. In three days of public hearings it heard evidence from the Attorney-General's Department, the Australian Customs Service, the Film Censorship Board, the Films Board of Review, the Australian Federal Police and the Customs Officers Association of Australia. The Committee also paid a visit to an operating video library and the Film Censorship Board to view some videos. The report and its observations and conclusions are basically limited to that evidence. It is probably worth mentioning now that one of the problems the Committee was immediately faced with, and which it has not yet resolved, is what is meant by the words 'pornography', 'obscene', 'violent', et cetera. These words have a different meaning for almost everyone who uses them. One would expect that the Film Censorship Board and the Attorney-General's Department would have working definitions, but it was quite obvious from the evidence given to the Committee that they do not. The Committee's report is designed to be informative to the Senate, to advise governments on some interim measures to cope with current problems in the law, and to provide a basis for further work by the incoming joint committee. Included in the report is a background paper which outlines some of the issues that will form part of the joint committee's inquiry. The major recommendation in the report is that a moratorium be placed on the sale and hire of X-rated videos in the Australian Capital Territory. The central paragraphs read as follows: 3.8 During its deliberations the Committee: (a) Noted that the overwhelming majority of written submissions opposed the availability of the X-rated category of videos: (b) Identified a number of serious inadequacies in the Commonwealth law purporting to regulate videos; and (c) Noted the initial lack of uniformity between the Commonwealth and State laws, and the later decisions by all States to ban X-rated videos. 3.9 During its deliberations the Committee was also conscious of the Senate's resolution of 17 October 1984 calling for a moratorium on the availability of X-rated videos in the Australian Capital Territory. 3.10 Because of the preceding points the Committee, especially because of the serious inadequacies in the present law, considers that interim measures are required to regulate videos throughout Australia until the Joint Committee investigates and formulates considered recommendations on the subject, and the Parliament and Government consider those recommendations. 3.15 . . ., because of the State's actions in banning 'X'-rated videos and the inconsistent state of the Commonwealth law, and without prejudice to the considered findings of the Joint Select Committee, the Committee recommends that the following interim measures be taken: (1) A moratorium be placed on the sale and hire of 'X'-rated videos in the ACT consistent with the Resolution of the Senate of 17 October 1984 as the most practical interim measure to facilitate regulation of videos throughout Australia until the Joint Committee reports. (2) That the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations be amended, and administrative guidelines issued to Customs officers be revised, to stop the importation of material that would be refused classification under the Committee's proposal for a moratorium of 'X'-rated and similar material. 3.16 The Committee recommends that in drawing up interim measures, the Government have regard to the many problems with the state, application and administration of the law identified in Chapter 4 of this Report, and in the public evidence taken by the Committee. It will be seen, and it is emphasised again and again in the Report that the recommendation is made because of the unsatisfactory state of the law. The Report does not canvass the longer-term question as to what is the best way of regulating, classifying and censoring videos. This will remain a job for the Joint Committee. This will operate when this Committee ceases- The Report also argues that there is a need for more resources to be made available to the Film Censorship Board. The Committee's recommendation reads as follows: Resources of the Film Censorship Board 3.17 During the public hearing at which the Film Censorship Board gave evidence, and as a result of the Committee's visit to the Board, it has become clear that the Film Censorship Board lacks the resources to undertake the work it is required to carry out on behalf of the Commonwealth and the States. The problem was highlighted through information received during the Committee's examination in public hearing of evidence from the Australian Federal Police. In the ACT an estimated forty per cent of videos for sale or hire have not been classified by the Film Censorship Board as required by the ACT Ordinance. 3.20 The Committee is of the opinion that insufficient resources are allocated to the Film Censorship Board. This is contributing to a situation in which the law purporting to govern the regulation of videos is being brought into disrepute, particularly in the Australian Capital Territory. 3.21 Recommendation: The Committee recommends that the Government, as a matter of urgency, provide the Film Censorship Board with adequate resources to fulfil its statutory and other responsibilities. The censoring and classification of TV and videos for home viewing, where children may be exposed to potentially offensive material, is a difficult task requiring time and care. The Committee believes the Board should be given high quality Board members, staff and resources to undertake this job. New developments in high technology in the entertainment and information industries are going to make the regulation of videos very difficult. Videos are easily made, easily copied and cheap. There are going to be great problems for the Joint Committee in coming up with workable proposals to deal with the question. The Williams Committee which reported on Film Censorship and Obscenity in Britain in 1979 overlooked the development of videos themselves. Developments will have to be continuously monitored if the law is to keep pace with technical developments. I hope this report will be of interest to the Senate and of some help to the Joint Committee in carrying out further investigation and making recommendations to the Government on the control of video material. In conclusion, I thank the members of the Committee-Senator Elstob, Senator Zakharov, Senator Walters and Senator Harradine-for the tasks they have undertaken and the work they have put into the Committee, for the time they have spent on public hearings and the number of hours they have put into the report that I am now bringing down. A minority report will be brought down by Senator Zakharov. I believe that this further illustrates the difficulty under which the Committee worked and the difficult question the Committee was dealing with. Her contrary view to the Committee's view shows very clearly that it is a difficult question and that it will take some time for the Committee to resolve it and to bring down recommendations on the control of videos in Australia. I also take the opportunity at this stage to extend my gratitude to the staff of the Senate Committee on Video Materials-Ron Wiber, the Secretary, Mary Louise Willheim, the Research Officer, and other members of the staff who worked extremely hard in providing the material to allow us to report to the Senate by 31 March. If it had not been for the work carried out by the staff it would have been very difficult-taking into consideration the election-for this Committee to prepare the report and present it to the Senate, and for Senator Zakharov to present the minority report. I extend my thanks to the members of the Committee for the work they carried out. I am sure that they will be a very great acquisition to the Joint Committee when it meets to bring down its deliberations on this very complex question. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria)(12.03) —I must ask for the indulgence of the Senate. This matter was brought on at very short notice. I had not intended to speak at this stage. Nobody else on the list of speakers was in the chamber. In speaking now I am, therefore, a little disorganised. I apologise for that. I start by thanking the staff of the Select Committee on Video Material for the assistance that they gave to the Committee. It has not been an easy Committee to be on or to service because of the short time available to report and because of the fact that we were meeting right through the Christmas break. I am sure that that was a strain on the staff as well as on Committee members. I would also like to thank the people who made submissions, particularly those who made submissions of some substance, and people in the community who have gone to the trouble to dig out reference material and send it to us concerning research overseas. I have dissented from those parts of the report which make observations about the alleged unsatisfactory state of the law and from the recommendation that a moratorium be imposed on the sale or hire of X-rated video material in the Australian Capital Territory until such time as the Joint Select Committee on Video Classification is set up-in fact, it was set up last week-and brings down its report later this year. That makes it sound like a very short dissenting report. I have also-I will not have time to cover it here-considered some of the other material which is included in the majority report with the intention of backing up its recommendations. It needs to be pointed out very clearly at the outset that the Senate Select Committee was in existence for too short a period to examine all the submissions and it restricted itself almost entirely to two paragraphs only of the terms of reference. These paragraphs refer to the operation of the relevant Australian Capital Territory Ordinance and the Customs regulations. Among other terms of reference which were not explored was one which I would have thought was the most important. In fact, at various stages during the hearings I raised the point that we ought to be looking at it with some priority. That term of reference was 1 (e). It related to the likely effects on people, especially children, of exposure to violent, pornographic or otherwise obscene material. The majority report recommended a moratorium as if the Committee already knew of those effects, although its members have, presumably, read the submissions which show that the evidence is, at best, equivocal. I have had an interest in this area for some years and I have avidly read all the evidence-I say evidence, not just rhetoric-on this issue. I have not come to a conclusion either way, because I do not think the evidence is conclusive. I have dissented from those parts of the report which make observations about the alleged unsatisfactory state of the law and the recommendation that a moratorium be imposed on sale or hire. I will return later to the question of the moratorium. The present state of the law was addressed by the Committee for most of the time it was in operation. Those who complain about the present unsatisfactory state of the law should look at the law before the amendments were made last year. Those amendments put a prohibition at the Customs barrier on material depicting child pornography, bestiality, material containing detailed and gratuitous depictions in pictorial form of acts of considerable violence or cruelty or explicit and gratuitous depictions in pictorial form of sexual violence against non-consenting persons and the category of promotion or incitement of terrorism or promotion or incitement of the misuse of certain drugs. That is not only more explicit than the law in existence previously, in its statement of what the community finds objectionable and does not want to enter the country, but also it spells it out in a form which makes it easier for the law to be administered, and that is also important. Changes to the Australian Capital Territory Ordinance last year tightened up control on the display and sale of videos, which brought the law into line with the provisions already applying to print material in the States. In other words, it imposed greater restrictions than there had been in the Australian Capital Territory. There have always been problems with laws in the censorship area. There are difficulties of definition, as well as difficulties with satisfying a very large range of community attitudes. I believe there are difficulties in the present state of the law-that is, as it was amended last year. For example, both Senator Walters and I have asked witnesses on several occasions whether consent to behaviour depicted refers to the actor or the character who is the subject of the behaviour. The Attorney-General recognised those difficulties in a statement last year that changes would probably be necessary and further tuning would be needed. From memory, he said that the Senate Committee would look at those things. However, I do not believe these difficulties should be used as an excuse for a moratorium. I return to that question now. The majority report refers to the 'weight of opinion' and 'majority of the community' as part of its reasoning for justifying the moratorium. We had a very large number of submissions-the number was given in the tabling statement-but many of those submissions were pro forma letters. When I say 'pro forma', I do not mean that they were necessarily photocopied letters that people had signed, but the wording was identical in many cases. Most of those letters did not give any supporting evidence; they just stated an opinion. The Committee in its wisdom decided to accept those as submissions, but an expression of opinion does not really add much to the evidence which a select committee needs to have if it is to make a reasoned and logical judgment at the end. I have looked at various sources of material, as well as the material presented to us, and there is nothing which states the present weight of opinion or majority community view in Australia at the moment. It certainly cannot be substantiated from the material we have received. I quote briefly from my dissenting report, which puts all of that more succinctly: . . . while the fact that an 'overwhelming majority' of submissions to the Committee opposed 'X' and 'ER' indicates some concern amongst sections of the community about such material, it is not necessarily an indication of community opinion in general. The numbers are no guide whatsoever to public opinion on the subject. They merely show that a campaign playing on the fears of the uninformed can easily result in a mass write-in . . . the debate about censorship in a democracy should not, in any event, be dictated by opinion poll. In a democracy minorities also have rights, both of freedom of expression and freedom to see, hear and read what may not appeal to the majority. This issue has not been addressed in the majority report. I referred to the atmosphere at the time this Committee was set up. It was that atmosphere which led-it is hard to say what is the cause and what is the effect-to that flood of letters which, in the early stages at least, mainly put one point of view without any argument attached as to why people held that point of view. That concerned me very much. It seemed to be a regional thing. The letters I received in Victoria were from particular areas; it was not a widespread, across the board community reaction. I am sure all senators are well aware of how easy it is to go along to the meeting place of an organisation, say, give people one side of the story and ask them 'Will you write in and say that?' or, perhaps, give them forms of words to use when they make so-called submissions. The argument of what the community wants is not substantiated. If it were, I do not believe that the majority necessarily has the right to say that the individual will see, hear or read, particularly in the case of videos, in the privacy of his or her own home. In the same lead-up to the setting up of the Committee we had a most unfortunate case where a young person in the Australian Capital Territory was, to my mind, set up in what was virtually entrapment in order to prove that children under the age of 18 could obtain X-rated videos. We had some evidence from the police on that matter. From what I have seen, it reflects nothing but bad taste, to say the least, by the people who used that young person in that fashion. Yet, the same people and the same sorts of groups in the community say that they want to protect young people from pornography. It seems to me to be rather hypocritical for the same people to say that, yet they encourage the breaking of the law by someone who is not entirely responsible for his or her own actions, who is asked to do something by a parent in order to entrap. I would have been much happier if this report had not contained any recommendations, because I do not believe the Committee sat for long enough or considered enough of the terms of reference to draw any conclusions at all. I think the call for a moratorium is unfortunate. I would not usually hope that a joint committee would ignore a select committee, but in this case I hope it will because I think that this is a move which has been made in haste and perhaps, in some cases, with the wrong motives. I do not think it will be for the good of the community in the long run. I also think that there would be very great difficulties in implementing a moratorium if it were decided that that should happen. There will be an outcry from business people, for example, who will be faced with very great changes if there is a large amount of material in the X-rated category being hired. They will face very great change to their business and possibly to their patterns of employment. I do not think that we considered enough evidence to come up with any recommendations at all, and certainly not that recommendation. The last part of the report, which is a general discussion of the issues of censorship and particularly of the censorship of video material, is very useful. Those are the sorts of issues that I hope the Joint Committee will discuss before it goes into the detail of discussing submissions which might lead to action. In other words, I think that Committee members should be quite clear as to their own terms of reference, as well as the Committee's terms of reference. They should recognise that they, just like Customs officers, the Attorney-General or anyone else, cannot apply an objective test in this area. It is a subjective area. Pornography is very much in the eye of the viewer or the ear of the listener. What I regard as pornographic someone else may not; what I regard as erotic someone else may regard as hard-core pornography. Too often in this debate people suppose that they can make an objective test. Sometimes the objective test relates to an appeal to what might be called a higher authority, such as the Bible, but it must be remembered that not all people in the community accept that authority. I think that people's moral attitudes are their own business and as long as material is not demonstrably harmful, and if there is no strong evidence that it could be harmful, it should not be censored. I believe that the present regulations and ordinances cover that fairly adequately, especially with the new wording that was added last year. It is interesting that one of the arguments that were used in some of the evidence given to the Committee was that women would object. I am well known in my State as a feminist and I am a person to whom women would normally bring such matters. I have had no representations at all from women about the new regulations. Certainly, I had representations about the old regulations, but now that the wording has been changed there has been no community reaction that I know of from the women's movement. The question of uniformity has been used also as a reason for having a moratorium. Again last year-and I am relying on my memory here-there was some consultation at some length on several occasions between State Ministers and the Federal Minister about this matter in an effort to get a uniform view. Also from memory, I believe that some uniformity was arrived at in terms of looking at the law again and looking at changes in State laws to bring them into line with the Australian Capital Territory. What happened then was that the same sort of campaign was launched by certain sections of the community in the States and some politicians got cold feet and stepped back from the line they had taken at the ministerial council meetings. Fairly recently, at least in some States, there has been a move away from X-rated movies. I do not really believe that uniformity is an end in itself. I do not find any difficulty in the fact that numbers of people in Victoria travel frequently across the border to play the pokies, for example. Nor do I find it anomalous that Queensland has very different laws about what one can read and what one can sell in printed matter from the other States. That is Queensland's business. I do not think that we should say that people in the Australian Capital Territory should be deprived of something which is very likely to be of benefit to many of them. I know from my own work in the area of psychology that many people with sexual dysfunctions, for example, find it very helpful, rather than harmful, to have access to what might be called soft pornographic material. I do not think that we should jump in, even temporarily and with all the disruption that that would cause, to deprive Australian Capital Territory citizens of their right to see and hear what they wish within the laws as they are framed at present. I do not think that we have the right to impose judgments about people's values. In the present laws and the present Customs regulations we have moved to protect people from material that most people would find objectionable. I guess there is a civil libertarian argument that one should not even do that, but I do not go along with it. In the Australian Capital Territory we have certainly moved to give greater protection to minors. This did not exist before. We have heard the argument on past occasions about children who will see video material that their parents have hired. As parents, we must all take responsibility for what goes on in our own homes. I do not consider that it is responsible for a parent to leave a whisky bottle around where there are children. Similarly, I do not consider it responsible for a parent to leave an X-rated movie around, but I do not think that there is any real difference between the two cases. One could say that a parent who leaves prescription medicines around is probably far more likely to cause harm to the child than the parent who leaves an X-rated video movie around. That is in the hands of the parents and we are certainly not going to ban whisky or prescription drugs just on the supposition that children might get hold of them. I wish to make a brief comment about some evidence that came to my mind in relation to that matter. A comment was made to the Committee by the Customs officers in their submission. They said that we should tighten up on the import of videos at the Customs barrier because, after all, a video case might contain drugs. That is the most devious argument that I have heard for a long time. Anything in one's luggage might contain drugs. Are we to say to everyone: 'You can't bring in anything at all because you might have drugs secreted in it'? That is an example of some of the very wobbly arguments that we have heard on this matter. I commend my dissenting report to honourable senators. I hope that they will read it, as well as reading the majority report. Again, I apologise for the scrappiness of my delivery. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.25) —It has already been said that there have been 1,500 submissions to the Senate Select Committee on Video Material. I believe that that is a record number of submissions to a Senate committee. The one decision that the Committee came to was that the current law on this matter is in an awful mess. The Committee report states: . . . the Committee has formed the firm opinion that the current law is unsatisfactory in that it does not adequately control the importation, reproduction, sale or hire of violent, pornographic or obscene material. That really says it all; it is in a dreadful mess. The Committee made major observations to which Senator Jones has referred. The Committee noted that the overwhelming majority of written submissions opposed the availability of the X-rated category of videos. Senator Zakharov dealt with this matter. She said that those who just expressed an opinion should not be classed as having made a submission. I find it very difficult to differentiate between opinion and so-called evidence because the 'evidence' that the Committee received has not been proven in any way; it is opinion. The Committee did not get evidence proving that X-rated videos are good or bad; it was all opinion. Whether a submission contained one or two pages or 10 pages is, I believe, immaterial. It is very difficult to differentiate between rhetoric and evidence. It depends on which side one is sitting. Proven evidence was given to the Committee that children did get hold of X-rated material. I suppose that is the only evidence given to the Committee that could be proved. Senator Jones said the Committee had made three major observations. The Committee noted that the overwhelming majority of written submissions opposed the availability of the X-rated category of videos, it identified a number of serious inadequacies in Commonwealth law purporting to regulate videos and it noted the initial lack of uniformity between the Commonwealth and State laws and later decisions made in all States to ban X-rated videos. When the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, was Attorney-General he expressed a desire for uniformity. This is most desirable in our Australian way of life and under our Constitution as presently expressed. At the moment we have a situation in which X-rated videos are permitted in the Australian Capital Territory but they are not permitted for sale or hire in any State. It is also a fact that there are advertisements in newspapers in every State-certainly Tasmania-stating that if a person wants to get an X-rated video all he has to do, and it is quite legal, is to send for one from the Australian Capital Territory. That is not illegal; it does not cross the law in Tasmania that states that the sale and hire of X-rated videos in Tasmania is prohibited. It is quite legal to send for one from the Australian Capital Territory. This, of course, is going on. Therefore, the desirability of uniformity-it is one matter on which I agree with Senator Evans-is important. The Committee was told that 40 per cent of the videos that the majority of Australian Capital Territory video stores had on their shelves were there illegally. The videos were unclassified and they were not able to get them classified-this matter has also been referred to today by Senator Jones-because of the inability of the Film Censorship Board to get through its work. It does not have the facilities that are needed and it does need them in order to get its work done. Members of the Australian Federal Police told the Committee that they do not prosecute video stores in Canberra because if they attempted to they would close them all down. The Committee recognises this fact, but I wish that the Federal Police had made overtures to the Attorney-General's Department and said: 'We are unable to carry out the law of the land as you have asked us to because you are not giving the facilities to the Film Censorship Board to enable classification to take place and thus for us to carry out the law'. I believe that implementation of the re- commendations is vital. As I have already stressed, there is a need for uniformity. The Committee recommended that a moratorium be placed on the sale and hire of X-rated videos in the Australian Capital Territory and that there be uniform laws affecting X-rated videos throughout the whole of Australia in order that people be protected. It is vitally important that this be done. The Committee's recommendation that the Customs regulations be amended and brought into line is also a vital recommendation. Customs officers told the Committee that at the moment they are not even able to view videos. Videos come in and they have to be taken on their face value. Customs officers told us that they are not even allowed to open the videos and look at them. They do not know what is hidden inside the videotapes. Apart from the name put on the video, they have no idea what could possibly be included in it. Customs officers assured the Committee that they were quite sure that child pornography was depicted and drugs were included in videos but they were not allowed to investigate them. A tremendous amount of work is still to be done. The Committee accomplished a lot. As Senator Jones has said, the Committee took a considerable amount of evidence. I also thank staff of the Committee because they were faced with an enormous number of submissions and carried out their job remarkably effectively. I say to members of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material that they will have a superb staff working for them. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia)(12.28) —Firstly, I congratulate the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Video Material, Senator Jones. He did an excellent job in the short time the Committee had to consider the video material. I pay tribute to the Secretary of the Committee, Ron Wiber, and Mary Louise Willheim. The staff worked extremely hard and did a magnificent job. I support the majority recommendation of the Committee. It is absolutely essential in dealing with this type of material to have uniform laws throughout Australia. Owing to section 92 of our Constitution a person living in a State that does not have one set of regulations or laws regarding this type of material can easily transport it interstate. Uniform laws were sought and the States all agreed to ban X-rated material. The Australian Capital Territory is the only place in Australia where X-rated material is still available. The moratorium that the Committee has recommended be placed on the sale or hire of X-rated material should be instituted. I say that without prejudice. However, that does not mean to say that the Joint Select Committee on Video Material should not look further at all the ramifications of that, but in the meantime I believe that that action is essential. It is also necessary that the Film Censorship Board have extra staff and most certainly a computer in order to do its job. I picked up a videotape in a shop. It was called Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. That video was unclassified and according to the law could not be sold or hired. That is ridiculous. Hundreds of films for video and television are being held up simply because the Board does not have enough resources to do its work. I must say that the Australian Capital Territory Federal Police have done a magnificent job. I place no blame on them. It would be unfair for anyone to ask them to apply the law as it stands. If they did, they most certainly would have to close down many businesses. I believe that the video shops in the Australian Capital Territory are trying to do the right thing, to comply with the law as it should be. However, it is impossible for them to do so. That sort of situation should not exist. Laws should apply. It is unfair to ask whole sections of our community to overlook these laws. That is no way to carry on. Senator Zakharov mentioned the proposed ER-rated classification. We made no recommendation about the ER-rated classification. That does not mean to say that the Joint Committee cannot look further at it. As I said, the Senate Select Committee worked for only a very short period. There are other aspects that the Joint Committee should, and undoubtedly will, look into. That is finally up to the Committee. What we have said is without prejudice. I would like to see our recommendations go forward, certainly as an interim measure. Finally, I congratulate all members of the Committee. They all worked very hard under a lot of pressure. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.37) — I join my fellow members of the Senate Select Committee on Video Material in congratulating the Chairman, the Secretary, Mr Ron Wiber, and Mary Louise Willheim on the work they performed. We worked under somewhat difficult conditions. We received an enormous number of submissions and were working against the clock to get this report out today-the last day, under a resolution of the Senate, on which we are able to present it. As has been said, the overwhelming majority of written submissions were in favour of the banning of films in the X-rated and proposed ER-rated classifications. It has been suggested that the people who wrote those submissions are not experts. I place before the Senate the view that, in matters of morality as they impinge on public policy, everyone is an expert in a democratic society. That is the nature of a person's right to determine what is right and what is wrong. It is the right of persons to submit to a committee such as ours their views as to what should guide the considerations of a committee in respect of recommendations concerning public policy. So, in that sense, everyone is an expert and the submissions should be given due weight. The Committee made a firm recommendation that a moratorium should be placed on the sale and hire of X-rated videos in the Australian Capital Territory consistent with the resolution of the Senate on 17 October. When the Senate made that decision, each senator, in considering his or her position, came to a determination and voted accordingly. The Committee recommended upholding the Senate's decision. It did so after it had received submissions, had viewed the material which it was considering banning and had noted the inconsistencies in and inadequacies of the current law. I agree that uniformity is not overwhelming in the consideration of this matter. We made our decision having reviewed the material, having read the submissions and having looked at the state of the law-not only State law but also Commonwealth law. As we said in the report, the Commonwealth law is internally inconsistent. We also made certain observations about the fact that the law is not being enforced and about the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations. I point specifically to paragraph 4.8 of the report, which states: There is a discrepancy between the provisions of sub-regulation (1A) and the provision as described by the Attorney-General's Department. The goods described are not 'prescribed as prohibited imports'. So at present we have a ludicrous situation. A case which is described on page 41 of the report, paragraph 4.26, was brought to us by the Customs Officers Association of Australia. It was clear in that case that a person had brought into the country child pornography, yet that person could not be charged with bringing in child pornography. I said last year that the person could not be charged. I was challenged; I was told that I was wrong. Now, after all the evidence has been brought before us, it is clear to the Attorney-General's Department, to the Australian Customs Service and to everybody else that persons cannot be charged under the circumstances as described on page 41. That situation has to be rectified, and rectified very quickly. I believe that it has been said that there is a need for further enforcement of the law. The police in the Australian Capital Territory need to see this matter as a matter to which the Parliament gives high priority. I sympathise to a certain extent with the Attorney-General's Department because evidence came before us that the section of the Department which deals with this area has only three people. No wonder we get the sort of advice which emanates from the Attorney-General's Department. It is absolutely overburdened with administrative matters. When it comes to policy considerations, to dotting all the i's and crossing the t's, of course there are slip-ups. We have seen them occur as a result of the measures we have considered. The Film Censorship Board ought to be required to reflect more adequately the reasonable and responsible opinion that is widespread now within the community about the video material which the Board classifies. It ought to be required to administer the law properly. In this report one sees that it is not doing that. It needs further resources, as we have recommended, but so does the Customs Service. Customs officers brought before us certain information and suggestions as to how certain areas could be tightened up at the Customs barrier and subsequently. They should be given further consideration by the Committee and by the Government. Finally, I say that something ought to be done whereby the Film Censorship Board could classify certain R-rated films in a manner that would exclude them. Certain R-rated films do not meet the 'reasonable adult person' test because they are exploitive. It has been said that banning such material will drive it underground and lead to criminal activity. However, we received evidence that the majority of X-rated material is now under the control of the Mafia. Debate (on motion by Senator Ryan) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Ryan) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, until 2 p.m. this day, matters of public interest may be raised and discussed by senators, provided that no senator shall speak for more than 15 minutes. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(12.45) —Mr Acting Deputy President, I am really in two minds as to whether I should dignify Senator Grimes's outrageous personal attack upon me during the adjournment debate on 26 March after a short speech in which I declared that I was against the South West Africa People's Organisation having been allowed to set up in Australia and particularly to solicit funds, but I decided that I should just briefly answer some of the things that he said. I will not go into it fully again but my attack upon SWAPO and the Government was not a personal attack. However Senator Grimes, in a way that I think has become well known in this Senate, made a personal attack upon me and in that attack he was dishonest. His statements about me were incorrect and had he read my speech earlier that day concerning South Africa he would have in no way said that I was an apologist for the South African Government. I have been to South Africa, that is true. I paid my own fare and, in fact, on one occasion I met a Labor senator in a hotel in South Africa. If Senator Grimes wants to know the date of that trip I can advise him accurately by showing him the date on my hotel receipt and my American Express bill for that hotel account. So much for the accuracy of his attack. I have been the guest of several governments for short periods-I believe many people in this chamber have likewise been so entertained-and I do not hide that fact. Nor do I feel that it is an unusual part of political life. I also make no apologies for it and the fact that Senator Grimes knew that he was not telling the truth was reflected by the fact that following his statement he refused me leave to answer his vicious and dishonest charges. I refute the charges made by him and suggest that if he wants this Senate to run smoothly he will temper his tongue and at least keep himself to the facts. Another matter concerning SWAPO has come to my notice. At 10.30 this morning Senator Jessop and I attended at one of the Senate committee rooms in Parliament House. As we approached the Senate committee room we saw that the board that indicates what is going on in particular rooms had on it 'Press Conference-Mr Tickner'. In fact that room was set up for this self-professed terrorist group to have a Press conference. Mr Tickner did not introduce the two representatives of SWAPO who were in that room, and I regard this use of Parliament House by people who could well be a security risk as a most serious situation indeed. I am informed that the honourable member for Hindmarsh, Mr Scott, who did introduce these two people, when a union secretary prior to becoming a member of parliament, publicly stated that he was as near to being a communist as the Labor Party would allow. Mr Tickner certainly did not speak either at the beginning of that Press conference or at any time during the 30 minutes that I attended it. It was just a set-up for SWAPO people to make statements within this building. Senator Lewis —From the national Parliament, in Canberra. Senator TOWNLEY —It gave the SWAPO people status that they in no way deserve. Let me tell honourable senators who is supposed to use those rooms. Visiting Premiers are allowed to use them, provided they are at a Premiers Conference. They cannot just happen to be here and have a Press conference in Parliament House. Foreign dignitaries who have been entertained in Parliament House may make Press statements from Parliament House facilities when they are on an official visit. Not even State members of parliament are allowed to use the facilities of this building for Press conferences. As I see it, this incident has put the President, the Speaker and certainly the Black Rod and his staff who had to make the booking for the room, in a very difficult position. I believe this action is unacceptable to this Parliament. As I have said, it gives the people who come in here a status they do not deserve. It also presents a security risk. I would like to know what kind of security check was run on these people before they came in. I ask again: What is this country coming to when the Government allows groups such as this to open offices and then allows them into this Parliament House and gives them a status to which they are not entitled in any way whatsoever? I have listed the people whom I believe are allowed to use Parliament House rooms for Press conferences. I believe that is quite clear, and I believe it was known to Mr Tickner when he booked that room. This matter deserves some comment and it is to be hoped that during Question Time the President will have an opportunity to make a statement on this matter. It is serious. I would suggest, too, that whilst it is very difficult to take any action against Mr Tickner for doing what he did it certainly is not difficult for this Parliament to take action against any members of the Press who attend and report upon a Press conference that should not be held in this building. I suggest that any members of the Press who attend a conference that is outside the guidelines, outside the rules that are laid down and well known, should be banned from this House. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(12.52) —I take up two points that Senator Townley raised. The first is the matter of the Press conference apparently held here for the South West Africa People's Organisation and I accept, if the facts are as Senator Townley gave them, that that conference may certainly have been outside the guidelines for the use of Parliament House. I am sure that if Mr Tickner did that he did it in ignorance, as a relatively new member, but I am certainly willing to take that matter up with the Presiding Officers. I must say that the suggestion that members of the Press should in some way be censured or reprimanded or have their privileges taken away because they went to such a Press conference is extending it a bit far. The second matter concerns the general comments that Senator Townley made about me and about Mr Tickner. Senator Townley —On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: Is the Minister on the speakers list for this hour and a quarter that is devoted to the members of the House? Senator GRIMES —I was the only one who rose, and I got the call. I am just going to make some comments; I am not going to attack Senator Townley or do anything like that. I suggest-gently-that the comments Senator Townley made about me and about Mr Tickner, and I suppose the comments in general that he made about the Government and SWAPO, hardly come under the description of non-controversial debate for which this time is supposed to be set aside. Senator Reid —I take a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. This is not a time for non-controversial debate. It is a time when we agree that there will be no quorums or divisions. It is debate in lieu of first reading debates, which may be controversial. If the Minister insists on this period being non-controversial then we will have no choice but to restore debates on the first reading of money Bills. We have given up those debates on the agreement that we can use this time for such debate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! No standing order applies to this situation; it is a private arrangement. I cannot deal with private arrangements; I can deal only with Standing Orders. Senator GRIMES —I accept that, Mr Acting Deputy President, but you have in front of you at the moment a speakers list and on the top of that speakers list, which was produced by both sides of the House, are the words 'non-controversial debate'. Of course it is just an agreement between both sides of this House, but this place cannot work without there being agreements. I do not care whether or not we have non-controversial debate or not during lunch time; it does not worry me in the least. I am quite happy for there to be controversial debate but up until now that has not been the agreement. I know Senator Townley under normal circumstances does not take much notice of agreements and I do not care if there is no agreement. I do not care if there is controversial debate; I will be the first one to become involved in it. I quite enjoy controversial debate and, frankly, the way the Senate has been going in the last few weeks we could do with some controversial debate. The only problem is that people like Senator Townley get up and dish it out but when someone on this side gets up and gives them a bit back they bleat and want to make personal explanations and have another go. Honourable senators do not find me asking to have withdrawn anything said about me and they do not find me making personal explanations, except on very rare occasions about matters of fact. I do not bleat about it. I am perfectly happy to take it but, as I have frequently told honourable senators opposite, I am perfectly happy to dish it out. People come in here and make statements such as the one Senator Townley made the other night, but when they get some back they want to get up at half past eleven at night, or whatever it was- Senator Townley —Seven past eleven. Senator GRIMES —Seven past eleven, if that was the exact time, and cry about what has been said about them. As far as I am concerned they will not get leave at that time of night. Then they come in the next day and, in a childish, schoolboy-like way, say: 'Senator Grimes was unkind to me last night, I am going to call quorums all day'. That is pathetic behaviour, and absolutely typical. Senator Townley —You can believe it. You will see a bit more of it then. You will see the rules of this House. Senator GRIMES —There it is. We have heard it from Senator Townley now. Senator Townley is saying: 'If I do not like what Senator Grimes says I will come in the next day and punish everyone by calling quorums all day'. This is not a schoolboy debating society or a Sunday school picnic; it is a House of Parliament. If honourable senators dish it out they will get it back. If they want to play silly games I do not mind; it is no skin off my nose. I will certainly be in any controversial debate they start up. Senator Peter Rae —On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: The Minister repeated the statement that this was intended to be non-controversial debate; the agreement was that it be non-controversial. It is my understanding that at the first Whips meeting of this session the matter was discussed and it was reconfirmed that it was never properly titled a time for non-controversial debate. The Opposition Deputy Whip said that the debate had been wrongly called non-controversial, but in fact it was in lieu of first reading debates on money Bills. I believe that for the Minister to have gone on and asserted, in the face of what the Deputy Opposition Whip said, that it was a time for non-controversial debate, was in effect to call her untruthful. I rise simply to make the point that an error was made in the title of the speakers list; the arrangement is that during this period quorums will not be called, divisions will not be called and speakers may speak on matters on which they would otherwise have spoken during debate on the first reading of a money Bill. I therefore think that the Minister owes Senator Reid an apology for accusing her of misleading the chamber. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. There is before me a speakers list. No Chairman, President or Acting Deputy President can rule on private agreements, nor would we want to. We can only apply Standing Orders. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(1.00) —Time for this discussion is very short, but I am speaking in the lunch time debate today because of the Government's rejection of the invitation from the United States of America to participate in the research program for the strategic defence initiative. This rejection has greatly compromised the peace and security of Australia and that is why I am taking a few minutes of the Senate's time today. I do no wish to go in detail into the technology of the strategic defence initiative but rather I want to reduce the argument to its bare bones and argue the case for supporting the strategic defence initiative. Australia has been put in a position of great difficulty by this intemperate action of rejecting the United States invitation, an action taken purely to appease factions in the Australian Labor Party. It is an action which, as I said, flies directly in the face of Australia's essential interests-the peace and security of the nation. The Government is supporting a patently immoral argument. It is also supporting a technically incorrect argument. I go back to what the present state of affairs is in the world with respect to keeping the peace. For over 40 years we have lived in a nuclear age and a nuclear age with nuclear weapons has two characteristics. First of all those weapons have a destructive power which far exceeds that of any previous armaments. The second great characteristic of the nuclear age is that the time of engagement is very short. In any nuclear action involving the world we would probably be looking at wars lasting a matter of hours, as opposed to many years in bygone times. Those facts have forced a new doctrine on the defence forces of the great powers, and that doctrine is not to be able to win wars but to be able to prevent them. In a nuclear age war is unthinkable as well as being unwinnable; so the defence forces of the major powers have turned to the business of preventing war. Despite the great difficulties and tensions that have arisen from time to time over the past 40 years, the peace has been kept. At present the peace is being kept under the doctrine of mutually assured destruction. That means that we have a superfluous number of nuclear weapons, far more than we need to do the task required-that is, deterring aggression between the super-powers. Those weapons are held in such a way that if there is a surprise attack there will be enough residual weapons to strike a crippling blow at the nation that started the war. To the present that is the best system, technologically, that we have been able to come up with. It is one we have lived with, it is one of very great expense and it is one of high risk but overall it is one that has been successful. There are some very unfortunate consequences of this system. First of all it has led to the arms race and very clearly if we keep living under the doctrine of mutually assured destruction we will become locked into an ever-increasing arms race as each side strives to obtain bigger, better and more weapons to deliver its nuclear load. It is also a system that is very difficult to manage. It has been managed successfully up to the present, but I do not need to draw attention to the very great risks that are involved. Two years ago, on the advice of the American scientific community, the American President proposed a radically new approach to keeping the peace-the strategic defence initiative, which is called in the popular Press 'Star Wars'. I do not like that term because this initiative has no relevance to stars in any way at all. The fundamental difference between the strategic defence initiative and the system we are using at present is that the President, instead of saying to an aggressor 'If you attack us in our dying days we will destroy you and every other nation in the world and the population will be eliminated; such will be the terrible consequences of our actions but if you want to go ahead and attack us, that is fine-that is the price you and the world will have to pay', is now saying that we ought to research a system which offers the opportunity to knock down missiles shortly after they are launched, while they are in flight or before they hit their target-and to knock them down by non-nuclear means. The advantages of that are enormous. It is a fail-safe system. It means that the use of nuclear weapons is not required, so we save all the terrible consequences for mankind of radiation and fall-out. Most of the inter-continental ballistic missiles destroyed under the strategic defence initiative will be destroyed in space where the fall-out will not hurt anyone. While it is undesirable to be detonating nuclear weapons in space it is certainly a damned sight better than detonating them on the surface of the earth. Conceptually, instead of relying on an offensive capability whereby a country not only can operate against another country that might attack it but also therefore it has the capacity to attack any other country it takes a disliking to, the strategic defence initiative provides for a purely defensive capability. In other words the powers that will be developed and the resources and capabilities of the strategic defence initiative have no way of threatening anyone at all. They cannot be launched against another country; they can only be launched against other missiles. That leads me to the moral side of this matter. If any party can parade its morality from one end of the country to the other, it is the Australian Labor Party. Its whole raison d'etre turns on the great moral issues of the time, such as social welfare, social equity, international equity and all those things. Here we have an opportunity to put its morality to the test in the forums of the world. It has the chance to support what is the morally correct stance but it is taking the Soviet point of view, going in the face of reason and morality. Rather than taking the present situation and saying 'If you attack me, I will kill you and in so doing destroy the whole earth', saying 'If you attack me I will destroy your weapons system and leave you defenceless' is a far more ethical and moral position to adopt. Furthermore, if we do not go down this path of taking the alternatives that may be provided-I say 'may' because no one knows yet whether the strategic defence initiative can be made to work; the President is asking for the opportunity to see whether it can be-we will remain under this doctrine of mutually assured destruction and we know very well that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has not been inhibited with its own version of a strategic defence initiative. We know very well from our own intelligence reports that it is considerably ahead of the Americans at present and if we do nothing we run the very great risk of having the Russians develop a system of their own which will completely neutralise the first or second strike capability of the United States and make the United States impotent. That leads me to the second moral point. By denying support to the United States and not being part of this development the Government is in the immoral position of not looking after the best interests of its own population. It is putting our population as well as the other populations of the Western alliance at risk by not supporting a move which at least will maintain parity and at best give an advantage to the Western societies. All that the United States has offered us is the opportunity to participate in the research program. But not only has that been rejected by this Labor Government, it has also gone public to say it is opposed to the strategic defence initiative. I have no doubt at all that the great majority of Australians recognise that Australia cannot live under the United States nuclear umbrella as it has for the last 40 years and yet take the line of failing to support it. That leads me to the final immorality of the Government's case. There is no way Australia can stand up and say to the world that it is happy to live in peace and luxury under the United States nuclear umbrella but lacks the moral conviction to stand beside America and work for the retention of that system. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(1.11) —I wish to raise in the Senate today the employment of salaried medical practitioners in the health care centres of the Australian Capital Territory. I wish to make it clear right at the outset that I am not attacking or being critical of the Australian Capital Territory community health program. That has already received a big enough serve in the report of the Review of Welfare Services and Policies in the Australian Capital Territory, a committee chaired by Tony Vinson. I also make it clear that I am not talking about other services provided in the Territory, such as infant welfare centres, nurses and aged-care facilities. I am talking specifically about salaried medical practitioners. There are registered in the Australian Capital Territory at present 839 general medical practitioners. That is the Department of Health figure for March 1984. I understand that some of them are in full time private practice, some of them are working part time, some are working for salaries or as locums and some of course are employed in health care centres. Currently in the Australian Capital Territory there are eight health care centres with 14 full time salaried doctors and two part time. In addition there are currently four unoccupied positions for salaried medical officers. During the year 1983-84, according to records provided by the Australian Capital Territory Health Commission, salaried doctors at these centres saw an average of between 13 and 15 patients a day, but figures varied significantly between centres and between doctors. There is a case recorded of one doctor seeing only one patient in a day. On the other hand records show that one doctor saw as many as 32 patients in a day. I have checked out these figures with some private medical practitioners in the Australian Capital Territory and they have told me that on average they see around 30 to 34 patients a day. In the Australian Capital Territory health care centres the low number of patient appointments by some of these salaried doctors is bringing down the average so that, as I say, the average for 1983-84 was between 13 and 15 patients. With 15 patients a day at 85 per cent of the $15 patient fee-because the patients would be bulk billed it would only be 85 per cent of that fee-the average income earned by salaried doctors would be $190 a day. As I will show in a few minutes, the actual cost to the taxpayers of the country of each of these doctors is in the vicinity of $600 a day, so each of these doctors is costing the taxpayers about $400 a day. One could understand the provision of salaried doctors in remote localities which are unable to attract general practitioners but with 839 GPs in the Australian Capital Territory I can assure you, Mr Deputy President, that this area is well served by doctors. Not only that but the facilities for getting around the Territory, either by private vehicle on the beautiful roads or by the ACTION bus service, are such that there is no reason why a patient cannot get to see any doctor in any part of the Territory. One wonders why there is a need to employ salaried doctors. Let us have a look at these salaried doctors. Their salary is about $45,000 to $50,000 a year. I think when they first start it would be $45,000 but most of them have been with the Commission for some time so their salaries have risen by increments to about $50,000 or a bit more. In addition to that they get a car plus petrol and servicing of that car. It is not a large car, it is not a great big eight-cylinder car or anything like that; I understand that most of them are four- or six-cylinder cars. I have checked up with a motoring association and have ascertained that the average costs are about $5,000 for a four-cylinder two-litre car and $6,300 for a six-cylinder car. In addition, they have paid the telephone rental for their home telephone-of course the telephone at the health care centre is provided totally free of charge-and they get an allowance for half of the calls from their home telephone. Doctors get five weeks annual holiday, with of course the usual loading of 17 1/2 per cent paid in Australia, but in addition they get each year two weeks study leave and I think a travel allowance to enable them to go to any seminar being held anywhere in connection with any aspect of their work which they might consider to be relevant. Of course, they get sick leave and after they have been working with the service for six years they are entitled to six months sabbatical leave in addition to their two weeks annual sabbatical leave. After they have been there 10 years they are, like other employees in the country, entitled to three months long service leave. They are also provided with a receptionist at the health care centre and typing facilities. If a doctor were in private practice he would probably be paying in the vicinity of $20,000 a year for a receptionist-typist. In addition they are provided with a nurse. A nurse in private practice would also cost about $20,000 a year. They are also provided with a locum; if they are away for any length of time a locum is provided free of cost. Altogether, Mr Deputy President, I suggest that it would not be unreasonable to say that they would each be costing the community about $100,000 a year. The system provides no incentive to the dedicated doctor. If the doctor who is seeing 32 patients a day realises that a colleague is seeing two patients a day, what incentive is there for him to continue to try to provide the best sort of service? It is not cost effective. It is interesting that each doctor is costing the community about $100,000 a year and yet any GP who earns $80,000 to $100,000 a year is very severely criticised by the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett. When the people of the Australian Capital Territory get self-government-which, according to something the Minister for Territories, Mr Scholes, said on the radio a couple of days ago, will be about the middle of next year-they, rather than the taxpayers of the nation, will be burdened with these costs. So it is not unreasonable to be looking very closely at these fees and the cost effectiveness of the service. I also add that the Capital Territory Health Commission advertises these services as being provided as follows: 'Under Medicare our public hospitals will offer free inpatient and outpatient treatment and salaried doctors at health centres will provide services at no cost to you as they will bulk bill Medicare'. Of course they are not the only ones who bulk bill Medicare but that is advertised to encourage people to come to these doctors-I might say without a great deal of success, as I shall show. Apparently this has fallen out of favour because patient numbers have fallen from the peak in 1980-I am sorry to say that that was in the Fraser years-of 73,621 down to 55,915 patient visits in 1984. That is a clear indication of substantial falling off in doctors' services; yet it is understood that plans are underway to build another health care centre at Chisholm, at a cost of about $1m, and to put in centres at Belconnen-a very substantial shopping area in the Australian Capital Territory where private facilities could be and are provided-Tuggeranong, Dickson and Kambah. I have the same comments about those centres. Let me provide the Senate with some figures which indicate the nature of the services being provided by these doctors. These figures came from the Melba health centre between October 1983 and May 1984. I have blanked out the names of the doctors because I do not want to make personal attacks under the privilege of Parliament. I refer to the month of October 1983 for Dr E. The figures show these sorts of patient attendances: Eight one day, two another, five another and then four, six, four and eight-a total of 214 patient attendances in that month. In November he saw 221 patients and in the month of December he saw 140 patients. Calculated on the figures that I indicated before-85 per cent of $15 per patient attendance-in effect that doctor earned, or recovered, $7,350 for the quarter-a total of $29,400 for the year. So in effect that doctor's rate of earning was running at $30,000 per annum. Of course his salary is $50,000 a year and he is costing the community $100,000 a year. If his accounting system were working he would be recovering $30,000 a year. I understand there is very little incentive for their accounting systems to work. In January he had five days on which he saw one patient for the whole day, then four patients for the whole day, two patients for the whole day, five patients for the whole day and four patients for the whole day. It got even worse in January 1984. So it goes on. On 3 February 1984 again he managed to see only one patient for the whole day. Mr Deputy President, the doctors have failed in their goals. They are supposed to be providing preventive medicine and health education but I understand that they are just treating patients like normal doctors-the patient comes in, sees the doctor, gets a prescription and leaves again. No medical education is provided; there is no incentive for performance. There is an absolute lack of leadership, as indicated in the Vinson report, and altogether the provision of this service in the Australian Capital Territory is a disaster. Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to table these papers. Leave granted. Senator LEWIS —I seem to have run out of time. I have a lot more to say about this subject but no doubt I will have to bring it up on another occasion. Sitting suspended from 1.26 to 2 p.m. Senator MacGIBBON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. How many Ministers of the present Government have taken legal action against any government department or statutory authority? Senator GARETH EVANS —I ask the honourable senator to put that question on notice. Senator ROBERT RAY —Does the Minister representing the Special Minister of State recall the Queensland Premier being highly critical of the Federal Government when it supported an increase in the size of the House of Representatives? Is it a fact that the House of Representatives has increased in size by only 18 per cent since 1949 compared with a 24 per cent increase in the size of the Queensland Parliament in the same period? Has the Minister noted the intention of the Queensland Premier to increase the size of the Queensland Parliament by a further seven seats? Does this increase indicate that the Queensland Premier has changed his mind? If not, can the Minister lay to rest rumours that the Premier has double standards bordering on hypocrisy? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have noted the matters raised by Senator Ray. As usual, I am confident in his figures and I am sure that the statistics and the percentages he has mentioned are perfectly accurate. I am inclined to agree with his final assertion that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Queensland Premier has changed his capacity for the most extraordinary and vulgar double standards when it comes to matters of principle. Senator ARCHER —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. On what date did the dairy industry's national marketing plan of 28 February go before Cabinet? What significant differences were there between that proposal and the earlier submissions produced in 1984 which failed to gain approval from the then Victorian Minister? Senator WALSH —I will not tell Senator Archer on what date any particular proposal goes to Cabinet. He has no right to demand such information. I will tell him, though, the essential difference between the two programs. The policy adopted by the Government is one which will redress the industry's problem in the long term, the problem being that its low average prices are directly attributable to the fact that close to one-quarter of its total production is being dumped on export markets at farm gate equivalent prices of about 6c a litre. I gather that Senator Archer supports the other proposal, and I would be very interested to know whether the economic rationalists of the Liberal Party of Australia also support it. We know, of course, that Senator Archer is not an economic rationalist; indeed, he could be fairly described as an economic irrationalist. The difference between the two proposals is that this Government's policy will redress the industry's long term problems through structural change and the other proposal will not. The other proposal also entailed very steep increases in domestic prices which would have boosted the consumer price index by 0.16 per cent. Perhaps that is the real reason that the Opposition is supporting that proposal. Perhaps its real objective is the sabotage of the Australian economy through trying to get the rate of inflation up to the rates that prevailed when it was in government, that is, to get the present rate of inflation of around 5 per cent that this Government has achieved back into double figures as it was when the Opposition was in government. Senator ARCHER —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask the Minister to read the question I asked when he gets a chance and answer what I asked him. The PRESIDENT —Order! That is not a supplementary question. Senator BOLKUS —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, concerns an article in today's National Times on the use of United States of America bases within Australia, especially the Pine Gap base. Have such facilities, especially the one at Pine Gap, been deployed or are they proposed by any country to be deployed for the purpose of monitoring and/or intercepting communications with Greece or communications related to Greece in any way? Is it also a fact-- Senator Jessop —I wouldn't worry about that too much. Senator BOLKUS —The honourable senator does not worry about anything too much. Is it also a fact that one reason for this action is United States concern at the direction of the Greek Government? In view of the fact that the United States has a history of intervention in Greece and that this proposal runs counter to the policy of the Australian Government as to the use of such bases, can the Minister give an assurance that the bases will not be used in this way? Senator BUTTON —The Government is neither in the habit of commenting nor is it in a position to comment on all sorts of speculation or assertions about the joint facilities at Pine Gap or Nurrungar beyond the Prime Minister's statement to Parliament on 6 June last year. In that statement the Prime Minister said that the joint facilities at Pine Gap and Nurrungar contribute to arms control verification and early warning as well as to effective deterrence. That is the position which the Government adopts. I say by way of observation that, if the United States Government were concerned at the direction of the Greek Government, I have no doubt that it would deploy a wide range of other means of intercepting communications which are totally unrelated to facilities in Australia. Senator MASON —My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, concerns the Government's intentions towards inclusion in the Kakadu National Park of two major areas comprising the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases which together are comparable in size with the whole of the present park and which are of major conservational and cultural interest. Does the Minister recall, firstly, the recommendation in the 1977 Ranger environmental inquiry that the whole of the South Alligator River catchment area, which includes those two pastoral leases, be added to the park; secondly, the World Heritage Committee's support for that concept; and, thirdly, the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette No. G10 dated 13 March 1984, in which the Government gave notice of intent to submit a report recommending declaration of Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases as part of the Kakadu National Park? As the receipt of submissions from interested parties was completed in the first half of last year and all that is now required is for the announcement to be gazetted and for the Governor-General to give his approval, I ask the Minister: What is the reason for this inordinate delay? When will the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases be gazetted as part of the Kakadu National Park? Senator RYAN —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment advises that he is aware of the various reports referred to by Senator Mason in his question that recommended and supported the inclusion of the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases as part of the Kakadu National Park. Honourable senators will be aware that the Governor-General announced in his address to Parliament that this Government will be extending the boundaries of the Kakadu National Park. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, Mr Cohen, has the recommendations before him at present and will be making an announcement on the matter in the near future. Senator ELSTOB —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy, concerns the nuclear energy industry. Is there in existence an international emergency system whereby, in the case of an impending nuclear disaster, expert resources are immediately available? If such a system is not currently available will the Government consider placing this concept before the International Atomic Energy Agency? Senator GARETH EVANS —Following the accident at Three Mile Island in the United States of America in 1979 there has been a worldwide reassessment of nuclear safety activities including emergency planning and preparedness. Safety at nuclear installations is primarily the responsibility of individual countries, although the International Atomic Energy Agency maintains a program in support of the safe utilisation of nuclear energy. The IAEA's principal role is to assist nuclear safety authorities in member states in the development and improvement of their emergency planning and preparedness capabilities. This includes such things as sending specialist assistance missions to member states on request to assist in developing, improving and testing their emergency plans; preparing guidance documents to assist member states in their response to radiation accidents and emergencies; and providing inter-regional training courses on planning, preparedness and response to emergencies. In addition, the IAEA has established a system to facilitate emergency assistance to member states in the event of a radiation accident. These are the kinds of precautions that are being set in train on an international basis. It should perhaps be noted as a footnote that in an IAEA Press release, dated 6 March 1985, it was noted that nuclear power reactors world wide have now accumulated more than 3,500 operating years of experience with still no accident having significant harmful effects on the public. Senator PARER —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. In his opening address to the Bureau of Mineral Resources Petroleum and Mineral Review Conference on 20 March, the Minister said he would: . . . encourage the efficient development of Australia's resources in response to the demands of both domestic and international markets, but at the same time ensure there is a fair sharing of the benefits of this development. Did the Minister mean that any new development of resources, if successful, would attract imposts over and above those applicable to other industries? If he did, what additional charges does he have in mind? Senator GARETH EVANS —I had nothing more in mind in making that statement than has been the policy of successive governments, namely, to ensure that in resource developments an appropriate price is paid by the developers to reflect the interest that the community as a whole has in the depletion of natural resources. There are many different ways in which tax regimes are applied in order to ensure that the community gets an appropriate share of the economic rent. The tax regime favoured by this Government, and which we are seeking to put in place at least so far as new off-shore oil projects are concerned, is the tax regime in the nature of a resource rent tax based on profitability rather than production. There are other tax regimes in place as far as crude oil excise, petroleum excise and so on are concerned, plus the various mineral royalties which are primarily levied by the States. I was not seeking in any way to flag any new impost on the resources and energy industry, only to identify the kinds of objectives, which, among others, have been common to this Government and its predecessors. Senator DEVLIN —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation aware of the extraordinary events that occurred in the Tasmanian Parliament yesterday, when the Gray Government moved a censure motion against the Prime Minister over the decision of the Federal Government not to fund upgrading of the Wynyard Airport beyond its original offer of $1.2m? Is the Minister aware that the motion lapsed because the Gray Government, the government which moved the motion, did not support it? In the light of these events, does the Minister believe that Mr Gray was serious in his desire to have the airport upgraded? Senator GIETZELT —I am aware that some unusual events have taken place in the Tasmanian Parliament. Senator Grimes —It is a very unusual parliament. Senator GIETZELT —Yes, it is. One wonders exactly what is at the back of the Premier's actions in respect of the proposal that the Wynyard Airport be substantially upgraded. The Commonwealth Government offered to provide $1.2m towards the upgrading of the airport. An additional $6m would be required if the airport were to reach the standard required by the Tasmanian Government. In December 1984, the Prime Minister made an offer to the Tasmanian Premier that the Commonwealth would be prepared to fund the proposal jointly. However, at the end of January, the Premier, Mr Gray, had not responded to the Government's initiative. That amount was in addition to the $1.2m that had already been agreed to. As there was no response, the Federal Government reconsidered the problem, knowing the views of the people in that region of Tasmania, and decided that it would allow the Tasmanian Government to allocate for that purpose some of the funds it had received for the Gordon below Franklin Dam not going ahead. That overall allocation had been generally agreed in 1983. I imagine that Mr Gray appreciates that the Australian Government's attitude to this matter has been fair and reasonable and that the problems associated with the upgrading of the Wynyard Airport fall squarely on the Tasmanian Government, which has not responded. There is a degree of inertia in that State. Whilst sections of the Government sought to censure the Prime Minister and the Federal Government on this matter, they considered the matter and found in all fairness that they could not support the censure motion. Of course, it lapsed accordingly. I assure Senator Devlin that in no way is the Commonwealth Government culpable in this area; the ball is in the court of Mr Gray. Senator BROWNHILL —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Will the Prime Minister or the Minister for Primary Industry make a statement to Parliament on the outcome of their European Economic Community negotiations in Brussels last month? If not, why not? Senator WALSH —I do not know whether they will or not. I cannot answer a question of that type on their behalf, but I will ask them. Senator SIBRAA —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs would be aware of the current dispute between specialists in public hospitals and the New South Wales Government. Is the dispute causing any disruption to services in the Repatriation General Hospital at Concord? Have the costs of the Department of Veterans' Affairs increased because of this dispute? Senator GIETZELT —The Repatriation Hospital at Concord is very heavily taxed because it performs a function not only for repatriation beneficiaries but also for a large number of community patients from that region in accordance with the overall policy which has continued for many years. We are all aware that patients have been disadvantaged by the medical specialists' dispute in New South Wales. Obviously, when there are extra pressures on the State public hospital system, patients avail themselves of the opportunity to go into the repatriation hospital system. They have done just that. On the other side of the coin, many hundreds of thousands of veterans eligible for treatment of their ailments and disabilities who cannot be accommodated in the repatriation system are normally treated as private patients in the State public system. The doctors' dispute means that they are not able to be treated in the State hospital system. In each of the respective States, in this case New South Wales, the Deputy Commissioner has the authority to admit a select number of eligible beneficiaries into private hospitals because of their state of health. We are dealing with aged persons and persons with many disabilities. These decisions are based on departmental advice that early treatment is absolutely essential and necessary. In the three months of this year, 152 such operations have taken place in the private hospital system at a cost of $211,000. This means that the Department has paid something in excess of $112,000 more than it would have paid if those patients had been able to be accommodated in the State hospital system. Not only are patients paying a heavy price for the dispute that is taking place between medical specialists and the New South Wales Government, the taxpayer is also. Senator PETER BAUME —My question is directed to the Minister for Education. Is there any plan or intention to alter the structure or functions of the Commonwealth Schools Commission in any way? Specifically, is there any plan to transfer any implementation function of the Commission to the Department of Education, together with large numbers of staff? What effect would this have on the Commonwealth Schools Commission? Senator RYAN —I am not prepared to give a detailed answer to Senator Baume's question. It is certainly the case that I am looking at possible improvements and rationalisations of the resources available to the portfolio and that eventually, I believe, this will involve some changes to the Schools Commission. I would say that the purpose of making any such changes would be to enhance the capacity of the Schools Commission to act as a policy advisory body and a body that carries out extensive consultations with the education community, because I believe in both of those respects-in respect of policy formulation and advice and in respect of extensive consultation-in recent years the Commission has been hampered by having a very heavy and growing burden of administration of policies that have already been decided. Therefore, I hope that shortly I will be able to decide on some changes which will restore to the Schools Commission the very important role that it had in its early days when it was seen as the major source of education policy advice for all matters affecting schools throughout Australia. When I have finalised arrangements I will certainly be pleased to tell Senator Baume and everyone else what they are. Senator CHILDS —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and refer him to a report in the West Australian on Friday, 15 March, which claimed that Indonesia had officially protested to Australia because of its vote on an East Timor resolution at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. Can the Minister confirm the reported Indonesian protest? What was the United Nations Human Rights Commission resolution? What was the outcome of the vote on the resolution? What is the significance of that vote for future consideration of East Timor by the Human Rights Commission? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Australian Government has noted that details of the consideration of the human rights situation in East Timor by the Commission on Human Rights during its recent forty-first session have appeared now in several newspapers, I think commencing with Indonesian reports. Those reports did contain substantial comment on the position taken by the Australian delegation. The situation is this: Consideration took place in closed session and, pursuant to the confidential procedures of the Commission to preserve the effectiveness of these procedures and the co-operation of states with them, members of the Commission undertake not to disclose details of closed debate or decisions. The Australian Government regards these confidential procedures as a useful mechanism for constructive dialogue in human rights and remains committed to their protection. As a member of the Commission on Human Rights, Australia did take part actively in the consideration of human rights issues in a number of countries. A working group of the Commission recommended that the human rights situation in East Timor be kept under review but with a view to being able to terminate such consideration at next year's session. Australia voted for this re- commendation, which was, however, defeated. Australia's vote was decided in the context of our concern for human rights, including the need for proper international access to East Timor and on the basis of our best considered assessment of the situation. It was the first time that the Australian Labor Party Government had registered a vote on Timor in the Human Rights Commission. Therefore, it cannot be said, as some Indonesian Press reports have alleged, that the Government has reversed its position. Australia's last vote in the Commission against a resolution on East Timor was cast under the previous Government. Our vote at the forty-first session of the Commission has no relevance to our position on the broad political issue in the General Assembly. I add a couple of points: The Australian Government follows the situation in East Timor closely and has raised its concerns, including those on human rights, with the Indonesian authorities on many occasions. Those concerns, I can testify personally, are well understood. In any debate on the East Timor situation, the Australian delegation does seek to play a constructive role which effectively registers the Government's policies and concerns in the human rights area, specifically with regard to the East Timorese people. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance. Do Australian Bureau of Statistics figures for wine sales, cited by Senator Walsh in answer to a question asked by Senator Cook yesterday, cover only litreage sold by very large wineries with sales over a quarter of a million litres per month? Does this partial survey exclude smaller wineries and are those not the sufferers of the introduction of the 10 per cent sales tax, as predicted by Liberal Senators Jessop, Teague, Hill and Messner? Have not sales been artificially boosted for bulk wine by price cutting and marketing practices of larger wine makers in a bid to rationalise inventories in anticipation of a fall in sales later on, exactly as predicted by Senators Teague, Hill, Jessop and Messner? Is this not confirmed by the collapse in growth of rates of sales, as shown by the partial figures, since the August Budget? Finally, has not the growth in sales of Australian wine been severely restricted by the growth in imported wine-an increase of some 30 per cent-as a distinct result of the double whammy of the sales tax and the decrease in protection? Senator WALSH —Regarding the last point, there has been a significant increase in imported wine. In spite of that sales are growing at a faster rate than they had been growing in the previous year. I have noted Senator Messner's attempted revision of history. Whereas he and all his colleagues were asserting nine or 10 months ago, whenever it was, that there would be a 14 per cent-not 10 per cent, as he now claims-decline in sales because of a 10 per cent sales tax, they are now trying to stick that on to a couple of tin pot small wineries and say: 'We were only talking about them and not about the industry as a whole'. As to the figures which I cited yesterday and at some earlier time, I do not know whether all wine sales were included, but the overwhelming majority-this is subject to check, but it is at least 95 per cent-were included. The same wineries were measured this year as were measured in the previous year. If one wants to test the effect of the sales tax on sales, one has to look at the year on year comparison measurements of the same thing. What that shows is that for the month of January this year sales were 5 per cent higher than they were for the month of January in the previous year. That rate of growth exceeds the rate of growth in the year 1983-84 on 1982-83, the last full year before the sales tax was imposed. For the three months ended December 1984 the rate of growth exceeded the rate of growth in December 1983 by a higher margin than 1983-84 sales exceeded 1982-83 sales. Senator Messner asked whether sales had been kept up by price cutting. Price cutting is probably going on. It is not new. It has been going on for as long as I have taken an interest in wine. This is one of the important factors when considering the effect of a quite small impost on total sales. At any time, I venture to suggest, in any reasonable sized city it is possible to go from one grog shop to another and find price variations greater than 10 per cent, even at the retail level, for exactly the same wine. That is another way of demonstrating the relative insignificance of a wholesale tax of 10 per cent. For the handful of tin pot wineries that may not be included in these figures, I will find out for Senator Messner whether the figures I have cited represent 95 per cent or 99 per cent of total sales. Whatever they are, they are based on the same measurements, one year on another. They show that since the wine tax was introduced sales have increased at a faster rate than they had been increasing previously. I am certainly not suggesting that the fact that the wine tax has been imposed is the reason sales have increased at a faster rate, but there is absolutely no evidence to support an assertion that it has significantly depressed sales-or indeed depressed sales at all-let alone to support the ridiculous assertions made by Senator Messner and his colleagues a year ago that as a result of a 10 per cent wholesale sales tax, sales would fall by 14 per cent. Senator MESSNER —I ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister confirm that the current price cutting, which he has now acknowledged, is all part and parcel of the fear of wine makers that the worst is about to come? Senator WALSH —I certainly will not confirm such patent nonsense. If anything, it is even sillier than the sorts of claims Senator Messner made last August. Senator RICHARDSON —My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer and relates to the Treasurer's announcement on 27 February 1985 inviting 16 foreign banks to establish banking operations in Australia. Has this move enhanced the possibility of Australian banks being granted reciprocal access rights in overseas countries? Have any formal concessions or access rights been granted to Australian banks operating overseas as a result of the February decision? Senator WALSH —I have a note from the Treasurer on this subject. He says that, as he indicated in his statement of 27 February, Japan has already agreed to allow the four major Australian banks to establish branches in Japan. We have been advised by relevant authorities in Canada and Hong Kong that, as a result of our banking policies, reciprocal access will be available to Australian banks in those countries. I am also advised that the Government has under consideration the question of reciprocal access in other relevant countries. Referring again to the Treasurer's 27 February statement, the 16 successful applicants were selected having regard to a range of factors, including the need to secure an appropriate regional distribution and reciprocity considerations. The results of the reciprocity considerations have already borne fruit in that agreement to issue licences in Japan for the four major Australian banks has already been received. Senator REID —My question is to the Minister for Education. Can the Minister advise the Senate when the proposals for a national institute of tertiary education will be available? Will they be circulated so as to allow public debate? Senator RYAN —I am quite pleased that Senator Reid has asked me that question because it gives me the opportunity to say a few things about the proposal. There seems to have been a great deal of misunderstanding and unnecessary apprehension in the local education community, and particularly amongst the staff and students of the School of Art, about the process of re-organising the administration of tertiary education in the Australian Capital Territory. The situation is that the Chairman of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, Hugh Hudson, after some discussions with me about making suitable arrangements for the re-organisation of tertiary education in the Australian Capital Territory in the light of some form of territorial administration being established, developed the outline of a proposal which would bring all tertiary education institutions into a more co-ordinated relationship with each other and perhaps in that way provide for some rationalisation of central services and also, in educational terms, provide for more flexibility between institutions. For example, it would be an educational advance if students at the School of Music could take some subjects at the School of Art and vice-versa, and similarly with the other institutions. Senator Peter Baume —They can do that now. Senator RYAN —Senator Baume interpolates that they can do that now. In fact it is done very infrequently now and only by way of individual arrangement. Students are not advised on entering any of the tertiary education institutions of ways in which they can expand their educational opportunities by enrolling in courses in other universities. There is clearly a case-I do not think even Senator Baume would disagree with this-for better co-ordination and more interaction among the institutions. There is certainly a case for more efficient administration of the institutions. It is also the case that all of our tertiary institutions, but particularly the School of Music and the School of Art, are very well resourced. Anyone who has seen comparable institutions in other States will know that. For example, if we compare the Sydney College of the Arts with the Canberra Art School, we see very easily that they are very well resourced institutions, which is something that we are pleased about but something that has to be taken into account when future developments and increases in resources are being discussed. There is very clearly a case for a better organisation of these institutions. Ultimately, I believe that those institutions should be administered by the Tertiary Education Commission rather than by my Department, which is the case at present. Mr Hudson has been discussing possible developments with many people, including the council, students and staff of the institutions. When he has finished those discussions he will bring a proposal to me. I expect that to happen within the next couple of weeks. When I have that I will assess it in the light of public comment. I do not know whether we will go into another full scale round of consultations with everybody but I will certainly be available to discuss the proposal with the institutions and relevant parties and then we will decide how the re-organisation should advance. It is my intention and Mr Hudson's intention to bring about an improvement of the administration of tertiary education in the Australian Capital Territory. It is certainly not anybody's intention to interfere in any way with the very high standards of teaching that have already been established in some of these areas. Senator JONES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Is he aware of the contents of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act Amendment Bill which was rushed through the Queensland Parliament on 19 March and which contains some of the most savage measures and penalties against trade unions and individuals ever enacted in Australia? Is he also aware that the provisions in this Bill include an abolition of the requirement of three months notice of resignation from a union; secret ballots when strikes are threatened or have occurred; the reduction of the number of employees required to request a secret ballot from 20 per cent to 5 per cent; and that penalties have been increased by up to 150 per cent, with trade unions being liable to penalties up to $10,000 and individuals $1,000? What effects will these draconian measures have on Federal industrial matters and industrial relations generally throughout Australia? Is the new Queensland legislation in direct contrast with the consensus policies devised and practised by this Government? The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's question is becoming too long. I ask him to bring his question to a conclusion. Senator JONES —Thank you, Mr President. What effects will the Bjelke-Petersen legislation have on the economy of Queensland and on Australia generally? Senator WALSH —It is beyond reasonable dispute that the very existence of the Bjelke-Petersen Government is a disaster for the economy of Queensland and is a serious impediment to the economy of Australia as a whole for that reason because Queensland is a very significant State. Because of the Bjelke-Petersen Government, Queensland has by far the highest rate of unemployment in Australia. If I remember correctly, in the most recent figures the number of people employed in Queensland fell absolutely. I am aware in general of the legislation which has been passed by the Queensland Parliament. I am not aware of the fine detail of it but I am sure that those matters of detail which were included in Senator Jones's question are correct. He asked whether the Queensland Government's policy is in contrast to the consensus policies being pursued by this Government. The answer to that clearly is yes. The contrast could scarcely be starker than it is. As for the effects of that policy on both Queensland and national industrial relations, I am afraid that in both cases it is likely to be harmful. Of course, the real reason for this is that the Bjelke-Petersen Government is attempting to lay the ground for blaming other parties for this situation and in particular for the state of the Queensland economy. I think special note should be taken of the fact that a couple of weeks ago the Queensland Premier began to denigrate publicly his State's Industrial Commission. That reminds one of a former Liberal Party Prime Minister-indeed, the last Liberal Party Prime Minister-who used to blame the umpire when things went wrong. Essentially, this should be seen as an attempt by the Bjelke-Petersen Government to throw up a smoke-screen for the consequences of its own economic mismanagement which are currently running through the Queensland economy and doing a dreadful amount of damage. The Queensland economy is, by far, the sickest in Australia. That is a tragedy for the people of Queensland. It is a serious impediment for the people of Australia as a whole. Senator WALTERS —I refer the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to the question asked of him by Senator Devlin and I ask: Is it a fact that the so-called withdrawal of the censure motion is the normal way of resuming other business after such a debate has taken place in the lower House in Tasmania? Is it also a fact that that censure motion split the Opposition with three Australian Labor Party members for Braddon-Messrs Fields, Davies and Coughlan-supporting the urgency motion against the Commonwealth's action? Senator GIETZELT —I would not dare comment on what is normal or abnormal in the State of Tasmania when it is led by Mr Gray. Senator FOREMAN —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Transport to claims made by the Save Australia's Roads Committee on 13 March that up to 60,000 jobs will be lost over the next eight years unless the Federal and State governments increase by $260m the expenditure on upgrading roads. Given that Federal expenditure on road development for the present financial year represents an increase of $50m on the 1983-84 period and that a further $45m has been allocated to the JOLOR-jobs on local roads-program, will the Minister comment on whether the claims by the SARC can be substantiated when, in fact, jobs are actually being created through JOLOR? Senator GIETZELT —I am aware that there is an organisation called Save Australia's Roads Committee, which is made up of a number of self-interested groups as well as well meaning people who are identifying what Commonwealth public funds should be spent on improving our road system. The Government has no objection to that; but it has to be recognised that under the Australian system Commonwealth, State and local governments are responsible for various sectors of road construction in Australia. The fact is that this Government's record in terms of providing road construction funds is well known and recognised as being above average. In fact, we have reached an historically high position by increasing it in two years by 51 per cent. The Commonwealth's allocations to the States and local government for roads is more than has been allocated hitherto. It is quite outlandish and exaggerated for the Save Australia's Roads Committee to suggest that 60,000 jobs would be lost as a result of the Commonwealth not providing more dollars for road construction. The Government acknowledges that it is acting under certain economic restraints. It believes that something like 27,000 jobs have been created with the extra funds it has provided in its first two years in office. The Government would love to be able to spend a lot more money and create a lot more jobs, but every member of the Senate will be aware that economic considerations and Budget deficits have to be taken into consideration with respect to all aspects of Commonwealth expenditure. We do not resile from the fact that we have done a very good job in providing the increased funds that have created the 27,000 extra jobs in the road construction industry. Whilst the lobby group wants to see more, it will have to take its turn in the queue. When money becomes available, when economic conditions improve and the taxation collected is not paid out in unemployment benefit, which is what was occurring when we came to office two years ago, the Government will be able to provide more funds for road construction. Senator VIGOR —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. I ask: What specific evidence does he or his Department have to suggest that rate collections by local government have not matched increases in property valuations? Does the Minister believe that State and Commonwealth bodies should remain exempt from paying rates? Does the Minister acknowledge that any opportunistic revision of tax sharing arrangements will play havoc with New South Wales local government budgets for the calendar year 1985? Is the Minister aware that the Victorian and New South Wales grants commissions have measured local government equalisation needs as being respectively about two and four times what is available for them to distribute? Finally, does the Minister regard the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations as expendable despite its significant research effort? Senator WALSH —Senator Vigor or, as I understand he is known in Adelaide, the bankrupt health studio- The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister should withdraw that remark. Senator WALSH —I withdraw. Senator Vigor has asked a number of questions which are similar to the matters raised by Senator Peter Rae in the adjournment debate last night. I told Senator Peter Rae that I would get a response to him. I have got some notes from the Department, but I have not had a chance to go through them. They arrived during Question Time. I certainly will not be able to do it in Question Time and I probably will have to wait until the next session, but I will respond to Senator Peter Rae and that will encompass most, if not all, of the question Senator Vigor asked. Senator COATES —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security seen the Department of Social Security's paper on tax reform, being its submission to the Economic Planning Advisory Council, which was referred to in several newspapers in the last couple of days? Has he any comments on the issues raised by the Department? In particular, is it a guide to the sort of compensation which will be necessary to ensure the poor are properly protected in any changes to the tax system, as is my concern? Will the paper be released publicly? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I have seen the paper which was prepared for EPAC by the Department of Social Security, although I must say I have not read it. Before I received it I read a report of it, apparently a detailed report, in the Australian Financial Review, which I assume is an accurate report. Officers of the Department of Social Security have been concerned for a long time about the lack of co-ordination between the social security systems and the taxation system. They have, in fact, taken part in the debate on this issue over the years, as have various Ministers for Social Security. It is important in any system of tax reform which is introduced that the interests of low income people-in particular, social security recipients-be taken into account. If I can interpose a personal view, I think it would be a good opportunity to integrate the systems of social security and taxation in this country. The Government is aware of the issues. The Government is aware of the need to ensure that any changes of this type do protect low income people. For instance, as the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance have said, should there be a move in the direction of indirect taxes-that certainly is not a decision that has been made-obviously the interests of low income people, both the recipients and wage earners, should be protected. At the same time, the Government, since it has been in office, has, through taxation measures last year and social security measures in the last two Budgets, redistributed funds to low income people in the community in this regard. I am hopeful that this paper and other papers put to the tax summit will stimulate a sensible debate in this area and will not result just in a debate by various vested interests in the country opposing or being in favour of one form of taxation or another. The Government and the Department of Social Security are conscious of the fact that any changes at all in any direction need to take into account the position of low income people, pensioners and beneficiaries and, in particular, low income parents. These people must not be disadvantaged by any changes. I think it is heartening that the Department of Social Security has been involved and has produced a paper such as this. I have not read the paper. I am not sure whether the paper will be made public, but I will ascertain that from my colleague the Minister for Social Security, Mr Howe. As it has been widely reported, at least in the Australian Financial Review, I can see little point in its not being made public. Senator DURACK —I direct my question to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I refer him to the question I asked in the Senate last Friday in which I suggested that a new royal commission was needed into all matters raised by the alleged recordings of telephone conversations by the New South Wales police. I ask the Minister whether he recalls rejecting the suggestion I made on behalf of the Opposition in these words in his answer: There is no need whatsoever to establish any further muck-raking machinery of the kind that is so dear to the hearts of the muck-rakers opposite. Senator Peter Baume —Did he say that? Senator DURACK —That is on page 674 of Hansard. Can the Minister now explain how the Government's proposal to widen significantly the scope of the terms of reference of Mr Justice Stewart's royal commission in relation to intercepted telephone conversations in New South Wales will differ in any practical way from the suggestion about which the Minister was so abusive and dismissive less than a week ago and which the Opposition has been proposing for the last 12 months? Senator GARETH EVANS —I remain of the view that there is no need to establish new muck-raking machinery to deal with these particular matters. The Government has taken the view that an extension of Mr Justice Stewart's terms of reference to enable him once and for all to deal with these particular matters cannot be so described and I, of course, support the Government's decision. Senator CROWLEY —Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware of the problems facing the many people in this country involved in arts and crafts in relation to the current tax provisions for these industries? Is he aware that, in response to submissions on behalf of the Crafts Council of South Australia and the Potters Guild of South Australia, the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, Mr Cohen, advised me that the Treasurer has agreed to establish a working party to examine the question of sales tax on crafts? Can the Minister say at what stage the working party is, and when it might provide a report of its deliberations? Senator WALSH —I understand the present sales tax law applies to sales tax on items which are designated as craft items, but not on art items. I am not sure how one tells the difference. It is known that the Government will conduct a comprehensive review of the tax system this year. I am not aware specifically of the matters Mr Cohen apparently raised earlier, but I am advised by the Treasurer that his view is that it is appropriate to defer consideration of that type of individual request for exemption from sales tax pending the decisions which will be reached in the overall review of the Australian taxation structure. I am further advised that the question of the sales tax on craft items has been listed for inclusion when the classification of goods for indirect tax purposes is being dealt with in that review. Senator WATSON —Does the Minister for Finance recall his all too frequent derogatory comments about the former Treasurer, and is he not concerned that some of the statements and titles may turn around to haunt the present Minister for Finance because of his own failures to curtail expenditure and to secure reforms, his presiding over the largest real interest rate since the Depression and his supervising a money supply figure in excess of budget and prime interest rates rising at alarming rates? Senator WALSH —The leader of the Sydney faction of the Liberal Party of Australia and pretender to the Liberal Party leadership, otherwise known as the discredited former Treasurer and member for Bennelong, Mr Howard, had primary responsibility, along with Mr Stone, for the Australian economy for just over five years. In that period expenditure exceeded estimates every year. There was a marked decline in the capital spending component of the Commonwealth Budget over that period and a decline year on year in the capital spending component of the Budget in all but one of those five years. He also presided over the highest interest rates the country has ever seen. Short term rates were hitting 20 per cent. When he was finally removed from office by a decision of the electorate on 5 March two years ago, he left the country with a prospective deficit of nearly $10 billion because of the irresponsible Budget he had produced in the previous year. He was presiding over double figure inflation and unemployment, which no previous Treasurer of Australia had done. Other Treasurers have presided over double figure inflation-most notably, Sir Arthur Fadden in 1950 and 1951, who presided over an inflation rate as Treasurer in the Menzies Government of 25 per cent for the year ended December 1951. Sir Arthur Fadden has the record of presiding over the highest rate of inflation the country has ever seen, but Mr Howard has presided over the only period when Australia had both double figure inflation and double figure unemployment. As for the substance-insofar as there was any-in Senator Watson's question, I suggest that he contain himself for a while until the expenditure decisions have been made. Senator WATSON —I have a supplementary question. Is the Minister not concerned that he is establishing some unsatisfactory records, and is he not concerned that some of his titles may turn around to haunt him? Senator WALSH —No. Senator HEARN —Is the Minister for Veterans' Affairs aware that in recent weeks a number of State governments have announced concessions for ex-service and war widow pensioners, particularly in regard to concessional or free travel entitlements? Can the Minister say how valuable these concessions are to the ex-service community? Senator GIETZELT —Since I became the Minister for Veterans' Affairs just over two years ago I have made many recommendations to all the States. I have been assisted by my colleague the Minister for Transport in suggesting that all States should have uniform policies on travel concessions for widows. Concessions did exist, but were withdrawn for some obscure reason a decade or so ago. I am pleased to announce that as a result of those representations a number of concessions have been granted by most of the States. Authorities in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia have agreed to provide travel concessions to groups of people, including war widows in receipt of pensions paid by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. From 1 July in New South Wales concessions will apply to war widows, as well as to a number of disabled ex-servicemen. The specific details have been announced by the Minister for Transport, Mr Unsworth. He has extended a much wider range of concessions than we, as Federal Ministers, had requested. Whilst I am not normally in the business of congratulating the Queensland Government, I must say that it took some initiative on this matter on 1 October last year. Victoria did also in November. All the States are moving to a uniform system so that people who travel, not only within the State but also interstate, will have concessions granted to them, having regard to the price that they paid in serving their country during war. This applies to veterans and, in some cases, war widows. I have also been informed that Mr Debus, the Minister for Finance in New South Wales, and Mr Joe Berinson, the Minister for Budget Management in Western Australia, have exempted repatriation beneficiaries from the financial institution duties in those States. I am now told that the only State that imposes a State tax on the payment of pensions is Tasmania. All other States have either exempted such duties or, as in the case of Queensland, never imposed such a duty. We have made considerable progress in these matters in recent times. Senator WALSH —During Question Time I told Senator Messner that I would find out for him whether the wineries included in the survey published by the ABS comprised 95 or 99 per cent of table wine production. The correct figure is exactly half way between those two-it is 97 per cent. Senator MESSNER —I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a question that I asked earlier in the week and the answer given to me in writing by Senator Grimes. Leave granted. The document read as follows- On 27 February 1985, Senator Messner asked the Minister for Community Services a question without notice which, inter alia, sought confirmation of a report in the Australian Financial Review of 6 February that the Government was considering a special inter-departmental committee report on occupational superannuation which indicated that it had reached substantial agreement with the Australian Council of Trade Unions on the extension of superannuation as part of the forthcoming wage case. In his reply, Senator Grimes undertook to seek an answer to that aspect of the question from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. The Minister has provided the following response: An Inter-Departmental Committee (IDC) has reported to the Government on issues and options concerning national superannuation. The IDC's Report adopted a broad view of national superannuation and examined a number of options for reform. The Report is exploratory only and makes no recommendations. It did not review any ACTU proposals for reform. The ACTU has been considering a proposal that any increase the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission may award in any national productivity case be used to finance the extension of and improvements to occupational superannuation schemes. As yet the Government has not decided what position it will adopt to a productivity claim. The Government's position will have regard to the state of the economy, and will be formulated with proper regard to the National Wage Principles and will seek to ensure continued adherence to the centralised wage fixing system. In the event that the ACTU makes a productivity claim, the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission will need to decide on the quantum available for distribution after considering the submissions of the parties. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —by leave-I wish to make a personal explanation following an answer given to me by Senator Walsh. I have no relation whatsoever with any health studio in South Australia or elsewhere. I believe that a health studio in Victoria went broke and I believe that the name 'Vigor' that was used there had no relation to a surname at all. Neither I nor any member of my family is involved in any such operation or organisation. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) —by leave-I give contingent notice of motion as follows: That contingent upon the Minister for Finance, Senator the Hon. Peter Walsh, in the course of the proceedings of the Senate, concluding any speech, statement, answer to a question or comment I shall move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Chaney) moving a motion of censure of Senator Walsh. The PRESIDENT —Earlier today Senator Townley spoke in the Senate and drew the attention of the Senate to an alleged misuse of a Senate committee room. Senator Townley stated that he was present at a Press conference this morning in Senate Committee Room No. 3 when people other than senators and members were interviewed by members of the Press. The Usher of the Black Rod has advised me that the room was booked in the name of a member of the House of Representatives. The long-established rules state that Press conferences may be held in Parliament House only by senators or members, a State Premier attending a Premiers' Conference or a foreign dignitary paying an official visit to the Parliament. I have now written to all senators and members drawing their attention to the rules for the use of rooms in Parliament House for the convening and holding of Press conferences. I have also given instructions to the Usher of the Black Rod that he is to remind senators, members and their staff of these rules on each occasion a committee room is booked for a Press conference. As to Senator Townley's reference to the security of this building, honourable senators will be aware that senators and members may invite whomever they please to visit them in Parliament House. Any visitors to Parliament House are required to undergo the usual security checks and, in this instance, I am advised that the proper procedures were followed. The Security Controller had no knowledge, and therefore neither the Speaker nor I had any prior knowledge of the visit to Parliament House of the people referred to by Senator Townley. The PRESIDENT —On Monday 28 March 1985 I informed the Senate that I had made arrangements for counsel to appear in proceedings in the Local Court of New South Wales to ensure that the limitations imposed by the law upon the use which may be made of Parliamentary evidence were observed. Counsel has appeared accordingly and has taken the necessary action to seek to ensure the proper observance of those limitations. I am concerned, however, that there have been some inaccurate media reports of those proceedings in relation to matters raised by the Senate's counsel. In a report on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's National program on 26 March 1985 it was stated that parliamentary privilege was being 'rewritten' in the proceedings. This conclusion appeared to be based on a further statement that questions in a certain form were being asked. The report was wrong in that a question in the form referred to was asked only once, was objected to by counsel for the Senate, was not answered and was not persisted with. The ABC officer responsible for the program was asked to make a correction, and it is a matter of concern to me that no correction has so far been made. In the ABC National program on 27 March 1985 there was a report that a witness had been cross-examined on a statement he had prepared for a Senate committee. I am advised that that report also was inaccurate insofar as it suggested that the content of the statement had been examined. The Senate will appreciate that I do not want to say anything further because the proceedings are continuing, but senators should be assured that appropriate action is being taken to seek to ensure that there is no improper use of Senate committee evidence in the proceedings. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.07) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. For reasons that are evident from your own statement, Mr President, I do not wish to debate this matter in any way, but on behalf of the Opposition I express a sharing of the concern that you have expressed about the failure to correct the report. I was very concerned when I saw the report to which the President has referred. I followed it up with the clerks and with the President and I was concerned that there appeared to be a second inaccuracy on the next day. The Opposition joins with you, Mr President, in believing that it is appropriate that there should be a correction where there has been an error and we hope that very great care will be taken in the media with this very difficult and delicate case to ensure that reports put to the public have a high degree of accuracy. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The PRESIDENT —I present the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing. The report informs the Senate that the Committee, on the basis of known information, has determined that there are no requirements for additional funds for the Department of the Senate this financial year. Attached to the report are the revised estimates as agreed by the Committee at its meeting on 27 February 1985. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(3.09) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory I present the second report on the 83rd series of variations to the Canberra city plan. I seek leave to make a short statement relating to the report. Leave granted. Senator REID —The report that I have just tabled reports on the six outstanding items in the 83rd series of variations to the city plan. The previous Committee approved eight variations to the series in its first report, tabled on 3 October 1984. The Committee recommends approval of five of the variations and defers consideration of one of the items until additional information is received. I wish to comment on only two of them. The first is variation four, which proposes an addition to the city plan of an access road off Fremantle Drive in Stirling to enable the development of an area of open space for standard residential housing. Objectors to this proposal were concerned about the increase in the volume of traffic as a result of the development, the inadequacy of the access to the proposed development, the danger of having driveways directly opposite the Chapman Primary School and the extent of the removal of trees which would result from the development. The Committee considers that many of the objectors' concerns about the proposal are valid, particularly those which relate to the access of children crossing Streeton Drive to the Chapman Primary School. The Committee defers consideration of the proposal until additional information is provided by the National Capital Development Commission and the Department of Territories about a number of matters which are of concern to objectors. The second variation concerns an objector to the proposal who was concerned about the adequacy of parking at Kambah Village, particularly in the vicinity of the Kambah Inn. This objector also claimed that the opening of a restaurant with a liquor licence would affect the Inn's sales. The NCDC considers the car parking situation in Kambah Village to be adequate in terms of the distribution of car parking around the whole of the centre. The Department of Territories told the Committee that no other objections relating to the traffic or parking problems associated with the Kambah Village Centre had been received. The Committee is not in a position to assess the effects, if any, on the liquor sales of the Inn or on other restaurants in the area of the establishment of an additional restaurant. The Committee has approved the variation. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia) —I present the first report of the Joint Committee on Publications. Ordered that the report be adopted. Debate resumed from 25 March, on motion by Senator Peter Baume: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(3.13) —Today in the lunchtime debate on matters of public interest I referred to the salaried medical practitioners in the Australian Capital Territory employed in health care centres. I have previously referred to this matter in connection with the Capital Territory Health Commission report. I think I have clearly demonstrated that a number of salaried medical practitioners in the Australian Capital Territory are, in plain language, ripping the hell out of the system. On the other hand, I have to acknowledge that there are some paid medical practitioners in health care centres who are endeavouring to provide a good and proper service. I am not trying to attack all of them. Clearly they vary. However one of the great problems is that there is very little incentive for those who are giving proper attention to their duty to continue to do so when they look at the work patterns of their colleagues. The real reason for using salaried doctors in the Australian Capital Territory has very little to do with patient care, although that is the rhetoric. An explanation of the real reason is set out in a document forwarded by the Chairman of the now defunct Capital Territory Health Commission, Dr Doust, to Senator Crowley and Mrs Joan Child, MP, in March 1984. This document acknowledges that the real philosophy in respect of the health care medical service in the Australian Capital Territory is 'the introduction of Medicare and the Labor Government's policies on community health, the pressure to control medical fraud and overservicing and the current oversupply of doctors' with an objective 'to provide a measure of competition sufficient to exert a controlling effect on the otherwise unregulated private sector'. I seek leave to table the document, Mr Deputy President. Leave granted. Senator LEWIS —This document is typical of the woolly thinking about medical care. One thing these doctors cannot be accused of is overservicing. A doctor who manages to cope with one patient per day is certainly not overservicing the community. Obviously if the government brings in more and more doctors-the document indicates that that is the intention-what will happen in the Australian Capital Territory is that some of the good doctors will leave. Their salaries will be affected so gravely that they will get out and some others in the private sector will overservice the private sector to make sure that they do get a reasonable salary. It is typical of the woolly thinking that goes on in this area. That is taking the situation from the medicos point of view. If one looks at the situation from the patient's point of view one sees that some patients will shop around to see whether they can get totally free service under the Australian Capital Territory health service, which they can. They will look at Doctor A's service. If they do not like him they will try Doctor B and Doctor C because it will not cost them anything to do so. In effect people will shop around until they find a doctor who can provide them with the sort of service they want. That is not the concept of primary health care which this system was supposed to introduce. What do patients want? Do they want cheap medical service or do they want competent medical service? In the Australian Capital Territory this system has failed. The Government would do far better if it were to adopt on a larger scale the principle which it adopts with some health centres-that of having non-salaried private practitioners providing the service in a health care centre. Those doctors should be required to pay for the services that are provided to them. They should be required to pay a fair rent for the rooms they use and to pay for the nurse, the typist and the receptionist. Some of that money could be used to meet some of Canberra's needs. There is a desperate need in Canberra for nursing homes for the aged. There have been no admissions to nursing homes in the Australian Capital Territory since last July and that is because there is not room for them. There is a need for a service for the intellectually handicapped and the chronically ill; there is a need for drug rehabilitation services; there is a desperate need for more nurses and more beds; and there is a need for a children's ward at the Woden Valley Hospital. The Government would do far better if it turned its attention to those areas of health care need in the Australian Capital Territory instead of carrying these doctors on the Government's back. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.19) —The annual report of the Capital Territory Health Commission includes the consideration of medical services given in the Australian Capital Territory and also the services given by visiting medical officers. I draw to the attention of the Senate a very unfortunate item which appears in the journal the Australian Surgeon which has reached me today. I do this as a member of the medical profession. I am very distressed by what the Australian Surgeon has published. I think it is probably better for me, as a doctor, to bring the matter before the Senate to say I dissociate myself totally from the sentiments the journal expressed and hope that the Australian Surgeon will on more mature reflection, dissociate itself also. The surgeons are totally opposed to Medicare and its introduction, but some of their rhetoric and some of their examples leave much to be desired. In the latest issue of the Australian Surgeon, dated March 1985, a fictional letter appears at page eight which contains numerous kinds of misspellings designed to add to its alleged humour. It is headed 'Timbuctoo Hospital', and says: Dear mista Wrong, Wran, I here you nead dam fine sturgeon four your fine pubic hospitle system. I am chief of Cardio-Thoraxic Servise Royal Timbuctoo Hospitle:- we have very cheap service, no mortality, no costs, Oh! and no operations, everybody gets fair share of nothing. We are reddy to come, my wives, goats and children. Uncles Aunts all come later. We all live your old house in Paddo, will suit us fine. Yours in haste, Ramjam Redicut I would say for the benefit of my surgical colleagues who may have been foolish enough to write the letter published in their journal that it is a racist, unpleasant, inappropriate and quite improper letter. As a doctor I would say that I and most other doctors dissociate ourselves completely from this attempt at surgeons' humour. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 25 March, on motion by Senator Macklin: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.21) —The events surrounding the report of the Academic Salaries Tribunal are disturbing ones that should be drawn to the attention of the Senate again. I remind the Senate that the Academic Salaries Tribunal, as it was required to do, made a recommendation to the Government that academics in colleges and universities be granted a 5 per cent pay increase. I remind the Senate also that the Labor Government prior to its election made a promise to the people of Australia that it would abide by the determinations of the Academic Salaries Tribunal. It made that promise when it was seeking the votes of the academics of Australia. I remind the Government that, in the report before the Senate, Mr Justice Ludeke as the then Academic Salaries Tribunal set out the events which surround this particular determination that he made and the subsequent action of the Government. Mr Justice Ludeke made a determination and the Government came back and asked that he reconsider his position. In relation to the events that took place after Mr Justice Ludeke made the determination, the report states: On 31 May 1984, the Special Minister of State, the Honourable Mick Young, requested the Tribunal to inquire into and report on the phasing-in of the 5 per cent increase granted by the Tribunal on 17 April 1984. He goes on to recount the events that followed. the upshot of all this was that the academics lost some of their pay increase. Some of it was delayed because the phasing-in proposal was accepted. I make the point again that what was done by the Special Minister of State, the Honourable Mick Young, on the instructions of Cabinet was not in accordance with the promise that the Australian Labor party made when going to the electorate; it was not a fair thing to do and it was not a course open to the academics had they been on the losing end of the first determination. I put it to the Senate in all fairness that at the first hearing which culminated in the determination of April 1984 the Tribunal made a finding based upon all the evidence before it. There had been no provision for phasing in at that stage. Had the academics been on the losing end, they would not have been able to come in through the back door, as was done by the Government. It is a matter of great regret that a number of academics, having won their pay increases through the proper processes laid down, were then faced with the Government's use of some loophole to prevent them getting what they had been granted. It is not in keeping with what was promised during the run-up to the election. I am so upset because I have had a number of representations indicating that a particular class of academics was disadvantaged-academics who retired from academic service in the period between the final determination having been brought down and the phasing-in of the last part of the pay increase. Those people retired on superannuation determined in part by the salary they were receiving on the date of their retirement. Those people have been disadvantaged not temporarily but permanently; they have been disadvantaged as a result of a specific abrogation of a pre-election promise and by the use of force available to the Government and an approach to the Tribunal which was not available to them. I note the report by Mr Justice Ludeke and I note that he ceased to be the Academic Salaries Tribunal on 6 October 1984. I just add that in my time as a Minister for Education I found dealing with him to be eminently satisfactory. He is a man of great honour and ability. I am only sorry that he was subject to the process which he has set out in this report. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 25 March, on motion by Senator Harradine: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 26 March, on motion by Senator Reid: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.26) —I wish to draw attention briefly to the Government's response to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure on Telecom Australia's Zonal Charging Policies. We are grateful to the Government for bringing down a response within the six-month period since the tabling of the initial report. Senator Button —Stop now; that is a very nice speech. Senator PETER BAUME —No, I must go on. Having said that, I have to say that it is not much of a response. In fact, it is no response-it is a response saying that the Government is not ready to respond. I urge the Government to come down with something more substantial and to respond in some detail to the points raised by the Committee. In particular, I draw the attention of the Senate to that sentence of the government's statement which says: The Committee concluded that Telecom has not been sufficiently responsive to the needs of the Australian community in the 1980s . . . That is a significant criticism of Telecom Australia. The community that depends upon Telecom for its services would like the Government to respond in some detail to that charge and to the evidence the Committee advanced to support its position on this matter. We are faced with a major Government monopoly which is insufficiently responsive to expressions of public concern. I go back to what Hamlet had to say about the calumny of power. We have to be sure that where criticisms like this are made the Government, on behalf of the small consumer of the services, takes those criticisms seriously, answers in detail the substance of the criticisms and proposes some program to allow us to assess whether the criticisms are warranted and what action should be taken. As I say, the Opposition thanks the Government for having come in with some piece of paper; it is a pity that it has said nothing. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 26 March, on motion by Senator Lajovic: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator LAJOVIC(New South Wales)(3.29) —The report by the Committee of Review on the Special Broadcasting Service contains a tremendous number of recommendations. Unfortunately my time is limited and therefore I will deal only with those which I feel are important and which are to be commended, opposed or completely changed. The first is recommendation 7.10, which concerns a new organisation, to be called the Multicultural Broadcasting Corporation, replacing the present Special Broadcasting Service. This recommendation states that the program should: . . . entertain, inform and educate the Australian community including its ethnic, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island communities. I feel that those priorities are upside down. As far as I know, the migrant communities wish to have a service which, firstly, will inform them, secondly, will educate them and, thirdly, will entertain them. Entertainment is a function of different stations but a multicultural station should mainly inform and educate the new arrivals to this country. Migrants have difficulty in understanding or reading the different regulations in our society. Therefore, I feel it is the function of this organisation to inform and educate them. The second part of paragraph 7.10 states that the program has to: . . . contribute to the development of a multicultural society by promoting a common sense of Australian identity . . . I do not know how an avant-garde movie from France could do that. I wonder how many people from southern Italy watch avant-garde movies from Italy. How do they promote and establish a common sense of Australian identity or mutual understanding? Those are some of the things which I feel the present Special Broadcasting Service fulfils but for a different type of audience, not the one at which it should be aimed. I turn now to the chapter of the report dealing with programming for ethnic radio. Paragraph 8.67 states: . . . a new set of guidelines for broadcasters be prepared in consultation with broadcasters, station management and appropriate community bodies. Such guidelines should be published and made known to the public through language programs. I fully support that recommendation. It is absolutely necessary. This recommendation should be adopted by the new Corporation. Up until now we have seen that so often there are programs that are of no interest to the large community or any community. The broadcasters and the people who are in continuous contact with the community have no say as to what will be programmed, screened or discussed. Paragraph 8.90 of the report states: . . . a uniform system of handling community announcements should be developed and made known to community organisations . . . This is another recommendation which I feel is long overdue because the community announcements on radio today are politically biased in their selection. The new Corporation should make sure that community announcements have a uniform system and that community organisations have a say. In paragraph 8.115 the Committee states: We endorse the proposal . . . and recommend that language co-ordinators and broadcasters and ethnic public broadcasters be consulted about the selection of such material. The Committee is talking about overseas programs for this station. I make the same point which I made before: At the moment the ethnic communities have no say. The people who are selecting these programs are not of ethnic origin; they are public servants who have an excellent taste in selecting programs of avant-garde movies but not programs for the audience they should serve. I turn now to paragraph 11.69. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(3.34) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I wish to make a few remarks about the Australian National Gallery. It is a pity that we do not have bells and red and green lights in that Gallery so that we could make more use of it-but perhaps the Gallery is a bit far removed. My experience this morning showed that it is difficult at times to get from one's room into the chamber in time to continue a debate. Be that as it may, I suggest that the National Gallery is a most significant building, as are all galleries in the various States in this country. Art-paintings in particular-is a proper means by which the ethos of the people, their history and all that they aspire to are summed up. I have had the opportunity of visiting the National Gallery. I paid particular regard to paintings by Sidney Nolan, the Ned Kelly series, and to the paintings by-- Senator Chaney —Very appropriate. Senator COONEY —I am not able to answer the honourable senator's interjection. I promise him that I will contemplate his remark. There was great controversy in the mid-1970s over the acquisition of the painting Blue Poles by Jackson Pollock. That painting stands now as one of the Gallery's great acquisitions. In looking at it one can see why. It is an inspired piece of art. The way in which it was treated at the time of its purchase is much to be regretted; it was a tragedy. Senator Missen —It is one of the best financial assets that we have. It has increased in value. Senator COONEY —That is right. It has become a great asset. Not only does art show the aspirations and the ethos of a country as a whole but also it shows the differing attitudes that people have from State to State. The Heidelberg school is much more popular in Victoria than it is in New South Wales. The Galleries of New South Wales go in for Tom Roberts and what have you and, recently, the more contemporary art. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(3.39) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-In light of the fact that the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill is still to be introduced, I will seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard my statement on improving Senate scrutiny of legislation and other questions relating to the Senate committee system. To make clear the sense of what is proposed, in the statement I wish to have incorporated I refer to the Bill which is to be introduced as an example of the Senate's ability to deal rapidly with legislation which is seen as having an urgent character. In that sense my statement is presuming that we will deal with that Bill this afternoon. That is certainly what the Opposition intends. I acknowledge the contribution that has been made to thinking in this area by senators from all around this chamber, from the Opposition certainly, but also from the Australian Labor Party, the Australian Democrats and Senator Harradine. I seek leave to incorporate the statement in Hansard and commend it for consideration of the Senate. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- During the course of this Parliament the Opposition will be anxious to obtain the co-operation of both the Government and the Australian Democrats and the independent senator, Senator Harradine, in achieving better scrutiny of legislation in the Senate. The history of Senate examination of legislation through its committees clearly demonstrates that closer parliamentary scrutiny will almost invariably result in bipartisan agreement for improvement of legislation. I use the term improvement rather than change because where there is all party agreement to change, it can reasonably be asserted that the changes are not partisan but are to remove clearly perceived defects. It is the wish of the Opposition to see a greater volume of legislation subjected to committee scrutiny. There has been a good deal of bipartisan work done to advance this cause. A few years ago, at the instigation of the Senate Chairmen's Group, an informal committee of senators was established and reported on the procedures which might be followed to achieve that objective. The informal committee was chaired by Senator Rae and the now President of the Senate, Senator Douglas McClelland. We believe that it would be useful to recirculate this paper to all senators. Late in the last session of Parliament I tabled, without commitment to the detail, a further document which had been circulated among Opposition senators and which was primarily the work of the present Chairman of Committees, Senator David Hamer. I would like to give the Senate notice now that the Opposition will, both in discussions outside the chamber and inside the chamber, be looking for common ground on improvements which can be made to the process of legislative scrutiny by this chamber. A further matter relating to the way legislation is dealt with by the Senate has been raised in the past under governments of different persuasions but very seldom dealt with satisfactorily. It was raised most recently in the Senate on 22 February 1985 when we had a brief debate on the Government's proposed legislative program for this session. I refer to the tendency of governments to produce much of the legislative program late in the parliamentary sittings. This results in truncation of parliamentary consideration and, in the case of the Senate, often results in our dealing with legislation after the House of Representatives has adjourned for the recess. Senators from the now Government, the now Opposition and the Australian Democrats have all complained about the position this leaves us in, and there have been frequent statements to the effect that non-Government senators will not deal with legislation which is introduced very late and without proper time for parliamentary scrutiny and without the opportunity to return the Bills with amendments to the House of Representatives. History shows that this is not a partisan issue. Liberal governments have found themselves in difficulty over this, as has the present Labor Government. It is the view of the Opposition that the difficulties will cease only when it becomes clear that Bills will not be passed unless the Senate is satisfied that it has had adequate time for consideration. It is unlikely that the necessarily complicated bureaucratic procedures which are involved in bringing legislation to the point where it is introduced to the Parliament will respond to mere threats. It is only when it becomes apparent that legislation will not be passed in circumstances where there is insufficient time for satisfactory scrutiny, that the machinery will adjust itself to that reality. For that reason, the Opposition welcomes the commitment from the Australian Democrats that they will be prepared to amend legislation even at the end of a session where the House of Representatives has risen, or to leave it on the Notice Paper. When appropriate, the Bill could be referred to a Senate Standing Committee for consideration during the recess. In any event this key requirement is that a Senate majority should be determined to ensure adequate scrutiny. The Opposition has no wish to take action which would make the operation of the Senate unworkable. Nor does the Opposition ignore the realities under which governments have to operate. What I have said does not preclude the Opposition, the Australian Democrats, Independents and any others, and the Government, coming to an agreement that certain items of legislation are of a machinery nature, and do not require detailed consideration and can be passed after the House of Representatives has adjourned. Further, as we have seen today with the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill, some urgent measure may have to be passed without delay. The Opposition seeks to get more frequent committee consideration of Bills, not because it wishes to obstruct the business of government but because it believes that the legislative function of the Parliament has been inadequately exercised in the past on many occasions. We believe that more substantial consideration can be given without causing serious delay, and we believe that the history of those Bills which have received detailed consideration justifies the additional time and effort which is required. The Opposition is aware of the fact that governments have traditionally been reluctant to see the Parliament assume a greater role in any respect. In the case of the previous Government there was resistance to the establishment of the new Senate Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills, notwithstanding the fact that a Senate committee had reported favourably on that prospect. The then Government's fears that the committee would cause significant problems have proved to be groundless and, indeed, that Committee has resulted in a substantial number of technical amendments being made to Bills which would otherwise have escaped close scrutiny. I should now like to outline the steps I hope will be taken in this current session. First, Selection Committee: There should be set up a selection committee to recommend to the Senate whether Government Bills should be referred to Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees, and if so- (a) which Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee each Bill should be referred to; (b) which stage in the consideration of each Bill referral to the specified Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee should be made; and (c) the day to be fixed for the specified Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee to report to the Senate on the Bill so referred. Secondly, Composition of the Committee: The composition of the selection committee should be such that only those proposals which are acceptable to the Government would be recommended to the Senate. Should any senator wish to propose that other matters be referred then the existing procedures are available for use. The proposed composition of the Committee would include representatives of the major parties, and of the Standing Committee Chairmen to ensure liaison and both practicality and acceptability in the selection process. Thirdly, Reporting: There should be a regular opportunity in each day's business for the Selection Committee to report in writing its recommendations to the Senate. Provision should be made for any senator to move that the report be debated immediately. It will also be necessary to amend the present Sessional Order on Reference of Bills to overcome the current defects-that it limits those from whom the committee may hear evidence; that it may be more appropriate to refer a Bill at a point other than after the Second Reading; and that it is not clear whether parts of Bills may be referred. Draft Sessional Orders to implement these proposals have been prepared and appear as appendices at the end of this statement. I am publishing them in this way because I would welcome any constructive suggestions on these draft Sessional Orders. After allowing time for any such suggestions, I will introduce the Sessional Orders into the Senate and trust they will have a speedy passage. During the inter-party discussions which led to the production of these Sessional Orders, a number of other problems surfaced. It became obvious that although the eight Legislative and General Purpose Committees are supposed to cover the full scope of government, quite a number of government departments do not have any self-evident relation to any particular committee-departments such as Communications, Employment and Industrial Relations, Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Transport and Aviation, Territories and Local Government, Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, and Special Minister of State. To clear this up, it is suggested that the chairmen of the eight Legislative and General Purpose Committees should form an informal committee, and, with the concurrence of their committees, assign responsibility for government departments-or parts of departments, where appropriate. The result, and any subsequent changes, should be reported to the Senate. Several questions have been raised about the further development of the Senate Estimates Committees. The most important is whether the Legislative and General Purpose Committees should take over the role of the Estimates Committees. There are divisions of opinion on this matter. The best solution, I believe, would be for the Standing Orders Committee to produce a paper setting out the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed merger. I will propose this to the Standing Orders Committee, and after suitable time for senators to consider the report, a debate on this subject should take place so that the will of the Senate can be determined. Other issues which have been raised concerning Estimates Committees are, firstly, whether Estimates Committees should sit on normal Senate sitting days only; secondly, whether the Estimates Committees should be grouped on a basis of areas of interest rather than the accident of which Senate Minister happens to represent the relevant government departments; thirdly, whether provision is to be made for ''alternate'' members, so that members can be changed after formal notification to the Chairman; and fourthly, whether the number of members of each Estimates Committee should be increased from six to eight. Finally, the matter of the facilitation of program evaluation as an aspect of Estimates Committee procedure could be considered by the Senate. With these matters the Senate may wish to also refer suggestions which have been made for the increase in the number of Legislative and General Purpose Committees to nine. I shall be moving to refer the five issues to the Standing Orders Committee for their consideration and subsequent recommendation to the Senate. The question of placing a limit on the number of Select Committees was also raised. There used to be a ''gentlemen's agreement'' to limit the number at any time to two, and staff is provided on this basis. But in the last session there were four Select Committees operating at the same time. I have an open mind about whether we should limit the number of Select Committees-to say, three-by sessional order, or whether we should leave it up to the good sense of the Senate when considering whether to set up a Select Committee. In any case, I should prefer to concentrate on the key question-setting up a proper procedure for the referral of more government Bills to Standing Committees. This proper examination of government legislation is a role for which the Senate is uniquely fitted, and the Opposition will be trying to ensure that we perform that role more effectively in the future. I acknowledge the interest of many senators from all parts of the House in improving the operations of the Senate and its committee system. This particular statement reflects contributions to discussion by many over recent years, but I particularly thank Senator Peter Rae and the Chairman of Committees, Senator Hamer, for their assistance and advice. I look forward to early debate in the Senate on positive steps which can be taken to improve our performance as a House of review. APPENDIX A SELECTION COMMITTEE ON BILLS AND REFERENCE OF BILLS TO LEGISLATIVE AND GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEES Draft Sessional Order (1) That a Standing Committee of the Senate, to be known as the Selection Committee on Bills, be appointed to consider all Bills (other than Appropriation Bills) introduced into the Senate by a Minister and report as to whether any such Bills should be referred to Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees, and if so- (a) which Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee each bill should be referred to; (b) which stage in the consideration of each such bill referral to the specified Legisaltive and General Purpose Standing Committee should be made; and (c) the day to be fixed for the specified Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee to report to the Senate on the bill so referred. (2) That, unless otherwise ordered, the Committee consist of the Government Whip, the Deputy-Government Whip, the Opposition Whip, the Australian Democrats Whip, a representative of the Chairman of the Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees. (3) That the quorum of the Committee be 3. (4) That the Chairman of the Committee be the Government Whip and the Deputy-Chairman be the Deputy-Government Whip. (5) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman, or the Deputy-Chairman when acting as Chairman, have a casting vote. (6) That, unless otherwise ordered, on any sitting day of the Senate, after presentation of papers by Ministers, the Committee may report to the Senate. (7) That the Chairman of the Selection Committee, or another member of the Committee on his behalf, may move a motion or motions (of which notice need not be given) to refer bills to Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees in accordance with the recommendations of the Selection Committee. (8) That, unless otherwise ordered, any Senator may, following disposal of the motion or motions moved by the Chairman of the Selection Committee, move a motion or motions (of which notice need not be given) to refer to a specified Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee any other bill or bills, listed on the Notice Paper under Government Business, Orders of the Day, which is not, or which are not, the subject of a motion moved by the Chairman of the Selection Committee. (9) Upon motion to refer a bill to a Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee under paragraph (7) or (8) of this Sessional Order, no debate thereon shall be allowed for more than 30 minutes, and in speaking thereon no Senator shall exceed 5 minutes. If the debate be not sooner concluded then forthwith upon the expiration of that time the President shall put any questions on any amendment or motion already proposed from the Chair. (10) Upon a bill being committed to a Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee pursuant to this Order, it shall be set down on the Notice Paper as an Order of the Day for further consideration following report from the Committee. (11) A Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee shall have no power to make amendments to a bill, but may recommend amendments or requests for amendments. No amendment or request for amendment may be proposed which would not be in order if proposed in a Committee of the Whole. (12) A report from a Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee, relating to a bill, shall be received by the Senate without debate and its consideration deferred until the Bill is considered in Committee of the Whole, when the procedure, unless otherwise ordered, shall be as follows: (a) motion may be proposed that the report be adopted, and such motion shall be open to debate; (b) on the motion for the adoption of the report, amendments may be proposed; (c) in these proceedings, the same right of speech and time limits shall apply as in debate in Committee of the Whole; (d) if amendments or requests for amendments be made, additional to any recommended by the report of a Standing Committee, the Chair shall propose a Question-That the Bill as reported (with or without amendments or requests for amendments), and as further amended, be agreed to; (e) a motion may be moved, by any Senator, that the bill as reported from a Standing Committee be recommitted, in whole or in part, to the Standing Committee, or that the bill as reported be committed in whole or in part, to a Committee of the Whole; and (f) when the report from the Committee, or from a Committee of the Whole, is finally adopted, the Bill may be proceeded with in the usual way. (13) That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing and Sessional Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing and Sessional Orders, and without limiting the operation of Standing Orders 36AA and 196A. APPENDIX B PROPOSED VARIATION TO SESSIONAL ORDER RELATING TO ROUTINE OF BUSINESS After Notices of Motion, insert: ''Consideration of report of Selection Committee on Bills and any further motions relating to reference of Bills to Committee.'' Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(3.43) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave not granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government has decided upon a course of action which will put to rest once and for all the extent of unauthorised telephone interception in New South Wales and the extent to which that material may disclose breaches of the law. The proposed course of action has been arrived at in consultation with the Government of New South Wales and it is a course of action on which both Mr Justice Stewart and Mr Temby agree. Before coming to the details of that course of action I wish to set the record straight on a number of matters because it has been suggested in recent days that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has done an 'about-face' on this issue. I regard comments of that kind as grossly inaccurate in a context where the Attorney-General has been endeavouring to resolve, and I believe the Government has now resolved, a most difficult issue in the administration of criminal justice. As is well known, Mr Justice Stewart in his 8th Interim Report recommended that indemnities be granted to 31 New South Wales police officers in respect of conduct which may have breached the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979. Mr Justice Stewart was faced, in making that recommendation, with a difficult problem, namely, that in order to obtain truthful evidence from the officers concerned, he felt they needed to be given an assurance that they would not be prosecuted in respect of matters arising out of their evidence. The Attorney-General does not want to under- estimate the difficulty Mr Justice Stewart faced but his recommendations presented him with at least as much difficulty. The Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth, which I would like to emphasise was presented to the Parliament in December 1982 by the Acting Attorney-General, Mr Neil Brown, QC, on behalf of the then Attorney-General Senator Peter Durack, QC, lays down very clear principles to be applied in the grant of an indemnity by the Attorney-General. I want to refer to those principles because I think they are very important in considering this matter. They read: In principle it is desirable that the criminal justice system should operate without the need to grant indemnities or pardons to persons who participated in offences with a view to these persons giving evidence against the principal offenders . . . Nevertheless, before a decision is made to grant an indemnity or to recommend to the Governor-General the grant of a pardon, all possible alternative courses must be considered. One possible alternative which must always be considered is to proceed to conviction of the prospective witness in respect of at least some of the offences committed by him before commencement of the trial of the principal offender . . . One major question-to quote from Senator Durack-to be addressed is: Is the evidence of the person in respect of whom the indemnity or pardon is sought essential to achieve the conviction of the principal offender? The Prosecution Policy makes this statement in concluding the principles on grant of indemnity: The ultimate decision to grant an indemnity or recommend grant of a pardon is only made after the most careful consideration of . . . (the) material. Assuming a decision is made to grant an indemnity, the scope of the indemnity should be no wider than the circumstances require. The principles I have just referred to make it clear that indemnities should not be lightly given; and they be given in a context where the person, the subject of the indemnity, is capable of giving evidence in a prosecution for a more serious offence than the offence the subject of the indemnity. In considering the application of these principles, the Attorney-General has been concerned that breaches of Commonwealth intercept law cannot be taken lightly. That law regulates intrusion into the basic privacy of every citizen. Unauthorised and illegal intrusion is a very serious matter. I want to add this-The Government has the very gravest view of interception by police. The Act is a protection of civil liberties and breaches of it cannot be overlooked except in situations of the utmost gravity. The advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Ian Temby, QC, was sought. Mr Temby advised against the grant of indemnities and his reasoning is consistent with the principles set out in the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth which I have just described. I report that the evidence then was not likely to lead to the prosecution of any person. I should also add that both Mr Justice Stewart and Mr Temby have advised the Attorney-General that 'the Age' materials themselves are unlikely to lead to prosecutions. The issues involved, however, are much wider than the granting of indemnities to New South Wales police officers. As the Attorney-General has already said in the Parliament, Mr Justice Stewart has reported on a much wider extent of unauthorised interception in New South Wales than the period of 'the Age' materials, that is, 1976 to 1981. Mr Justice Stewart refers in his report to the fact that unauthorised intercepts took place in New South Wales up to 1984. The Government believes that the time has come to have the full extent of unauthorised interception in New South Wales thoroughly examined by a Royal Commission. Secondly, the Government believes that an independent assessment should be made of the extent to which material or information, relating to unauthorised intercepts, discloses offences against the law. The Government has decided to change the terms of the Stewart Royal Commission to inquire into and report upon these fundamental matters. The course of action which has been arrived at, in agreement with the Government of New South Wales, is as follows: 1. Amend the Royal Commissions Act 1923 of New South Wales to provide that Stewart J. can exercise the powers of a judge of the Supreme Court under that Act. 2. Amend the Commonwealth terms of reference of the Stewart Royal Commission to empower that Royal Commission to inquire into and report upon- (a) whether there exists any information or material, including documents or tape recordings, relating to unauthorised telephone intercepts occurring in New South Wales in the possession of any person-in particular, New South Wales police and Australian Federal Police-which discloses an offence or possible offence against a law of the Commonwealth and which warrants further investigation-I might explain that the offence is a criminal offence; (b) the nature of the offence or offences so disclosed; (c) the identity of any person who Stewart J. considers is capable of giving evidence which will or will tend to render such information or material admissible in a prosecution for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth or of the State-or who is capable of giving information which might reasonably lead to evidence of such an offence-in respect of whom Stewart J. recommends an indemnity in relation to offences against Commonwealth law in connection with unauthorised telephone intercepts. It should be noted that the grant of indemnity will be subject to the following conditions: The person concerned gives, in the opinion of Mr Justice Stewart, his active co-operation including the giving of evidence truthfully and frankly and withholding nothing of relevance in the inquiry aforementioned in which he is required to give evidence; Mr Justice Stewart remains satisfied at the conclusion of the inquiry that the actions of the person concerned were carried out for the sole purpose of gathering information for use only in the investigation of crime. 3. New South Wales will establish terms of reference for Stewart J. similar to the Commonwealth terms, but in respect of State offences. The proposed Commonwealth terms of reference have been discussed with the New South Wales Government and its officials. 4. Amend the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979- (a) to remove the requirements that Stewart J. must establish the authenticity of the Age materials before dealing with them further; (b) to permit persons to furnish material to the Royal Commission without breaching that Act; (c) to permit the Royal Commission to pass on material to responsible authorities; for example, the National Crime Authority, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Australian Federal Police, the New South Wales Police and the New South Wales Solicitor-General, without committing an offence against that Act. I welcome the co-operation of the Opposition in this matter in allowing the Bill to be introduced as a matter of urgency today. Save for the authenticity question, the amendments proposed are consistent with the earlier Stewart Royal Commission amendments to the Telecommunications (Interception) Act. That is the proposed course of action. It has the agreement of Mr Justice Stewart and Mr Temby. They have been consulted on the new terms of reference for the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission, under its revised Commonwealth and New South Wales terms of reference, will be able to inquire into and report on- (a) the full extent of unauthorised telephone interception in New South Wales. It is not limited by any period of interception except, I might add, that it would be limited as from today. Any future interceptions would not be countenanced. They must cease from the establishment of this Commission; (b) the full extent of criminal conduct exposed by that interception; and (c) the recommendation of indemnities, but based upon proper principles. The Royal Commission will be required to report to both governments by 31 December 1985. I would add that we expect all police officers to come to this Commission within 28 days. The Government does not see any need for any longer period and this will enable the Royal Commission to complete its consideration by 31 December 1985. This is a Bill to amend the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 to enable Mr Justice Stewart, as Royal Commissioner, to investigate unauthorised telephone intercepts occurring in New South Wales to see whether they disclose an offence or possible offence against a law of the Commonwealth or of a Territory. The Government's decision to enlarge Mr Justice Stewart's terms of reference for this purpose has been dealt with. The Bill generally follows the form of the amendments that were passed last year at the Budget sittings to enable the so-called Age materials to be passed to Mr Justice Stewart in his capacity as Royal Commissioner appointed to inquire into drug trafficking. There are, however, two major changes which, in effect, make the inquiry envisaged by this legislation a completely new one in many respects. First of all, the legislation will enable Mr Justice Stewart to look at material and information additional to material and information relating to the Age materials. Secondly, the Bill removes the requirement that was inserted in the legislation enacted last year to the effect that the material could be used only after an initial finding by Mr Justice Stewart that the documents in question are an authentic record of the matters purported to be recorded in them. Mr Justice Stewart has agreed that this requirement should be removed, having regard to the unreliable character of some, if not most, of the material. A further provision has been added, modelled on existing section 6P of the Royal Commissions Act, to enable the Royal Commissioner to pass on material to law enforcement authorities where that is the appropriate course. The law enforcement authorities named in the Bill are the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth, of a State or of the Northern Territory; the Director of Public Prosecutions; a Special Prosecutor appointed under the Special Prosecutors Act; the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police or of the police force of a State or of the Northern Territory; or the authority or person responsible for the administration or enforcement of the law in question and also the National Crime Authority. I commend the Bill to the Senate. In view of its importance and urgency, it is proposed that it should pass through all stages in the Parliament today. The financial implications of the Bill are estimated to be $1.5m for the extension involved in the sittings of the Stewart Royal Commission. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.52) —I simply want to thank the Government for its agreement to an adjournment and to confirm that the Opposition proposes to co-operate with the Government. We simply want a little time to examine the speech, which is slightly different from that presented before, and to prepare for the debate. I move: That the debate be now adjourned. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(3.53) —I move: That the Senate, recognising the unquestioned extent of Commonwealth responsibility for the preservation of the Great Barrier Reef exercised through the operations of the Marine Park Authority and for the effective countering of any established threat to the integrity of the reef area- (a) expresses concern about reports which indicate that large numbers of crown-of-thorns starfish have been found in many of the major reefs within the Great Barrier Reef, that the infestations are becoming widespread and posing a serious threat to the organisation and functional relationships within some reef communities; (b) notes recent reports that soil erosion arising from the building of a road in the Daintree rainforest may be creating a threat to rare coral reefs just off the Daintree coast; (c) observes that, despite former reports of committees of inquiry into the crown-of-thorns starfish since 1969-70, the present Advisory Committee has reported in January 1985 that ''present evidence is inadequate for scientists to agree on the nature and significance of the phenomenon of aggregations of large numbers of crown-of-thorns starfish and thus on the extent of any consequent risk'' and that the current level of research activity is unlikely to lead to a short-term resolution of the questions raised; (d) expresses its deep concern to the Commonwealth Government and the Marine Park Authority for: (i) the apparent lack of urgency in commissioning urgent research which would enable scientists to ascertain the nature and significance of the crown-of-thorns starfish infestations and the extent of any consequent risk that the reef or some substantial part of it is being destroyed, (ii) the failure to review techniques for monitoring crown-of-thorns starfish and coral conditions, and developing more efficient techniques such as biological control by predators or other action to control the infestations, (iii) the inadequacy of regulations preventing tourist spearfishermen and professional fishermen from removing large numbers of giant triton, groper and other natural predators of the starfish from the reef, and, accordingly (e) calls on the Senate Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment to undertake an urgent investigation into this matter, to ascertain whether the present proposals of the Advisory Committee and the Marine Park Authority are adequate to meet the situation, or otherwise to make specific recommendations relating to a co-ordinated program of crown-of-thorns starfish research, control and eradication within the Great Barrier Reef; and (f) in the event of the Senate Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment being presently unable to undertake such reference, then the Committee be asked to advise the Senate as to what other committee of the Parliament should be requested to undertake this investigation. I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that the last section of the motion was not included in the original notice of motion. The motion relates to a proposed inquiry by a Senate committee, or other parliamentary committee, relating particularly to the incidence of the crown of thorns starfish, the scientific name of which is acanthaster planci, and the necessity to investigate it further. There is a reference in the motion to the recent worries about the pollution from a road in the Daintree Rainforest which is said to be affecting the neighbouring reefs. As honourable senators will see, the motion sets out a number of complaints and problems which the public has raised in regard to the investigations that have taken place in the past into this problem. It hinges, of course, on the Commonwealth's great responsibility for the Great Barrier Reef, which is a world heritage feature and of great concern to Australia, for tourist reasons as well as our great desire to retain and protect this great feature. The proposal, as I have said, is that there should be an examination by a Senate committee of the state of action that has been taken in the past and is proposed in the future to deal with this problem. I mentioned that the motion now contains a further aspect; namely, that if the Senate Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment is not able to handle this investigation, because its current work is of some importance, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation may well desire to do so. I had a letter today from Senator Jones, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment, indicating that the Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation is obtaining a briefing and will probably desire to take up this matter. I think it is very important that the inquiry be made and that the Parliament be informed because there are very substantial suggestions for increased research grants. Other things may be needed. I believe that Parliament should be much better informed in this area. I hope that the Senate will pass the motion and that, if the Senate Committee cannot deal with the matter, it will go on to another appropriate committee of the Parliament so that an urgent inquiry is undertaken. The problem of the crown of thorns starfish has had a very long history. I do not propose to go into that at any length whatsoever. We know that the crown of thorns starfish is found not only in Australia but also in many reefs in other parts of the world. At various times it has reached plague proportions in some of those reefs. Indeed, it reached plague proportions in Australia in about 1964 and throughout the end of that decade and into the 1970s, it was a substantial destroyer of coral on the reef. It moved from place to place. In the earlier infestations it had a tendency to go from the north to the south. By 1977 it had considerably faded away and did not pose such a great problem. Regrettably, the research which should have been done by that time was not completed and the impetus went from this examination. I refer to a very interesting paper, which I invite honourable senators to read, by Mr P. J. Moran, who is a research scientist with the Australian Institute of Marine Science. I will refer to a number of things which he has written in his paper which is described as a 'Synopsis of Research on the Acanthaster Phenomenon'. It contains a very good history of the type of research that has been done. In regard to the various earlier reports which have been made, at page 23 of that paper Mr Moran said: With the decline of starfish numbers throughout the Great Barrier Reef research waned, however a second outbreak at Green Island in 1979 resulted in the formation of a further Committee which again reviewed the results of previous research, ascertained the significance of the present outbreak observed on Green Island and sought to determine whether further research should be undertaken with a view to managing the phenomenon. He continued: This Committee in turn recommended that several types of research be carried out . . . He set these out then commented: In the intervening years since this Committee was established some of these studies have been undertaken. I stress 'some of these studies'- Unfortunately, however, the most important of them, involving experiments on the population dynamics of starfish, has yet to be carried out. I think it is very regrettable and perhaps tragic that the impetus was not maintained. Of course, the position is that since 1979 there has been a further infestation. Some of the reefs have been very seriously affected, particularly those in the central region of the Great Barrier Reef where there are substantial populations-many thousands, if not millions-of starfish and where great portions of the reef have been damaged, perhaps some of them irreparably. The position came to a head so far as the public is concerned-public interest has varied on this matter over the last 20 years or so-in December 1984 when a film, which was produced by Mr Robert Raymond for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, was shown on television. Honourable senators may be interested to know that the script of that film was reproduced in the Bulletin of 18 December 1984. It sets out many of the arguments and controversies that have arisen on this issue. Before I deal particularly with that film, I add that I raised questions about this matter in the Senate on 25 August 1982 and had a reply from the previous Government on 8 September 1982. This arose largely from the complaints of Dr Robert Endean, a well-known researcher on this issue in Queensland. On 10 November 1983 I asked another question of the present Government. I must say that, from the answers I received, I got the impression that governments were rather complacent about the matter; the answers were somewhat evasive. Extra information which was promised was not brought to my attention. Senator Townley —I ask you a question, Senator: If the Science and Environment Committee cannot handle this, why could not the National Resources Committee of the Senate have a look at it? Senator MISSEN —That is probably quite a good point. As the honourable senator will see from my motion, what I have done is to ask whether the Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment can deal with it and, if not, whether another committee of the Parliament can be recommended. I do not in any way pass by the fact that another Senate committee could be the appropriate one, or a House of Representatives committee. I prefer to leave that open. No doubt Senator Townley with his interest in this area will take that further. As I have said, in reply to questions that I have asked, no real enthusiasm has been shown by governments, nor have I received considered answers. Having also talked with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, I gained the impression that it feels that its case has not been adequately heard. That is one reason why this inquiry is desirable. The Authority wants an inquiry and a chance to be heard. The Chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Mr Graeme Kelleher, has made public comments on the situation. Of course, there have been criticisms of the way in which the Authority has handled this matter. On 9 February 1984 Mr Kelleher, in an interview session, spoke about the devastation that had taken place in various places and pointed out that, for example, Green Island had been completely devastated three times and had recovered completely in a period of from seven to 15 years. There have been recoveries but there are some doubts in many people's minds as to whether the recoveries that take place to the reefs are adequate or whether the regrowth is different and whether some of the varieties of coral which were there are lost with consequent long term damage to the reefs. Mr Kelleher was asked in the interview whether the crown of thorns was a regular cyclical event. He said: No, I'm not saying that. It's probably not regular, for a start. And we wouldn't call it cyclical. It may be periodic, it may be a recurrent event, but it's very unlikely that it occurs on a fixed time interval. There is no evidence, no convincing evidence that it is due to the activities of man and until the scientific community tells us that it is due to the activities of man we do not want to interfere in the natural process. That's what we are saying. I interpolate that one of the problems is that there is so little information in this area and so little research being done and therefore many of the questions cannot be answered by the respective authorities. This is something which should be researched and looked into by a committee of this Parliament to establish what is the cause, what are the types of infestation and how they can be dealt with. If answers are not known to the earlier questions, we are in trouble. I mention that a number of inquiries have taken place by various committees. In 1969 and 1970 there was an ad hoc committee of the Australian Academy of Science which made certain recommendations. In 1971 the Commonwealth and Queensland governments held an inquiry into the crown of thorns starfish and again recommendations were made. Very often the recommendations have not been carried out, sometimes because of the desire by governments to economise. The result is that many of these things have been repeated. Between 1971 and 1975 there was an advisory committee on research into the crown of thorns starfish and again in 1980 an advisory committee on the crown of thorns starfish, which made a report to the Marine Park Authority. I have already referred to Mr Moran's paper in which he pointed out that much of the research recommended was not carried out. The most recent report, which I think makes it very relevant that a Senate committee inquiry be set up, was made to the Marine Park Authority by the Crown of Thorns Starfish Advisory Committee on 11 January this year. It is a very important and substantial report. It recommends that substantial research projects be undertaken at a cost altogether of about $3m over the next five years. This report mentions the previous investigations. Some of the expressions from it are found in the motion I moved today. The conclusions made in the report are significant and disturbing. At one stage it states: Present evidence is inadequate for scientists to agree on the nature and significance of the phenomenon of aggregations of large numbers of crown of thorns starfish and thus on the extent of any consequent risk. However the Committee recognises that the presence of very large numbers of crown of thorns starfish is a major management problem in some areas of the Great Barrier Reef. It also states: Until more information is available direct management intervention in the crown of thorns starfish phenomenon should continue to be limited to tactical control measures designed to protect corals at specific sites of importance for tourism or scientific research. I comment there that that is indeed the policy of the Authority. Maybe that is a very satisfactory attitude. But if it is wrong and if, because of the information not being available, damage is being done of a permanent nature, we will live to regret it. We ought to look very carefully to see whether mere tactical controls, as have been done by the Authority, with the removal of some starfish, are sufficient. I think a reef called Cod Hole is one place where the starfish have been physically removed. It has been successful there and there was a particular reason for doing it. But maybe some such physical activity to remove them should take place in other areas. There is much doubt as to whether that can be done. The Authority has evidence, and there is evidence from Japan, that suggests that physically removing the starfish does not make a great deal of difference to the rate at which they go away. Indeed, in Japan some $5m was spent on doing that and it is claimed by experts there that that money has been largely wasted. The Advisory Committee report goes on to state: The current level of research activity is unlikely to lead to a short term (3-5 years) resolution of the questions raised by the presence of very large populations of crown of thorns starfish on the Great Barrier Reef. The Committee recognises the need for further research and has identified a number of specific research areas which, if addressed now should help within 3-5 years to improve understanding of the degree of threat to the Great Barrier Reef. Nevertheless the Committee stresses that such research cannot be guaranteed to answer questions relating to the desirability or feasibility of control measures. Answers cannot be guaranteed, but we must be sure that proceeding with research now is all that should be done. That is by no means certain. I urge honourable senators and the people who investigate this matter to look carefully at that report because that will be a matter we will have to consider in the Senate or in the Parliament this year as demands are made for additional moneys. The action I have taken in regard to this matter has been to present the notice of motion for appointment. Under the Freedom of Information Act I have sought from the departments, the Authority and AIMS-the Australian Institute of Marine Science-the material which they have relevant to this matter. I must say that they have been very co-operative. Indeed, I have inspected the documents in Canberra and in Townsville. I have obtained a great deal of information from the departments, the officials of these organisations and the James Cook University, all of which have done research on this. They have been most co-operative indeed. I have also sought from the Department of Foreign Affairs information on the complaints and information from abroad. On a somewhat light note, I mention that in the Department I found what appeared, at first, to be an insuperable barrier. The file in regard to this matter was, according to a letter I received from the Department, rather submerged. In the letter I received in reply to my request it is stated: The particular body of documentation concerned related to an Australian submission to the World Heritage Committee in 1981, regarding inscription of the Great Barrier Reef on the World Heritage List. The closed parts of file-- the number is given- which would contain that documentation are in the Department's sub-basement, which is closed to access on account of an asbestos problem, and are consequently inaccessible. I wrote back a somewhat cynical reply, having great doubts about that being grounds for denying access to the file under the Freedom of Information Act. I received a reply assuring me that, indeed, it was a real problem. The letter states: The files concerned were retrieved yesterday, after consultation with officers of the relevant industrial organisations, by two senior officers wearing protective clothing. They proved not to contain a copy of the Australian nomination of the Great Barrier Reef for inclusion in the World Heritage List. I am sorry that the valiant efforts of the officers who underwent that dangerous journey were not rewarded with their finding the documents. As I have mentioned, the Marine Park Authority has adopted a policy of limiting the actual physical use to tactical control measures, making investigations and developing biological control techniques, which is part of the proposed research. The Authority has also researched the recolonisation of reefs that have been attacked by the crown of thorns starfish and the various ways that might be adopted to deal with the problem. I commend it for the studies it has done. As far as I can see, a great deal more research is needed and that will take money. There are criticisms which could be made. My comments are not to be taken in any way as forming any conclusions, but I raise these issues because I think they are within the ambit of the investigations which should be carried out. Because of our world responsibility there is a need to ensure that all efforts are made to understand the causes, so that we know what causes the sudden outbreaks from one reef to another reef hundreds of kilometres away-that is very necessary for education and development-and that we then consider possible methods of eradication. There are a number of possibilities, but I have not got time to go into them. Clearly, a great number of gaps are involved in research. Mr P. J. Moran sets out at some length, at page 22 of his paper, the various gaps in research, such as a lack of quantitative experiments, a lack of knowledge on the movements of star fish, a lack of knowledge on the effect of predators of the star fish and so forth. It is obvious, therefore, that a great deal of knowledge is needed. We can be criticised for the fact that these things are not yet known. There are the untested theories which are the cause of this whole event: Is it natural or is it some perturbation in the waters and change which has caused this sudden rise in the population of the starfish; are there human factors, pollution or things of that sort; that have caused this; is it connected with the loss of predators that used to prey on the starfish-there are suggestions to that effect but there are a lot of suggestions that that is not so; have changes in the nature of the starfish caused it now to grow in this way? There has been inadequate survey of the islands and the reefs until this year. When I was up there at AIMS a project was about to be launched under the Commonwealth Employment Service program. That project will mean that this year something like 120 of the reefs will be surveyed. There will then be much more knowledge of the degree of the infestation. There is a lot more to be done in regard to the methods of propagation and the way in which this happens. Also, consideration should be given to whether practical things can be done at this time to deal with the problem. Criticism has been made that there has been a disjointed attack over the years. There is the Marine Park Authority; some 50 kilometres away there is AIMS; there is also the James Cook University. Experts in all these areas are doing work. As the report of 1985 sets out, there is a need for a co-ordinator to ensure that the research aims at the one problem. In the reports of AIMS over the last two or three years very little reference is made to the crown of thorns starfish and research in that area. In the annual reports of 1982-83, 1983-84 and predicted research activities for the current year, there is no substantial reference to it. Only recently has it come to great prominence. I therefore think that we must consider whether research is enough. If it is funded we should ensure that the necessary and desirable research is undertaken. The critics must be heard also so that we know whether there are other things to be done that are not presently contemplated. In the notice of motion which I will move there is also reference to the Daintree road and the feared effect of pollution on the neighbouring or fringe reefs. I make brief mention of that, but it is a very important issue which is worrying, certainly those involved in the field, and the public generally. The danger arises from the fact that there has been considerable pollution. There is great criticism of the road which has been built on the edge of the sea. Experts and divers have observed a great deal of pollution flowing from the road, such as mud which has settled and has caused a great problem over the reef. In an article which appeared in the Age on 7 February 1982 there is considerable reference to it. Dr John Veron, who is a widely acknowledged authority on corals in the Australian and Pacific region, states: It is strange, extremely unexpected, to have these two complex ecosystems existing side by side-- that is the forest and the reefs- because normally the conditions required for a rainforest preclude fringing reef-that is what makes this Daintree coast such a special place. He goes on to express the view that there is a great deal of runoff-a great deal of mud and clay-that is coming into the water. He was horrified when he found this in the reef. He stated: A plume of orange mud was pouring off that range as the result of those earthworks. I had wondered before whether fears about siltation from the road were exaggerated, but it would be hard for me to exaggerate what I saw that day. He believes it may become a chronic problem in wet seasons, particularly from the headlands and creeks that flow into it. Likewise, Mr Graeme Kelleher, the Chairman of the Authority, stated: There is clear evidence a fair amount of silt is coming off the road and it's time for us to find out if that is affecting the fringing reefs. Dr Veron says more than this. In an interview which he had on an Australian Broadcasting Corporation program he drew attention to the fact that a similar situation had occurred in Japan where a road was built on the end of the reefs. This area is described as Nishigarki Island. He said: . . . where a road was put in around the south side of the island and there was a fringing reef adjacent to the road and, according to the Japanese, that is what killed the reef. The reef when I saw it was certainly very dead, so I think it is attributable to the road construction on the island. I think it is important therefore that this be investigated. The Authority also desires that this be done. I think it is a matter about which we should be concerned because it may lead to the death of that fringing reef, which has a great number of varieties of coral in it. I believe it is important that the Parliament, with its duty towards the Great Barrier Reef, should take up this question and should review what has been done and the proposed new researchers. I have been told by Senator Townley since I have commenced speaking that the Standing Committee on National Resources would be able to handle almost immediately the reference to which I am referring. If this motion is carried and the Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment cannot handle it, that is another alternative to be considered. I believe it is important to give audiences to those people who have been critical of the activities of the Authority. I believe it is only right that the Authority should have an opportunity to put before the Parliament its view and proposals, which are not easy to explain and which get very little attention in the Press. I believe that all these things call for this Parliament to take very strong action to see that research is done and action is taken to save from danger this particular reef. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(4.22) —I thank Senator Missen for bringing this motion to the Senate. I have yet to hear what other people have to say, but I suggest to him that, where he calls on the Senate Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment to undertake a reference, he be prepared to accept an amendment that says 'or the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources'. I suggest that that be inserted, where appropriate, because I think it is well known that Senate committees are better able to handle inquiries of this nature. I do not think anybody would doubt that the Great Barrier Reef or the Daintree Rainforest is a national resource, so I do not think it is against the spirit of the motion. The present Secretary of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources used to be the Secretary of the Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment, so he already has some knowledge of matters in that area. If Senator Missen would accept that amendment, I would be very grateful. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(4.23) —The Australian Democrats support Senator Missen's motion. He has been interested on a long term basis in conservation issues, and I give him full credit for that. We would go further than the motion. I refer particularly to Senator Macklin's private member's Bill, which is at the second reading stage in the Senate, to grant interim protection to the Daintree region until it can be entered on to the World Heritage Commission list. The view of the Democrats and, I believe, the conservation movement is that this is a non-negotiable position. Nevertheless, there is no reason why we should not support Senator Missen's initiative which we believe goes some of the distance towards solving some of the problems of that area. This motion refers mainly to the crown of thorns starfish issue. Like Senator Missen, and no doubt many other honourable senators, I saw Bob Raymond's television documentary on the subject, which raised points that need to be resolved. This has been a controversial area for a great deal of time, with experts on both sides saying two different things. One side maintains there is nothing wrong with the crown of thorns; it is a cyclic occurrence which is normal. The other side maintains-and demonstrates with very graphic film, such as the Raymond documentary-that it is causing a great deal of damage. It is difficult for those of us who do not go up there regularly and swim the length of the reef underwater to know what the situation is. Some kind of inquiry is necessary and I hope that inquiry will be able to get before it those people who really know. By that, I mean the people who dive on the reef, who spend a lot of time there and who have been acquainted with the scope of the problem. It seems to me the scope of the crown of thorns starfish issue is the important question. How far does it go; how much is being damaged; and, how quickly is the reef regenerating? Unless we establish these answers, we may have a situation that causes permanent harm to the reef. The motion brought by Senator Missen notes recent reports that soil erosion arising from the building of a road in the Daintree Rainforest may be creating a threat to rare coral reefs just off the Daintree coast. We are pleased and interested to see that he has brought that point forward, because for more than a year the conservation movement in general and the Australian Democrats have been pointing out the tragic consequences of this road, which has become a symbol of environmental vandalism. I would state it at no less than that. I will not repeat the points Senator Missen raised and I will not quote again the authorities he referred to, but there can be no doubt whatsoever that there is soil run-off into the sea which is threatening the fringing reefs of the Great Barrier Reef which comes very close to the land at that point. One can see from some graphic photographs which have come into my possession how close the reef comes in there. This is one of the unique beauty spots of the world and one of the most interesting curiousities-rain hills covered with a forest come down to an unspoiled beach coast, and the fringing reefs of the Great Barrier Reef come virtually within swimming distance off the coast. Many of us who disliked right from the start the Bloomfield to Cape Tribulation road were not fully understood. I do not think people realised the main burden of our complaint was with the type of road that was built. It was a dirt surface subject to severe erosion. Indeed, when it was first opened it was so bad that the first vehicles across it were hopelessly bogged down. If honourable senators want to see photographs of the damage that has been done, they have only to go into the Australian Democrats Party room to see it all in proven photographic form. There is no doubt whatsoever that the road at that point is collapsing away in massive slips which are falling off into the sea. I would have thought it was a singularly bone-headed decision on the part of the people who built that road, for whatever reason, to have allowed it to be in that situation. They should have known before they even built the road that that consequence would occur. The thing now is to do something about it. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.30) —I am still recovering from my astonishment at the turn of events in the last week in relation to the whole matter of the New South Wales police tapes and the Age tapes which are associated with them. If I seem a little breathless at the moment, it is simply because of the extraordinary change in events and, in particular, the twists, turns and I might even say squirms of the Government and in particular of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and no doubt of the former Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, who is in charge of this Bill in the Senate. The legislation we are considering is an amendment to the Telecommunications (Interception) Act to enable material that would otherwise be unable to be used by or even given to Mr Justice Stewart to form part of the material that he may use, inquire into and report upon. However, the Bill itself is associated with a statement of the Attorney-General on behalf of the Government which greatly widens the terms of reference of Mr Justice Stewart in his capacity heading the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking which was specifically concerned with the Mr Asia syndicate. What we now have presented to us by the Government is a package which virtually establishes a new royal commission presided over by Mr Justice Stewart in very wide terms which are set out in the second reading speech. It will investigate matters relating to the unauthorised interception of telephone conversations in New South Wales, not limited to any particular period, except up to today. It is of the widest character, but specifically it is in relation to such interceptions which almost certainly were made by New South Wales police. At the same time, there are amendments to the legislation to enable material to be given to Mr Justice Stewart enabling him to inquire into additional material, as well as the Age tapes which have already been given to him under a previous amendment to the Act last year. The amendments give Mr Justice Stewart much wider terms of reference and also ask him to recommend in relation to the granting of indemnities to persons who may be able to give evidence in possible prosecutions which could emerge from the whole of this new consideration of material by Mr Justice Stewart. This is a complete change of policy by the Government. I hasten to say immediately that it is a change of policy which the Opposition entirely supports. We will support the speedy passage of this legislation. Nothing could be a clearer example of our support than the co-operation we have displayed today in another place and here in ensuring that this legislation, which was introduced into the Parliament only just before midday today, will in fact become law before the day is out-that is, unless the Government stumbles again at some stage and cannot even get it in proper form to the Governor-General before the day is out. I would not bank on its managing to do that, but if it does not manage it today, perhaps it will manage it tomorrow. Senator Robertson —That is not worthy of you. Senator DURACK —That is not an unfair remark because of the utter confusion that occurred in the House of Representatives this morning. Statements were issued to the Opposition and withdrawn. Statements were issued to the Press and the Government then tried to withdraw them. New statements were supposed to be being considered by Cabinet and when the final statements were produced they were almost exactly the same as the ones that were given to the Opposition hours before. There really has been utter confusion. The Government was not able to get its act together very competently until about midday. This characterises the whole sorry record of this Government in the last three or four weeks on this matter. I want to go back a lot further than that. The whole question of the New South Wales police tapes, of which the Age tapes are only a part, has been a matter of very great public concern for more than 12 months. It has been a matter of very great concern in this chamber and the Opposition has had a very consistent view from the word go. More than 12 months ago the Leader of the Opposition called for a royal commission into the whole question of this material. At that stage all that was known about it was what has become known as the Age tapes-the material that was given to the Age newspaper early in February last year. That material, as published by the Age, and by repute and by comment that was made freely upon it, indicated that there probably was illegal interception of telephone conversations. The material was derived from such interception. But the material also referred to the possibility of very widespread breaches of both Federal and State criminal laws. Two major questions arose. There was the question of how this material was brought into existence and what authenticity it had and, secondly, what value it was in establishing proof of very serious criminal conduct in a wide range of activities by people who are engaging in that conduct. A whole range of possible offences of a criminal nature were raised by the material. It clearly called for the most serious investigation at the highest level. That is why the Opposition called for a royal commission at that time. That was consistently repudiated by the Government until the volte-face by the Government only a day or so ago. The Government responded by sending the material off to the Special Prosecutor and partially responded by proposing to send the material to Mr Justice Stewart but at that stage-and indeed until his terms of reference are amended-his brief was very limited, to the investigation of the Mr Asia syndicate. That was about the limit of the Government's response-except for the negative response by the Government, particularly by the former Attorney-General, who is the Minister at the table now. His negative response was tremendous. From the word go he sought to resist adequate and proper inquiries into this whole matter. He consistently threw doubt on the authenticity of the material. Not only did he throw doubt on its authenticity, which was a matter of concern, he even went so far as to say in his first statement on the matter in the Senate on 28 February last year: We simply have no means, and are unlikely in the future to have any means, of being sure that we have a full, untampered with, reliable account of the conversations that appear to have been intercepted. His line was that we were never likely to know and he did not believe it was even really desirable that the authenticity of the material should be properly established in the most effective way; namely a royal commission, which is now what the Government has agreed to. Furthermore, the policy of the Government from the word go last year, no doubt under the influence of the former Attorney-General, was to emphasise the illegality of the material being brought into existence and of the invasion of privacy involved in it, rather than to concentrate on the substance of the material and what it revealed about substantive crime. I quote again from Senator Evans's statement of 28 February last year, when he said: The most worrying aspect of this whole matter is, I believe, the massive illegality and invasion of privacy which appears to have been involved; and, associated with that, the profound indifference, even cynicism, with which that illegality and privacy has been greeted by some members of the media and Opposition spokesmen. The Opposition has never sought to minimise or deny the very probable illegality or the seriousness of the illegality of how this material was obtained. The Opposition wanted a full and balanced inquiry into the whole business. How did the material come into existence? What did it reveal about crime? What could be done about the crime and revelations of crime that were probably contained in it? A very important part of the record-it is a matter to which I should refer-is the first committee set up by the Senate, again in the teeth of opposition from the Government. That was the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge which reported to the Senate on 24 August last year. The Committee reported to the Senate about the information it obtained further to that obtained by the Special Prosecutor about the nature of the material which was then known as the Age tapes. I do not propose to read the detail of it but it is set out in paragraph 39 of that Committee's report and it gives a clear picture of what the position was, namely, that officers of the New South Wales police force had taped material over a period in which they were targeting selected criminals. The object of their getting this material was to use it for intelligence purposes which, if it had been legal, would have been a very proper police exercise. But what we have to face up to is that the police have done that. There is an enormous amount of material, which is said to have been used for police intelligence purposes. Indeed, one of the defences that the Attorney-General has used in recent weeks is that the material, such as it is, has now been squeezed dry. There is nothing more in it and there is nothing more that we ought to be doing about it. What we have always needed to know and what we will now know as a result of the Government's about-face and backdown on this matter-- Senator Haines —Somersault. Senator DURACK —You name it. One could use a string of words about this matter. We need to know what was the extent of this material. How much is there of it? It has been said that the Age tapes are only the tip of the iceberg. Not only that but also the Attorney has revealed lately that telephone interceptions were not confined only to the period 1976 to 1981. They occurred before then and have occurred right to the end of last year. Indeed, from what the Attorney is now saying, such a practice may be going on today. There is probably an enormous amount of material. We need to know all about it. We need to know how much intelligence has been obtained from this material and whether more intelligence can be gathered from it. It seems most unlikely that all the intelligence that was available from it has been extracted, as the Attorney-General said the other day. We need to know the nature of criminal offences and the extent to which such offences can be prosecuted as a result of all this material being found. A vast range of issues and questions are presented by this material about which, if it had been properly handled 12 months ago, we would now have the answers and something further could have been done about it. Fortunately, as a result of the pressure of public opinion and the pressure applied by the Opposition in this Parliament, and with the efforts of Mr Justice Stewart and the people assisting him under his new terms of reference, we should be able to have answers to all these questions by the end of this year. As I have said, the Opposition is very pleased that finally the Government has decided to do the right thing. Even though the Government has made somersaults, U-turns and whatever, the fact is that finally we are getting a royal commission, presided over by Mr Justice Stewart, with terms of reference which, as far as we can see, are perfectly adequate to do the job that we have always said should be done. Of course, as part of that exercise we have to amend the Telecommunications (Interception) Act. That is being done in a more satisfactory way than before. If there is anything that underlines the dramatic change of approach to this whole matter-I am sure the former Attorney-General, the Minister for Resources and Energy, who is present in the chamber, must be squirming about this-it is the amendment. It is what seems to be a simple little amendment so that the Act does not require that Mr Justice Stewart should have to be able to authenticate the material before he can use it. Now he will be free to approach the matter at large. He will not be hamstrung in that way. That was the high point of the approach of Senator Evans, the former Attorney-General, to this matter-that one cannot do anything until the material is authenticated. That was a part of the limitations that were sought to be imposed upon the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge. That Senate Committee found that to be a difficult matter as well, but it was able to get around it. That was the approach which has now been abandoned as well. That is another very important part of the retreat. It is one which the Opposition is very pleased to support. Of course, we have the matter of indemnities. If anything has really been more absurd and demeaning to the office of Attorney-General of the Commonwealth it is the way in which the present incumbent, Mr Lionel Bowen, has been performing in relation to this question of granting indemnities. He has revealed a complete misunderstanding about the matter of indemnities, the powers of the Attorney-General in relation to that and the right basis on which to grant indemnities. He has had to learn about that. He has also been trying to agonise in public. I do not know whether that was just because he wanted to get sympathy or he thought he could get help, but the result is that he has not understood the right approach. He seemed to have the belief that police could not be given indemnities. Fortunately, at some stage somebody showed him the document known as 'Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth' which was prepared by me and tabled in the time of the previous Government. As Senator Evans has acknowledged over and over again, it is a very valuable document. As a result of the Attorney-General having his attention drawn to that document and having studied it we now seem to have established the right approach to the matter of indemnities, which is set out in the second reading speech. Of course, it is quite clear that all the previous statements Mr Bowen was making about how he could not give indemnity to the police were absolute nonsense. He has had to accept that now. He now seems to be taking the right approach to that question. He is going to ask Mr Justice Stewart to make recommendations in the right way and in accordance with that policy. It now appears that as a result of that he will get co-operation from at least a number of police. I do not know whether all the police will co-operate. No one knows that, but it now seems very probable that as a result of approaching this matter in the right way, at long last that co-operation will come forward, to the extent anyway that Mr Justice Stewart will be able sensibly to perform his functions and make his reports and recommendations. However, the Opposition is concerned about the new proposals by the Government because they seem to be placing an enormous burden upon Mr Justice Stewart. We have the utmost confidence in Mr Justice Stewart to carry out this work, as we do in his ability to carry out his work as Chairman of the National Crime Authority and on the Royal Commission into the 'Mr Asia' syndicate and the Royal Commission into Nugan Hand. However, we have been concerned as to whether a man who has so much to do can now also carry out the major tasks with which he has been presented under these terms of reference in relation to the New South Wales police tapes. That is the only matter on which we are concerned. In the House of Representatives today the Opposition moved an amendment to the motion for the second reading of this Bill to add to it the following words: whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House calls upon the Government: (1) to ensure that Mr Justice Stewart is provided with personnel and material resources, including the services of senior counsel and other assistants sufficient for this inquiry to be completed with thoroughness, effectiveness and expedition, and (2) to be satisfied that Mr Justice Stewart's other important inquiries into the Nugan Hand Bank and the 'Mr Asia' Affair and his work as the Chairman of the National Crime Authority are able to proceed without hindrance or disruption in addition to the further inquiries which are the subject of this Bill. I am told that in the other place the Attorney-General gave those assurances. We notice that the Government will provide an extra $1.5m to the Royal Commission to carry out these additional functions. I doubt whether that will be sufficient. Still, the Government has given an earnest of its good faith in that respect. In view of that and in view of the assurances, as I am instructed, that have been given in another place, the Opposition in the Senate will not move that amendment to the motion for the second reading. The Government having already made those assurances, I think it would be churlish for us to move it here. However, I am referring to it here because I want to emphasise that that is the concern the Opposition has. Although we are accepting the Government's assurances now on that point, nevertheless we will watch it very carefully. We want to be absolutely sure that Mr Justice Stewart will have sufficient assistance and that other arrangements will be made for carrying on what work he would otherwise have been doing on the National Crime Authority. Certainly we will be watching that carefully in the coming months. We are looking forward to having if not his final report by the end of the year at least some interim reports during that time and by the end of this year on this most important subject. As I have said, the Opposition is very pleased with the turn of events. We believe that it is just a year or so too late, that there have been a whole lot of developments that may have occurred in relation to this matter over that time which could have affected in an adverse way the inquiries that will now be embarked upon. We can only express our grave concern about the attitude of this Government, particularly the two Attorneys-General, Mr Lionel Bowen and Senator Gareth Evans, who from beginning to end of this affair have on their heads an extremely sorry record of non-performance and misunderstanding. I think it is quite contrary to all their rhetoric and protestations about their desire to be fighting organised crime in this country. We have always had grave doubts about the genuineness of the protestations of this Government and these Attorneys-General. Certainly the performance of the current Attorney-General in recent weeks has given us even greater cause for alarm because of his deep misunderstanding of his powers, his role and his duties. Wisdom finally seems to have been thrust upon him. I hope that when it comes to exercising his powers to grant indemnities he will be adequate to the task. I made a mistake a few months ago, after the last election and the new Government was being formed, when I expressed the view publicly that Mr Lionel Bowen was better qualified to be Attorney-General than the former Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans. I should have said, of course, that neither of them is qualified for that high office. In fact, it is a case of out of the frying pan and into the fire. Fortunately the efforts of the Opposition and the pressure of public opinion have plucked this most important issue out of the fire. It is not too late to proceed with a proper inquiry into this major matter. We certainly wish Mr Justice Stewart all the best in the herculean efforts that will be required. We reaffirm our confidence in his ability to carry out this enormous task. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(5.56) —The Australian Democrats welcome the proposed amendments to the Telecommunications (Interception) Act which are before us today. I think everybody is aware that they arise from the recent controversy regarding the granting of indemnities to 31 police officers involved in unlawful telephone interceptions and the need to ensure that any information those officers can give is made available to the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking. However, I endorse Senator Durack's comments with regard to the rather peculiar wavering manner in which the Federal Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has acted and question why it took both the Federal Government and the New South Wales Government so long to act to correct what was clearly a glaringly imperfect situation. It is a shame that one cannot incorporate cartoons in Hansard because I really believe that the Tandberg cartoon showing Mr Lionel Bowen doing a somersault but insisting that he had not changed his position probably summarises, as well as anything else, the situation which has gone on for the last few days and which Senator Durack rightly described as breathtaking. The amendments are linked to the changes to be made to the terms of reference of the Stewart Royal Commission to enable Mr Justice Stewart to inquire into the extent of unauthorised telecommunications interceptions in New South Wales and the extent to which material related to this discloses offences against the law. It will, of course, be matched by the introduction of equivalent New South Wales legislation. It may well be that this is part of the reason why there was a delay in action. The New South Wales Government could not get its act together and the Federal Government could not act without complementary legislation or vice versa. Who was slower off the mark is a matter for debate. Senator Missen —You are nothing but charitable, Senator. Senator HAINES —It is the end of a two-week session. I think I can afford to be generous for no other reason than that. The essence of the necessary changes to both the Commonwealth and the New South Wales terms of reference is to empower the Royal Commission to inquire into and report upon, firstly, the existence of any information relating to unauthorised telephone interceptions in New South Wales which discloses offences or possible offences against the law; secondly, the nature of the offences disclosed; and, thirdly, persons to whom indemnity should be given. As I understand it, there are two conditions attaching to the granting of indemnities. The first is the active co-operation of the person or persons concerned and, secondly, the insistence that the intercept was for crime detection purposes only. Nobody would disagree with some comments made by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) with regard to the delicacy of granting indemnities. He said in his second reading speech: One major question (to quote Senator Durack) to be addressed is: 'Is the evidence of the person in respect of whom the indemnity or pardon is sought essential to achieve the conviction of the principle offender?' Mr Justice Stewart apparently thought so or he would not have recommended indemnities for the 31 police officers concerned. Senator Evans went on to say: The Prosecution Policy makes this statement in concluding the principles on grant of indemnity: 'The ultimate decision to grant an indemnity or recommend grant of a pardon is only made after the most careful consideration of . . (the) material. Assuming a decision is made to grant an indemnity, the scope of the indemnity should be no wider than the circumstances require.' I would have thought that those requirements were fairly self-evidently fulfilled in the present circumstances. Certainly, nobody likes to grant indemnities lightly. They should not be readily given, unless it is quite apparent that there is a very high chance that more can be gained from granting them and getting additional information than would be gained from not doing so and simply proceeding with other prosecutions. The indemnities and information likely to be gained from them relate, as has also been pointed out, only to intercepts up to and including 28 March although they can go back as far into history as people have the time or inclination to go. Furthermore, the Minister pointed out that there is a 28-day moratorium, so to speak-a requirement that people come forward, I presume from the time an announcement is made. If they do not do so within that period-that is, if they do not respond with some sort of material-indemnities will not be granted in the future. The associated amendments to the Telecommunications (Interception) Act are essentially threefold. Firstly, they remove the requirement that Justice Stewart must establish the authenticity of the Age materials before dealing with them. This is doing what somebody who spoke to me this morning said was essentially putting the cart back behind the horse. Secondly, they permit persons to furnish material to the Royal Commission without breaking the Act. Thirdly, they allow the Royal Commission to pass on the material to responsible authorities without committing an offence against the Act. This is a fairly useful change. The combined thrust of the extended royal commission powers and the amendments to the Act give Justice Stewart substantially greater flexibility in his inquiries. For example, the Royal Commission is not limited to any period of interception other than that which I mentioned earlier. The critical amendments to section 7B, removing the requirement that authenticity must be established first, will ensure that the process of investigation will be much faster and are likely, of course, to lead to much more definite results. This important provision should reduce the possibility of major criminal figures escaping the clutches of the law because of the slowness of the process. In effect, many of the hurdles with which Justice Stewart has had to contend in his inquiries have now been removed. He can investigate speedily and pass relevant information to any other responsible authority-the National Crime Authority, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Australian Federal Police and so on-without being as hamstrung as he has been in the past. I remind the Minister that when the debate on the National Crime Authority Bill was ensuing my colleague Senator Macklin raised, I think in the Committee stage, the rather farcical situation whereby we had poor Mr Justice Stewart wearing the hat of royal commissioner, not being able to divulge any information to Justice Stewart wearing the hat of Chairman of the National Crime Authority in case he breached some Act or other. That sort of refined schizophrenia has been removed by the amendments to the Act today. Senator Missen —He has a three-cornered hat now. Senator HAINES —He may well have a three-cornered hat, but at least they can talk to each other; they can at least exchange information. Coupled with the fact that the hat covers an extremely fine brain, this will be of significant benefit to the prosecution of the criminal element in this country. That brings me to the Opposition's apparent objection to the legislation before us today-the only objection, I understand, that it has-that is, that Justice Stewart has too much to do. I suggest that his current involvements are fairly much interrelated; it is not as though they are in vastly different disciplines. He is about to conclude his joint reference from the New South Wales Government and the Federal Government into the Nugan Hand business, he is the Royal Commissioner investigating drug trafficking and he is Chairman of the National Crime Authority, which of course must have as one of its references these sorts of areas. If we acknowledged that, a more appropriate approach to take would be to be to say that it is extremely important to capitalise on the Royal Commissioner's experience and expertise and what, I suggest, is a unique grasp and knowledge of organised crime in Australia at the moment. Rather than dividing it up amongst a variety of people, rather than hamstringing Mr Justice Stewart and putting hurdles in his way, we ought to make the most of the unique position he is in. I suggest, as a reasonable analogy, that nobody with some complicated medical problem would take pity on the work load of his general practitioner and go to see two or three doctors giving each of them part of the story, but not allowing each of them to compare notes with the others and then still expect a cure. Mr Justice Stewart is in a unique position to achieve something that we in this place have been talking about for a very long time; that is, stemming if not actually combating the problem of organised crime, and in particular drug related organised crime in this country. In conclusion, I say again how pleased the Australian Democrats are with the amendments. We have always adopted a strong approach to organised crime and on occasions, Senator Chipp has been, if not ridiculed, as least chided gently for this. We, and certainly Senator Chipp are not Johnny-come-latelys to the question of opposing organised crime, of arguing that strong methods have to be taken to combat something as strong as this is in our country. There is no point in pussy footing about with something that is as well entrenched and as dangerous as are the sorts of behaviour we are talking about. There is no point in raising delicate questions of civil liberties when we are dealing with a group of people who shamelessly ride across the civil liberties of a very large group of people in this country, people who are vulnerable and not capable of fighting back. We have always argued that due processes of law should be brought strongly to bear on these people with no impediments, artificial or otherwise, thrown in their way. This morning's Age editorial stated: . . . the new Stewart enquiry into the New South Wales tapes could be the turning point in the community's war against organised crime and its grip on illicit drugs, illegal gambling and degrading vice. The Australian Democrats fervently hope that this will be the case, and accordingly, we support this Bill. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(5.10) —I support the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill. At long last it is pleasing to see that the Government is showing some sense in this matter. I will not repeat many of the things that have been said by Senator Durack and Senator Haines. I entirely agree with their comments about the necessity for new power to be given to Mr Justice Stewart. The Opposition has co-operated today with the Government's desire to get this legislation through in a hurry. It is interesting to read this Bill bearing in mind amendments made to the Act last year when Mr Justice Stewart was given certain powers but not in regard to the New South Wales police tapes. It is interesting to see that the Government has learned something since that time. At that time the Government was concerned about everything being authenticated and only after authenticating material did it give Mr Justice Stewart power to use it. That sort of limitation has now ceased. I do not intend to go into the details of the history of this matter, but Senator Durack has pointed out the enormous delay and perhaps irreparable waste of time that may have occurred. For the last year or more there has been obfuscation and a refusal by the Government to recognise that the tapes and transcripts contain important information that should be investigated. It was not until Mr Justice Stewart came down firmly with the view that the tapes could be authentic and that action should be taken that the Government was prepared to move. Honourable senators will remember the extent to which last year the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Wran, sought constantly to intimidate the people who had made the tapes. He was not so much concerned with finding criminals but he was so concerned to intimidate those policemen who had made tapes illegally that they would not come forward, and they could not be expected to come forward and speak out of some sense of public duty and find themselves prosecuted thereafter. The Premier of New South Wales went to great lengths to threaten them and indicated that he wanted to see them behind bars. That attitude has put back for some time the fight against organised crime. At least this Bill shows a change of front by the Government. Senator Chipp —Many of whom did their taping while he was Police Minister. Senator MISSEN —Yes they did. Clearly it was not a desire for the truth to be known which was motivating the Premier of New South Wales during that period. Senator Gareth Evans —Do you think any of those police officers ought to be penalised in any way? Senator MISSEN —No, I do not think that they should. Senator Evans has made a very interesting observation. I shall think about it. If he still has that in mind, I shall raise the question of some slight obscurity in this Bill which indicates that if those policemen fall into certain traps some of them may be prosecuted. I hope that that will not be the case. I hope that the question that Senator Gareth Evans just asked me across the chamber is merely academic and that it is not an indication that the Government still hopes to prosecute some of those men. There is a more important issue at stake here; that is, that serious allegations of great length should be looked at by a judge for whom I think we all have much respect because of the work that he has already done in areas such as crime and drugs and in other matters. I think we can certainly safely leave it to him to consider the material carefully and not to be carried away by any information in it which does not appear to be of value. I hope that no attempt will be made to intimidate the people who actually made these tapes. I do not intend to speak at any length on this Bill. I wish to refer to one or two matters in the Bill which give me slight concern and one which gives me slightly more concern because of the interjection of the former Attorney-General. I refer to the provision in the Bill which will enable the police to come forward and disclose the unlawfully obtained material. Unlawfully obtained material is defined in proposed new section 7BA, which states: . . . a document or information that discloses the commission of an offence or the possible commission of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth or a law of a Territory. That is rather vague language. A policeman may indeed think that certain documents which come forward disclose the possible commission of an offence, but the Commissioner may find that the documents do not disclose the possible commission of an offence. Documents such as this no doubt will contain some material that discloses the commission of an offence and some material that does not. Also it is not indicated whether a document which is a composite of the material, and cannot really be broken apart, is protected under the Bill. I invite the Minister, when he replies to this debate, to indicate whether he sees any problem in two matters: Firstly, when there is a possible commission of an offence in the eyes of a policeman but when, in the eyes of the Commissioner, there is no possible offence-it is a mistake which the policeman has made in his view of the law-and, secondly, whether the composite documents which contain some possibility of an offence, and others which do not, will be protected. I can see some problems here, but I trust that in practice this situation will not occur. I am glad that the Bill as it now stands will enable the Commissioner to make use of this material and disclose it. I draw attention to the fact that in the Bill there is power-obviously this is an afterthought in the Bill-to disclose the material to the National Crime Authority of which the Commissioner, Mr Justice Stewart, is the Chairman. The copy of the Bill which I had last night did not include that provision, but the copy of the Bill which I received this morning has it typed in. Obviously it is an afterthought. It is an afterthought for which I am very grateful, because I believe it is very important that this information be put into the hands of the National Crime Authority. This leads me to a matter which the Opposition has raised and which I certainly query; namely, the ability of the Commissioner to handle all these different matters. The matters have some commonality. Obviously, the Commissioner has already formed some views about the use of these documents. One wonders whether too much is being placed upon one man in this community. He is the Chairman of the National Crime Authority which has two other members. There must be a limitation to the extent to which he can devote his time fully to that Authority. Although its members can operate and meet separately there must be, in this additional burden that is placed upon him, some limitation on his ability to devote his time fully to the enormous task which the National Crime Authority has to perform in this and the coming years. Senator Chipp —Several task forces are also assisting the NCA. Senator MISSEN —We do not know whether they are in operation. Senator Chipp —I understand they are-very much so. Senator MISSEN —I am interested to hear that. The monitoring committee on the National Crime Authority met last night very briefly. It has not had a chance to have much of an examination of anything that is going on. No doubt we will be informed. I am pleased to hear that the task forces are already operating in that area. The powers which are contained in the Bill are now accepted by the Government. Last year it had great resistance to them. The Government resisted the insertion of those powers into the Act on the grounds that they would interfere with civil liberties-the reputations of people. I think that we can leave that question very safely in the hands of the man we have appointed. I believe care will be taken. I also believe the major civil liberty which people in this country have is that they will be able to go, without a fear of corruption, to the authorities, the courts of the country. I believe this point was well made by Senator Haines in her speech. It is necessary to tackle the major problem. The major problem is the very wealthy organised crime figures of this country who stand well in line to destroy the very essence of our rule of law and the way in which we can depend, as individuals, upon the probity of government officials and courts in this country. Senator Chipp —And politicians. Senator MISSEN —And politicians. These additional powers should be given to only a limited number of people. One does not want to see them scattered around the community or given to individual policemen. When the National Crime Authority was set up we on this side of the chamber took the view that such extra powers must be given to it. We were not very successful in obtaining a number of amendments to that Bill and it remains, I think, in a very weakened state. Nonetheless, considerable powers must be given to authorities and the power that is given in this Bill indicates at last some sense of understanding by the Government, after a shameful delay, that these are powers which are required to be given. The belated acceptance of these matters by the Government must be commented upon. We hope that in the interpretation and operation of the Bill, Justice Stewart is able now to do something useful to ensure that these tapes-which were even described recently by the Premier of New South Wales as 'mouldy tapes'-which do, no doubt, contain many things, will be of value in sourcing the problem of organised crime in the State of New South Wales and in Australia generally. I support the Bill as I believe it will be useful legislation for this country. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(5.21) —The Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill is welcome but it is also a tragedy. It is welcome in that it gets to a situation which people in this Parliament have been urging on the Government for some time. It is a tragedy because we do not know how many people will have slipped through the net while the Government was resisting the calls for this material to be so dealt with. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in his second reading speech dealt with the question of whether the Government has committed an about-face on this subject. It has perpetrated at least four of these extraordinary turnabouts on this issue alone. The first is on the question of whether there was at any stage the need for a royal commission to look at the taped material. One can read the text of the debate which took place in October 1984. Senator Gareth Evans, addressing this chamber on the proposal for a royal commission on this subject, said: The notion that a Federal royal commission would be the answer to all our prayers is a misconceived one . . . On 5 October 1984 he said: I was concluding my second reading reply in this debate, making the point that there is no justification for a royal commission now to be instituted to deal with the Age tapes material. Again, on 5 October Senator Evans told the Senate that it was a tragedy to propose that the transcript, which he described as being something over 500 pages and dealing with more than 3,000 purported conversations-and we now know that that is likely to be a gross under-estimate-should be referred even to the National Crime Authority because of the extent to which it would burden it in work that it should not do. He said that that proposal should be opposed because it 'would create an obligation on the Authority to mount a major investigation'. That was why it should not be referred to the Authority. Those were the words of Senator Evans. On 21 August 1984, dealing with the report of Special Prosecutor Temby, he said: . . . the Government would reject any proposal that Mr Temby's report justifies or requires a special Royal Commission be appointed in relation to the 'Age' materials. Again, Senator Evans, on 28 March 1984, stated: The material in issue is of a character that simply does not justify this kind of parliamentary exercise. I say that for four reasons-four I hope by now very familiar reasons. The first of those reasons is, of course, that the material is unauthenticated. Now, of course, that is no longer to be a requirement as far as Mr Justice Stewart is concerned. The second thing, in terms of the backdowns that the Government has undertaken on this issue, is the question of indemnities. They were, we were told by the Attorney-General-- Senator Durack —What about what he said even last Friday? Senator PUPLICK —I propose to come back, Senator, to the comments of the former Attorney-General last Friday when he said that this was a muck-raking exercise and therefore not necessary. In the Hansard of Monday, 25 March 1985 Mr Lionel Bowen in the other place stated: I think the Opposition is getting carried away with the suggestion that a royal commission will establish anything different from what Mr Justice Stewart can do. He is virtually a royal commissioner now. He has all the powers of a royal commission. He said that it was not necessary to do anything. On Monday it was not necessary to amend Mr Justice Stewart's terms of reference because he had them all. This piece of legislation was not necessary on Monday. It was not necessary when the Attorney-General was speaking last Friday. It was not necessary when the previous Attorney-General was speaking in March, in August and in October of 1984. It was not necessary because it was either rubbishy material that was not worth while giving to Mr Justice Stewart, or Mr Justice Stewart could go ahead and do it anyway. Now we have this backing down. On the question of indemnities, the Attorney-General said that they were not required. On 21 March the Attorney-General said: I see no reason why those N.S.W. police officers cannot do their duty and just tell the truth. That is all they have to do. They are not above the law. That may well be true but on that basis he proposed that there should not be any indemnities granted to those police officers. The situation now is that those indemnities are to be given. As Senator Chipp rightly pointed out just a few minutes ago, the passing throw-away line from Senator Gareth Evans about the possibility of continuing and ongoing prosecution and persecution of these police officers, as has been consistently threatened by the Premier of New South Wales and Federal President of the Australian Labor Party, leaves some grave disquiet about the bona fides in this matter. Those policemen undertook a course of action which was outside the law. In my view they took that course because they were decent policemen who in the State of New South Wales could not operate within the law and bring about the desired results. They could not do so because the political system in which they were operating was and is corrupt. Until quite recently the hierarchy of the police force in New South Wales, to whom these officers were subordinate, was corrupt and suspect. These people took a significant risk to themselves for the purpose of exposing crime and corruption. If that is not a policeman's legitimate duty, I do not know what is. I have already indicated the other backdowns by the Government on the terms of reference given to Mr Justice Stewart, and indeed on the authentication of this material before it is taken further by His Honour. I now turn to the question of the tapes themselves. Why are they called the Age tapes? They have acquired this name simply because they were published in the Age newspaper. The reason they were published in the Age newspaper was that the person in whose possession they were at the time, Mr Bottom, was afraid to have them published in New South Wales and afraid himself to remain in New South Wales. Every time one says 'Age tapes' one should recall that they relate to the affairs of the State of New South Wales but were not printed in the State of New South Wales because of the real fear that a significant figure, seeking to combat organised crime in New South Wales, had for his very life if he remained in that State, given the administration of justice and the operation of the police force in that State. Senator Gareth Evans —That is not the reason the Sydney Morning Herald refused to publish them and you know that. It made an editorial judgment that they were rubbish. Senator PUPLICK —I suppose then that we are now to take it that the Government has decided that the editorial judgment that they were rubbish was so wrong that it is now the decided view of the Government, the Cabinet and the Caucus, that, far from being rubbish, they are of sufficient significance to be referred to a royal commission. That undoubtedly indicates the extent to which this Government has been caught on a hook as far as these tapes are concerned. I do not resile for one moment from having said that the reason that Bob Bottom removed himself and his possessions from the State of New South Wales was that he legitimately, genuinely and with good cause feared for his life if he sought to expose crime and corruption in the way that he thought best in the interests of the New South Wales community. One should look at the value that has already been proven in these Age tapes. For instance, in terms of the taps on the telephone of Mr Trimbole, we know that, if these had been in the public domain and scrutinised at an earlier stage-the taps which were on until 5 May 1981-there may have been some chance of catching up with Trimbole, who of course, two days later, managed to escape the country. Senator Chipp —After he was tipped off by a New South Wales police officer. Senator PUPLICK —Exactly. We know the value of these tapes in bringing about the situation in which there has been a royal commission or commission of inquiry into the prisoner early release system in New South Wales. The Premier of New South Wales has said on a number of occasions that there was no need for any of the material-- Senator Gareth Evans —It is not the Age tapes; it is something completely different. Get your facts right. Federal police properly authorised intercepts. Senator PUPLICK —These tapes were released and published in New South Wales, and I am talking about the whole business of phone taps and the use of material in New South Wales. They brought about a situation in which the continual cover-ups of these matters by the New South Wales government was no longer possible. The sensitivity of Government members about the use of taped material is understandable. After all, in 1972 there was a significant incident in which, on the Mike Willesee program, Mr Hawke in his capacity as President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions broadcast tapes of private conversations between himself and employer representatives which were made unbeknown to those employer representatives. So I can understand the extent to which, when we have a Prime Minister who is not above using privately taped conversations for the advancement of his own political ends, there is sensitivity among members of his Party when dealing with questions that arise from the improper use of taped material. If one goes back throughout the whole course of numerous inquiries that have been undertaken, including those by His Honour Mr Justice Stewart-whether they be the inquiries into the Mr Asia activities or the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Activities of the Nugan Hand Group-and reads those in conjunction with the report of the Woodward Royal Commission into Drug Trafficking, and particularly the further report of the Royal Commission into Drug Trafficking in May 1980, one starts to get a vague idea of the interrelationship of all the names of all the people involved in this activity. As has rightly been said by Senator Durack, there is grave disquiet as to the burden of work being placed on His Honour Mr Justice Stewart. He still has the matters outstanding from the Mr Asia investigations, as well as those outstanding from the Nugan Hand investigations. He has all his National Crime Authority work to be undertaken. Now, he is to be given what must be a monumental task in terms of the amount of material which is to be laid before him for him to study and decide its value and what course of action is to be followed. I appreciate the urgency in obtaining this Bill today. Therefore, I do not propose to go into any of those matters which relate to that. Undoubtedly plenty of opportunity will arise. All one can say in conclusion about Mr Justice Stewart and his inquiries is that by the time he has finished the Mr Asia inquiries and the Nugan Hand inquiry, and correlated that with the Woodward inquiries in New South Wales, and by the time he has finished the National Crime Authority inquiries and completed the Age tapes inquiries, not only will he be Australia's foremost expert on the operation of organised crime, but he will also undoubtedly be Australia's foremost expert on the internal workings of the Australian Labor Party. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.35) —in reply-In between the adolescent debating points of the kind to which we have been treated for the last 20 minutes from Senator Puplick, we have had from all Opposition speakers what perhaps can inevitably be described as a crow of triumphant vindication to the effect that the course that they have been urging upon the Commonwealth for the last 12 months of submitting to a royal commission the Age tape material as it was brought into the public record in February last year has now been-at last; belatedly- acknowledged. Let me simply say right at the outset, and let it be understood, that that kind of claim simply has no shred of content whatsoever. The truth of the matter is that no one has been brought to trial on the basis of the material in that original collection of 11 taped conversations and some 1,000 alleged transcripts or summaries of conversations spread over 500-odd pages of documents. No one has been brought to trial on the basis of that particular material. On the clear view of Mr Temby, and I can put unequivocally on the public record the clearly stated view of Mr Justice Stewart, no one is likely to be. Senator Chipp —They have as a result of them. Senator GARETH EVANS —It is the case, as Senator Chipp has interjected, that someone has been brought to trial as a result of an inquiry into the Age materials which turned up other evidence not related to any of the subject matter of the Age material but amounted to separate and distinct allegations. That has been the case with Mr Justice Murphy in circumstances of which we are all aware. As for the Age tape material itself-the material which has become the talisman of this entire debate-it is simply not true to say that in any of the whole elaborate course of public debate, argument and analysis by professional lawyers and prosecutors that has taken place over the last 12 months anything has been found in that material to justify the sorts of claims that have been so constantly made about it. One very senior lawyer of my acquaintance who has, in his official capacity, had cause to work through the material very closely indeed has said-it is my judgment that he is perfectly accurate-that even if it did prove to be the case, as the result of the exercises now to be mounted, that every last word of those documents and that material on tape was to be authenticated as having genuinely occurred and being an accurate summary or transcript of what occurred, then still standing alone that material would have the evidentiary value of a roll of toilet paper in the context of possible further prosecutions. For God's sake, let us understand that that is so before the crows of vindication and the crows of triumph about the course of action which this Government has taken, and which I in particular as the former Attorney-General took, in relation to that particular body of material gets out of hand here today. It may be the case that some new illegally obtained intercept material will turn up as a result of this very much broader set of terms of reference that is now proposed to be given to Mr Justice Stewart. It may be that that new material does contain hard evidence which is usable in some future criminal prosecution. But that has not been what has been the subject of so many motions, debates and arguments in this place. The argument has always been about the Age material itself. Let it be understood what the status of that material is. I would be very surprised indeed if at the end of the day it proves to be any different from that which I have already indicated. Claims have emerged of a vast body of additional material running through the Age tapes period of 1976 to 1981 and all the way through to 1984 and perhaps even more recently than that. It is only because those claims have emerged, which Mr Justice Stewart has suggested may well be well founded, in the last two or three months that there is this additional body of material available, and which demands to be looked at, that the Government has changed its course in the way that is involved in the present legislation and the present extension of Mr Justice Stewart's terms of reference. It is because of that possible existence of a new body of material-nobody knows whether it exists or not; all sorts of allegations and assertions are being made and nobody has come up with any hard evidence as to the existence of any additional tapes or documentary material-and because of those allegations and the disquiet that is being generated, understandably enough, by those further allegations that the Government has decided to go down this markedly different course from that which we adopted all through the last year based on the Age tape material itself. I hope that is understood. We are going down a route that involves what can perhaps be described as a vacuum cleaner exercise. We have created terms of reference which are so wide, so broad, and so far-reaching that they ought to be able to suck up every last bit of allegation, scandal and scuttle-butt tale that someone has to tell about alleged interceptions in New South Wales. That certainly is the intention. I hope that it is the effect. It may be that, as a result of all of that, something of some utility will turn up, not so much in relation to the Age material because I doubt that that is possible, but maybe in relation to something else. Senator Durack —If you had set this up a year ago you would have found this out then. Senator GARETH EVANS —A royal commission was never sought a year ago in relation to anything other than the Age tape material itself. The honourable senator should not pretend otherwise. It may be that nothing more worth while will emerge than what has been on the public record for the last 12 months in the so-called Age material. But, either way, the result of this exercise should be to cauterise this sore once and for all. That would be a very good thing in the interests of this nation. Let me make just a couple of other points. I trust that this exercise over the course of this year by Mr Justice Stewart will not be turned into a trial of people's reputations by the media to the extent that that is made possible by the affairs of the commission being conducted in public, as they can be under its legislation, and to the extent that documents emerge on the public record gaining the protection of some privilege. Let me just express the hope, as I have done so often in the context of the debates about the National Crime Authority, that some regard be paid in the course of this exercise to the reputations of individuals whose names are bound to be dragged, like a succession of stinking fish, across the public stage, as so many names have been dragged in the last year or so. Let me express the hope, in an appeal to the decency of those opposite to the extent that they retain any, that they do not take advantage of the situation of the royal commission and the inquiry, and the privilege that may be associated with it to destroy unnecessarily people's reputations. Let it be remembered that so many of the inquiries that have taken place over the last year or two have, in fact, resulted in an absolutely clear-cut vindication of the reputations of those people whose reputations have been put in issue by the public trailing of allegations against them. I refer in particular, inevitably, to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation allegations against Mr Wran, proved to be unfounded by the Street Royal Commission of Inquiry into Certain Committal Proceedings against K. E. Humphreys. I refer to that part of the allegations against Mr Justice Murphy which were based squarely on the Age tape material and which were unanimously resolved as being unfounded by a committee of inquiry of the Senate. I refer to the allegations made by Mr Bottom against Schreiner, the New South Wales magistrate, that were found to be utterly without justification by the Cross Special Commission of Inquiry into Certain Allegations by Mr R. Bottom. I refer to the allegations of Ian Sinclair about alleged sordid misbehaviour by various people, which was the subject again of findings as to the complete lack of justification for those claims by the Cross Special Commission of Inquiry into Certain Allegations by the Rt Hon. Ian McCahon Sinclair. I refer to the most recent report by Mr Justice Stewart, the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Activities of the Nugan Hand Group, completely vindicating the reputations of a number of Australian Labor Party officials from New South Wales, who have been the subject, again, of claims of a slanderous kind over a long period. Over and over again, inquiries have been held which have demonstrated that the existence of smoke simply does not establish the existence of fire. That has been the subject matter of so many of the public statements and defences of the course of action of this Government that I and other senior Ministers have made over the last 12 months. The validity of those statements remains as untrammelled as it always has been. I make a further point relating to the question of indemnities, which was the subject of so much anxiety on the part of Senator Missen in particular. I have been disturbed to notice in the course of this debate that there has been simply no acknowledgement at all by any speaker of the enormity of the scale of illegality and misbehaviour that was manifestly involved in the collection of that material by so many people in an organised way over such a long period. There has been no acknowledgement that there is any social evil involved in that kind of lawbreaking. Senator Withers —In a decent society it would not have been necessary. Senator GARETH EVANS —There is simply no recognition even now by contributions like that from Senator Withers that there is anything wrong with the principle that the end may justify the means. There is no recognition that these things are difficult questions of weighing and balancing. Of course it has been the case since time immemorial-I was involved weekly in these sorts of decisions-that indemnities can and should be granted on familiar and traditional principles of the kind articulated in the Brown-Durack document; that the existence of a desire to achieve a successful prosecution of a greater crime can in fact justify the immunity of a lesser offender. Of course that is the case. The thing that has been in issue in this matter, which has caused so much obvious difficulty in principle and practice to the Attorney-General now, has been the nature of the indemnities claimed on a blanket basis without regard to the nature of the behaviour of the people concerned or without hitherto any regard for the quality of the evidence that might turn up as founding some subsequent criminal prosecution. There is no hint of a suggestion of an appreciation by anyone opposite in this debate that these are relevant and difficult problems to be weighed up, in which there is very much to be said for letting the law take its course insofar as those who have been engaged in illegality of that kind. The course that the Government proposes to adopt, as set out in the Attorney-General's statement, is not that recommended by Mr Justice Stewart. It is not an open-ended, blanket advance indemnification of all those police officers, past or present, who may prove to have been engaged in it. On the other hand, nor is it a blanket refusal of such indemnity of the kind recommended by Mr Temby. It is something of a compromise, midway course sought to be steered as a result of which indemnities will be recommended by Mr Justice Stewart. Senator Chipp —But everybody on this side of the chamber approves of that. Senator GARETH EVANS —Let it be understood that indemnities will be recommended if in the opinion of Mr Justice Stewart the person is capable of giving evidence connected with the intercepted material in the prosecution for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth or a State. It is only in the context of the establishment of a clear nexus between the nature of the material in question and some proposed, likely or probably prosecution that an indemnity will be granted, subject to two conditions subsequent, which are also set out in Mr Bowen's statement, to the effect that indemnities will be sustained and not revoked only if in fact at the end of the day, after Mr Justice Stewart has heard the evidence, as distinct from getting some advance notice of what it will be, he is satisfied that the evidence was given truthfully and frankly and nothing of relevance was withheld and that he was satisfied at the conclusion of the inquiry that the actions of the person concerned were carried out for the sole purpose of gathering information for use only in the investigation of crime. Let it be understood that there are a series of caveats and qualifications about the circumstances in which indemnities are likely to be granted. Senator Missen —But they are not in the Bill. Senator GARETH EVANS —No, they are not in the Bill, but they are in the terms of the second reading speech in describing the terms of reference proposed to be given to Mr Justice Stewart. Senator Missen —That does not satisfy me. Senator GARETH EVANS —Very little in this life seems to satisfy you, Senator Missen, and I can understand that because you bring such a random and erratic quality of intellectual application to these sorts of issues that it is quite believable that you constantly remain unsatisfied by the answers that you get. Let it be understood, with this talk of somersaults and flip-flops on the subject of indemnities, that a course has been steered through this very difficult decision in a way that does recognise the competing social values that are here involved and in a way which is markedly different from the contributions to this debate of those opposite who have simply refused to do anything other than accept in all its majesty the principle that the end-assuming there is an end in this particular case-justifies the means; that illegal behaviour can not only be countenanced but applauded. That is not a position this Government will ever take. I hate to think that as a result of the course that has been followed in this case and as a result of the kinds of statements that have been made today any kind of precedent can be thought to be established for the future whereby illegal conduct on a massive scale by officials can be regarded as somehow a sound and constructive contribution to the social weal. It is an intolerable state of affairs demonstrating an awful lack of sensitivity to the civilised values that societies such as ours are supposed to be about should some conclusion like that prevail. We all know that no vote was ever lost in the political process by being harder than thou in the subject of law and order. The hard course to follow in all these matters is not a course which succumbs in some reflex way to the instincts of the community as a whole, which by and large is overwhelmingly in favour of extremely rigorous approaches to law and order questions. The difficulty in politics, the difficulty in trying to maintain a course that is based on principle and not expediency, is to protect what Churchill used to describe as the 'squalid nuisances', those whom for all sorts of good, sound and objective reasons one has very little inclination to have any regard for whatsoever. But the measure of a civilised society is the way in which it treats people who from most other points of view do not deserve kind treatment or respect. I would hate to think that in the wash-up of all this debate there has been thought to be some total capitulation by this Government to the principle that those sorts of values simply do not matter. That is not my view of the course that has been followed by the Government and I hope it is not presented or understood in that way. It is certainly the way the Opposition would like to construe and understand what has occurred because I fear it simply does not share the kinds of values that I am talking about today and that I have been on about in this whole difficult matter for the last twelve months. I commend the Bill in its present form to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.53) —I want to raise a general question-which I think may be allowed as arising under the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1985 because I see it as part of a package-which arises out of remarks that the former Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, made in his reply to the second reading debate. By way of preface I reject his accusations against the Opposition's disinterest in the problem of the probable, almost certain illegality involved in the taping of conversations and the invasion of privacy. In all the debates last year I emphasised that aspect. I think the former Attorney-General will acknowledge that in the very first statement that was ever made by the Opposition on this matter, which was made by me, I acknowledged the most likely existence of illegality in the interception of this material, but that is by the way. I would like the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) to clarify the question of who is going to grant the immunity and the indemnity. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has indicated some strange views about the granting of indemnity. He obviously was on a pretty slow learning curve. I am glad, of course, that in the end resort has been had to the document known as 'Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth', which I strongly adhere to now as much as I did when I drafted it. I acknowledge the very great difficulties there are in deciding this question. It is fair to say that I found the granting of indemnities the most difficult of the many difficult decisions one has to make as Attorney-General. I acknowledge that the Attorney-General is perfectly entitled to consult his colleagues in relation to the matter, but I would like an assurance from the Minister for Resources and Energy that in the end the Attorney-General himself will be allowed to make the decision and that he will not be overborne or unduly pressured by his Cabinet colleagues. There seems to be an indication from the turn of events of the last week or two that possibly this has been looked upon as a purely Cabinet decision and not ultimately a decision that the Attorney-General himself should make in the performance of his quasi-judicial functions, rather than simply as a Minister. There are two questions: Does the Government acknowledge that in this case the Attorney-General has that independence? Does the Attorney-General himself believe that he has that independence and will he exercise it in an independent way? If that is the view of the Government-and I hope it is-will the Minister guarantee that the Attorney-General will not be unduly pressured by the Government in exercising that very difficult decision that he must now make? Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(5.57) —Few senators have been more critical of the Government over the Age tapes affair and the apparent neglect of organised crime than I have in the past. But today I do not want to refer to that. I want to be as generous as I can in commending and congratulating the Government on responding to what is, undoubtedly, public opinion and what are political realities, as it has by introducing this legislation. I want to be as warm as I can in my congratulations for the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and those Cabinet colleagues who agreed with him about this legislation. I join with Senator Durack in asking the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) to explain to me, a non-legal person, how the indemnities will work. As I understand it-and I agree with the Government on this-Mr Justice Stewart must be satisfied that one of those 31 policemen may be able to assist with his inquiries before indemnity is granted. Let us assume a hypothetical case-that a certain policeman A is called before Mr Justice Stewart because he believes he can help. The policeman is then cross-examined but before this occurs I take it that an indemnity will have to have been given for the policeman's own safety. Let us assume that after the cross-examination Mr Justice Stewart believes that that policeman has not told the truth or that he has withheld information. What is the mechanism then? Does Mr Justice Stewart go back to the Attorney-General and say: 'This fellow did not tell the truth, cancel his indemnity'. Is he then liable to prosecution? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(5.59) —I wish to ask a wider question on this matter of indemnity. As I understand it, it appears that some 31 police officers worked in concert over a very long period at taping phone calls. It seems that they had some systematised method of being on duty so they could do this. By an accident of the fact that one police officer was on duty at a particular time when the evidence that he taped answers the qualifications put on by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), it appears that he can get an indemnity. Why should not members of the whole team get the indemnity if it was a systematic search to get information by way of police intelligence ultimately to bring about a prosecution? Why should the good luck of a policeman who was on duty and taping at the time be the test? If it was the intention of the other policemen to take this action, however illegal, to gain information to work ultimately towards a prosecution, the team had the same intent as the officer who may be granted indemnity. I am quite puzzled why one member is picked and not the team. The only way one could get a policeman to come forward and be sure that his giving information would not penalise him is for indemnity to be granted to the team. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.01) —I will do my best to answer all the points that have been made. First-this is most relevant to what Senator Sir John Carrick has just said-it needs to be understood that indemnity is one thing, non-prosecution is something else. The simple fact that an indemnity may not have been granted in a particular case does not necessarily mean that someone who does not have an indemnity will be prosecuted. It always remains a matter for the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in the ordinary way as to whether someone will be prosecuted against whom there is some prima facie evidence that he has participated in a criminal activity. Among the criteria that would no doubt be applied in making a prosecution or non-prosecution decision is the fairness of the treatment of that individual compared with the treatment made available to his fellows who are in an essentially similar position, but who may be in a technically different position such as to justify them getting an indemnity. I think that is the best I can do in answer to that question. Senator Sir John Carrick —Surely that means giving indemnity to the team. If one person can prove to be helpful and he is part of a team, surely the accident of his being on duty at the time ought to be taken into account. Senator GARETH EVANS —I understand the point that the honourable senator is making but I do not think I can go further than I have in answering it. Maybe a further answer will emerge from the answer I will now try to give to the other questions that have been raised about the indemnity procedures that are proposed. As to the first point about who has the power to grant the indemnity, I think I have set all that out as clearly as I could in the answer I gave in the Senate on 22 March. As a matter of law, the power for the kinds of transactional indemnities we are talking about is vested in the Attorney-General personally. As a matter of practice he would normally exercise that power only after consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions. Certainly it is matter for him alone. As to the relationship between the decision of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and the role, if any, of the Government, I indicated on 22 March-it has been acknowledged here-that it is traditionally regarded as proper for the Attorney-General to seek such advice as he wants from his political colleagues on matters of particular difficulty or sensitivity. I think the point can now be made in relation to these matters before us that the Attorney-General has sought the advice of his colleagues and certainly ground rules have emerged as a result of that process of consultation by him with Cabinet. Those ground rules can, unless something exceptional turns up, be expected to operate in the future of their own momentum, without any reference back to Cabinet in any particular case. It may be that Mr Bowen, having read what I say now, will want to supplement this answer. My understanding of the ground rules and how they will work in practice is as follows: People will come forward, most of them have been identified already by Mr Justice Stewart, seeking indemnity. Mr Justice Stewart will ask them for a statement in writing as to what their evidence is likely to be. On the basis of that written statement he will make a judgment as to whether or not it satisfies the threshold criterion that will be identified in the terms of reference, namely, that it contains material which is likely to be evidentiary assistance in a criminal prosecution. If he is satisfied that that criterion is met he will then recommend to the Attorney-General that an indemnity in relation to a breach of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act be granted to that prospective witness. The Attorney-General will seek the advice of Mr Temby in the normal way in relation to such an application-because that is the established role of the DPP and there is no intention to vary that-and will make a decision, one hopes quickly, as to whether the recommendation of Mr Justice Stewart should be accepted. If the decision is made in the affirmative and the indemnity is thus granted the evidence will then be given in the ordinary way before the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking, subject to cross-examination and tested for veracity and everything else in the ordinary way. Mr Justice Stewart will, at the end of the day, report back to government on whether the witnesses' evidence under oath has in fact satisfied what I describe as the conditions subsequent; that is, that the evidence was given frankly, fully and without attempt to dissimulate, and that it does not disclose anything other than the bona fide attempt on the part of the person in question to gain evidence of breaches of the criminal law. If Mr Justice Stewart in fact certifies that those conditions are met, the indemnity will stand. If he certifies that they are not met and that the witness was, in fact, off on some frolic of his own when he was engaged in the tapes and seeking material for the purpose of political malice or something of that kind unrelated to the advancement of prosecution of the criminal law, he will certify accordingly. It will be possible in those circumstances for the indemnity to be revoked. That is the machinery that is laid out. I sketched that out in my reply to Senator Missen in the debate on the motion for the second reading. I think it is important to appreciate that there is a fairly complex series of hurdles that have to be jumped over. There is no question of any sort of blanket immunity being granted of the kind that was originally recommended by Mr Justice Stewart. It may well in practice amount to the same thing because these are not especially difficult criteria to satisfy, but I believe the principle of non-indemnity at large is being observed in these proposed procedures. Senator Chipp —It could be difficult if Mr Temby is as unco-operative as he has been. Senator GARETH EVANS —I think that is not really a worthy interjection. With the utmost respect to Senator Chipp, Mr Temby has given all sorts of fearlessly independent advice with which I, among others, have had to contend over the period of the last 12 months. Senator Chipp —I was not reflecting on his integrity. I just say that his advice has been bad. Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr Bowen has indicated clearly that the final decision will be his. He will obviously have primary regard-because that is what will trigger his consideration of the matter-to the recommendation of Mr Justice Stewart. But he will also have regard to whatever views Mr Temby, as, after all, the chief prosecutor of the nation, may have as to the particular matter in question. That is an entirely proper relationship of the main characters in this cast. Let me come back to the point at which I began. I repeat that the mere fact that an indemnity may not have been granted to someone who has not sought it-say, in the first instance, to someone who may have been involved in the taping of some conversation which has no evidentiary utility at all-does not necessarily mean that it follows, as night follows day, that that person will be prosecuted. That is a matter for another decision- Senator Sir John Carrick —It does not mean he will not, and that is my worry. Senator GARETH EVANS —That is perhaps just a risk which people who have engaged in systematic breaching of the criminal law will have to contemplate. The criteria are clearly laid out in the terms of reference. Anything less than those criteria of the kind that were being urged by all sorts of people, such as blanket indemnities in advance, would not, I believe-nor does the Government believe-be acceptable in principle. I believe that as a practical matter there is no ground for the kind of concern that is now being articulated by Senator Sir John Carrick, but I cannot take his question any further than that. There is one further point that can be made. By virtue of section 6DD of the Royal Commissions Act, there is a provision whereby a person gains additional protection from that, in the sense that any evidence he may give cannot be used in any subsequent prosecution against that person himself. That is an additional layer of protection to these putative police witnesses that ought to be borne in mind. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(6.11) —I wish to follow up the broad question I asked. As I understand the exposition of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), I am very concerned. It seems that he says the Government is looking for a policeman to come forward voluntarily, that policeman not knowing whether he will be tested to get indemnity or not, that policeman having to make a decision himself to come forward so that the evidence can become available. It is obvious that the majority of policemen might very well say they will not take the risk. Why should they take the risk? Senator Gareth Evans —They already have come forward. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Let the Minister pause for a minute or two. Surely if we are bona fide in setting up a royal commission, what we want is for all policemen who have been connected with those tapes to come forward and to tell the royal commission why they taped it, what their motive was in making those tapes, good or otherwise? That is what we want. We want them to be able to come forward without restraint. If we want the royal commission really to look at what those tapes are about the obvious thing to do is to pursue the greater evil. Surely that is the test? The test that has been suggested in granting indemnity is that we give indemnity to the lesser evil to pursue the greater evil. Surely if we want to do that and to test the tapes then we have to leave in the minds of all those policemen the fact that if they come forward they do not voluntarily put themselves in peril. That is a principle, anyhow, that is dear to the heart of justice. Why should we be now saying to them: 'If you come forward you can voluntarily put yourself in peril'. I would like that clarified. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.13) —The only further thing I can add is that it is my understanding that this particular set of conditions, and this particular procedure I have outlined, in fact was suggested by Mr Justice Stewart as a way through the dilemma that was created for the Government by his original recommendation. After all, Mr Justice Stewart is the man closest to this problem. He is the one who has been dealing with the prospective police witnesses. Senator Sir John Carrick —I cannot ask him the question. Senator GARETH EVANS —That is true, but all I can say is that the sort of consideration the honourable senator has put is obviously one that is in the forefront of his thinking in his approach to this particular problem. He has been very concerned indeed that there be no disincentive to any policeman who knows something about what might have gone on and could testify as to the authenticity of material which may prove to have some evidentiary value in some other criminal prosecution. His primary concern has been to ensure that that evidence gets out in a usable form and that people are encouraged not to tell lies about what they have been doing. All I can really say is that the quite complicated pattern of checks and procedures I have mentioned was in fact, on my understanding, proposed by Mr Justice Stewart as the way though this problem, and was based on all his knowledge of what would be practically necessary to produce the sort of evidence in question. Beyond that I honestly cannot give any better answer. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(6.14) —We are probably groping in the dark here, not knowing on this side what Mr Justice Stewart has said, whereas the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) does. I must say that the way in which the Minister has described the procedures that will apply here as between the police giving evidence to Mr Justice Stewart and then possibly their getting indemnity to give evidence at a subsequent prosecution is somewhat mind boggling as to how it will work. This idea of an indemnity subject to a condition subsequent is pretty strange. I do not know whether there is any precedent for that. I point out to the Minister that the second reading speech does not describe the position in that way. It may be that that is not correct. As I read it, it clearly contemplates the granting of an indemnity only after a person has given evidence to Mr Justice Stewart. The question of whether an indemnity would be given would be based on the recommendations of Mr Justice Stewart. The condition precedent to it would be the satisfaction of the conditions laid down in the second reading speech. That, of course, is what gives rise to Senator Sir John Carrick's very grave concern. The police officers are on the horns of a dilemma. In answer to that the Minister has said that there will be this other procedure which, in itself, will create tremendous problems as to applying it and whether or not it will be satisfactory to the police. I would have thought that they would want an assurance that they will get an indemnity before they give all that co-operation. In the end it will not be for Mr Justice Stewart to give the indemnity; it will be for the Attorney-General after he has consulted with the Director of Public Prosecutions. It seems to me that the procedures contemplated will be extremely difficult to implement. The more one looks at it and hears the Minister's explanation of it the more concerned one is becoming that this whole thing is being directed from the Cabinet and influence is being exerted on the Attorney-General in Cabinet rather than being determined in the proper way-by the fearless independence of the Attorney-General. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(6.17) —I wish to raise one other matter. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) said that in that regard we are dependent upon the terms of reference, so that the conditions referred to in the second reading speech are incorporated. I can understand the first two. As to the third condition, the Minister said in his speech: New South Wales will establish terms of reference for Stewart J. similar to the Commonwealth terms, but in respect of State offences. The proposed Commonwealth terms of reference have been discussed with the New South Wales Government and its officials. We may know the terms of reference put forward by the Commonwealth Government but we do not know what the similar terms are. Senator Gareth Evans —'Similar' means same. It is a more accurate English word. Senator MISSEN —With great respect to the Minister, 'similar' does not mean 'same'; it means similar. It means that they are of a like. But they may be different and they may vary with some other exceptions and exemptions. We do not know and we have no control here over the terms of reference given by the New South Wales Government in respect of-- Honourable senators interjecting- Senator MISSEN —I would not mind having some say in this. I thought I had the call. We have no control over State offences. We do not know whether those terms of reference will be satisfactory in any way. I ask the Minister to tell us how the police officers can be satisfied that they will not be caught up in State offences which are not matters for which the Attorney-General is responsible to this Parliament. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(6.18) —I have two questions on the same general subject on which the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) might provide answers. Firstly, if Mr Justice Stewart recommends that an indemnity be granted and Mr Temby disagrees with that once the matter has been referred to him by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), is there any formal procedure which would be used to seek to reconcile those differing opinions or would it simply be a matter entirely within the discretion of the Attorney-General? Senator Gareth Evans —The latter. Senator PUPLICK —I thank the Minister. Secondly, if Mr Justice Stewart, at the end of his inquiries, does not recommend that the indemnity be withdrawn, can the Attorney-General unilaterally still proceed to withdraw that indemnity? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.19) —Technically, yes. The power to grant includes, as a matter of strict technical statute law, the power to withdraw. But, as a practical matter, I can assure the honourable senator that the Attorney-General would not. He has made that clear in describing to his colleagues the way in which the system could be expected to work. Senator Durack —If any Attorney did that he would not get any reasonable co-operation. Senator GARETH EVANS —I think that is a reasonable interjection offered by my learned predecessor who understands, I hope-he just demonstrated that he had some understanding-the way that the dynamics of these things would work. As to Senator Missen's contribution, we can argue pedantically about the difference between 'same' and 'similar' and the appropriateness of using each. The clear intention is that the operative clauses of the New South Wales terms of reference would be couched in identical language to that in the Commonwealth terms of reference. There cannot be the same document because there is reliance of different powers. The document will be differently topped and tailed. But, in my understanding, there will be identical terms of reference, except the reference will be to State laws rather than Commonwealth laws and so on. As to Senator Durack's concern that what I have said does not quite match the language of the second reading speech, the language in the second reading speech simply describes the formal conditions which have to be satisfied and identifies the person it is who makes the recommendation. The speech does not describe a practical process in any kind of chronological sequence. I have been adding to and giving further information than is contained in the speech. I have beside me the officer who wrote the speech and he assures me that my description of what in fact is intended to occur in practice on Mr Justice Stewart's recommendation and Mr Bowen's recommendation as endorsed here, is in fact consistent with what is in this document. Can I just say that the kind of concern that is being expressed about the operation of these conditions subsequent is, I believe, misconceived. The honest policemen we have heard so much about who have been doing their level best, constrained unfortunately by the terms of the law, but doing their best to get criminals into gaol and are illegally intercepting as a result, and doing it with that motivation, will have nothing whatsoever to fear from the operation of these conditions subsequent. If it were established that policemen, despite their initial protestations to the contrary, were in fact using or misusing their position as police officers in the electronic bureau, or whatever it called itself, in fact to glean information which could then subsequently be used for purposes of bribery or blackmail, and if that were established to Mr Justice Stewart's satisfaction in terms of the course of the evidence before him, it staggers the imagination that under those circumstances he could do anything other than recommend a revocation of the indemnity originally granted on different assumptions. That is all that is involved in this. The language is pretty open textured both so far as the condition precedent is concerned and so far as these conditions subsequent are concerned. But it is designed to deal in a way that I think it is only possible to deal in principle with these issues-to create some kinds of hurdle requirements and some conditions which, if breached, will render the original guarantees nugatory. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(6.23) —Mr Temporary Chairman, I am sorry to press this point but I think that the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) agrees that it is a serious matter. The Bill itself does not give the Senate any opportunity to clarify and define the question of indemnity. As the Minister has said, this matter is administratively involved somewhere between Cabinet, the Attorney-General and the royal commissioner to be. If I understood the Minister correctly, he understands that there is an expression of concern on our part that the police generally could resist coming forward voluntarily to any commission because of the hazards of the journey. Will the Minister convey to his Cabinet, the Attorney-General and the royal commissioner the expression of concern in this Committee that the goal must be for all 31 policemen to want to come forward to give their motives and that the terms of indemnity as they finally emerge should themselves enable that to happen? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria)(Minister for Resources and Energy) (6.25)-I will certainly convey that to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and make sure that he is familiar with the course of the debate in this place. I suggest that since these matters are not strictly part of the fabric of the Bill before us and as there are two Bills to introduce we might conceivably be able to wind this up before 6.30. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Bill presented by Senator Gareth Evans, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.26) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill proposes the amendment of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 to provide for a cash bidding system for the award of petroleum exploration permits in highly prospective offshore areas. The Bill is being introduced following extensive consultation with the industry, and the State and Northern Territory governments. The consultation process dates back to January 1984 when a discussion paper was released. Comment on that paper assisted in the formulation of a discussion draft Bill, which was also released for comment in December 1984. The Bill before Parliament takes account of a number of constructive comments received from industry and the States. Cash bidding systems are recognised as being the most efficient and equitable means of awarding petroleum exploration and exploitation rights, particularly where competition for these rights is high. Cash bidding not only allows the exploration industry to determine what amount should be paid to the community for the award of these rights, but it represents a self-contained selection process and also allows the explorer to determine and carry out his exploration strategy in the light of the commercial realities of the day, free from unnecessary government regulation. Given these benefits, it is not difficult to understand the willingness of governments in the USA and the UK to use cash bidding, and the willingness of explorers in those countries to participate actively in bidding rounds. At the recent APEA Conference it was suggested that in other countries cash bidding is reserved for relatively small mature areas and areas about which there is a great deal of existing geological and seismic data. In fact, from the beginning of oil and gas leasing on the outer continental shelf of the USA in 1954, the dominant system for award of offshore leases has been through various forms of cash bidding. Of the first 1200 outer continental shelf oil and gas leases issued by cash bidding in the Gulf of Mexico between 1954 and 1969 around 90 per cent were classified as wildcat leases-defined as tracts for which there were no drilling data available that would indicate potential prospectivity. The buyers of these leases invested in both the option to produce oil and gas from a possible discovery and the opportunity to obtain information from a lease which would be of value in bidding for adjacent areas. Further evidence refuting the claim that cash bidding has been reserved exclusively for mature, well explored areas is provided by United States Department of Interior figures, which indicate that around 10 per cent of acreage leased has been in frontier areas outside the producing areas of the Gulf of Mexico and the Santa Barbara Channel. In announcing its current leasing program, the United States Department of Interior indicated that the release of acreage off Alaska would be of particular interest because it involved areas believed to be of high potential but which had not been explored. Clearly cash bidding has been and continues to be used not only in mature well explored areas but also in potentially promising areas which have not been extensively explored. In Australia, cash bidding will be confined to areas assessed by the joint authority (the Commonwealth and State or Northern Territory Minister) as highly prospective. This assessment will take into account whether the area is known to contain petroleum; whether government or industry assessments indicate that there is a relatively high probability of a petroleum discovery being made; and whether there is a high level of industry interest in the area. These factors will indicate to the joint authority the likely level of competition for the area which, if high, will lead to the choice of cash bidding over work program bidding as the preferred method of awarding exploration rights over that area. This choice is being made available to governments through this legislation because of the significant shortcomings of the work program system as a means of awarding permits when competition is high. To be more precise, the work program system: First, encourages companies to propose substantial exploration programs that may later prove to be uneconomic either because of changes in economic conditions or a downgrading in prospectivity following initial exploration; secondly, forces the Government, where a work program becomes uneconomic, to either agree to exemptions from parts of the work program, which undermines the credibility of the system and is inequitable to unsuccessful bidders, or require the permittee to undertake the uneconomic exploration under threat or cancellation of the permit: neither course is in the long term interest of the exploration industry; thirdly, requires a subjective selection of the winning bid where competition is high, as no amount of technical advice can differentiate readily between work programs of a similar character and size; not can that advice predict whether the work program will actually be completed by the applicant; and fourthly, is costly and complex to administer, as work programs must be verified throughout the life of the permit in order to maintain the credibility of the system. Recent experience in the Gippsland Basin illustrates these difficulties. Applications were invited in 1980 for three permits for highly prospective areas, attracting 29 bidders overall with more than eight for each permit. Most bidders proposed large work programs, but a whole variety of different exploration philosophies were involved, and acute difficulties were experienced in choosing administratively between them. In the result, after all this effort, there is no evidence that the Government got it right: One permit was surrendered after only four wells were drilled from a commitment of twelve; in another, only six wells have been completed from an original program of nineteen and there is doubt about the future program; and the third permittee has deferred some commitments and applied for a reduced program. Various modifications to the work program system have been suggested from time to time, but none of them address the problems I have outlined. Performance bonds could force uneconomic work to be completed; do not address the problem of differentiation between bids; and, because of the problems of verifying the cost of work completed, would add significantly to administrative complexity and cost. In fact the whole premise of performance bond systems is absurd as it suggests that the Government wishes to force permittees to undertake unprofitable exploration ventures. Dry hole bidding would overcome some of the problems associated with overbidding, but would exacerbate the problem of differentiation in that it is likely that a number of applicants would specify the same number of wells. Even more stringent administration of the present work program system, as urged by the industry, would not make the problem of differentiation and selection any easier to solve, and would only reinforce the problem of inflexibility which lies at the heart of the present system. In any case the facts are that administration has been firm. In short none of these modifications overcome the inherent weakness of work program bidding systems, when used in highly competitive situations, namely, inflexibility, inefficiency and inequity. What cash bidding will do is give explorers the opportunity to adopt the optimum and most economically efficient exploration philosophy based on progressive acquisition of information about the permit area. Commercial judgments can be made about the appropriate level of exploration at any given time, without the heavy (albeit well intentioned!) hand of government regulation intruding. In that happy state of innocence which prevailed until I took on this portfolio, I had thought that this is what private enterprise was all about. It is overwhelmingly for these reasons-our desire to improve upon the economic efficiency, equity and administrative workability of the allocation of exploration permits in highly competitive situations-that we have moved to introduce this legislation enabling the use of a cash bidding system in areas considered to be highly prospective. When calling applications for the award of an exploration permit under the cash bidding system, the joint authority will specify the period within which an application must be made, the availability of a renewal option for the permit, summary details of the conditions of the permit, and the matters to be taken into account in selecting the winning bid. Applicants will be required to apply for a permit over all the blocks on offer for each specified area. In their applications, bidders will be required to specify the amount they are willing to pay for the award of the permit. Further, the application will be required to contain details of the technical and financial resources available to the applicant to undertake exploration in the permit, and information on any other matters that the applicant wishes to be considered. The primary concern here is that permits be awarded to bona fide explorers and not to speculators. A fee of $3,000, of which 90 per cent will be refunded if the application is unsuccessful, will be payable on lodging an application. No reserve prices will be set for permit areas, but the joint authority will have the right to reject the highest bid or any other bids if they are considered inadequate on account of insufficient competition or collusion. Bids may also be rejected if the bidder is considered to lack the technical competence or financial resources necessary to successfully undertake complex offshore exploration. This right to reject bids is available to the joint authority under the work program system. However, unlike the work program system, the cash bidding system requires the joint authority to specify these matters at the time applications are called. In this way bidders will be fully aware of all the conditions relevant to the selection of the winning bid. If, after assessment of all the bidders, only one bid remains unrejected, the permit would be offered to that consortium. If two or more bids remain unrejected, the permit would be offered to the applicant making the highest bid. In order to provide maximum flexibility to bidders, there is no obligation on the winning bidder to accept the offer of a permit. Not only would it be impracticable to force consortia to accept offers of a permit, but in attempting to do so competition would be restricted. I note that a similar provision also applies under the work program system. If the highest bidder rejects the offer, the permit will be offered to the next highest bidder and so on. Once a consortium has accepted an offer of a permit and paid the amount bid, the permit will be awarded to that consortium as soon as is practicable which, unless there are some unforeseen circumstances, would generally be within one month. To ensure there is a clear incentive to undertake exploration in the permits and to discourage speculators from ''sterilising'' the acreage, only a limited renewal option will be available for cash bid permits. All cash bidding permits will be available for an initial six year period and where the joint authority considers that the permit is sufficiently large, the availability of a single five year renewal option for up to 50 per cent of the permit area will be announced at the time applications are invited for the acreage. However, given that cash bidding permits will cover very small areas in comparison with work program bidding areas, extended periods beyond the initial six year term and one five year renewal will not be necessary to explore the areas. There are already ample opportunities for a permittee to retain tenure over a discovery even after the permit has expired. The introduction of retention leases in separate legislation later in this sitting will provide an additional avenue for retaining tenure over any discoveries that cannot be immediately developed. There was some initial confusion in the industry and in the States and the Northern Territory about whether cash bidding permits will be subject to an exploration program commitment. The amendments to section 33 of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act proposed in clause 10 of the Bill make it clear that cash bidding permits will not be subject to exploration work or expenditure commitments. We believe our objective of efficiency of allocation of highly prospective offshore areas would not be promoted by adopting a system which required a cash and a work program bid. In fact a system of dual bids would make it impossible to choose between bids without resorting to purely arbitrary judgments about the relative weighting to be given to cash and work program bids. Further, it would defeat the Government's objective of allowing explorers to determine the most profitable level of exploration in a permit. Permittees will, of course, be required to meet all other conditions normal for any permit such as any special environmental conditions and the compliance with the directions issued by the joint authority which deal, for example, with the manner in which any activities must be undertaken. Summary details of these conditions will be made known at the time applications are called. Cash bidding is to be used initially in areas solely administered by the Commonwealth. Extension to offshore areas adjacent to the States and the Northern Territory is to await consultation with them. The legislation provides that the joint authority, which consists of the Commonwealth Minister and the relevant State/Northern Territory Minister, must make decisions on which areas are to be released by cash bidding. Not only will consultation take place through the joint authority process, the Government also intends that there will be separate discussions which will take account of the sharing of revenue derived from cash bids. Accordingly, there are no revenue sharing provisions contained in this Bill. The States and Northern Territory are already aware that cash bidding revenue sharing will be addressed in the context of discussions on sharing of resource rent tax (RRT) revenue. Earlier this year, the Government announced that the more prospective areas in the Ashmore/Cartier Islands adjacent area would be made available on the basis of cash bidding. In all, applications for the award of permits by cash bidding in three areas to the north of the Jabiru and Challis oil discoveries and two other permits in the vicinity of the Puffin oil field will be invited as soon as possible after this Bill receives the royal assent. A number of work program areas have also been released, and it is our intention that offers of both work program and cash bidding permits be made to successful applicants at the same time. This will allow any applicants that are successful in more than one permit to make rational commercial decisions about which permits to accept. The Government remains unconvinced by claims that cash bidding will reduce the amount of money available for exploration, that it is inconsistent with RRT, that it will increase the costs and risks of exploration, and that small to medium size Australian companies will be disadvantaged or that cash bidding is inconsistent with the RRT proposals. Quite simply these criticisms directed at cash bidding do not stand up to close scrutiny. The reduction in exploration activity argument relies on the untenable assumption that there is a limited pool of funds available for exploration in Australia, and that the Australian exploration industry is a 'closed shop' within which these funds circulate and from which they never escape or are never added to. Further, the argument ignores the logic that an exploration company's decision to pay a premium to farm-in to a permit is identical with its decision to pay a premium in the form of a cash bid. There is no reason at all, either in principle or as a matter of practical experience, to suppose that funds are fixed. While it may be that the payment of cash, either to the Government or to some other company, to acquire good acreage will require some companies temporarily to divert funds from other exploration activity (rather than arranging new funds or diverting funds from some other company activity which is always possible), any other petroleum prospects with attractive profit potential will not be neglected for very long. It is simply a matter of the companies' priorities being rearranged in a normal commercial decision-making manner-it is the type of rearrangement of priorities that has taken place at least 50 times in the last five years in connection with farm-ins relating to offshore permits. Whatever might be the case in the very short term, in the medium term exploration funds are not fixed; there is nothing wrong-from the point of view of the national interest or anything else-with exploration being channelled into the more prospective areas first. Rather than reducing funds, information which has come to my Department from overseas sources in the last week suggests to me that the net effect of the introduction of cash bidding may be to add substantially to the pool of investment funds available for exploration in the medium term. It appears that a number of overseas companies with no previous experience in Australia, who have been very reluctant hitherto to compete against those with local knowledge and experience in work program bidding, have now expressed an inclination to participate in cash bidding, where they see their lack of on the ground experience as no hindrance. If the objection is that, within a particular highly prospective and high priority cash bidding area, there will be a shortage of available capital for subsequent exploration, the answer again is straightforward. In deciding to bid for a particular permit, a company will both design an exploration program that enables it to properly assess its petroleum potential, and estimate the expected return from that program. The extent to which the estimated return will exceed the company's required return will determine the size of its bid. The bid may be large or small depending on the particular circumstances but, if rationally calculated, will not reduce the amount of exploration expenditure identified as appropriate for that particular permit. Again I note that the same type of decision making process and behaviour will take place where farm-ins are involved. I would like to expand a little on why cash bidding is comparable to the payment of a premium in farm-in agreements. The decision to acquire a farm-in right is a normal commercial one based on the commercial realities of the day, and often made very quickly: in one recent farm-in proposal an Australian company, BHP Petroleum, was able to decide within 30 days to pay $22 million to a foreign company, CITCO, for the latter's interest in an attractive permit. It has been reported this week that Esso and Santos are currently seeking partners to earn up to 40 per cent of the interest in an offshore permit at $150,000 per percentage point. These actions appears hardly consistent with the notion of a fixed corporate exploration budget. Over the past eighteen months we have seen premiums of over $70 million paid for acquisition of interests in the permit containing the promising South Pepper, Chervil, North Herald discoveries. Premiums of around $60 million were paid last year for approximately a one third share of the offshore permit containing the Harriet discovery. These are just a few of the examples where companies are prepared to pay considerable sums from corporate budgets to acquire a share of very promising exploration acreage. If the point is made that at least in the case of farm-ins the funds remain within that industry rather than being drained off into the public purse, the short answer is that not only will it make no difference in practice to the decision of a farming-in company what happens to the premium it has paid, but it simply cannot be assumed that the recipient of farm-in funds will in fact reinvest them in petroleum exploration in Australia. In the examples I mentioned above, close to $100 million was paid by Australian companies to overseas based companies which have subsequently ceased their petroleum exploration activities in Australia. In other cases, premiums have been paid to companies involved in a wide range of activities in Australia in addition to petroleum exploration-it cannot be assumed that these funds will be reinvested in petroleum exploration activity. Farm-ins are an essential feature of the exploration industry. There is no suggestion that they result in reduced exploration nor can it be sustained that cash bidding will result in reduced exploration. The second point is that cash bidding is in fact quite complementary to RRT. Taken together, cash bidding and RRT will collect for the community an appropriate share of the economic rent which results from the exploitation of Australia's petroleum resources. Because of the lack of complete knowledge about a prospect before it is fully explored, the amount of any particular cash bid is likely to prove either too high (disadvantaging the bidder) or too low (disadvantaging the community). The co-existence of cash bidding with RRT evens out these risks. The existence of RRT (and the non-deductibility of cash bids against it) means that companies will be deterred from over-bidding; at the same time the existence of an RRT regime of certain dimensions, in place alongside the cash bidding system, means that companies will not face the risk that, in the event of a cash bid proving too low in the light of subsequent discoveries, some additional form of tax will be imposed to increase the community's take. Putting it in summary form, by combining cash bidding with RRT, companies can bid with certainty as to the return the community expects, and because of the RRT, will be deterred from over-bidding. There is no foundation whatever for the assertion that the Government's main motive in introducing cash bidding is revenue. The primary objective is to enhance the economic efficiency and equity with which highly sought after permits are allocated, and to overcome the deficiencies I have already detailed in these and other respects in the present work program bidding system. While there is, as I have already said, a secondary revenue objective (viz. to ensure, by the combination of cash bidding and RRT, that the community receives its appropriate share of economic rent), it should be clear from any examination of our proposed cash bidding legislation that the Government is not seeking to maximise revenue from this source. If revenue was the key concern then the Government would be offering large permits with unlimited renewal options; it would be encouraging speculators; and it would be allowing deductibility of cash bids against RRT and company tax. I might add that the argument that cash bidding only works overseas because of higher petroleum potential, and will not work in Australia, is not an argument against cash bidding as such but merely an argument for lower cash bids. The third claim against cash bidding is that it will be a disincentive to offshore exploration because of extra financial risk. The short answer here is that companies will take into account the expected risks and costs involved in exploring a permit when they are considering bidding for the permit, and the size of the cash bid will reflect that calculation. The cash bid in no way changes the risks or the costs involved; rather it is the risks and costs-the expected return weighed against the required return-which influence the size of the cash bid. The payment of a cash bid is not a cost to exploration. Once the exploration right has been purchased, the expenditures are regarded as sunk costs which do not, after the event, influence decisions on amounts to be spent on exploration. Compared with the work program system, the cash bidding system will actually reduce the risks face by companies. Under the cash bidding system, companies will be free to undertake the most commercially viable exploration program consistent with changing economic conditions and prospectivity assessments. Under the work program system, by contrast, companies are committed to an exploration program designed up to six years in advance, and must face the considerable risk that changing circumstances will make that exploration program uneconomic. Finally Australian companies will not be disadvantaged by cash bidding. It has to be squarely acknowledged that there are and always will be difficulties in local explorers taking offshore leases, because of the very high capital outlays involved. In keeping with the high costs, the high risks and the high level of technical skills necessary, it is only the stronger companies that will be able to participate-but this has been as true of work program bidding as it will be for cash bidding. Under either system, the applicant who values the permit highest will be the one prepared to bid the most. As has been the case in the past, it is very likely that consortia including Australian companies will be formed to bid for permits under the new system. Although there are no Australian equity requirements at the exploration stage, many foreign companies seek to include Australian companies in their consortia because of the 50 per cent local equity requirement should petroleum be found and developed. Under cash bidding, there is no reason whatever to anticipate a change to this practice. I note in fact a recent newspaper report that Australian companies such as Hartogen, and Australian Oil and Gas are included in a Japanese led consortium which is examining the areas to be released by cash bidding. I would like to note at this point that when applications are called, the attention of applicants will be drawn to the Australian equity requirements that need to be satisfied when development of discoveries is proposed. Any cash bids accepted by the joint authority will be without prejudice to the need to meet foreign investment criteria at the development stage. No realistic estimate is possible of the amount of revenue that might be raised by the award of permits under the cash bidding system. It will depend on the number of areas released during each financial year and industry's appraisal and response to these releases. This Bill also proposes the amendment of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Exploration Permit Fees) Act 1967 to exempt permits awarded under the cash bidding system from annual fees. Taking into account the reduction in administrative work and the small size of cash bid permits, it is not sensible to charge fees which might amount to no more than $400 per year. The amendments proposed in this Bill are essential to allow the introduction of an equitable, and an economically and administratively efficient system of awarding petroleum exploration permits in the more prospective offshore areas. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.27) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The previous Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs advised the other House on 11 October 1984 that the Government had reviewed the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs and had decided to expand the objects and functions of the Institute to address current Government policy objectives on multicultural and community relations issues. The purpose of the Bill I am now introducing is to give the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs this revised role. The review of AIMA reflected the Government's desire to ensure that the administrative arrangements to implement our multicultural and community relations policies were effective in meeting the needs of both migrant groups and the community generally. The Government received two reports as a part of its review. The first was from the Committee of Review of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, under the chairmanship of Dr Moss Cass. The Committee's report was tabled in the Senate on 13 December 1983. The Committee's report identified new and continuing needs for active Government involvement in multicultural affairs, in particular the need to promote equity and access for those disadvantaged because of their ethnic or cultural differences and to promote harmonious relations between groups, and also more participation and social cohesion. The Government subsequently accepted the recommendation of the Committee of Review that the Council of AIMA conduct extensive consultations with interested ethnic and other community groups and individuals on the report. The report by the Council of AIMA on these consultations, under the title 'Looking Forward', was tabled in the Senate on 12 June 1984. The AIMA Council reported widespread support for the general ideals of a multicultural society and in particular the need to address the issue of social inequality and to relate multicultural policy to all Australians. The Government decided to address these needs by expanding the objects and functions of AIMA, by re-ordering the Institute's work priorities, and by achieving greater public visibility of, and openness in, AIMA's operations. I refer now to the principal clauses of this Bill. In Clause 3 of the Bill it is proposed that the objects of the Institute be amended to include a positive affirmation that AIMA should promote a just and equitable society that firstly, accepts people irrespective of their particular ethnic or cultural background (including linguistic background) or immigrant origin; and secondly, affords the members of the different cultural groups and ethnic communities in Australia the effective opportunity to participate in Australian society and to achieve their own potential. This amendment gives effect to the Government's recognition of and support for the rights of migrants within our multicultural society to remain free to retain and express their ethnic identity without sacrificing their right of equal access to all community resources and Government programs. The amendment proposed by Clause 3(A) of the Bill will remove the current restriction of the Institute's activities on cultural matters to those relating only to migrants. The AIMA Council pointed out in its report that the existing wording of the AIMA Act could be interpreted as indicating that Aboriginal Affairs fall outside the province of the Institute. Such an interpretation should be invalidated. The Aboriginal people are an essential part of our society, and the implementation of multicultural policies should properly take full account of their participation in Australian society. There is obviously a need for close co-ordination with other bodies specifically established for the Aboriginal community, and the Government will ensure that this occurs. Clause 4 of the Bill proposes a new and more specific statement of the functions of AIMA. It is proposed that the Institute continue to be responsible for providing advice to the Government, research, community educational activities, information and reports on matters relating to the objects of the Institute. Sub clauses 1(C) and 1(D) of Clause 4 propose to give the institute specific directions to liaise, consult, co-operate and promote co-ordination of activities and services with departments, authorities and agencies at the three levels of government and with community groups, voluntary agencies, the media and employer, employee and other organisations. These new explicit functions for AIMA acknowledge the vital interests and responsibilities of the wide span of organisations which have a valued and effective role on migrant, multicultural and community relations issues, AIMA's role in co-operation and co-ordination will ensure that the complementary activities of these various bodies are integrated and co-ordinated and not duplicated. Sub-clause 1 (E) of Clause 4 proposes that AIMA promote the use by ethnic community organisations of their right to make representations on particular issues and, where needed, provide guidance in relation to the process of making such representations. This addition to the functions is being proposed because the review of AIMA has shown that there are significant barriers to ethnic communities being able to express effectively their concerns on matters affecting them. The smaller, less well established communities are particularly disadvantaged in this respect. The Government therefore accepts the need for ethnic communities to be able to obtain guidance in the exercise of their legitimate rights to make representations. Sub-clause 1 (F) of Clause 4 proposes that AIMA encourage other bodies to conserve materials relating to the diverse cultures of Australians. This provision will replace the existing AIMA function of establishing a repository of literature and other materials on cultures. The Government has accepted the finding of the review that it is undesirable and impracticable for the Institute to have such a national repository function. Clause 5 of the Bill proposes to increase the membership of the governing Council of AIMA from a maximum of 9 to 12 persons. This will strengthen the Council and broaden community participation in the conduct and control of the affairs of the Institute. The public consultations during the review showed substantial support for a community input into the determination of the composition of the membership of the Council. It is proposed this be achieved by the amendment in sub-clause 5 (1) (c) which will provide for public participation in the nomination of names and expressions of interests in appointments to the Council. Other minor amendments to the AIMA Act proposed in this bill are detailed in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated to Honourable Senators for information. Financial Impact Statement The budget appropriation for AIMA for 1984/85 is $2.53m. The institute currently has a complement of 38 full-time and 8 part-time staff. Given the need for budgetary restraint, there will no doubt be a re-allocation of resources to the maximum extent possible to reflect priorities in implementing the revised objects and functions. Mr President, the task AIMA has before it is to promote a harmonious and cohesive Australian society, one which accepts racial and cultural diversity, which is just and equitable, and accordingly gives migrants an effective opportunity to participate in Australian society in order to achieve their own potential. This task requires the active support and involvement of all Australians. Ours is a nation of great diversity. We need to ensure that diversity continues to be the source of our strength and a source of enrichment to our Australian way of life. I commend the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Amendment Bill 1985 to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy) —I table the explanatory notes of certain departments relating to the Additional Estimates of expenditure for 1984-85. Copies of the explanatory notes received today have been distributed to members of Senate Estimates Committees. Other senators may receive copies from the Senate Table Office if required. Debate resumed. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(6.29) —I seek leave to amend the motion I moved earlier this day in relation to the crown of thorns starfish to accord with the proposal which Senator Townley made to add an additional committee. Leave granted. Senator MISSEN —I move: Leave out paragraphs (e) and (f), insert: '(e) refers to the Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment and the Standing Committee on National Resources the question of whether an urgent investigation should be undertaken into this matter, and if so by which committee, to ascertain whether the present proposals of the Advisory Committee and the Marine Park Authority are adequate to meet the situation, or otherwise to make specific recommendations relating to a co-ordinated program of crown of thorns starfish research, control and eradication within the Great Barrier Reef'. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(6.29) —I have very little to add to this other than to stress that the Australian Democrats, in a qualified way, commend the motion. I have no further comments. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 6.30 p.m., under sessional order I propose the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(6.30) —I rise to make some comments addressing an excellent paper, circulated by the Department of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), which states very succinctly and splendidly this Government's position on the question of peace and nuclear disarmament. It is particularly appropriate tonight because next Sunday is Palm Sunday, and I believe that in every capital city in this country-certainly in my State and in Victoria and New South Wales-there will be significant marches on that day to acknowledge the importance in which this community holds the question of peace and nuclear disarmament. I note too that today the Premier of Victoria, Mr John Cain, has alluded to the symbolic importance as well as the significance of the Palm Sunday rally in his State. I certainly hold the same view in regard to the rally in my State of South Australia. I wish to refer to a comment Mr Bill Hayden made last year in Moscow to the Soviet Foreign Minister, Mr Gromyko. He said: The choice is no longer between peace and war but between peace and extinction. We must therefore learn to live together or we will surely die together. I think we are changing our understanding of the nuclear age question throughout the world. The only safe world any of us would acknowledge is a world without nuclear weapons. However, debate seems to continue about the steps that we need to take to arrive at the state of a world free of nuclear weapons. The wide community concern about this issue is certainly exemplified by the Palm Sunday rallies that I commented about a moment or so ago. The question that people wonder about is: How can we arrive at a world free of nuclear arms? Certainly we are clear that the nuclear powers do not intend to disarm unilaterally. Sadly, we have to admit that there is no easy path to disarmament. The race towards nuclear arms and increasing nuclear arms seems at the moment to be a marathon, not a sprint. Arms continue to pile up in those countries that are building them and stockpiling them. The rest of the world, no matter how it protests, sometimes seems to face the conundrum of having no effective voice. Fortunately, I am a member of an Australian Government that is taking its voice on this question into the international fora. We have to understand that even if Australia should unilaterally opt out of this dangerous and depressing state of affairs it would only be opting out of having any influence over this question. Even then, given the current understanding of the consequences of a nuclear war, we would not escape the consequences of such an event. As a consequent of that understanding, the Australian Government has set in train an arms control and disarmament program that addresses the issue and all its complexities in a way that is positive and practical. This program recognises and utilises three realities. Those realities are nuclear deterrence, the verification of arms control agreements and the existence of uranium in Australia. The Labor Government supports deterrence, exactly as the Palme Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues and the National Conference of United States Bishops do, as an interim step only toward the ultimate necessity of complete nuclear disarmament. While we move toward that step, we hold to the only process that is rationally available to the Australian Government to achieve that goal. It is quite clear, and the Government is unequivocal about it, that it wants nuclear weapons abolished altogether; but until we can achieve this, deterrence is the only mechanism which is holding these weapons apart. It is the Australian Government's considered view that the joint Australian-United States defence facilities contribute to our defence because they provide early warning of developments that threaten our peace. They also provide, very importantly, verification of arms control agreements. These agreements will not work if either nuclear super-power is unsure of whether the other is cheating or whether it is even able to cheat. The importance of the verification cannot be overstated. Neither nuclear super-power currently accepts on-site inspection, so the only alternative left to the world, and left to us as part of that world, is through the national technical means of verification, such as the joint facilities we have in this country. Australia is using its position as a major and responsible supplier of uranium to promote and defend the only effective arms control and disarmament program in existence; that is, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That Treaty is supported by the super-powers. Its principal aim is to discourage the spread of nuclear weapons. It is important to distinguish here between horizontal proliferation of weapons-that is, to those countries currently without them-versus vertical proliferation which is going on within the super-power countries. No matter what we say about the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, we have not yet been able to find ways of requiring the super-powers to reduce their increased arms supply. There are people who would argue that it would be better to abdicate from our position in the world, that it would be better to withhold the sale of our uranium and to take no part in the international debate on this very important question; that is, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its consequences. If Australia were to withhold its uranium supply, that Treaty would be weakened and so would the Treaty's safeguards system. As a consequence of that sort of step, this Government might, in fact, hand to the Opposition exactly what the Opposition claims it does not want; that is, the undermining of an effective arms control arrangement. The Government can, I think, hold its head high in what it has achieved in this whole area in two years in office. It has taken the initiative in creating a nuclear free zone in the South Pacific. It has kept alive efforts to create a zone of peace in the Indian Ocean. It has taken the lead in pushing the super-powers towards a total ban on all forms of nuclear testing. It has proposed the establishment of a fully operational global seismic network to monitor a ban on nuclear testing and to upgrade our own seismic monitoring system. It has initiated action at the Geneva conference to prevent the arms race spreading into outer space. It has opposed French nuclear testing in the Pacific, including banning uranium sales to France as a protest against those tests. It is working actively for a freeze in the arms race and has urged on both the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics the need for deep cuts in nuclear arsenals. It has been deeply involved in negotiations for a treaty outlawing chemical weapons and it has made available to the United Nations expert help in investigating allegations of the use of chemical weapons. It has ratified the inhumane weapons conventions. Further, Australian Government participation in arms control and disarmament has been upgraded by, firstly, the appointment of our first ever Ambassador for Disarmament; secondly, the commitment of $2m for the establishment of a peace studies centre at the Australian National University and, thirdly, planning for the establishment of peace studies in school curriculums. Fourthly, the Government has established a senior disarmament adviser position and a peace and disarmament branch in the Department of Foreign Affairs and, fifthly, it has appointed Stella Cornelius to direct the Australian program for the International Year of Peace in 1986. The foremost item on the Australian Government's agenda is the search for lasting peace through arms control and disarmament. The Government recognises that choices have to be made. Importantly, it recognises that those choices have to be made not in a moral vacuum but in an imperfect and dangerous world. The more passionately we pursue that task, the more crucial it is that we choose actions that are genuinely effective and do not become trapped, as others have, in rhetoric alone. I commend the Australian Government's support for peace and disarmament and the sympathy it has for the Palm Sunday rally. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(6.40) —I wish to say a few words about the provision of extra army training facilities in New South Wales. If one looks around New South Wales, one will find several groups running no base committees. Wherever one finds those groups, one will know that that is an area in which the Army may be seeking to extend its operations. It is unfortunate because the existing Army base at Singleton is really appreciated by the district. It brings enormous economic benefit to the Singleton-Cessnock area, Indeed, some of the farmers whose properties adjoin the Army base have told a colleague of mine, the Liberal candidate for the seat of Hunter, that the Army was the best neighbour that they had ever had. If it knocked down or broke a fence, it was mended the next day. Any plan to extend the base would provide some problems for the people nearby. I have received a letter dated 20 March from Ms Gus Eddy, the Secretary of the Wollombi Valley Association's No Base Expansion Group in the Wollombi area. I have shown the letter to the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans. In order to save time, I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Wollombi Valley Assoc. No-Base Expansion Group c/o Wollombi P.O. 2325 March 20th, 1985. Senator Peter Baume12th Floor,Commonwealth Government Offices,Chifley Square,Sydney, 2000 Dear Senator Baume,Re proposed expansion of the Singleton Army Base The Wollombi Valley Association No Base Expansion Group wishes to draw your attention to the urgent problems facing our area following the announcement by Premier Wran on March 13th 1985, that the State Government had recommended to the Federal Government that Singleton be the site for the proposed Army Training Schools complex. This preferred option of Singleton comprises the existing Army base (13,400 hectares) plus adjoining Crown Land (7000 hectares), the use on a conditional basis of the Pokolbin State Forest and Crown Land (42,000 hectares) to the south west of the base. Release of a map by the State Government at this time shows clearly there will be considerable incursion of the base into the Cessnock Local Government Area. At a meeting held at Wollombi on March 17th 1985 and attended by 250 concerned residents, Alderman Gordon Williams, Mayor of Cessnock spoke strongly in support of the Association's protest at such incursion. The following resolutions were passed at this meeting: (1) That the meeting totally rejects the expansion proposal of the State Government dated 13th March 1985. (2) That the nomination of the Singleton site by the State Government is, in fact, a political expediency, ill conceived, possibly deliberately so, and is designed to test the strength of the reaction in the Cessnock Singleton area and the Army's reaction to this. (3) That environmentally, historically this should be an inviolate area. I have included for your information a copy of the submission prepared by the Wollombi Valley Association outlining the main reasons why the Singleton Army Base cannot meet the Defence department's criteria for expansion into the 21st century. We believe that the effects of this expansion on our historical and cultural heritage of both aboriginal and white peoples would be disastrous. The Wollombi Valley Association No Base Expansion Group respectfully requests for your intervention on our behalf in this matter of extreme urgency by raising the following question: 'Has the Federal Government and the Defence Department seriously thought through the military and strategic consequences of establishing a major military training schools complex with facilities suitable for expansion into to 21st century so close to the major industrial area in N.S.W.?'' Should you require additional information we would be happy to supply it. I remain, Yours faithfully, MS GUS EDDY Secretary No Base Expansion Group. Senator PETER BAUME —I am grateful to the Senate. This letter draws attention to the fact that the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Wran, announced on 13 March that the State Government had recommended to the Federal Government that Singleton be the site for the proposed army training schools complex. That is not just the infantry school, but the other training schools as well. This would require a considerable expansion of the Singleton training area. The State Government had given its preferred option-that is, to use the existing army base, which comprises about 13,500 hectares, plus adjoining crown land comprising 7,000 hectares, the use on a conditional basis of Pokolbin State Forest and crown land of 42,000 hectares to the south-west of the base. The areas involved surround the Wollombi Valley and the area between Broke and Wollombi. It is a very beautiful area of New South Wales and some of it is held in freehold title by various farmers, mostly small farmers; some of them in fact are hobby farmers. Nevertheless, they are concerned at what is proposed. Mr President, if you look at the map on which the area is shown it becomes quite obvious that if the Army did extend into this area it would provide considerable difficulties for those living between Broke and Wollombi. They would have the Army on each side of them. There has even been a suggestion that if the artillery school was moved there, the Army would be firing across the inhabited area, from on area of Army land to the other. Whether or not that comes to pass, of course, we still have to learn. Further, the crown land of 42,000 hectares contains within it a number of freehold properties. There must be some concern that they would need to be resumed. There certainly would be concern that there may be moves to resume land to give the Army continuity if it took this area and held it for any length of time. I have checked with some of my colleagues in the Upper Hunter region. They tell me that the Army is welcome in that area. It is a very good neighbour. It brings considerable benefits to the area and they would not want to see the Army leave. They have no!doubt that the present infantry training school should stay where it is in Singleton. Whether or not the manoeuvres training group should go to Singleton is more problematical. My colleague Dr Ron Dolton thinks it may be more likely to go to Cobar where, as honourable senators know, there is a proposal for the Army to acquire some quite good grazing land, and where there is also a very active no base group operating to try to hold on to its freehold land. A further study is being done as to whether the artillery school should go to that area. That would depend on the decisions that the Army makes about Holsworthy. I think that we must acknowledge that the people in the Broke area and the Wollombi area do have some concerns. It will be quite interesting to see how the Commonwealth Government responds to the proposition that has been put to it by the New South Wales Government. A study was done a couple of years ago by the Department of Defence as to how the artillery training school might be incorporated in this area. I ask the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan): Is it possible to seek from the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) the publication of all the studies which have been done and which may help the people in the region understand what it is that governments have in mind? I conclude by saying that like many citizens of New South Wales, including those like me who have actually served at Singleton, I believe it is a good area for the Army to operate. You, indicate Mr President, that you too have served there. It is a good place for the Army to operate. The district and the people of Wollombi want to see the infantry training school stay there. What concerns them is that the areas of land proposed to be included in an extended Army area are close to their properties; they surround them. They are concerned that they may have their land resumed at some time in the future. They are concerned about the environmental damage that might occur if the Army brought in its artillery training. They are concerned at some of the damage that may occur to their enjoyment of the environment of the area. I ask the Minister for Education to make known to the Minister for Defence these very genuine concerns of the Wollombi people. I ask the Minister to try to set up a process of consultation with the people in this region, as well as with the people in the Upper Hunter, who are more sanguine about the presence of the Army, in order that they should know what is proposed, that they should know the dangers that may face them and the extent to which the Army might go if it did take over the entire area of land which has been proposed. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(6.46) —Senator Crowley made some very commendable comments in the adjournment debate tonight about the Government's record in the area of peace and disarmament. Senator Peter Baume has raised a number of specific matters seeking information to be made available concerning Army training facilities in the State of New South Wales. I will refer his request to the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and I am sure that that information will be forthcoming. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 6.47 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Australian Bureau of Statistics Act- Proposals 1985- No. 2-Household Energy Survey, 1985-86 No. 3-New Topics to be Included in the Population Survey-May 1985 Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 30 Public Service Act- Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 29 Determinations 1985- Nos 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21 Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Regulations 1985 No. 8-(Co-operative Societies Ordinance) Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 31 Governor-General's Proclamation-Commencement of Act: A Proclamation by His Excellency the Governor-General was presented, notifying that His Excellency had proclaimed the following sub-sections of an Act to come into operation on the date specified: Customs and Excise Amendment Act 1982-Sub-sections 69 (1), (2) and (3) and sub-section 70 (4)-1 April 1985 (Gazette No. S 96, 27 March 1985) The following answer to a question was circulated: Senator Grimes —On 27 February 1985 (Hansard, page 244), Senator Messner asked the Minister for Community Services a question without notice which, inter alia, sought confirmation of a report in the Australian Financial Review of 6 February that the Government was considering a special inter-departmental committee report on occupational superannuation which indicated that it had reached substantial agreement with the Australian Council of Trade Unions on the extension of superannuation as part of the forthcoming wage case. In my reply I undertook to seek an answer to that aspect of the question from the Minister for Employment and Industrial relations, the Hon. Ralph Willis, who has provided the following response: An Inter-Departmental Committee (IDC) has reported to the Government on issues and options concerning national superannuation. The IDC's Report adopted a broad view of national superannuation and examined a number of options for reform. The Report is exploratory only and makes no recommendations. It did not review any ACTU proposals for reform. The ACTU has been considering a proposal that any increase the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission may award in any national productivity case be used to finance the extension of and improvements to occupational superannuation schemes. As yet the Government has not decided what position it will adopt to a productivity claim. The Government's position will have regard to the state of the economy, and will be formulated with proper regard to the National Wage Principles and will seek to ensure continued adherence to the centralised wage fixing system. In the event that the ACTU makes a productivity claim, the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission will need to decide on the quantum available for distribution after considering the submissions of the parties.