Tuesday, 18 February 1986 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That a Government decision to force, at the expense of viewers, the transfer of WIN TV (and any future local broadcast) from VHF to UHF transmission, while excluding Sydney metropolitan T.V. stations from this requirement, will place in jeopardy the future of the Illawarra and South Coast region's only local commercial T.V. operator. Your petitioners request the Senate to protect the interests of the hundreds of thousands of television viewers within the area from Wollongong to the Victorian border served by WIN TV, by preventing the Government from taking this unwarranted and discriminatory action which disadvantages both viewers and advertisers on the South Coast to the benefit of the metropolitan networks. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Michael Baume (from 159 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill. 1. Offer nothing more than is already available under Common Law, 2. Deny some Human Rights and do not include others, 3. Give dangerously wide powers to an unelected body, and 4. Could cause far more damage than they could possible cure. Your petitioners request that the Senate should: Completely reject both the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 66 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian Bill of Rights Bill is a harmful, dangerous and divisive proposal, the provisions of which are authoritarian and anti-democratic. Your petitioners therefore pray: That the Senate rejects this Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Jessop (from 22 citizens) and Robertson (from 32 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That human embryos deserve legal protection to enable the development of their full human potential. Your petitioner's request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Pass Senator Harradine's Bill to prohibit experiments involving the use of human embryos created by in vitro fertilization. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators MacGibbon (from 273 citizens) and Robertson (from 296 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system in Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Force, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally. Our petitioners therefore humbly pray: That your Honourable House defer debate on the Bill for twelve months and circulate the Bill for twelve months for the widest possible debate, scrutiny and discussion. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Archer (from 324 citizens), Chipp (from 13 citizens), Collard (from three citizens), Robertson (from 469 citizens), Vigor (from 27 citizens) and Walters (from 224 citizens). Petitions received. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the rising alarm of local government, rural producers and their representative organisations and small businessmen at the failure of the Federal Government to introduce legislation for its proposed capital gains tax, fringe benefits tax, abolition of negative gearing and particularly the quarantining of farm losses; and (b) calls upon the Government immediately to introduce to the Parliament its legislation on these matters in order properly to inform anxious taxpayers who have no clear idea of how these undesirable tax imposts will impact upon them. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate draws to the attention of the Federal Government the disastrous impact on rural producers of its proposals to quarantine farm losses for tax purposes and in particular notes- (a) the effects on afforestation undertaken by farmers where farm income is used to develop forestry; (b) the apparent inflexibility of the proposal which will prevent the offset for tax purposes of, say, specified income from shearing, against income earned from contracting farm machinery to other farmers; (c) that at a time of crisis in rural Australia the proposals are likely to restrict rather than enhance the abilities of Australia's battling farming families to find alternative sources of income to tide them over during these difficult times; and (d) that the proposal is likely to mitigate against the desirable trend toward rationalisation and restructuring still continuing in rural Australia, which can improve the future viability of Australian farms. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate I incorporate the list in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Aboriginal Development Commission-Annual Report 1984-85-Pursuant to section 40 of the Aboriginal Development Commission Act 1980 2. Special Broadcasting Service-Annual Report 1984-85-Pursuant to section 79 (ZH) of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 3. Australian Film and Television School-Annual Report 1984-85-Pursuant to section 42 (1) of the Australian Film and Television School Act 1973 4. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority-Annual Report 1984-85-Pursuant to section 60 of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1974 5. National Library of Australia-Annual Report 1984-85-Pursuant to section 27 (2) of the National Library Act 1960 6. A.C.T. Electricity Authority-Annual Report 1984-85-Pursuant to section 33 (4) of the A.C.T. Electricity Supply Act 1962 7. Parliamentary Zone Development Plan- together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Territories relating to the document 8. Construction of a national bicentenial science centre in the parliamentary zone-proposal-pursuant to section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974 9. Carpark lighting at the administrative building carpark-proposal-pursuant to section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974 10. Australia-Japan Foundation-Annual Report 1984-85-Pursuant to section 25 of the Australia-Japan Foundation Act 1976 The PRESIDENT —Order! Before I call on questions without notice I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the Gallery of former Senator Lajovic, and on behalf of all honourable senators I extend to him a warm and friendly welcome upon his return to Canberra. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I inform the Senate that Senator Grimes will be absent from the chamber for Question Time today. Any questions which would normally be directed to Senator Grimes in relation to his portfolio or to those he represents in the chamber should be directed to Senator Ryan. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I ask: Is it a fact that seven Ministers, including those with big budget portfolios such as Social Security and Health, have told the Prime Minister that it is not possible to set spending priorities in their departments? What implications does this refusal to consider expenditure reductions have for the Government's ability to deliver tax cuts and cheaper petrol? Senator BUTTON —The Government will meet its commitments on fiscal policy and will introduce the tax cuts as promised-a matter which I confirmed in the Senate last week. In respect of the oil pricing issue the Government, as is common knowledge, is considering that matter at the moment. When a decision has been reached it will be made known generally as quickly as possible. Senator CHANEY —I wish to ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for that reply. Does that mean that the Ministers concerned will in fact have to set the spending priorities which have been requested of them? Senator BUTTON —The reply means that the Government will meet its commitments. The Cabinet process is a collective one. As I said, the Government will meet its commitments and that will include its commitments to social welfare. Senator DEVLIN —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. I ask the Minister whether he is aware of an analysis of the Tasmanian economy which showed a sharp rise in bankruptcies and greater than average unemployment levels in that State in 1985. Will the Minister comment on claims that the analysis showed a monumental failure of the Gray Government in managing the State's economy? Senator WALSH —I am aware of the generally abysmal record of the Tasmanian economy in recent years-a record which equals or arguably even surpasses the abysmal record of the Government of Queensland. I think Senator Devlin referred to bankruptcies. In 1985 in Tasmania non-corporate bankruptcies were above 300, an increase of 21 per cent of the figure for the previous year. More significantly, Tasmania has the worst record of any State on unemployment. In the most recent figures, that is, for January 1986, Tasmania had the highest unemployment rate of any State on the raw figures at 10 1/2 per cent-a full 2 per cent above the national average. It is the only State to have recorded a rise in unemployment over the year from January to January when the Tasmanian unemployment rate went up from 10.2 per cent to 10.5 per cent and the Australian average fell from 9.3 per cent to 8.5 per cent. A year ago there was less than a one per cent difference between the Tasmanian unemployment rate and the national unemployment rate. That differential has more than doubled from 8 1/2 per cent to 10 1/2 per cent. Not surprisingly, the increase in the number of people employed in the year to January in Tasmania was minimal. While there were 185,000 extra jobs in Australia as a whole over the 12 months ending January, in Tasmania there was an increase of only 1,700 or, in percentage terms, 3.4 and 1.2 per cent respectively. If I may say so, that abysmal record is in spite of the very generous financial treatment which the Tasmanian Government and the Tasmanian State get from the Federal Government with per capita payments which are very much higher than the national average and very much higher than for any other State. That is in addition to the very generous employment creation arrangements and so on which are being provided by this Government. In spite of all that, not only is the Tasmanian economy the worst performer in all Australia but also the gap between Tasmania and the rest of Australia has widened. Tasmania, with Queensland, is dragging the rest of Australia down, although the quantitative importance of Queensland, because that State is very much larger and its economy very much larger, is much more serious compared with the relatively small economy of Tasmania, Finally, I suggest that it is no coincidence at all that the two States with the worst economic record by far in Australia are the only two States which do not have Labor governments. Senator LEWIS —Does the Minister for Veterans' Affairs believe that it is possible to set priorities for spending cuts in his Department and, if not, why not? Senator GIETZELT —There are always possibilities in all government departments to make savings in some areas for the purpose of establishing priorities in others, initiating new programs or improving existing programs, particularly as they relate to treatment services, which is probably an important area in the Department of Veterans' Affairs, as it is important to improve the facilities in the repatriation hospitals. Those matters are receiving consideration in respect of the Budget and I have nothing further to add. Senator REYNOLDS —Will the Minister for Resources and Energy outline what forms of assistance will be given to the tin mining industry following a recent report on the severe problems being experienced in that sector? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government has received a submission from the North Queensland Tin Producers Association, which represents small tin producers in that region. The submission seeks financial assistance in the face of the sharp and unexpected decline in world tin prices and the expectations of continuing low tin prices in the future as a result of the suspension of buffer stock operations on the London Metal Exchange on 24 October last. My Department, in consultation with other relevant departments, is at present actively examining that submission. Officers of my Department and the Bureau of Mineral Resources recently visited the Cairns-Mareeba tin mining district to assess the situation at first hand and also to try to get some more details in addition to those that have been provided so far as to the financial plight of the tin producers. As a result of all that, I expect the Government will be considering the NQTPA request for assistance soon. I will certainly be seeing a delegation from those producers later in the week. I should just mention finally that the world tin market has been in disarray since the cessation of the International Tin Council buffer stock operations and the suspension of LME tin trading on 24 October. The Australian Government, through its delegation to the International Tin Council, is keeping in close touch with those Council discussions related to negotiations currently under way in London on a rescue package put forward by the banks and brokers. The objective of these negotiations is to achieve an orderly disposal of the ITC buffer stock and the re-opening of tin trading on the London Metal Exchange. It is still premature, however, to anticipate what the final result of these negotiations may be. Senator SANDERS —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I ask: Is the Government aware that yesterday, the very day that the Tasmanian election poll was declared, the Gray Government authorised the construction of a logging road into the Farmhouse Creek wilderness area of South West Tasmania and that the road has already been pushed through several hundred metres of virgin forest? Is it further aware that the Gray Government is soon to authorise operations in the Lemon Thyme wilderness area of northern Tasmania? In view of the Minister for Primary Industry's statement of 16 December 1985 that the `wilderness will be given maximum possible protection', what steps will the Government take to stop the Gray Government's destruction of Tasmanian National Estate wilderness by logging? Senator WALSH —Just a few minutes ago, a background brief from Mr Kerin on that subject was dropped on my desk. I have not had time to read it and, therefore, to pick out from it the salient points, but I will make it available to Senator Sanders. Senator CROWLEY —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. The report of the Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australian has been tabled in Parliament and has been before the Government for some time now. Can the Minister say when the Government will announce its response to that report? Senator GARETH EVANS —It has not really been a very long time. It was only at the end of last year that we received the report. What is happening is this: I announced in London on 23 January that following my discussions with United Kingdom Ministers-which discussions, I should add, proceeded on a rather more amicable and constructive basis than some earlier exchanges involving other persons-a technical assessment group has been established to advise on options for the decontamination of the atomic test sites so that informed decisions can be made by the Government on the most appropriate and cost effective means of rehabilitating the sites and, in particular, of course, the Maralinga site, where we have a major clean-up problem involving approximately 1 1/2 kilograms of plutonium dispersed in the form of 100,000-odd contaminated fragments of unacceptable concentrations, with approximately 20 kilos of plutonium buried in a mass of debris in 20 burial pits, and, in addition, large quantities of uranium and the toxic chemical beryllium scattered around other minor trial sites. Agreement has now been reached with the United Kingdom Government on detailed terms of reference for the committee and its membership. I hope to be in a position to table in the Parliament before this week is out the relevant exchange of letters and to give some indication of the likely timetable for the deliberations of this technical assessment group. I also announced in London the establishment of a consultative group consisting of representatives from the Australian, United Kingdom, South Australian and Western Australian governments, together with Aboriginal interests, to discuss and monitor progress on the rehabilitation of the sites. I am keen to ensure that that consultative group is established and that its discussions proceed at the same time as the technical assessment group, which will comprise expert scientists, will be doing its job. As to those recommendations of the Royal Commission report concerning compensation for claims of personal illness, the Government is currently considering those recommendations and I would expect decisions to be announced during the current autumn session of parliament. We are also giving consideration to the remaining recommendation of the Commission which concerns compensation to Aboriginals for the loss of use and enjoyment of Maralinga lands. I would not care to put a precise time at this stage as to when it might be possible to reach a concluded decision on that, but again it will be as soon as possible. Senator COLLARD —Does the Minister for Finance believe there is room for any further reduction in Commonwealth Government welfare spending, or would such cuts only aggravate the worsening poverty and homelessness which have been a feature of the Hawke Government, this fact being recognised as recently as yesterday by Mr Gerry Hand? Senator WALSH —Since this Government came to office social welfare recipients have received $1,500m over and above indexation. Certainly, some measures have been taken to withdraw social welfare benefits from people who did not need them, at very considerable savings on outlays. So far as the means test, for example, is concerned, by next year the likely total savings will be more than $200m. It is interesting to note that the Opposition, of course, opposed that measure and continues to oppose it. The Opposition behaves as irresponsibly in opposition as it did in government. As a measure of its irresponsibility in government I refer to the record of the five years during which the present Leader of the Opposition was Treasurer of Australia. In any one of those years actual expenditures were in excess of the budget estimate. The figures range from $175m in the first year, a very small figure in the second, $244m, $463m and, in his final year as Treasurer, $2 billion-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. Having listened carefully to the answer being given by the Minister, I submit that there is absolutely no relevance in the point he is making to the question he was asked. He was asked a question relating to welfare expenditure and the ability to cut costs. He is now responding by making allegations about over-spending in a total Budget. That seems to me to be totally irrelevant to the question that was asked. I ask you to insist that the Minister addresses remarks which are relevant to the question which has been raised. The PRESIDENT —Order! I assume that the Minister in answering the question is referring to the matter in generality, but I would ask him to come to the point as soon as he possibly can. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. I can understand the sensitivity of the Opposition in not wishing to be reminded of the fact that in the last year that the discredited former Treasurer was in office outlays exceeded Budget estimates by almost $2 billion and the deficit exceeded the Budget estimate by almost $3 billion. That is an example of the sort of fiscal irresponsibility which Mr Howard practised when in Government. So far as this Government is concerned, fiscal irresponsibility has been outlawed and because of that and because of the discipline that that imposes on a government in the social welfare area, this Government has adopted the approach of targeting social welfare expenditure; that is targeting it on the needy groups and a necessary corollary of that was that welfare expenditures which were not needed by other groups in the country have been withdrawn. It is interesting to note that the Opposition has opposed that policy of directing welfare expenditure to the needy groups and targeting it in the most cost-efficient way. That is the policy which this Government has followed. It is the policy which this Government will continue to follow in marked distinction to that of the previous Government, of course, which was one of fiscal irresponsibility-let the deficit blow out, let the outlays blow out and leave the problem for some other government to sort out. Senator AULICH —Has the attention of the Minister for Education been drawn to an article in today's Australian Financial Review entitled: `Minister doubts $100m figure put on education revenue'. Does the Minister believe that the Government's new policy of exporting education services to our geographical region will result in significant Budget savings? Senator RYAN —Yes, I certainly do believe that there is great potential for earning export dollars by making available for purchase in the region certain high quality and specialist services. I was rather disappointed to read that article in the Australian Financial Review because it put a very negative complexion on what is a very positive policy. Last year our Government, when reviewing the overseas students policy, had available to it certain recommendations from the report of the Jackson Committee on the Australian Overseas Aid Program concerning the potential market there is in our region for our very high standard education services. We announced a number of steps which will enable Australians to have the benefit of those services. The first and perhaps a minor part of the new policy is that institutions which are interested in and able to provide extra places in sought after courses at full cost to overseas students will be able to do so. I am pleased to report to the Senate that at the most recent count eight institutions, mainly institutes of technology, have made known their capacity to take in extra overseas students at full cost. Other institutions are expressing an interest in doing this and are having discussions with the overseas student's office in my Department and the Trade Commissioner Service to see how they can pursue these opportunities. But even more than the export dollars that will be earned in this way, I believe is the possibility for countries in the region, particularly some Association of South East Asian Nations to purchase quite large consultancy services from Australia. I visited a number of these countries recently. In Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei there was great interest expressed in the possibility of purchasing services which will enable, in the case of Brunei, the development of a university there. Great interest was expressed in Indonesia in purchasing services related to the teaching of English as a second language and vocational education at the tertiary and further education level, both areas in which, of course, we have considerable expertise in Australia. In Malaysia an interest was expressed in the purchase of part places in faculties such as medicine and engineering in our institutions. When I say `part places' I mean arrangements are now being negotiated whereby students can do parts of their courses in Malaysian universities and complete the senior levels of their courses in Australian institutions. Those are just some examples of the way in which we will be able to utilise the fact that we have developed very high standards of education, particularly in fields which are of relevance to the economic development of our region, and that in a forward looking and entrepreneurial fashion our Government has sought to make those services available. The reason that I refused yesterday to confirm a precise question about $100m was that we are in the experimental stage of this program. It is too early to put precise figures on export earnings expected for this year. It may well be that this year as the first year will not produce export earnings in the vicinity of $100m, but if we proceed to establish this new strategy in a careful and thorough fashion, in consultation with institutions, the private sector, Government agencies and educational authorities in the region, I believe that in years to come there will be significant export earnings and therefore a great contribution to improving our balance of payments situation. Senator SHEIL —Will the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations explain how his Government can justify the following five community employment program expenditures: Firstly, the allocation of over $47,000 to the unilateralist Campaign for International Co-operation and Disarmament; secondly, $96,000 to the pro-Moscow People for Nuclear Disarmament; thirdly, $249,000 to the Victorian Trades Hall Council to set up a trade union `Art in Working Life' program; over $110,000 to the Victorian Teachers Union to fund a women's affirmative action handbook; and fifthly, over $37,000 to the Italian Community Welfare Information Service, which is a front for the Italian Communist Party? Will the Minister also inform the Senate of how many other leftist and subversive groups and activities are being funded by this Government, using the CEP scheme to launder the money? Senator WALSH —I do not know where Senator Sheil got that list. I understand that News Weekly is a likely source, because apparently it publishes this sort of thing. I will seek a detailed and considered response from Mr Willis. The only thing I can say at this stage is that all projects which are submitted for CEP funding must come within the guidelines and in the main they are administered jointly by officials of State and Commonwealth governments. If Senator Sheil is interested in what he believes to be the misuse of public money, I would not mind, if I may, Mr President, asking him how he justifies the misuse of $5m by the Premier of Queensland to build a dam on the Mackenzie River, principally for the benefit of his son who owns 20,000 acres of land downstream from it. Senator BOLKUS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer the Minister to a recent report by Amnesty International, related to Central America, which refers to the thousands of political killings and widespread torture that has occurred in Guatemala over the past 15 years against such people as church workers, trade unionists, human rights activists, students and journalists. I ask whether the Australian Government has expressed its objection to this continued abuse of human rights in that country. Senator GARETH EVANS —The Amnesty International report referred to by Senator Bolkus is one of a number which have documented Guatemala's poor human rights record. The Australian Government has consistently condemned the repeated instances of massive human rights violations in that country. We have voted in favour of resolutions in the United Nations General Assembly and in the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva which were strongly critical of Guatemala's lack or respect for basic human rights. In addition, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, issued a statement on 23 April 1985 expressing concern at the recent wave of politically motivated violence and his personal alarm that human rights activists had been singled out for attack. This was quickly brought to the attention of the Guatemalan Government of the day. Elections in December 1985 returned Guatemala to civilian government after 31 years of almost uninterrupted military rule. Australia welcomed this development in a message to the President-elect, at the same time joining the United Nations General Assembly in expressing the hope that this election would mark at least the first step towards an improvement in the human rights situation there. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is the Minister aware of a statement made today by Mr Noakes, the Director-General of the Confederation of Australian Industry, with regard to the productivity case in the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to the effect that past productivity growth has already been fully distributed and, furthermore, that part of that productivity growth has been distributed to wage and salary earners in the form of higher real wages, higher levels of employment and increased government services? Mr Noakes stated that this argument has the endorsement of the Prime Minister, the working party on the measurement of labour productivity and all authorities on productivity estimation. Does the Minister agree with Mr Noakes's assertion that the Australian Council of Trade Unions' productivity claim would have no chance of success were it not for the support it is receiving from the Federal Government and the four State Labor governments? In view of the signs that the economy is in an exceedingly difficult situation, will the Government withdraw its support for the claim before the Arbitration Commission? Senator BUTTON —I saw a report of what Mr Noakes had to say in the Australian Financial Review. Other organisations such as the Business Council of Australia have also expressed views about this. What he said has a certain deja vu quality about it in the light of the ongoing adversary roles in which these organisations cast themselves from force of habit. That is not to deny any validity in the claims made by Mr Noakes. In respect of the suggestion made by Mr Noakes that the productivity gains have already been distributed, that is a matter which I would have thought would be appropriately assessed by the Arbitration Commission. The Confederation of Australian Industry and other organisations will have ample opportunity to advance those arguments before the Commission when it hears that case. Whether the Arbitration Commission is the appropriate forum to deal with that is another question. However, under the structural and organisational arrangements we have, it is the appropriate forum in the current context. I would have thought that the share of profits in the last 12 months had been such that this is a statement of doubtful quantifiable substantiation. Nonetheless, I interpret that as being a statement by one of a number of organisations in relation to the forthcoming case. It is of course true that the Government has indicated its broad support for the productivity claim at a reduced percentage from what was originally suggested. That claim will go before the Commission with Government support. So the answer to the last part of the question is no, Government support for the claim will not be withdrawn. I might say that this is part of a wider question of looking at relative shares as a result of improved economic performance. One of the advantages which may very well flow from the productivity increase being taken in superannuation benefits is that it will avoid a severe addition to on-costs and will, I believe, help to stabilise the wage fixing scene in the next couple of years. That is something to which the Government attaches a great deal of importance. So the answer to the final part of the question is no. I broadly disagree with the arguments advanced by Mr Noakes. However, I am not saying that he is wrong in every respect. That is a matter which requires further analysis. Senator CHILDS —Can the Minister for Resources and Energy indicate whether Australian exports of petroleum and petroleum products to South Africa have in fact been prohibited as was announced by Cabinet on 19 August 1985? Senator GARETH EVANS —The agreement on South Africa reached at the Nassau Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting called for the adoption of a number of economic measures against South Africa. These measures, which were, of course, subsequently endorsed by the Australian Cabinet, included a ban on the sale and export to South Africa of Australian oil. All exports of crude oil and petroleum products from Australia are subject to export controls administered by my colleague the Minister for Trade. Export approvals are given only after the exporter has given an undertaking that no exports will be made to South Africa. Senator PARER —I refer the Minister for Finance to two answers he gave yesterday concerning real unit labour costs and growth in average weekly earnings in which he claimed that this Government has halved wage increases and inflation. Is the Minister aware of, and alarmed by, the release of inflation figures for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries in 1985 which show that Australia's inflation rate is more than double that of the United States, which was 3.8 per cent for 1985, and more than four times that of West Germany and Japan at 1.8 per cent? Does the Minister agree that six-monthly wage indexation increases under the accord are contributing to a deteriorating inflationary situation compared with that of countries which do not have full wage indexation? Would the Minister mind confining his replies to the current state of Australia? Senator WALSH —I was asked whether I am alarmed by those figures. As accurately as I can recall, those figures are correct. I am not alarmed, but I am concerned about them. I think any sensible person ought to be concerned about them. It is a very broad jump and an illogical jump from that point of being concerned about having a higher inflation rate than most of our trading partners to the assumption which Senator Parer seems to have made that Australia's rate of wage increase and rate of inflation would be lower if it were not for the centralised wage fixing and the prices and incomes accord. One of the countries he mentioned was the United States-I do not remember the exact figures-where the percentage of the work force which is unionised is much less than half of the figure in Australia. Therefore it is not at all reasonable to assume that what has happened in the United States would happen in Australia in a completely different labour market situation. In the case of West Germany, the percentage of the labour force which is unionised is, I think, comparable, but West Germany has a very long tradition, going right back to the 1950s, of having, although it is not formally called an accord, a wages policy under successive governments which has been very similar to the accord in Australia. West Germany over that same period has reaped the benefits of having that sort of policy in place-low inflation rates, high rates of economic growth and low rates of unemployment-although in the last couple of years the record of West Germany, compared with that which it had in the 1960s and 1970s, has been comparatively poor but still vastly better than the record which Australia had over those same decades, as indeed is the record of almost all of the west European democracies, the Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries Austria and Germany, which have also had for that same period broad agreements between organised labour and government about wages policy. Far from drawing comparisons between unlikes-that is, the unlike situations of the labour force and the labour market in the United States and Australia-Senator Parer would be better advised to draw comparisons between what happened in Australia in the early 1980s, when there was a brief period of fairly high economic growth and there was a wages explosion, with what has happened in the last 2 1/2 years when there has been a sustained period of high economic growth accompanied by a very large fall in the rate of wage increases and a very large fall in the rate of inflation. Senator SIBRAA —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs inform the Senate of the Australian Government's reaction to the resignation of Dr Van Zyl Slabbert, the Leader of the Progressive Federal Party, from the South African Parliament? What is the Government's assessment of the likely political implications for South Africa of Dr Slabbert's decision? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government has noted with concern the resignation from the South African Parliament of Dr Frederick van Zyl Slabbert as Leader of the Opposition Progressive Federal Party. Dr Slabbert has undoubtedly been one of the most effective critics of the South African Government during his seven years as Leader of the Opposition. Under his leadership that Party has done an outstanding job of exposing the harsh injustices of the apartheid system. Both Mr Hayden and I had the pleasure of meeting him, as I understand Senator Sibraa did also, when he visited Australia last year. He is certainly a very impressive figure. Dr Slabbert's resignation points up the inadequacy of reforms offered by President Botha in his speeches over the past year, most recently on 31 January. Dr Slabbert's resignation speech was a searching indictment of the established political processes in South Africa including the tri-cameral Parliament and the total inadequacy of the Government's conception of reform. Media reports that his resignation will cause a complete realignment of white politics in South Africa appear at this stage to be somewhat overstated. While some more liberal members of the ruling National Party probably feel some sympathy with Dr Slabbert's resignation, it seems unlikely at this stage that there will be any defections from the National Party to the Progressive Federal Party. The Government will, of course, be closely monitoring the situation and will be following the future course of Dr Slabbert's contribution to the apartheid debate in South Africa with some very considerable interest. Senator PUPLICK —I ask the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce: When may the Senate expect to see the legislation to give formal authorisation to the Government's decision to allow the 150 per cent tax deduction for private sector investment in research and development, or is no such legislation necessary or proposed? Will the Senate have any capacity to seek variation of the announced guidelines for the scheme, in particular the exclusion of expenditure on patenting and copyrighting which are often necessary for turning excellent research into commercial viability? Why has this important area of expenditure been excluded from the operations of the scheme to date? Senator BUTTON —I think that the answer to the first part of the question is 8 May. As to the second two parts of the question as to whether the Senate will have the capacity to make changes in respect of this matter, I suppose the correct answer to that question depends a lot on Senator Puplick-whether he can persuade the Senate that changes ought to be made. Those guidelines which go with the legislation will, I believe, be capable of comment and appropriate change if necessary as I believe they are part of the legislation. I say `I believe'. If I am wrong about that I will come back and tell honourable senators tomorrow. As to why patenting and copyright were excluded, I do not know the exact answer to that question, except that I anticipate that there were probably two things; Firstly, a capacity for very large expenses to be involved with that and, secondly, I think that the scheme would probably have run into a wide range of regulatory considerations which unhappily occupy that area and these may have caused some trouble. I am not sure about that, but I will try to get a detailed answer. The scheme has been subject to a number of qualifications in various areas. Any particular interest group might like to blow it out in a particular direction which suits that group. I think that the scheme as a whole as illustrated in the guidelines is fairly correct in the terms of what it purports to cover. Senator RICHARDSON —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs aware of a statement made by Senator Peter Baume, the Opposition spokesperson for community services, asking that all potential immigrants be vetted against nazi involvement between 1933 and 1945? Can the Minister assure the Senate that this is, in fact, unnecessary in the light of established immigration procedures? Senator RYAN —I am pleased to report to the Senate that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr Hurford, has totally discounted the suggestion made by Senator Baume that nazis or former nazis are being allowed to migrate to Australia under our Government. Mr Hurford has pointed out that even the youngest Nazi Party member-someone who was a member of the Hitler Youth Movement in 1945-would be over 50 now and that is not an age group from which migrant intakes come substantially. Mr Hurford has also pointed out that no country has a tighter visa issue system than Australia and that all applicants for migration are carefully screened and their backgrounds fully checked. He emphasises that we will continue to go through these thorough procedures and that there is no point in taking up Senator Peter Baume's suggestion that there is something sloppy about our procedures and that nazis are getting in. I am very pleased that Mr Hurford has made such a clear denunciation of the suggestion of Senator Baume. Senator SIDDONS —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. The Government has made its position clear that it has no intention of regulating the flows of money in and out of Australia. If corporations borrow overseas to fund takeovers all our living standards will fall as we pay off the debt. How can the Government stand by and disregard its responsibilities to the community by refusing to regulate these borrowings? Is the Government not concerned that some foreign power could be buying up our productive resources? Senator WALSH —There is a fundamental inconsistency in the question. Senator Siddons began by referring to overseas borrowings-that is, cash debts-and finished up by talking about buying up equity. There is that fundamental contradiction in the question. But leaving that aside, I suppose the Government could go back to the days when capital flows were regulated as they were in most of the 1950s-certainly soon after the war. However, this Government has chosen a different course and Senator Siddons is quite entitled to argue for some alternative policy if he wishes to do so. He is, however, quite mistaken in his assertion that funds borrowed overseas to facilitate takeovers in Australian industry necessarily cause a fall in our living standards. The critical test of whether funds borrowed overseas for any purpose cause either a fall or a rise in living standards is whether the earning rate of those funds is above or below the interest rate paid on them. That is a question which only time can answer and probably then not in any precise detail. It is logically inaccurate to say that the borrowing of funds overseas necessarily causes living standards to fall. It all depends on whether the earnings on those funds are greater or less than the interest paid on them. It is also an error to assume-I know that Senator Siddons did not actually say this, but I think it was implicit in his question-that the borrowing of funds overseas for takeovers or any other purposes necessarily increases our overseas debt. The money does not disappear into a black hole; people who are persuaded to sell shares receive money for them and whether the whole process increases our overseas debt or has any effect on it ultimately depends on what the people who sold the shares did with the money that they received for them. Senator SIDDONS —I wish to ask a supplementary question. I would like the Minister to clarify his comment that there was a fundamental inconsistency in my question in the sense that if, for instance, Holmes a Court borrowed $2 billion overseas to buy equity in an Australian enterprise, would that not affect our balance of payments? Senator WALSH —Well, in the first round it affects the balance of payments to the extent that it means a plus sign of $2 billion, because that is an import of capital. Whether it has any long-term effect on the net indebtedness of the country or its net or continuing wealth is determined by the other factors that I mentioned previously. Senator JONES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a report in last week's media that the Queensland Government plans to re-write industrial law to force all trade unions, State and Federal, to hold secret ballots before any strike action can be taken by any of the one million workers involved? What legal or other powers does the Queensland Government enjoy that would allow it to force members of Federal unions into this course of action? Is the secret ballot proposal by the Queensland Government a workable one and, if implemented, what would be the likely effects on industrial relations in that State? Senator WALSH —I have seen media reports along the lines outlined by Senator Jones. However, to the best of my knowledge, or the last time I got any advice on this from Mr Willis, no details were available, although Mr Willis had been trying to obtain details of precisely what it is that the Queensland Government proposes to do. Assuming the media reports are basically correct, we do not know among other things whether the Queensland Government is considering legislating so that a ballot must be held before a strike can be called off, for example, as well as a ballot for calling a strike in the first place. If we really believe in the principle that every member of every union should vote before industrial action of either a positive or a negative kind-if I can use those terms-is taken, it seems to me that it ought to apply in both directions. Of course, there would be very considerable problems with that sort of proposition if, for example, the post office went on strike because presumably we would not be able to call the strike off as we would not be able to conduct a postal ballot to decide whether it should be called off. That is a hypothetical situation, at least according to the advice I have. My advice is that any such law, if passed by the Queensland Government, would not apply to federally registered unions. In a more general sense, I am informed that Queensland had legislation requiring compulsory ballots before strikes could be called for 14 years right up to 1975 when it was repealed, presumably because it was found to be ineffective. The Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act also has a provision where under certain circumstances the Commission or a commissioner-I am not sure which-may order a postal ballot of members if a strike is being contemplated. Senator SHORT —Is the Minister for Education aware that the Human Rights Commission is offering, by advertisements in major daily newspapers, an amount of $500 and, in some cases, $1,000 to any individual teacher who will introduce into the curriculum at primary school level a course on human rights? I ask: Firstly, what is the budget for this program, either through the Minister's Department or through, presumably, the Attorney-General's Department? Secondly, what right has the Human Rights Commission to cut across the State education departments on curriculum content? Senator RYAN —The first comment I have to make in response to Senator Short's question is that the administration of the Human Rights Commission is, of course, the responsibility of the Attorney-General. However, since the question has been asked of me, presumably because it had something to do with possible curriculum developments, I will make some further comments. In response to the last part of the honourable senator's question, the Human Rights Commission has no right, nor would it seek to have any right, to interfere with the State governments' responsibility for the development of curriculum or the responsibility of non-government schools authorities for the curriculum used in their schools. Those rights do not exist in any Federal agency, nor are they being sought. What Commonwealth agencies are able to do-this is something which the Commonwealth Curriculum Development Council does-is to assist by the provision of funds or expertise State government or non-government school authorities, where they seek assistance, in the development of new or improved curriculum materials. That sounds to me to be precisely what the Human Rights Commission is doing. If it wishes to make funds available to assist teachers or curriculum specialists to develop curriculum in these areas, that is a perfectly legitimate thing for it to do. Indeed, given, as I recall-Senator Gareth Evans might correct me if I am wrong-that the Human Rights Commission does have in its Act a requirement to engage in education in human rights matters, it probably has a responsibility to attempt to assist education authorities to introduce human rights material into the curriculum. I do not find that the shocking concept that Senator Short seems to find it; in fact, I think there would be a great demand in schools throughout Australia, government and non-government, for such material. The important point, since there was an implication in Senator Short's question that there was something improper about this action by the Human Rights Commission, is that the determination of what does appear in a school curriculum is not something which is within the domain of Commonwealth responsibility. In respect of State schools it is in the domain of State governments and State education departments. Non-government school authorities make their own decisions, either at the individual school level or, in the case of systems such as the Catholic system, at the Catholic level. So any imputation in Senator Short's question that somehow unwelcome human rights curriculum material will be inflicted on schools is entirely wrong. On the other hand, it is a perfectly legitimate function of the Human Rights Commission to seek to assist in the development of curriculum material where that is sought by those with the proper responsibility. Senator VALLENTINE —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs to his non-answer to my question of 12 February in which I sought an Australian Government response to the new United States Ambassador's claim that New Zealand is the Hartley of ANZUS and thus liable to expulsion from the ANZUS alliance. I ask again: Is this not a completely false and misleading analogy, given that it is the United States which must withdraw from ANZUS if it disagrees with New Zealand's policy on nuclear ship visits? Is it not true that New Zealand cannot be expelled from ANZUS, given that under Article X of the Treaty a country can withdraw only by giving one year's notice to the other partners? Is it not also the case that nothing in the ANZUS Treaty necessitates that Australia or New Zealand accept United States nuclear warship visits and that between 1971 and 1976 both the McMahon and Whitlam governments refused entry into Australian ports of United States nuclear warships without any objections being raised by the United States? Why does the Australian Government continue to remain silent in this dispute if the United States is clearly issuing misleading and incorrect statements on the nature of the ANZUS relationship? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, has advised me that he agrees that to describe New Zealand as the Hartley of ANZUS is a somewhat misleading analogy in that it implies that New Zealand could be expelled from the Treaty. The honourable senator is correct in noting that the Treaty does not provide for expulsion but provides only, under Article X, for withdrawal from the Council by giving one year's notice to the Australian Government. To the extent that the United States has given any public indication of its position on this issue, it has, as I understand it, spoken so far of maintaining its security relationship under ANZUS with Australia fully intact but of possibly withdrawing or suspending its security obligations to New Zealand under ANZUS as a result of the New Zealand Government's actions. How that issue is finally resolved formally as between the United States and New Zealand is a matter which we would regard as one appropriate for resolution between those two countries. As to the particular part of the question about what there is in the ANZUS Treaty which bears upon the question of nuclear ship visits, it is the case that, although the ANZUS Treaty does not refer to nuclear weapons, the nuclear dimension is important to the credibility and deterrent value of United States defence commitments. Certainly the Australian Government sees port access for United States nuclear-powered warships as essential to the continuing effectiveness of ANZUS. As to the reference to the alleged behaviour of the Australian Government between 1971 and 1976 being inconsistent, as Senator Vallentine put it, with that sort of approach, let me say this on behalf of the Government: In 1971 the United Kingdom and United States governments were asked to refrain from proposing visits by nuclear-powered warships, pending a full study of the practical requirements in the differing circumstances of each Australian port. This was completed in 1976 with the promulgation of the conditions of entry for nuclear-powered warships which permitted visits to resume. There is simply no comparison between that course of events and these arrangements and the port ban which has been instituted by the New Zealand Government. I repeat that we regard the latter issue as one between New Zealand and the United States and we are simply not seeking to play a role in any sense as an intermediary in that dispute. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. In view of the necessity for a vibrant rural economy to improve our balance of payments position, is this Government prepared to initiate relief measures in any or all of the following areas, namely, interest rates, fuel prices, wage flexibility, government over-regulation and tariffs, in order to provide the kind of environment which is essential for our all-important rural industries to stage some sort of economic recovery? Senator WALSH —It is ironic that Senator Bjelke-Petersen of all people should have asked such a question. She asked: Is the Government willing to do anything about government over-regulation? The Government has been trying for almost 12 months to do something about the over-regulation of the Queensland sugar industry. It has run into a brick wall of opposition from her husband. The most regulated industry in Australia is the sugar industry. The Queensland Government decides not only who will grow sugar but also how much they will grow and where they will grow it. It then decides what mill they will deliver it to, and then decides who will market it. Because of that regimentation of the sugar industry which the Queensland Premier and the Queensland Government stubbornly refuse to change in any way, the Queensland sugar industry has been prevented from taking advantage of the potential economies of scale for which its technical efficiency provides the potential. Mr Kerin has been trying to get the message through to the troglodytes in the Queensland National Party that the world has changed-in particular, the world sugar industry has changed-and that only very low cost producers are likely to have a future in the world markets for sugar. But he has had no success in getting that message through. Although there is a belief that the Queensland Minister for Primary Industries, Mr Turner, was somewhat more receptive to the sensible ideas which Mr Kerin put to him, he has had the rug pulled right out from underneath him by Senator Bjelke-Petersen's husband. So I find it particularly ironic that Senator Bjelke-Petersen should ask: What will this Government do about the over-regulation of primary industry? She also mentioned tariffs. I can do no better than to refer her to the comments of the former Liberal member for Mount Marshall of the Western Australian Legislative Assembly, Mr Bill McNee, who was reported in the West Australian on Monday of last week as saying that the members of Senator Bjelke-Petersen's party should remember that it was Black Jack McEwen who imposed the tariff penalty on Australian agriculture; that it was Black Jack McEwen more than any other single politician who was responsible for the structural inefficiency of Australian industry across quite a wide spectrum, from which it still suffers and which this Government since it came to office has been trying in a gradual and orderly way to correct, a matter in which my colleague Senator Button, in particular, of course, has been very deeply involved. She referred to fuel prices. Again I find it ironic that a member of a party which was part of the coalition Government which increased revenues from oil by 700 per cent, I think the figure was, from something like $400m to $3 1/2 billion in a period of five years, should be complaining about the alleged penalties imposed by the price of fuel. She mentioned wages. She is a member of a coalition party which, during its last two years in office, presided over a wage explosion of 13 per cent in 1981 and 14 per cent in 1982, a rate of wage growth which has been almost halved by this Government. For a member of such a political party to be castigating this Government for its record is, I think, quite unacceptable. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Does the Minister have up-to-date information on labour market conditions in South Australia? To what extent is the South Australian economy sharing in national economic recovery? Senator WALSH —The most recent unemployment figures for South Australia show that South Australia has shared in the general recovery of the Australian economy at somewhere, I think, mid-point on a State basis. For example, for the most recent month the unemployment rate has fallen to 9.2 per cent from a figure of 11 per cent in the same month of 1983, a figure which, in 1983, went somewhat higher in the next month or two. South Australia is on line so far as the unemployment rate is concerned with the Australian economy in general; that is, unemployment rates have fallen by around 2 per cent as they have in the rest of the country, on average. The numbers of unemployed, the corollary of that figure, have fallen by almost 8,000 and an additional 42,000 people have found jobs in that period. Again, this is generally consistent with the national figures. The December-January economic newsletter of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia noted, of course, very considerable variation between States. The newsletter states: While the national economy is well and truly into its third year of strong expansion, performance at the state and sectoral level has been somewhat uneven. In contrast to most other states, the Queensland economy was relatively lacklustre over most of the 1984-85 financial year. . . . . The South Australian economy performed reasonably strongly over 1984-85. . . . . The Western Australian economy expanded strongly over the past year, with most sectors experiencing a significant upturn. I think one or two States using the conventional economic indices of performance-that is, growth rates, increases in employment, decreases in unemployment and so on-are marginally ahead of South Australia. The important thing to note is that they are all Labor Government States and the two States which are spectacularly behind South Australia are the two non-Labor Government States. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yesterday Senator Vallentine asked me a rather excited question about two French warships visiting Australia. The answers I have received from the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Defence are in the following terms: Two French ships, the Jeanne d'Arc and the Commandant Bourdais, are currently visiting Stirling Naval Base in Western Australia and will be calling at Sydney from 27 February to 3 March. The French Government sought permission for the ships to visit Australia en route from Mauritius to Noumea as part of a six-month round the world cruise. It should be appreciated that the Jeanne d'Arc is a naval officers' training ship and it is on a six-month training cruise from November last year to March this year with its escort the Commandant Bourdais. A total of 137 cadets is on board the two vessels. During the cruise the ships' complements are engaged, among other things, in a variety of humanitarian assistance programs in Africa and Madagascar including, for example, utilising six helicopters from the ship to assist in a vaccination program for some 20,000 children and 20,000 women against diphtheria, tetanus, polio, whooping cough and so on. It is usual to approve requests for visits by public vessels of states with which Australia has normal relations. We would expect the French Government, similarly, to agree to receive Australian naval vessels should there be some operational requirements to visit French ports. The Government has made clear, over and again, its opposition to nuclear testing in the South Pacific, its condemnation of the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior and its interest in the constructive resolution of the situation in New Caledonia. We simply do not believe that the course that has been adopted with respect to these two ships in any way cuts across or undermines that position. Senator GARETH EVANS —I will respond also to a question yesterday from Senator Jessop on the investigation of thefts at Maribyrnong. The answer I received from the Special Minister of State is in the following terms: The Australian Federal Police investigations into the recent spate of thefts-- Senator Chipp —Why don't you incorporate it? He's not in the chamber. Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not mind. I am happy to incorporate it, Mr President, if you feel that that is consonant with the dignity of this chamber. I seek leave to incorporate the answer in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Australian Federal Police (AFP) investigations into the recent spate of thefts from the Commonwealth munitions factory at Maribyrnong are proceeding. Inquiries thus far have not identified any person/s responsible for the thefts. Articles stolen from Maribyrnong on 16 December and 26 December 1985 include, respectively, 19 bags of black powder and 2 wooden boxes containing brass cartridges. I am advised that the AFP is compiling information concerning the number of thefts from other Commonwealth munitions depots over the last three years. I shall provide the honourable senator with details at a later date. Security at munitions factories and defence installations comes within the portfolio responsibility of the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services and the Minister for Defence. Security at airports generally is a matter for my colleague the Minister for Aviation who has portfolio responsibility for airport security. The senator's questions on those matters should be directed to those Ministers. Senator RYAN —Yesterday at Question Time Senator Missen asked me about the role of Professor Ovington in the context of a visit to Japan concerning the death of some koalas which had been exported. Professor Ovington visited Japan from 5 to 16 November 1985. During that visit he attended the third consultative meeting regarding the agreement between the Government of Japan and the Government of Australia for the protection of migratory birds and birds in danger of extinction in their environment; met with the Japanese Commission into the International Whaling Commission; and, with regard to koalas, visited six zoos that had received or hoped to receive koalas, checked on the health of surviving koalas, inspected eucalypt plantations and greenhouse facilities to ensure that there was a supply of eucalypt leaves in winter and had meetings with zoo officials and veterinarians to discuss possible causes of the death of the koalas and any measures necessary to give greater protection to the koalas should the current ban on exporting koalas be lifted. The Minister has arranged to make available to Senator Missen a copy of the reports to him by Professor Ovington and I understand that he would be pleased to supply copies of those reports to other interested senators. Senator WALSH —I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard Mr Kerin's written response to the question asked earlier by Senator Sanders. Leave granted. The document read as follows- The Government and the public generally have been aware for some time that certain roading and forestry operations would be conducted in the Upper Picton region. The State Government's intentions were made quite clear in this respect with the publishing of a management plan in 1983. The values for which the Picton Valley has been registered by the Australian Heritage Commission can be summarised as old growth forest habitat, Mount Picton alpine area and the view field for the Hartz Mountain National Park. The Government is, however, aware that the general region has an importance to the wilderness values of the neighbouring south-west national park. Accordingly, in its 16 December announcement it indicated it would be acting to ensure that areas in the Upper Picton and Farmhouse Creek catchments would be excluded from the export licences with the aim of providing a substantial buffer zone to protect the wilderness values of the south west. The Government will be acting to honour this commitment. I am advised that operations planned and being undertaken in the normal management process by the State Forestry Commission do not compromise the proposed arrangements. In respect of the Lemonthyme to which Senator Sanders has attributed wilderness value, I am advised this is not specifically a registered value for this area but it is a wilderness buffer or remoting zone. Senator Sanders will be aware that the Tasmanian Forestry Commission in 1983 published a management plan which took into account the then established values of the Lemonthyme, namely that it is the view field of the Cradle Mountain-Lake St Clair National Park. The Forestry Commission plan provides for management of logging operations so as to minimise any compromise to the visual amenity of the Cradle Mountain-Lake St Clair area. The Government does not propose to limit logging in the area beyond those limits already proposed in the Tasmanian Forestry Commission's 1983 management plan. These areas are two parts of some 37 National Estate areas considered by the Government in its decision of 16 December. Consistent with the decision and the documents that were circulated publicly by the Minister for Primary Industry, there are a large number of areas where management planning for the period has not been completed. The Commonwealth will be ensuring that its views will be taken into account in respect of any operations. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) —I claim to have been misrepresented in an answer given by Senator Ryan. I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator PETER BAUME —Earlier today Senator Ryan, in answering a question from Senator Graham Richardson, said twice that I had asserted that nazis are being admitted to Australia. In fact I made no such assertion. I have suggested that Australia should adopt immigration practices identical to those used by the United States and that it should bring its immigration practices into line with those which are used by the United States in terms of the safeguards against the admission of nazis into this country. In order to clarify the situation, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard that part of a Press release I issued which dealt with the matter. I have shown it to Senator Button. I do not seek to have incorporated the other part of the Press release, which was Mr Hurford's answer to me. Leave granted. The document read as follows- PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA THE SENATE SENATOR THE HON. PETER BAUME. COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENT OFFICES, CHIFLEY SQUARE, SYDNEY 2000. PH. (02) 239 3196 PRESS STATEMENT BY SENATOR PETER BAUME SHADOW MINISTER FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES AND STATUS OF WOMEN Australian Immigrants Must Declare that they were never Nazis ``The Australian Government should alter the application for immigration form to include a declaration by potential immigrants that they were not involved with the Nazi Party between 1933 and 1945,'' Senator Peter Baume, said today. ``Question eighteen of the United States naturalisation form asks applicants for naturalisation whether they were involved with the Nazi Party during these years.'' ``It is important that immigration authorities are aware of an applicant's association with the Nazi Party so that they check out whether any applicant participated in the horrendous crimes committed by the Nazis.'' ``The Australian Jewish community is particularly concerned that Nazis do not immigrate to Australia without their backgrounds being thoroughly checked.'' ``I am disappointed that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr Hurford, has refused to include an anti-Nazi declaration or question on immigration forms.'' (See attached answer to my Question on Notice). ``The current procedures for checking the background of potential immigrants will not necessarily expose a Nazi background.'' ``I call on the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to reconsider his decision not to introduce an anti-Nazi declaration or question to Australian immigration forms.'' For further information: Chris Crawford: (02) 239 3196 or 239 3197 4 February, 1986. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(3.13) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. In speaking to the Aboriginal Development Commission report 1984-85 I note the remarks of the Chairman, Mrs Shirley McPherson, and the Administrator, Mr Rob Winroe, regarding the Commission. They say that the Aboriginal Development Commission has reached a milestone in its evolution in that on 30 June 1985 it completed five years of operation. In looking back over that five years of operation, I believe that the Chairman and the Administrator are to be commended for having brought the Aboriginal Development Commission to where it is today. It has been a difficult five years and they have been troubled in various ways, but I believe that with the growth of the Commission, their experience has brought it to where it is today. It was interesting to note that during the year the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure reviewed the Aboriginal Development Commission and put under very close scrutiny its financial control, administration and so on. Many criticisms were made of the organisation, but I believe that the work that the Chairman, the Board and the Administrator have carried out has overcome many of the criticisms. The Commission is now in a position to continue its work. The ADC annual report states: Patterns have been shaped during this period which have enabled management to build on strengths and devise strategies to improve the overall efficiency of the Commission. I would now like to refer to the transfer of functions from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to the Commission. I understand that the Expenditure Committee recommended that there should be a review. The main functional responsibilities of the ADC task force in respect of the transfer from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to the ADC were to assess the components of community management and services and social support functions which should be transferred from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to the ADC; to develop a plan to facilitate the transfer of functions and resources; to assess the numbers and levels of manpower resources and so on; and to examine the feasibility of the co-location of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the ADC. A report was given to the Chairman of the Commission in January 1985. Also it was suggested that there should be a transfer of housing-related functions. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure recommended that the Commission should take over from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs responsibility for the very many services provided by the Department. The Department and the Commission agreed that the first stage in the transfer of housing-related functions to the Commission was to take effect from 1 July 1985. I would be very interested to hear from the Government what actually has happened in the intervening period. I believe that there has been too much overlapping between Commonwealth departments, State departments and various Aboriginal authorities in respect of Aboriginal administration which has resulted in money not being controlled very well and being ill spent. I believe the time has come, with the rebuilding and reorganisation of the Aboriginal Development Commission, for the Government to undertake a review of all expenditure within the Aboriginal scene to ensure that money is spent in the best possible way. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a Press release put out by me entitled `Aboriginal assistance programmes must be co-ordinated'. Leave granted. The document read as follows- PRESS RELEASE FROM SENATOR BERN KILGARIFF Aboriginal Assistance Programmes must be Co-ordinated Senator Bern Kilgariff said, in Canberra, today, that he is concerned that programmes designed to assist Aboriginals may not be achieving their full potential because of the duplication of some elements of assistance by various government departments and statutory authorities. `We have, not only the Federal Department of Aboriginal Affairs, but several State departments of a similar nature, in addition to Aboriginal organisations such as the Aboriginal Development Commission implementing projects for Aboriginal people. `Until a few months ago we also had the NAC to contend with. But that organisation has since been disbanded, as a result of its financial mismanagement. `My concerns in this matter are twofold. `Firstly, I am well aware of a desperate need within Aboriginal communities for improvements in standards of health, housing and education, but I am not convinced that with this multiplicity of departments and organisations, many of them top heavy with administrators and bureaucrats, the funds set aside for Aboriginal programmes are finding their way to those most in need. `And there is also a problem with maladministration and inefficiency which has led, in some instances, to the loss of documents and records. `I also understand that, on occasions, almost identical capital programmes have been undertaken by both the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Aboriginal Development Commission. `While I mean no criticism of the ADC, which, under its present management, seems to have put its house in order, following allegations earlier this year of financial mismanagement, I believe that it would be to the benefit of Aboriginal people if programmes, particularly those involving considerable amounts of money, were better co-ordinated. `As for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, I believe that it is time the Federal Government decided exactly what its role is to be, whether it should be that of an operational administrative department or a supportive body to the Minister. `My second concern, which stems from the first, relates to the accountability of these departments, authorities and organisations with an involvement in Aboriginal matters to the Australian taxpayer, who is, after all, footing the bill for their activities. `It seems to me that we should be able to be shown that these organisations are obtaining the maximum benefit for Aboriginal people from the funding provided by the Government. Clearly, that can not be shown where they are duplicating each other's projects.' Canberra 11 October, 1985. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(3.18) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The Australian Democrats welcome the 1984-85 Special Broadcasting Service annual report, and we take this opportunity to reaffirm our position that SBS must remain a totally independent body. It has been a matter of great concern to us that the audience build-up on SBS television has received a terrible set-back by switching to ultra high frequency reception. It is indeed a set-back to the process of multiculturalism in Australia. SBS television has done remarkably well with very little. We would like to see an expansion of SBS television programming. The quality of the television productions so far has been exemplary. It would be far better if this television production could be decentralised from Sydney and I urge the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) to encourage the decentralisation of SBS television production. In my view, and the views of many of my friends SBS news is of the highest quality-perhaps the best news in Australia-and the SBS board must be commended for doing so much with so little. I welcome the plans of SBS radio to introduce training courses for broadcasters and, in particular, to appoint full-time permanent staff. It is only in this way that SBS radio will serve the purpose for which it was intended; that is, the development of a truly multicultural society. SBS radio and television are unique. Nowhere in the world will one find anything equal to them; but it is not an experiment, it is an established way of Australian life by now. Finally, I would like to look briefly at the SBS response to the report of the Committee of Review of the SBS. We urge the Government to look at the recommendations of the SBS in the light of the report and to consider implementing them immediately. The establishment of the Multicultural Broadcasting Corporation along the same lines as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is a most welcome proposition. I also welcome the continuation and development, close consultation and co-operation between the SBS and the ABC, but such co-operation must not be allowed to put the independence of the SBS in jeopardy. The Australian Democrats remain firm and vigorous opponents of any proposition that the ABC absorb the SBS, as much as one might admire the ABC on other grounds. The extension of multicultural television services throughout Australia is laudable, but, given the change from VHF to UHF, it is a bit like pushing a pen uphill inasmuch as one could take away the majority of viewers and then extend the viewing audience. It will be many years indeed before the audience of SBS television will reach the levels which it had last year. The Democrats wish it well. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.21) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. On reading briefly through the Australian Film and Television School's annual report this morning I noticed that it has gone into detail on the courses, the number of students and the awards. One of the interesting things I found out was that a survey by the school of graduates of the full time film and television courses conducted since 1973 showed that 95 per cent of those graduates are working in production, nearly 70 per cent are self-employed or working freelance, and 25 per cent are in full-time salaried positions. On top of that, they have achieved quite a number of awards. Six of the 10 short film awards presented by the Australian Film Institute in 1984 were won by students who had graduated at the beginning of the year for films they made during their course. I think this attests to the fact that we are getting some results from this body, which is expending in excess of $6m of the taxpayers' funds. The Australian film industry is now established on the world scene. Admittedly not all the films produced are of the high standard that we would wish, but `twas ever thus. I did note that a lot of the work the young people initially do is on short films and that the decision in 1984 by the motion picture exhibiters to stop showing what they called boring shorts has meant that it is harder for these shorts to get a showing, other than if they are sold to television or something like that. I think that is a retrograde step. I suppose one could almost say that I am striking a blow for the Tom and Jerry lovers. On the rare occasions when I have a night out and see a film, I miss the shorts and the Tom and Jerry cartoons. I imagine that the shorts we have now have come a long way from the James A. Fitzpatrick travelogues. One remembers the `as the sun sinks slowly in the West' type. The standard has obviously altered and we now have a higher standard. I think it is regrettable that the motion picture exhibiters in Australia have seen fit to cut out what would be a ready place for our young producers and directors to have their products shown, to give them heart and to give the Australian people a better chance of seeing what our young people are producing. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(3.25) —I welcome the 1984-85 report of the Australian Film and Television School. I had great pleasure in spending some time at the school recently and talking to Ms Anne Deveson who has now taken over the position as Director. I believe that the review of the school which she has just instituted has been a most worthwhile and commendable undertaking. Similarly, I must say that I think that the work done there by Frank Morgan and Joe Skrzynski has also added a new dimension to the operation of the school. It would not be amiss to indicate, on this first occasion when a report is available, the outstanding work that Mr Storey Walton did in his long tenure with the school as its Chief Executive Officer. As Senator Collard has rightly pointed out, the school has been remarkably successful in terms of producing graduates for whom there is very high demand in the industry. It may not in some respects have quite equalled the continuing success which it established in the 1973-74 class of graduates, because if one looks back at its reports one will see that among the graduates from the school in the year 1973-74 were Gillian Armstrong, Phil Noyce and Chris Noonan, who have gone on to become some of Australia's leading film makers and indeed have established for themselves an international reputation as film makers. Similarly, Senator Collard has pointed out one of the perhaps down sides of the decision by the motion picture distributors not to show shorts in the cinemas and rather to move to an increased number of daily sessions with feature films only being shown at the cinemas. This has had some impact on the capacity of the films produced by the Film and Television School to get some degree of commercial release. Some of them are quite outstanding. Recently I saw a film which was produced at the Film and Television School called Birdsville which I thought, in a 12 or 15-minute film, was one of the most outstanding short feature films which I have seen produced in recent years. It was a tribute both to the individuals responsible for making it and to the teachers and those involved with the script development and post-production at the school. It will be a remarkable tragedy if films of that enormous quality do not get the chance for some degree of commercial release. In the course of the Estimates committee hearings last year Senator Peter Baume and I had the opportunity to examine representatives from the school about the provision of financial assistance to students. Students, in fact, are eligible for a fairly substantial grant in terms of what would otherwise be the provision of tertiary education assistance scheme allowances in normal tertiary education institutions. I have taken this matter up with the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, and others. I believe that it warrants some close attention in terms of the relativity of this grant, particularly since it is paid essentially to mature age students. What concerns me is the comparative disadvantage, for instance, for students studying at the National Institute of Dramatic Art. If one looks at the Film and Television School and NIDA as performing much the same role in different areas of the artistic community it is, I think, very sad that the students at NIDA are not eligible for the same degree of financial support as is available to the mature age students at the Film and Television School. I hope that it will be a matter to which the Government will give its attention at some stage. I believe that the work of the school, particularly in terms of script development, which appears to be getting some greater focus of attention, is extremely beneficial. I believe that it will have a long term impact on maintaining the high standards which have been set in the Australian film and television production industry. I believe that the school is to be commended. It is certainly deserving of the support of the Parliament. The people involved with it, in particular Miss Deveson, are entitled to have a high degree of support from government for their plans for the re-organisation and the continued promotion of the work of this excellent establishment. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(3.30) —I commend this report to the Senate. I had the pleasure of visiting the school in November last year and I met Anne Deveson, the Director of the school, and many of the staff and students. Like Senator Puplick, I was most impressed by the high level of technical achievement by the students in many facets of film and television production and by the enthusiastic and innovative approach of the school, both in teaching and creative work. The high standing of the school in professional circles is underlined by the fact that nearly 500 people applied for entry courses and only 6 per cent could be accepted. This means that there is definitely a hole in this area of training which the school is filling. Of the school's graduates, 95 per cent are working in production, many of them self-employed or freelance. The Australian film and television industry received an enormous boost from the Government's tax incentive scheme, but the continued viability of our Australian industry depends on a stable financial environment. Stop-go policies, such as sudden and frequent changes in the regulations that govern eligibility for taxation incentives, induce a high level of instability in the film industry. The result of this is that Australia's top professionals continue to seek a stable environment overseas for their work. It takes many years to undo such unthinking damage, even if further silly decisions are not made in the interim. One pleasing development for the Australian television industry is the move by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to screen student films, as well as those of independent film makers. Access to an audience is vital if talent is to be developed. I shall certainly support all moves that the Government and either the ABC or Special Broadcasting Service make in this direction. I understand also that both the ABC and the SBS are considering providing community and local windows during unused broadcast time on their stations. This will enable independent broadcasters and community groups to get material to air. Such an access policy is essential to the development of a viable film and television industry in Australia. I wish to congratulate the Australian Film and Television School on its work to date and I look forward to an exciting future for the school and its students in Australia. However, I call upon the Government to provide stability in the taxation legislation which applies to the film industry so that it is possible for those students to develop further their talents within the Australian community. I think it is also important to offer support to public television which is an area in which the Government has currently not made any determination. The Australian Film and Television School could work in with public television which could provide a place to show the students' output. This could also provide a vibrant environment in which the students could expect to show their products. It is extremely important that we should use every possible opportunity to promote Australian art and creativity. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(3.34) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This annual report of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is for 1984-85 and as things have moved rather quickly in this area there have been a number of developments since then. The report sets out the record of the Authority's substantial achievements. Last year I had the opportunity of visiting the Great Barrier Reef for a couple of days in connection with the crown of thorns starfish problem and I must say that the co-operation and obvious enthusiasm of the leaders and staff of the Authority were very impressive. I am sure they are doing a great deal in continuing to keep the Great Barrier Reef as an important national and world resource and also as an important area of tourism for Australia. There are two or three matters in the report to which I wish to refer. They are dealt with briefly in the report and I regret this because they are important matters. To some extent I think that the difficulties have been put aside and I regret that. Under the heading of `Research and Monitoring' there are three matters with which I wish to deal: The crown of thorns starfish, the Hydrographer's Passage survey and the stranding of the TNT vessel Alltrans and also the Cape Tribulation monitoring program. These are all important matters which have increased in importance in many direct ways since the report was prepared. In relation to the crown of thorns starfish, this problem goes much further than the report shows. At that stage the Crown of Thorns Starfish Advisory Committee had reported that: the destruction of hard coral by aggregations of A. planci-- that is, the crown of thorns starfish-- poses a serious threat to the organisation and functional relationships within some reef communities within the Great Barrier Reef, at least in the short term. However, the Committee noted that scientific evidence was inadequate to assess the nature and significance of the phenomenon. Since that time we have passed a resolution in the Senate calling for an inquiry and moreover in the House of Representatives a report was tabled in November on the protection of the Great Barrier Reef. This report was prepared by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation. It called for urgent action by the Government to deal with its various recommendations which were supportive of the Authority but which showed that the position was quite serious and that there was an evident need for money and further research. The second matter relates to the Hydro- grapher's Passage survey. Since this report was written dangers have been caused by shipping in this area. These ships were unpiloted. I have raised this matter on several occasions in the Senate, but neither the Press nor the people of this country seem to show any concern about the enormous damage that may be done if a ship loses its cargo in this area. In fact, the report's reference to the standing of the TNT Alltrans-and the report only covers the period to June 1985-shows that a considerable amount of the coral in the area and surrounding colonies was destroyed. It appears to have been killed by siltation. Since that time there have been other accidents and unfortunately the Government has shown itself very little concerned with this problem. I regret that very much. The third matter to which I wish to refer is the Cape Tribulation monitoring program. The problem here is siltation from the road at Daintree and this is a matter which has also been considered by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation. It is a problem which concerns the people of Australia because it has caused the destruction of some parts of the reef near the shore. I believe that these matters will be dealt with in more detail in the next report of the Committee but I hope that in the meantime the Government and the Authority will act with great expedition in seeing that the monitoring is done so that permanent damage will not be done to the reef. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(3.38) —This is a beautiful report; it is very well done and it has beautiful pictures in it. I only wish that the Government was as enthusiastic about protection of the Great Barrier Reef as it is about production of its journals. One thing that is not often realised is that the Great Barrier Reef is not merely a structure off the coast of Australia; it extends beyond Cape York and into the Gulf of Papua. Some of this area is jointly controlled by the Australian and Papua New Guinea governments and is protected by the Torres Strait Treaty. However, 60 reefs lie in the region between the northern boundary of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and the Torres Strait Treaty area. These are significant reefs, as are all the reefs that constitute the Great Barrier Reef, and they should be immediately included within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. I urge the Government to take these steps. There is another problem which is affecting the entire reef and which has not received much public attention. That is the Ok Tedi mine in Papua New Guinea. Once the Ok Tedi mine begins operating it is probable that heavy metals such as copper, zinc, lead and cadmium will be carried into the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Sediments from the mine have already been detected in the park. As the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation noted in November 1985, there is no monitoring program in place and there is an urgent need for the Australian Government, in consultation with the Papua New Guinea Government, to carry out an assessment of the impact of the Ok Tedi mine. Another threat to the Great Barrier Reef is tourism. It is very possible to love a structure such as this to death. One of the most horrific threats is a seven-storey floating hotel called the Reef Link Resort which will be moored above John Brewer Reef, some 76 kilometres off Townsville. This hotel will have restaurants, bars, a gymnasium, tennis courts, a shopping arcade and conference rooms-over a pristine area of the reef. It will be moored over a reef. On page 28 the report refers to developments such as this as having `considerable potential'. It states: Procedures for the assessment of such proposals have now been developed. The Authority has no way of knowing the impact on the reef of developments such as an off-shore floating seven-storey hotel. The Authority simply has no way of assessing the impact. According to the Authority, night lights which might disturb the fish should be strictly controlled and the effect of underwater noise on fish populations should also be investigated. Should this investigation take place over three months or nine months? The resort will be placed by the end of the year. However, the Authority does not even know what impact this huge floating restaurant, bar and gymnasium will have on the reef. The Marine Park Authority does not even formally control tourism. The Queensland 1982 Marine Parks Act gives the Queensland Government control over reefs between the high and low water marks. Some 26 areas along the coastline are also excluded from the marine park. Tourist development is possible in these areas irrespective of the environmental impact. I refer now to Cape Tribulation. The report notes on page 44 that a program has been developed to monitor the effect of the Daintree Road on the adjacent fringing reef. This monitoring will be continued for some years. However, all this will produce is the documented history of the death of one of the marine park's unique reefs. Senator Missen —It will be dead before then. Senator SANDERS —It is dying very fast, as the honourable senator knows. The World Heritage Convention to which this Government is a signatory requires all necessary action to be taken to protect world heritage areas. In this case that means closing the road and restoring the vegetation, not regular monitoring of the reef's destruction through sedimentary run-off. I hope that the Government takes to heart its obligation to preserve the Great Barrier Reef not only for Australia but for the world. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I seek leave to continue my remarks later, Madam Acting Deputy President. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed from 17 February, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.46) —Yesterday I was speaking in general on the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985. Of course, since that time there has been both a Cabinet and a Caucus meeting to discuss this Bill. However, it is still somewhat difficult to find out precisely what the situation will be. Today I had intended to refer to that part of the Bill dealing with the two-stage process. I will certainly continue with that intention. It seems to me to be relevant because, from what I understand of the decision of the Government, it refers to making use of that part of the process. Basically the Government's two-step approach in this Bill runs as follows: A State law which breaches the Bill of Rights may be investigated by the proposed Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, provided it obtains the Attorney-General's permission. The Commission then makes its recommendations. If those recommendations are adverse, the Attorney- General may bring to the Parliament legislation which then, of course, may or may not be passed. There are so many ifs and buts in this particular exercise as to make the likelihood of any Federal government's overriding any State law extremely small. Given the facts of Federation in Australia, we have a State election almost every year, sometimes two or three times a year. Fairly regularly in the last 10 years we have had a Federal election almost every two years. The circumstances surrounding elections have, as we have seen, influenced Federal government policy decisions mightily. If there were to be an inquiry this year with regard, for example, to the Queensland electoral laws, undoubtedly the Human Rights Commission would require more than six months to complete its report. In fact, the current Commission indicated to the Australian Democrats Queensland division that it would take longer than six months to complete an inquiry because of the nature of the matter to be inquired into. Therefore, we would be facing some legislation around October, possibly November, this year. Of course, a Queensland State election will be held in December this year. Therefore, such an inquiry would not be on. We would then have to look at next year. However, next year would not be on because next year is a Federal election year. Everyone knows that if any legislation were introduced it would be challenged in the courts of this land. I am quite sure that the case would still be running, with the help of the skilled barristers employed, in December 1987, when, of course a Federal election will be held. We all know that there will be no exercise of Federal powers arising out of these reports. That is a settled view which, if overturned, would amaze everybody in the country. One could add that if a head of power exists under which the Commonwealth Government can act, it can act regardless of whether the Bill of Rights is passed. The Bill of itself cannot give to the Government any additional head of power that it does not currently have. There is no point in saying that we have to have the Bill of Rights and we have to go through this elaborate mechanism if the power already resides in the Federal Parliament to do anything that is proposed and such actions could be taken now. There are other types of problems with the two-stage approach. First of all, a State government could persuade an Attorney-General, probably from the same political party, not to allow a Commission inquiry. That is possible. There could be some discussion and the Attorney-General could decide not to go ahead with giving a reference to the Commission. Secondly, the Commission could simply not exercise its right to inquire into a State law. Thirdly, the State government could persuade the Federal government not to undertake any overriding legislation. Fourthly, the Attorney-General of the government of the day might decide that the political risks were just too great to go down that track and, hence, would not bother. Looking at the current situation one can see how some of those could easily apply. Another very serious point is this: A piece of legislation seeking to implement selectively the Bill of Rights could become a political device that could be used in a number of ways. I certainly wonder about the type of legal advice that may be given to the Government on this matter, because the type of legal advice that has been given to me is that, if the Government sought a selective implementation of the Bill of Rights, it would make more difficult the constitutional task of having it upheld in the High Court. The reasons are fairly obvious, even to the lay person. Firstly, if there is selective implementation there could be a very strong argument for suggesting that it is selective in the sense of its applying to one State only which, of course, runs against the whole tenor of our Constitution. Secondly, in those circumstances the selective implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights raises questions as to why other parts of the Covenant were not implemented. It raises the possible question of a political operation rather than the constitutional fulfilment of the requirements involved in signing an international covenant. One would never find out whether those types of arguments were valid until they were taken to the High Court but they certainly worry me a great deal. I believe that in any implementation of our international obligations the spirit of the Constitution requires that those international obligations be fulfilled in a general way affecting all States by implementing all parts of the international covenant. Another problem is that governments change. If we merely leave it to governments to decide whether certain Articles apply, we will have a selective implementation of the Covenant over time, depending on the political composition of the government of the day. That seems to me to be hardly the type of thing we talked about when we first went into this debate so many years ago. In fact, we were talking about a general principle and a general right of citizens whereby, if they were offended or if their human rights were offended by governments or government instrumentalities, they could have some recourse, instead of being abused, instead of having their pensions denied and having nowhere to go. I remember discussing these matters in various meetings a long time ago-it seems many many years ago now. At that stage we were talking about the need to allow citizens to assert their basic human rights, no matter what the bureaucrats or governments say. We have come a long way since then. Unfortunately, the Bill we have before us is very weak in that regard. It will certainly apply to Federal laws. As I said yesterday, it seems to me to be a farce to say to a person: `We are going to protect you from being enslaved by any Federal law; however, if you are enslaved by a State law, that is your problem not ours'. The absurdity of that position is demonstrated by that example. A person can be enslaved only once. Indeed, once so many of these rights are taken away by a State government, they are effectively taken away forever; they cannot be taken away a second time. For example, if a person is denied the right to a free trial under State law, that right need be taken away only once and that person could suffer imprisonment as a result. I believe that if this Bill is not amended to apply to all jurisdictions in Australia, it is best that it be defeated because to have it on the books would be a sham and hypocrisy. It would be better to go on fighting for a genuine Bill of Rights in this country. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(3.56) —The Senate has before it four Bills which it is debating cognately. The centrepiece is the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985, clause 8 of which contains 32 articles relating to human rights. A co-partner in this legislative package is the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill 1985, a Bill seeking to widen very greatly the powers of the existing Human Rights Commission. The proposed Bill of Rights has aroused enormous controversy throughout the community. That controversy was spread across the community to all types of people and all ranges of professions. It has been very heavily criticised by the legal profession. Indeed, the Law Council of Australia, representing more than 20,000 lawyers, has expressed very strong criticism and the gravest doubts about the Bill's constitutionality. Others have expressed similar strong criticisms and reservations about the Bill, including church groups and individuals. Honourable senators will have received many hundreds, even thousands, of letters from people who are gravely concerned. Against this background there are at least five key questions to be asked. The first question is: Is there a need in Australia for a written Bill of Rights? The second question is: If so, is that need satisfied by a piece of legislation which can be changed at any time or must such a change be entrenched in a referendum? The third question is: Is this Bill adequate and effective or is it defective in its compartments? The fourth question is: Is the head of power from which the Bill is derived-that is, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights-the appropriate head of power from which to draft a Bill? Finally, the fifth question is: How does it affect the States? To answer these questions, the first thing one needs to understand is the nature of Australian society. Since 1901, Australia has had a fixed or written Constitution that the five subscribing States gave to the Commonwealth with all residual power residing in the States. It was understood then by the founding fathers that there would be a fixed ceiling upon the powers of the Commonwealth so that they could be contained. The founding fathers never realised that the probing of lawyers and courts of law would be such as to find breaches in the ceilings of those powers and that powers would be used by the Commonwealth that were never agreed to in 1901. The second point is that one must take into consideration the International Covenant under which the head of power in the Bill is derived. To understand that we must look at the Commonwealth Constitution. Section 51 states, in part: The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth, with respect to . . . I turn to placitum (xxix) of section 51, which contains two words, `External affairs'. So the Commonwealth Parliament may make laws in relation to external affairs. I put it to the Senate that the founding fathers never envisaged that the external affairs power would extend to the making of treaties internationally or bilaterally with other nations, or that the terms of those treaties would be regarded as entrenching constitutional powers on which the Commonwealth could act. In other words, it is possible, of course, to make a wide range of treaties which would allow the Commonwealth to infiltrate through to State and local government to an extent which is well beyond its powers. That is precisely what has happened. Several years ago, in a bare majority decision of four to three, the High Court upheld the treaty-making power and as a result a new frontier of power has been achieved. In Australia this fixed ceiling is now being breached. In the United Kingdom it was not deemed to be necessary to have a written constitution. The effect is that, although the sky is the limit, the lawmakers there are very careful to probe only in a very low stratum, whereas in Australia the socialists try to breach the ceiling and go as high as possible. That, of course, puts an enormous strain on the system of federalism, as does this Bill. One must look at the whole nature of the Bill to find out the profound effect that it has. If future Commonwealth parliaments are to use treaty powers it is not an exaggeration to say that federation as we know it today will have been destroyed. If one had wanted to create a Bill of Rights within the federation the logical thing would have been to look at the precious rights and get Federal-State agreement, not necessarily by referendum, but by ordinary agreement around the conference table. We could have had an understanding and a consensus on this matter. But that has not happened. Senator Jessop —It would be much more flexible that way. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Indeed, a flexible approach. That has not happened and now we are facing a very serious situation. I turn to the head of power-the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is a covenant which a series of Liberal governments in the past, particularly the Menzies Government, fought to have established on the international scene. It is a covenant that was signed in our time and it is one that we upheld. But it is not good enough to say simply that we will use it to define an instrument for Australia. One must understand that that covenant was formulated by 106 members of the United Nations, the great majority of those nations being ones that were not democracies but which were socialist or communist in their nature. The great majority of those nations had none or few of the freedoms that we share today. The aim of that covenant was to write down some basic elemental freedoms so that those non-democratic countries could be encouraged towards implementing a greater degree of freedom. Of course, such matters as freedom against slavery were written in. But it is fundamental to the understanding of the covenant that it was a hard fought compromise. Socialist and communist countries resisted the inclusion in the covenant of many vital rights and freedoms. The covenant would not have been agreed to if one of the most fundamental rights in democracy, the right to private property, had been included. The Russians and other socialists indicated that they would have no part of a covenant that included that right. So this covenant was very defective in terms of the rights of democracies. We conceded it in order that the freedoms of others might be advanced to a minor frontier. But it is one which we never dreamed would be used in seeking to draw our rights. The first and great error of this Government is that it has used that head of power, which in itself is an extraordinarily narrow head, and has introduced a Bill which, by its very narrowness in listing rights, has excluded many of the precious rights and, in so doing, has caused great hardship and has made a great error. What is more, the Bill is gravely defective because the Government has sought that head of power but has not included the same sort of qualifications that are included in the covenant. The Law Council of Australia, in particular, has said that it believes that the Bill is gravely unconstitutional. It is even more critical when it says: The Bill is expressed in terms which are declamatory and imprecise. Fancy a government bringing in a measure that the Law Council of Australia, representing all the lawyers of Australia, condemns in those words! So we come to the basic defect of the Bill. It could never purport to be a Bill that would enshrine the rights and freedoms that Australia understands. At its best it could only try to encompass narrowly those freedoms that socialist and communist governments would allow to be included in a corral. So, of course, it leaves out basic, fundamental ones. Many honourable senators have drawn attention to the fact that this Bill makes no mention of the right to hold private property. That, of course, as I say, was completely refused. It does not make any mention of the freedom to engage in lawful trade, professions or occupations. What kind of a Bill does not even entrench the basic principles? Mention has been made that it does not include the freedom of parents to send their children to non-government schools. Mention has been made, again, that it does not give an essential freedom-that is, the right not to join an association. Of course, many people in this community are gravely concerned because there is no mention of the protection of the unborn child. So, at the very most, what we have is a narrow and imprisoned Bill, built upon socialist and communist compromises of the past. It would be good for those countries but not for us. If we look at the Bill we must ask ourselves this first question: Do we need such a Bill? In Australia it has been said by many that if our parliamentary institutions, our judicial institutions and our social institutions are active and vigorous they will enshrine human rights and there is no need for such a Bill. But one must understand this fundamental point: There are many countries around the world that have human rights Bills and those Bills have no effect on conferring rights on human beings. After all, the Soviet Union and its satellites have such Bills. The inclusion of something in legislation does nothing to create freedom. Freedom is a state of the human mind and spirit; it is the state of the willingness of a parliamentary chamber to preserve rights; it is the state of the judicial mind to preserve and entrench rights; it is the state of the value judgments of society at any time. Obviously we do not need this Bill because it simply identifies and fossilises a few rights and ignores others. By ignoring others it does a very dangerous thing because it can convey the illusion that the others do not matter. If they mattered, why would they not be put in this Bill? There should have been consultation between the Commonwealth and the States on this matter. So certainly the answer is that there is no need for such a Bill. It is not just that it is not necessary but by the very elements that I have mentioned, it is an extremely dangerous piece of legislation as it delimits. It delimits because it fossilises and excludes. Let us have a look at the second point I raised. Is legislation an effective thing? How can it be? It can be changed at will. All that has to happen is that a new majority government can alter it. We do not have anything entrenched at all. We have something that is changeable and that can be altered at the whim of future governments. Clearly, if there were to be a written instrument it would have to be by way of referendum. But strangely enough the Government has run away from any such thing at all and has looked to a narrow and imperfect instrument to enshrine it. The next question is: Is the head of power effective? Quite clearly, whether it is or not, the fact that the Government has drawn a Bill that is wider than the head of power leads to the clear assumption that the Bill itself will be unconstitutional. It will be a lawyers' feast because it will raise point after point of unconstitutionality. What use is such a Bill? How does it affect the States? The Australian Democrats have suggested that it does not affect the States at all. That is not so. It is possible for the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to investigate a piece of legislation or an instrumentality of a State or local government body if the Minister agrees. Clause 27 (2) of the Bill of Rights states: The Commission shall not commence to- (a) inquire into an act done or practice engaged in by or on behalf of a state or an authority of a State; or (b) examine a State enactment, unless the Minister has, after taking into account such matters as the Minister in his or her discretion considers appropriate, consented to the holding of the inquiry or the making of the examination. If it is felt that that, in itself, is a delimiting thing one should look to what the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) said in a speech last year in Melbourne. He stated: The fact that the Bill of Rights will not override of its own force inconsistent State laws does not mean that the Commonwealth will fail to act where the Commission recommends legislative change by the States and they fail to do so. I have just quoted clause 27 of the Bill and the statement made by the Attorney-General. This Bill will reach right into the heart of State and local government Acts and regulations and to the actions of authorities of the State and local government. It will bring the force of this Bill to bear on them. That is, indeed, a treat in itself to federalism. The Bill is, in fact, a selective package of 32 articles; it excludes many and it can give no guarantees at all because it is subject to a future majority in Parliament. Fundamentally, what must be understood is that it overrides laws that have been passed before and will be passed after the enactment of the Bill. It is complicated in this regard. This Bill is not just prospective, it is totally retrospective in both Commonwealth and State laws. It has the capacity to look at all of the legislation that is being passed by the Commonwealth and States; it has the capacity to get a ruling that, in fact, there is an infringement and then, after a delay, for the legislation to be repealed. It gives-this is perhaps its gravest defect-to the courts decision-making powers which are political powers and not judicial powers. Perhaps of all the criticisms that can be made that is the biggest criticism. The Law Council of Australia has been highly critical in this regard. It stated: S 14, is an ill-considered provision which will thrust the judges into the field of political and policy debate. That is a very serious situation because we do not want the judiciary to make laws. The Supreme Court of America has a history of defective actions in this regard where courts can make and unmake laws by attitudinal arrangements. That in itself is very bad indeed. This Bill politicises the judiciary and it is extraordinarily full of conflicts. If honourable senators pick up any one of the Articles they can ask: `How long will it be before the lawyers simply go to town on this situation?' What do they mean? For example, Article 1 states: Every person is entitled to equality before the law and to human rights . . . But everybody knows that there are qualifications right throughout the community and powers given to governments and others which make people's rights quite different, one from the other. The problem is seen very clearly in Article 3, which states: The rights and freedoms set out in this Bill of Rights are subject only to such reasonable limitations prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. I ask honourable senators: What can that possibly mean in a court of law? Here we are again asking the judges to decide. I turn now to Article 6, which is headed `Right of participation in public life'. It provides that every Australian citizen has the right and shall have the opportunity to vote. There is no qualification as to age. There is no qualification at all. The Law Council of Australia has queried this matter amongst many others. Many misstatements have been made in the Senate about the powers under this Bill and there has been talk of the need to write one vote one value into a Bill of Rights. Those who use that phrase fail to understand that simply entrenching one vote one value will not stop a gerrymander. The Commonwealth Electoral Commissioner is on record as pointing out that malapportionment in itself is not simply restrained by one vote one value. He or she who holds the geographic pen that draws the boundaries can decide malapportionment and gerrymander even if there is one vote one value. I draw attention to the vivid imaginations of the Cahill Labor Government of the past in New South Wales, architects of supreme gerrymander, architects of drawing boundaries of electorates. A member of the electorate had to go outside his electorate into another to come back into his own because it suited the arrangement of the vote. I draw attention to the former State seat of Goulburn not far from Canberra. There were not sufficient Labor votes; so a seat was run down to Captain's Flat to take in the mining area of Captain's Flat to entrench a malapportionment and a gerrymander. There could have been one vote one value. I draw attention to the vivid imaginations of the Labor governments of Western Australia and Queensland of the past, the real architects of gerrymander. This of course is the height of nonsense. I am very glad to read that Article 8 states: Every person has the right to freedom of thought . . . Is that not a wonderful piece of dogma to entrench-the right to freedom of thought and conscience? What kind of doubletalk is this? This is KGB nonsense-that one cannot even feel free to think or to have a conscience because big brother will know. So it goes on. It is a document which is imperfect in every way. I wonder what Article 17 means and what Mr Trimbole would think of it, because it states: Every person has the right to leave Australia. What kind of qualifications, what kind of a lawyers fight is going on here? I turn to the document of the Law Council of Australia and look at it page by page. It is a complete condemnation of this Bill. It does not decide whether or not there ought to be a Bill of Rights, but in 35 critical paragraphs on 16 pages it refers to this Bill of Rights. When it comes to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, the Law Council is scathing. It says: `Here is a Bill which entrenches a complete onslaught against freedoms'. I quote: . . . the Law Council cannot support legislation which permits, as this legislation does, one body to act as both prosecutor and judge in the same cause. . . . . The Council is concerned rather that the granting of such powers to an unrepresentative and non-judicial body creates the potential for abuse. . . . . The Council believes that the ability of a person to know and to properly answer the complaint against him is very severely circumscribed by the Bill in its present form. . . . . The privilege against self-incrimination has been removed, a step which would appear to be at odds with the whole notion of a Bill of Rights. . . . . A further concern relates to compulsory conferences. Clause 34 provides that they should be held in private and that those who are required to attend have no right to legal representation. . . . . Natural justice requires that any person called before the Commission ought to be entitled to be legally represented if he so desires. Nor should the Commission be capable of conducting its investigations into a complaint in secret. That is a series of criticisms of this measure. This measure creates an impossibility in that it looks back to every Act that has been passed in Australia and allows a Commission with ministerial approval to walk into the State and local governments and to bring down reports upon what is happening there. The Minister has indicated quite clearly that if defects were found there, the Commonwealth would act. This is a fundamental threat to the system of Federation. This Bill says `If you bring in new laws, you can escape this by making a statement in ``express words of plain intendment'' ' which virtually excludes the effect of the Bill. If a Bill should come up by way of suggested repeal through a judicial decision, one can then rewrite it in the three months one has so that there are express words of plain intendment. Fundamentally we are putting into the hands of the judiciary powers which the judiciary itself would not want. That is absolutely wrong. We are also putting into the hands of the Minister powers that we have never considered. The Law Council says: Clause 27 (2) is objectionable precisely because it confers an arbitrary power upon the Minister. The Minister may at his or her discretion grant or withhold consent to the Commission for the holding of an inquiry into State laws, acts or practices. There is no obvious limitation to the exercise of that discretion and the potential exists, therefore, for that discretion to be exercised according to political motives. Any capacity for arbitrary or discretionary power of governments to act in this way should be removed. I cannot recall a more damning or critical document than the one from which I have quoted. The document says that this Bill is almost certainly unconstitutional and that this Bill is wrong because it is arbitrary and is likely to be subject to endless litigation. I would not support such a piece of legislation. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(4.25) —I totally oppose the Australian Bill of Rights Bill and associated Bills. It is not the first time that I have opposed such legislation; I recall doing so when it was introduced originally by the previous Government. I believe that this legislation establishes some problems for our democratic system in this country and this Bill certainly goes further than the original intention of the previous Government. It seems to me to have excited incredible interest in the Senate, because 35 or 36 senators have already taken part in the debate. One would almost think that it is designed to generate a vendetta against the Queensland electoral system. Senator Sir John Carrick pointed to the gerrymanders that have occurred in Australia under Australian Labor Party administrations. I thought that it was fitting to do some research on this matter in relation to Queensland, because one of the purposes of this Bill is to intrude into the electoral systems of the States. In considering the merits or demerits of electoral boundaries it is necessary to distinguish between the representation of individual electors and the representation of political parties. Thus it is possible to have a situation in which electoral districts vary widely in enrolments, yet the major political parties win seats proportionately to the share of the votes that are cast for them. It is possible to have a situation in which, although the electoral districts are roughly equal in enrolments, one party has a considerable advantage over its competitors in converting votes into seats in this Parliament. I notice that the Australian Democrats have joined in the attack, particularly on Queensland-- Senator Sanders —With reason and justice. Senator JESSOP —I would imagine that the Australian Democrats ought to be thankful for the two-party preferential system because in 1984 throughout Australia they got 7.6 per cent of the vote. They have seven senators here and I suggest that they are over-represented by two, because if we are to be fair about electoral representation for this splinter group-which is more aligned with the tomato red left section of the Labor Party, in my opinion-it should attract 9.2 per cent of the vote. I think that they are phoneys and it is absolutely incredible that they cannot demonstrate any knowledge of electoral matters in this place. Senator Haines stood up here like a schoolteacher lecturing us on electoral matters. She does not realise that if the present system were abolished the Australian Democrats would have far fewer people representing them in this place. Much of the criticism with respect to the Queensland redistribution has been based on the first preference voting figures. However, the preferential voting in single representative electorates is the accepted method of voting in most of Australia. If we look at the two-party preferred figures, there is no doubt that the coalition won government fairly in Queensland from 1960 to 1977, and in the elections since that date. The charge of gerrymander had been levelled long before the coalition split. The only real cases of gerrymander in Queensland were those exercised by the Labor Party in the 1947 and 1950 elections. In 1947, for example, the coalition won 45.2 per cent of the vote but gained only 23 seats whereas Labor won 43.6 per cent of the vote to gain 35 seats. In 1950-I think Senator Sir John Carrick alluded to this but did not spell it out; it might be interesting to do so-the coalition won 49.2 per cent of the vote while Labor gained 46.9 per cent. In that election Labor won 42 seats to the coalition's 31 seats. Senator Bjelke-Petersen —So much for a gerrymander. Senator JESSOP —That is the sort of gerrymander that applied in those days. Dr Colin Hughes of the Australian National University, who could not by any stretch of the imagination be regarded as a raving right wing conservative, wrote in 1980 a book entitled The Government of Queensland. He said: Once again it is obvious that each redistribution favoured the government of the day, and that the Hanlon and Nicklin distributions were about on a par for the degree of bias induced, although the last election on the Nicklin boundaries were conspicuously fairer-that is, less biased-than the rest. But the Bjelke-Petersen boundaries, which had appeared so suspect-- so Dr Colin Hughes says-- now appear to have given the Government significantly less of an advantage than earlier redistributions. Of course, Dr Colin Hughes has not had the opportunity to comment on the new Queensland redistribution, nor will he until after another election takes place. It is suggested that Senator Haines and other critics are talking through their hats when they criticise the Premier, whose redistributions, according to Dr Hughes, have to date been the fairest in Queensland's history. We could argue about that matter indefinitely. My former colleague and a very eminent politician in South Australia, the Honourable Ren de Garis, who has done copious analysis of electoral systems and performances and certainly knows a lot more about this subject than does Senator Haines, has demonstrated that currently the Liberal Party in South Australia cannot gain government unless it gets over 52 per cent of the vote. There is a far greater gerrymander in South Australia today than there has been in Queensland since Premier Bjelke-Petersen made his redistributions in 1972 and 1977. I think those comments are very interesting. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table setting out percentages of the vote received in Queensland elections by the coalition and the Australian Labor Party. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Table 10 TWO-PARTY-PREFERRED VOTES 1950-77 (Per Cent) Election Coalition ALP 1950... 51.5 48.5 1953... 45.8 54.2 1956... 48.4 51.6 1957... n.a. n.a. 1960... 56.0 44.0 1963... 53.6 46.4 1966... 52.8 47.2 1969... 52.3 47.7 1972... 50.8 49.2 1974... 61.5 38.5 1977... 54.6 45.4 Source: David Fraser, Queensland State Elections (Brisbane: Department of Government, University of Queensland, 1977), and Queensland State Election 12th November, 1977 (Brisbane: author, 1978) for 1963-77. Senator JESSOP —I thank the Senate. I have been a member of this Parliament since about 1966. I believe that the legislation before the House has caused more concern and has led to more correspondence coming into my office than has any other Bill for a considerable number of years. Senator Sanders —It is because of the hate campaign that has been stirred up. Senator JESSOP —It is interesting that people seem to be writing to Liberal and National Party senators. We suggest that there is no need to write to us at all, because members of the seventh part of the Australian Labor Party-the Australian Democrats-are the ones who have the answer to this problem. They are trying to codify matters relating to human rights which are already enshrined in our common law and which give us adequate protection. I believe that the common law-- Senator Sanders —What about Tasmania? We are not adequately protected there. Senator JESSOP —Tasmania is adequately protected while the honourable senator is here and not in Tasmania! That is the best thing we can say about the representation of Senator Sanders. I am appalled at the things he says on occasions. However, I will just put that aside. The people of Australia are trying to arouse the attention of the Australian Democrats to the problems that they perceive in this inflexible piece of tripe that the Government is obviously going to pass with the support of the Australian Democrats. I think Senator Macklin said that he had had thousands of representations. The other day Senator Bjelke-Petersen said that she had had 1,700. I do not know how many I have had but it must be hundreds. Certainly I have had collective representations from many organisations which do not come from one political group. Those organisations include the Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia, the Christian Pro-Family Forum, the Riverland Churches of Christ, the Country Women's Association of Western Australia, the Festival of Light and the Right to Life Association. All of these bodies have a very strong view. Senator Sir John Carrick —The Democrats abuse them. Senator JESSOP —Yes, of course. I should not repeat what Senator Haines said in this respect because I note that she has just taken the chair. However, I think she used the phrase `Chicken Littles in the community'. I am just wondering what that means. To me it sounds a disparaging comment. I think in retrospect she might be sorry that she said that. Senator Lewis —Even the DOGS are opposed to it. Senator JESSOP —Even the DOGS are opposed to it. I think the cats and probably the sheep are too! The organisations from which we have received representations also include the Council for Defence of Government Schools-DOGS-and the Victorian Protestant Federation. Hundreds and hundreds-I guess even thousands-of ordinary citizens of very widely differing backgrounds have demonstrated their serious concern about matters relating to the Bill we are debating at present. I think this massive concern has arisen despite what seems to me to be almost a conspiracy of silence between the Government and the media. I think I saw two very good articles in the Australian newspaper which provided some sort of public exposure. However, the Press reporting has been less than adequate. I contacted the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in South Australia and provided it with some background information hoping that people would be given the opportunity to participate and give their views on the Bill that we are discussing. Philip Satchell is a very astute journalist who generally tends to provide the opportunity for public debate on matters such as the one we are discussing. However, his producer told me that although he has had many inquiries about this matter space has not been given to encourage the important public debate that should be attributed a Bill of this character. As Senator Sir John Carrick mentioned, it would be a different matter if some sort of consensus or flexibility had been written into the Constitution when it was being drafted. This legislation has been introduced to change government regulations by way of government decree. The other way in which we can introduce such a measure is by putting such constitutional change to a referendum. I am quite sure that a referendum held on this Bill would be soundly rejected. However, I think the Government and its supporters-its cohorts, the surrogate Australian Democrats-are guilty of surreptitiously, subversively and in great haste foisting upon the Australian people a set of Bills that would be opposed by the majority-there is no question about this-of the Australian people. I will refer to the attitude of the Democrats to this Bill and other matters later. The people of Australia have every right to fear this Bill, which is aimed at destroying the federal system that is established in this country. Senator Sanders —That is a good idea. Senator JESSOP —That is exactly why the people of Australia ought to condemn the Australian Democrats. `That would be a great idea', says this light of knowledge from Tasmania. He says that it would be a great idea to destroy our federal system. I bet that the people of Tasmania, being as independently minded as they are, would tear the honourable senator to shreds if he was recorded in the Press as saying that. Senator Lewis —But the media will not write that up. Senator JESSOP —I hope the media will because it is the purpose of this Government; it wants to destroy the federal system. It wants to put in its place a republican system. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) would love to be the first President of Australia and I am sure that our friend the expatriate American would like to be one of the Vice-Presidents. That might be a good position to give him. I am sure that the introduction of this legislation has been done in a very sneaky, snide way. The question of having any real public debate has never entered the mind of the Government because it knows that that would cause tremendous antagonism in the electorate, but it is doing that anyway. Probably, the best thing it could have done would have been to refer the matter to one of our Senate committees. That may have given the opportunity to encourage a far greater exposure of this legislation to the electorate. The Bill grants no rights, certainly none that cannot be withdrawn by the government of the day. Only in the past fortnight have I seen some of the rights that can be denied to Australians under the Labor socialist Government. In Australia, we find ourselves in a position in which the present Government has allowed officers of some self-professed terrorist organisations to become established in this country. I have alluded to that before. These organisations have no diplomatic status, but their rights are okay. I was disturbed to see the other day that Rotary International was denied the opportunity to bring some exchange students to Australia. Because these students came from South Africa the Government of New South Wales said: `No, you cannot have those people here. We do not want to hear any thing about the truth as these students see it in South Africa'. They may have been able to tell the Rotary people how they think that the South African Government can overcome its problems. It is a learning system, and having Australian students going to other countries and other students coming here is one way in which the Rotary Club quite properly provides a community service. It is one of its four cardinal objectives. Rotary's four-way test asks: Is it the truth? Is it fair to all concerned? Will it build goodwill and better friendships? Will it be beneficial to all concerned? This Bill states something about the freedom of association, the freedom of Australians to associate in the way that I have described, but that is certainly not permitted unless the Government agrees with the people with whom the Australians want to associate. I think that is a dictatorial and absolutely unpardonable attitude for any government to take. I would like to extend that debate on another occasion. The Bill clearly demonstrates to me, to this side of the Senate, and to the majority of the people of Australia that the Government and its collaborators, the Australian Democrats, have no commitment either to democracy or to people's rights. The people of Australia have been denied a say, denied even the information on which to make judgments on these nefarious Bills. Nonetheless, many of them know that this Bill is dangerous, divisive and undemocratic. It is my belief that we do not need the Bill of Rights. We have rights firmly established in our Constitution and in our system of common law. If laws are shown to be discriminating against any particular sector or individual, they can be quite easily corrected. I thought Senator Missen made a very thoughtful speech earlier in the debate. He properly questioned whether this measure was in fact constitutional. Senator Sir John Carrick also drew attention to the concern expressed by the Law Council of Australia, which made the same comment. I believe that it is quite correct, although I do not have a legal background. Article 11, which I have mentioned, states: Every person has the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to join trade unions for the protection of that person's interests. We know that some people have been denied that freedom of association, and I have referred to the Rotarians in that context. I would also like to refer to the fact that some people may wish, through conscientious objection or for other reasons, not to join a trade union. I am not opposed to trade unions; I was a trade unionist myself because I thought that it was very important for me to exert some influence over the left wing leadership of the particular union to which I belonged. Some people prefer for one reason or another, including conscientious objection, not to join. There is no question of that in this Bill. That is a serious omission. Another serious omission, as previous speakers have referred to during this debate, is the right to own property or to use property to earn a living. The Government, which fully understands the powers which this Bill confers on the central government, tends to allay the people's fears by deprecating these powers in public statements about the Bill. Recently, in the House of Representatives, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) stated in a speech: . . . the enactment of a Bill of Rights has a vital educative function. It has the capacity to inspire respect for fundamental freedoms and liberties by setting out rights in positive, declaratory form . . . Alternatives, whether reliance on the common law, particular legislation or administrative mechanisms and programs . . . do not spell out and proclaim key rights and concepts in the same way as does the Bill of Rights. We on this side of the chamber believe that the right to own property and to use that property to make a living is one of the most fundamental of the rights which distinguish Western democracies from the totalitarian, oppressive societies of socialist and communist states. I thought that Senator Sir John Carrick made that point quite well when he said the Russians and their satellite allies objected to this particular matter being included in such a Bill, and for very good reasons, because in those sorts of states one does not have the right to own property. They have co-operative farming enterprises which are run by government, and certainly such a government would not want the people living under its socialist administrations to have any rights at all with respect to property. Many of the rights set out in this Bill become meaningless unless the right to own property and to use that property to earn a living is included. If the Bill is educative in nature, as the Attorney-General indicated, it is essential that these rights to property be included in the Bill so that the interconnection between the right to own property and real, as opposed to paper, rights is firmly established within that educative process. This is critically important at this stage of the development of Australia because a minority group of teachers, nonetheless vocal in their advocacy, have been given funds by this Government to teach so-called peace and resolution of conflict in schools in Australia. These courses claim that peace can come about only if capitalism and, therefore, Western democracy are eliminated. Those sorts of things are going on in Australia and we lie back and say that everything in the country is fine. I get quite alarmed. I believe that the Senate has to examine in greater detail the perversion of our school children under the Labor Administration in the past few years. I will pose a few questions to illustrate my point. I might tell honourable senators that the Parents Council and the Primary School Principals Association in South Australia have objected to politicising classrooms in that State. I think that is a very serious matter. The pacemaker in the process of indoctrination of our classrooms has been the New South Wales Teachers Federation whose resource folder proudly proclaims: Peace studies is not about the formal academic study of peace and war . . . (its object is to) create student peace activists by a carefully planned program of psychopolitics and student involvement in peace and disarmament activities and protests. The folder makes it quite clear that the function of the school must change from one of the liberal educational principles to the creation of `committed, caring peace students'. New South Wales peace activist, Cathy Bloch, who is one of the architects of these teaching guides and folders, sees peace studies and socialist perspectives being combined to bring about `the distribution of wealth and power'. Thus peace studies as taught are not about peace but about waging war against our capitalist society which dares to produce more wheat and primary produce than any of the totalitarian states. I was interested to note the other day that in Russia, for example, food production in that country per capita is at the same level today as it was in 1917. These people are trying to disparage our way of life, our capitalist society. This Bill is another very aggressive step towards undermining the society that has brought us freedom and the rights that we have come to cherish over so many years. It is on this score and many others that I believe-someone called it a Clayton's Bill of Rights; I think that was quite an adequate expression-the Bill should include provisions such as a person's right to own property and to use that property to earn a living. I alluded to that earlier. The way to do this is either through the way that Senator Sir John Carrick described earlier-by recognising these things in a flexible way at the outset or by a measure which is before us, which codifies the whole question of human rights, making human rights inflexible-or through a referendum. Many comments have been made against this measure. One particularly pertinent comment, I think, was made by Professor Lauchlan Chipman, the distinguished Professor of Philosophy at the University of Wollongong-I guess Senator Sir John Carrick would know him-in the television program Pressure Point on 30 May 1985. Regarding the commissions at which we are looking now he had this to say: I think that the very fact that you have in the constitution of the commission that mixture of functions which allows the same body to be both an advocate and an investigator, and then that same commission, though not the same people, ultimately makes a determination as to whether someone has indeed broken the law, I think that's a monument to injustice. He came to the conclusion: I think the potential for a Bill of Rights based on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to result in a massive redistribution of power from the States to the Commonwealth is quite significant. There are views of eminent people such as Professor Chipman and members of the law councils of Australia. Senator Sir John Carrick drew attention to other quite prominent objections to the Bill. Yet the Australian Democrats, the running dogs of the Australian Labor Party, go along in an effort to destroy the federal system. Senator Sanders has said, quite appropriately, that in the spirit of his Party's philosophy it is a good thing to get rid of our federal system. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(4.55) —The introduction of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill is significant. It is modelled on, but not identical to, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which was adopted in 1966 and ratified by Australia in 1980. This ratification, subject to 13 reservations entered by the Fraser Government, signified Australia's willingness and ability to apply the provisions of the Convention. All but three of the 13 reservations have recently, in 1984, been lifted. One reservation remaining relates specifically to `propaganda for war'. Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states: 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law. 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that contributes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law. The reasons for the continuing reservation, given in Australia's November 1981 report to the Human Rights Commission, are unconvincing. I quote from the report which states: The Commonwealth and State Governments intend to adhere firmly to their established tradition of freedom of expression. They believe that this right would be too severely restricted if propaganda for war and incitement to discrimination, violence and hostility were to be made unlawful, particularly in times of peace. They further believe that the repugnant nature of such arguments becomes more readily apparent if free and open debate on this issue is allowed. Does the Government accept that freedom of expression should include propaganda for war and incitement to discrimination, violence and hostility? Is the implication that we need to wait for a nuclear war before such freedom of expression be removed? Is this present Government arguing that the boundaries of free and open debate should allow propaganda for war and incitement to hostility? The consequences for our society in the event of a nuclear war are such that explicit legislation should be enacted within an Australian Bill of Rights to make propaganda for war illegal. Many would argue further that the Australian Government itself is guilty of promoting propaganda for war through the continued presence of, and implied approval for, the United States military and communications installations on Australian soil, by permitting B52 bombers flying across and landing on Australian soil; and by continuing to allow visiting nuclear warships to major seaports. Other articles which are of concern follow. Article 3 (1) creates a test for permissible limitations which is very difficult to prove. A limitation will be permitted only if it `can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society'. This criterion is uncertain. By what criterion does one judge whether a society is free and democratic? The burden of proving that the particular law is demonstrably justified means that it must be patently clear. Article 32 raises the questions concerning customary law and punishment of Aboriginals. The Australian Law Reform Commission has documented concerns as to the interpretation of what is cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. That Aboriginal views may well differ very strongly from non-Aboriginals' views on this question must be kept in mind when persons seeking their rights use this Article in support of their case. Regarding the operation of the Australian Bill of Rights, sub-clause (3) of clause 9 states: The rights and freedoms set out in the Bill of Rights apply only for the benefit of natural persons. It is considered essential that the rights and protections contained in the Australian Bill of Rights should be extended to corporations and groups. Representative actions are available under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 where `a person aggrieved by the Act on behalf of the persons included in that class of persons' may lodge a complaint with the Commission and may thus have a resolution in favour of a class of people. The same right for representative actions must be included in the Australian Bill of Rights and persons should be able to seek declarations as to their rights in court. Such a right is permitted in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In a recent case there, in May 1985 the Operation Dismantle case, it was agreed that a Canadian Cabinet decision to permit US cruise missile testing in Canada infringed the charter-protected right to life, liberty and security of the persons by increasing the risk of nuclear war. Peace groups within Australia would welcome the opportunity to present such a case in Australia. According to Article 19 (1) of the Australian Bill of Rights: Every person has the right to liberty and security of person. The security of all Australian people is severely compromised by the continuing presence of US military installations, B52s and visiting nuclear warships. Australian people have a right to live without such threats to their security. The emphasis of the Australian Bill of Rights on individualism and individual human rights is to deny the natural law concept of the common good. The `common good' is of positive value and an Australian Bill of Rights has the responsibility to promote and protect it. The Murphy Bill of 1973, the Haines Bill of 1982 and the Evans Bill of 1984 did respect the rights of the body politic or corporate as well as those of the individual. The Evans Bill also included the right of a person or persons to apply for declarations about rights if those persons believed that a right or freedom had been infringed or was likely to be infringed in the immediate future. Such a right should be included in this Australian Bill of Rights. Further, as the Australian Bill of Rights reads now, it does not override State laws, either statutory or common law, nor does it operate as a rule of construction for State laws. However, the Bill of Rights does empower the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to inquire into the State government laws or proposed laws provided that the Attorney-General, as the Minister responsible for the administration of the Act, has approved that inquiry after taking into account such matters as the Minister, in his or her discretion, considers appropriate. This provision is clearly open to abuse for political motives but would it be possible for the Federal Government to recommend that the Queensland and Western Australian Governments redraw their electoral boundaries for equal suffrage? Would the Queensland Government be urged to enforce the right of `peaceful assembly'? Would the same State government and others be urged to ensure the equal and inalienable rights of its Aboriginal people? The Australian Democrats and certain members of the Australian Labor Party are to be congratulated on their initiatives to strengthen the Australian Bill of Rights so as to apply Federal law to State responsibilities. However, the concession that the States should be able to displace provisions, save the electoral rights provision, of the Bill of Rights by passing overriding legislation should be withdrawn. The main legislative areas where human rights are denied occurs at the State, not Federal, level. An Australian Bill of Rights that does not address the questions of State abuse of basic human rights immediately and directly will deny the fundamental principles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. As Australia ratified the ICCPR in 1980 after consultation with all the States, this Government is therefore morally and politically responsible for ensuring that that covenant is enforced in full, save for the three reservations. While the Australian Bill of Rights is designed to work in conjunction with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, which includes the ICCPR schedule, it is preferable that the schedule be incorporated directly into the Bill of Rights and that the Bill of Rights be adopted as a constitutional amendment. As it stands at present, an ordinary Act of parliament, it may be easily amended and even repealed or specifically overridden by succeeding legislation. Additional powers conferred on courts are wider than presently exist, and this is to be commended. Federal legislation in existence before the passage of the Act cannot be struck down for a five-year period, and that is far too long. The Australian Bill of Rights Bill, as it stands, can be considered primarily as an educative and symbolic statement and secondarily as a yardstick against which current and future Federal and State laws, Acts and practices can be measured. Given that the Australian Constitution is currently under review, it is recommended that by 1988 an Australian Bill of Rights be enshrined within the Australian Constitution. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(5.06) —I join my colleagues in this debate in opposing the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 and the associated Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill 1985, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill 1985 and Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985. The point was made by previous Opposition speakers that we do not speak against these Bills because we oppose human rights or the rights of Australians in general. In fact, it is for quite the opposite reason that I rise to speak against this package. I believe in the rights of individuals. However, I do not believe that they are served by the introduction of this legislation. This is a view which is shared by thousands of Australians, as is evidenced by the immense amount of correspondence that this legislation has generated, of which other honourable senators would no doubt be well aware. Representations have come from individuals and organisations-church groups, civil rights groups, service organisations, schools, representatives of the legal profession and many legal experts. I, along with many other senators and members of parliament, have received representations from groups such as Right to Life which feels that the Bill which purports to deal with the rights of the individual has not adequately addressed the rights of the unborn child. No doubt the Federal Government may have wished to avoid the thorny issue of abortion and no one could doubt that debate on that matter alone would take a great deal of time. But I cite this particular omission as just one example of the many omissions which have been made in the preparation of this Bill and the near impossibility of drawing up a definitive list of rights. Much of my correspondence has come from citizens who are either opposed to the Bill outright or, at the very least, incensed at the indecent haste with which it is being foisted on the Australian public. Thousands of people have indicated that they feel there has not been sufficient opportunity for public debate. Certainly the people of Norfolk Island and the other territories of Australia, including the Australian Capital Territory, feel a real concern at the fact that any future legislation which they enact will be governed by the Bill of Rights. On that particular matter, I have received from Mr Buffett, MLA, the Chief Minister of Norfolk Island-he made contact with a group of us in December but he has been in touch again this week-a message from the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly. I have spoken to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) and he has agreed to the incorporation of this document in Hansard. I seek leave to have the motion from the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Date: 12 February 1986 Senator B. F. Kilgariff, The Senate, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 From: D. E. Buffett, MLA, Chief Minister, Norfolk Island, FAX: 6723 2499, Phone Norfolk Island 2003. SUBJECT: AUSTRALIAN BILL OF RIGHTS BILL I understand that the Australian Bill of Rights Bill is listed for further consideration by the Senate later today. You will recall that I wrote to you on 22 November 1985 expressing my Government's strong opposition to the extension of this measure to Norfolk Island. I enclosed with that letter a paper setting out in detail the reasons for that position. 2. The subject has now been discussed in the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly and my Government's position was endorsed on 4 December 1985 by a unanimous resolution of the Assembly, the text of which is as follows: `That this House, as the only body elected by the people of Norfolk Island, notes the intention of the Commonwealth Government to extend the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 to Norfolk Island and resolves as follows: (a) the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly supports the principles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and is prepared to take appropriate steps to ensure that Norfolk Island laws and the executive practices of the Norfolk Island Government and its agencies comply with the Covenant; (b) the Legislative Assembly opposes the extension of the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Legislation to Norfolk Island; (c) the extension of the Australian Bill of Rights Legislation to Norfolk Island has, in the opinion of the Legislative Assembly, been proposed without adequate consultation between the Commonwealth and Norfolk Island Governments; (d) although this Assembly does not advocate independence for Norfolk Island, the imposition of the Bill of Rights would be contrary to the spirit of the arrangements made in 1978 and 1979 for the government of the Island by a Legislative Assembly responsible to the people of the Island; (e) the Bill of Rights may be capable of being construed so as to- (i) extinguish immigration controls between mainland Australia and the Island, which would cause serious ecological, cultural and economic damage to the Island; and (ii) adversely affect the Island's electoral law and the availability of job opportunities to the detriment of those who consider the Island to be their homeland, and the Legislative Assembly deplores any move by a legislature that is not accountable to the Norfolk Island community to put these matters in doubt; and (f) there should be close examination of the correctness of any proposition that Australia is obliged by its international commitments to extend the Bill of Rights legislation to the Island.'. 3. We are anxious to see the Bill referred to a Standing or Select Committee for detailed consideration of the points we have raised. We would greatly appreciate your assistance in achieving this. 4. I have written in similar terms to Senators Kilgariff and Lewis. D. E. BUFFETT Chief Minister Senator KILGARIFF —I thank the Senate. I wish to speak on this document just briefly because it is self-explanatory. The subject of the document is the Australian Bill of Rights Bill and Mr Buffett says that this matter has now been discussed in the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly, and adds: . . . My Government's position was endorsed on 4 December 1985 by a unanimous resolution of the Assembly, the text of which is as follows: Then follows the motion that has now been incorporated. I wish to highlight one or two matters relating to the motion that was passed. Part of it says: the Legislative Assembly opposes the extension of the proposed Australian Bill of Rights legislation to Norfolk Island; The extension of the Australian Bill of Rights to Norfolk Island has, in the opinion of the Legislative Assembly, been proposed without adequate consultation between the Commonwealth and Norfolk Island Governments; There is no doubt that in this debate, as in many other debates, it always comes back to the fact that the people-organisations and individuals around Australia-say that they have never been adequately consulted on so many moves that the present Government has taken. In closing his letter to the Senate, Mr Buffett urges that the Bill be opposed-and there will be an amendment seeking to do this-and he adds: We are anxious to see the Bill referred to a Standing or Select Committee for detailed consideration of the points we have raised. We would greatly appreciate your assistance in achieving this. This was contained in a letter to the Senate. Of course, the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly is against the Bill but, in the event of the Bill being passed, it wishes the matter to go to a committee. As I was saying, Norfolk Island and other Australian Territories, including the Australian Capital Territory, feel concern at being included in the Bill. However, the Northern Territory has been excluded in this respect and in the interpretation section of the Bill has been defined as a State. Sometimes the Northern Territory is defined as a State and at other times it is considered a Territory. In this case it is defined as a State. Surely the Federal Government, if it is genuinely interested in the rights of Australians, should start with their right to be informed and consulted about such a significant piece of legislation. Is the Federal Government really interested in the rights of Australians? I think not. I certainly think, judging by this piece of legislation, that the Federal Government has a minimal interest in enhancing the rights of Australians and a maximum interest in enhancing its own power vis-a-vis the States, Territories and local government. Even though the legislation will not allow the Federal Government to override State legislation directly, it will force State, Territory or local governments to submit their laws to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to determine whether those laws comply with the requirements of the Acts. The Commission will have the power to determine whether State or local laws infringe the rights set out in the Bill. With the exception of the Northern Territory, the Bill will impose an obligation on Norfolk Island, the Australian Capital Territory and all external Territories to ensure that any future Territory legislation or ordinances are in compliance with the Bill. The Commission, a body of people who are not elected, will be empowered to compel people to appear before it and to attend compulsory conferences without any legal representation-a rather incredible situation. Also the Commission is empowered to inflict fines or impose imprisonment on persons who fail to appear or who fail to provide information when requested to do so by the Commission. The very fact that under this legislation people will be denied the right to legal representation in circumstances in which they may be faced with a fine or imprisonment is evidence of the lack of credibility of the Government's arguments that the Bills are all about protecting rights. The amazing thing about this situation is that if one read about it, perhaps in a newspaper, one would think that perhaps one was reading about a law or an order from a dictatorship. We believe in democracy here. However, where is democracy in relation to the Bills which we see before us today? When one adds to that consideration of the sorts of decisions which have been reached by the Human Rights Commission in the past, the potential for the perpetration of gross injustices by the Commission in the name of human rights becomes even more clear. If I may, I will just outline a few examples of the Commission's past efforts. It banned the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown), from its offices after he criticised its performance and policy. The Commission declared Mr Brown to be `a non person'. Once again, what an incredible situation! Clearly, the Commission has not heard of the rights of free speech. The Commission has suppressed a research paper on affirmative action which it commissioned from Dr Gabriel Moens, describing his views as `tendentious'. In reality it was objecting to his conclusions that affirmative action was philosophically unjustified and inconsistent with equality of opportunity. There goes free speech again, I suggest. The Commission has supported the right of Women Against Rape to disrupt Anzac Day marches. It seems that free speech is all right if it is exercised by a group with which members of the Commission perhaps have sympathy. For example, the Pine Gap feminist protesters' claims that they had been tortured by the police were supported by the Commission-I do not know on what basis-in spite of the fact that no charges were ever laid and notwithstanding the assurances of the then Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, that there was no evidence of police brutality. The Commission has attacked the Queensland Government over its industrial relations law, claiming that the legislation governing employment by the Queensland Electricity Commission amounted to an enforcement of `slave labour'. That is a ridiculous claim. I wonder what will happen to the rights of Queenslanders to an uninterrupted power supply if this legislation is passed. The Commission has advocated laws banning any comments which could be described as racially intolerant, claiming that such a law is needed to protect people from Irish jokes and the views of academics such as Geoffrey Blainey. Free speech goes out the window, I say, once again. The Commission also has refused to intervene to protect the rights of Frank Marrett, who was sacked by his employer after he refused to contribute to an illegal levy by the Amalgamated Metal Foundry and Shipwrights Union. The Commission, in contrast to its willingness to interfere in Queensland industrial law and other State laws, said that his case was outside its jurisdiction. Perhaps that was so, but what a strange thing. I believe those are but a few examples in the long list of cases in which the Human Rights Commission has shown its true colours. The Commission amply demonstrates that my colleague Senator Parer was spot on when he referred to the Human Rights Commission earlier in this debate as the new Australian thought police. Those who have read George Orwell's 1984 would remember that between Big Brother and the thought police there was very limited scope for individual free expression. The prospect of handing the Commission the additional powers proposed by this legislation has dire implications for existing rights which already are protected under the system of common law. I have already alluded to the amount of correspondence which this legislation has generated. I believe that it is worth making the point that a significant number of letters and phone calls which have come into my office and, for that matter, the offices of many other senators have been from Australian citizens who have come here from countries with totalitarian regimes. I would have thought that these people are those who would be most well aware of the need for the rights of the individual to be protected. Yet, to a man and a woman, they have vigorously urged that the Bill of Rights and the associated Bills be defeated. From their many and bitter experiences in Europe and other places they have recognised the dangers of enunciating a limited number of rights and of placing the authority for the enforcement of those rights in the hands of a Commission with its own political barrows which it has quite clearly pushed in the past and a centralist government which is determined to gain for itself as much power from the States as possible. I have already said that I believe the Bill to be a power-grabbing exercise and nothing to do with a genuine attempt to protect rights. An examination of the Bill will quickly show that this simply is not false rhetoric. On the facts, rights just are not protected by this Bill. Where does this Bill mention the right to the freedom to choose one's own religion, the right to own property or the right of parents to choose to send their children to non-state schools? These are mentioned nowhere. This has been debated in another place. The Bill does not mention these rights anywhere. As I have said, it does not protect them anywhere. Indeed, when the coalition in another place moved amendments which would have had the effect of protecting these rights within the framework of this legislation, the Labor Government voted against those amendments, as undoubtedly it will vote against them in this chamber. The Labor Government is not interested in the rights of people to freedom of religion or freedom to choose non-government education for their children or the right to their own property, and so many other things. What the Federal Government is interested in is what it clearly sees as its right to interfere in the State, Territory and local government legislation of this country under the guise of protecting human rights. That is big brother in the extreme. In drafting this legislation the Government is, as my colleague Senator Durack quite rightly pointed out, very long on the rights of persons to join unions but says nothing about the rights of a person to refuse to join a union and to remain employed without penalty. For instance, I certainly did not see or hear the Human Rights Commission defending Jay Pendarvis and his wife Joy and his meatworkers at Mudginberri when they exercised their right to work and to negotiate a legal agreement in accordance with established industrial guidelines. But that is hardly surprising, given the performance that I have outlined. The coalition will seek again in this chamber to have included in the rights which this Bill covers the right of an individual to choose not to join a union. After all, it is supposedly a free country although, the way we are going, quite obviously it is not because Big Brother is breathing down everyone's neck. The Government voted against the Opposition's amendment when it was moved in another place. That is an indication of its hollow claims about its being concerned with the protection of the rights of the individual. If the Government votes against it again in the Senate, by so doing honourable senators opposite will have removed any last shred of doubt that they are interested in anything other than increasing the Federal Government's power to interfere with the legislation of the States. At least the Democrats make no bones about the fact that they want this legislation to go further and to be applied directly to the States instead of indirectly, as the Government proposes. I understand that the Democrats plan to move amendments which will seek to apply the Bills directly to the States, and the coalition will be voting against those amendments. Clearly, the Democrats are taking the same centralist approach to States rights as the Federal Government. Unfortunately, the numbers will dictate the fate of these Bills and, indeed, the fate of the people of Australia. I am sorry that the pleas in the mass of correspondence from genuinely concerned people who have urged the Federal Government to desist from passing this legislation have fallen on deaf ears on the Government and Democrats side. On looking at the submissions that honourable senators on both sides of the chamber have received from learned professional people and from people in very many other walks of life, I can only assure those people who made those very detailed and competent submissions that the coalition is determined not only to fight this legislation here and now but also to repeal it when it is returned to government. It seems as though this Bill will be passed with the support of the Democrats. I have no doubt that when this Bill is passed many people in Australia will wish to see it repealed. I am sure that in the future, as people experience more and more the effects of having Big Brother breathing over their shoulders, there will be increasing momentum for this piece of legislation to be removed from the statute book of this country. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(5.23) —There is quite a strong view in the community as to the constitutional validity of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill should that legislation be passed by the Senate. Therefore, it will not be surprising to many to see an early testing of this view in the High Court of Australia. Those who believe in the principles of federalism must reject this Bill of Rights. This Bill has created a tremendous amount of interest, concern and public discussion since it was hurried through the House of Representatives. I am sure that I am not alone when I say that I have been inundated with hundreds of letters expressing opposition to the Bill. Some of the arguments that have been put forward are seemingly well founded and raise doubts about the Bill's ability to protect rights, particularly if a wide range of powers is vested in a Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission with power virtually to conduct its investigations in secret. I share with the Law Council of Australia a belief that secret investigations are objectionable, especially where there is no right of legal or other representation before the tribunal itself. Some groups have expressed a justifiable concern at what we might term deliberate omissions or changes made to the list of human rights that has been enunciated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on which the Australian Bill of Rights is based. For example, Article 23.1 of the International Covenant to which we as a nation are a signatory states: The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. That has been omitted from the Australian Bill of Rights. I ask: Has Australian society disintegrated so much that it no longer believes in the importance of the family or have the architects of the Bill determined that the security offered by the family support network is no longer important and therefore should no longer be supported by legislation or even by society itself? I believe that the family must receive due recognition as the natural and fundamental group unit of society and as such it is entitled to protection by society and the state. Probably in response to the desire to remove the right of the family to recognition and protection from the Australian Bill of Rights, the architects of this Bill have decided to deny the rights of parents to determine the type of education received by their children. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states: Parties to the Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions. If we as a nation and as a parliament have agreed to become a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, why are we seeking to make such vitally important omissions? Are we saying that it is quite okay for the 80 or so other countries that are signatories to the Covenant to protect the family and the rights of parents but that we as a so-called Christian community do not consider the family unit worth being granted any rights under the proposed Bill of Rights? Are we saying by these very omissions that we have signed the International Covenant but that it is not binding on our country? I do not find any great problem in the declaration of civil and political rights, but this Bill falls a long way short of being adequate for the job. While I recognise that many remarks made in opposition to this Bill are justified, I have to acknowledge that I am conscious of the many ill-founded, ill-informed and disturbingly inaccurate statements that are being made in an effort to stir up public opposition and fear. It is unfortunate that it has been necessary for some people to go to those sorts of lengths. Letters that have been received over the last few weeks reveal quite clearly many people's distrust of the Government and their fears for the future of our society, particularly with the omission of the family unit from the Bill of Rights. The Labor Government therefore must accept a great deal of the blame for this increasing fear and confusion because of the secrecy in which this Bill was conceived and the haste with which it was pressed and passed through the House of Representatives. There has not been enough time to examine the implications and ramifications of this Bill. There has not been enough time for interested and knowledgeable persons and organisations to come to terms adequately with this Bill. There has not been enough time for the people of this country to discuss and debate the various areas of concern; in fact, the people of this country were not even canvassed to see whether they really wanted a Bill of Rights. This legislation is of considerable constitutional and public importance. The draft of the Bill should have been distributed as widely as possible and time, preferably 12 months, should have been made available to allow for informed discussion, comment and debate. The Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs presented an exposure report on a Bill of Rights. This report was presented in the Senate in November 1985. The Committee, I believe, made a valuable contribution to the debate and its views should not be ignored. Since the actual Bill has now seen the light of day, the Committee is in a very good position to undertake a detailed review of the legislation. Thus, instead of proceeding to deal with the legislation in its present form, I believe it would be considered desirable to refer the Bill back to the Senate Standing Committee for further scrutiny and report. We are in no position, I believe, to act on this Bill now. Within the Parliament we all acknowledge that there is bipartisan support for the Inter- national Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I think there is general agreement that basic human rights should be preserved as such. As a signatory to the Covenant we have an obligation to ensure that the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights are valued, and if they are denied, there is an effective remedy. Unfortunately, there is considerable disagreement about the content and extent of the Australian Bill of Rights. There is confusion as to whether a Bill of Rights should be a basic declaration, to be supplemented by other more explicit legislation, or whether the Bill should be all-inclusive. There is, I believe, total confusion in the minds of the public and considerable disagreement with regard to the role and powers of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. With such disagreement and confusion rife in the Parliament and the community, I believe that the only sensible course would be to defer the debate in this House for at least 12 months and in the meantime refer the Bill to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(5.32) —I will not say much about the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 and associated Bills. Other people have said many thousands of words on the issue. We have clogged up the typewriters of Hansard over this issue. I will be brief. I note that we live in a time when freedoms all over the world are being eroded. Country after country is finding that things that they accepted as basic human rights, basic human freedoms, are no longer available to them. It almost seems that the powers of darkness are putting out the lights that shine so brightly in our civilisation in this century and we are going back to the Dark Ages. This is being led by groups of people with names such as the Festival of Light-a very inappropriate name for a group of people who wish to take away people's rights. As Orwell predicted, words are being twisted and people are being manipulated. Good, honest people in the community are being manipulated. I have received letters. I have received many form letters which begin `Dear blank'. The senders do not even bother to fill in the name. They are sent in envelopes which do not have stamps on them. They are just dumped through the door and they all say the same thing. But I do receive honest, real letters from real people and they are concerned because they have been manipulated. They have been stirred up into a campaign-- Senator Chipp —Lied to. Senator SANDERS —They have been lied to, as Senator Chipp says. They have been used and manipulated by demagogues in the community who want to pursue their own aims, which are to deprive us all of freedoms. Members of the neanderthal Right, the Liberal and National parties, say that we do not need a Bill of Rights. They say there is no discrimination and no problem. Of course, there is no discrimination against them. They are the rulers. They are the people with money. They are the people with power. People do not discriminate against them. They should talk to the unemployed, to women and to Aboriginal people to find out whether they want a Bill of Rights, some way in which to protect themselves from discrimination. Of course they do. But the people on this side of the House who were born to rule do not. Those people were born with silver spoons in their mouths. Of course they do not want a Bill of Rights because they are on top of the heap. They do not need protection. They are the ones whom we need protection against. I am surprised that they have not referred to Amendment II of the United States Bill of Rights, which states: A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. I am surprised that they have not proposed that the right to bear arms be included in this Bill so that they can carry their guns on their hips, as does their hero, Ronald Reagan. Senator Maguire —They would sooner protect their property. Senator SANDERS —Yes, Senator. Of course, the Bill of Rights in the United States is the cornerstone of American democracy. During our education in the United States it is drummed into our heads. Frankly, I did not take it very seriously as a high school student, as a youngster. I did not take it seriously until I became involved in the protest against the Vietnam war, when the government of the day was starting to take excessive steps against the people of the United States. The Bill of Rights was brought out to protect them, and it did so. Ultimately, because of those legal protests, guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, the Vietnam war ended. That was certainly a tremendous advantage to the United States. I think a Bill of Rights would be a tremendous advantage here. The Bill of Rights that has been introduced in this Parliament has a number of similarities to the United States Bill of Rights. I am surprised that, with the love and affection that members of the Liberal-National Party Opposition hold for all things American, they do not embrace this Bill of Rights. But apparently they draw the line at that point. They will accept American nuclear ships, American war planes and American nuclear holocausts, but they will not accept an American-style Bill of Rights. This country is not really a country; it is a collection of petulant States. They are so petulant that they cannot even agree on railway gauges. Each State preserves its own right to go its own way. I think in this late part of the twentieth century we cannot afford the luxury of a horse and buggy system in which we have small States like Tasmania which have massive powers. Tasmania, with a population of 435,000, has 12 senators. It is absolutely ridiculous. What we need is recognition that we have jet aircraft and electronic communication. These States were set up in the horse and buggy days. We really need regional government and a strong Federal government. We certainly need protection from the excesses of the States. It has been noted earlier in this place that it is the State governments that are the oppressive governments. It is the State governments that cause grief in the community. Honourable senators will recall, I am sure, that in Tasmania we had a controversy over the damming of the Franklin River. During that controversy-- Senator Button —I recall that that was when we first met. Senator SANDERS —That is indeed when we first met. I was welcoming the honourable senator to Strahan when he flew in to see first hand the damage that the Gray Government and the Hydro-Electric Commission were doing in South West Tasmania. I remember that I was sitting on a fence, which I do not often do, when the honourable senator's aircraft landed and I welcomed him to Strahan. I thank the honourable senator and his Party for what they did in saving that beautiful river. But during that time there was politicisation of the police and courts in Tasmania. The courts and police were subverted by the Government for political ends. During the blockade we set up a communications system of citizen band radios. The police jammed those radios. They devised a system by which they could tune in a receiver to our frequencies. They could then start a transmitter which would jam those frequencies. That was in violation of Federal law. Yet the police, in Tasmania, under State government orders, were jamming our radio signals. The police cut the Commonwealth telephone lines in Tasmania. They not only cut the lines to the Wilderness Society headquarters, but also cut the lines to every public phone box in the town of Strahan, including the one at the airport, so that I could not ring up the Department of Transport to file a flight plan. That is a Federal offence. That happened in Tasmania. That is a certain deprivation of our rights. Senator Chipp —And it was supported by the Liberal Party of the day. Senator SANDERS —It was supported by the Liberal Party of the day. Senator Button —Those were the days, when we were down in Strahan. Senator SANDERS —They were good days in Strahan because they brought out not only the worst of the political system but also the best of the political system. It was a victory for grassroots democracy. But we do need defence from the excesses of demagogues and totalitarian politicians such as Robin Gray and Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. The demagogues of this world will scare people; they will use them, but in the end they will take their rights from them. In Tasmania at this very moment there is a vigil. It started today in the wilderness forests of south-western Tasmania because yesterday the Gray Government told the bulldozers to move into the National Estate areas. Because of the draconian legislation that was passed in the Tasmanian Parliament late last year anybody setting foot in a state forest in Tasmania can now be arrested. It is a $500 offence or two months in gaol for merely standing in a state forest in Tasmania. That is why we need this Bill of Rights. It is not something that happens in Russia, Guatemala, Nicaragua or some place else. We are being deprived of our rights in many areas right now-not just the environmental protesters-and it must be stopped. We must have a strong Bill of Rights which will protect these rights. The Australian Democrats are moving a number of amendments to strengthen the Bill of Rights. A Bill of Rights is a good thing but, first and foremost, it has to have enough teeth to make the State governments come to heel. That is of prime importance. I urge honourable senators to forget their usual mud-slinging, slanging matches and personal vilification and to think about the needs of this country. We need to be guaranteed our freedom, we cannot take it for granted. The only way to guarantee our freedom is with a strong Bill of Rights. I recommend the Bill to the Senate. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(5.44) —It was interesting to hear Senator Sanders suggest that those people who had written letters and taken the trouble to contact so many of us-I, too, have received a number of letters-have been stirred up by demagogues, to use his words. A number of the letters that I have received are form letters. I think it would be reasonable to assume that many people may well have very significant views and feelings about the Australian Bill of Rights Bill but are not confident in expressing them. They feel that sending a letter that has been described as a form letter is one way of knowing that they have at least done that much. The numerous people who have contacted me have not been stirred up by demagogues in the Australian Capital Territory. The churchmen in the Australian Capital Territory whom I know are very concerned about this Bill are not demagogues. They have a genuine concern for their community. We have had a wide-ranging debate. Many issues have been canvassed, some of them very relevant to the Bill and some of them ranging quite widely from it. But there are a couple of aspects of the Bill to which I want to refer specifically-the articles in the Bill of Rights and the quite different, but very significant, powers conferred upon the Human Rights Commission. They really are two quite separate propositions. Under the articles, the Government is seeking to confer a few rights on the people of this country. I would have preferred an approach whereby the people conferred powers on the Parliament, but that is not to be the case and we are getting a few crumbs. It is, by no means, exhaustive. What troubles me is that it may well be seen that the rights that have been conferred have a great deal of importance. Those that some of us think still exist perhaps do not exist any more or perhaps they are under threat. Senator Sanders also attacked us for saying that there was no need for a Bill and went on to say, in a loud voice, that we should talk to the unemployed. I had a quick look through the articles and I still cannot find any mention of the right to work. It is obvious why there cannot be a right to work. If there were a right to work a person would have to be able to do so without being forced to join a trade union and that, of course, presumably cannot be put in this Bill. But a person would be discriminated against if he were not able to work because he refused to join a trade union. That is one of the significant omissions from this Bill. The second aspect that I said I would refer to is the powers of the Commission and the significant change in direction of the system of justice that comes about under those provisions. The Bill is especially important to the Australian Capital Territory because we really are the social laboratory where it will all happen. Certainly there are powers to interfere with the States and the Northern Territory which is included as a State and specifically excluded as a Territory. But the Australian Capital Territory is right in line for what comes up under this Bill. I note that there is no exclusion for the ACT council when it comes into effect. No provision is made for it to be excluded once it is operating. It is clearly intended that the Commonwealth will retain its power to interfere in the ACT in the way one can assume it would like to interfere in the States and in the way that the Democrats would want it to interfere in the States. Because the Bill specifically refers to the ACT and to acts of the Commonwealth, I feel the people of the Australian Capital Territory have a particular interest in it. Clause 4 (1) only applies to acts done by or on behalf of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory-I am referring particularly, to the Commonwealth-or by or on behalf of an authority of the Commonwealth, of a State, or of a Territory. In a sense the Commonwealth does not really do anything. We are now talking about public servants. Presumably public servants who get involved will be protected for any costs which are incurred and they will be borne by the Commonwealth. I do not think we should forget that the face of the Commonwealth in these proceedings is that of the public servant. Many public servants live in this electorate and will be directly affected by the legislation that is being brought in. Let me now turn to the Articles of the Bill which seek to protect minority groups. That is clearly set out in Article 5, which states: Persons who belong to an ethnic, religious or linguistic minority have the right, in community with other members of their own group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language. Parents of a religious minority group who may wish to educate their children in a certain way cannot do so. That is restricted. It can be no accident that the right of choice in education is restricted because it is effectively repeated again in Article 14, which deals with the rights of the child. Paragraph (d) states: the liberty of parents and legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions is to be respected. There is no suggestion that they have a right of choice of schooling. It is interesting that a minority of this community, only about 25 per cent, wish and choose to send their children to non-government schools, but that seems to be a minority that this Government is not prepared to respect and recognise. It is a most serious and significant omission. It cannot be an accident that that is the case and that it has been omitted. I have referred to the fact that there is no right not to join a trade union and I mentioned that in response to Senator Sanders's speech about the unemployed. There is no right not to join a trade union. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on which this Bill is based, was drawn up 20 years or so ago. At that time to suggest that there should be a right to join a trade union was a very reasonable thing, and I guess that none of us would have objected to that being put in. But the changes which have taken place over the past 20 years are such that the reasons for putting that in 20 years ago are the same reasons which should demand that the right not to join a trade union be included now. It is clearly discriminatory against people who want to work, who would have thought that they have a right to work, but because of this they are no longer entitled to that right. One would have thought that one would be entitled to enjoy the fruits of one's labour-subject of course to tax obligations. With the fruits of one's labour one should be entitled to acquire property and to enjoy it, but no such right is preserved in this Bill. It refers to the protection of privacy, the family, the home and correspondence, but not to the actual home. It has been the policy of this Party for a very long time that owning one's home is something that should be encouraged. This Government has been promoting that policy over the past three years with its first home ownership scheme and all sorts of things, but there is no right to own property. One could lose it at any time. There is no definition in the Bill which enables that right to be preserved. However, even if one really thought that the Bill of Rights was necessary-even though it is enforceable only against the Commonwealth and not against individuals or unions-and appropriate and one did not mind not having the right not to join a union, not to own property and not having a choice of education, and one felt that the Bill was complete as it is and that what is left out is unimportant, and one was enthusiastic about it up to this point, one could only be alarmed if one read Part III, entitled `Operation of Bill of Rights'. The actions which flow from all this may turn out to be costly for the Government, but that is not the issue. The real worry I have is for the individuals, the public servants, who are likely to bear the brunt of being the real respondents to this legislation. There can be no doubt that they are the real respondents. Firstly, the Commission will inquire into any act reported to it and will seek a solution if possible by way of conciliation. That is commendable. Clause 26 deals with the complaints that would be inquired into. There is provision for help for the complainant and appropriate assistance from the Commission. One would not object to that, but we note also in clause 26 that for the first time the respondent is identified and the words refer to an act of a person. Suddenly we find that the Commonwealth is a person. I am glad to find that that is the case, because that is exactly what it is and that is where we find the focus on those who bear the brunt of this legislation. Throughout this Bill it is clear, and it persists, that a complainant who comes to the Human Rights Commission has a halo and wings, but any respondent or public servant involved on the other side has horns. It is quite contrary to what one would expect to be the thrust of the Bill of Rights. There is no provision for a public servant, who is the real respondent, to be adequately represented. The proceedings on behalf of the Commonwealth undoubtedly will be taken over by a branch head or somebody else within a department. The person concerned-who may have done nothing wrong, who may have been only doing his job as he saw it, and may feel very aggrieved about the way his branch head or a senior person is handling the matter-has no position in this at all. There is no recognition of public servants as human beings, whose jobs depends on being in the Public Service, and I find that thoroughly offensive. Clause 27 of the Bill recognises that there can be such things as frivolous, vexatious or misconceived complaints, or complaints lacking in substance. It may well be that there will be complaints of that nature from time to time. The Commission may decide not to inquire into complaints that it decides are of this nature, but we are not given any indication of the basis upon which the Commission would make such a decision. It may do it strictly; it may take the view that it is difficult and that it will not rule out many complaints in that category, but will let them go through to see what happens. One wonders whether we will ever know what the actual guidelines will be, as to whether or not a complaint may be frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance. There are a lot of things in this legislation that are secret, and that may be one of the things. There are no rules to guide decisions of this nature. What remedy does a respondent have where an inquiry of this type proceeds and is subsequently found to be frivolous, vexatious, misconceived, or lacking in substance? A diligent public servant who has gone through the anguish and worry of being on the receiving end of one of these complaints, who has probably had sleepless nights, has no provision in this Bill whatever to get any recompense for having suffered that. I should not expect that he would be out of pocket but there is more to life than that; there certainly is in this legislation. There is no suggestion either that the Commonwealth can recover any costs under a provision of this kind. Again, the respondent has horns and I think this legislation lacks in comprehension of the people involved. The Commission is not bound by the rules of evidence. That sounds pretty good and makes it sound very relaxed, informal and easy-going. The rules of evidence may not be perfect and they are criticised from time to time, but at least they give a structure and give some idea of what is going on. We have some idea of where we stand in proceedings where rules of evidence apply. Here we have no idea, and probably the proceedings will be in secret anyway. It could be a secret complaint, an anonymous complainant and a secret inquiry. I think it is a disgrace that we should contemplate setting up anything of that nature. People would be able to incriminate themselves and would have no idea of what they were dealing with. The rules guiding the Commission could come under the heading of intuition, innuendo, hunch or prejudice. I have not the slightest doubt that those appointed to the Commission will be conscientious and will want to carry out their duty, but we would not know what things guide them and there is no way of knowing exactly how it will all turn out. The complainant may have his or her identity kept secret. Certainly I approve of the provision that publishing should be a matter for the Commission to determine-whether or not a matter should be disclosed to the Press and published-but there are other secrecy aspects which I think are grossly unfair to the respondents who, as I will point out again, are in fact public servants. The Commonwealth has no face of its own, other than through them. There is no way for them to properly defend themselves. If they do not have the full story of the complaint, as they may not, they cannot possibly bring the best or all evidence to the proceedings. There is no right to legal representation. It is interesting to go back to the articles and to note the sorts of things which should occur when somebody is before the courts and the sorts of rights that apply in that situation. Those rights are quite specifically left out in proceedings before the Commission-the right to be informed, the right to obtain legal assistance and the right to communicate with a lawyer. A whole range of things in Article 27 do not flow on to the Bill. There is provision for the Commission to subpoena documents. They are handed over to the Commission or to a prescribed person. There does not seem to be any means of debating, arguing or challenging what is in a subpoena, as to whether or not the documents ought to be produced. If one is told to produce them, one must do so. I suggest that the penalties in the legislation are pretty severe. If one is subpoenaed to produce documents to a court, certain rules apply and the way in which a case is proceeded with can be debated. However, this legislation provides that one just hands over documents. Clause 31 provides that the Commission can take possession of documents which are in its hands. It can make copies of and take extracts from them. It can retain the documents for as long as it thinks necessary. There is no mention in the legislation of the way in which one can challenge that sort of action by the Commission. Of course, it is not only the Commonwealth that may be required to produce documents under this provision. Another party could be involved and presumably it, too, will not be allowed to have legal representation before the Commission. There is incredible power in the Human Rights Commission which I think should be resisted. Henry Brooks Adams said: The effect of power and publicity on all men is the aggravation of the self, a sort of tumour that ends by killing the victims' sympathy. I do not know what will happen to the Human Rights Commissioners, but it is the sort of power that I would find quite frightening. A member of the Commission, of course, can administer an oath and examine witnesses. However, I do not find any suggestion of cross-examination of witnesses or the right to challenge and examine a complaint that has been made. I am not suggesting that such a complaint would not be valid. However, if it is a valid complaint, it would stand up to cross-examination; if it is a vexatious complaint it may not, and surely that should be exposed. This provision is inquisitorial; I think it is unjust and quite contrary to the best interests of our system. The Bill provides a significant change of direction. It seeks to give significant increases in power to a body which is not a court. There is secrecy, it is unstructured and it is potentially dangerous. The financial impact statement set out in the second reading speech of the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) does not really tell us very much. It concedes that the legislation will, of course, have a direct cost to the Government. We are told that there may be some additional cost to departments. The statement refers to a sum of money that in no way is accounted for. There is no basis for the calculations of the amount of $350,000 suggested as the cost for the financial year 1985-86 and the $1.4m thereafter. I suggest that the amount may in fact turn out to be considerably more. It is not anticipated that there will be any significant financial impact from the legislation on industry or other financial sections of the community. I am not at all certain that that will be actually the case because I think that they may well yet be caught up in some of the proceedings which have been referred to. Clause 49 (1) provides: A person who has invoked the provisions of the Bill of Rights in any legal proceeding may apply to the Attorney-General for the provision of assistance under this section in respect of the proceeding. The legislation does not seem to give a public servant, who in fact may be a respondent, the right to seek representation or legal advice. I wonder, then, from where that sort of money will come? It does not seem to be provided for in the statement of financial impact. Will it in fact come from what may well be regarded as the limited legal aid sources that exist at present? I think we may well find just about every complainant under this Bill will be seeking financial assistance. Therefore, I think we are entitled to have some idea of what the costs are likely to be and what impact this legislation will have on other sources of legal aid. This is a significant aspect of the operation of this Bill and the effect that it will have on other litigation. I have said that I do not think we need a Bill of Rights. I have pointed out what I regard as the deficiencies in the legislation. Also, I have pointed out what I regard as the serious deficiencies as far as many of my constituents are concerned. I believe that they are entitled to be concerned about the impact that this legislation may well have on them and on their careers. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(6.05) —Predictably, I oppose the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985. I do so essentially for four basic reasons. Those reasons are what I might broadly call the Bill's foundations; the principle of a Bill of Rights; the characteristics of this Bill of Rights; and, finally, the way in which the Government intends to administer the Bill of Rights should this legislation ever be enacted. This Bill has as its foundations, of course, the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Australia became a signatory to that covenant in 1972. It is alleged that this legislation is an attempt to bring Australian law into conformity with the standards laid down in that document and that that is what caused the Government to introduce this Bill. I strongly dispute from the outset the notion that Australia needs to enact a Bill of Rights to bring its laws into conformity with the covenant. The covenant, by any standards, is very shallow protection for human rights. There is not the slightest contention of opposition to certain parts of the covenant. For example, Article 8 (1) of the covenant provides unequivocally that no one shall be held in slavery, and Article 16 provides that everyone shall have the right everywhere to be treated as a person before the law. Where, however, there may be any contention about a right, the covenant contains broad exceptions and abounds with words such as `except as provided by law, are necessary to protect public security or public order'. Any argument which might attempt to portray Australia as not living up to its international obligations if it does not enact this Bill is false. A simple perusal of the terms of the United Nations agreement will reveal this. The fact that our civil rights record is already more than adequate to meet our obligations is evidenced by the fact that the Soviet Union was able to be party to the very same agreement virtually without reservations. If the human rights record of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is such that it can be party to this covenant and meet all its obligations, I do not think that contemporary Australia is ever likely to be called to account. The second great falsehood of this covenant is one which was repeated by Senator Button, who is presently leaving the chamber, in his speech. Senator Button said that the covenant specifically commits Australia to adopt legislative measures to give effect to the rights it contains. Senator Button then cited Article 2 (2) of the covenant to support this contention. Senator Button —I don't believe I said any of that. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Does not Senator Button believe anything about the Bill of Rights? I am glad to hear him commit himself in Hansard on that. Article 2 (2) of the covenant states a party to the covenant is required `to adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognised in the present covenant'. This does not require legislation at all. Our present legislation, and more particularly the common law, already provide the Australian people with all the rights and freedoms that this covenant will ever demand. Thus, there is no reason to believe that this Bill of Rights is necessary for Australia to meet any of its international obligations or agreements. The potential constitutional ramifications of this Bill of Rights are another ground on which to oppose the legislation. Though the present Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has chosen not to extend the legal operation of this Bill to the States, fair warning of the possibility was given by Senator Button in his speech. In reality, it is as if the Commonwealth has already legislated for the States. When Senator Button says that the Government is not going to extend the operation of this Bill to the States but the Commonwealth expects the States to enact legislation to conform with the Bill, and that should they not do so the Commonwealth reserves the right to enact overriding legislation, what choice does that leave the States? It leaves them absolutely and unequivocally none. If Australia is to have a Bill of Rights, if it is to become an historic document and if the Government wants support for such a document, I believe that an intrinsic part of that commitment ought to be public support for such a proposal. When we have legislation of a constitutional nature such as this and it does not have that support, it is not worth the paper it is written on. What the Government ought to be doing is seeking a referendum. The Australian Labor Party does not seem to understand or chooses not to understand that, particularly with this kind of document, there is no magic in just a piece of paper. Both the United States and the Soviet Union have written constitutions, both are written on a piece of paper. In one country the government is legally and practically bound by the Constitution; in the other, in reality, it is not. The reason a mere piece of paper can work in one country and not in another is that in the former there is a genuine commitment to the principles which it embodies. It is this and nothing else which gives the piece of paper such strength. By contrast, the Australian Bill of Rights Bill has no such public support. It would be most unlikely that the Government could muster support from half the community. For this type of legislation, a simple majority is just not enough. Such an Act needs broad-based community support if it is to be the historical document that the Australian Labor Party would wish it to be. From the correspondence I have received, far from having the support of half the community, there appears to be violent and vehement opposition from the vast majority of the Australian community. As I said earlier, if the Government is serious about this Bill it ought to be holding a referendum and getting the imprimatur of the community as a whole to the introduction of such controversial legislation. The second broad reason for my opposition to this Bill is that I object, in a society such as ours, to the very principle of a Bill of Rights. If one is really concerned about protecting the liberties of the citizen, there are two ways by which something might be done about it. The first way is to remove the power of the state to make the transgression. It is this method which was adopted with respect to interstate trade under section 92 of the Constitution. If one wants to understand the Labor Party's liking for constitutional provisions which take away the power to interfere in the life of a citizen, one ought to consult Mr Whitlam's book On Australia's Constitution. In regard to section 92 of the Constitution, which takes away the power of the Government to meddle, Mr Whitlam rages for pages about it. He is vehement in this opposition to section 92 because it denies constitutional power to the Federal Government and the Executive. The protection of rights to which I refer in this fashion might be described as protection by exclusion because it excludes the offending power from the field of legislative competence. One of the many reasons I am opposed to this Bill of Rights in principle is that it pays no heed, as Senator Gareth Evans knows, to the institutions which we have already to protect our liberties. The greatest of these is, of course, the common law and since the times of Coke the judges have stood between the Executive and the subject in defence of liberty. The great attribute of the common law is its ability to adapt to fit the times in which it is being employed in service of the people. No Bill of Rights can hope to do this unless it is cast in very broad language, which in itself has many problems. The Bill of Rights is based on a priori reasoning. It assumes that those rights which are presently appropriate are also appropriate for the future. Of course, that is just not the case. Sir Harry Gibbs demonstrated the difficulties which this has caused in the United States when he delivered the eleventh Wilfred Fullagar Memorial Lecture. The Chief Justice drew attention to the second amendment of the United States Constitution, which allows people to bear arms. While this may have been appropriate when the Constitution was drawn up in the aftermath of a revolution, it is very doubtful that it is necessary or beneficial today. However, it is something that cannot be changed. Much of the vitality of the law will be lost if we attempt to set up a Bill of Rights which enshrines the value of one time for all time. I do not believe our society needs a Bill of Rights because of checks and balances which are already in our system of government. The division of the arms of government into three is one of these checks and balances. Each arm of government can and does form a restraining influence on the others. The Parliament may, by legislation, control the Executive and override the judiciary. The judiciary has the power to interpret the statutes of the Parliament and may impress the requirement of natural justice on the operations of the Executive. Finally, the Executive may pardon or remit the sentences of the judiciary and may mellow the statutes of the Parliament by the way it administers them. To this one adds the right of trial by a jury of one's peers and the right to vote. It is these institutions which will ensure the liberties of the people, not a Bill of Rights. By contrast, set up a Bill of Rights as the standard by which all things are to be judged and there is the risk that the balance will tip too far in favour of one document and the judiciary which is required to interpret it. As the Chief Justice, Sir Harry Gibbs, said: If we live in a caring, humane society, we do not need a Bill or Rights to protect us. If we do not live in such a society, then a Bill of Rights will not protect us even if it is enacted. Sir Harry Gibbs went on to make the point that Albania, Chad, El Salvador, Haiti and the Khmer Republic all have Bills of Rights. I will leave it to honourable senators to decide for themselves what difference those Bills of Rights have made to the civil liberties and the protection of the individuals in those countries. The third main reason I oppose the Bill is the features which are peculiar to it. The first aspect of the Bill which is offensive is the rights which it leaves out. As has been said in the debates here and in another place, there is no right to own property. To me, this would seem to defeat the very purpose of the Bill, even on the Government's criteria. Despite what the Labor Party would have us believe, it is not possible to have political freedom if we do not have a measure of economic freedom as well. If we control a man's property or his income, we control the man. If we are able to threaten the economic welfare of a man's family, we will shake him to the very core. One of the great guarantees of the independence of the judiciary in this country has always been that the Government cannot reduce the salary of any member of the judiciary during his period of office. If there is no such economic guarantee for the individual, he will have no real political independence either. Though this Bill gives the right to associate, there is no converse right not to associate. The Government will not include this measure because it would threaten the closed shop. It seems that the Government would try to save us from all manner of potential but unlikely tyrannies, but when it comes to saving us from a very real tyranny-from the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the militant trade union movement-it does not have the courage to do so. Another fault with this Bill is that there is no ability to enforce one's rights when they are transgressed. At least with the common law when a right was transgressed it was the basis for an action. Article 14 of the Bill requires judges to determine what rights are compatible with the age of a child. This is not, in my view, a question which can be answered by any legal reasoning. The community will come to realise this and there will be a grave danger that the judiciary will fall into disrepute. As decisions are seen to vary from judge to judge, depending on personal opinions, there will be a great temptation to appoint judges for political reasons. Sadly, in the life of the last Liberal Government and in the life of this Government there has been a temptation to make appointments to the High Court of Australia based on the views of the Government as to the preconceived views of judges of the High Court, particularly vis-a-vis centralism and federalism, and the rights of the States compared with the rights of the central Government. Another fault of the Bill is that it does not really guarantee rights at all. As I said earlier, I do not like attempts to enshrine rights for all time and I do not resile from that position. If, however, the Government is going to tell the people of Australia that this Bill is a guarantee of their rights it is deceiving them knowingly and willingly. There are two ways in which the rights that are given in the Bill can be undone. The first is by the simple legislative enactment of this Parliament. Part III of the Bill even contemplates repealing the rights which are already given in the Bill. The second way in which the Government has not guaranteed the rights which it would lead people to believe they have is that the judiciary may waive a right given in the Bill of Rights if its effect on another law would be to cause `great public hardship or inconvenience'. So the courts can suspend the rights given. Again, I ask: Is this the type of question which the courts should be asked to answer? Should they be made responsible for determining when there would be sufficient hardship that an Act of the Parliament should be given no effect? Is that really what the judiciary was ever intended to do? Was it ever intended that that onus of responsibility ought to be cast upon the judiciary in a subjective way, requiring it to make subjective judgments? Of course it was not. The sentiments which are expressed in this Bill are way out of step with the opinions of the community. The way that it is interpreted could engender enormous hostility. Article 7, for example, gives the right of free speech and freedom of the Press in open terms. It makes no mention of the limitations which are rightly imposed by the laws of defamation. It also makes no mention of the responsibility that people such as teachers have when they are imparting ideas and ideals to their pupils. If this is combined with Article 14 which gives the rights contained in the Bill to children, commensurate with their age, should a teacher want to impart a particular belief to a child and that child wants to receive it, the opinion of the parent as to the appropriateness of what the child is being taught could be totally irrelevant. The very idea of Article 14, which would make the rights given to a child a decision for someone other than the child's parents is one which would be resented, in my view, by the vast majority of families in Australia. responsibility for children is with the parents of those children and is not to be usurped by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Article 10 says that every person has the right of peaceful assembly, but makes no mention of any limitation which should be put on this right. Should a large crowd of people have the right of peaceful assembly anywhere they like? Should they be able to do so to the great inconvenience of the rest of the community? Should a trade union be able to blockade a factory allegedly in exercise of its right of peaceful assembly? Would the illegal picket outside the Dollar Sweets Co. Pty Ltd factory in Victoria recently have been able to be stopped if this law applied? Even if these provisions do not have the extreme effect which they can have, how many people will be put through the courts needlessly? It is because decisions will normally rest on the facts of the case at hand that will lead many cases to end up in the courts. My final reason for opposing this Bill is because of the way it will be administered. As Mr Spender has said in another place, so many of the rights which we have come to know are actually taken away when a party is called before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Some of the most basic guarantees are missing. Proposed section 29 of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill will take away the right to be confronted by one's accuser. Should the Commission so decide, it may preserve the anonymity of a complainant or people who have provided information to it. The Commission has the power to compel people to attend compulsory conferences and to produce documents. The Commission has the power under clause 31 (4) to copy documents and to retain them. Interestingly enough, though clause 29 gives the Government the right to certify some of its documents confidential, there are no comparable guarantees for private documents. There is no protection of a private confidential document being revealed in the Commission's report to the Minister. There are many documents which the Government has no right to see. Documents which might contain the political affiliation of the individual involved are one example. No doubt there are other examples. Under the proposed Bill there is no right to refuse to answer questions which are incriminating. Clause 34 takes away the right of legal representation unless leave of the presiding officer at the compulsory conference is given. What criteria will he use in determining whether or not legal representation ought to be provided? All the rights which the courts have developed over the centuries to ensure a fair and open trial of matters are denied people who have the misfortune to be summoned before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. In addition to the powers that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has been given, it has been given certain tasks which are highly inappropriate for a body with its functions. The Commission is required to promote an understanding of the freedoms set out in the Bill of Rights and to undertake research and educational programs, on behalf of the Commonwealth, promoting the Bill of Rights. How can a body which has these functions then turn around and attempt to impartially consider possible breaches of human rights? Surely the Government can see that to educate and promote a view about human rights is incompatible with the quasi-judicial functions of the Commission. There is no requirement for the Commission to follow the rules of natural justice in the Bill. It is hoped that the courts which have been given no part in the functioning of the Commission will impress the rules of natural justice upon it. It will be the ultimate irony if it is the courts which have to come to the rescue of the citizen who is suffering at the hands of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. As I said at the outset, I do not believe that we are obliged to enact this piece of legislation. Our civil rights record amply satisfies anything that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires. Within our system of government, our freedoms are protected already. The attempt by the Government to introduce this Bill will only undermine the institutions which we already have. It will do this to introduce a Bill which will not guarantee our freedom as effectively as these institutions do. The rights which the Bill attempts to introduce are not in step with the thinking in the community and for that reason, it will fail. The Government then wants this Bill, which will be damaging and unpopular, to be administered by a commission with extraordinarily draconian powers. Should the Bill be enacted it will be one of the most unpopular ever passed by this Parliament. There are two other matters that concern me. One is the effect that the legislation will have on the judiciary. It will require our judges to make some very difficult and subjective judgments. One of the most potentially damaging effects of the Bill is the kinds of questions which it places before judges. Our judges, when they act judicially, do not make arbitrary decisions but decide cases according to law. One of the main reasons that respect for our judiciary is maintained, even by unsuccessful litigants, is because of the judges' actual and perceived detachment from the decisions which the courts make. The courts have been recognised so far as being thoroughly impartial. Judges have been deemed to be thoroughly impartial. There has been a preparedness to acknowledge that decisions have been made in that way. When a judge is seen to be not merely applying the rules but making them as well there is no such satisfaction with a decision and acceptance by the parties. This type of situation arises when the law gives no real guidance to the judge but leaves him with open-ended discretion. This is perhaps one of the reasons for the frequent dissatisfaction with the decisions of the Family Court of Australia. Litigants realise that, with the wide discretion given to a judge, a different judge with a different point of view may well have have provided a different result. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I was debating the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 when the Senate rose for dinner and I had almost completed my remarks. By way of peroration let me say that in my view there is considerable possibility of a conflict among the Commonwealth, the Commission and the States. That seems even more likely if we remember that every right given to one person imposes a corresponding right on another person to respect it. The decision as to who should be given the right and who should carry the burden of respecting it in a particular case becomes very subjective. This kind of conflict has troubled the law of defamation for decades. How much should a person be allowed to speak his mind before he begins to make an unfair attack on somebody else's reputation could be something that a State could decide in one way and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission could decide in quite a different way. There is one other aspect of the origin of this Bill which means that it should be opposed and that is the haste with which it has been enacted and the lack of public discussion which has surrounded it. We have even had the absurd situation in which Senator Gareth Evans produced his infamous Bill of Rights which allegedly was to provide a guarantee of greater freedoms. In fact it was granting a great deal fewer freedoms, and as I recall that Bill was, by any standards, a highly classified document. Senator Gareth Evans —What are you rabbiting on about? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I am not rabbiting on, Senator Evans; I am simply quoting your classified document, a Bill of Rights which was intended to give rights to everybody. The only trouble was that nobody knew what their rights were. It reminds me of that magnificent emperor who had all the laws of the land written on a pillar which nobody could reach to read. Senator Gareth Evans —My Bill was identical to the Bill before the House. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —It was not identical. With the greatest respect, Senator Evans, you either did not understand your Bill or you do not understand the contemporary Bill. If Parliament passes the Australian Bill of Rights Bill it is very likely that it will retard the development of the common law. The eighteenth century and, more particularly perhaps, the nineteenth century was a time of evolution and great growth in the common law. The judges changed the application of the common law to suit the rapidly changing nature of society. By comparison, the twentieth century has been a time of legislation and in my view that is regrettable. Acts passed by the parliaments have represented the greatest changes in the law. This has had an effect on the judges because today they are far less likely to change the common law too frequently. The judges have attempted to follow old and totally inappropriate precedents, believing that it is not their role to change the common law and that if change is needed then parliament should make it. As we know, there are a number of absurd examples. There is Searle v. Wallbank and there is Myers v. The Director of Public Prosecutions. The judges rested their decision very much on common law which no longer had application, purely on the basis that there had been evolution towards the use of legislation as distinct from common law. This is a threat which is presented by the Bill of Rights. Whereas for the past quarter of a century judges have been keen to develop the law of natural justice, they will now see the Bill of Rights as the pre-eminent declaration of rights in Australia. The pressure will be off the judges and rather than working to develop the common law, the courts will more than likely make the Bill of Rights their first and last stopping place. The development of common law will fall very badly behind. Having said that, I conclude by saying that in my view the architects of this legislation totally lack a sensitivity or understanding of what the Australian community wants and what is in its best interests. The Bill itself is riddled with prejudices and bias and an ideological commitment by one political party and, more particularly, one part of one political party. Should the Bill be enacted it will be one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation ever introduced into this Parliament. Perhaps I could conclude by citing the words of the US Judge Learned Hand who said: This much I think I know-that a society so riven that the spirit of moderation is gone, no court can save; that a society where that spirit flourishes no court need save: That a society which evades its responsibilities by thrusting upon the courts the nurture of that spirit, that spirit in the end will perish. In my view this diabolical piece of legislation should be ignominiously cast out of the Senate and never seen again. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I call Senator Walters. Senator Gareth Evans —Out of the frying pan into the fire. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.07) —Surely I do not have to start by listening to Senator Gareth Evans's odd comments. Perhaps I could start with a higher comment from the Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir Harry Gibbs, who said: If a society is tolerant and rational it does not need a Bill of Rights; if it is not no Bill of Rights will preserve it. That is the sort of statement that I believe this Parliament should be noting. The Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 is reminiscent of everything that Senator Gareth Evans has ever had anything to do with. It is reminiscent of the Sex Discrimination Bill which was brought before this Senate just 12 months earlier. Some 40-odd amendments were made before that Bill was finally passed; indeed the whole Bill had to be rewritten. Once again we find that a Bill which Senator Evans originally put up had to be rewritten after he was relieved of his position of Attorney-General. A subsequent Attorney- General has had to rewrite it. One of Senator Evans's interjections in the speech of Senator Crichton-Browne interested me because he claimed that this Bill was the same as his own Bill of Rights Bill. That is not accurate-- Senator Crichton-Browne —It is blatantly dishonest. Senator WALTERS —Well, certainly it is not accurate. Even so, this Bill bears a lot of his traits and that is the reason why the Australian people are rejecting it in their hundreds and thousands. We in the Opposition understand why Senator Evans was so secretive about his Bill before the 1984 election because he said: In the context in which passions would be expected to rage fairly high, here in parliament, let alone in the community at large, it would be impossible to have a calm and rational debate on this measure which its significance and importance justifies. Certainly that is a sham for hiding behind. In effect what he was saying was `I am not going to tell you now, you might not like it and you might not vote for us if I told you. I will save it until after the election when we will bring it in, despite the will of the people'. The secrecy that was involved was only broken because the Premier of Queensland alerted the people, and that was the only reason why we heard anything at all about it. Because Senator Evans was so secretive and so dishonest, and he would not allow the Australian people to know what was in his Bill, that situation arose prior to the election. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) have rushed this Bill through the House of Representatives- Honourable senators interjecting- Senator Bolkus —On a point of order, Mr Deputy President: I cannot hear the relevant speaker. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Evans and Senator Crichton-Browne will stop their interchange so that Senator Walters can be heard. Senator WALTERS —We know that prior to Christmas this legislation was rushed through the House of Representatives. Honourable members were not given time to debate it; the public was not given time to see it. The Law Council of Australia at that time pleaded with the Government not to push the legislation through. The Government ignored it. During the recess many groups studied the legislation and many people presented documents to us. The Law Council of Australia-a very prestigious organisation-presented a document. The Labor lawyers were very silent on this subject. We have not heard a word from them. I wonder why. The Law Council of Australia did indeed make its presence felt. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard points A, B, C and D in a letter which the Law Council sent to us. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —Is leave granted? Senator Gareth Evans —It is an appropriate courtesy to show those things beforehand. Senator WALTERS —I am sorry; I intended to. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? Senator Gareth Evans —Yes. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- (a) The Council's concern that the Australian Bill of Rights permits ``reverse discrimination'' in favour of disadvantaged races and groups. The Council points out that there is no support for this in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (b) The Council's concern at the wide range of powers given to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and of the secret nature of its investigations. The Council believes that secret investigations are objectionable especially where, as here, there is no right of legal or other representation before the Tribunal. (c) The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has the potential to be used as a lever to put pressure upon State Governments to change their laws. This is an aspect of the legislation which the Law Council believes has not been fully recognised in the debate to date. Of particular concern to the Law Council is the fact that before the Commission can investigate State laws, the consent of the responsible federal minister must be obtained. This provision clearly is open to abuse for political motives. (d) That the right to refuse to answer questions or provide information on the grounds of self-incrimination has been removed from persons who are summoned before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. This seems to the Council to be the very antithesis of what should appear in a Bill of Rights. Senator WALTERS —Apart from those sections A, B, C and D which I have had incorpor- ated I think that other comments made by the Law Council of Australia in that letter bear mentioning. It stated: Although the powers of the Commission in areas other than under the Sex Discrimination Act stop just short of final determination, the powers are themselves so wide-ranging, and the Commission may, in the exercise of them, so seriously effect the position of individual citizens, that the Law Council believes that the legislation in its present form cannot be supported. The Council continues: The Law Council is also concerned by the powers given to the Commission to preserve the anonymity of the person who has made a complaint . . . The Council further continues: However, the Law Council cannot support legislation which permits, as this legislation does, one body to act as both prosecutor and judge in the same cause. Other groups have also made statements. The Country Women's Association presented a document to us. I will quote briefly from that letter because I believe it is appropriate. The Association stated: With a Bill of Rights they would immediately cease to be rights and become political concessions subject to alteration by Parliament. I believe that is the crux of the reason why we should not have a Bill of Rights. The Institute of Public Affairs (New South Wales) saw fit to distribute a paper in which it stated: In short, the Bill appears likely to offer nothing but harm to ordinary law-abiding, decent and hard-working citizens and clearly has the potential to undermine social cohesion in Australia. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry South Australia Inc. is another group which has put forward what it sees as problems. It stated: This document is a compromise document created with strong influence from Eastern Bloc nations hence the omission of at least two basic elements of human rights-the right to own property, and the freedom to disassociate. It continued: . . . the Bill of Rights Bill which allows freedom of association including `the right to form and join Trade Unions' needs a balancing provision within the Bill allowing individuals the `freedom to disassociate' and pursue freely chosen productive employment free from Trade Union coercion, strike action and restrictions. It is the view of our Chamber that no Bill of Rights, is far preferable to an inadequate and selective Bill of Rights which quite blatantly omits some of the basic principles of our democratic society. We had comments by the Right to Life Association. The Labor lawyers support them actually in relation to Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Law Council states that Article 18 has the potential to come into conflict with laws authorising abortion and that applications may be made to the Human Rights Commission to seek to strike down State abortion laws and to re-open some rulings. Apart from those many groups we have had submissions from many church and education groups and local and State governments and from thousands and thousands of individuals. The Bill was based on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This was ratified in 1966 when many countries were facing grave problems in regard to freedoms. To promote the right of people in those nations to freedoms Australia joined many other countries in signing the covenant. I will now cite figures from Freedom in the World: Political Rights and Civil Liberties by Gastil. It was published in 1984-85, so it is an up-to-date version. It points out that, of 167 independant nations, 19 have the same freedoms as Australia. These nations are measured on a scale of freedoms. These 19 nations have the highest rating for freedoms in political rights and civil liberties. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has the worst record. There are 17 countries, along with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which are rated as having no political rights, no civil liberties and no freedoms. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, along with those other 17 countries, has the worst rating. Libya, a country which I believe is looked on in Australia as having a pretty low freedom rating, actually has more freedoms than the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Yet it is Australia that seems to need the Bill of Rights. It is quite beyond me why the present Government seems to believe that Australia needs a Bill of Rights while these other countries have not only ratified the covenant but have signed it. Lybia ratified and signed it. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ratified and signed it. Afghanistan also ratified it-for what that is worth-as did Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, the Democratic Republic of East Germany, Iran, Iraq, Mongolia, Poland and Romania. Is it not ludicrous that these countries, which according to the Freedom in the World document, have no political rights and civil liberties, have signed the International Covenant but do not abide by the Covenant at all, yet we in Australia will be passing a Bill offering Australians supposed rights? This is how the Bill of Rights will work. Let me now state the example of someone, let us call her Mrs Ann Citizen, who receives in the mail a letter from the Human Rights Commission saying that certain allegations have been made against her and directing her to come to the Commission's office to answer them. When she recovers from the shock, she rings the Commission to find out what it is all about. She asks who made the complaint. The Commission officer says that under section 29 (2) the Commission has decided that she is not entitled to know and that this is confidential. Ann Citizen says: `But that is not fair. I will arrange for my solicitor to accompany me to the office'. The Commission officer says: `Oh no, under section 34 (4) of the Bill of Rights legislation you are not entitled to have legal representation unless we decide that you can. Just come by yourself. By the way, bring documents A and B which we understand you have in your possession. We understand there may also be certain letters. We believe those will help decide the issue'. Citizen Ann says: `They are private documents and private letters'. `But under section 35 (2) (b)', says the Commission officer, `you will be fined or imprisoned if you don't provide the information that we demand even though it may be self-incriminatory'. Ann Citizen then says that she will appeal to the courts because she believes that she is not being shown true justice. Again, the Commission officer says: `No, you don't. That's not possible either, because there is no appeal from the Commission's decision to a court of law'. People in Australia do not believe one when one tells them that that is what can happen, but it can happen. I have quoted each clause that may be applied in such a case to show the way in which the legislation can work. The result is that we will have enshrined in new legislation all those rights and beliefs which we have always had and which, if violated, can already be dealt with under the common law and the Constitution. To have enshrined in new legislation such rights as freedom of thought, expression and religion, the right to marry and freedom from slavery, if you please, and from torture-basic rights that are so ridiculous that we should not even bother to mention them in Australia-we will now have to give up the rights I mentioned in my example in the case of Ann Citizen. We will lose the right to know who has made allegations against us. Fancy having to give up that right. A person could know that someone, for a very personal reason, was out to cause mischief to him, yet that person would not be entitled to know who was making the accusations. I have never heard anything like that. It has always been the right of every Australian not to give self-incriminating evidence, and that has been wiped. If the Commission believes that a person has evidence along those lines, it can demand it and that person could be imprisoned for three months if the material is not supplied. That is absolutely extraordinary, that an accused person will lose the right to have a lawyer of his own choice to defend and advise him is abhorrent to the people of Australia. The right to appeal to a higher court on a decision that could result in imprisonment if a person decided not to present certain documents that could be self-incriminating will be denied. Why has the Government done this? Why has the Government refused to accept the Opposition's amendments, and we moved many amendments in the other place? Why has it refused to accept amendments that include the right to ownership of private land? Just a short time ago, Senator Bolkus laughed when I said that the Chamber of Commerce had-- Senator Bolkus —On a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President: The honourable senator must have either good eyesight or good ears, because I was downstairs a moment ago, and I was not laughing at the Chamber of Commerce. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —There is no point of order. Senator WALTERS —I can assure you, Madam Acting Deputy President, that he was here. He laughed when I said that the International Covenant is a compromise document created following strong influence from the Eastern bloc countries. I say to Senator Bolkus: Do not deny you laughed at that suggestion. Senator Bolkus —I did not laugh. Senator WALTERS —You did. You were sitting there and you laughed when I said it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Senator Walters, you will address your remarks through the Chair. Senator WALTERS —Senator Bolkus should not tell lies. He did indeed laugh when I made that comment. I made that comment because the Government will not accept the Opposition's proposed amendment to include in the Bill of Rights the right of ownership of private land. Why will it not do that? It is because the Covenant shows the influence of the Eastern bloc countries. Otherwise those countries would not have signed it. To make sure that those countries did agree to it in 1966, the Covenant did not include the right of private ownership. This Government has rewritten some of the articles. Why it will not include the right of private ownership is quite beyond me, unless in its socialist frame of mind it decided that it will not eventually have-- Senator Gareth Evans —It is not in the Covenant. Senator WALTERS —If Senator Evans had been listening, he would have heard me just say that it was not in the Covenant. Senator Gareth Evans —How, then, do you enact it if it is not in the Covenant? Senator WALTERS —I am saying that because the Government is already rewriting the Covenant. It has already gone beyond the powers of the Covenant of 1966 in its rewriting of the Articles. As we have got on to that subject, we will find that it is completely unconstitutional. Because the Government has gone so far beyond the Covenant it will be challenged in the High Court. Not only will the Government not accept the principle of the right of ownership of private land but also it will not pass the Opposition's proposed amendment to protect someone's right not to join a union. The Bill makes it very clear that associations can be formed and one can join a union. I wonder what is the philosophical problem with giving Australians the right not to join a union? The Government's philosophical problem is that the unions would not allow it to do so as so many problems are associated with that matter. Why will the Government also not include the right of Australian citizens to allow their children to be educated in a private school? What is the Government's philosophical objection to that? I wonder whether it would be the philosophical objection of the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, to the setting up of new private schools throughout Australia. Of course it is. Honourable senators will remember my speech in the debate on the Franklin Dam issue. Senator Gareth Evans —Oh, yes. Senator WALTERS —I am sure that Senator Evans will remember it very clearly because I believe that it was the issue that caused him to be thrown out of the Attorney-Generalship. I think he will remember it for the rest of his life. Madam Acting Deputy President, you will remember my speech in the debate on the Franklin Dam issue. You will remember my warnings when Mr Hawke took the Tasmanian Government to the High Court and won the case by a majority of one. You will remember that there were seven High Court judges on that case. The decision was not made on legal grounds at all; it was made on the opinion of the judges. Four judges, including Mr Justice Murphy, decided that Tasmania would lose the case and that an additional horrific power would be given to the Commonwealth and to Mr Hawke. Three judges, including the Chief Justice of the High Court, decided that the legislation went far beyond the powers that were enshrined in the Constitution. I then warned that the granting of those far-reaching powers to the Commonwealth would result in tremendous changes with regard to the Constitution. I warned that the centralist government would have the power to force State governments and local government to change any legislation of which it did not approve, and indeed it is now doing so. It can do so through its commissioners, who will have the power to investigate the workings of State governments and local government, and, if they so choose, can report to the relevant Minister that they feel there have been breaches of the Bill. The Attorney-General, in his speech to the Labor lawyers, said: `We will fix that'. At least he was honest when speaking before the Labor lawyers. He said: `If the commissioners report that they are concerned about State government legislation, we will bring the State government to heel and we will pass legislation'. The power to pass such legislation is the power that Mr Hawke gained when he took my State to the High Court. The only Labor member who saw a problem in regard to this new power given to the Federal Government at that time was Dr Klugman, who stated: May I, as one who tends to oppose increased government powers of most kinds, caution those Labor supporters who may approve of the extension of such powers in this case. He was concerned. He was the only Labor member who was honest enough to point out to the people what strong powers they were. I suppose the Bill is so horrific that whenever one gives an example of what can happen, as I have done tonight, most people say: `But why is the Government doing it?' That question may well be asked: Why is the Government doing it? The only answer I can come up with is that I believe that this is not just a centralist government wishing to do away with the rights of the people, as I have explained tonight, but it certainly tends to interfere with State election laws. Threats have already been made and the people of Australia must understand that the State electoral laws can be interfered with by the use of this legislation. It is, I believe, the most dangerous and most important Bill on which any of us in this place will ever vote. It is certainly the most dangerous Bill that has been before the Senate during my time in the Parliament, just over 10 years. The Government must back down on this issue. The Bill is a sham. The Government must state-and Senator Evans must state-the real reason why it is bringing forward this sort of Bill in the Senate. Then the people can assess an honest reason for the introduction of such draconian legislation. The Opposition as a whole will vote against this Bill. Indeed, we will repeal it when we return to government. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia)(8.33) —It is no wonder that the honourable senator opposite is often referred to as `Senator Mogadon'. She has managed to put this place to sleep tonight. The problem that confronts me tonight is to try to rebut some of the arguments that she put forward. It is hard to do so because, on a very detailed examination of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985, all of those threats to Australian society that she says will emanate from the passing by this Parliament of this Bill do not seem to be there to effervesce and blow up in our faces. Claims about the destruction of family life, the destruction of the school lives of our children, the destruction of the whole constitutional system-all of these evils that Senator Walters, in her isolationism in Tasmania, seems to be concerned about-do not seem to have any basis in the Bill that is before the Senate. The contribution we have just heard is typical of the histrionics of the members of the Opposition. It is no wonder that they are are now sitting on the other side of the chamber with very little prospect of changing sides. When one addresses oneself to the Bill of Rights it is worth while to look at the history of it. The whole idea in the Australian context arose in the early 1970s, if not beforehand. It has taken quite some time to come before the Parliament. There has been quite a degree of public debate-to which Senator Gareth Evans, of course, can attest-to get to this stage. Bills were introduced during the days of the Whitlam Government between 1972 and 1975. It took quite some time-five years later, in fact-before a Liberal government ratified the Inter- national Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In doing so it presented Australia and the Australian Parliament with an obligation in international law not only to respect the Covenant but also to ensure that all persons living within this country have rights as they are set down in the Covenant. What does it mean? Does it mean this massive destruction of life that Senator Walters referred to? The Covenant and this legislation embody the principle that people in this country will have rights without distinction such as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. The rights would be equal. Since the date of committing ourselves to that Covenant we have committed ourselves to distilling a process through which these enforcement procedures could be applied. We have come a long way down what I believe to be a retrogressive track in respect of that. Initially we were talking about amending our Constitution to embody civil rights, but not, as Senator Walters says, as every Warsaw Pact country has seen fit to do. Let us look at that great democracy-as those opposite would have us believe-the United States of America. It has embodied in its constitutional system the protection of civil liberties. I ask Senator Walters and Senator Durack: If it is good enough for that country why do we feel that we can do without it? Yet we are not even proposing to amend the Constitution in this instance. We are proposing a piece of legislation which has gone a further four steps down the track from constitutional entrenchment. We are not proposing application to the States. It does not take all that much intelligence to ascertain that point. We are not proposing that the Bill of Rights can be used as a sword in civil and other litigation. We are proposing that it be used as a shield, to use Senator Evans's term; as a defence for an individual, and for an individual against the power of the state, whether that be the Commonwealth Government or a State government, in theory, but in practice, by way of this Bill as it now stands, only in respect of Commonwealth legislation. We are looking at a five-year lead-in period-a period which even the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs found to be excessive-before this legislation can be used in most instances. We are not proposing revolution. In fact, when one looks at the historical context of the Bill of Rights, we are proposing a marginal, if any, increase in the protection of rights and liberties of Australian citizens. But in doing so we are going at least some way towards meeting our international obligations. The Bill also goes some way towards stating the principles that we, as a parliament, believe our society should follow. Members of the Opposition have argued very strenuously, both in this place and in the House of Representatives, against the Bill. Their opposition, I believe, has been born out of total ignorance and insensitivity to the plight of individual Australians. They do not understand the powerlessness that comes with poverty. They do not understand the powerlessness that comes with people's inability to have access to the facilities of the state. Of course, they do not. They have never been in the position to have to understand it. When one looks at the background of speakers opposite who have spoken against the Bill, they have always enjoyed the power that comes with privilege. They have never suffered the disadvantages that come with poverty, whether it is poverty in cash, financial assets or information. They have not experienced that and, as a consequence, we get the sort of ignorant contribution that we have had from honourable senators opposite. They have stated six primary objections to the Bill of Rights and quite a number of ancillary ones. We have been told that we do not need a Bill of Rights because `the common law provides sufficient protection for individual freedoms'. The facts are that the common law does not sufficiently protect individual freedoms. In fact, civil and political rights in this country are those that are left after the exceptions, limitations and interpretations have been dealt to them by the common law. At the moment we do not have protection of freedom of expression. We do not have the right to demonstrate peacefully in all States. As we can see in Queensland in recent days, we do not have the principle of one vote one value. No matter what honourable senators opposite might say, this principle will be further eroded by the aggravated gerrymander in Queensland. If one looks at the gerrymander that has been introduced in recent weeks and compares that to the voting intention in regard to the respective parties in Queensland, one sees that according to the Morgan gallup poll published in the Bulletin of 21 January 1986, the National Party in that State, polling 35 per cent of the vote, will finish up with 56 per cent of the seats in that Parliament. It might interest Senator Walters to know that the Liberal Party will be disadvantaged as much as the Labor Party in this instance. The Liberal Party in that State, with a voting intention of 18 per cent, will finish up with 7.9 per cent of the seats and the Labor Party, with a voting intention of 42 per cent, will finish up with 34 per cent of the seats in that Parliament. Senator Walters —Is this what the Bill is all about? Senator BOLKUS —Senator Walters might babble on and say: `Is this what the Bill is all about?' The most basic right of any individual living is a democratic system is to be treated equally. One of the most basic rights in that respect is equal participation in the selection of his government. When there is that degree of malapportionment, gerrymander and distortion of the voting system in Queensland, as I have just presented to honourable senators, where one's own party goes down the gurgler because of the immorality and unprincipled actions of the Premier of that State and where representations will be diminished, then the principle of one vote one value does not apply in this country. Senator Walters would not realise that because in her position of privilege she never really needed to be protected by the laws of this country. That was the Opposition's first contention. The second objection is that the Bill is an attempt at a constitutional power grab. Senator Walters might laugh at that. She pretends that this is the basic intention of the Bill and that this is a nasty, centralist government that is indulging in a power grab. Let us get some of the facts straight. The Bill does not apply to the States. The Bill is passed constitutionally in a method which has been endorsed by the High Court of Australia as early as 1936, not in recent days, not only in 1983 in the Tasmanian wilderness case, but in 1936. In essence, we are not talking about a power grab by the Federal Government. We are really talking about a grab back by individuals and about giving the individuals rights vis-a-vis their state. In that respect I refer to both State and Federal governments and, once again, in this instance, only in respect of the Federal Government. The interests of the individual have, for too long, been disregarded in order for governments to be able to operate more easily. Politicians often look for a quick fix that might involve a deprivation of civil liberties in one way or another. We had quite a number of instances of that in recent years both on a State and Federal level. Sadly, in many ways, we have failed as politicians. We have failed to guarantee civil freedoms. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has indicated from time to time where the excessiveness of bureaucrats and the compliance of politicians have led to a deprivation of civil liberties. It is those sorts of activities and protections that we are talking about when we talk about a Bill of Rights. It does not matter what the complexion of the Government is that introduces legislation and passes it. If we look at our own history we find quite a number of infringements of individual civil rights in the history of our parliamentary system: The white Australia policy was a great deprivation; the corresponding treatment meted out to Aboriginals and ethnic minorities over 20 years to 30 years, if not 200 years in the case of Aboriginals; and the treatment of homosexuals under State laws. Once again, let us look at Queensland and the treatment of people there with homosexual tendencies. There has been a total diminution of civil rights for the unemployed, single parents and migrants, particularly when one looks at Queensland in recent days. There is, in fact, a need for a Bill of Rights. I believe that there is a need for a stronger Bill of Rights than the one proposed now. I also believe that for the minimal advances it makes, it needs to be supported. I am not on my own in this belief. Mr Justice Kirby, who is a noted and very respected justice in the Australian legal system, has recently discussed the shortfalls in the human rights protection area in this country. He stated: We tend to assume that we in Australia have an impeccable system of legal protection for human rights which is second to none in the world. In short, we are apt to think of our legal protections for the human rights of Australians as a happy blend between British justice and the Australian `fair go'. This illusion is a dangerous one. There is no doubt that our legal protections fall short, in many respects, of internationally accepted standards. That is not to say that we are significantly worse than most countries in the protection of human rights. Far from it. But there is no room for complacency. Not only is there no room for complacency, but also there is room for developing and increasing protection. As I mentioned earlier, we have international obligations. We choose as governments, and I believe on both sides of the Parliament, to criticise and object to the current system of voting in the Philippines. We have criticised the Marcos regime and quite rightly so. We criticise other countries, whether they be in Central America or other parts of the world. How can we rightfully criticise some of these countries when we tolerate a situation where, as I said, in Queensland Sir Joh can be elected with the same percentage of votes as that received by President Marcos in his recent election? In both respects we are protecting fraudulent governments if we defend either of them. As I said earlier, this is not a radical step. To give some credence to that I would like to refer, very briefly, to a report forwarded to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs inquiry on a Bill of Rights. It is a submission from a radical organisation referred to as the Young Liberal Movement of Australia, Victorian division. Let me quote some parts of the report for the illumination of honourable senators opposite and expose the hypocrisy of some of the honourable senators opposite. Page 4 of the submission to the Senate inquiry-an inquiry which continued through much of last year and reported at the end of last year-states: For a truly effective Bill it should be national (applying to states and Commonwealth) but this could create the objection of those who defend `states rights'. The reply to this is that a Bill of Rights at Commonwealth level does not increase central power at the expense of the states. Rather, it limits the powers of both levels of government. It was Thomas Jefferson who made the famous statement that `a Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth.' That is the guiding principle of the Young Liberals. It is a pity they change suits and philosophies as they walk into this Parliament. I continue to quote the submission which I think is rather interesting and should be quoted in some length. It states: It is also important that Federal measures should not infringe upon constructive developments in some states . . . The Young Liberals are addressing their submission in this part to what could have been a Bill of Rights applying to the States. The submission continues: . . . it is not necessary nor possibly even desirable for the Commonwealth to cover the whole field. A provision could be contained in a Bill of Rights to allow state legislation or state Bills of Rights which are capable of operating concurrently with the national Bill if they further the desired objectives. The Young Liberal movement is contemplating a stronger Bill of Rights than the one for which we are experiencing histrionics from those on the opposite side, and they do go on as to whether we are doing this legally and properly or whether we are abusing the power under the Constitution. The Young Liberals have got some very clear views on this matter. The submission states: Any Bill of Rights as legislation of the Commonwealth Parliament would be based largely on the external affairs power-the validity of which has been placed beyond all doubt by the Tasmanian Dam Case (The Commonwealth v. Tasmania (1983) 57 ALJR 450). It does not dispute the validity of that sort of power and approach. We do not have to look at the left wing organisations to get some support for this particular approach to protecting civil liberties in this country, nor do we have to look at extreme right wing ones solely in opposition to an approach to protect civil liberties. We can look at an organisation such as the Victorian branch of the Young Liberal Movement of Australia and get support from it. We are not looking at a radical, revolutionary measure to destroy the constitutional system as we now have it. I mentioned the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. It should also be noted, in the context of making an assessment of what sort of legislation we have before us tonight, that the Committee unanimously decided that if we were to have a Bill of Rights in Australia it should have some application to the States. As I have said, and I have to repeat time and again to get the context accurate, the Bill before the Parliament does not do that. It was the unanimous attitude of senators that if we were to go along the path of a Bill of Rights, given the fact that most cases of infringement of civil liberties involve some sort of State laws or State administration, that particular aspect should not be excluded from the ambit of the Bill of Rights. State laws are those which normally infringe upon freedom of expression, freedom of assembly or the criminal pro- cess rights. State laws often are barriers, whether they are intended to be or not, to ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities enjoying their group rights under the International Covenant. I believe that it is unfortunate that we have not chosen to heed the advice of the Standing Committee to extend the ambit of the Bill of Rights to cover these provisions. However, be that as it may, as a marginal increase this Bill should be supported. I emphasise once again that this Bill is not a revolutionary, radical measure. It presents at a national level a body which will have an educative role and it gives us legislation which will act as a touch-stone in the interpretation of legislation which seeks to protect civil liberties in this country. Most importantly, it will limit the power of the national Parliament to enact laws inconsistent with it and to that extent it will protect the rights of individuals vis-a-vis the national Parliament. I do not see what members of the Opposition are jumping up and down about and why they are not concerned to give individuals rights against the parliamentary system which, over the years, given the entrenchment and the bureaucracy which has built around it, given the self-protection involved in those bureaucracies, has often forgotten the individual. I commend the Bill to the Parliament. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(8.52) —In a front page article in the Age of 8 December 1984 Michelle Grattan quoted a leading citizen of this country in an interview in the Catholic Leader. He said that the Bill raised enormous issues. He went on to say: All this Bill is trying to do is to hang on to an international covenant. It cannot alter the Constitution. It cannot override acts of Parliament. It can't entrench anything. He finished by saying: With these enormous issues, these problems it's got, I reckon the sensible thing to say about the Bill of Rights is: `This is causing too much contention. Why go ahead with it? Scrap it.' That leading Australian citizen is now the Attorney-General, the Hon. Lionel Bowen. I could not agree more. Yet the Attorney-General, who less than 18 months ago advised us to scrap it, has now introduced and rammed through the House of Representatives, using the numbers game, the Australian Bill of Rights Bill and associated Bills-the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill-which have become known as the Australian Bill of Rights. No other debate, since I have been in this chamber, has attracted so much attention or so many speakers. At last count over 30 have spoken. Every one of my colleagues in the National Party of Australia has taken part in this debate. It comes as no surprise to everybody that we are diametrically opposed to it and I am continuing that opposition. Senator Gareth Evans —It is a pity that the quality was not matched by the quantity. Senator COLLARD —Considering the great number of speakers, the quality of the debate has been quite good up to this point. Quite often we find in a long debate that the quality starts to drag off towards the end. The quality of the debate from the Opposition has been of a pretty high standing all the way through. It has been indicated that this package of human rights Bills is based on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was adopted by the United Nations in 1966. Senator Peter Durack mentioned that fact in an article in the Australian. He went on to say: The main purpose of the covenant was to advance throughout the world (a world largely composed of dictatorships of the Right or Left-many of a murderous disposition) the rights and freedoms which had been developed and enjoyed for many generations by democracies such as our own. Senator Durack, in a few succinct words, was telling us about the International Covenant and why we were original signatories to it. At the same time he said that there was very little need for us to have a Bill of Rights in Australia. Quite significantly it has been mentioned by many Opposition speakers that the countries of the world who are signatories to a Bill of Rights, or which have their own Bill of Rights, are not known as being paragons of virtue as far as the civil rights of their own citizens are concerned. Senator Walters, the Opposition speaker who preceded me, mentioned quite a few of those countries, such as the Warsaw Pact countries. No-one in his right mind would say, even though the citizens of those countries have a Bill of Rights, that they have the rights and privileges that we take for granted in this great country of ours. If the Government goes down the track of the Bill of Rights-we understand that it has been the Government's party policy since 1969 and that it has a philosophical bent towards these things-the immediate question is: What is the extra benefit? What will it add to the quality of life in this country? Government members who have spoken in this debate have not been able to answer that question adequately or at all. It will add nothing. Members of the Opposition, including myself, say that not only will it not add anything, but also it will subtract from the quality of life. There will be an added chance of mischief with the expanded Human Rights Commission when somebody makes a spurious complaint against another citizen. All Australians currently enjoy the protection of an independent judiciary under a common law system and a Parliament which is freely elected and responsible to the electors. It is a system inherited from the British common law system which is adaptable, evolutionary and has stood the best test of all, the test of time. It has the dual role of protecting the citizens while at the same time provides a maximum amount of individual freedom. I have always said, and many people in the Opposition have said, that the minute one starts to define people's rights, one immediately limits them. The proponents of this Bill argue that under the common law system a government is bound only by tradition and it is under no legal obligation to continue the rights that we now have. If such a government were in power, it would be extremely doubtful that any Bill of Rights would restrain it from bad behaviour. The common law system does not define an exhaustive list of what can be done, but such a list is intimated under this legislation. The common law allows each case to be treated on its merits and case precedents established over many years. The determinant is what society really believes is reasonable. My colleague, Senator Bjelke-Petersen, mentioned the words of the late Sir Robert Menzies. I quote again: To live in a common law country is in itself the very best guarantee of the rights of the individual. We knew that a Bill of Rights was around the ridges. Senator Gareth Evans, when he was Attorney-General, was dropping hints about it. We can thank Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen for warning the people, just prior to the 1984 election, of what was involved in that Bill of Rights. It was a great embarrassment to the Government at that time and was one of the many things which saw its election majority severely cut back. However, we now have the Bill of Rights and associated Bills before us. As I said earlier, they have literally been rammed through the House of Representatives using the numbers game. They were guillotined through. There was insufficient debate on the legislation generally, the clauses of the legislation and the amendments that the Opposition sought to move. Because of a lack of interest by the media it was hard to get a point of view over as to what the legislation was all about. However, the people of Australia are now waking up. There probably has been no piece of legislation in the 10 years that I have been in this chamber that has attracted so many speakers as this legislation has. Also I do not think I have been subject to such a concentrated campaign through the mail as I have in the last few weeks, particularly the last few days, from the people of Australia, who are showing their concern about the Bill of Rights and its contents. In hundreds of letters and telegrams being received by individual senators day by day as a result of this mailing campaign people are indicating their opposition to the Bill of Rights. I think we were almost taken by surprise today when we got one out of literally thousands of letters which was in favour of a Bill of Rights. Quite a number of senators quoted an article-I think Senator Bjelke-Petersen did this-that I think originally appeared in the Toowoomba Chronicle. Many papers in the provincial areas of Queensland have taken up this article. Obviously it appeared in the South Burnett Times, a great paper which represents a great area of Queensland. Senator Bjelke-Petersen —Exactly the best. Senator COLLARD —A responsible citizen and senator also resides in that area! Significantly, quite a deal of space was devoted to that article in papers right around Queensland. I think that article has been as responsible as anything else for waking up the people of Australia, the people of Queensland particularly, to what the Bill of Rights is all about and it started them on their writing campaign. As I have said, the Opposition has opposed the creation of a Bill of Rights. It has put up tremendously good arguments over a long period and our opposition will continue when this legislation is dealt with at the Committee stage. It is significant that the Government has used this Bill as a vehicle to once again blast Queensland's electoral laws, demonstrations and all the rest of it. Not once did honourable senators opposite seek to mention the disparity in the New South Wales electoral system. Most countries have weightage systems which favour rural electorates. The demography of Australia is such-I think I once worked out that about 70 per cent of the population live within 30 kilometres of the coast-that it probably needs a weightage system more than any other nation. Yet members of the Government seem hell-bent on imposing a system of one vote one value. Queensland has quite significantly followed a weightage system that was introduced by a Labor government. New South Wales had a similar scheme-instead of four zones I think it had three-which operated for many years. Yet because we have fought and beaten the Labor Party in Queensland using its own rules, Labor now wants to change the rules. Incredibly, the weightage in New South Wales is towards the city electorates. I would like to give four examples to illustrate the number of electors in country areas as against city electorates in New South Wales as at September 1985. The country electorates of Coffs Harbour and Gosford had 42,148 and 43,285 respectively, whereas the city electorates of Coogee and North Shore had 29,183 and 30,084 respectively. So there are in excess of 10,000 more electors in country electorates than in city electorates in New South Wales. Yet we have the Labor Party lecturing us when we have done no more or no less than it did in New South Wales. Queensland is doing no more or no less than is being done in other democracies of the world by accepting the need for weightage in favour of country electorates. Senator Bolkus also mentioned what has become known as the street march laws and argued that somehow or other this Bill would remedy that situation. I find it very hard to accept the proposition put forward by the Labor Party that the Bill of Rights would mean that the minority would have the right of way over the majority. All the Queensland Government has done has been to say that it does not believe that a minority should disrupt people who want to work and shop-people engaged in the natural process of commerce. We do not believe that these people should be interrupted by a minority. The Queensland Government said: `We will make available to you a place in which you can hold your demonstrations'. People in Brisbane can use the very fine Roma Street forum to protest against the government of the day or against anything else. Indeed, most responsible organisations which, it would be fair to say, protest against the Queensland Government or some action of the Queensland Government use that place. They see fit to use the places provided for them. However, there is always the minority who want to take to the streets, particularly at a time of peak hour traffic, and cause the greatest disruption. All that has happened is that the Queensland Government has said: `No, you cannot do that'. Yet I understand from what was said by Senator Bolkus that the minority could use the Bill of Rights and insist that they interrupt the majority as they go about their business. Australia is a great country. I am no different from any other person. I do not feel the need for a Bill of Rights. I do not have any problem with the law except perhaps a bit of over- exuberance with the right foot in my motor vehicle. However, I will not go down the track of discussing the way in which I think policemen are being used by governments as tax collectors. Other than that, I am no different from the vast majority of the people of Australia. I am free to do what I like provided I do not harm another person. The statutes of this land revolve around defining what I cannot do if I am not to harm another person. Like countless other people in this great country of course, I do not see any need, I do not feel any need, and never at any time in my life have I felt the need, for the Bill of Rights to protect me from anything. I join all other members of the Opposition in saying once again that we are diametrically opposed to this Bill of Rights. We see no need for it; there is no need for it; and none of the Government speakers has proved that there is a need for it. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(9.08) —I would like to begin my speech by seeking to refute some of the points made in the debate by honourable senators on the other side of the chamber and by some Australian Democrat speakers, particularly in respect of the need to refer this matter to a committee. The point made by many speakers on the other side is that the campaign of letter writing and obvious concern in the community is based on a series of misconceptions, that people have been misled, that falsehoods have been spread and so on. I think there has been no direct attempt to suggest that the Opposition has sought to mislead any one. Of course, I would deny it with great vigour. However, there has been a suggestion from the Government benches that the opposition to this legislation is based totally and overwhelmingly on misinformation, on deceit, on deception and on a campaign that is not based on truth. If those suggestions are made seriously, I suggest that, of all the arguments, to refer this matter to a committee is probably the most effective. If in fact there is massive misinformation, if there is a massive lack of understanding and confusion, clearly there is no merit in proceeding with this legislation at this moment, and it is most appropriate from the Government's own case that it be referred to a committee for appropriate and detailed examination. That being the case-in other words, the Government's position being totally undermined by its own approach to this discussion-let us see how inaccurate, how improper, the general level of these submissions by people really is. For example, I have here a letter from a constituent which reads as follows: Dear Sir, I am given to understand that in the next session of Parliament the proposed Bill of Rights is to be presented before the Senate to be debated. I wish to voice my protest at this proposed Bill. I assume that many other senators have received similar letters, but I think it is important that this protest, this kind of complaint, be recorded in Hansard. The letter continues: (1) Because of the fact that it adversely affects areas of great importance to freedom and liberty and because of the haste with which this legislation was passed through the House of Representatives. (2) In view of the fact that it is based upon the United Nations International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights which was accepted by the Warsaw pact countries, but which has been rejected by Great Britain and the United States of America. (3) Our Australian Constitution limits the power and rights of government stating that ``whereas we the people'' give you the government these rights. However, the proposed Bill of Rights states that ``we the government, give you the people these rights.'' At present our rights are protected by Common Law, the present Constitution and current legislation. The Bill of Rights reverses the nature of government in this country. (4) The proposed Bill transfers the power of interpretation of legislation to the Courts (an unelected body of people) taking said power of interpretation of legislation from the Parliament of Australia (the democratically elected institution.) (5) This same Bill of Rights is to be administered by the Human Rights Commission which is an unelected body of people given powers not subject to the normal processes of law-no appeal, no legal representation, and with closed hearings. I therefore write to request that you vote to reject this proposed Bill of Rights. If that letter represents confusion and lack of understanding, why should not the Government welcome any suggestion of a greater course of public education and seek a greater consensus on the matter, instead of rushing this legislation through the House of Representatives as it did, certainly without adequate discussion, and now seeking to get it through here. I think that it is important to note the comment in paragraph 3 of this letter about where the original rights reside. I think it is a fair point to say that in our society it is assumed that the basis of our rights is in fact the individual rights that we have and that we transfer these to the community in order to seek offsetting benefits, that we give up certain individual rights in order to achieve others, but we are the possessors of those rights. The people are the fount from which these rights spring, not governments. For any government to have the arrogance to assert that it will give people rights, that it is the source of rights, is to me a total nonsense. I think it is worth making another general point. In many instances the granting of rights and the imposition of laws aimed at protecting people have contrary consequences. I am reminded that under Roman law, for example, it was illegal to kill a virgin. That, I presume, was aimed at trying to prevent the murder of young girls. I think it was one of Agrippina's daughters who was to be killed. As a result, it was necessary, under the law, for her to be raped before she was killed so that her death would not infringe the Roman law. I make that as a general point. What is perceived to be in many instances the protection of a right simply induces people to find ways around that alleged protection. In other words, we do not protect rights by putting into law what appears to be legislation that protects them. This raises the next inevitable point, that is, that prescribing rights by establishing what they are generally, in effect, limits them. This follows naturally from the example I used of Roman law. Certainly in the commercial area the threat of law, the threat of constraint, is often more effective than the ultimate constraint itself when at last imposed. As every honourable senator here knows, once a regulatory law is introduced the people who are affected by it simply spend their time working out how to get around it. They look to the law and say: `if that is what the law says, anything the law does not say is therefore legal'. Instead of having the moral constraint of decent and proper behaviour, which in our society has in the past been far more effective than any black letter law, we now have a situation in which, because proper behaviour is legislated for, it is therefore assumed that any behaviour which can be seen not to be so legislated against is acceptable. One of the unfortunate developments in Australian society at the moment is that there is a tendency for lawyers-I do not want to be unkind to my many legal friends-to be engaged in commercial enterprises in which they appear to be spending a great deal of their time involved in finding out how to establish that a course of action can be achieved legally. There is an old saying that lawyers should always be on tap but never on top. It seems to me that the greater the development of legislation controlling behaviour in these areas, the greater the diminution of proper moral behaviour, the greater the diminution of the thing which dominated commercial business life, and that was that people behaved, to use the old fashioned term, like gentlemen, that it was not done, that a man's word was his bond and all those propositions which are now clearly not acceptable in the modern world, largely, I suggest, as a result of this incredible mad rush to legislate when in many instances it would be a far more acceptable, far more preferable, conclusion if the moral laws, the moral suasion, was allowed to be the major instrument. There are many instances where legislation is required. I am not suggesting that one should totally withdraw from legislating. I am simply making the point that it seems to me that in many of the areas covered in this legislation the need for black letter law does not exist, and black letter law will prescribe and therefore limit rights. This is the essential point to me. Just as many businessmen will seek to get around the constraints of commercial law once they are put down, so will a tyrannical centralist government. Let us face it, the Australian Labor Party is a centralist party and, judging from the sound that certain honourable senators opposite make, some of them have the potential to be tyrants. The reality is that a tyrant can quite simply and easily get around the black letter law allegedly preserving the rights of individuals just as a commercial adventurer gets around the laws relating to commercial misbehaviour. I suggest that the Roman law example I gave earlier is a clear indication of what would happen. I refer briefly to some of the points that were made by Senator Sir John Carrick in what I thought was a very persuasive speech. He noted that the socialist states had not allowed the inclusion of many rights in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights when it was passed by the United Nations. As I understand it, this Convention excluded from the Bill of Rights such things as the right to private ownership. I can understand why the Labor Party would not favour the right to private ownership. One has only to go to New South Wales where the private rights acquired by many people, at great expense, to coal under their properties were expropriated by that Government only a few years ago. Not one cent of compensation has been paid, nor is it likely to be paid, despite promises, because we all know what a Labor Party promise is like. It is no wonder that members of the Labor Party, who are sitting temporarily on the Government benches, are certainly very happy to see a so-called Bill of Rights which affords no protection at all to the rights of private ownership. As Sir John pointed out, the proposed legislation does not protect the right to lawful trade or occupation and the right not to join an association. In other words, the Labor Party would clearly not favour any Bill of Rights which gave an individual in Australia the right not to be a member of a union. It cannot do that because the Australian Council of Trade Unions would not allow it to do so. So we have here clear examples of where, deliberately by the Labor Party, these rights are being excluded from the legislation. As I suggested earlier, the exclusion of specific rights from such legislation may well be held to indicate that they do not exist and that they should not be an important part of our society when in fact they are being savagely attacked, as Mr Wran savagely attacked them in New South Wales by expropriating those coal rights. It is important to recognise that when certain clear rights are excluded from this kind of legislation there is an inference that they are not sufficiently significant to be in such legislation and, therefore, are not in need of protection. But that exists only if one accepts the proposition that there is any need for the legislation in the first place. That is one of the points I wish to discuss now. Is there a need for this legislation? There are many societies in which the group right is regarded as more important than the individual right. We have seen that through history. We see it in current days. I suggest that in nations such as Indonesia, where there are 100 million people crowded on to one small island of Java which, I think, is smaller than Victoria, it is self-evident that their society considers that the group right, with so many people crowded there, is more important than the individual right. No matter how offensive we may find that, nonetheless it appears that the way they have established historically is the way to run their society successfully. Through history we have seen many examples of the group right being far more significant than the individual right. Where there are conflicts between these two-that is, the group right and the individual right-clearly we have difficulties when we look at human rights legislation. I argue a further point that the whole concept of human rights as seen in this legislation which, of course, stems from the United Nations Convention, is basically a nonsense because it confuses the concept of natural or human rights-in other words, civil liberties-which, of course, are clearly the enemy of the state. The greatest risk to civil liberties comes from the intrusive state. It confuses these rights with the socio-economic rights which are, in fact, granted by the state. So, on the one hand, one has civil liberty rights, human natural rights, which the state generally impinges on and which involve people being in conflict with the state generally, as against the socio-economic rights which are granted by the state. This Bill fails to distinguish between these two rights. The reality is that these two separate kinds of rights are often in conflict. The political situation in Australia suggests this. The ALP tends to consider, in its legislation at least if not in its rhetoric, that the socio-economic rights are paramount whenever there is a conflict between civil rights and socio-economic rights. In the ALP's terms, socio-economic rights would be paramount, whereas the Liberal Party tends to the view that civil rights, individual rights, are paramount in those conflicts. As far as this legislation is concerned, there is no difference when, of course, there is a monumental difference both in nature and in consequence between these two kinds of rights. I am indebted to a very interesting paper prepared recently by Professor Eugene Kamenka about human rights. He pointed out that a marxist legal philosopher, Herman Klenner, in a paper circulated at the World Congress on Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy held in Sydney and Canberra in August 1977, said: Human rights are neither eternal truths nor supreme values . . . They are not valid everywhere nor for an unlimited time. They are rooted neither in the conscience of the individual nor in a God's plan of creation. They are of earthly origin . . . a comparatively late product in the history of human society-and their implementation does not lie in everybody's interest. In their essentials, man's interests are not the same everywhere and they cannot even be the same in any particular country under the conditions of the system of private ownership of the means of production. That in itself indicates quite clearly that the claim of universality over the human rights on which this Bill now rests is a nonsense claim because, in fact, these are conflicting rights. They are not the same for different people, even within the same society. Kamenka continued: The UNESCO campaign to promote human rights, being an international campaign directed at all countries and people, has been accompanied by an understandable attempt to deny or to soft-pedal the suggestion that the belief in human rights as a great moral value is a specifically western or Judaeo-Christian contribution to the world. On the contrary, it is claimed, such a belief is to be found in all the great moral documents of mankind, and in all its aspirations since primitive times. As Kamenka says, that is simply untrue. He continued: If the concept of rights is to have any specific meaning, is to be not an empty abstraction but a concept that involves and promotes a view of man and society . . . The concept of human rights is a historical product which evolves in Europe, out of foundations in Christianity, Stoicism and Roman law . . . but which gains force and direction only with the contractual and pluralist nature of European feudalism, church struggles and the rise of Protestantism and cities. It sees society as an association of individuals, as founded-logically or historically-on a contract between them, and it elevates the individual human person and his freedom and happiness to be the goal and end of all human association. That is a totally separate concept of rights from these socio-economic rights which the Government manages to confuse with human rights. Kamenka says that the Greeks, like the Chinese, saw man in a familial social and cosmic setting and their concern was not with rights but with duties, balance, harmony, Confucian rights and ceremonies with a balance that transcended the individual. They saw society as part of a great cosmic pattern resting on a network of obligations, not just to individuals but to forces and institutions, human and divine, that shaped and transcended such individuals. Even in Roman law, as the Romans and their immediate successors knew it, there was a concept of right and duties, but no concept of rights. The growing belief in natural or human rights, as those in the eighteenth century saw them, is the story of the rise of individualism and the theory and practice of society. The eighteenth and nineteenth century emphasis on human rights was, it is often said, on those human rights that are called civil liberties and the chief enemy of human rights was seen as the state. We can see that in the way that the Australian Labor Party tends to govern. It has an intrusive style of government; the state tends to intrude on civil liberties and rights of individuals in order to provide, in its view, the socio-economic rights that the Labor Party considers paramount. By the end of the nineteenth century all those who were hoping for radical reform of Western society, or of other societies, through state-initiated action, began to recognise that the classical conception of human or natural rights stood in the way of such State action. There is absolutely no doubt about it-the granting of these socio-economic rights involved a clear conflict with traditional human rights and civil liberties. Movements developed, like Marxism and utilitarianism, which saw human rights as fundamentally subordinate to other values, or treated them with great suspicion. That is of major significance because it is in those societies which have developed from those kinds of attitudes that one finds acceptance of this Bill of Rights and the underwriting of and support for this Bill of Rights, and that support relates not to the human rights as we understand them-the civil liberties-but to the socio-economic rights. I would suggest that these are clearly in conflict; the history of the world shows them to have been in conflict and the Liberal Party, by its tradition, has been the defender of these individual civil liberty rights, not the socio-economic rights which the Labor Party holds paramount. Since the Second World War there has been a great emphasis on human rights other than classical civil liberties, according to Kamenka. The emphasis has been on socio-economic rights and on the rights of groups or classes or nations. The recognition that the promotion of socio-economic rights, as rights to benefit from the State, stand in great tension with civil liberties may be often deliberately obscured, but it is nevertheless widespread and it is, of course, a correct recognition. The traditional civil liberties, many have correctly recognised, require institutional settings, historical traditions and a sense of community. Those do not exist in any of the authoritarian nations of the world which have embraced the covenant on which this legislation is based. The socio-economic rights can, in principle, be granted by the state, even by a state which suppresses all non-state organisations and institutions, says Kamenka. Of course, that is really what this Bill of Rights is all about. It has nothing to do with natural human civil liberty rights, it has to do with the socio-economic rights which are the dogma of the Labor Party and which are the acceptable tradition of those authoritarian and totalitarian nations which have no concern for individual rights. According to Kamenka, some of the current demands are for an extension of the traditional eighteenth century conceptions of individual autonomy against previously exempted institutions, such as the family and the school and to people such as women and children, to whom these rights were not always applied. Other demands-that is, demands for group rights and for social and economic benefits claimed as rights-are demands in substance for far-reaching state control and intervention at the expense of other individual rights. Surely this is the crux of any discussion of human rights: To what extent are the rights of civil liberty, of individual natural rights, limited by the move which many of us may argue is important, the move towards some other rights, socio-economic rights and group rights. These are rights which become prominent only because of effective lobbying-the `squeaky hinge syndrome' of specific lobby groups represented in most instances by the Australian Democrats. The Democrats are not represented here in the chamber at the moment. They are so concerned for human rights they are not here. But it is interesting to note that in many instances there is a perception of the need to grant these socio-economic rights, not because of the merit of the case but because of the squeakiness of the hinge and the political clout of the people concerned, particularly when they may hold the balance of power in a parliament. The reality is that where there is a conflict in those instances between what we understand as the natural rights, the human rights that have been developed in our style of society, members of the Labor Party and in many instances the Australian Democrats will prefer to do something that damages our inherent human rights and it seems to me that this legislation goes straight down that path. As Kamenka says, the current substitution of `human' for the word `natural' in the concept of natural rights is a recognition of the fact that belief in the law of nature is not strong today. But the doctrine of human rights still attempts to suggest without specifically stating it that rights are, in some essential sense, part of the concept of being human. Kamenka points out that when we say that X has a human right to Y, rather than a legal right under a specific code or set of laws in a specific society, we are making not an empirical but a moral assertion. I have to say this: I would much rather that our rights depended on a moral recognition, a historic recognition of what we are as people, rather than a legal, limiting, prescribing black letter law which states what those rights are specifically and by exclusion indicates that many of the other things that we now hold to be rights are not such. It seems to me that the very concept of this legislation is in error; the very approach by the Labor Party in supporting it is authoritarian and puts at risk those human and natural rights, those civil liberties which I, frankly, hold far more dear. Senator HILL(South Australia)(9.38) —One of the most important subjects that we could be debating is how basic human rights should be best protected. Therefore, it is not surprising that there has been such a long speaking list in this debate. The Senate's own Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs sought to contribute to this debate by an exposure draft put down late last year. In a dispassionate and objective way the Committee sought to address the debate, not in terms of any particular Bill and certainly not in terms of this Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985, but in terms of the issues involved. These issues of whether a statutory Bill of Rights is the best way to further preserve and enhance human rights are complex in themselves. The constitutional entrenchment, the regulation of both past and future legislation, the involvement of the States-whether the States should be bound-whether such a Bill of Rights should bind private individuals as well as the States and whether it should also bind the Executive, what exemptions are legitimate, questions of enforcement and remedies are all complex and worthy of serious consideration. I remind the Senate that that is what the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs attempted to do late last year, and to which I contributed. I hope that we assisted the Senate to that end. There are many precedents for Bills of Rights as the Senate heard earlier in this debate. The United States Bill of Rights is the one most often referred to, and some seem to think it is the only precedent. Clearly, that is not so. Many of Britain's former colonies now have Bills of Rights. Probably the one most relevant to our consideration in this debate, and to which we should pay particular attention, is the recent Canadian Bill of Rights. That is the most relevant because of the considerable similarity of the federal system in Canada to our system. Therefore, it is important to examine how that country has attempted to wrestle with the questions which our proposed legislation should deal with. I remind the Senate that the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs addressed all of these questions and others in an effort to reduce the hysteria which seems to surround this subject. I have concluded that a Bill of Rights is not the best way to go in this country, but it is clearly a legitimate option to be considered. It deserves serious debate and debate based on facts not on hysteria. A serious study of the subject brings home just how fragile is the base for the fundamental rights which we take for granted in this country. We certainly take them for granted. No doubt we take them for granted because of the very nature of the society in which we live. We put that point in the report to which I referred right at the beginning of my speech. Point 1.2 of the report stated: As Australians we are fortunate to live in a democratic and pluralistic society which, by any standards, accords a high respect to the dignity of the individual and which recognises many rights and freedoms consequent on that dignity, As soon as a society takes for granted something so precious, I suggest, it puts at risk that which it sees as so precious. In fact, what the Committee did was to address what our fundamental rights are and to examine critically, but constructively, the complex of laws, institutions and traditions which we have to protect them. The fact that we were criticised even for doing that causes me and some others to wonder about the security of such safeguards. We looked at the constitutionally entrenched provisions. Earlier in this debate I heard honourable senators say that our Constitution protects fundamental human rights, but we found very few such protections in our Constitution. Of those that exist, electoral guarantees in section 41, just terms for compulsory acquisition of property in section 51, placitum (xxxi), jury trials in section 80, and freedom of religion in section 116 have been interpreted by the courts extremely narrowly. A study of the matter reveals that the security offered by the Constitution simply is not what some might expect. Our Constitution has not been structured to protect such basic human rights. Therefore, we do not find such protection in that document. The Committee logically then looked at the role of the courts and the common law. Again, we hear and read so often in correspondence on this matter that all we need to rely on is the common law and that human rights are adequately protected by the common law. Again, in a quiet and logical study of the role which the common law has played in this area we find that that also is not so. We attempted in our report to give credit where credit was due to the common law. We made reference in the field of administrative law to the extensions of areas of natural justice and to the procedural safeguards developed in the criminal law. We again pointed out the shortfalls. To say that protection of fundamental rights is safeguarded in the common law is clearly invalid. I remind the Senate that in point 2.33 of the report we stated: Many Australians think that the common law protects their fundamental rights. However, fundamental rights such as the right to vote, the right to practise religion freely, and the right to seek employment without being discriminated against on account of race or sex are not recognised at common law. The report then looked at the relevant court decisions which tended to substantiate what had just been said in the report. We looked at the role of the Parliament and of legislation. I guess the Parliament has been modestly active in this area, if I can put it in those terms. We have seen, through legislation, the setting up of the Office of the Ombudsman and the Freedom of Information Act and other Acts of that nature to protect individuals from abuse of government power. We certainly do not find any comprehensive legislative program adopted in this country to protect our basic human rights. The conclusion that we reached-we believe unemotionally and logically-was that protections for basic human rights are not clearly enumerated or embodied within the Constitution of Australia, its legislation or the common law. Rather than enact our own individual national set of basic human rights in this country we have become part of the international regime for the protection of human rights. I applaud that approach. In other words, we recognise that these rights are a basic entitlement of man. We claim that they arise from the dignity and individuality of man and therefore should be respected, are basic rights to which individuals throughout the world community should be entitled, and are not rights which simply are developed from time to time by a state for that state's interests. The function of nation states within the world community-logically one could say this follows-is to protect those rights in such ways as is necessary within their own domestic structures. Australia has embraced the international regime for the protection of human rights, I am pleased to say, both in fact and in practice. I make reference to what I believe is an excellent background information paper prepared last year by the Parliamentary Library which looked at the history of this subject. At the bottom of page 12 of this paper it is stated: Since 1945, over 40 international conventions on human rights have been adopted, covering slavery, forced labour and traffic in persons; marriage and family life; the protection of labour in industry, agriculture and shipping; freedom of the Press; the protection of prisoners and civilians in armed conflict. Most of these conventions have either renewed or elaborated in older conventions but the significant new conventions were the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. In fact, I know that some people who have written on the subject now claim that over 60 different conventions cover various aspects of internationally accepted basic human rights. As I say, the Australian way basically has been to adopt those conventions through the ratification procedure and by putting them into practice. If we compare our action with that of the United States, for example, we will see that it has not been prepared to become party to, say, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights because it has argued that its domestic Bill of Rights efficiently serves that purpose. If we look at some other countries that have become parties to the covenants we see that regrettably, as some of my colleagues have said, some countries, particularly some of the Eastern bloc countries, have become parties in fact but certainly have not complied in practice with either the spirit or the detail of those conventions. It has been something of pride that in Australia not only have we been prepared to become a party to this international recognition and regime but also have practised the principles. I do not claim, naturally enough, that the international covenants are perfect or that they are the product of any perfect being. They have the marks and failings of politics and compromise. However, I think on a dispassionate reading of the documents they are not a bad set of basic principles to adhere to. Given that we are a party to that international regime, and that that is the way that we have chosen in the past to go about protecting such rights, the question has become and becomes in this debate one of how best to meet our responsibility thereunder. Apart from introducing specific pieces of legislation to deal with specific enforcements-I mentioned a couple a while ago, and I add the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, which is principally under another covenant-the approach of the former Liberal-National Party Government was to enact the Human Rights Commission Act. The logic, the rationale, behind that piece of legislation was that it would be concerned with achieving compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights through the education of governments, the community and the Parliament and, at the breach level, through a process of conciliation; in other words, the approach was to set up a structure which emphasised policy development, legislative review and conciliation in the case of complaints. Much has been written and said about the Human Rights Commission but, on a reasonably balanced appraisal, one would say that it has done its work quite well. With regard to its complaint-hearing procedures, it has stated, and I have no reason to doubt it, that to December 1985 it dealt with 9,882 complaints, and it seems to have been able to dispose of most of them using the conciliation procedure. The performance of the Commission in its promotion and community education has been reasonable. In its role of reporting to the Parliament and educating and advising the Parliament in these matters it has produced 16-odd reports, most of which I have read and most of which I think are good and helpful documents. On balance, I think that the Commission has done pretty much the job that the former Liberal-National Party Government expected of it, and it has played its part in contributing to Australia's method of dealing with and protecting basic human rights. The Commission obviously operates in a delicate area and it is obviously important that it must be particularly careful, unbiased and balanced in the way in which it deals with those very delicate matters. I therefore have to say on the other side of the coin that there are matters being dealt with by the Commission that do cause me concern. One subject that has been mentioned today in the Senate is a paper prepared on teaching for human rights by Ralph Pettman. I shall quote briefly what it says in relation to the family. The paper states: In Australia-a liberal, capitalist, multicultural democracy, with social welfare proclivities, a highly stratified class structure, a value system that is secular, racist, sexist, and materialistic-the family reflects and promotes this fact. I do not think that is the case. I do not think that statement can stand on any balanced appraisal. I would be concerned if a statement in those terms were available in our schools. I turn to what the paper says about something which is reasonably dear to me, and that is capitalism. Looking around the world, I can see how many people have benefited materially and otherwise from capitalist societies. The paper states: There has been mass assassination, too, by more covert and indirect means. The construction of a capitalist world economy, predicated upon dishonesty and greed, has slaughtered uncounted millions the world over through the exploitation and the mis-development of global resources. The United States and the other erstwhile `free market' democracies have much to answer for in this regard. Senator Michael Baume —What of the authoritarian states? Senator HILL —I find no mention of authoritarian societies, and that concerns me. Nobody says that the capitalist system is perfect. That is why it has masses of legislation to guide and direct it. That paper is not the balanced sort of material that the Human Rights Commission should be putting out. When it puts out rubbish of that nature, it does itself a disservice and it makes it hard for people such as me who are prepared to give it credit for all the good work it does. I think that most Australians would hold the same view. On balance, I am prepared to say that I believe that it has been a worthwhile body, making a worthwhile contribution. Certainly, as a legislator, I have found its reports of help. Comparing the approach of the Liberal and National parties of the past with what is being proposed by the Labor Government today, the Labor Party has a different approach. Since 1969, it has had as part of its platform the introduction of a Bill of Rights. It introduced a Federal Bill of Rights in late 1973. That Bill was to be binding on the Federal Government, States, local officials and State parliaments. It provided individual remedies, and the Human Rights Commission was to take action on behalf of aggrieved persons. That Bill lapsed when Parliament was prorogued in February 1974 and it was not reintroduced. The Labor Party, on returning to office, reaffirmed its commitment to the introduction of a Bill of Rights. We now have this Bill before us. What is the scheme that is proposed in this Bill? What does it seek to do in the area of the protection of human rights? I plagiarise the explanatory memorandum in saying that the Bill is an attempt to operate at two levels. With regard to the first level, the explanatory memorandum states: The Bill of Rights is to operate as a guide to the judicial interpretation of the Commonwealth and Territory (other than Northern Territory) laws, so that as far as possible laws are construed in such a way as not to conflict with the Bill of Rights: The second point is: The Bill of Rights is itself to have the force of law so that when any future Commonwealth or Territory (other than Northern Territory) law (and, after 5 years, any earlier Commonwealth or Territory law) conflicts with the Bill of Rights, the Bill of Rights will prevail and the inconsistent law will be inoperative (or repealed). I do not think that this is the best way to achieve the goal of enhancing or further entrenching the protection of human rights in this country. The Bill restates certain of the terms of the Covenant in equally broad and vague language, with expressions of sentiment which, by virtue of this Bill, will become part of the domestic law of this country and require interpretation, but expressions often by their nature not capable of precise interpretation. So the responsibility of interpretation would pass to the judiciary. I have no wish to encourage members of the judiciary in this country to impose their own values and policies on government. Policy-oriented judicial activism might be, by the United States Bill of Rights, part of the United States political process but it is not ours. I suggest that it would be better to look to introducing detailed legislation in this country to implement effectively such of the provisions of the Covenant as are necessary to be implemented from time to time. We have the Racial Discrimination Act, the Sex Discrimination Act, and so forth. We should have detailed pieces of legislation which are capable of much more precise interpretation and which therefore do not give to the judiciary the responsibility, in effect, of becoming legislators. That preference that our side of politics has advocated places a high responsibility on Parliament and on the legislative process. I appreciate that it might be argued that from time to time Parliament has not only legislated to protect human rights but also encroached upon them. At least in the legislative process we, unlike the judiciary, are subject to the ultimate judgment of the people. If the people are unhappy with the legislative direction of a government, they can vote that government out. I refer again to the Senate Committee report to quote the words of Dr Ken Wiltshire which are reported at point 2.83. He said: On balance my preference is always for Parliaments. I believe in a true democracy parliament ought to be our first avenue of redress of grievances. That is an entrenched belief of mine. However, government being as large as it is and it is one of the highest incidences of government in the Western world, bureaucracy being as large as it is-one in three employees in Australia works for a bureaucracy of some kind-and society being as complex as it is, I wonder if we do not have an unfair expectation of Parliament serving as a control and scrutiny device . . . I think the logistics of our government today make it very difficult for Parliament to serve the same role as it used to serve in the Victorian era when the Westminster model was refined, when government was small, government was weak and government intruded very little into people's lives. That tends to indicate that whereas legislation in the Parliament is the correct avenue to move along, the Parliament requires the assistance of other mechanisms. That is why I see so much value in an effective and balanced Human Rights Commission; a Human Rights Commission that has the capacity to assist the Parliament in its investigations, in its reports to the Parliament and in the other ways which I detailed a little while ago. Furthermore, this approach, the Opposition's approach, overcomes the problem that most rights and freedoms cannot exist in absolute and unqualified terms. Most will have to be qualified so as to protect other individuals' rights and freedoms, and even so as to protect some general public interests. I think that is conceded, but again we find in this Bill the same general terms that cannot effectively do that. Therefore, I advocate more specific legislation to enhance and protect particular freedoms, as has been the practice in the past. As I have indicated, I support what I call this traditional approach of the Opposition. I applaud the work that was done by the previous Liberal-National Party Government and Senator Durack, who has been playing a significant part in this debate. I suggest that perhaps we could have been a little more game in the past. I know that not all of my colleagues would agree with this view. But in this area of fundamental human rights, I have no problem with the Commonwealth Parliament, a party to the individual conventions, binding the States in relation to basic human rights. Of course, the Parliament is obliged to do so under the Covenant to which it is a party. Point 4.34 of the Committee's report referred to submissions by Mr J. Herlihy and Mr W. B. Lane, who argued: The level of protection of fundamental rights in Australia should not be determined on a State to State basis. All Australian citizens, regardless of which State they reside in are equally entitled to the same measure of protection. That seems to me to be a reasonable statement in the circumstances of talking about fundamental, basic human rights, not matters that are of a State interest. That is the sentiment I adopted in regard to another matter I referred to earlier tonight, the Tasmanian dams case. If we are talking about natural heritage of world significance, part of the world heritage, I do not think State by State legislation is the correct way in which to proceed. The Australian Parliament, the national Parliament, should have matured to the extent that it can deal with these matters. Again, I would be more game on the question of international adjudication. I support the position that was put to the Committee by the United Nations Association, to which I referred the Senate, at point 6.4 of the report: A major argument on behalf of the Association was that by submitting itself to the possibility of individual petition, Australia would put itself in a better position to put pressure on other nations to observe international human rights standards. That is the view I hold. I think we should not be so concerned with what I have heard, that nations who are less democratic would be in some way passing judgment. If we are sufficiently confident of the standards we have in the area of human rights in this country, why be frightened of international adjudication? Why not be prepared to set the standard and therefore be in a better position to demand others to comply with a similar standard? In summary, I submit to the Senate that the practice and process that have been adopted in the past-that we are part of an international regime of protection of human rights-are the best way for us to proceed and continue to proceed. I would support and encourage that action. I would support the enactment of specific detailed legislation when it is necessary to implement covenants within the domestic law of this country. I therefore leave the prime responsibility for that purpose with the people's representatives, the legislature. I would have the Human Rights Commission able and willing to assist the Parliament in its task of legislating and to guide and educate the public in the importance of meeting the international standard that governments and the legislature have accepted. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(10.06) —I would like to speak to the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 and associated legislation. I first acknowledge the vast numbers of representations I have received by petition, visit, phone and certainly by mail. Thousands of interested, ordinary people who have been concerned about the issue have been in contact with me. They are not people who have been manipulated. They are not people who have been coerced, lied to, threatened or whatever else has been alleged today. These people, if the Government and the Australian Democrats had just stopped to listen, are telling them that they do not want a Bill of Rights, that they did not ask for a Bill of Rights, that the Bill was not part of the election undertakings of the Government and that the Bill before us will never provide us with any rights that we do not currently have. I will not quote Sir Harry Gibbs as I have heard him quoted many times. But I would refer to his comment, and I am sure every senator is well aware of the significance of it. We are signatories to an International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. So what? What has that Covenant done for the people of the signatory countries which have human rights problems? On the day on which the Covenant was opened for signature in New York, on 19 December 1966, it had six first-day signatories: Costa Rica, Cyprus, Honduras, Israel, Jamaica and the Philippines. I think it is fair to ask: How helpful has this declaration been to them? Let us look at the others: Afghanistan, Argentina, Chile, Kampuchea, Iran, Kenya, Lebanon, Libya and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I wonder how much benefit those countries have derived from being signatories and how much benefit there has been for the people of those signatory countries. I do not think we want to share in the sort of human rights that goes with being a member of one of those countries. This Bill is another way in which the Government wishes to bypass the Constitution. I respect our Constitution. It is a fine Constitution and I will certainly fight changes that are proposed for change's sake or any efforts that are made to weaken the Constitution that was set up by a bunch of brilliant people and who, fortunately for us, had a lot more brains than those who would try to change it now. The aim of this legislation is to use some obscure international piece of paper which has already proved to be useless and worthless for the purpose for which allegedly it exists. We are obviously under a manoeuvre to become more internationalised as we go on. If those who wished to promote this Bill had their way they would have us singing the Internationale as part of it. It may be of interest to honourable senators in the chamber to know that in the World Human Rights Guide by Charles Humana published in 1983, Australia with no Bill was rated at 93 per cent, whereas countries such as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics with a Bill was rated at 27 per cent on a world average of 64 per cent. I am not quite sure what we are trying to achieve and at what cost this would be obtained. I also wonder what good a Bill of Rights was to Anatoly Shcharansky. After spending 12 years in a Russian prison I really do not think he is thrilled with the possibilities of having a Bill of Rights in his country. Many of the communications that I have received have come from people who are heavily motivated and have a strong religious faith, people concerned about the wellbeing of others and people whose beliefs are to help one another. It is the political aspect that could wreck their humanitarian beliefs. Many of these people come from community groups. We have received letters from organisations such as the Country Women's Association, various service organisations and clubs, local councils and even the Defence of Government Schools. These are organisations with no apparent political links but which are wise enough not to trust something like this which the Government is not prepared to raise as an election issue or by way of referendum. They object to the desire and intention to jam the Bill through in this manner. If it were fair and above board, why would the Government not take the trouble to explain it, as was the case with the previous referenda, the various employment schemes or whatever? But there has been no effort by the Government to give the people who have been pouring in all these inquiries any information at all. Why not leave it on the table for two or three months if it is quite okay? The Government admits to nothing that makes this job urgent. Why disturb the ordinary people by making it look as if it is shonky. I think even Senator Gareth Evans would understand that the perception is important and he has previously fallen foul of these perceptions. I would have thought that he would have learned something from that. However, if all these letters and communications were doubtful in the minds of some of the government speakers, what about the comments that have been made by the media? The Mercury of 14 March last year had the headline `Qualms about Bill of Rights'; the Adelaide Advertiser of 11 July 1985 `Caution on Rights Bill'; the Courier-Mail of 15 July 1985 `The costs and the benefits'; the Canberra Times of 25 October 1985 `Bill of Rights fails to protect rights that should be absolute'; the Australian of 7 November 1985 `Ensuring our rights', but there is no evidence that the Bill of Rights would provide better protection; the Sydney Morning Herald of 11 November 1985 `Bill of rights, or wrong bill?'; the Toowoomba Chronicle of 16 November 1985 `Does Bill of Rights really protect?'; the Diamond Valley News of 19 November `Big dangers in the new Bill of Rights'; the Australian of 20 November 1985 `Propaganda, says Macquarie man' and `Human Rights Bill ``more likely to take away rights'' '; the Melbourne Herald of 22 November 1985 `A sinister plot to take away our rights'; the Hobart Mercury of 21 January 1986 `Bill of Rights misses more than it covers'; and the Burnie Advocate `Do we need a Rights Bill?'. None of these are manipulated, coerced, lied to or threatened as has been suggested is required if we want to make people support the legislation. This is the voice of the free Press. Senator Gareth Evans —What did you think of the Illawarra Mercury, when it said: `Lies, lies, lies'? Is that the voice of the free Press? Senator ARCHER —I realise that Senator Gareth Evans and his colleagues would like the right to be able to stifle the free Press. My involvement in the matter of crime has caused me to read the appropriate articles over and over again. Senator Aulich —But what about suppression-- Senator ARCHER —Oh, go and drop dead, will you. Articles 12, 19, 21, 22 and 23 make the fulfilment of the work of the legal system much more difficult. The Bill contains provisions which will make many important police powers much more difficult to undertake. I fail to see that it is in the interests of justice to provide issues that will only make it easier, better and safer for criminals. This legislation is, undoubtedly, designed to ensure that crooks get the best end of the law. The Bill gives the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission the power to investigate the laws, actions and practices of State government and State authorities. It certainly gives the Commission power to interfere in State matters when the States need the best powers possible if they are to be as effective as possible. There are many areas where the legislation, as proposed, would make it more difficult. For instance, Article 12 of the Bill sweeps away the sensible and flexible common law rules relating to search and seizure by police and replaces them with more limited powers. I have an example here that I have been given. If a policeman enters a house with a warrant to search for stolen property, but finds both stolen property and counterfeiting tools, the existing law permits him to seize both the tools and the stolen property. Article 12 will deny the policeman the right to seize the tools in such circumstances and will permit the occupier of the house to order the policeman from the premises as a trespasser. Is that the sort of example honourable senators would like? If the police attend a property with a warrant to arrest a certain person and find that Darcy Dugan is there, or someone else at the same time, they are unable to arrest that person because they do not have a warrant for his arrest. Is that ridiculous, or is it not? If a policeman sees an armed robber fleeing the bank, the existing law does not require the policeman to explain the reason for arrest, but under this proposal he has got to be able to give the person the exact and correct reason for the arrest, or it can be held to be an improper arrest. Senator Haines —Don't you think someone ought to know why he is being picked up by some policeman? Senator ARCHER —If one is on the side of the criminals, yes I do. I remember the time that Senator Chipp came into this House making all sorts of important statements about the apprehension of criminals who were involved in drugs and so on. If he wishes now to support legislation which would make it virtually impossible to inspect property and arrest people in the interests of trying to find drugs or drug-related people, so be it, but that is up to him. Senator Gareth Evans —What expert in criminal law did you get this load of codswallop from? Senator ARCHER —I am sure that even Senator Gareth Evans would be happy to admit that there has been a deterioration in the present conditions. Anybody could be confronted by an organisation which is headed by someone who has been appointed without any legal background, and is requested to go through a whole range of procedures in a form that is laid down. I am sure Senator Gareth Evans would agree that that is probably exactly the way it is done in Bulgaria, Kampuchea or Poland. I believe that this is a completely inadequate and improper way for us to attend to the justice that we have in this country. I believe that even Senator Tate was correct when he said that it should be stripped of any final decision-making power. That alone would be a very good start. I suggest that it should be followed. The primary requirement for most of the Government speakers and the Australian Demo- crat speakers seems to have been to attack Queensland. I realise that it is very unpleasant for the Government to have Queensland under a government other than the one it would prefer. I believe that if those speakers stopped and had a look at the problem, they would realise that the problem is that they are just uncomfortable about having no control over Queensland. They cannot get control of Tasmania. They all attacked Queensland and the only one who attacked Tasmania was Senator Sanders. It is rather ungrateful of Senator Sanders to attack the State that has given him a home and some rights. I hope that he is given the right to leave quickly and quietly, if he can find somewhere else which will have him. Government members have given an absolute commitment that Queensland has to be dealt with in one way or another. If that is what it is all about, why are we going through the charade of putting up a Bill of Rights and all the things that go with it if what we are talking about is a `do Queensland' Bill? If it is a case of gaining electoral equality and fairness, we have to make sure that that is what we are after. I am not sure whether that is what we are after or whether it is a matter of how we go about winning, because winning seems to be the important thing. Senator Haines —It certainly is in Queensland. Senator ARCHER —It is in most places. I wonder whether senators have read the Age today. Its editorial states: Labor's Socialist Left is not averse to electoral engineering in contempt of democratic principles. Its malign influence was behind a resolution of the party's state conference last October which, if implemented, would eliminate minority parties-including the National Party-from the Legislative Council and to disenfranchise more than 200,000 Victorians. Before the last election, the Premier, Mr Cain, promised to introduce proportional representation in elections for the Legislative Council if Labor won control of both Houses of Parliament. On this understanding, the Australian Democrats urged their supporters to give their preferences to Labor candidates. As it happened, the Cain Government did not win a majority in the upper house. Ironically, this was partly due to the failure of the Democrats to deliver sufficient preferences in the crucial contest for the Nunawading province. But then the ALP conference imposed the condition that if proportional representation were introduced a party would have to win at least 10 per cent of the vote in the State as a whole for its candidates to be elected . . . What is neither understandable nor excusable is that Mr Cain should accept this audacious proposal, which is not only undemocratic but politically foolish. The Liberals would be the main beneficiaries of the elimination of the Nationals and Labor could kiss goodbye any future preferences from the Democrats. Indeed, the Democrats may have already concluded that Labor is not to be trusted. We have all known that for a long time, but I am sorry that it has taken the Democrats this long to find out. Senator Bolkus has been breast beating about the righteousness of the Labor Party and how all it wants to do is to get a fair go; but a fair go at whoever it is going for. I believe that this very clearly demonstrates the absolute hot air that has gone with this debate and the real reasons behind it. It all comes back to the fact that the Government is prepared to pull any piece of legislation that it thinks will get a winning hand. We all appreciate that and know that is the case, but I am grateful to the Age for having confirmed it. We are talking about rights. What are the rights of these people in New South Wales who owned coal bearing land and who paid for it as such? What are their rights? Senator Haines —None, absolutely none; and they will not be helped unless you make it apply to the States. Senator ARCHER —Would this Bill have helped them? No, it would not. What about the constitutional rights of the States? Will we be looking after them of not? No, we will not. We will override those. Comments by both Government and Democrat members have made it clear that they favour the destruction of the States and the Federation. We have heard that several times today from various speakers. It has been said that the Bill would have an educative role. I find that very interesting. When one looks at the sorts of penalties we find that a corporation can be fined up to $10,000 if the information supplied is not correct. I do not really see that that is what one would call education; it is education with a big stick. As far as I am concerned, for the changes that this legislation could make to Australia as we know it-if it could be operated as the perpetrators of it would have it operate-I could do no more than ask that the people of this Parliament and of the electorate at large, and the courts in due course, would treat it with the contempt it deserves. I am in no doubt that the courts will just throw it out where it belongs. It is a poor piece of legislation which is clearly in the hands of people-people who are authoritative in the law-outside the Constitution. I think that the sham that has gone behind this to bring it before Parliament at this stage is quite ridiculous and I hope that we can destroy the legislation for good and all. Debate interrupted. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! It being almost 10.30 p.m., under the sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(10.27) —I rise to speak on the proposed Alice Springs to Darwin railway line, which again came under attack in this chamber only last week. Senator Walsh unleashed yet another diatribe against political commentator Katharine West because she had the audacity to support the Northern Territory Government's proposal for a privately built and owned railway. I take this opportunity to clarify the situation and to bring the Senate up to date with some facts about the project-that is, to complete the spanning of the continent by railway from north to south. I believe that the Senate could do with some factual information for a change, instead of Senator Walsh's unsubstantiated invective. The final report of the Canadian Pacific Consulting Services-CPCS-on the economic viability of the extension of standard gauge rail services from Alice Springs to Darwin was tabled in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly last November and references have been made to it since then. The Northern Territory Chief Minister, in tabling the report, made the point, quite rightly, that the Canadian Pacific Consulting Services report is a vindication of the Northern Territory position on the railway. It demonstrates that the findings of the Hill report-Mr Hill is in charge of the New South Wales Railways-on which the Federal Government based its decision not to proceed with the railway, are insupportable. The reputation of Canadian Pacific Consulting Services-that is, the Canadian Pacific Railway-is beyond dispute. It is a major North American company of world-wide reputation. It carries 85 million tonnes of traffic per annum. Its expertise is unquestionable and, most importantly, it makes a profit. By contrast, the State Rail Authority of New South Wales, of which Mr Hill is Chairman, loses $800m per annum and relies on Commonwealth funds for its survival. The conclusion of the Canadian Pacific report is that in strictly economic terms a railway extension is viable for a broad range of traffic forecasts. In 1985 dollars, using a 7 per cent discount rate over the 50 years economic life of the project, the financial projections show that the railway could provide a real return of between $54m and $264m to this nation-a handy dividend. By contrast, the Hill report claims that over a 40-year period the same Alice Springs to Darwin railway would show losses exceeding $340m in present value to the nation, regardless of the traffic volume. The difference between the Canadian Pacific figures and the Hill report figures in cost saving terms are as follows: Between $97m and $177m, depending on the traffic volumes, will be saved by other State and Federal railways and road authorities because of the completion of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway. These savings will be generated by the additional railway traffic on the Australian National and State government railway systems and reduction in road maintenance costs since road freight traffic will be transferred to rail. Also, $109m to $141m would be saved by modifying the track design which, while it would reduce the standard of the line, would not have adverse safety implications. Reducing the construction schedule to about four years would also reduce the costs. In addition, $40m would be saved by eliminating passenger services from the evaluation of the railway's economics. Further, $30m to $40m road maintenance savings over and above those identified by David Hill would be obtained by the Territory and State governments by diverting road freight to rail. Between $13m and $32m can be recovered by disposing of the track-laying equipment and welding plant at the end of the construction period. Also $8m to $11m would be saved in labour costs by using two-man crews rather than three-man crews. Mr Hill adopted a three-man crew as a cost base but by the time the railway is completed crews in Australia, one would expect, will be reduced to two men. These assessments are based largely on Alice Springs to Darwin northbound traffic. However, when one looks at the potential for the substantial southbound freight volumes which will be generated by the development of Darwin as a major port of entry for imports into Australia, the viability of the project will be enhanced even further. I am not going into that tonight. However, the possible development of the Darwin port for international freight is an exciting one. This is a project of immense national significance and will do more than any other project to aid the development of Australia's north. It will open up opportunities in trade, shipping and industry and improve the viability of mines, agricultural and pastoral enterprises and create thousands of jobs directly and indirectly not only in the Territory but also in South Australia, New South Wales, Victoria and other States. The project also has substantial defence implications as the report of Dr Desmond Ball of the Australian National University's Strategic and Defence Study Centre in Canberra has argued most forcefully. Dr Ball has concluded that the existence of the railway would provide a powerful deterrent to the development of any significant military threat to Australia. In summing up, I would like to respond to the allegations of Senator Walsh that the Federal Government will be expected to heavily subsidise the line. He evidently just cannot get off that track. As I have said, the project is of national significance and it should have bipartisan support from State governments and Federal governments because, as much as the Northern Territory itself, they will be principal beneficiaries of this project. Defence benefits, savings in fuel costs, savings in road maintenance, greater intrastate rail freight volumes and greater economic prosperity are all benefits which will not be confined to the Northern Territory alone. For those reasons the Territory Government is quite properly seeking to persuade the Federal Government to contribute to this project. It could be encouraged to do so through capital depreciation on taxation-this is not new-as has happened in respect of other national projects over the year. Senator Walsh has dismissed the project out of hand but that is not unusual-he has done that before in relation to the Amadeus to Darwin pipeline, the construction of which is now well under way. In the Senate he referred to that project as pie in the sky. If he bothered to acquaint himself with the developments of the pipeline, and the phenomenal rate at which it is proceeding, he would have to eat his words. I believe that he will be eating his words before too long on the railway project as well. It is time Senator Walsh and his colleagues stopped pouring out their invective just long enough to take a close look at what is happening in the north. What is happening in the north is to the benefit of the whole nation. Perhaps then, they would realise the great opportunities which Australia is losing by failing to develop this very important area. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.34) —I would like the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), who is in the chamber at present, to ask the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) to give an explanation to the Senate of the workings of the domiciliary nursing service provided by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. No doubt honourable senators would have seen the article which appeared in this morning's Canberra Times under the heading `Nurses pay in chaos'. I must say that I was surprised to find that the situation still existed as I had been in touch with the Department before Christmas and after the Parliament had risen last year about some nurses' accounts which had been outstanding for several months. I do not know whether the mechanism within the Department needs to be overhauled. However, the situation seems to be very unsatisfactory. It was suggested that some of the amounts were really quite small. That may be so to the Department but that is not so to the nurses who supplement their income by doing this work. Some have children and work such hours as they are able to. I have in my possession a cheque dated 7 February 1986 amounting to $80.50 which relates to a claim made for work performed in November and December 1985. This woman has had to wait just on two months for the $80.50. Three items on the claim form that this woman filled out have been crossed out and deleted and the amounts have not been paid. She has still to try to fight the battle to get that money. I have a copy of a letter written to the Department relating to a cheque for $701.10 which was received last Friday, 14 February. This letter points out discrepancies in a number of areas. The cheque clearly covers payment from Sunday 24 November 1985 until 8 December. Again, there was some two months delay. Some of the nurses rely on this money to get by. One nurse was not able to register her car when she expected to because she had not received her money. I think it is time the Minister let us know exactly how the system works and why these delays occur to ensure that nurses employed by the Department are paid promptly for the work that they do. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(10.37) —Tomorrow the Hawke Government has a golden opportunity to help rural Australia. Tomorrow at a meeting in Canberra, representatives from the State rural reconstruction boards and the Federal Department of Primary Industry and officials from the Department of the Treasury will meet to review the Government's rural reconstruction operations. It will be a great and wonderful opportunity for Mr Hawke, the Prime Minister of Australia, to do something positive for the plight in which rural Australia presently finds itself. On Sunday we saw Mr Hawke, the Prime Minister, going around three farms with a television crew. The plight of those farmers was well and truly illustrated to Mr Hawke and to the rest of Australia. The times are desperate. People are in desperate situations. Families are breaking up. Families have tremendous pressures on them which are leading to such problems as nervous breakdowns. This situation was well illustrated to Mr Hawke and, through the Sunday program screened by the Channel 9 network, throughout all Australia. The Government has cut rural adjustment by 62 per cent in the last two Budgets. At this stage the rural adjustment funds total only $18.6m and Australia's rural debt has risen to $7.2 billion. Farmers would be given some help, some way out, to readjust or re-finance their farm debts if the amount of rural adjustment was raised to the level it was in 1983. The tax take from income in the rural sector is around $5 billion. According to Bureau of Agriculture Economic's figures, rural production will fall 24 per cent this year. The average income of Australia's 170,000 farmers will be $6,700, while the rate of farm inflation will be 7 per cent and the total rural debt $8 billion. Tomorrow and Thursday we are to have meetings with Department of Treasury, rural reconstruction and Department of Primary Industry officers. I appeal to the Government to use this opportunity to do something positive to alleviate the problems that Australian farmers are facing as interest rates climb to record levels-23 per cent with bank charges. It is well and truly beyond the capacity of any farmer to meet interest commitments with such high interest rates. I thank the Senate for giving me the opportunity to put my case. Senator HILL(South Australia)(10.41) —I wish to report to the Senate that I attended the 7 February election in the Philippines as a member of an international observer mission. The mission was put together by the international institutes of both the Democratic and Republican parties of the United States. It comprised 42 representatives from 19 different countries and was jointly led by former President Pastrana, the leader of the Conservative Party of Columbia and Vice-Chairman of the International Democratic Union, and John Hume, the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour Party of Northern Ireland and a member of the British and European parliaments. The mission was accredited by the Commission on Elections-COMELEC-and received the support of both President Marcos and Mrs Aquino. An initial delegation, in testing the feasibility of the mission, concluded its positive recommendation by stating: It is our belief that such a delegation can contribute to the conduct of a free and fair election, will be instrumental in determining international opinion about such an election, and will serve to underscore the vital role a credible electoral process can play in bringing about political stability in the Philippines. The mission was preceded by officials who monitored such matters as the adequacy of the campaign period, restrictions on campaigning, political arrests, intimidation and improper campaign practices. The officials also monitored the role of the media, including access provided by COMELEC, whether the media was permitted to purchase time, the coverage of the campaign and censorship. At the level of administration of the election officials monitored COMELEC and in particular whether its local election officials acted in a non-partisan manner, voter registration, fraud prevention and the plans for the counting of ballots. Upon arrival in Manila delegates were briefed on the above matters. Delegates were also briefed and had the opportunity to question officials of COMELEC, officials of NAMFREL, the National Citizens Movement for a Free Election, the UNEDA and JBL parties, academics and other experts. After two days of such briefings the mission was dispersed in nine smaller groups throughout the country to areas which had shown problems in the past. On the Thursday afternoon before the poll the sub-groups familiarised themselves with the major counting stations in their region and had discussions with local COMELEC officials and NAMFREL volunteers. On election day from the opening of the polls at 7 a.m. until the closing at 3 p.m. sub-groups visited precincts and witnessed the poll, speaking to officials, other observers and voters and observing the general conduct of the poll. Upon the closure of the poll at 3 p.m. sub-groups witnessed counting at polling booth level and then followed ballot boxes to provincial and regional headquarters for subsequent voting collation. On the following day sub-groups returned to Manila for debriefing and preparation of an initial statement. That initial statement was issued on the night of Sunday, 11 February. I seek leave to have that statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- STATEMENT BY CO-LEADERS INTERNATIONAL OBSERVER DELEGATION We have had the opportunity to observe an historic election in a country which each of our delegates holds in the highest esteem. We have come here as friends of democracy and of the Filipino people, and have been reaffirmed in our purpose. We share the belief that the electoral process is sacred in a democracy and the vote of the individual must be protected from those who would seek to either deny, or alter it. We are grateful for the invitation to observe this election which was extended by both major parties. We have been moved by our experience and by the deep dedication of the vast majority of the Filipino people to the principles of democracy, and the sanctity of the electoral process. Wherever we went in the Philippines, people came up to our delegation members to thank us for coming. Some expressed surprise that we would travel so far to offer our moral support to their efforts to keep the electoral process free and honest. All of us were deeply heartened by these expressions of gratitude. Over the past week our delegates from 19 nations and a wide range of political and ideological viewpoints have observed the electoral process in 15 provinces of the Philippines. These areas were selected on the basis of past history of election irregularities and with an eye toward maintaining political balance. We have been careful to remain impartial, and to distinguish personal observation from hearsay and fact from rumour. We have also been able to reach a consensus among each of our teams in evaluating the election in these provincial areas. We have come here today as we said we would to offer our observations, not our final assessment. We have begun with the premise that an election is the mechanism by which citizens individually and collectively express the will of a nation. We recognise that irregularities occur to some extent in all democratic nations. The question that must be addressed by all who cherish democracy is whether malpractice occurs to such an extent as to invalidate an election result. This judgment can only be made after careful analysis of the election returns against documented reports of malpractice. We are obviously not prepared now to make that critical judgment. Our teams have reported on areas of the country where the balloting and counting have gone smoothly and without incident. Members of the delegation have compared these areas favourably with elections held in other parts of the world. However, in others areas, we have observed practices which compare far less favourably. Occurrences of vote buying, intimidation and lack of respect for electoral procedures were present, and were observed by members of our delegation. Attempting to ascertain the impact of these activities which are illegal under Filipino law must await the final result of the election. A critical aspect of any election is the dissemination of the results, and the credibility attached to those results. Forty-eight hours after the vote we note that there are a number of competing counts which are damaging to the credibility of the process. One of the problems in this regard has been the failure of the COMELEC-NAMFREL ``PARTNERS'' agreement which was originally drafted to provide reliable and credible results. Our observations suggest that the resolution of the information problem is critical in ensuring national confidence in the results of this election. Regarding the official count and canvas, certain delays are occuring. Some of these have been caused by legal challenges to election returns wherein discrepancies have been found. Other delays are taking place which seem to have no basis in law. We will continue to study this problem, and to look for patterns to see whether these delays result in a shift of votes. The activities of NAMFREL have been the focus of much attention and commentary by the government and the media. Our observations have been that the vast majority of NAMFREL volunteers in the regions we have covered have acted in a non-partisan, professional manner. Many have risked a great deal to preserve the integrity of the electoral process. The electoral anomalies which we have witnessed are serious and could well have an impact upon the final result. These anomalies fall under two categories: those which can be termed ``irregularities'' and which may be the result of problems of election administration; and those abuses which are clearly intended to affect the outcome of the election. Under the category of irregularities, we begin by taking note of the fact that this was a snap election and there was not much time to prepare guidelines and training programs for teachers and others who served as members of the Board of Canvas. Our teams reported instances of improperly locked and sealed-or unlocked and unsealed ballot boxes and election returns. Instances of ineffective application of indelible ink and other weaknesses in the enforcement of safeguards designed to prevent double-voting were observed and reported by our teams. Of great concern are reports that thousands of voters-particularly in the Manila area-were not able to vote because their names were not on the registration list. In the category of abuse designed to affect the outcome, we saw many instances of vote-buying, attempts at intimidation, snatching of ballot boxes, and tampered election returns. In some areas NAMFREL, the accredited arm of COMELEC, was excluded from polling stations in violation of a range of previous agreements reached regarding access of the citizen's arm. There were also some limited areas in which the system of safeguards seemed to break down completely, and those who held responsibility for adjudicating complaints were either unavailable, or unresponsive. We cannot determine at this point whether the extent of this activity will affect the overall results of the election, but the potential exists, and we would be remiss if we did not publicly acknowledge this fact. We will keep a team of technical experts in Manila to continue to collect information, analyze results, and observe the activities of those institutions which are designed to provide redress under the law. We close today by underscoring our support for the democratic aspirations of the people of this great nation. The ultimate judgment as to the validity of this election-and hence its ability to facilitate reconciliation and stability-rests with the Filipino people. We stand with them in their fervent hope that the final result will reflect their will. Senator HILL —Delegates returned to their home country shortly thereafter, leaving a secretariat to compare the observations of the international mission with those of NAMFREL, the United States presidential observer group and various other international and local observer teams. Upon completion of that work it is the intention of the mission to produce and publish a final report. Unfortunately, the observer mission observed widespread fraud and abuse of the electoral process. Practically every form of abuse imaginable occurred-from violent intimidation through to the snatching of ballot papers and simple vote buying. It is, however, a long step from the observations of abuse to asserting that such abuses were so numerical that they could have affected the total result. We would not want to make that assertion without being very confident of its accuracy. As a deterrent to abuse, our mission together with the hundreds of thousands of NAMFREL volunteers and other observers seems to have failed. I say that simply because some of the worst violations occurred in Makarti, the central business district of Manila, where those perpetrating acts of violence and abuse knew they would be observed, not only by such groups as ours, but also by the international media. Such blatant abuse regrettably paints a dim picture. As an encouragement and support for the hundreds of thousands of Filipinos who did work for free and fair elections and put themselves at risk to that end, the mission was obviously successful. Everywhere we went there were expressions of appreciation from NAMFREL volunteers, the church, some unions which were involved in the observing process and other community groups. In presenting to the world a fair and objective picture of the elections we remain to be judged. We have, however, been at pains to avoid sensationalism, realising that to many outside the Philippines the election was a novelty but to many millions of Filipinos it was seen as critically important to their future. I wish to express regret that the Australian Government was not prepared to contribute to an observer mission or positively respond to the bipartisan request from the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence of this Parliament to send an observer mission or even to encourage its own Caucus members to attend. Caucus members were in fact actively discouraged by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) with such nonsense as they would not be allowed within 50 metres of polling booths. I was welcomed and invited into 70-odd polling booths I visited on election day. The Philippines faces major problems and there is obvious need for urgent reform in areas of the economy, social structures and the military. Regrettably, such reforms will not take place without stable government. On this occasion many hundreds of thousands of Filipinos believed they could contribute to what would be a turning point in Filipino history, that of a free and fair election, when a democratic government could come to power at the popular will of the people and proceed to such reforms. Both sides promised this to the Filipino people. It was an opportunity for Australia to be present and support that process, showing its concern not only for Filipinos but also for stability within the region and the Western security network of which the Philippines plays a vital part. Unfortunately, the Labor Government missed that opportunity. To speak in very general terms, Australia is not highly regarded in the Philippines. We are not well known; in fact Australians are probably best known for their apparent involvement in Manila's vice industry. Our relations are strained, with the Philippines Government not even being prepared to engage in joint training exercises with the Royal Australian Air Force. A lot of bridge building is necessary. Australia could have started by showing a modest presence and support for an open and free election. My concern now is that the Labor Government will voice its moral indignation at the poll abuses by further cutting back its aid to the Philippines. That will not hurt the strong and wealthy, but it will hurt the poor, who can ill-afford to be further deserted by those of us who can help in their currently very difficult circumstances. I would urge the Hawke Government to think long and hard about the consequences of such a step. Help and support for the mass of Filipinos, not desertion, are needed at this time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.50) —We are indebted to Senator Hill for his report tonight on his experiences as a member of the international observer team in the Philippines election. It would have been interesting to have heard from him in some greater detail, I think, his judgment about the credibility of that election process to the extent that he was personally able to witness it. One of the concerns that we had as a Government about formally accrediting Government members or parliamentarians to such an observer exercise was that it might lend an air of spurious credibility to the election to the extent that members were unable to effectively scrutinise a significant proportion of the balloting process, but nonetheless would be there lending their credibility to that process as observers. That is a difficult judgment to make. I will be interested to get Senator Hill's impressions, perhaps at some other time, as to what judgment he and other members of his team were able to make on these very vexed and difficult questions as to the extent of the fraud which did undoubtedly occur, it seems, from the reports we have received about that election. I say no more than that at this stage, but it is a matter obviously which we will be debating on future occasions in this Parliament. The question of the condition of the Philippines and Australia's relationship with that country will be a very delicate and difficult issue to resolve in the months ahead. I thank Senators Kilgariff, Reid and Boswell for their contributions to the debate, in each case on fairly familiar topics. I will ensure that the relevant Ministers have their attention drawn to the remarks made by those honourable senators tonight. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.52 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Defence Act-Determination 1986 No. 4-Education Allowance and others. Family Law Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1985 Nos 341, 342. States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments of the Schedules to the subsidy schemes in relation to the States of New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia, dated 10 February 1986.