Thursday, 20 February 1986 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: Introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties is opposed on the grounds that: they adversely affect the small and medium size businesses in Australia, destroying incentive and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; the Australian economy, and employment in particular, is heavily reliant on growth in small business; any capital gains that might result when owners of small businesses finally sell the business are not ``windfall gains'' but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business to create growth and jobs; Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, will protect the rights of private enterprise and reject any inequitable additional taxes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 33 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 possibly 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 Jessop (from 280 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 will do nothing to advance the rights of Australians, because it is dangerously ambiguous and will cause confusion within the legal system; it endangers our Federal System; and, it is to be administered in an authoritarian manner inconsistent with the present legal rights of Australians. Your petitioners therefore pray: That the Senate rejects the Australian Bill of Rights Bill and all cognate Bills. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jessop (from 59 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia showeth that: Your petitioners pray that Your Honourable House will reject the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 for the following reasons: 1. We believe as a matter of faith and judgment that the proposed legislation is anti-God and its implementation will result in attacks on the Christian church and the promotion of a State religion based on secular humanism; 2. That there is no need for legislation of this kind since the principles of freedom are already enshrined in Common Law and that it will cause more problems than it seeks to solve; 3. That there is a potential threat to our national security through making treaties of this kind with foreign nations, many of which do not share a common heritage and do not practice many of the principles that they have covenanted to uphold; 4. The methods being used to introduce this legislation are secretive and a blatant misuse of the external affairs powers under Section 51 of the Australian Constitution and that furthermore are contrary to the spirit of the Constitution; 5. That the implementation of the legislation through a process of new educational initiatives will result in the centralised control of education and this will inevitably lead to the destruction of States' rights. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jessop (from 32 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we deplore the proposed Bill of Rights because it adversely affects areas of the liberty and freedom of Australians. It will operate against: The States and our Federal system of Government Criminal Justice The Police Education Families Employer/Employee relations. It will remove the power of the people through Parliament, by giving power to a new more powerful Human Rights Commission which is not elected, but can act as a Star Chamber. We do most earnestly wish to keep our system of Common Law. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should reject this Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sheil (from 138 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 we oppose utterly the proposed Bill of Rights because this Bill will- Transfer to government powers not given nor intended to be given by the Constitution Threaten our rights by making them subject to the will of this and any future Government Turn the Human Rights Commission into a political Star Chamber with unjustifiable power Abrogate Common Law and common liberty. Set the State above the individual. We the undersigned believe in democracy and freedom and earnestly entreat you to recognise that this Bill will undermine the fundamental basis of these. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should reject a Bill of Rights in this or any other form. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sheil (from 146 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we deplore the discriminatory tax proposals as outlined in the Government's `White Paper' and the Government's preferred option on proposed new and widened tax proposals as so outlined, namely: Capital Gains Tax Hidden Death Tax described as `Capital Gains Tax after Death' Gift Tax Increased Company Tax Employer taxes on employees' employment benefits All such taxes will discriminate against and inhibit progress, growth and employment throughout the nation. They will attack hardworking people who have built up their assets; they will discourage thrift; they will inhibit development; they will treat unfairly all who plan for the future; they will cause trouble and expense in arriving at the value of their assets; they will discourage industry and punish achievement. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should reject these tax proposals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 26 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That 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. Your 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 Michael Baume (from 48 citizens) and Ryan (from 110 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 petitioners request that the Senate should: Pass Senator Harradine's Bill to prohibit experiments involving the use of human embryos created by in vitro fertilisation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jessop (from 150 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action or legislation in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Mason (from 53 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned, having great concern because of the spread of moral pollution in our nation call upon the Government to introduce immediate legislation: 1. To provide strict controls over importation, production, sale, hire or mailing of video-cassettes with the open sale of only G, PG, and M rated video- cassettes; and the total prohibition of the sale of R rated video-cassettes so that R rated films can only be viewed in an adult theatre by persons over 18 years. We totally reject the concept of ``X'' rated video-cassettes which would allow the legal sale of hard-core pornographic films for screening in the homes of our nation, which endanger our children. 2. To dramatically improve the Federal Attorney-General's Guidelines for Classification of Video tapes/discs which restrict the importation, production, sale or hire, screening in private homes and mailing by Australia Post so as to include the total prohibition of any pornographic, obscene or blasphemous video cassette, or film containing child pornography, bestiality, sodomy, group sex, violent sex acts with women, such as rape and pack rape, sadism and torture, etc. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will protect our society, especially women and children from moral pollution and its harmful effects. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Mason (from 541 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament House assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the Australian Labor Party: `upholds the principles of disengagement and disarmament' (ALP Platform 1982, E); and will: `oppose the development, proliferation, possession and use of nuclear . . . and other techniques of mass destruction' (ALP Platform 1982, E.34); `attach high priority to preventing the further proliferation of nuclear weapons, and to this end will not allow commercial considerations to govern Australia's anti-proliferation strategy' (ALP Platform 1982, E.35c); and `oppose the storage of nuclear weapons on Australian territory and the staging of operations involving nuclear weapons from Australian territory' (ALP Platform 1982, F.48). Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that all Federal representatives of the Labor Government, and Federal representatives of all other political parties including independents, vote for Senator Chipp's Nuclear Weapons Prohibitions Bill 1984, the passage of which would effectively make Australia a nuclear weapons free zone and would leave no doubt as to the present Government's stated commitments to disarmament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from 10 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament House assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we support Senator Chipp's `Australian Waters (Nuclear Powered Ships and Nuclear Weapons Prohibitions) Bill 1984', a Bill for an Act to prohibit the passage of nuclear-powered ships, and of vessels carrying nuclear weapons, through Australian waters or in the airspace over them, effectively declaring Australia a: `Nuclear weapons free zone'. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that all Senators, regardless of political affiliations, support this Bill. Not just for our sake but for our children. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from 15 citizens). Petitions received. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the abandonment by the Federal Government of the much heralded National Technology Strategy, thus casting aside 2 1/2 years valuable work and the 250 submissions from industry, Government and community groups, and replacing it with a vague framework for policy development; (b) expresses its disappointment that once again Government rhetoric has failed to be matched by positive action and that the Minister for Science (Mr Jones) has yet again failed to persuade his Cabinet colleagues to support science and technology; and (c) calls on the Government to reconsider its attitude to science and technology, and in particular urges the Government to take realistic and meaningful steps to: (i) increase and broaden the study of science and engineering in our schools and colleges, (ii) increase the exchange of personnel between industry and research institutions, (iii) allow the Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and other Government bodies, including the Department of Defence to `contract out' research to private enterprise, and (iv) expand industry participation, especially in the manufacturing sector, in research by increasing its role in the funding of CSIRO and similar research bodies. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I give notice that, five sitting days after today, I shall move: That section 64 of the Health Authority Ordinance 1985, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 69 of 1985, and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that the $700m turnaround from Australia being a net oil importer in 1985 to being a net oil exporter so far in 1986, following a 60 per cent rise in oil exports to a record $1.8 billion in the 7 months to January 1986, has been a major factor in preventing an even greater blowout of Australia's balance of payments current account deficit above the disastrous record $8.4 billion that has already taken place; (b) notes the admission yesterday by the Minister for Resources and Energy, (Senator Gareth Evans), that it is doubtful whether Australian oil exports will continue `at the same value or anything like the same price' and that some already approved shipments have now been `called into question'; and (c) calls on the Federal Government to further revise its stated target for the current account deficit from $11.25 billion, financial year which is now clearly unattainable, misleading and not in line with the target of over $12 billion reported in the media to have been recommended by the Government's Joint Economic Forecasting Group, to a realistic level so that Australians will be fully informed without having to rely on leaks of Government documents to the media. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I give notice that, eleven sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Regulations Amendment, as contained in Statutory Rules 1985 No. 310 and made under the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act 1979, be disallowed. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COONEY —The Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances has written to the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) in connection with possible retrospectivity of these regulations. We are awaiting a reply, but today is the last day on which to give notice, and I do so to protect the Committee's freedom of action. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate noting that- (a) now State Elections in Western Australia and Tasmania are over, the Hawke Labor Government is signalling cuts to the Federal funds for the states and local government for health, education and welfare, despite promises made at the 1985, Premiers' Conference; and (b) this comes at a time when there are likely to be heavier expenses in the order of some hundreds of millions of dollars for local governments as a result of the Hawke Labor Government's illconsidered deal with the unions to introduce compulsory superannuation contributions by all employers, condemns the Government for its hypocrisy and total abandonment of integrity in favour of electoral opportunism. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate expresses its grave concern at figures released by the Commonwealth Banking Corporation's latest Economic Newsletter, which states that `Queensland's economy was relatively lack-luster over most of the 1984-85 financial year' because- (a) the unemployment rate at October 1985, was 9.3 per cent, second highest in Australia; (b) average weekly earnings, at $320, were 5.7 per cent down on the Australian average; (c) growth in motor vehicle registration has been very flat; (d) new fixed capital expenditure fell by 6.8 per cent, compared with an increase of 9.3 per cent for the whole of Australia; and (e) Queensland was the only State to which dwelling commencements fell in the 1984-85 financial year. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education) —I table the report of the Commonwealth Schools Commission on the future of the specific purpose programs operated by the Commission and seek leave to make a statement relating thereto. Leave granted. Senator RYAN —For the information of honourable senators, I present a report by the Commonwealth Schools Commission on the future of the specific purpose programs operated by the Commission. The report, `Quality and Equality', is a thorough and thoughtful contribution to debate about the future of the specific purpose programs and about our wider objectives in the field of education. I commend it to the serious consideration of all honourable senators. The report is further evidence of the Government's determination to think anew and plan ahead in developing our education policies. In this report, in keeping with our Government's approach to education, the Commission has consulted widely, has re-examined traditional practices and the conventional wisdom, and has developed advice in relation to our Government's clear and practical objectives. This report builds on the report of the Quality of Education Review Committee. The two documents are, in many senses, complementary. Together they provide a conspectus of thinking about possible improvements in many education programs and plans to continue to achieve greater equality of outcomes and greater quality in our education systems. This report has been eagerly awaited and has already attracted substantial comments from the States, from education authorities and from interested groups. We are digesting these responses as quickly as possible. The Government is well aware of the need to consider all the financial and other implications of the Commission's recommendations. We will be doing that, and doing it expeditiously and efficiently. This Government is not afraid to formulate and implement systematic plans for our education programs. We are not afraid to publicise our plans, and to evaluate them as they go along. We are committed to ensure that progress is made towards the goals that we have set, that taxpayers' money is spent as productively as possible, and that Commonwealth effort is properly co-ordinated across the nation's education system. The programs assessed in `Quality and Equality' affect not just children in our schools but all of us. They deal with the involvement of parents in helping and guiding what teachers do. They deal with special assistance for country areas. They deal with the use of computers and methods of training our work force for the economic challenges and technological changes we must confront. They deal with the place which teaching in community languages and cultures should be accorded in our educational systems. All these issues are integral to any appraisal of where we are going as a country and what we amount to as a nation. For those reasons, I would welcome a wide debate in the community on the proposals made by the Commission, after which I promise a full response from the Government. The Schools Commission deserves our congratulations for having produced a document of this calibre. The report deserves to be taken seriously, discussed widely and evaluated thoroughly. I also wish to note that the Government is proceeding simultaneously with completion of resource agreements with the States and the non-government school systems for expenditure of the significant additional grants which we are providing in 1986 under our general recurrent schools program. Those agreements complement the work done by the Commission's specific purpose programs. Our agreements ensure accountability for taxpayers' money. The agreements also guarantee that the extra funds provided will be spent on areas which we and the school systems concerned identify as of the highest priority. We are focusing our spending, we are developing procedures for accountability, we are making sure-in this as in every other field of education-that children from disadvantaged backgrounds of every kind are given improved opportunities for effective schooling. I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.12) —The Opposition is grateful for the report entitled `Quality and Equality' and for the statement which the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) has made. We have had the document for two hours and there has been no opportunity to study it. It is quite clear that the document is a significant one and I will make it available to our shadow spokesman on education. The Opposition will reserve its position until he has seen it. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The PRESIDENT —I inform honourable senators of the current situation regarding the provision of catering services in the Parliament. Following a meeting of members of the Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union of Australia yesterday, I have been advised that the union and staff intend to reimpose the campaign of industrial action in support of the union's demand that the Joint House Department should immediately resume negotiations on the issues of increased pay scales and changed work methods. In an endeavour to resolve the dispute Joint House Department officers have engaged in discussions with the union in an attempt to identify improved work methods and the union's associated claim for increased pay scales on behalf of its members. These discussions are being terminated by the union unless negotiations are entered into on the basis that there shall be a commitment to work towards an agreement on wage increases and changed work methods. As I have previously stated, I am concerned that any such claim should be considered strictly in accordance with the national wage principles. The advice of the Public Service Board continues to be obtained in this matter. In such circumstances where bans or stoppages are threatened, and in accordance with accepted industrial practice, the Speaker and I would expect that the threat of bans and stoppages needs to be withdrawn before discussions can continue. The union is being informed of the willingness of the Presiding Officers to instruct departmental officers to resume discussions when the bans are lifted. Until a favourable response is received from the union I regret to advise that catering services are likely to be interrupted from time to time or even withdrawn until further developments take place. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.16) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to make miscellaneous amendments to revise the Criminology Research Act 1971. This is the first occasion since 1971 on which a Bill has been introduced specifically for this purpose. The Criminology Research Act 1971 was enacted to give effect to a joint scheme between the Commonwealth and the States for the conduct of criminology research and the training of criminal justice personnel. These arrangements provided for the establishment of: The Australian Institute of Criminology funded by the Commonwealth to engage in research, training and related activities at a government level; the Criminology Research Council serviced by the Institute and consisting of representatives of the Commonwealth and each of the State governments, to make research grants from a Criminology Research Fund; the Criminology Research Fund as a fund consisting of contributions from the Commonwealth and the States, the Commonwealth providing one half of the fund and the States providing the remainder on a per capita basis; and a Board of Management of the Institute, consisting of three Commonwealth members and 3 persons appointed by the Council to represent the States. The establishment of the Australian Institute of Criminology and the Criminology Research Council took into account a number of factors, including the incidence and cost of crime-the annual cost of administering the criminal justice system in Australia is currently estimated at more than $2 billion; the need for a systematic and co-ordinated approach to the organisation of criminology research; the need for a governmental institute to assist government departments and for a practical orientation to the conduct of research; and the desirability of avoiding the waste of resources involved in the duplication of effort among the Commonwealth and the States. The Australian Institute of Criminology has, since its establishment, produced a wide range of publications, including publications on drug abuse, corporate crime, terrorism and Aboriginal criminality, subjects in which both the Commonwealth and States have a close interest, and publications on the prison system, alternatives to imprisonment, sentencing and policing, which provide Australia-wide perspectives. The Institute's data base relating to Australian criminological research is now included in AUSINET and is thus available to criminal justice departments and agencies throughout Australia. The training and seminar program of the Institute has also covered a wide range of subject matter concerned with the criminal justice system. The Criminology Research Council has provided funds for more than 120 separate research projects focusing on virtually all aspects of crime and criminal justice in Australia. Research conducted by the Institute has had a national and comparative orientation which enables the Commonwealth and each State to measure its own achievements against that of other jurisdictions and to be alerted to successful initiatives that have been attempted elsewhere. In addition, the Institution has more recently undertaken primary research into such matters as the enforcement of laws relating to occupational health and safety, the development of alternative modes of handling criminal justice matters relating to Aboriginal offenders and the participation of young people in crime, particularly property offences. In contrast to research conducted by the Institute, research funded by the Criminology Research Council has for the most part related to State or local problems, rather than problems having a national orientation and the research has been primarily evaluative of existing systems within State jurisdiction. The Institute and the Council have paid particular attention to the development of research likely to have practical value in the formulation of criminal justice policies. Research of the Institute and research sponsored by the Council has made a direct input into the development of criminal justice policy. For example, the Institute has undertaken a substantial amount of research for the Meetings of Ministers responsible for Prisons, Probation and Parole; research funded by the Council on gun laws has led to legislative changes in a number of States. In July 1985, a Review Team was established to examine the functions of certain statutory authorities, including the Institute, falling within the responsibility of the portfolio of the Attorney-General. The Review Team has made some suggestions for the amendment to the Criminology Research Act, and the present Bill incorporates those suggestions. I turn now to the contents of the present Bill. One of the main purposes of the Bill is to enable the Northern Territory to become a participant in the joint Commonwealth-State scheme established by the Act. The Northern Territory administration has indicated its agreement to the proposal. The Bill introduces amendments to increase the size of the Criminology Research Council from 7 to 8, consequent upon the addition of the Northern Territory. A consequential increase is also made to the size of the Board of Management of the Institute from six to eight. This will allow four State members, instead of three to be appointed to the Board and four Commonwealth members which will include the Director of the Institute, and three members appointed by the Attorney-General. The Director is to become a member of the Board in line with current practice in similar Commonwealth legislation. The Bill also introduces amendments to clarify the functions of the Institute by giving the Institute specific authority to collect information and statistics, without detracting from, and in the context of, the overall collecting and co-ordinating role of the Australian Bureau of Statistics. In addition, specific authority is given to the Institute to provide information and advice to Commonwealth, State and Northern Territory criminal justice departments and agencies, and to collaborate with bodies in Australia and overseas. The Review Team that I have mentioned recommended that the Act should be amended to enable the Attorney-General to request the Institute to conduct a particular research or training project as one to which the Institute's Board of Management should give priority. The Bill includes a provision to give effect to this suggestion. Miscellaneous amendments are made on financial and administrative matters to update provisions on those matters. The Bill makes specific provision for the Institute to enter into contracts. This will enable the Institute to enter into contracts with Commonwealth or State departments or agencies for the conduct by the Institute of criminological research, and for the expending of moneys by the Institute pursuant to those contracts. The Bill also contains an amendment to place beyond doubt the Institute's power to arrange for research to be carried out by others as well as to conduct research itself. In addition, the Bill will enable sitting fees to be paid to non-public service members of the Board of Management of the Institute. Finally, a schedule is included in the Bill of minor amendments of a drafting nature which, among other things, remove instances of gender specific language and replace them with gender neutral language in line with current Government policy. The financial considerations arising from the proposed amendments are minimal. The cost to the Commonwealth will be about $800 per annum for remuneration of the non-public servant member of the Board of Management. The cost to the Northern Territory will be about $700 per annum, in respect of its contribution to the Criminology Research Fund, plus the cost of sending a representative to meetings four times a year. The Northern Territory could minimize the latter costs by appointing a local deputy to attend meetings where required. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Sheil) adjourned. Debate resumed from 19 February, on motion by Senator Macklin: That regulation 2 of the Overseas Students Charge Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1985 No. 352 and made under the Overseas Students Charge Act 1979, be disallowed. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(10.19) —The number of students who come from overseas to study in Australia is an indication of the high regard in which Australian education is held. At present there are about 20,000 overseas students in Australia. Although Australia welcomes overseas students, this country cannot be expected to bear the full cost of their education. As it is, some cost recovery occurs, but it must be remembered that the Australian taxpayer is paying a subsidy towards these students' education. Cost recovery takes place through the overseas students charge. This was introduced in 1980. Apart from 1981, there has been an annual increase to new and continuing students. These increases have been greater than changes to the Consumer price index and have generally been in the region of 15 per cent. For example, the bulk of undergraduate students were paying $1,500 in 1980 and 1981. This increased by 13 per cent in 1982, 9 per cent in 1983, and 16 per cent in 1984 and 1985. An amendment to the Act was sought in March 1985 to allow the charge to increase in 1986 to 35 per cent of the average full cost of a tertiary place in Australia. The new charge for medical, dentistry and veterinary courses was to be $4,340. For all other courses the charge was to be $3,500. These charges also ended the discrimination between post-graduate and under- graduate students. Up until now post-graduates have paid more than undergraduates in the same faculty. The anticipated revenue in 1985-86 was $42.4m. The Australian Democrats sought to amend the Bill so that a student's charge would be pegged at the level relevant to the first year of study. Thus the bulk of students who in 1985 paid $2,500 would go on paying that amount throughout their time in Australia. Anticipated revenue in 1985-86 from this option was $34m; that is, a $8m loss. In 1986-87 the loss would be about $20m. The Government therefore determined a compromise position and this was moved as a formal amendment on 20 November. The compromise was eventually accepted by the Senate. The compromise allowed for new students in 1986 a charge of $4,340 for medicine, veterinary science or dentistry, or $3,500 for all other courses. This is an increase of 40 per cent on 1985 charges for the majority of students. For continuing students, the charge was to increase by a maximum of 15 per cent on that levied for 1985. The amount would be $3,565 for medicine, veterinary science or dentistry-that was previously $3,100-or $2,875 for all other courses, which was previously $2,500. In future years, the cohort of students who commenced tertiary study in or before 1985 would continue to face a maximum 15 per cent charge increase per annum. No indication was given in the Bill of likely charges for those students who commenced study in or after 1986, but the Minister's speech indicated that in 1987 the charge would rise to 45 per cent of the average full cost of a tertiary place in Australia. The charges agreed upon have subsequently been promulgated by a regulation and that is the regulation which Senator Macklin has moved to disallow. The effect of Senator Macklin's motion is to disallow proposed 1986 levels of the charge for both new and continuing students. All students would, therefore, pay the levels of charge which are provided for in the legislation prior to amendment. These are the 1985 levels which are: $3,350 for a post-graduate; $3,100 for undergraduate medicine, dentistry and veterinary science; and $2,500 for other undergraduates. It should be noted that a differential charge for post-graduate students, which was removed by the regulation, would be retained if Senator Macklin's motion were successful. What are the reasons for the Government's rejection of Senator Macklin's disallowance motion? One reason is related to costs. Disallowance would result in a decrease of approximately $11m in estimated revenue from the overseas students charge in 1985-86. The Government, and thus the Australian taxpayers, subsidy would rise by a commensurate amount. As well, there would be certain administrative consequences. About 500 new students have already paid the charge at the 1986 levels. Continuing students, whose payments are due by 15 March, have also commenced payment and their numbers will increase quite rapidly during the next few weeks. Refunds will have to be calculated and made to those students, with associated increases in administrative work load, which the overseas student office can ill afford. Additionally, should a new level or charge for continuing students result-for example, in an increase of 8 per cent in lieu of the proposed 15 per cent-all students payments would require adjustment. Procedures have been designed to enable follow up of non-payers immediately after 15 March to avoid the problems of late termination and possible deportation which arose last year. Confusion about liability is certain to arise, however, if charge levels change, jeopardising efficient operation of the new procedures. The Government holds that the regulations should stand and therefore rejects the motion for disallowance. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(10.26) —The Opposition will not support the motion of disallowance. This matter was substantially debated on 28 November last year when the Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill was before the Senate. It had been rushed through the House of Representatives with inadequate and very brief debate, but in the Senate we had the ability to give a summary view of this important matter. Rather than repeat all of those points I can only say that the Opposition approach in this matter is to refer to what was said on 28 November last year. Senator Colston's summary just now was accurate except in one matter. While there were three initial positions-the Government's proposal for a 40 per cent increase in the charge for all students; the Australian Democrats opposition to any increase; and the Opposition's position of having a moderate increase, and at one stage figures were suggested for that increase-this led, as Senator Colston said, to a compromise position being put forward by the Government. That compromise was for a fixed 15 per cent increase for each year for continuing students. However, that compromise suggestion of the Government was not quite what the Opposition in the Senate had wished, so there was an amendment put forward by the Opposition and supported by the Democrats that there be a maximum of 15 per cent but that the increase would be determined by regulation each year and would be disallowable. Hence, we have this matter before us now. I was happy to see that when the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) visited Malaysia and other South East Asian countries she referred to this increase for continuing students as being not a fixed 15 per cent increase, but rather an amount to be determined each year up to a maximum of 15 per cent. When those views had been circulated by a number of us to overseas student groups that eventual second version of the compromise was well received both by those overseas students and Australian students. I have not received any one request-neither has any member of the Opposition-for that proposal to be now upset. It has also been significant that there has been a great deal of concern expressed by those who see great value in the overseas student program in its broadest sense, not only in educational terms but also in foreign affairs and neighbourly relations terms within the region between us in Australia and professional graduates in South East Asia, the Pacific and other countries. I take the opportunity to express again a wide spectrum of concern that the level of these charges should not be increased by this Government beyond that projected in the decision made in the Senate on 28 November. With regard to the motion for disallowance, there is not only consistency in the Democrats' position in that they were not in favour of any increase at all, but there is also consistency in the fact that by disallowing regulation 2 there would be no increase in any of the charges for the 1986 year. This not only would be disruptive of good administration, but also would not reflect the second version of the compromise to which I have referred and which was the result of the Senate debate last year. It is with those and the other considerations which I have referred to in mind that the Opposition does not support this motion for disallowance. However, I conclude by asking the Government to consider not increasing fees in 1987 for continuing students-understandably, there has not yet been any prediction as to what the level of fee may be-that the full range zero to 15 per cent be taken literally, and that all factors be rationally considered when that level is determined. I ask the Government not to assume that a fixed 15 per cent increase for 1987 would automatically not attract a disallowance motion here in the Senate. Finally, I also ask the Government to so manage its decisions in this area that the regulation in respect of 1987 be brought to the Parliament much earlier than was the case last year. I think the regulation was promulgated on 19 December. That was some two weeks after the Senate had risen. It is only now, when the Senate has reconvened in the month of February, that we have the ability to consider such a disallowance. Whilst Senator Colston and I have referred to the administrative difficulties which would arise if such a regulation were now disallowed, I ask the Minister for Education to make sure that the Senate has every ability to confirm any regulation or disallow it in good time before any administrative procedures begin for the 1987 year. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.33) —in reply-I have just listened to the most extraordinary speech from Senator Teague in which he said that he wants to stand by the point which he made on 28 November. Obviously he did not bother re-reading the speech he made on 28 November. The reason I moved my disallowance motion was that I thought he meant what he said on that day. I will get to that in a moment. The reasons put forward by the Government seem to me to be correct in terms of the position which it took last year. It is maintaining that position now, fairly obviously, in regard to this regulation. Of course, as Senator Teague rightly pointed out, the Government originally wanted a much higher increase than the increase it has been limited to of 15 per cent. As I pointed out that day, I was under no illusions, regardless of what was said in November that the full 15 per cent would be taken by regulation. We know that that is the type of thing that happens here. Another reason raised by Senator Colston as to why the Government would not take this on was in regard to higher and second degree students. It is true that my disallowance motion, if carried, and had it not been replaced by the Government on notice of disallowance, in fact would mean a slight increase for those students and a decrease for students undertaking primary degrees. As I indicated in November, we accepted the idea of bringing those higher degree students back into line with the first degree students. That will be an unfortunate result of this particular matter. However, the Government had it in its power last year and the year before to rectify that situation, but did not see fit to do so. It seems to me to be crying crocodile tears to be using that as an example this year as to why it should be doing or not doing something. The last point raised by Senator Colston, which also was raised by Senator Teague, concerned administrative difficulties. Of course, that is the first of the four reasons given by the Yes Minister bureaucrats: Administrative difficulties, Constitutional and legal problems, it has never been done before and it costs too much. We got two of those four reasons anyhow. They really are Yes Minister proposals. There are mechanisms available on notice of disallowance which would allow the Government to withdraw that regulation and put in another regulation which would apply to students this year and would bring fees into line with the inflation rate. I raise the question of inflation rates because of the extraordinary statements that Senator Teague has just made. I will read what Senator Teague said on 28 November. I thought he was talking then for the Opposition, but I was obviously sadly misled, although he did mention the Opposition on many occasions during his speech. He said: I must tell the Government that the Opposition regards the 15 per cent rate of increase also as unfair . . . The Opposition regarded the increase as unfair yet presumably, it is about to vote for it. That is fair enough, but Senator Teague went on to say this: . . . the Opposition acknowledges that the Government should have the ability to increase the charge but we believe that the appropriate rate of increase in respect of existing students should be the rate of inflation. What rate of inflation are we looking at? We are looking at a rate of 7.6 per cent-almost half of the 15 per cent increase that the Government requires in its regulation. When I moved my motion for disallowance I was quite confident that I would have the Opposition on side, but no, the Opposition's statements were made obviously for the consumption by overseas students and their journals-a little bit of massaging to make the Opposition feel good. Had the Opposition any intention of doing anything about this matter it would be voting with us to disallow this regulation. It has said one thing in November of last year and is doing another thing in the following year. Senator Teague went on: Accordingly, our amendment at the Committee stage will propose that the Government determined level of 15 per cent not apply but, rather, that it be the maximum under which the actual rate will be determined each year by regulation so as to reflect generally the rate of inflation in Australia. I presume Senator Teague thinks the rate of inflation is 15 per cent. He has probably been listening to Mr Howard. Actually, if the honourable senator would like to look it up, the rate of inflation is 7.6 per cent. Senator Teague continued: Because regulations are subject to disallowance by the Parliament, the Government should expect approval from the Parliament when the rate determined does in fact reflect the annual rate of inflation. That is what was said in this chamber. Presumably, one could expect to be able to believe what an honourable senator says about subsequent events. On 28 November the Government was put on notice by Senator Teague with regard to what the Opposition would be doing. Foolhardy as I was, I believed him. I now find the very opposite to be the case. Unfortunately, this is a typical example of the type of stuff that is pounded round often in education debates in this place for outside consumption with absolutely no intention of its being followed up. This is a purely disgraceful exercise on the part of the Opposition. I will certainly make sure that every overseas student in the community knows about the Opposition's double-talk in this regard. Question put: That the motion (Senator Macklin's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 61 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 54 —— Chipp, D. L. Sanders, N. K. Haines, J. Siddons, J. R. Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Vigor, D. B. Mason, C. V. J. Archer, B. R. Jones, G. N. Aulich, T. Kilgariff, B. F. Baume, Michael Knowles, S. C. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. McClelland, DouglasBlack, J. R. MacGibbon, D. J. Bolkus, N. McIntosh, G. D. Boswell, R. L. D. McKiernan, J. P. Brownhill, D. G. C. Maguire, G. R. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Childs, B. K. Missen, A. J. Coates, J. Morris, J. Coleman, R. N. Parer, W. R. Collard, S. J. Puplick, C. J. G. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reid, M. E. Cooney, B. Reynolds, M. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Richardson, G. F. Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M. Durack, P. D. Sheil, G. Elstob, R. C. Short, J. R. Evans, Gareth Sibraa, K. W. Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C. Georges, G. Teague, B. C. Giles, P. J. Vanstone, A. E. Grimes, D. J. Walters, M. S. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Watson, J. O. W. Hamer, D. J. Withers, R. G. Hill, R. Zakharov, A. O. Jessop, D. S. Question so resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed from 19 February. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy) —I suggest that the convenience of the Committee would be best served were the Bills to be taken in the following sequence: First, as listed, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill; secondly, its associated measure, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill; thirdly, the Australian Bill of Rights Bill; and, fourthly, its associated measure, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill. I believe that would serve the convenience of the Senate and enable a rational consideration of these measures. The CHAIRMAN —There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION BILL 1985 The Bill. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.45) —The Opposition opposed the motion for the second reading of this Bill to establish the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. I want to make it quite clear that the defeat of this particular measure would not affect the continued operation of the Human Rights Commission. The Opposition's concern about the new Commission, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, is about the very fundamental change in the structure of the Human Rights Commission and the creation of a body which, in our view, will be just another bureaucracy. In other words, the concept of the present Human Rights Commission-to which the Opposition, when in government, gave effect-will be changed. The Human Rights Commission, which has been in existence since 1981, essentially provides advice to Government for the purpose of exercising the obligations the Government assumed when in 1981 it ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The concept was of a small Commission, largely comprising part time people with a particular interest and expertise in human rights questions. The Commission was structured in that way so that it was representative of people who are particularly affected by these issues. The commissioners were selected because of their expertise in human rights matters and several of them had a very personal understanding of some of the problems, particularly of the disabled. It was intended to be serviced by only a small full time staff. The Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Commission were full time and there was to be a small staff and a small budget. Under the Hawke Government in the past three years the staff of the Human Rights Commission has been expanded considerably. Now we have this proposal that it should comprise full time officers. There will be a full time president, a full time race discrimination commissioner, a full time sex discrimination commissioner and at least one other member who may or may not be full time, but I understand from the Government it is intended that he would be full time. I would like the Minister to give some indication of whether the Government's intentions have firmed up, as to who that person will be, who he or she may represent and whether or not he or she will be full time. The Opposition is concerned that the Commission's character will be changed quite fundamentally by the policy of the Government. Its objection to this Bill is that it will give further and better expression to that major change in policy of the Government towards the Human Rights Commission and the concept it has of the role of that Commission. There is also a very grave and growing concern about the various roles that the Human Rights Commission will be required to assume. That applies to the present Human Rights Commission, regardless of whether or not we have a new Commission. This Bill will give further emphasis to the various roles of the Commission. It was established originally with the idea of its being an advisory Commission on human rights issues to the government of the day and to the Parliament. It was given various powers, which were seen at that stage to be relevant to that role, but in our view it is now in danger of becoming almost a monster bureaucracy with a lot of powers that would not normally be associated with the bureaucracy. It has a very high and growing administrative bureaucratic role. At the same time it has powers of inquiry, education, conciliation, and trying to settle disputes of various kinds, even under its present charter. If the Bill of Rights is enacted, it will have an even greater role. It now has the power to recommend that damages or compensation be given to people, so it has a semi-judicial role. They are all boxed up in the one body. The Opposition's view is that we need to rethink the situation of the Human Rights Commission, regardless of whether the Bill of Rights is passed or the Commission is converted to a Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The existing Human Rights Commission and its powers need to be rethought. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, which is before us to create a new Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, includes in it most of the powers that were given to and are held by the Human Rights Commission. One very significant change relates to the privilege against self-incrimination. I will have more to say about that in the Committee debate on that Bill, when I will move an amendment relating to the power of inquiry by the Commission and the powers to call witnesses, to obtain documents and to examine witnesses on oath. These powers are all set out under Division 3, clause 20, commencing at page 14 of the Bill. In relation to the power to examine witnesses, they may be subpoenaed to appear. They are required to answer questions and they do not have legal representation when they appear before the body, or the person nominated by the body to conduct the inquisition. They are required to answer the questions that are put to them. It is a criminal offence to refuse to answer a question without reasonable excuse. Clause 24 (3) of the Bill states that a person is not excused from giving any information, producing a document or answering a question on the ground that the information, production of the document or answer might tend to incriminate the person. The information or answer given is not admissable evidence against the person in proceedings other than proceedings for an offence of giving false information to the Commission. That is a very extreme form. I know that there are a lot of precedents for that in modern legislation. The Opposition is becoming more and more concerned about that type of power and the extent of it. We are embarking on a review of our attitude to that type of legislation. Such a power we think is really quite inappropriate in respect of a body of this kind. This sort of draconian power may be justified in company investigation in which one is investigating what is probably more likely to be fraudulent activity. It may be necessary to have such extreme power as that in those circumstances. I think this company investigation precedent, which has been getting widespread use, is particularly inappropriate in human rights legislation. I see no reason in the wide world why the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission should have powers as extensive as that. Section 15 (8) of the existing Human Rights Commission Act deals with this question and states: It is hereby declared that it is a reasonable excuse for a person to refuse to furnish information or produce a document to answer a question he is asked . . . that the information . . . might tend to incriminate him. That preserves absolutely the privilege against self-incrimination. The Opposition believes that the restriction on the owner to examine witnesses in the existing Human Rights Commission Act should be incorporated in the new place of legislation. As I said, we have grave reservations about these general powers as a whole being given to the Commission. However, it is particularly offensive for the power of privilege against self-incrimination to be removed in such an absolute way. We see that as quite inappropriate to a body which is supposed to be the watchdog of a whole lot of guarantees on human rights, including this sort of privilege which is central to, and a major feature of, our criminal justice system. The amendments which I intend to move, and which have been circulated on behalf of the Opposition, involve two matters. One seeks to include a clause which I have already read and the other seeks to amend a clause in the Bill. No doubt we will have further discussion on these matters. However, at this stage I will simply move my amendments and see what the Committee's view is. I seek leave to move the amendments together. Leave granted. Senator DURACK —I move: (1) Page 17, clause 23, at end of clause, add the following new sub-clause: `(3) Without limiting the generality of the expression `reasonable excuse' in this section, it is hereby declared for the avoidance of doubt that it is a reasonable excuse for a person to refuse or fail to furnish information, produce a document or answer a question when required to do so under this Act, that the information, the production of the document or the answer to a question might tend to incriminate that person.'. (2) Page 19, sub-clause 24 (3), leave out sub-paragraph (c) (iii) and paragraph (d). Senator HAINES(South Australia)(11.04) —The Committee is dealing with the Bill as a whole and, like Senator Durack, I would like to make a few general comments and ask the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) one or two questions. Clause 11 of the Bill relates to the functions of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and contains a long list of areas where the Commission will have oversight. The Commission will have to inquire and conciliate. It is going to have to report to the Government in relation to acts or practices that may be inconsistent with or contrary to any human right. It is to have research, education and promotion functions. Also, it is going to be able, with the consent of a court, to intervene in proceedings involving human rights issues. I would simply like to echo some concerns about the wide ranging nature of these functions. I ask the Minister whether he can give some explanation of just exactly how the Commission is going to carry out the sorts of general functions that are included in that list. The way in which the Commission is to carry out its investigative and conciliatory functions is set out in considerable detail. However, there is not really a great deal of light cast on how it will go about the research, education and promotion functions. Clause 27 talks about the requirement of the Commission to give opportunity for the making of submissions. Essentially, the clause says that when the Commission considers that something inconsistent with any human right is done by a person or, presumably, by more than one person, it can give that person the right to make oral or written submissions to the Commission before the Commission reports to the Minister. I recall that during the second reading debate Senator Walters raised the hypothetical situation of somebody whom she referred to as Mrs Ann Citizen who received a rather strong phone call from the Commissioner and was told: `You have had a complaint made against you. We want you to appear before us. No, you cannot have legal representation. Yes, you must attend and you must bring your documents. If you do not, we are going to fine you or throw you in gaol'. I am sure that the Minister remembers vividly that quite horrific story and situation put to us by Senator Walters. I rather imagine that in fact it is not a Mrs Ann Citizen or anyone remotely like her who is likely to be contacted by the Commissioner in that way. At the very most, perhaps, a Mrs Ann Federal Public Servant may well be contacted by the Commissioner and asked to produce documents. In fact, it will not be a citizen who will have those demands made of him or her but a Federal public servant against whom a complaint has been laid for infringement of one of the rights contained in the legislation. I think the Senate and I am sure 16 million Australians would like the Minister to clarify whether the Commissioner or any of the Commissioner's staff will be in a position to ring up individual citizens in their private capacity and say, `Yes, you have to do all of those things', or whether this demand can be made only to somebody against whom a complaint has been made. As I read the Bill, that must be within the confines of the bureaucracy. The other point I want to raise is the question that has, I guess, been validly put with regard to appeals. I notice that the Minister is not listening to what I am saying. I will just wait until I can get his attention because I think this is an important matter. Apparently there has been a very justified criticism that the Bill itself does not contain a clause similar, for example, to the one contained in the Sex Discrimination Act which allows the Commissioner or the complainant to institute a proceeding in a Federal Court for an order to enforce a determination made by the Commission. As I understand it, when this Bill becomes an Act, a complaint lodged against the behaviour of a Federal public servant can then be investigated by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission using the powers it has under the legislation to call documents and witnesses and to hold compulsory conferences between the parties. The Commission would make a report to the Government and it is then up to the Government to make some sort of decision, presumably through legislation or by way of ministerial directive, to the department concerned with regard to the complaint. Is my reading of section 5 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act correct? It seems to me-and I am quite prepared to be found wrong on this as I am no doubt wrong on other things-that section 5 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 does allow an appeal. The section says: A reference in this Act to conduct engaged in for the purpose of making a decision includes a reference to the doing of any act or thing preparatory to the making of the decision, including the taking of evidence or the holding of an inquiry or investigation. Will the AD(JR) Act, section 5, apply to this legislation, therefore giving either of the parties concerned in the dispute the right of appeal to a higher authority, and one, I gather, under which all the rules of evidence and non-allowance of self-incrimination and so on apply? If the Minister could answer those questions I would be appreciative. The question of general self-incrimination in sub-clause 24 (3) was raised by the Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills, although not terribly enthusiastically. The Committee points out that in this instance the production of the document or the answer to the question is not admissible in evidence except in proceedings for the provision of false or misleading information. That is another category entirely. Although, under the Commission, self-incrimination, or likely self- incrimination, is not an excuse for not furnishing information, any evidence which is produced is not able to be used in any additional proceedings except in the very narrow sense that it is defined. So presumably if an appeal provision was made under the AD(JR) Act it could not be used. As Senator Durack quite rightly pointed out, it is a precedent that has been established with regard to company investigation. I would have thought that bureaucratic investigations should be dealt with in a similar vein if we take malfunctions within the bureaucracy to be at least as serious as malfunctions within a private company; I would have thought that we did. I do not need to say anything more about the general provisions in the Bill except to ask for clarification about whom the Commission can require to attend, and the appeals provisions. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.13) — In developing an accumulating list of things to respond to it might be useful if I come in at this stage and clear at least some of these matters off the desk. As to the general points that were made about the operation of the Commission under the legislation by Senator Durack, and to a lesser extent by Senator Haines, I cannot do much more than refer both of them to the second reading speech given by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in the other place and repeated here. The functions of the Commission are there described. Senator Haines asked me how research, education and promotion functions would in fact be exercised by the Commission. I think it is anticipated at this stage that there will not be any significant differences, in principle anyway, as to the way in which these functions are performed by the new Commission as compared with the old. It is a matter for the new Commissioners who will, of course, be primarily, or maybe initially, wholly full time to decide the priorities for the Commission in the light of resources made available to it. Basically, a pattern has been set with the existing Commission and we can reasonably expect that to continue. As to the points that Senator Haines made about appeal procedures from the Commission's exercise of its investigative, conciliatory and to a lesser extent determinative functions, yes, it is the case that section 5 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, will apply to those proceedings and enable them to be appealable through that particular mechanism in the way that Senator Haines was urging should be the case. The Attorney-General has made that perfectly clear and I do not think there is any argument that that should be the case. That is what will be the case. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(11.15) —There seems to be some confusion as to whether there is an appeals provision. I just want that clarified. I certainly think there should be. There have been allegations that there is no appeal provision from the determination or the report of the Commission. The Minister has just said that it is there under section 5 the AD(JR) Act 1977. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.15) — I am making it clear on the record that the review procedure-it is not technically an appeal, but rather a review procedure-is available, is intended to be available and will be available from proceedings of the Commission in that respect. As to the other matter that Senator Haines raised about the extent to which ordinary non-official individuals could be caught up in the Commission's investigative process and required to give evidence, or produce documents, and things of this kind, it is the case that the primary focus of a commission's investigation would be the government agency or the government officials against whom the complaint is made. One would reasonably anticipate that the primary focus of these clauses that give certain powers to the Commission to require the production of information would be directed against the officials and the agencies of government concerned rather than any private individual or corporation. Equally, that would be the case in respect of the operation of clause 27 of the Bill which Senator Haines specifically mentioned and which talks in terms of the opportunity being required to be given to make submissions to the Commission. However, it does not follow from that that there is no power in the Commission to require a complainant to produce certain material if the Commission feels that that is appropriate and necessary to get the full dimension of the thing clear. There is a power in the Commission to identify other witnesses who may be able to assist it in its inquiries. There is a capacity to require them to produce certain kinds of information. One would, of course, expect that power to be exercised very circumspectly and certainly not exercised in relation to persons who are unassociated with the person making the complaint or, from the other point of view, the government agency. One can only, here as elsewhere, expect common sense and discretion to be exercised in the way these institutions actually work. Senator Durack asked me a question about the likely composition of the body. I think it is obviously premature to be too precise about that. Certainly, I have no intention-- Senator Durack —I did not ask for names. Senator GARETH EVANS —I did not think the honourable senator was asking for names. It is certainly intended that the President of the Commission be a person of judicial status. That is left open in the legislation and it is discretionary, but it is, as I understand it, the Government's intention that that should be so. Senator Durack —Will the person be a full time president? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is also intended that the person be a full time president. The Bill does make provision for part time commissioners to be appointed. I am not sure of the present intention of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in this respect, but certainly the whole reconstituted Commission is being thought of as essentially and primarily a full time body with the part time community input that does exist through the present part time commissioners being better made through a network of advisory and consultative bodies of one kind or another. That is a fluid situation and it may be that the Government's position will change or be adjusted as the circumstances change. I cannot be any more precise than that. I am not unwilling to be precise, I simply cannot be. As to the main substance of Senator Durack's amendment, let me say this: The amendment is directed at removing from the Bill the provision in clause 23 which does require a person to answer questions notwithstanding that they may be incriminating, with the very important qualification, of course, that any self-incriminatory evidence so given is inadmissible in any subsequent proceedings other than those for, in effect, perjury. The point should be made that that kind of provision is, as was acknowledged by Senator Durack, by no means unusual in Commonwealth legislation. In fact, we have identified something like 90 instances of it in present Commonwealth statutes. The reason for putting such a clause in the Bill now before us was in order to maximise the capacity of the Commission to get information, and as comprehensive information as possible, on the matters before it. It should be emphasised here, as elsewhere, that what we are talking about are simply investigative, reporting and conciliation powers of the Commission. We are not talking about the Commission behaving as a court. It cannot impose a penalty on any person. It does not have a dispute settling power involving the making of compulsory orders; it merely makes recommendations. That all said, obviously it has been the case that very substantial opposition to this measure has been expressed in a number of quarters. I think that a lot of that opposition has been based on a misunderstanding as to the very limited nature of this clause and the context in which it occurs. But, given that it is really just a supplementary power available to the Commission and not one that is, I suppose, strictly necessary in order for it to perform its investigative, conciliation and reporting functions because, as Senator Durack has said, that power is lacking in the present Human Rights Commission and there is no evidence that its functions in this respect have been very seriously hindered by the absence of such a power, I now indicate that the Government will not resist this amendment. In fact, we will not oppose the amendment that Senator Durack has moved. There are some difficulties about Senator Durack's amendment to clause 24, which I will come back to in a moment. I think that it goes further than simply removing the self-incrimination provision. I am presently looking at the drafting of that. In terms of the proposed deletion of clause 23 (3) and the substitution of the provision that Senator Durack has foreshadowed, I indicate that the Government will not resist that course. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.23) —I thank Senator Gareth Evans for the favourable consideration that he has given to the amendment. I believe that the amendment will improve very much the acceptance of the powers that are to be given to the Commission. I intended the second amendment to be consequential on that amendment. It seemed inevitable that there would have to be changes to clause 24. Whether or not it is necessary to delete sub-paragraphs (c) (iii) as well as paragraph (d) may be the subject of some concern. I am not sure whether that is what is worrying Senator Gareth Evans. By way of explanation I indicate that it was intended to be a consequential amendment. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.24) — I thank Senator Durack for that contribution. I think it might be helpful, under the circumstances, if we were to postpone the consideration of the consequential amendment which Senator Durack has moved in order to ensure that we have the drafting of this right. Perhaps we should deal with the amendment to insert clause 23 (3), return to the Bill at a later hour and untangle the consequential bit. The CHAIRMAN —With the agreement of the Committee, the amendments will be taken separately. Senator Missen —This does not preclude discussion on this clause, I take it. The CHAIRMAN —No. The question before the Chair is that amendments (1) and (2) be agreed to. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(11.25) —In indicating his acceptance of the Opposition's amendment which I support, Senator Gareth Evans has put his finger on what I think is a very important aspect of our approach to this legislation. There is no doubt that there has been a great deal of public concern about the alleged procedures of the Human Rights Commission. Many of those concerns have been unfounded. Many of them have been based on a series of assertions, none of which I have actually seen substantiated by reference to any cases or particular instances. It appears that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is now going to come into being in its new and revised form because of the support which is being given to the proposal by the Australian Democrats. I think the only way in which the Commission has any chance of success is if it specifically addresses itself to some of the public concerns that have been raised. Senator Durack indicated that in moving the amendment we were only drawing on the existing provisions of section 15 (8) of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981-just basically doing some minor rewording of that so that the sort of regime that applies under the Human Rights Commission Act would apply under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act. The question of self-incrimination is, I think, an important one. I think that we are all aware of the provisions of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which provides in part that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. It is also interesting to consider how the Canadians addressed themselves to this in the original Bill of Rights of 1960, under which they started off their procedure of strengthening human rights legislation in Canada. Section 2 (d) of the Canadian Bill of Rights provided that no law of Canada should be construed in a way which would deny `protection against self-incrimination'. In accepting the amendment which Senator Durack has put forward the Government has come to a realisation that it is important, if this body is to be successful, that it re-establish some degree of public confidence in its procedures, which have been, I think, shaken by a number of unfortunate incidents, some of which the Commission itself is responsible for and for some of which it is not responsible, but which are the result of some ill-informed criticism. I hope that the same reasonableness which Senator Gareth Evans, as the Minister representing the Attorney-General, has demonstrated on this occasion will be brought to the Committee stage consideration of the rest of the legislation. If we are going to get into a situation in which there is a permanent public fight-not so much just criticism, but a permanent public fight-over the procedures of the Commission, that will obscure the more important issue, which is that we should try to build up a public understanding and a degree of public support for measures which protect human rights when they are genuinely under threat. In that respect, I thank the Minister representing the Attorney-General for accepting the Opposition's amendment. I hope that that will set a good precedent for the way in which the remainder of the Committee stage on the four Bills is handled. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(11.29) —I join in that comment. The effect of the amendment moved by Senator Durack would be, in fact, to return to the existing situation so far as self-incrimination is concerned. The amendment seeks to remove one of the differences that was imposed in the Bill, which I think is desirable. My general attitude is that I do not like the Bill at all, for very important reasons. There is very little in the Bill which is different from the rights contained in the Human Rights Commission Act. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill 1985 is linked to some extent with the other Bills. We are taking them in a most curious order because we are dealing with a supplementary Bill to the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 which gives further powers and obligations to the Human Rights Commission, and this makes the use of some of its present powers awkward. This has been pointed out by Peter Bailey, the Deputy Chairman of the Human Rights Commission, who has said that to add adjudications and determinations like this to the powers of conciliation and education will lead to a certain amount of awkwardness for the Commission. Therefore, I welcome this one instance in which the Bill returns the Commission to its present shape. Senator Puplick said that it was for the Commission to establish its reputation because there had been a lot of adverse comment about it. I would point out that the Commission has already done quite a bit in that direction, but unfortunately this has not been mentioned much in this debate or in public discussion or in the Press. Some of the criticisms which emerged last year and which have been referred to in this chamber about the attitude of the existing Commission would, of course, be very relevant if there were a change in the existing Commission. I hope there will not be a change because I hope that this Bill will be defeated. But if it is not defeated and there is a change, one would expect the Commission to use the same powers. The criticisms were set out in an adjournment speech made by the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) in September last year in which he indicated many `grounds' of criticisms of the Human Rights Commission. Many people in this chamber have said the same things during the course of this debate. I wish to put into the record-- Senator Chipp —Who is the honourable member for Parkes? Senator MISSEN —Mr Michael Cobb. The Deputy Chairman of the Human Rights Commission, Mr Bailey, replied to those criticisms in detail in a speech and in an annexure to that speech which he delivered on 17 September last year. In fairness to the Commission I believe those responses should be in the record. I seek leave to have his annexure incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Annexure to Address by Deputy Chairman of Human Rights Commission to Administrative Law Seminar Note of Points Made in Adjournment Speech by the Member for Parkes on 17 September 1985 and Toorak Times Article of 8 September 1985 1. The Commission wishes ``to break down our traditional way of life''. See final point in paragraph 26 of the address. 2. The Commission advocates homosexual immigration. Attention is invited to paragraphs 59-60 of the Commission's Report No. 13 on Human Rights and the Migration Act 1958. There is no advocacy of homosexual immigration, but rather the suggestion that where there is demonstrated and enduring companionship with another person resident in Australia, the overseas person should be allowed to join the companion in Australia. This would include long-time friends and companions as well as homosexual couples. 3. The Queensland Government has been attacked over its electricity supply legislation. The Human Rights Commission found severe breaches of the International Covenant in its Report No. 12 on the Queensland Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Act 1985 and Report No. 14 on the Queensland Electricity supply and Related Industrial Legislation. It found violations of the right to freedom from forced labour, of the right to privacy, of the right to association and of the right to free speech involved in various parts of the Queensland legislation. 4. The International Covenant was ``drawn up by overseas socialist countries''. That is simply untrue. When the Covenants were prepared by the General Assembly in 1966 the Western group had in general terms a majority and indeed there was considerable resistance to the Covenant from communist countries. 5. Irish jokes and Professor Blainey would be outlawed by the racial defamation proposals made in the Commission's Report No. 7. Report No. 7, Proposal for Amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act to Cover Incitement to Racial Hatred and Racial Defamation, is a carefully reasoned document based on a study and increasing numbers of complaints to the Commission. It specifically indicates that the amendments should not cover genuine discussion or reporting of public issues, publication or performance of bona fide works of art and reports of scientific investigation. Both in the report and in subsequent speeches by the Chairman and Deputy Chairman it has been made clear that neither Irish jokes nor the comments of Professor Blainey, whatever their tastefulness, would be caught by the Commission's proposals. 6. The Commission has recommended ``that any illegal immigrant couple who can have a child in Australia be entitled to permanent residence in Australia''. The author of this comment could not have read three of the Commission's reports which address the issue-No. 10 on the Human Rights of Australian Born Children: Report on the Complaint of Mr and Mrs R. C. Au Yeung; No. 13 on Human Rights and the Migration Act 1958 and No. 8 on Deportation and the Family: A report on the Complaints of Mrs M. Roth and Mr C. J. Booker. In each of these the Commission explains that it does not oppose deportation but that after a person has been here for a substantial length of time, e.g. five years or more, and has integrated in the community and in the meantime has had a child who by Australian law becomes a citizen, the balance of human rights tends to move towards retaining the family rather than deporting the family including the child. The alternative specifically commended to the Government for consideration is that, as in the United Kingdom, children born in Australia should only receive citizenship automatically if they are born to citizens or permanent residents. There is no invitation to circumvention of the law-rather, to apply the existing law humanely or to change it. 7. Criticism of the Queensland community services legislation. In its Report No. 9, Community Services (Aborigines) Act 1984, the Commission commended the forward steps taken by the Queensland Government in relation to Aborigines living on reserves, but made the point that some of the changes still leave Aboriginal communities in a deprived situation, e.g. in relation to voting for local government and control of affairs on their land. The Commission encouraged further action. 8. The right of Women Against Rape to march on Anzac Day. The Commission has made no formal pronouncement on this subject but has drawn attention to the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and indicated that in such situations there should be no arbitrary prevention of particular groups joining processions. 9. The proposed Bill of Rights would confer ``alarming powers'' on the Commission. That is manifestly untrue. The proposals for a Bill of Rights contain no change in the present carefully drawn powers conferred on the Commission to investigate complaints and hold inquiries on human rights matters. As to the Star Chamber, see address, paragraph 25, point 3. 10. The Commission has advertised ``offering bribes to school teachers''. This is the most extraordinary piece of misinformation. The Commission advertised Australia-wide for teachers interested in receiving small grants to enable experimental use of its teaching materials ``Teaching for Human Rights''. All over Australia teachers are using the kit and are evaluating it with a view to re-issue in a form taking account of the outcome of the evaluation. Only the Queensland Government school system has been banned, by the Queensland Minister for Education, from using the kit which has otherwise received favourable comment from teachers and pupils in government, independent and Catholic school systems. 11. A report by Dr Moens has been ``suppressed''. The Commission for legal reasons has not made public the reasons for its dissatisfaction. However, it has indicated to Dr Moens that he is free to publish his work. It may be worth noting that that has not occurred. The Commission would not spend public funds publishing material that failed in almost all significant respects to conform with contract requirements. 12. The Commission is alleged not to have investigated a complaint from Mr Erwin Chlanda. The Commission received complaints from Mr Chlanda, but on investigation found nothing to indicate that his race was the reason why Aboriginal organisations were unwilling to deal with him. While the Commission, following its practice where there is no jurisdiction, has not proceeded with the complaints, its staff have discussed Mr Chlanda's difficulties with him and through their good offices have been seeking to help him open communication with Aboriginal organisations. 13. Criticism of Wollongong University. It was not the Commission, but the Deputy Chairman who drew attention to a challenge by the University in the High Court to a finding of racial discrimination by the Equal Opportunity Tribunal of New South Wales. The criticism was based on the fact that the ground of the appeal was not on substance of the matter but a technical Constitutional point in relation to racial discrimination, which is made unlawful by legislation of both the Commonwealth and New South Wales. 14. The Commission has abandoned ``traditional concepts of Justice''. This is too vague an accusation to answer except by saying that on no occasion has the Commission abandoned the pursuit of justice or of human rights and that it has rarely used the powers it has been given by the Parliament, and then only with care and without resorting to enforcement measures. It has assumed no powers as appears to be alleged. 15. The Commission is selective in deciding what cases it will take up and has not examined alleged incitement against people of German extraction. The Commission has invited the person making this criticism (Mr John Bennett) to give a specific case to investigate, but he has failed to do so. 16. The Commission is not interested ``in the rights of the 75% of the population of Anglo Saxon Celtic origins''. The Commission is interested in the rights of all people in Australia and, when they are threatened, will unhesitatingly defend them. The Racial Discrimination Act is available for anyone in Australia, and the Commission investigates with equal care the not infrequent complaints it receives from people who would identify as ``Anglo-Saxon-Celtic''. Naturally, many of its reports will deal with the problems of minority groups. But such reports as those relating to the A.C.T. Mental Health Ordinance, the Australian Citizenship Act, the Commonwealth Crimes Act, the Human Rights of the terminally ill and the Migration Act deal with important issues of considerable interest to all people in Australia, including those who may have their origins in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Senator MISSEN —I thank the Senate. I have two main objections to this Bill: The first is the proposed make-up of the new Commission. It is to be an entirely bureaucratic commission and we in the Opposition have always opposed that suggestion. This matter came up before the last election. Senator Gareth Evans has been trying for a long time to get rid of part time commissioners and to insist on having only fulltime commissioners operating. I think that is a very unwise course of action. I would extend the whole concept. I would also have State commissioners in cases where States are willing to put forward the names of people who are experts in human rights to serve on the Commission. If State situations are to be looked at, then the Commission could include someone from the State who is familiar with human rights in that area. I take issue with Senator Gareth Evans who said, among other things, that there was provision for part time commissioners in this Bill. That is hardly an accurate way of putting it. If one looks at clause 8 one finds that it says: 8. (1) The Commission shall consist of- (a) a President; (b) the Race Discrimination Commissioner; (c) the Sex Discrimination Commissioner; and (d) at least one other member but not more than 3 other members. In any case there will always be a majority of bureaucrats on this Commission-people whose job it is to carry out these functions. I think the part-time commissioners, who have done a splendid job in trying to keep the Commission on an even keel and whose interference may have been disliked by some full-time commissioners, are now to be wiped out. That is the disastrous nature of this Bill. The Minister said that there could be some part time-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! We are actually discussing the two amendments moved by Senator Durack, which are before the Chair. Senator MISSEN —We are also discussing the clause of the Bill and the Bill as a whole, as I understand it. The CHAIRMAN —No, the motion to move two amendments supersedes consideration of the Bill. We will come back to the Bill as a whole. It is perfectly in order for Senator Missen to discuss points made by Senator Puplick but he is going rather wide of the actual amendments. Senator MISSEN —Senator Gareth Evans was allowed to make a statement in this debate and surely I should be allowed to reply to it. The CHAIRMAN —Once the amendments have been disposed of and the Bill is before the Senate. Senator MISSEN —Very well, I will come back to my remarks later. The CHAIRMAN —I will dispose of the amendments now in order to tidy things up. I will put the amendments separately. Is there any dissenting voice? Senator Durack —No, but having looked at the details, I think that the second amendment now needs to be reworded quite considerably. Amendment No. 1 agreed to. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.37) —by leave-I amend amendment No. 2 to read as follows: Page 19, sub-clause 24 (3), lines 13 to 18, leave out all words after paragraph (c). Page 19, sub-clause 24 (5), lines 26 to 30, leave out the sub-clause. Senator Gareth Evans —That is the part of the clause that is genuinely consequential upon amendment No. 1 which we have just passed. Accordingly the Government will accept the removal of those words. Amendments agreed to. The CHAIRMAN —The question is that the Bill, as amended, be agreed to. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(11.39) —I just wish to make a general observation about the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill 1985 and the structure of the Commission. The suggestion made by Senator Gareth Evans that there was a power to have part-time members is very tenuous indeed. Clause 8, sub-clause (4) says: Where the Governor-general is satisfied that it is desirable to do so, the Governor-General may appoint the President or a member referred to in paragraph (1) (d) as a part-time member. So it could be that the President and one other person outside could be appointed as part-time members. The general statement is that subject to that sub-clause the President and members of the Commission shall be full time members. There is just a remote possibility that there could be a part time member-perhaps the President or perhaps the other person. Clearly, the majority of members on the Commission will be full time bureaucrats whose job is to carry out various aspects of the work of the Commission. I consider that to be a very poor change to the Commission. If anything, the Commission should be increased in size. It should not be reduced to three, four or five people who will then do all the work and see all the people who need to be examined. I ask honourable senators to remember that the Commission has had nearly 10,000 applications to it in the period it has been in operation. These applications have been dealt with by people whom I respect and whom I regard as decent and honourable. Nonetheless, they have the job of running the sex discrimination and race discrimination legislation. I do not think that so much should be left in so few hands. I understand it has always been the Opposition view that it is wrong to alter the Commission by reducing its numbers in this way. I make these general observations hoping that ultimately the Bill will be defeated because this change in numbers is the main feature of the Bill. The Bill in its other aspect just repeats the powers which the Commission, like many other non-legal but administrative bodies, has at the moment. There has been a great song and dance and correspondence to us from people around the country. Obviously this response has been planned and organised because practically all the words are the same. The same things have been said. None of these people, of course, sought to appear before the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs when it was preparing its report. Actually, the submissions from various committees and bodies to Senate committees mostly were in favour of a Bill of Rights. A few others had reservations about it. However, none of the people I mentioned-I am speaking generally here-made any approaches to appear before the Committee whatsoever. Therefore, I think a lot of nonsense is talked about the terrible, wicked powers we are giving the Human Rights Commission. Essentially they are the same powers as exist in the present Commission. The real, salient objection to this Bill is that it is to give to four or five bureaucrats the total power over these areas. I find that very objectionable. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(11.43) —I also would like to make a general comment about the composition of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. That is one aspect of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill about which I have very serious misgivings. The Commission has a number of functions which I guess can be summarised as firstly, receipt and investigation of complaints; secondly, assistance and education; thirdly, consultation and settlement; and, fourthly, reporting and determination. It seems to me that the problem with these wide ranging functions is that they place the Commission in the role of a judge and a jury. With all the goodwill and integrity in the world I do not see how the Commissioners can fulfil both these functions. I am seriously concerned about the way the Commission is established. I am concerned about the way it will function. To me this whole legislation runs the danger of bureaucratic impingement on the reasonable rights of individuals. As such I hope that some assurance can be given by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) that the doubts that I have in fact are not real. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.44) —I will respond to some of the points that have been made. Senator Puplick emphasised the need to re-establish public confidence in the human rights machinery in this country. I do not know whether there is a lack of confidence in it at the moment but to the extent that it might be a case for changing the profile of the Human Rights Commission of course that is one of the prime reasons why the body is being reconstituted as is here now proposed. The emphasis of the new body, as of the old, will be on promotion and education of human rights in relation to human rights matters. Also, so far as complaint resolution is concerned, emphasis will be placed on conciliation of complaints rather than any heavy- handed attempt to exercise any determining powers. That is just not within the bag of tricks that the Commission either has now or will possess in the future. So much of the publicity about this body has been based on a complete misunderstanding of that fact. I believe that such powers as the Commission has will be exercised reasonably for the reason not least that the body itself is preoccupied with the recognition and protection of human rights. It would be a travesty of that role and function were it to behave in a heavy-handed fashion that was insensitive to claims of this kind. I do not know whether I can go any further than that in responding to Senator Siddons's concerns. I believe the body will behave in a balanced, sensible and reasonable way. I believe that the powers it is vested with are not excessive. That has been acknowledged, certainly in Senator Missen's and Senator Puplick's contributions. That really is about as much as I can say. Senator Missen's concern was that adjudication and conciliation functions do not sit easily, in his view, with education and promotion and, particularly, I gather he has the view that any determinative functions do not sit easily with that other combination of roles. Let me say quite frankly that I agree with him. I think that the sooner we can establish a separate human rights tribunal exercising such determinative powers as have to be exercised, the better it will be. At the moment it is a rather uneasy situation where there are these determinative powers under the Sex Discrimination and Race Discrimination Acts which are exercised by the Commission, the safeguard being that the person doing the initial investigation and conciliation must not sit on the Commission when it is constituted for the purposes of making a determination. That is an uneasy compromise and one which I think ought to be substituted as soon as possible by the establishment of some kind of tribunal so we can have that separation of powers, visibly as well as in practice. I assure Senator Messner and the Senate that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) is still giving close consideration to the composition of such a tribunal. The whole issue is still under discussion with the States because of the desirability here, as elsewhere, of marrying the Commonwealth and State machinery so that we do not have a bewildering proliferation of human rights bodies and tribunals at Commonwealth and State level. It was certainly always my ambition as Attorney-General to try to get one-stop shopping in this respect. I think that is certainly the course which is being pursued. As to the question about the need for part timers to keep full time bureaucrats in touch with the real world-a theme which Senator Missen was anxious to pursue-again I cannot really say much more more than I have said before except that the Government's concern here is with getting the appropriate balance between that kind of external input and operational efficiency of the Commission itself. We believe that that operational efficiency will be very much enhanced by a core of full time professionals constituting the basic Commission. However, we do recognise the necessity for external input and that balance being maintained. We have taken the view, as I indicated before, that the primary vehicle for doing that would be the advisory committees of various kinds that it is proposed to establish under clause 17 of the Bill. I believe that in practice it will work out very well. Might I say that I am not intending by anything I have just said or anything inherent in the Government's position to denigrate the contribution which the part time Commissioners have made under the present legislation. They have worked long, hard, faithfully, sensitively and well in the exercise of their functions. However, I think many of them have found it an increasingly burdensome job given the extraordinarily diverse array of functions which the Commission has. We believe there is essentially a need for a full time operational role to be played by the Commission with a part time input through the advisory bodies that I have mentioned. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.50) —I wanted to make my contribution before the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) spoke because I intend traversing some of the things that he mentioned. I will not repeat all that Senator Missen said, but I wish to take up a couple of things. I agree with him about the membership of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. One of the difficulties that we have in addressing ourselves to this Bill is that we have not actually yet discussed or debated the Australian Bill of Rights in precise detail at the Committee stage. Senator Missen —It is back to front, isn't it? Senator HARRADINE —I think it is back to front; nevertheless, we all know generally what is in the Bill of Rights. We will try to apply that knowledge and remember it as we deal with the Commission itself under this legislation. I agree entirely that if a core bureaucracy is established comprising three commissioners and there is not sufficient input from part time commissioners, that bureaucracy will be institutionalised and we will not get a cross-fertilisation of views from the real world which are very important to balance what needs to be balanced; that is the rights of the individuals with the rights of society in general. It is important to understand that all of us agree that the rights and freedoms of the individual are very important indeed. After all, over a number of years, this chamber has prided itself as being the body before which persons can present their cases and which tends more to protect individual rights than does the Executive House, the House of Representatives. That can be done in a number of ways. Standing Orders provide opportunities to us which are not provided to members of the House of Representatives. For example, in the adjournment debate in this chamber time after time the rights of individuals have been explained and advanced. I well recall that that was done almost ad nauseam in respect of one individual by a senator who is not now with us; nevertheless he had the right to do that. He was able to stand up in this chamber and pursue the case of a particular constituent. Institutionally, we have the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills; the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances and the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. We also have Senate select committees. We are obliged in all of our considerations to have regard for the rights of society as well as the rights of the individual. One of the problems of establishing a bureaucracy such as the new Commission is that the rights of society may well not be given their true weight by a group which comprises three permanent members, two of whom will be the Sex Discrimination Commissioner and the Race Discrimination Commissioner. The Government should give serious consideration to that aspect. If there were opportunities for part time commissioners to be appointed, those positions would more readily be spread among the States. It is all very well for the Minister to say that there will be advisory committees. We know what advisory committees have done in the case of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I think that the Government passed legislation with regard to appointments to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Board, but it certainly made a statement at the time that it would consult with the Parliament or representatives of elected members of parliament about appointments to that body. I believe, with regard to appointments to this new bureaucracy, that the Executive Government should have incorporated into this Bill a provision which would enable parliamentary input with regard to who will be appointed as members of the Commission. That provision is not there. The reason for my saying that is not only because I believe that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission will usurp in some ways the functions of this Parliament but also because of the mixing of the investigative, conciliatory and settlement powers of the Commission's educative role. That has been mentioned before, and I am very concerned about it. Senator Missen was given leave to incorporate in Hansard the responses of the Human Rights Commission to comments made by the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb). I have not been able to study those responses in detail, but I do know and I am concerned about what has been stated in this Parliament about the educative role of the Human Rights Commission, particularly when the teaching kit entitled `Teaching for Human Rights' prepared by Dr Ralph Pettman has been adverted to in this Parliament as inferring that the traditional family unit was oppressive, racist, sexist and materialistic. I want the Minister to respond to the sorts of complaints that were made in this regard. I think Senator Short had that document. These are the sorts of things that need to be examined. I want to know how the Parliament will control that sort of operation by the Human Rights Commission which is an attack on the rights of the fundamental institution in society, allegedly on the ground of human rights. Senator Gareth Evans —It is not attacking it. Senator HARRADINE —If it is calling the traditional family racist, sexist and materialistic, of course that is an attack. Senator Gareth Evans —Read the whole passage and stop carrying on. Senator HARRADINE —That is what it says. Pettman's views are being feted by the United Nations and they are being expressed as being Australia's views on human rights. That is the sort of thing I am concerned about when I talk about the need for balance. I have fought for the rights of human beings over many years, particularly in the trade union movement. I know what it is like; but we must have a balanced approach. My concern is that the make-up of the proposed Commission as institutionalised in this Bill will not give that balance. What can the Parliament do about that sort of attack on a basic institution of society? That is a question I want to ask. I also refer to the type of educative role that the Human Rights Commission is playing in the euthanasia area. I invite honourable senators to read and study occasional paper No. 10 by the Human Rights Commission, dealing with the management of defective new-borns. I defy any senator after having read it not to agree with me that what that paper does is to set the scene for the denial of the basic human right to life of defective new-borns. Having established this bureaucracy, what can a parliament do about those sorts of things? Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.00) —I wonder whether Senator Evans could clarify the answer he gave to Senator Haines. Is it a fact that anyone employed by a State, Territory or Commonwealth government can be called before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in regard to allegations of a practice that is opposed in the Human Rights Commission Act? That is my first question. Secondly, is it possible for any citizen of Australia to be called as a witness and be told to bring certain documents that the Commission might think are helpful to the case? It could involve confidential information, but the Bill refers to documents. Is that possible and is that witness not entitled to legal representation? I gather now that even witnesses would be able to refuse on grounds that the documents may be self-incriminating. Could the Minister explain those points to me? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.02) —I think the substance of the clarification has already been given when I said there was no inhibition as to who could be requested by the Commission to appear before it during the Commission's investigation of a complaint. Obviously considerations of relevance would be overwhelming in the Commission's mind. I think it caricatures the situation somewhat to talk in terms of any employee of the Commonwealth, State or Territory potentially being able to be called before the Commission. Obviously it would be only in the context of some particular investigation of an act or practice of the State, Territory or Commonwealth agency concerned. I think Senator Walters would acknowledge that in practice-- Senator Walters —But it is possible. Senator GARETH EVANS —Of course it is possible. The language is in those terms, subject, obviously, to requirements of relevance, which could be enforced, I imagine, if someone objected to being called before the Commission on the ground that his presence was absolutely irrelevant. It bears upon what I have said also in response to Senator Haines, that if someone received a summons to appear before the Commission and manifestly his presence was quite irrelevant or immaterial to anything the Commission was properly doing, he could no doubt resist by way of appropriate procedures, possibly by utilising provisions of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act for that purpose, if not the general law. Senator Walters —Could you explain that a little more clearly? Senator GARETH EVANS —Section 5 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act makes it clear, with regard to any decision of a government agency-I am not sure whether I have it in front of me-- Senator Durack —Any administrative decision made under an Act. Senator GARETH EVANS —Administrative decisions under an Act are challengeable on a variety of grounds set out in that piece of legislation. Among the grounds are the traditional administrative law grounds of unreasonableness, oppression, irrelevance-all those sorts of considerations which would hitherto have justified a court, under ordinary administrative law ground rules, issuing an injunction or whatever to stop the proposed course of action proceeding. All of those provisions will be available as part of the apparatus of Commonwealth administrative law which now exists. Again, in the real world that we inhabit, I do not imagine that these sorts of issues would ever arise but to the extent that in theory they could, that is the answer I would give. As to being required to produce confidential documents, I draw Senator Walters's attention to clause 14 (5) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill which contains a very long list of matters which can properly be the grounds for a refusal to communicate information to the Commission. The Commission has a prima facie power to require the furnishing of just about any information but if one looks at page 12 of the Bill, sub-clause (5) states: In deciding whether or not to give a direction . . . the Commission shall have regard to the need to prevent such of the following as are relevant to the circumstances . . . That includes such matters as the unreasonable disclosure of the personal affairs of any person or the unreasonable disclosure of confidential commercial information. Manifestly, again, if the Commission did not have regard to proper consideration of that kind in requiring the disclosure of certain information to it, the Commission's actions in this respect could be challenged under the review procedures that I have just indicated. I am reminded that those items are repeated in clause 24, which governs the disclosure of information or contents of documents to the Commission itself, as distinct from clause 14, which related to information being leaked or disclosed by the Commission itself. So those various contingencies are all covered in different provisions of the Bill. I think the attempt to ensure that privacy, confidentiality and all of those values are maintained should be acknowledged. With regard to Senator Harradine's contribution, I take on board what he said about cross fertilisation of ideas and experience, and the need for the Commission not to become isolated, remote and overburdened with administrative detail at the expense of keeping track of currents of opinion in the community at large. I think this is an evolutionary thing and the Government's response will be based very much on its reading of the experience of the Commission during its early days. I will certainly ensure that Senator Harradine's views on this matter are communicated to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). No firm or final decisions have been made about the structure of the Commission. There is a capacity to appoint part timers. A number of senators have made this point during the course of the debate and I draw those considerations to the Attorney's attention so that he can give them such weight as he feels appropriate. As to the argument about the educative role of the Commission, I acknowledge that controversy will always erupt from time to time about particular projects in which the Commission engages but I do think it is a little unfair that Ralph Pettman's teaching instruction kit should have attracted quite the storm of extravagant criticism-- Senator Haines —Especially when he is getting curry from the USSR. Senator GARETH EVANS —I think that point needs to be put on the record in this Parliament. We have had Senator Short and Senator Harradine, and no doubt in a moment we will hear from Senator Boswell who has been rushing out to gird his loins with more extravagant denunciations. Senator Missen —It is only two paragraphs. Senator GARETH EVANS —What we are talking about is just two paragraphs, as Senator Missen has said, in a very large publication which has won general acclaim for its balance and perception-- Senator Haines —Except from the USSR. Senator GARETH EVANS —Except, as Senator Haines rightly points out, in the USSR. One can imagine why because immediately preceding a rather exuberant reference to the iniquities, in some people's view, of the capitalist system-a paragraph which has been very widely quoted and which has given rise to suggestions that this is just a handbook for the communist millennium-- Senator Harradine —That was not my point. Senator GARETH EVANS —No, the honourable senator's will come in a moment. The honourable senator should just curb his racing hormones. We will get to the family in a moment. Immediately prior to a reference to the construction of a capitalist world economy predicated upon dishonesty and greed, which I understand has jangled a few nerves on the other side of this chamber, we have the following language: More than twice the numbers who died in the Holocaust, for example, were killed in constructing the modern Soviet state. That is a pretty explicit sort of proposition and it is enough to jangle the nerves of any commissar worth his salt in the Kremlin. Indeed, those nerves have been jangled and this particular publication has been roundly denounced, as a result, by the very czars of communism who are supposed to be so ecstatic about this particular publication. So it is balanced. It is balanced throughout in its more moderate mode, and in its more extravagant mode it is also balanced as well. As to the reference to the family, which is the one other paragraph in this entire booklet seems to have attracted a great deal of enthusiasm, again I think it is unfortunate that the whole context in which that paragraph occurs has not been read out. It occurs in a section about the family, the opening bars of which is a reference to Article 16 (3) of the Universal Declaration; namely, that the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society. That is followed by the comment: Bedrock unit it may well be; but it is not immune from the forces that shape society itself. After further comment of that kind we come to the offending paragraph. It states: In Australia-a liberal, capitalist, multicultural democracy, with social welfare proclivities, a high stratified class structure, a value system that is secular, racist, sexist and materialistic-the family reflects and promotes this fact. All that is being said-and it is, no doubt, a controversial judgment; sociologists are capable of controversy about anything-is that the family is part of the larger currents that shape and, in turn, are shaped by society. These values, whether we like them or not, are prevalent in this society of ours and it is to be expected, as a result, that one would find these values flowing through and being part of the make up of some of the constituent fundamental units of that society. That is all that is being said. It goes on to qualify even that assertion by saying: The picture is far from static or clear, however. Quite the contrary. As our society has changed, so, in symbiotic fashion, has this `fundamental group unit' . . . Mum, Dad and the Kids (plus assorted `rellies') has never been adequate as a description of the Australian family, though it has been very powerful in defining expectations in this regard. That is the context in which the discussion jogs along. It is not an assertion in capital letters and neon lights that the Australian family is sexist, racist and materialistic, implying the assumption or justifying the inference that the family ought no longer to be supported, which is the kind of inference that, with the utmost respect to him, Senator Harradine has been a little bit anxious to extract from those words. I will not continue the debate although I fear that others might be minded to. I simply make the point that one can argue about language such as this that appears in booklets such as this, but part of the function of such booklets is to generate argument and response from kids in schools who are coming to grips with these kinds of issues. I do not say this about all its reports, some of which I have vigorously disagreed with, but the educative material being produced by the Human Rights Commission has, I think, been very good indeed, acknowledged as such, and not justifying the kind of assault that has been made upon it. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.14) —I ask the Minister whether he has seen the full kit put out on education. Senator Gareth Evans —Yes. Senator WALTERS —If he has seen the kit, he will know that there is an accompanying smaller booklet giving advice to teachers. For him to say there are only two offending paragraphs in that book probably does not explain the situation fully. In this booklet advice is given to teachers. I do not have it with me; it is in my office in my State. From memory, and it was quite some time ago that I read it, approximately 12 months, it says-- Senator Gareth Evans —I don't mind if you go and get it. Senator WALTERS —I would be interested to know whether it has been altered, but in the accompanying booklet that I received from the Human Rights Commission the advice to teachers was that within the first three months of a child being in the classroom all the problems that have developed at home must be overcome. It is important that this is undertaken in the first three months. Senator Haines —This sounds like a version of the Jesuits: Give me a child before-- Senator WALTERS —Yes, it really does. The first three months have got to be used as a brainwashing process to get rid of all the-- Senator Gareth Evans —I would like to see the prose-- Senator WALTERS —I will bring it for Senator Evans. I thought he said he had seen the full kit. He may not have read it all. In its advice to teachers in primary schools it says that if little girls want to play in the doll's corner they must have an equal number of boys to play with them, otherwise they are not permitted to play in the doll's corner. Little boys who want to play with cars are not allowed to play with cars unless little girls go with them and play with the cars too. The Minister must not pick up just one of the documents in the kit. He should look-- Senator Missen —It is the major document. Senator WALTERS —Senator Missen says he is looking only at the major document. That might be very good. I believe that the videos that come with it are excellent. I believe that the majority of the book is excellent. I agree with that. There is only a small area of that book with which I would disagree but, for goodness sake, we should look at everything that is handed out. Senator Missen says: `I am only looking at the major document'. That is not the correct thing to do. If a person is going to have a good look at it, he should look at the lot. Senator Missen —I did not say that. I said that is the major document. Senator WALTERS —The honourable senator should not look only at the major document; he should look at the lot. I am asking honourable senators to look at the advice that has been given to the teachers because I think that it is pretty dangerous. Honourable senators ought to look at this document. If the Minister has not seen that document, I will bring it to him. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(12.17) —I, too, am concerned with the powers given to the Human Rights Commission. I ask the Minister to justify, on behalf of the Human Rights Commission, the great amount of money that was spent by the Commission to put on a Priority One concert. Is that in the terms of reference of the Human Rights Commission? What other public relations exercises can the Commission run, and what will be the cost of them, to give the Commission a bit of publicity and build up its image? As the Minister said before, the Human Rights Commission has got a public relations problem. It is a very grave problem because this Parliament is going to give it carte blanche to investigate and report on all States, local government and councils. A number of honourable senators have referred to some indiscretions that the Human Rights Commission has perpetrated on the public of Australia. Senator Walters brought up such a case; Senator Short brought up one yesterday in a question to the Minister and Senator Harradine has voiced his concern. Even the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr Hurford, has said he has lost confidence in the Human Rights Commission. We could go on with a whole dialogue of things that the Human Rights Commission has done, including throwing the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Neil Brown, out of its offices and putting a ban on him. Today I noticed in a speech I was reading of one of my colleagues-I have verified that this is correct-there has been an attack on Sleeping Beauty. Is the Minister familiar with this? Senator Gareth Evans —I cannot remember that bit. Tell us about it. Senator BOSWELL —Let me read it to the Minister. I think it bears repeating in the Senate. This is Mr Pettman's resume of Sleeping Beauty: The King in Sleeping Beauty organises the party and the guest list (the Queen is not consulted). Indeed, all decisions are invariably made by males, and in times of crisis, the most typical reaction by female characters is to fall down crying. Heroines are unable to extricate themselves without male assistance, and there are usually racist overtones (white cats vs. black cats) . . . The black cat is evil and the white cat is good. Could anyone be blamed for having grave reservations and doubts when this sort of rubbish is perpetrated by a commissioner of the Human Rights Commission? That was a quote from Mr Pettman's resume. No wonder people on this side of the chamber become hysterical when we have to put up with that type of rubbish. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(12.21) —I would like to make a few comments on the response by Senator Evans to various criticisms of the Human Rights Commission which Senator Haines, other senators and I have made. We have said that the Human Rights Commission has too many functions that are somewhat in conflict and confuse the powers of investigation with the powers of conciliation and determination. I was pleased to hear Senator Evans say that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) is considering the establishment of a human rights tribunal to exercise, under various statutes, the powers of determination or recommendation, or those powers which are of a determinative or policy making kind. It is the first time that I have heard any suggestion from the Government that this is what it has in mind. I am anxious to investigate this matter somewhat further. In the debate that has been going on about the Human Rights Commission for a long time, and in the light of the very great concerns that have been expressed and the misunderstandings that have been held and encouraged about the Human Rights Commission, there has been a justifiable thread of concern that this body has some indications of a new grand inquisition. There is substance in that concern. As the Minister who was responsible for introducing this potential monster, in the eyes of many people, I have given the matter a great deal of thought and attention. As I said earlier, the Opposition is reviewing its whole attitude to this matter. I am pleased that the Government, from what Senator Evans said, has some recognition of this basic problem of the way the Human Rights Commission has been structured and the way that it has had function after function added to it and the powers it has. The end result is that we have a body which needs to be rethought. I hope that this was not just a throw-away line from the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) who represents the Attorney-General, but that the Government is seriously looking at restructuring the Commission to allay the very real concerns of many people, that this body, if it has not already got out of hand, could well get out of hand, particularly if it gets the very much increased jurisdiction which the Bill of Rights will give it. I have in mind the extension of its jurisdiction to the States and to the investigation of acts and practices of State governments and officials, which will greatly widen the jurisdiction and powers of the Human Rights Commission under its existing legislation. Whatever the final determinations may be-there are a variety-they are not all characterised as judicial or semi-judicial. For instance, under this legislation and the Bill of Rights the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission ultimately can make recommendations-it cannot discipline or place any penalty on the public official or officials who may be the subject of an investigation, as it can under the Sex Discrimination Act-or reports which could be so critical of the conduct of an official that it could be the end of that official's career, apart from the publicity of a finding. Although it cannot make determinations of the ordinary judicial or semi-judicial kind, it can make findings which could be highly damaging to individuals. The mere fact that they happen to be public servants of Federal or State governments is quite beside the point. They have human rights as much as any other member of the Community. This Commission, with the new powers it will have under this legislation, can recommend that damages or compensation be paid to a complainant. One may say that that is just the Government having to pay, it is not the official or an ordinary individual having to pay, so why worry about it. But the payment of compensation has to be looked at generally, as to what sorts of compensations people get for various injuries or detriments they suffer under the legal system. If the Human Rights Commission recommends payment of a certain sum of money, it would be very difficult for the Government not to adopt that recommendation to pay. Yet it might be a quite ridiculous sum of money, having no regard whatever to what people can recover for very serious personal injuries, damage to reputation or whatever. To leave that function, which could be very harmful to some people and overgenerous to others, to a group such as the members of the Human Rights Commission-which will largely comprise people who have this particular interest, without having regard to the wider community scene-could be quite dangerous. Therefore, the idea of restructuring the Commission in the way Senator Evans suggested that the Attorney-General is looking at, could be a way of overcoming a lot of the concerns about this Human Rights Commission and the way it will develop inevitably under the legislation we are not considering, if it becomes law. This legislation-apart from the Bill of Rights Bill, which is a separate matter-will become law in the very near future. I welcome that and I hope we will hear more from the Government about it. I am indeed surprised that we have not heard from the Attorney-General about it. I wonder how coherent he would be if he were asked a question about what he is doing? I hope that perhaps Senator Evans and some of his colleagues will be able to ensure that the Parliament and the public are informed what work is being done and how soon we are likely to have a very considerable restructuring. I am just amazed that such an important matter as this has never been mentioned in the debate that has been going on now for 12 months or more. Although a whole new Commission is being set up and the Government has a human rights package, there has been no word or suggestion until today that the Government is really acknowledging this problem and is planning to do something about it. I would have thought that this would have been part of the package. Although I am disappointed that nothing has been done, I hope that the Government is genuine in its intention to move along these lines and do something. I want to ask the Minister for Resources and Energy, who is at the table, a question arising out of an answer he gave in the Senate yesterday about the way in which the Government is going to use the new Commission when it is established shortly. Probably most of us remember that Senator Evans said, in answer to a question asked by Senator Black, that the question of the undemocratic State electoral laws, whatever State it may be, `will be the subject of an early reference to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission' which will replace the existing body. He went on to say: Depending upon the report of that new Commission finding State laws to be in conflict with the guarantees in the Bill of Rights, which may not be a totally unlikely outcome-- that is, Senator Evans is forecasting the report of the Commission not to be totally unlikely-I suppose that is an euphemism for saying: `We expect the Commission to give us the report that we want'- the Commonwealth will give the States an opportunity to bring their laws into compliance. If such legislative action is not forthcoming the Commonwealth will then enact overriding legislation . . . It is interesting to note that this Government will shortly appoint the members of this Commission. Does that mean that the Government is going to have an eye on the likely outcome of this report when it appoints the members of the Commission? I think that that is a very real concern that we should have. Maybe Senator Evans would like to say something about that. I am also concerned whether the statement of policy is a precedent for the way in which the Government intends to use the package of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the Bill of Rights. Clearly Government supporters and back benchers are obsessed about this matter. Of course, the Australian Democrats are exerting great pressure as well. The Government has obviously reacted to that immediate pressure. Obsessions have been held from time to time about certain State laws, particularly the law regarding the right of assembly. The Bill of Rights will contain a guarantee that every person has the right of peaceful assembly. If some pressure is placed on the Government in respect of the assembly laws in a particular State-I do not need to mention any particular State and there is no prize for guessing which State I am referring to-would the Commission be asked for a report? If the Government received a report which said that a particular State law does not give effect to the provisions of the Bill of Rights, does the Government intend to follow the same precedent that Senator Evans says it will follow? What immediate use will the Government make of this new Commission? Senator SHORT(Victoria)(12.35) —At this stage I would just like to make a couple of comments and ask a couple of questions in regard to some remarks that were made earlier by Senator Gareth Evans. I apologise that I did not hear all that he said, but my attention has been drawn to some of his remarks. I understand that Senator Evans said that some of the criticisms that have been made about the human rights teaching kit, that has been the focus of attention in this chamber and elsewhere in the last couple of days, are unfounded and essentially were taken out of context. I think an important point needs further consideration. A key factor in the operation of the whole package of this legislation, if passed, will be, as Senator Durack said, the new Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Basically, this Commission will be a major expansion of the present Human Rights Commission. The prestige of that Commission is of critical importance in terms of the credibility-if there is going to be any credibility at all-and confidence that the community will be able to place on the administration of the legislation that is before us. Therefore, it is essential that the community feels confident about the existing Commission from which the new Commission will flow. I raise again with Senator Evans the two key paragraphs in the education kit-there are more-that have been referred to in the last few days. I refer to that section of the kit dealing with life and the section dealing with the family. I think it is worthwhile and important to repeat those paragraphs. The paragraph in the chapter on life 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. The other paragraph which has been the subject of such attention refers to the family and 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 ask Senator Evans whether those two paragraphs can be read in context or not. Let me take the paragraphs one at a time. The first contains a bald statement that the capitalist world economy is predicated on dishonesty and greed and has been the cause of mass assassination of uncounted millions the world over. There is no way at all that that statement, in context or out of context, can be described as anything other than hard core communist propaganda. Senator Missen —Do you know that that is the reason why the Human Rights Commission is going to have that revised in the next edition? Senator SHORT —Well, that may be fine. This document has been out in the schools for a year or so now. It is too late to revise it. I acknowledge that it has to be revised, but the paragraphs to which I have referred should never have appeared. The document is biased in the extreme. Even reading the whole document in context, it does not present a balanced view of a part of our society. It does not present another view. It is not even-handed and it is not objective. I believe it is abhorrent and totally contrary to the values of this society. I would say exactly the same about aspects of the paragraph on the family. Does Senator Evans agree with these statements regardless of their context? Does the Government agree with those statements? If the Minister and the Government do agree then they stand condemned; if they do not I believe they have a fundamental obligation to demand that that literature be withdrawn, revised and looked at very carefully before it is, in whatever form, recirculated. If this is not done the credibility of the Commission that the Government is relying on to administer this great socialist mass of legislation will have even less credibility than it has at the moment. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.41) — It is unfortunate that Senator Short missed my earlier contribution because I think I did indicate that I thought perhaps some of the language employed in particular paragraphs that have come into issue was a little extravagant, but it is important to appreciate the context in which they occur. To describe a passage like that as hard core communist propaganda, when it is immediately preceded by a sentence which says `More than twice the numbers who died in the Holocaust, for example, were killed in constructing the modern Soviet state', is, I think, to put just a little more of a gloss on the material than it deserves and justifies. I do not want to prolong this particular argument; we have all made our positions clear. For the record, I would appreciate if the Senate would give me leave to incorporate in Hansard the full passages under `Life' and `The Family' headings respectively in which those two offending paragraphs appear so that any readers or posterity can judge for themselves the points that I was making earlier on about context in which Senator Short so obviously disagrees with me about. I seek leave. Leave granted. The passages read as follows- LIFE The Universal Declaration was devised in direct response to the appalling events of World War II, and Article 3 begins: `Everyone has the right to life . . .' The point of this particular principle was to oppose the sort of ideologies and institutions that make wars happen, and in the course of them can systematically murder six million Jews, Slavs, and Gypsies. Genocide-the deliberate attempt to exterminate whole peoples-is not new. However, the technology of our age has made this possible on a completely new scale and ruthless regimes of both the left and right have not been slow in using the tools that the contemporary world has made available to kill those they see as in the way. More than twice the numbers who died in the Holocaust, for example, were killed in constructing the modern Soviet state. 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. Meanwhile, like Nemesis, there hangs over all the daily threat of thermo-nuclear suicide. Asserting the `right to life' has taken on a meaning it has never had before. The extinction of the entire species is imminent daily. There is much here to discuss and understand. On one level, it is a matter of the utmost urgency that people be made aware of the implications of what could be done at the touch of a button-in their ostensible defence-by regimes that control immense armories of the most terrifying weapons imaginable. On another level, people die in large numbers daily from exploitation. This is not incidental. It is actively perpetrated by people who control world production to their own profit, rather than the good of mankind (especially those most in need). On another level again, innocent people in a large number of contemporary states are harassed daily by politicians, police and the military. These leaders demand obedience and are prepared to maim and kill to get it. This is strong stuff. However, as Ned Kelly is supposed to have said before he was hanged: `Such is life'. THE FAMILY The family, Article 16 (3) of the Universal Declaration proclaims, `is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State'. Bedrock unit it may well be; but it is not immune from the forces that shape society itself. Indeed, the family typically takes the form relevant to the socio-economic and cultural realities of the larger community it lies within. At the same time, of course, it plays its own part in conditioning them. Thus, hierarchically arranged societies manifest patterns of family power of a similar sort. Egalitarian societies typically manifest more equal familiar relationships. And vice versa. 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. The picture is far from static or clear, however. Quite the contrary. As our society has changed, so, in symbiotic fashion, has this `fundamental group unit'. The conventional Anglo-bourgois model of Mum, Dad, and the Kids (plus assorted `rellies') has never been adequate as a description of the Australian family, though it has been very powerful in defining expectations in this regard. Aboriginal Australians, with the elaborate kinship systems intrinsic to Aboriginal culture, have never sat happily within the imperial framework. Nor have many of those who came after them. The mass immigration of the last few generations has meant, among other things, the importation of a wide range of multicultural family forms. However, given the highly assimilationist nature of the dominant Anglo-culture, these, like those of Aboriginal Australians, have never received much official recognition. They continue to flourish-more or less modified-nonetheless. Meanwhile, the conventional model as defined in Anglo-Celtic terms has become progressively less accurate as an account of conventional behaviour. The effects of secular individualism have taken a heavy toll, and modifications to the monocultural version now abound. For example, in terms of human rights, there is no ideal form of the family. There is only the decree that governments should protect families, and those who live therein. Unless one has a prior conception of what the family ought to be, and applies this regardless (a distinctly totalitarian approach), a wide range of current familial forms justify governmental recognition in the promotion and protection of this fundamental right. There are, in other words, a number of group units that people find `natural' and `fundamental' in the performance of familial functions, and if Article 16 (3) is to be given a fair go, governments are obliged to acknowledge and allow for this fact. Senator GARETH EVANS —Finally, I say in response to Senator Short that I agree with him that it is important that the community have confidence in the Commission and its successor body, confidence in its judgment and sensitivity to the sorts of issues it is dealing with, but I also make the point that I do not think that community confidence is enhanced when one gets assaults being made upon the Commission for, it must be acknowledged, essentially short term political objectives by opponents of the Government. I do not think it helps if assaults are made in the very extravagant language that has been employed without regard to what can be said for the other side of the argument. I turn now to Senator Boswell's contribution on a similar theme. I acknowledge that, taken in isolation the passage about Sleeping Beauty might attract a few sniggers or even a degree of indignation in Senator Boswell's breast. But then again I think it has to be acknowledged that Little Black Sambo and gollywogs are probably still alive and well in the Queensland hinterland. It is unfortunate that people do not appreciate sensibly the perfectly rational arguments that can be made about the way in which sexist and racial values inherent in a great deal of nineteenth century children's literature, and indeed twentieth century children's literature, have become so much a part of our culture that we adults perhaps do not notice it. It is a great and recurring theme of children's literature studies these days about the way in which values like these appear. I think perfectly sensible points and discussions can be generated about these matters without being the subject of caricature in the way they were by Senator Boswell. I am indebted to Senator Durack for his support for the concept that I sketched about the desirability of separating out determining functions from the other sorts of functions exercised by human rights bodies. I am little surprised by his surprise at the apparent innovativeness of all this. It is a theme that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), as I recall, himself advanced in an important speech he made at the University of New South Wales, last December, I think on Human Rights Day. Certainly it was a theme that recurred in a number of my speeches as Attorney-General in the first two years we were in government, although I appreciate that Senator Durack did not necessarily regard them as his favourite bedtime reading. I think it might have been desirable if we had been able to advance consideration of this a bit further and bring it forward as part of a single passage, but I assure the honourable senator that it is something the Government is giving close attention to and I hope the Government will be in a position to make some appropriate announcement soon. I commend the Bill at the Committee stage to the Senate. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(12.44) —Senator Evans has not dealt with an important matter I raised. I asked whether the Government in proposing to use this Commission in relation to the State electoral laws, will have set a precedent. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.45) — Obviously, the question of franchise and voting rights has been a central preoccupation in recent times, not least of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs itself and that alone is the reason why the Government has seized upon this particular issue to respond to because of the community interest in it. Progress reported. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, till 2 p.m. this day, matters of public interest may be discussed by Senators, provided that no Senator shall speak for more than 15 minutes. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(12.47) —The matter I wish to raise today is one of great concern to all Australians who have insurance policies which they believe cover their houses and their possessions. The point I want to raise is that indeed those people are not covered in an important contingency. I am distressed to find from feedback from voters I have had in the last week or two since I first raised this matter in Perth that most of them are not aware that indeed nuclear exclusion clauses have for some time existed in their insurance policies. I believe they are also not aware of the enormous extent of these exclusions. For instance, I quote from a New South Wales Government Insurance Office householder's policy, in fact a policy on my own house: . . . the policy does not cover loss or damage to property or any legal liability directly or indirectly caused by or contributed to, or arising from ionising radiation or contamination from any nuclear fuel or from any nuclear waste or from the combustion of nuclear fuel. That is followed by a clause in that policy which makes all the same points in relation to nuclear weapons material. It has been confirmed by the major insurance companies to the media, certainly in Perth, where I raised this matter some little time ago, that that is virtually the case with almost all, if not all, insurance policies in Australia. So we have the appalling situation where literally millions of people who think that they are covered against all contingencies in their comprehensive household insurance are not, in fact, covered against that one and have not been for some time. The situation is even worse, because on my understanding-and I will be addressing a question on this matter later this day hopefully to the responsible Minister-the Federal Government does not accept any liability on this matter and has not required those countries which send nuclear ships into this country to accept any liability. Indeed, there have been statements by the United States that it accepts only a limited liability in the case of any kind of accident that would happen elsewhere in the world where people's property is concerned. I raise the matter in the Senate because it is a matter of great seriousness. It has been raised before; I raised it myself six or seven years ago in this place and I got undertakings at that time for the insurance industry and others that something was going to be done about it. In fact, as I understand it, nothing has been done about it; it has been put into the too hard drawer. The only thing that has changed in recent years, of course, is that the Australian Government has accepted a principle that it will admit nuclear powered and nuclear armed warships of any foreign power it chooses into the ports of the city. It is also a fact that Garden Island in Sydney, the major naval base, is right smack in the middle of the city. That contingency, that circumstance, that the Government is prepared to let those ships in at any time, I believe, places an additional obligation on the Government to get this matter right. It is not good enough that it should say that these ships should come here; that it accepts the fact that the insurance companies, for their own reasons-and it is most interesting that the insurance companies did this-have excluded themselves quite consciously and deliberately from any cost factor involved in a nuclear accident; that the Government is not prepared to do anything itself and will not consult with the States; and that, as far as I know, it has not got any kind of firm, definite undertaking from those people who send nuclear ships here that they will accept the liability as well. It is a cause for added concern that these nuclear exclusion clauses specifically exclude damage caused even indirectly or only contributed to by nuclear means. I am looking now at giving notice of motion in the Senate at some time in the not too distant future to raise this matter so that it can be publicly debated and some solution to it found, because I believe that the Government has been very much remiss in not making a full examination of the situation so that action can be taken in association with the States, perhaps with the insurance industry and certainly with those people who send ships here. Because of the frequency of nuclear ship visits to Perth this matter, of course, must be of the greatest concern to Western Australians. But as more and more ships come in, because of the Government's policy, perhaps into Sydney, Jervis Bay or any Australian port, that situation is going to cause enormous hardship to millions of people and literally take everything they possess out of their hands; their major assets would be destroyed or so damaged that they could not be used without any reason. Let us assume, for instance, that there was a radiation leak, even quite a minor one, from the reactors, say, in a nuclear submarine, which uses very highly enriched uranium-in fact, it is not commonly known but it is a fact that it uses weapons grade enriched uranium in its reactors-at Garden Island in Sydney. On any summer afternoon, with the usual north-easter blowing, that would involve contamination for a lengthy period and the necessity for an evacuation of the entire city centre of Sydney and the most closely populated residential area in Australia. All those people living in that area in home units, houses and flats and working there in their shops would have to evacuate that area. There is no doubt about that whatsoever. That could result from quite a small accident to a reactor-not an explosion but something on a much smaller scale. Those people, as the law stands now and as the Government's attitude stands now, would have to leave that area. They have no recourse whatsoever; they would not get a cent in compensation from anybody, as I understand the situation. If I am in error, let the Government say so. I am only too willing to have that said, but I want the situation straightened out. A further scenario that could involve actual damage as well as contamination also, of course, exists. There is no need to canvass the likelihood of either of these contingencies. That is beside the point. It is enough to say that they are possible, and indeed of course they are possible. Modern technology is very subject to unexpected problems. We thought, we were told, that the space shuttle technology was perfect and that there was no way in the world it could fail, but it did fail, and failed tragically, with the Challenger, as we know only too recently. Nuclear technology is no different; it has failed from time to time in controllable circumstances in reactors which are on-shore. Ship reactors are a very different kettle of fish. Ship reactors, because of requirements of weight and so on, have to be made to much finer tolerances. They are devices which certainly in the past, as far as we know, have given good service. We would not be told, I think if they had not. They are made to fine tolerances. They are delicate instruments. They use very heavily enriched uranium, especially in submarines, and they do present a risk which is real. The Government must act in this matter. It must either accept full liability itself for any accident that might occur-we are speaking now, of course, of literally billions and billions of dollars of damage that could be the result of quite a small accident in a highly built-up area-or insist that any country that sends a nuclear ship to any port in Australia accepts beforehand absolute, complete and total liability for any damage that might be caused by its ship, for any reason whatsoever, while it is in Australian waters. The Government wants that iron clad. It must be done by treaty, and it must be an absolute legal commitment by those countries concerned. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(12.55) —It is a matter of public importance at the moment that the public should be advised of what is really happening to the economy. There has been a whole series of Government targets for various areas of economic activity. The Government has assured the people of Australia, for example, that it will maintain the strong growth that has taken place over the last few years-growth, of course, that was built, first, on the breaking of the drought and stimulated to an extent by some Government spending which the rest of Australia had to pay for. The Government and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in particular, have insisted that this growth will be sustained. We have seen claims that the trilogy will be met. We are not quite certain what the trilogy is because the grounds appear to be continually changing, but there is an assurance that the trilogy will be met. There is also the assurance that the balance of payments deficit revised target for the year will be met and that everything is all right. As I think the song from South Pacific says, the Government is indulging in `happy talk'. What on earth should the people of Australia believe, particularly when one of the other major undertakings which related to reducing interest rates is now, of course, no longer sustainable? No matter how much the Treasurer (Mr Keating) tries to blame individual banks for what is happening, there is no doubt that the Government itself, through its own policies, has destroyed its claimed objective of reducing interest rates. When the Government itself is paying enormous interest rates to raise money, the Government itself is pushing up interest rates. Of course, we all know that that is the situation. When a government has a discount rate of 18 per cent to 19 per cent, obviously it is a major element in the high interest rates. There are areas where, in fact, the Government is paying more for money-and the Government is, after all, the most gilt-edged of all borrowers-than some commercial borrowers. For anyone in the Government to pretend that in that circumstance it is not the Government's fault that interest rates are high is absolute, politically-oriented nonsense and an attempt to get out of a clear responsibility for what is happening. On all these scores we have every right to ask: What is the Government doing? Mr Hawke has insisted, as I mentioned earlier, that we are going to see a continuation of the growth rate. Of course, that is necessary if the Government is to continue to meet its objectives in employment. There is no doubt that the reason that the Government has been able to create an environment in which so many new jobs have been created in the last few years has been this fast rate of economic growth. That, as we can see, has been bought at the cost of Australia's balance of payments, record deficits, rising interest rates, and increasing inflation. In fact, a temporary rise in employment has been bought at the long term cost of the Australian economy and at the long term cost of employment itself. I think the Australian people have every right to wonder what is happening next. As I understand it, Mr Bob White of the Westpac Banking Corporation, yesterday in a speech in Surfers Paradise forecast that if interest rates keep going the way they are economic growth in Australia this calendar year will fall from around 5 per cent to 2 to 2.5 per cent. It will be halved. I would think that that is a reasonable expectation. That will, as I said, have an immense impact on employment; it will involve a substantial increase in unemployment and it will make the temporary figures that the Government has been boasting on the employment front look as sick as they really are. The question of the trilogy, of course, is an absolute farce. I think the Sydney Morning Herald headline today-`Hawke fudges deficit pledge'-says everything; that is, Mr Hawke keeps changing his Government objectives whenever it becomes evident that they cannot be achieved. We saw the Treasurer, for example, keep changing the monetary targets until he dropped them. He kept changing them when it was clear that the monetary targets would not be met. We have seen the Treasurer changing the balance of payments target from $10.7 billion to $11.25 billion when at last, after continual nagging in this chamber, it had to be admitted by the Government that there was no prospect of meeting this Budget target for the current account deficit and the balance of payments. Whenever there is any pressure on any of these governmental targets, which are really no more than soft soap, these promises by the Government which simply cannot be met, they get revised out ultimately and there is a hope that the public will forget that the Government has once again deliberately sought to deceive the people of Australia, when there is no chance of these targets actually being met. I will deal at greater length with the balance of payments target because that is the one under most immediate threat at the moment, although of course I also accept that the Budget deficit target, as we originally understood it, is under direct and immediate threat as well. We have many more figures available to demonstrate to us the falseness of the Government's pretending to stick to the $11.25 billion current account deficit on the balance of payments which it set late last year and, as I said, revised upwards from $10.7 billion. Let us look at the facts. Yesterday in this chamber, when I asked Senator Evans, the Minister for Resources and Energy, what was happening to oil exports, he clearly cast doubts, in fact cast substantial doubt, on the future for oil exports from Australia. He said at one stage that export shipments had been maintained at a reasonable level `up, I think, until just about right now'. In other words, from now on they are not reasonable. He conceded that it was certainly questionable whether they would continue at the same volume and at anything like the same price that they have been recently. The significance of Senator Evans's admission is this: In the first seven months of this financial year oil exports rose by 60 per cent to $1.8 billion. That has never been achieved in the past. It is far beyond anyone's expectations of what would happen to Australian oil. In fact, it is incredible that at the time of these generally fairly depressed world prices for oil Australia should convert from being a net importer to being a net exporter. I certainly hope that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button), who represents the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) in this House, would address his mind to this question: If these oil exports are now to fall, what other exports will take their place in order to protect the Australian balance of payments from further disaster? He was asked this question late last year when he, like other Government Ministers, professed that there was no real problem about this sort of thing, that everything was on track and that the country was in the very best of hands. It reminds me of the musical Li'l Abner where Jubilation T. Cornpone had great success in losing every battle that he entered. On the economic front this Government is now facing a continual succession of major defeats. It changes every target immediately it recognises that it cannot meet it and we have this incredible balance of payments situation where, for the first time in our history, there is a $500m credit our way in oil. Who would have thought that Australia would have become a net oil exporter rather than a net importer? There has been a $700m turnaround from the same period last year. Now we see, from Senator Evans's reply in this chamber, that this is all temporary, that it is most unlikely to last, and that there are question marks over even existing approvals for oil exports. In fact he says-and I repeat this absolutely vital phrase-`It is a matter of conjecture whether oil exports will continue at the same volume and at anything like the same price'. So what is going to happen for the rest of this financial year to our current account and the balance of payments? Oil is the biggest single factor, the biggest single element, holding up the balance of payments to this level. Let us face it, this level is disastrous. It is a deficit of $8.4 billion for the first seven months of this year, a record deficit. There has never been anything like it. This situation would have been so much worse had it not been for the temporary stimulus given by oil, and that temporary stimulus will simply not be there for the remaining five months of this year if Senator Evans's doubts are translated into reality. Let us also look at the Russian wheat order-a once-off stimulus to the current account. For the month of December Australian wheat exports suddenly jumped from $300m to $501m. When that Russian wheat order finishes, what is going to happen to our wheat exports? In the American and European Community situations we see agricultural commodities being dumped around the world, dumped into our markets, yet the Government is still pretending to the people of Australia that its deficit on current account will blow out to only about $11.25 billion. That is bunkum. We know that it is bunkum because the Economic Planning Advisory Council, which is, as I understand it, the major source of input to the Government on this matter, according to media leaks has already advised the Government that the deficit will blow out to over $12 billion. That is something like $2 billion worse than the budget forecast made last year. These matters have enormous significance to what happens to every Australian. Normally when Australians look at the headlines and see that there are balance of payments problems and so on, they say: `Okay, but how does that affect me?' The simple reality of how it affects them can be seen from this week's news, on many fronts. Apart from the reduction in the amount of money available for housing, the clear implications for inflation of any weakening in the dollar and so on, the hard truth, and the most significant and direct impact on Australians of the Government's mismanagement of the economy, is the increase in the interest rate on personal loans from at least one major bank which will extend into others. What does the increase in the interest rate on personal loans mean? It means this: More and more of Australian consumer borrowing is done by way of personal loan. That is really where ordinary Australians feel the pinch. For example, when I recently bought a car I had to finance it, in part, by a personal loan. When many Australians seek to buy a house or build an extension on their house they cannot get the money from the savings banks because the Government has put such a ceiling on savings bank interest rates that no one lends to savings banks any more. So savings banks cannot lend to people. So they get it by personal loan. Personal loans from the banks are, if you like, the front line of action in the Government's economic mismanagement. That is where the people feel the pinch. This Government has created a situation whereby interest rates will inevitably continue to be high and continue to hit ordinary Australians unfairly and unreasonably. While that policy continues I believe the Australian economy will be subject to remarkable and unfortunate pressures. All I ask, basically, is that the Government come clean now on what its real targets in all these areas really are. For too long we have heard bunkum. I hope that the Government starts to come clean. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(1.10) —I am proud to be following my colleague Senator Michael Baume's remarks about the economy because one or two points which he mentioned deserve amplification and, in fact, reiteration. Let us start, first of all, with the situation regarding the balance of payments in this country. He has rightly drawn our attention to the fact that the Government's objective now of $11.25 billion is going to be extraordinarily difficult for it to reach. In fact, he has quite clearly pointed out that the balance of payments deficit this year may well be in excess of $13 billion. That being so, we can expect only more of the same in terms of higher and higher interest rates in this country while that situation continues. The amazing thing about this Government's policy in regard to our balance of payments is that everything that has been done is merely an attempt to smooth over the immediate problem, because the Government knows that at the core of the economic difficulty with the balance of payments is the trade union movement and its push for higher and higher wages and, of course, extra benefits such as superannuation for employees. Those things are being aided and abetted by this Government through its positive determination that superannuation is indeed a good thing for the community at a time when we in this country face incredible difficulties. It is amazing that the Government has not taken a more gradualist approach to the productivity case before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and, indeed, sought a more reasonable implementation of a program such as it has in mind. But no, we have a broad, sweeping approach to superannuation of ensuring that every industry, irrespective of its capacity to pay, will have costs imposed upon it at a time when it is least able to meet those costs. This, of course follows a very difficult situation with interest rates. One only has to look at the condition of our rural industries to appreciate the difficulties that the great exporters of this country are facing at this very time. We have the highest interest rates in real terms for 50 years in this country, yet the Government persists in maintaining those rates at very high levels through a deliberate policy to ensure that it keeps some control of the money supply. As Senator Michael Baume has pointed out, the interest rates structure is continuing to rise day to day. Banks and financial institutions are being forced to raise interest rates on Bankcard and on personal loans as a direct result of the Government's policy. It is of no credit at all to the Government that the Treasurer (Mr Keating), whenever he is challenged about this, clearly loses his block and, apart from that, starts to blame everybody. Senator Michael Baume —And personal abuse in the House. Senator MESSNER —And, of course, adopts personal abuse of the Opposition for drawing attention to that particular matter. If that is the standard by which this Government continues to run the affairs of the nation, we have very little hope for the future. In respect to the balance of payments, however-and I would like to return to that point-my attention was drawn recently to a very impressive analysis done by Mr Terry McCrann in the Age of 7 February 1986, where he compared the trade balances of Canada and Australia. I think it makes very informative reading for all of us in Australia at present. Just to take the latest available figures for 1985, the trade balance measured in United States currency for Canada reveals a surplus of some $US14,000m, whereas Australia's position is a negative of $US500m. In terms of the current account, which is the vital figure that we are looking at, the latest available figure, for 1985, shows that in Canada there was in fact a balance between exports and imports, while in Australia there was a deficit of some $US7,500m. We are used to figures of a higher dimension than that because we measure our balance of payments in terms of Australian dollars, which, of course, accounts for the fact that the figure for 1985, in our terms, is something like $11,000m. The point I would like to make here is that at the time these figures are up for analysis, which is February 1986, there is a parity between the Canadian dollar and the Australian dollar in terms of United States currency. In other words, a Canadian dollar will buy as much in the United States as will the Australian dollar. The point is that our current account is in deficit to the tune of $US7.5 billion while the Canadian current account is in fact in balance. Senator Michael Baume —That is the essential difference. Senator MESSNER —This is the essential difference, the essential point. I think we have to alert ourselves to make sure that we properly understand the implications of that. Senator Michael Baume —Does the Government? Senator MESSNER —Of course, it does not because it is, as he says, whistling in the dark and hoping that everything will be all right, whereas it is quite clear that disaster lies immediately ahead of us. The international markets are measuring our currency temporarily as being in parity with that of Canada, which is in a far stronger balance of payments situation than is this country. Where is the remedial action being taken by the Government to ensure that that position is reversed? We do not see it. We certainly have no appreciation of the underlying fundamental reasons for the difficulty with our balance of payments, which, of course, relate to our lack of competitiveness in the international market-place. Rather, the Government continues to whistle in the dark and to feed the trade unions with support in the Arbitration Commission when it knows darn well that it has to face up to the problems of very high labour costs in this country which are affecting our balance of payments overseas and, consequently, the lack of confidence in the Australian economy which is causing the difficulties that we see in the statistics that we are reading. It has to be acknowledged that there is a very dangerous period ahead for the Australian economy. The Government talks about three years of growth, but they have been funded by overseas borrowings which have doubled in Australian terms over the last three years. Both private and public borrowings have risen from some $30 billion to over $60 billion. Obviously that means that there are difficult roads ahead for all of us. Let us just turn to the Budget deficit and, indeed, the problems with the economy, which again Senator Michael Baume touched on. It is clear that the Government has many dilemmas in this area. It has the problem of what it will do with fuel prices. It is already planning to break promises by not adopting the import parity price system to its full and allowing the benefits of the lower price for oil to flow on to Australian consumers. It is, of course, faced with very significant changes in its expenditure patterns. We are already seeing overruns in the 1985-86 Budget in many different departments. For instance, expenditure on overseas interest has risen now by 38.9 per cent compared with last year, against a budgeted level of some 19 per cent. We are seeing Medicare overrunning to an extent far beyond what was estimated in the 1985-86 Budget. We are seeing very high expenditure in the Department of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt), who is with us here at the moment, where there are vast overruns in the amount of pensions and benefits being paid. Senator Michael Baume —We warned them about that. Senator MESSNER —Yes, we warned the Government about this time and again, and we will continue to warn it because it is the policy and certainly the duty of the Opposition to draw attention to these very significant deficiencies in government administration. There are very many departments, which I will be happy to catalogue at some later time, where this is arising and where the Government is obviously losing control of its budgetary outlay. Faced with that particular circumstance, all we hear from the Government is abuse of the former Fraser Government for what it did not do, as though there was no attempt to control expenditures when that Government was in power. I would like, at this juncture, to have incorporated in Hansard a statement which shows the average rate of Commonwealth Government Budget outlays as a percentage increase in real terms from the year 1973-74 to the present year. Before seeking leave for that, I indicate that during the Whitlam period of government from 1973 to 1975 the average annual rate of growth in government expenditures was 9.96 per cent, a fraction under 10 per cent. However, during the Fraser period of government, the seven Fraser Budgets, the average rate of growth in outlays was 2.13 per cent. During the Hawke period of government, in its three Budgets, the annual rate of growth has been 4.86 per cent, more than double that rate of expenditure increase under the Fraser Government. How can the Hawke Government say that it has got expenditure under control? Of course it has not, and these figures show quite clearly that that is so. This is a quite simple table of the various Budget outlays in each of the years. I seek leave to incorporate this table in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT BUDGET OUTLAYS ANNUAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN REAL TERMS YEARS 1973-74 TO 1985-86 Whitlam term(a) 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 Fraser term(b) 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 Hawke term (b) 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 Estimate 5.6 19.8 5.1 -0.7 2.4 1.5 -0.9 3.6 2.5 6.7 7.3 6.1 1.3 Average annual rate of growth... 9.96 2.13 4.86 Source: (a) Budget Statements 1983-84, Paper No. 1, page 359. (b) Budget Statements 1985-86, Paper No. 1, page 399. 19 February 1985...Economics and Commerce Group LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH SERVICE Senator MESSNER —I believe that puts the lie to the Government's argument that in fact there was a significant blow-out of expenditure under the former Fraser Government and that somehow the Hawke-Keating Government is a saviour of that position. The truth is that Budget outlays have increased at more than double the rate they did under the former Government, and I believe that ought to be reiterated time and again to draw attention to the Government's profligacy in that regard. Senator Michael Baume —Our biggest deficit was only $4.6 billion. Senator MESSNER —That is correct, and that is, of course, lower than the $4.9 billion which is anticipated for this year, while in the year 1984 it was of the order of $7.7 billion. This of course comes when we have a revolt by seven Ministers in the welfare area who are actually seeking increases in expenditure in the Government's Budget for the forthcoming year. That has been a very interesting development because in fact it puts the lie to the very point that the Government has been seeking to make. Obviously there are enormous internal pressures within the Government as to the control of expenditures and we can foresee even more pressure on the Government in trying to meet its deficit target for this coming year and stay within the trilogy. Senator Michael Baume —Was the Minister one of the seven? Senator MESSNER —I believe the Minister was one of the seven mentioned. He has not denied it, so I take it that he was party to that letter. The point is that these pressures, together with the loss of revenue from the oil levy and the added cost which will come from the States as a result of their push for compensation for losses in expenditure that they will have to meet as a result of the introduction of the new superannuation plans for public sector employees, are going to add literally hundreds of millions of dollars to the problems of this Government. Where is its plan? Where is its budget for these proposals, which are obviously going to cause enormous difficulties for all Australians? It is time the Government came clean. We want answers. We cannot get them from this Government. Least of all can we get them out of Senator Walsh in this chamber. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(1.25) —I wish to raise today a matter which comes into the responsibility of the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) in his new role as Minister representing education in the Australian Capital Territory. I am pleased that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt), who represents him in this chamber, is present and can perhaps convey my remarks to the Minister, who, I hope, will comment upon them and make a statement at some time. There are two parts to it in a sense, though they both relate to the provision of primary schooling in the Territory. Specifically I want to talk about the McKellar primary school. More generally, I ask: What is the Government's policy now for providing primary education in the future? The documents which have been obtained under the Freedom of Information Act are some one inch thick. I shall not go through them all; I shall merely canvass some of the important issues that cover the history of the as yet non-existent McKellar primary school. On 11 August 1983 the National Capital Development Commission advised the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority that the construction of the suburb of McKellar had reached such a stage that it should urgently advise of its needs for the construction of the primary school so that it would be open when it was perceived to be needed in the first term of 1986. Let met just say that it has not opened and it has not been built. On 19 September 1983 at a Schools Authority meeting it was stated that McKellar primary school students could be bussed to other schools and that the construction of the school could be avoided by the long term use of transportable buildings at the Evatt and MilesFranklin primary schools. The construction of primary schools in the Australian Capital Territory has always been on a neighbourhood basis. A primary school is roughly at the centre of a suburb and the roads and paths feed into the primary school. There is a fairly extensive system of roads around the suburb which young children do not have to cross. So to go to a primary school out of area inevitably means crossing a fairly major road. That is the way the place has been built. At the same time, nobody is denying that primary schools in the older suburbs have lost numbers. Some have closed; many of them have sections of their buildings no longer being used. So the need for perhaps a review of policy is understood. On 26 October 1983 the Schools Authority advised the NCDC that McKellar primary school students were to be accommodated at Evatt, Miles Franklin and Giralang. That, of course, caused some considerable response. I shall not go through all the things that occurred from then until March 1984 when the Schools Authority reversed its decision and decided to build the primary school for a number of reasons, including of course the geographic situation that I referred to and the number of students likely to be there. The Schools Authority then put out a Press release saying that the school would be built and was to be available first term of 1986. The NCDC was advised. It was on this basis that most of the land in this suburb of McKellar was sold. The prices for the land in the suburb of McKellar were significantly higher than they might have been-significantly higher than expected. People rather prized the fact that they would be able to build in a nice suburb, in a good setting near a primary school. At a meeting I attended quite recently of several hundred McKellar residents, it was very clear indeed that these people had bought their land knowing that the school was to be built there. It was part of the instructions in relation to the sale of the land, the advertising campaign, that the school would be there. The auction document said, in part: It is intended that a primary school will be opened in McKellar in 1986. Until this facility is available, McKellar students may enrol at Evatt Primary School. In October of last year the Schools Authority took a decision not to build the primary school. Whether the reason is that the Government has not provided adequate funds for capital development, or what the financial difficulties are, is not necessarily clear. No one doubts, of course, that there are financial difficulties faced by the Government. The two previous speakers this afternoon have dealt with that in some detail, and certainly that is an aspect that would need to be considered. But we are talking about the very important issue of educating our young children and their welfare and their well-being. Somehow, the Schools Authority, having made a decision in early October not to build the school, kept it to itself. It apparently conveyed the decision to the NCDC, but it was not until later in October that it became known, or leaked out I guess, that the school may not go ahead. One of the residents there wrote a letter, a copy of which was sent to me. I could scarcely believe it after the earlier history as to whether it would or would not be built. I asked a question of the then Minister on 8 November. It is, of course, an area that is also in her electorate. She did not know that there had been any change and said: I am not aware of any change in the schedule for the development of schools in new areas . . . Subsequently the same afternoon she informed the Senate that a Schools Authority meeting had decided not to build the McKellar primary school. Since then, of course, there has been a fair amount of activity in the suburb, including the meeting that I referred to which was extremely well attended. The major reason was the relatively small size of the suburb of McKellar. It is the same size as Aranda; Hawker is smaller; and Cook is larger. McKellar really is average. Perhaps that goes to the other point that I was making as to the size of neighbourhood that should be provided with a primary school. One of the other reasons was that there are first-class education facilities nearby. Nobody is going to suggest that the facilities at Evatt, Miles Franklin and Giralang are not first-class, but perhaps it is the `nearby' that is the matter for concern. The suburb has 953 homes, 3,250 residents, and a projected primary school enrolment of 440. As I say, I shall not go through every issue in this regard; I will just refer to some of them. The School Authority's own impact statement reveals some interesting information. I shall briefly touch on some of the points on pages 4 and 12: One point made was: It is not expected that provision of a school at McKellar will accelerate the decline of the three nearby schools. Another point was: Physical planning in the region has not specifically allowed for large numbers of primary aged children travelling from McKellar to other suburbs. That is significant. The NCDC has expressed concerns about the decision not to build because it would be against the neighbourhood concept. It anticipated considerable public criticism. Of course it was right about that. It was very concerned about the safety of children being required to travel to other suburbs. The report referred to the information available to private land purchasers prior to this decision, that is, the number of people there who expected the school to be built, and so on. The impact study report goes on for many pages. It is difficult to know how the Authority came to the decision it did, in the light of the information in that report. The question is: Why are the people ofMcKellar being treated differently from those in the rest of the Australian Capital Territory? As to the future, it may well be that the time has come to reconsider how our schools are constructed and whether or not the neighbourhood areas should be much larger so that a primary school may be much larger in the beginning with a certain number of demountable buildings as part of its natural construction initially which will settle down to a size for the future. As honourable senators would know, the NCDC is presently planning the extension into the area known as Gungahlin. Hopefully, this question will be getting close attention for the new development. It seems a little harsh, to say the very least, if not unfair to the people who have purchased land there, to suddenly change the rules at this stage. I think it needs to be re-examined. I am concerned about the safety of the children in McKellar travelling to the other three primary schools that I have mentioned. There are busy roads in that area that would have to be crossed. If children are being bussed, that raises another issue as well. The nature of the suburb is such that roads lead into the primary school site. The primary school, with its parents association and its school board, is the focus of life in a suburb of Canberra and it would be a pity if that were broken. I think we need an explanation as to what happened to the McKellar primary school. We also need a statement as to the future policy on the construction of schools, particularly in the primary area. Sitting suspended from 1.35 to 2 p.m. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I inform the Senate that Senator Ryan will be absent from the chamber for Question Time today due to illness. Any questions which would normally be directed to Senator Ryan in relation to her portfolio or to those she represents in the chamber should be directed to Senator Grimes. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I remind the Minister that on 29 November last year in the Senate I asked him a question about a detailed survey being undertaken by the Federated Chamber of Automotive Industries to determine the effects of the proposed fringe benefits tax on the motor vehicle industry. I further remind the Minister that he told the Senate at that time that the Government's conclusions about the proposed fringe benefits regime were based on sets of quite conflicting information and he made it clear that he welcomed the survey and would take steps in light of the survey when it came to hand. I now ask the Minister: Has the Government received a detailed assessment by the Federated Chamber of Automotive Industries on the impact of the proposed fringe benefits tax on the motor vehicle industry? If it has, does this survey confirm earlier forecasts of a severe reduction in vehicle sales, especially Australian made vehicles, if the tax comes into force? Will the Government now agree either to abandon the fringe benefits tax or at least to modify its application to avoid serious disruption to the car industry? Senator BUTTON —I recall the previous question asked of me by Senator Chaney in relation to this matter. It is true that at that time the FCAI was in the course of preparing a survey and analysis of the effects of the fringe benefits tax on the motor vehicle industry. That assessment is now in the hands of the Government and it is being examined. It is a fairly detailed assessment. It is fair to say that the assessment of the FCAI predicts a substantial downturn in vehicle sales as a result of the fringe benefits tax and argues that in the course of the analysis which follows the survey. I want to point to a number of other factors which I believe the Government has to take into account in assessing the survey and the conclusions which it draws. The first factor is that for the last two years vehicle production in Australia has been at all time record levels. It was likely that there would be some decline in the production and sale of vehicles in Australia in 1986. Senator Sheil —Why? The population is going up. Senator BUTTON —I suppose the most likely reason for it to happen would be the possibility of a government such as Senator Sheil's government being elected, because the industry was never at record production levels in that period. In fact, it suffered a very severe downturn at the end of that period of government. There are all sorts of discussions and projections about the capacity to sustain the very high levels of growth in the economy to the extent to which they were sustained in 1983 and 1984. For Senator Sheil's benefit, if he has not wafted off completely, that is a relevant factor in determining the number of vehicles which will be produced and sold in Australia in 1986. In addition to complaining-I use the word `complaining' not in any pejorative sense-about the fringe benefits tax, the industry has also expressed concern about the effects the unleaded petrol conversions will have on motor vehicle sales. That regime commenced as from 1 January 1986. The industry has also expressed concern about the sales tax regime and the alterations which have been made to that regime. I think that any effects of the fringe benefits tax have to be seen in the context of other factors which may well affect volumes in the motor vehicle industry this year. Having said all that, I shall answer the third part of the question, which was: Will the Government abandon the fringe benefits tax on cars? The answer to that question is no. The reason the answer to that question is no is fully illustrated by reference to the White Paper on taxation. The fact of the matter is that, in respect of fringe governments, the Government was losing- Senator Sanders —Are you saying you have got a fringe government? Senator BUTTON —We would have a fringe government if the honourable senator was anywhere near these benches. If I might say so, it would be a lunatic fringe government if the honourable senator was anywhere near these benches. We will not abandon the fringe benefits tax in respect of motor vehicles. I was saying that the reason for that can be found in the tax White Paper; that is, the enormous loss of revenue to the Government in respect of fringe benefit payments instead of salary. I think that the figure which the tax White Paper put on it was $700m and that figure was expanding at a very rapid rate. Certainly, the fringe benefits tax on motor vehicles will not be abandoned. Whether it may be modified will depend on the assessment made of the FCAI paper and discussions which are currently taking place about that paper. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for his very full reply, but there was one point which he omitted in that very full reply and that was the reference to whether the survey suggests that the reduction in motor vehicle sales will arise especially in Australian made vehicles-I think that is an important element of it-or whether the reduction which is predicted will apply across the board. Senator BUTTON —I think I can best answer that question by saying that my recollection of the survey is that the estimated effect is across the board, but the survey also deals with the question of what is called down-sizing, which means that instead of having a Ford Falcon or a Commodore people might well buy a four-cylinder car. Senator Lewis —What, an imported four- cylinder car at an enormous price? Senator BUTTON —As Senator Lewis points out, either an imported four-cylinder car at an enormous price as a result of the devaluation or a locally manufactured four-cylinder car. That is of particular concern to the manufacturers of the more indigenous cars, if I can call them that, such as the Falcon. In answering that question I do not wish to qualify the answer in any way, except that I would point out that other sectors of the industry would probably have a different view about that. The PRESIDENT —Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the presidential gallery of a former distinguished senator, former Minister and former ambassador, Sir Robert Cotton. On behalf of all honourable senators, I extend to Sir Robert a warm and friendly welcome to Canberra. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator COATES —I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. When is it anticipated that stage 3 of Kakadu National Park will be proclaimed? Is there any reason for people to be concerned that the Government's commitment on this matter might not be fulfilled? Senator GRIMES —No. I am informed that there is no need for concern by Senator Coates or any other senator. In February last year the Governor-General, in making his speech to this place, stated that the Government would be taking action to further extend Kakadu National Park. At the moment the Government is giving detailed consideration to all aspects of the future status of areas such as Gimbat and Goodparla. As soon as is practicable-and I am led to understand that that will be in a few weeks-the Government will announce the steps it will take in this matter. I understand that the matter is up for consideration in Cabinet in the near future. Senator KILGARIFF —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. I refer to my question on Monday concerning the incorporation of stage 2 of Kakadu National Park into stage 1 of the Park and its possible implications for the development of tourist facilities and future mining developments. Is the Minister now in a position to answer my questions? I further ask whether the Minister can confirm that the traditional Aboriginal owners of some 7 per cent of the land which has been incorporated into stage 1 were not advised of the Government's intentions prior to the gazettal on 20 December and is it also the case that the Northern Territory Government was not advised of the decision. Finally, if the report in theAustralian of yesterday, 19 February, is correct in stating that the addition of stage 2 of Kakadu to stage 1 has locked up a possible $40 billion worth of mineral wealth, how can the Federal Government justify its continued yelping about the costs of the maintenance of the Northern Territory when it continues to deprive the Northern Territory of its natural resources and therefore frustrates the Northern Territory's attempts to contribute to its self sufficiency? Senator GRIMES —I am not in a position to answer the political or the detailed matters raised by Senator Kilgariff in that question. I will seek the information as soon as possible and give it to him. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Will the Minister inform the Senate of actions taken by Australian authorities to aid individuals and families affected by the sinking of the Russian cruise ship Mikhail Lermontov? Had the ship been inspected by Australian authorities in recent times? Senator GIETZELT —It is true to say that the Government acted as it should have done in respect of that particular incident which, with the exception of one person, was casualty-free. It could have been a tragedy of some dimensions. Senator Childs has referred to the inspection processes affecting foreign vessels. I am advised that that vessel was inspected by the appropriate Department of Transport division. My recollection is that that inspection was in Western Australia within the last two months. The ship was found to be up to international standards. Of course the Senate would be aware that the shipping company provided maximum resources; a Qantas plane was made available to bring Australian passengers back to this country and I believe that in every circumstance those involved in the rescue acted with alacrity and compassion. Senator SANDERS —My question without notice is to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. On 11 February, in answer to a question of mine, the Minister stated that the United States strategy of destroying Soviet nuclear missile submarines at the outset of conventional war would increase the risk of nuclear war and was of questionable wisdom, but that this strategy was only one option. What is the Government's official position now that Casper Weinberger, the United States Secretary of Defence, in testimony to the US Senate Armed Services Committee on 10 February, has confirmed that this is not an option but the strategy to be pursued by the United States? How can the Government explain that something as vital as this, which involves North West Cape giving instructions to destroy Soviet submarines, was not known to it? Does it not again prove that the Australian Government has no input into developments in United States strategy which affect us and that it learns of most of these developments from newspaper reports? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is the case that since my answer on 11 February, Secretary Weinberger and Admiral Crowe, the United States Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have been reported to have acknowledged that conventional attacks on nuclear missile submarines, outlined by Admiral Watkins in his maritime strategy article, are among the options available to the United States in the event of war. I do not accept Senator Sanders's characterisation of the Watkins proposal as amounting to the strategy. The United States maritime strategy is not a detailed war plan; it is, as we understand it, a framework for considering all possible uses of maritime power in a broad range of strategic contingencies ranging from peace to full-scale war. It should be made clear that what we are talking about are attacks by conventionally armed nuclear hunter killer submarines against Soviet nuclear missile carrying submarines. However, as is acknowledged by Admiral Watkins in his article, were this tactic to be actually employed in a crisis, of firing conventional weapons against nuclear missile carrying submarines, it could pose serious dangers of escalation. Obviously the United States Government is as well aware of that as the honourable senator and, indeed, the Australian Government. I repeat that the doctrine does not constitute any dramatic new direction in United States thinking. We have long believed that both the super powers target their attack submarines against opposing ballistic missile submarines. Indeed, that is one of the primary functions for which nuclear-powered attack submarines are designed. More generally, it has always been the case since nuclear weapons were developed that an opponent's nuclear weapons would be the primary targets in any nuclear exchange. Both sides of the super power confrontation have long recognised that sea and airborne nuclear weapons have a very high chance of surviving a counter force strike. Hence the prospects of either side being confident of its capability to mount a successful first strike are, as I said on 11 February, extremely remote and indeed neither is likely to achieve that capability. I should add-as perhaps I should have done but did not on 11 February-that not only is the acquisition of a fully effective first strike capability by either super power not, as we see it, a realistic possibility, but it is also the case that the Australian Government does not accept the characterisation of United States strategic policy in terms of first strike or nuclear war fighting. We take very seriously the statements that have been made by United States leaders, including President Reagan and Defense Secretary Weinberger, in their repeated emphasis that the United States strategy is purely defensive and that a pre-emptive or first strike by the United States has been ruled out. Finally-and I believe this is the most relevant point to this continuing debate, and it is a point that I made strongly on 11 February-there is the role of the North West Cape in the implementation of any such strategy. The Australian Government does not acknowledge that North West Cape need play any role in the strategy which Admiral Watkins canvasses in this article. Were that strategy to be followed, the participation of North West Cape would depend entirely on where Soviet ballistic missile submarines were deployed. In view of what we know of Soviet submarine doctrine, those submarines are extremely unlikely to be in our region. I am advised that it is the belief of the Australian Government that no Soviet ballistic missile submarines are deployed anywhere in the Indian Ocean or, for that matter, in the mid or South Pacific Ocean. Senator SANDERS —I ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister deny that the Watkins policy was in fact confirmed by Mr Weinberger, or is he simply aware of the Weinberger statement? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am aware of the reported statements of Mr Weinberger and I believe their appropriate characterisation is in the terms that I have already advanced. Senator DEVLIN —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. The Minister will be aware of a very unfortunate accident which occurred on 16 January 1986 between an Australian National goods train and a semi-trailer at a level crossing at South Burnie, Tasmania. The smash resulted in the deaths of three people-the goods train driver and his assistant and the semi-trailer driver. Will the Minister inform the Senate of developments in relation to the setting up of an inquiry into the accident? Senator GIETZELT —The Government is aware of the tragic accident that took place at a level crossing at South Burnie about five weeks ago involving the loss of three lives. The crossing is protected by flashing lights which the Minister for Transport advises me were operating at that particular time, according to independent witnesses. Australian National has the responsibility for the rail line in Tasmania. In 1985 the Tasmanian Level Crossing Warning Committee completed a study of level crossing safety including at South Burnie. At that particular time it did not find any deficiency in respect of the equipment operating there. Having regard to the evidence of the witnesses to the accident it does not appear that there was any default in respect of the operation of the equipment. Australian National has established an internal inquiry into that accident. Following its report in the near future the Minister for Transport will consider whether there should be an independent inquiry. Senator WALTERS —Is the Minister representing the Prime Minister aware of an agreement between the Tasmanian and Federal governments in relation to woodchipping in Tasmania? Is it a fact that the agreement has been signed by Tasmania's Premier but not by Mr Kerin? Is it a fact that the powers of the Federal Government in regard to State industries covers export operations and not domestic operations? Is it a fact that the reason the Government has not signed the agreement is that at the recent State election some of the massive loss suffered by the Labor Party was picked up not only by the Liberal Party but also by the conservationists and that this procrastination is an effort to kowtow to the conservationists? Finally, can the Minister indicate when the Government will sign the agreement? Senator BUTTON —I do not know why Senator Walters is asking me this question. It might more appropriately have been addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. However, let us assume that the agreement which follows from a decision of the Government after lengthy consultations with the Tasmanian Government has not been signed at this stage. Therefore, the answer to Senator Walters's question is, first of all, yes, it is true that in respect of this industry the national Government has powers, and only powers, in respect of exports. That is true. The matters of domestic policy predominantly are in the hands of the Tasmanian Government. Nonetheless, I believe it is incumbent on any national Government to consider the circumstances in which exports are made from this country. That is quite an appropriate exercise of national government power, and has always been so regarded. That is the essence of or basis for the Commonwealth's position on this matter. I do not know the reason why the agreement has not been signed however, I would assume that it is because of failure to reach conclusive agreement on some minor matters. I can assert that the reason why the agreement was not signed had nothing to do with the Tasmanian election. Senator GILES —My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. I understand that funds are available under the supported accommodation assistance program for a sexual assault support service in Tasmania. I ask: Has the Minister received any advice from the Tasmanian State Government about a recommendation on the project so that Commonwealth funds can be allocated for the establishment of this centre? There is no rape crisis centre in southern Tasmania and I believe this is a matter of great urgency. Has the Minister taken any steps to move the process along so that the matter can reach a satisfactory conclusion at the earliest date? Senator GRIMES —Funds are available under the supported accommodation assistance program for the establishment of a rape crisis or sexual assault support centre. The fact that such funds are available has been agreed to by both the Federal and State governments. Last year the Federal and State governments asked for people to apply for funds and to put up suggested projects under this scheme. Indeed, early in the year two organisations applied. The Commonwealth-State committee established by the Federal Government and the State Government considered the applications and, indeed, came down with a recommendation. What happened next was that there were two further extremely late applications. The State Minister asked the committee to reconsider the applications in the light of the two further applications. The Committee did so and, once again, made a certain recommendation to the Minister. Minister Cleary, who is no longer a member of the Tasmanian Parliament nor, of course, a Minister, apparently was again reluctant to accept the recommendation of the committee. He put to me that he wanted further time to consider it. He wanted to establish a local committee. He wanted to get the groups together to see whether in fact some compromise could not be reached. I said that we could wait until the end of January to come up with a final decision. However, a decision cannot be made by either Minister unilaterally. It has to be made by both Ministers. I understand that the committee met and that no agreement was reached. Now that I know who the Minister concerned is in Tasmania I have been able to make contact with that Minister and have sent a telex to him asking him please to expedite his side of this process. The matter concerns me from several points of view. Firstly, as Senator Giles said, there is no sexual assault support service in Hobart. Secondly, there has been a desire on behalf of women's groups in the community-from all parts of the philosophical, ideological and political spectrum, whatever one likes-to establish such a scheme. Propositions have been put forward by a broad-based group since 1983. I am disappointed that the Tasmanian Minister could not see his way clear to agree with the recommendations of the committee. I am disappointed-I must say I am somewhat suspicious-of the late submissions which came in, particularly as in the case of one group which submitted a submission it knew very well that the closing date for submissions was many months before its submission was put in. I am concerned that the decision which has to be made by the Tasmanian Minister should be made on the basis of what is best for the community and what is best for women in the community and not on the basis of any ideological hang-ups people have down there. Therefore, as I have said, I have asked the new Minister to look at what has happened in order to expedite the decision making process. I do not believe there is any reason for further delay. I do not believe that probably there is any reason for further ignoring the decisions of the committee which was established by both the State and Federal governments to look at this. The delay has come about because of the State Government's desire and the State Minister's desire, for whatever reason, to look again at the proposition. It has not come from the Federal Government. In fact, I am urging the State Government to get up, get along and make up its mind on what it believes so that we can look at the proposition, approve it quickly and get this much needed service off the ground. Senator MISSEN —I refer the Minister representing the Attorney-General to the strong recommendation contained in the 1984-85 annual report of the Family Law Council which proposes that section 44 (1b) inserted in the Family Law Act by the Parliament in 1983 be repealed. This section provides in effect that an application for dissolution of marriage may not be filed within two years of the marriage unless there is also filed a certificate stating that both parties have considered reconciliation with the assistance of a specified person or organisation. I ask: Firstly, is the Minister aware that this provision was introduced without any prior research or investigation; secondly, that marriage guidance organisations and counsellors of the Family Court have provided evidence overwhelmingly in favour of repeal; thirdly, that the two-year ban has been quite ineffective in promoting reconciliation, in fact that it is counter productive and is regarded by litigants as a tokenistic procedural restriction and a compulsory formality; fourthly, that it is demoralising to counsellors and wastes their much needed time? In view of the strong recommendation of the Family Law Council what action is the Government taking to repeal the provision? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is not correct to say that section 44 (1B) was inserted in the Family Law Act without prior research or investigation. It was inserted in the Act to implement a 1983 recommendation of the Family Law Council that former section 14 (6) of the Act be amended. That part of the Act, which section 44 (1B) replaced required both parties to a marriage of less than two years duration to consider reconciliation with a marriage counsellor prior to a hearing of a divorce application or to establish special circumstances. Experience showed that parties seldom considered reconciliation likely after divorce proceedings had commenced. The Family Law Council advised that it would be better if the requirements were to be met before proceedings were commenced. Section 44 (1B) gives effect to this recommendation. It provides the same bar to the hearing of divorce proceedings as did former section 14 (6), except that the requirements are to be met before divorce papers are filed. Section 44 (1B) has been the subject of further consideration by the Family Law Council, which has now recommended that it be repealed. It is true that the Council, in recommending its repeal, advances reasons along those lines that were mentioned by Senator Missen in his question. I can say on behalf of the Attorney-General that consideration has been given to what action should be taken on the Family Law Council recommendation in the context of the general monitoring of the Family Law Act. This is one of the many matters that might be included in a family law amendment Bill when the Family Law Act is next to be amended. I say `might be included' because that has not been the subject of any decision at this stage. I will ask the Attorney-General to write to Senator Missen when he does decide what action should be taken to implement or otherwise this Family Law Council recommendation. Senator BOLKUS —Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware of recent comments of the head of the fraud division of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Victoria which suggest that a number of Australian companies are now selling goods between one another in order to avoid tens of millions of dollars in sales tax? If so, what action is the Government taking to circumvent the rise of such activities? Senator WALSH —I am aware of those statements, and the Treasurer is also aware of them. Comments along those lines appeared last weekend in the Good Weekend magazine, which is published as a supplement to a couple of the Fairfax newspapers, in an article entitled: `A crime we all paid for'. I understand also that the statement was made with a view to highlighting the fact that the Office of the DPP was also active in other areas of sales tax avoidance. The Commissioner of Taxation has told the Treasurer that sales tax evasion through the use of cash transactions and fraudulent practices has also put revenue at risk. Accordingly, the investigation of those practices has been afforded the highest priority. As a result of increased investigation activities, a number of cases suitable for prosecution under taxation laws or the Crimes Act have been uncovered. Of these, one has been successfully prosecuted and 11 others have been referred to the DPP. Another 20 of the more serious cases have been referred to the Australian Federal Police for further investigation. Of course, as Senator Bolkus probably remembers, the Government, for its part, enacted amendments to the sales tax laws in May of last year, which were designed to counter evasion by strengthening both the sales registration and quotation procedures and also the Commissioner's power of access to goods. From memory, I think it was estimated that those two pieces of legislation will affect the revenue by something between $300m and $400m a year, which shows that once the cancer of tax evasion originating in the income tax area spread from the West Australian Liberal Party's finance committee to the rest of the country, it also spread into the area of sales tax. This Government is making repeated efforts to stamp it out despite the continued frustration through the Senate not allowing the Government to do it effectively. Senator BOSWELL —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance. As the Minister's interest in the Queensland economy is well known in this chamber, no doubt he will be interested to learn that Queensland created more jobs than any other State in Australia-70,300 or 28 per cent of all new jobs-in the calendar year 1985. Is the Minister aware that the Queensland unemployment rate has been bloated by a net increase of 12,406 people receiving unemployment benefit transfers as a result of people moving up to Queensland from other Australian States over the past three years? Will the Minister join with me in congratulating the Queensland State Government on its outstanding job-creating policies which have created the highest employment growth rate in the nation, 7 per cent compared with a national growth rate of 3.8 per cent, and the highest labour force growth rate in the nation, 5.7 per cent compared with a national growth rate of 3 per cent? Senator WALSH —I do not know the source of those figures that the honourable senator quoted. They seem very similar figures to those contained in a study that was published-- Senator Crichton-Browne —You don't know the source of anything, least of all cheque butts. Senator WALSH —I ask the honourable senator to tell us under what company names he hid his Poseidon share transactions back in 1970. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister will answer the question asked by Senator Boswell. Senator WALSH —Yes, Mr President. Those statistics are very similar to something I saw published a couple of months ago about the growth of the Queensland economy, and it covered a 15-year period. It is true that 15 years ago and, indeed, as recently as four years ago, the Queensland economy was growing at quite a rapid rate because Queensland happened to be endowed with many natural resources, particularly coal, which were in demand or were thought to be in demand at that time. Since that bonanza disappeared and the resources boom mirage went off the horizon, the Queensland economy has been in dire trouble because the Bjelke-Petersen Government has no strategy for coping with it. I am aware of a recently published survey conducted by the University of Queensland, which said: Queensland finished the year with record bankruptcies, a dramatic increase in industrial disputes, and with unemployment rising against the national trend and the highest of mainland States. The survey also attacked Queensland's `absurdly high electricity tariffs'. One of the reasons that electricity tariffs in the south-east and in the coastal cities of Queensland are so high is that the South East Queensland Electricity Board, under instructions from the National Party, has constructed thousands of kilometres of electricity mains to deliver power to very remote parts of Queensland, incurring huge losses in the process for which the consumers of the south-east and the coastal cities ultimately pay. They pay not only directly but also indirectly, as does the whole State, because of the penalties that that action imposes on industrial development in Queensland. There is an enormous cross-subsidy for electricity supplies from the south east and the coastal cities to supply power at uniform prices to the favoured constituents of the ruling clique in the Queensland Government. Senator Button —What about the damage it has done to the coal industry with those rail charges? Senator WALSH —Similar cross subsidies or hidden taxes are extracted from Queensland coal producers. Senator Crichton-Browne —Senator Walsh, I do not understand you. Who do you like? Senator WALSH —Senator Parer would be very well aware of the hidden taxes that the Queensland Government extracts from coal producers and other miners in order to provide other services to favoured constituents in different areas. If Senator Crichton-Browne wants to make a speech, I suggest he tells us the names of the companies through which he hid his share transactions in Poseidon back in 1969 and 1970 when he was getting inside information from his wife, who worked in Burrill and Jones's office. Senator Crichton-Browne —None of them were hidden in 1969. At least I am not a failed farmer who got thrown off the family farm. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Crichton-Browne to remain quiet. Senator Crichton-Browne —I apologise, Mr President. Senator WALSH —Finally, just on the question of employment in Queensland, the most recent figures-these are the raw figures-show that Queensland has the highest unemployment rate of any mainland State-a note exceeded only by Tasmania-and the national figure of 8.5 per cent is some 1.1 per cent below the 9.6 per cent figure in Queensland. Senator SIBRAA —Has the attention of the Minister for Finance been drawn to comments made last week by Senator Kilgariff supporting the provision of Commonwealth funds to construct a railway from Alice Springs to Darwin? Can the Minister say whether there are any grounds for Commonwealth funds to be provided for this purpose? Senator WALSH —I was astonished to be told last Tuesday, 18 February, that Senator Kilgariff was not only arguing that the railway from Alice Springs to Darwin should be built, but also that he was endorsing the absurd proposition put forward by Katharine West that, if such a railway were built, ships with cargo destined for Sydney would unload at Darwin and the cargo would be sent by rail to Adelaide and then through Broken Hill to Sydney. Similarly, this would be the case in regard to cargo destined for Melbourne, and so on. Senator Kilgariff and I have had our differences about a few things but I always thought he was a man with some basic common sense. I must say I am astounded to find that he is endorsing this West proposition, this piece of arrant nonsense, that, if such a railway were built, cargo would be discharged at the port of Darwin and sent by rail to the rest of Australia. He will be giving testimonials for snake oil next. The railway proposition is riddled with newspeak. The present Chief Minister of the Northern Territory uses these terms: When I say private, I mean that it will be privately designed, constructed, financed, owned and operated. Of course, it comes out a bit later, when one digs a little deeper, that this proposition for a private railway, which it is said will be economic, is neither private nor economic. It is not private because hidden away in the wish list is a desire or intention to extract free capital from the Commonwealth Government for its construction. It is not entirely clear whether the Northern Territory is looking for 100 per cent of the capital or something less than 100 per cent. So it would not be privately financed. The intention, very clearly, is that it be financed very substantially, perhaps entirely, by the Commonwealth Budget. Of course, that capital is regarded as free. So a bogus calculation is made to determine whether or not the railway will pay its way, based on free capital from the Commonwealth Government. There are very few enterprises that cannot pay their way if they get free capital. The sort of thinking which is displayed in this proposition represents another dose of the economic cargo cultism which has overtaken the Northern Territory Government in recent years and which, for losses on the guarantees for the casinos and hotels alone, is likely to cost the territorial Budget $30m in each of the next two years. Senator Messner —Mr President, I ask that the Minister table the document from which he was reading. The PRESIDENT —Will the Minister table the document from which he may have quoted? Senator WALSH —I quoted from a transcript of a speech. The PRESIDENT —The Minister has tabled a document. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE —I direct a question to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Has the Minister read a report in today's Australian Financial Review headed `Government oil policy is falling apart, say refiners'? Has the Government considered a new policy on crude oil pricing to prevent further long term damage, as claimed by the refinery industry? The industry states in this report that its potential inventory loss is now $600m and that, with the existing disparity between import parity pricing and international prices, companies would be better advised to close their refineries than continuing to purchase highly priced crude oil just to oblige the Government. What is the Government's latest position on compensation for the refineries? Further, is the Government soon to announce a new policy with regard to the oil industry? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Australian Financial Review article this morning seems to be based more on noises that the refining industry was making over the weekend and on Monday than noises it has been making subsequently. The truth of the matter is that I believe the refiners' stock problem, was undoubtedly a very real one, at least for the period at about the beginning of February, when they were obliged to continue buying oil at allocation prices rather than at cheaper prices available on the world market. But I also believe, as a result of discussions that have taken place over the last few days, that the problem has for all practical purposes been resolved. The terms of the resolution of that problem will be announced publicly at the same time as the Government makes its announcement early next week, I would expect, as to the rest of the oil market problem which, as honourable senators, and Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle in particular, would be well aware, has a number of inter-related dimensions. It was important to get some immediate understanding of how to solve the stock loss problem because of the program of liftings which the refiners had for the rest of this month and the need to get an understanding of their position before that program could be continued. I think it would be premature for me to comment on any other aspect of the Government's likely policy response to the whole import parity pricing issue. We will have a lot to say, no doubt, on the subject after the Government's final decision is made early next week. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is also directed to Senator Evans in his capacity as the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has the Minister seen a racist pamphlet published by the South African Defence Campaign of Australia which, among other things, attacks Australian community and political leaders and makes the dreadful allegation of cannibalism in South Africa by opponents of apartheid? Does the Government have any information about the composition and financing of the South African Defence Campaign of Australia, and what can be done in the community to counter this type of racist material? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have seen the pamphlet to which Senator Maguire refers. I think it would be appropriate if it were tabled in the Parliament so that other honourable senators can see it. They will appreciate, I think, the accuracy and force of Senator Maguire's statement about it. It is a contemptible document. We have, unfortunately, virtually no information on the so-called South African Defence Campaign and I am afraid I am unable to give any further response along those lines. If this question and answer flushes out more information, we will be only too pleased to receive it. As to some other aspects raised in the question, I can say this: As Mr Hayden said in this statement to the House of Representatives on 28 November, the Government recognises the vital role that non-government agencies, such as Community Aid Abroad, which is attacked by this pamphlet, play in the Australian overseas aid effort. Voluntary agencies can do effective work in areas beyond the reach of the official program, especially at village level. They have increased Australia's awareness of the problems in developing countries and have provided a means for direct community involvement in tackling some of them. CAA is a non-government organisation eligible to receive Australian Government funding under the Australian Development Assistance Bureau non-government organisation co-operation program. The Australian Government, of course, abhors the promotion of racial hatred or discrimination in any form. The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 makes unlawful incitement, assistance or promotion of racial discrimination, whether by financial assistance or otherwise. The Act provides for civil proceedings to be taken by any person alleging racial discrimination. A number of acts involving violence or incitement to violence, which would include racial violence, are punishable under the existing criminal law. However, the existing legislation does not prohibit racial defamation or incitement to racial hatred. As I have said before in answer to other questions on this subject, consideration of whether and to what extent racist utterances of this kind should be curbed by law requires a very difficult and careful balancing between the right to freedom of expression on the one hand and the right to live free from racist abuse and defamation on the other. That is a problem to which the Government is giving continuing attention. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —My question is directed to you, Mr President. I refer you to the presentation yesterday in King's Hall of the Senate model which related particularly to the use of fabrics. It was emphasised that fabrics were most satisfactory for acoustics reasons. I refer you, by way of preamble, to a letter of 14 February with attachments. Under the section `Wall Finishes', the attachment from the Parliament House Construction Authority states: Special consideration was given to acoustics and lighting requirements and their impact on the designs. Extensive acoustic tests on a one to 10 scale model of the Senate chamber revealed potential echo patterns which required absorbent wall material. It goes on to talk about wood being satisfactory for musical chambers and so on. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator will bring his question to a conclusion. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I am, with respect, Mr President. The attachment continues: However, the particular qualities of the spoken word require a sound absorbent material such as fabric in the chamber. On 19 February there was a letter from the same Authority to the Clerk of the Senate which states: No acoustic studies have been carried out at all on a scale model of the Senate chamber. I am not unmindful of the embarrassment-- The PRESIDENT —Order! By whom was the last letter written? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —By the Secretary of the New Parliament House Committee. While I note the embarrassment that you might be caused by having an attachment which appears to be blatantly inaccurate or dishonest, I ask-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator will ask his question or I will ask him to resume his seat. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Yes, Mr President, I ask: What do you intend to do to ensure that in future senators will be provided by the Authority with accurate, correct and honest information? I refer you also to the fact that the colour of the Senate has now been changed from Pilbara red to that of a red gum tree. I ask: What is the reason for the contradiction? The PRESIDENT —In answer to some of the questions directed to me by Senator Crichton-Browne and some of the statements within his question, I point out that I was asked by the Parliament House Construction Authority to arrange for an exhibition of the proposed finishes for the new Senate chamber. In this regard, I wrote recently to all honourable senators and attached to that letter information that had been supplied to me by the Parliament House Construction Authority. That information was circulated to honourable senators by me. I have been told by the Clerk of the Senate that yesterday, in response to requests that had been made to him for information, he sought from the Secretary of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House-I assume that is the letter to which the honourable senator has drawn my attention-details of the acoustic tests that have been referred to in the circular letter that I sent out to all honourable senators. The Clerk has advised me that the information provided to him by the Secretary of the Joint Standing Committee appears to be in conflict with the information from the Parliament House Construction Authority that was circulated by me. I will ask the Clerk to provide me with all the information that is available to him so that I can have the details referred to a meeting of the Joint Standing Committee which is scheduled to take place tomorrow morning. All I can say is that the Joint Standing Committee meets regularly once a month and the information that is put to the Committee is sifted by the members of the Joint Standing Committee. Senator FOREMAN —Did the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations see the report in the Adelaide News of 18 February entitled `South Australia has the least disputes'? In that report the number of days of work lost per 1,000 employees in 1985 for South Australia was 58. In Queensland 410 days per 1,000 employees were lost in the same period. I ask: Will the Minister advise the Senate on why there is such an extreme discrepancy between South Australia and Queensland in South Australia's favour? Senator WALSH —I do not normally read the Adelaide News or the Adelaide Advertiser, as I mentioned the other day, even a day late, but my attention has been drawn to this item. It does indeed show that the situation is as Senator Foreman said; that is, that South Australia had the lowest number of working days per 1,000 employees lost through industrial disputes of any State and Queensland had the highest, Queensland being almost double the national average and the South Australian figure being only about 25 percent of the national average. Although that was published in the Adelaide News, it appears to be correct because the same figures appear in the Australian Bureau of Statistics bulletin. It has been well known for some time that Queensland is dragging the rest of Australia down in most respects but there are some statistics in which Queensland drags the rest of Australia up. It drags up the number of days lost through industrial disputes and it drags up the average number of bankruptcies. The consistent macro-economic effect of everything that is going on in Queensland is that it drags the rest of the economy down to a point lower than it would otherwise be. Senator Foreman has asked why there is that discrepancy between the two States. It seems to me that the answer to that really is self-evident; that is, that one has the Bannon Labor Government and the other has the Bjelke-Petersen National Party Government. Senator PETER BAUME —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. When the Government introduces either legislation or other procedures to give effect to its tax on fringe benefits, will concessions be made for charities, none having been announced in the original statement by the Government? What will be the nature and extent of any concessions for charities? Senator WALSH —I have not discussed that question with the Treasurer for a very long time, nor have I seen any piece of paper coming from the Treasurer or the Commissioner of Taxation on that issue. So I can do no more than pass it on to Mr Keating to see whether he has a response. Senator PETER BAUME —I ask a supplementary question. Is the Minister saying that he does not know whether there will or will not be concessions made for charities when the legislation comes in? Senator WALSH —I do not know. I will see whether the Treasurer has any proposal to put up on that question. Senator REYNOLDS —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. In view of a well-publicised report this week of a James Cook University study which shows a dramatic decline in support for the Queensland National Party in sugar growing areas of the State, is the Minister aware of any change in the policy of the Queensland Government to take up finally the Federal Government's package of assistance to the Queensland sugar industry as it was, after all, announced in north Queensland last September? When will the cane growers of this area be able to receive the assistance which they so desperately need? Senator WALSH —The answer to the major part of the question, about when the package of assistance proposed for the Queensland sugar industry will actually materialise, is that it really depends on the Queensland Government, which up until this stage-I have not actually checked this out this morning, but I would be amazed if it were not still correct-has just refused to respond to the invitation to discuss some of the fine details of a package which the Commonwealth has put up and also the cost-sharing proposals. The role of the Queensland Government has been that it just refuses to have anything to do with this proposition and consequently no government assistance is being provided for the sugar industry. As Senator Reynolds well knows, similar conditions apply to the cyclone natural disaster relief arrangements and the victims of the cyclone in north Queensland. Again the Queensland Government, is at best, dragging its feet and, at worst, bluntly refusing to co-operate with the Commonwealth Government in providing assistance in these areas. I have seen in the Courier-Mail of 18 February a report similar to that to which Senator Reynolds referred; that is, that the National Party support among residents of Babinda-some of whom, but not all, would be cane growers-which was 52 per cent at the time of the last State election, has now fallen to 39 per cent. That is a fall of 13 per cent, part of which has gone to the Australian Labor Party and part to the other parties. As someone who is concerned about the long term future of Government policy and politics in Australia, I am heartened by that report because it shows that, at least in Babinda, the Queensland Premier has not been able to fool all of the people, or even half of the people, all of the time and that a very significant proportion of people who have been traditional National Party voters have realised that the Queensland Government, though strong on rhetoric, has been very weak on delivering anything or in co-operating with the Commonwealth Government to provide assistance to the areas which have been hit both by economic problems in the sugar industry in general and more recently, in a subsection of it, by the natural disaster of the cyclone. Senator WATSON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade. Yesterday in the Senate the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, said that it was doubtful whether Australian oil exports would continue at the same volume or anything like the same price. This situation was brought about by a 60 per cent rise in oil exports in the first seven months of this financial year to an unprecedented $1.8 billion, and some already approved shipments are now being called into question. I ask whether this temporary oil boost was the biggest single factor in preventing an even greater blow out in the current account deficit above its disastrous record $8.4 billion so far this year? Will the Minister release a genuine and attainable current account target for the financial year so that Australians no longer will have to rely on media leaks of recommendations from the Government's joint economic forecasting group for such vital information? Could he indicate how other exports will rise or imports will fall by the huge amounts necessary to achieve the Government's revised target for 1985-86 of $11.25 billion? Senator BUTTON —What Senator Evans said about oil exports is relevant and correct. One might also make the comment, if one wanted to, about wheat sales made to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which may be regarded as abnormal. I would comment only that abnormalities of that kind are likely to continue to arise; they always have. Senator Michael Baume —Like Mr Micawber-waiting for something to turn up. Senator BUTTON —I am not saying that at all. He certainly was not waiting for the honourable senator to turn up. Insofar as the question involves wider and more detailed issues, I will address it to the Minister for Trade and attempt to provide Senator Watson with an answer as quickly as possible. The PRESIDENT —With respect to my reply to Senator Crichton-Browne, I now advise the Senate that, contrary to the contents of the letter to which the honourable senator referred in his question and to which I referred in my reply, I am advised that an assessment was in fact made of a model of the new Senate chamber. A copy of the report was delivered to the Clerk at the table at five minutes to three. The reply I gave was accurate at the time I gave it and the error is in the letter that was sent to the Clerk. Senator GARETH EVANS —On 5 December 1985 Senator Vallentine asked a question without notice concerning the Government's attitude to the Soviet Union's moratorium on nuclear testing and subsequently expanded that question to include Mr Gorbachev's latest package of arms control and disarmament proposals. I regret the delay, but I can now convey Mr Hayden's answer to Senator Vallentine. It is a long answer and it might suit the convenience of the Senate if I were to seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard, although I am happy to read it. Leave granted. The document read as follows- 2. On 29 July 1985 the Soviet Union announced that it would observe a moratorium on nuclear testing from 6 August 1985 to 1 January 1986 and indicated that the moratorium could be extended if the United States took similar action. On 15 January 1986, the Soviet Union announced that its moratorium would be extended to 31 March 1986. 3. Australia welcomes any interruption of the nuclear testing programs. However, Australia's pre-eminent objective in this field remains a mutually agreed comprehensive test ban treaty that would be legally binding, effectively verified and consequently durable. Australia does not regard moratoria as a substitute for the concrete steps that need to be taken to make possible the conclusion of the CTBT. Australia has and will continue to urge all countries, including the United States and the Soviet Union, to be sufficiently flexible to allow work on those concrete steps or building blocks to get underway. 4. Also on 29 July 1985, President Reagan invited the Soviet Union to send nuclear experts to observe and monitor without pre-conditions a United States nuclear test at the Nevada test site. This was a unilateral variant of President Reagan's September 1984 proposal for reciprocal visits to nuclear test sites. More recently, President Reagan has proposed that United States and Soviet experts meet to discuss the problems surrounding the verification of limits on testing. 5. Australia views such proposals as facilitating the development of verification arrangements needed for a CTBT. In July 1985, a letter was sent to the Soviet Foreign Minister urging the Soviet Union to accept the offers made by President Reagan. The Government has continued to express these views to Soviet officials, including Mr Nazarkin, who visited Canberra in January, to discuss Secretary-General Gorbachev's recent proposals. 6. In addition to extending the moratorium on testing, Mr Gorbachev's 15 January proposals included a far-reaching plan for total nuclear disarmament by the year 2000. Mr Gorbachev also proposed the abolition of chemical weapons and certain measures in relation to conventional armaments. As I mentioned, a special envoy, Mr Yuri Nazarkin of the Soviet Ministry of Foreign Affairs, visited Australia recently to discuss Mr Gorbachev's proposals. 7. The Government sees a number of positive aspects in Mr Gorbachev's proposals: First and foremost amongst these is the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, an objective now endorsed by both superpowers and reaffirmed by Mr Gorbachev. This is, of course, also the objective of the Australian Government. The Soviet proposal recognises that this process will have to proceed in carefully worked out stages, subject to appropriate verification procedures, including on-site inspection, and is dependent on agreement being reached by all five nuclear weapon sites. 8. Some aspects of the proposals, however, are contentious and will need further clarification and amendment to take account of the security concerns of countries other than the Soviet Union. In short, a great deal of difficult and detailed negotiation lies ahead on the nuclear, chemical and conventional fronts if the objective of total nuclear disarmament is to be realised. The Government hopes that serious and substantive work in the major negotiating fora will commence without delay. 9. As to that section of Senator Vallentine's question relating to SDI, she will of course be aware that the Government does not endorse the United States SDI nor what it accepts to be a comparable Soviet research program. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia) —On behalf of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts I present the 243rd report of the Committee, on defence project management. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator MAGUIRE —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to incorporate my speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Report presents the findings of the Committee's inquiry into the Department of Defence's management of its major capital equipment acquisitions. It is presented in two volumes. The first comprises the main report and contains the Committee's findings, recommendations and supporting arguments. The second volume contains analyses of sixteen current or recent Defence projects examined in detail by the Committee. The Utz Report on the Higher Defence Organisation noted `a history of criticism and complaint surrounding Defence procurement'. In an examination of ten major Defence projects, the Auditor-General found that `Defence project management practices were unsatisfactory, contributing to: significant additional costs to the Commonwealth; the need for scarce resources to be engaged in rectifying project problems; and a diminution of the Defence capability through untimely delivery of equipment and facilities and through equipment and facilities not meeting technical performance objectives.' The Committee sought to identify changes in Defence organisational arrangements, decision making processes and management systems which would improve the efficiency, effectiveness and accountability of Defence project management. The inquiry encompassed the full range of activities associated with the acquisition of Defence equipment, from the conception of a need to the introduction of a specific brand item of equipment into service. The Committee drew a great deal of its evidence from a detailed investigation of sixteen recent major Defence projects. The sample included some of Australia's largest peace time Defence equipment acquisitions. I commend to Honourable Senators/Members the detailed assessments of these projects in Volume Two of the Report. Of the sixteen projects examined by the Committee, eleven have failed or may fail to be completed on time, to budget or to technical requirements. A multitude of factors have contributed to these unsatisfactory results. Most could be attributed to inefficient and ineffective Defence project management. The most common shortcomings in Defence project management were: inadequate evaluation of project proposals; under-estimates of project costs, time scales and risks; incomplete project planning; inadequate evaluation of tenders; contracts which did not specify all contract requirements or provide effective incentives for contractors to minimise cost or performance to schedule; inadequate monitoring of contractor performance; contract supervision which did not submit the (sometimes) large number of contract changes to sufficient scrutiny to preserve project budgets and schedules; and generally slow Departmental decision making processes. These project shortcomings reflected several systematic inadequacies in Defence project management: a dispersal of project management responsibilities and authority; inadequate project management resources, especially in numbers of staff and computer support; a shortage of experience project managers; limited training in project management at all levels; low retention of knowledge due to a high staff turnover; and inadequate management information systems within project offices and throughout the Department. The Cargo Working Party An illustration of the problems which can befall a project when insufficient and inadequate resources are applied to project management is provided by the design of the cargo handling and storage systems on the Navy's new fleet underway replenishment ship, HMAS Success. A Cargo Working Party was formed in February 1977 to address cargo handling and storage on HMASSuccess. However, the Cargo Working Party did not meet for the first time until 3 months later in May 1977. There were long breaks in deliberations of the Cargo Working Party and in 1983 fundamental design parameters of the ship were still being addressed. The Committee was told that the reason for the lack of progress of the Cargo Working Party was its lack of resources until the middle of 1983. Not only was the Cargo Working Party slow to produce results but sometimes the results themselves were wanting. A major decision of the Cargo Working Party was to retain the RAN standard pallet for ammunition and provision pallets on HMAS Success. There were sound reasons for this decision. Unfortunately, the Cargo Working Party did not think through the implications of the decision for the existing design of the ship. The decision to adopt RAN standard pallet size for HMAS Success involved a difference of 600 kilograms in the weight of a single ammunition pallet. The heavier pallets needed a heavier forklift to carry them and the heavier forklifts required modifications to the ammunition lifts for carrying the forklifts down to the magazines where they move the pallets. The combination of heavier forklifts and pallets exceeded the concentrated load designed for the replenishment deck and the deck has to be strengthened. Existing stowage arrangements in the magazines were also deleted and a FORGEWELD system of flexible, adjustable stowage installed. Perhaps fortuitously the Cargo Working Party decision cost only $150,000 and 10 weeks excusable delay. Hiport/Medport An example of the difficulties which can ensue the under-estimation of the complexity of a project and its associated risks is given by the history of the Army's Hiport/Medport Mobile Radio Terminals project. The Department saw the project as a straight forward purchasing exercise although it involved significant design development for the initial equipment item. This failure to correctly estimate risk was a major contributing factor to two ensuing problems concerning the vetting of design drawings and the testing of initial equipment items. The contract stipulated that design drawings would be submitted to the Commonwealth before initial equipment items were cleared for production. However, the Commonwealth under-estimated the number of drawings which were to be submitted by the contractor. Indeed, at the time of contract award there was no estimate of the number of drawings involved. The Army's Design Approval Authority was unable to cope with the number of contractor-supplied drawings and some 501 drawings were approved without vetting. The contract also provided that prior to the manufacture of follow-on equipment, the initial production item was to be tested in accordance with contractor-supplied specifications to be approved by the Army's Design Authority. However, not only did the specification of the Commonwealth's test requirements in the contract omit the full series of tests but insufficient time was allowed under the contract for the approval of the contractor's test specifications. The resolution of these problems resulted in an increase of $3.5m in project costs and a 41 months extension to the contract delivery dates. The findings do not necessarily reflect Defence project management today. The Department has acknowledged and responded to many of the shortcomings identified by the Committee. Over the five to six year time span of the projects under review there have been a number of improvements in Defence project management. Greater authority has been given to project directors and there has been a gradual increase in the level of resources allocated to project management. In June 1984, after the inquiry was well underway, the major Defence equipment acquisition functions were centralised in a new Capital Procurement Organisation (CPO). This change, Defence believed, would: overcome the unsatisfactory dispersal of project responsibilities and authority; assign more authority to project directors; and simplify project organisational arrangements. The effects of the re-organisation had yet to make themselves felt in the time frame of the Committee's inquiry. The Committee believes the CPO initiative will significantly improve Defence project management. However, we have a number of reservations about the adequacy of these measures. The change may represent only a formal change in the top management structure that will leave the underlying Service ways of doing things unchanged. The Committee believes that the procurement function should be given independence from the Services. In the past there has been a tendency for the Service sponsors or functional areas to maintain undue control, particularly over the technical aspects of projects. As a result large numbers of specification changes have been made with adverse effects on project costs and schedules. Most project directors do not have authority commensurate with their enhanced responsibilities. In addition to their limited control over technical aspects, project directors have insufficient control over project administrative resources. The measures make no explicit reference to training and other critical personnel management issues. Current planning envisages only a limited and gradual upgrading of computer support for project management. Basic Trainer Project An example of the difficulties which can face a project when technical considerations are allowed to drive a project in seeming isolation from cost or schedule concerns is supplied by the RAAF's Basic Pilot Trainer Aircraft Project. In the Basic Trainer Project this situation arose out of the failure to resolve conflicting project objectives and divided project management responsibilities. In addition to the acquisition of a suitable trainer aircraft, the RAAF wanted to re-establish a local military aircraft design capability to meet its overall aircraft support needs. The RAAF chose to pursue this objective by requiring the aircraft to be designed to military specifications. Another major objective of the project was the development of export sales to defray design and development costs and sustain the industry's acquired design capabilities. As aircraft design and development got under way however these parallel objectives of market- ability and the development of design expertise came into open conflict. Dispute arose between the RAAF and the contractor (AAC) as to the status of the military specifications. AAC told the Committee that its understanding was that the specification was a target which would not be met to the full letter of the law. The AAC seemed prepared to compromise military specifications when 100 per cent compliance threatened to affect cost, schedule and the marketability of the design. The RAAF, the AAC argued, was insisting on strict compliance with the specification even when non-compliance would have no significant influence on the RAAF's aircraft performance requirements. The RAAF told the Committee that they were in a situation of designing an aeroplane to specification but not regardless of cost. They added however that `undue compromise of the specification . . . would contribute to defeating the purpose of the project'. Under the management arrangements adopted for the Basic Trainer project, responsibility for the project was shared between the Air Force Materiel and Air Force Technical Services Divisions. Although the Chief of Air Force Materiel was responsible for the overall management of the project, the Chief of Air Force Technical Services was the Design Approval Authority and the Air Worthiness Authority. Parallel with Materiel Division's project management organisation, the Chief of Air Force Technical Services had personnel responsible for supervising the design, engineering and quality assurance aspects of the project although they were required to copy or channel relevant information through the Project Director or his representatives. A thirteen month slippage in schedule and a prospective doubling of the project cost appears to have persuaded the Government to abandon local design and development and opt for the licensed production of an existing overseas design. We believe there is considerable scope for further improvements in Defence project management. Unfortunately, the Department of Defence appears not to share the urgency the Committee attaches to these improvements, largely we suspect, because it does not appreciate the full costs of inefficient and ineffective project management. Failure to introduce Defence equipment on time, to budget or to technical requirements affects not only the Commonwealth Budget but also our Defence capability and Australian industry: the savings forgone by projects not being delivered to cost represent resources not available to be applied to other Defence purposes or other areas of Government expenditure; the shortfall in capability which may result from project delays is a cost to Defence preparedness; and contracting delays and generally slow decision making processes impose significant costs on contractors and on the efficiency of Australian industry since Defence is a major customer of sections of Australian industry. For the Committee, the apparently secondary priority Defence accords to efficient and effective project management underlined the importance of public accountability. If other Defence priorities outweigh efficient project management, then the choices and their consequences should be made explicit. Unfortunately, Parliamentary scrutiny of the Defence equipment acquisition process is inadequate. The Committee has made sixty-eight recommendations to improve the effectiveness, efficiency and accountability of Defence project management; sixty-five for action by the Department of Defence and three for action by other Commonwealth agencies. To improve the effectiveness of Defence project management the Committee has recommended: (1) firmly delineating the responsibilities of the Capital Procurement Organisation and the Service sponsor or client organisation; (2) assigning the Capital Procurement Organisation increased authority and control; (3) delegating more authority to project directors, especially over technical and administrative aspects; (4) increasing the level of staffing and computer support given to project offices; (6) making greater use of project management expertise outside Defence, especially that in the private sector; (7) implementing improvements in Defence project management information systems; (8) improving the quality of Defence contracting and contract administration; The further centralisation of procurement functions, the increased delegation of authority to project directors and increased computer support to project offices will improve also the efficiency of Defence project management by shortening decision chains and increasing productivity. The Committee believes there is considerable scope for further improving the efficiency of Defence project management by: (9) modifying Departmental procurement approval procedures to speed decision-making, and improve the quality of information available to decision-makers to allow a fuller consideration of cost-saving options, and to avoid costly changes after contracts have been let; (10) increasing the level of project management skills within Defence by giving greater emphasis to project management experience in selecting key project personnel, and expanding project management training at all levels; (11) increasing the retention of project management skills by developing career paths in project management and related areas; (12) consolidating Defence project management procedures and practices; (13) providing stronger contractual incentives for suppliers to meet requirements on time and to cost; and (14) reducing the potential for post-contract delays by simplifying procedures governing design approvals, contract changes, and contract disputes. The implementation of a number of these recommendations will require additional resources. Others will involve a reallocation of existing Defence resources. The Committee believes that improved efficiency will provide the necessary offsetting savings. Improved accountability will be assisted by centralising functional responsibilities, establishing firm management performance baselines and improving management information systems. To provide the necessary external oversight the Committee has recommended annual reporting to Parliament on the major Defence equipment program. The scope of the inquiry was very broad, touching upon all aspects of the Defence procurement cycle from requirement definition to in-service support. Some aspects, particularly in-service support, could not be covered satisfactorily within the time and resources available. During the inquiry the Committee received some evidence of shortcomings in spares procurement and equipment support. These are important matters and the Committee intends to address them in a follow-up inquiry. A large number of people contributed to this Report. In the first place I would like to acknowledge the contributions of my colleagues on the Sectional Committee and also members of the Sectional Committee in the previous Parliament, Senator Georges, Mr Kent, Mr O'Keefe, Mr McGauran and Mr White. We are grateful to the Department of Defence, the Department of Housing and Construction and other Commonwealth agencies for the co-operation and assistance extended during the inquiry. The Committee also thanks the members of its Secretariat, past and present, for their support. The Committee looks forward to the response to this Report. We shall be monitoring the implementation of the recommendations with interest. I commend the report to honourable senators. Senator MAGUIRE —I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia) —I present the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Publications. Report-by leave-adopted. Debate resumed from 17 February, on motion by Senator Cooney: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(3.08) —In speaking to the Human Rights Commission report, I want to make some remarks about the Commission. The Commission has come in for some criticism, which to some extent has been answered. I want to speak about the people who form the Human Rights Commission. The Chairman is Dame Roma Mitchell; the Deputy Chairman is Mr Bailey; and the members are Professor Aroney, Professor Boyce, Mrs Ford, Mrs Geia and Mrs Hastings. Despite what has been said, the sincerity of the people who form that Commission cannot be doubted. Other than Mr Bailey and the Chairman, all other members are employed part time. They come from various areas. One member is a lawyer from the Gippsland area, another person is heavily involved in ethnic affairs and others are involved in Aboriginal affairs. One person is in a wheelchair and has a special identification with the disabled. Over the years those people who form part of the Commission have worked hard and industriously but, of course, not to the satisfaction of everybody. I believe that it is proper for the Senate to remember that, as distinct from the concept of the Commission and the functions it performs, the people who form part of it are very good people and certainly deserve the thanks of the community generally. Having said that, I make the following comments about the Human Rights Commission itself. The Commission, which was set up by the coalition Government in 1981, has performed a very useful function. Its ultimate purpose, as it has said, is to reduce division and disaffection within the community and to assist in the maintenance of peace, order and good government. That is the aim of the Commission; it is the way in which members of the Commission see themselves having to perform. So it is a little disappointing-perhaps a stronger word than that is needed-that their efforts are too often rewarded by a misunderstanding of what they do. Often times misstatements are made about the functions they perform. Often, attacks are made on the way in which they go about their task. However, in the end the Commission's function is to try to conciliate between people who have a dispute and to point out to government the ways in which legislation goes beyond what is considered as fair and reasonable. For that reason members of the Commission deserve our thanks. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 17 February, on motion by Senator Harradine: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.12) —The Family Law Council's annual report is an interesting document which covers a wide range of subjects. Of course, it is impossible in the five minutes that are available to us to do justice to a report of this nature. I believe, as do a number of other senators, that we should be given more time to discuss and develop responses to reports. I would like simply to refer to two matters that are dealt with by the Family Law Council. The Council deals with reproductive technology on page 15 of the report. I remind the Senate that the Council has recommended that there be a prohibition on experimentation on human embryos. I think that point ought to be noted. The Council made a number of recommendations in regard to the Family Law Act itself. In particular I want to draw the attention of the Senate to the recommendations regarding reconciliation counselling under section 44 (1b) of the Family Law Act. I point out to you, Madam Acting Deputy President, the unfortunate trend, which has apparently been recognised by the Family Law Council and others, of the work of the court counselling service verging on separation counselling rather than reconciliation counselling. I believe that the comments that have been made about this matter in the report need to be challenged in some detail. I refer in particular to the references to reconciliation counselling in general as set out in pages 46 to 50. These comments indicate that consideration has been given to certain proposals relating to the registration of separation. The Family Law Council says that on current trends, up to 40 per cent of marriages will terminate by divorce. That is a quite disconcerting statement or acknowledgement by the Family Law Council. However, the statistics indicate that that is so. This means that the family law legislation itself is not working in the manner that was first thought desirable when it was instituted. When the family law legislation came before the Parliament in 1974 or 1975, a great deal was said about the need for emphasis on reconciliation and the need to create an atmosphere in which the parties can come together to consider the social and legal implications of their actions and the consequences for their children, themselves and society in general. I believe that the Family Law Council has not addressed in sufficient detail the proposition which was advanced by me, with the support of others in the voluntary area, concerning certain procedures which would truly influence the parties to consider those questions, both separately and together, with an approved reconciliation counsellor. In addition, I believe that sufficient attention has not been given to the need for pre-marriage guidance, which is absolutely necessary and to which further legislative encouragement ought to be given. Obviously, it is hopeless to try to analyse matters such as this in a proper manner in five minutes. I just hope that by raising these concerns, others will perhaps look at what I have said and my proposed amendments which were defeated. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(3.17) —I, too, will find it very difficult in five minutes to comment adequately on the annual general report of the Family Law Council. The previous year's report contains a decision to instigate a systematic procedure by which complaints can be monitored. It was decided to give the complaints committees a 12-month period in which to look at complaints before a decision was made on whether to recommend a more formal investigatory body. In its wisdom, the Council decided that the complaints dealt with should not bear any relation to the complaints against judges, to the personal behaviour of other court staff, or to issues relating to the supervision or discipline of the staff. It is argued that these matters are within the role of the supervisors and the managers of the Family Court of Australia. Of course, complaints in respect of judges should be dealt with by the Chief Justice. The report points out that the council took a sample of 100 complaints from those that were lodged. Perhaps someone can help me, but I cannot find anywhere in this report any indication of the number of complaints that were lodged. The sample number of 100 really does not give us any indication whether that is a small sample of the number lodged or whether it is a majority. We have no indication. It is interesting to note that the Council points out that the number of complaints received by the court has decreased within the past 12 months. We have no idea without knowing the total number of complaints being lodged what sort of a fall there has been. The Council does not give us any detail. I would be most interested to know from the Family Court just what was the total number of complaints lodged and what the fall or the decrease was in the 12 months. The Council also assures us that 70 different types of complaints were made from the analysis of the 100 letters that were received. The Council, in its report, tells us that there was criticism of legal representatives and of the Family Law Act, and that most of the letters expressed some complaint over which the Court itself had no control. Again, the Council does not give us any figures. So whether the majority of complaints were made about the judges, the staff, their legal representatives, the Act itself, or whatever, we have no idea. I believe this is leaving us in the dark and that better information should be passed to the Parliament when it is monitoring complaints and setting up for the first time a complaints committee. I would be most interested in hearing a little more about that. Another issue I bring forward is that in the Australian Medical Association's news bulletin from Tasmania, the honorary medical secretary said: Members will recall that last year the register of the Family Court subpoenaed records from some 21 doctors in Hobart in what was a type of fishing expedition. It is of great concern to me because evidently what has occurred is that that Family Law Court has subpoenaed the records of doctors which, as you would know, Madam Acting Deputy President and certainly Senator Peter Baume would know if he were present, are very personal notes, often in abbreviated form and often in the doctors' own type of shorthand. Instead of doctors being subpoenaed to come before the Court and interpret those notes, the records are subpoenaed and the interpretation is done in the court. This is a very dangerous way of going about things. It is not possible for the court to interpret doctors' notes. Senator Sheil —They can't read their writing. Senator WALTERS —I do not have time to go into that, but I can assure the honourable member that he is one hundred per cent right. Even if the writing could be interpreted the meaning or even the intention behind very brief notes could not be. The notes would mean a lot to the doctor but nothing at all to the members of the Family Law Court. Therefore, I show my great concern that the action by the Court is taken in this way and I ask the Minister to make some representation on behalf of the Senate to the Family Law Court to see whether this problem can be solved. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(3.23) —I agree with previous speakers that it is a nonsense we are expected to deal in five minutes with quite a massive and important report from the Family Law Council; I hope that there will be further discussions on it. Briefly, I will mention two or three things from the report. In the first place there is a very interesting summary of recommendations on the procedures and administration of the court which were included in a report on administration that came down earlier. This covers a whole multitude of factors, and I think it is very important that we consider how the court is working. We also know that many changes are referred to in this report; changes which have been made in the law and changes that ought to be made. I will detail some examples: Child abductions, reconciliation procedures, domestic violence, family law data collection, family conciliation centres-a new idea which I think is a very useful experiment-family court costs, and also a number of proposed amendments dealing with the Family Court, one of which I mentioned in Question Time today. All those things require study by those who are interested. In addition there is a matter which has cropped up many times in the past and I do not mind repeating it: Attention has been drawn on page 30 of the report to the fact that referral of State powers in respect of children and property has never been attempted by the States. It has not happened in the 10 years that we have been trying hard to get some sort of uniformity where non-nuptial children as well as children of marriage are treated in the same way. It is a disgrace to the States that they have not managed to refer these powers to the Commonwealth. I have spoken to State judges who lament the fact that they have to deal without the advantages of a family court or its facilities. They have to deal with these questions about children who deserve equal treatment; it does not matter whether they are born inside marriage or not, they ought to have equal treatment and the best facilities of the court. It is also a disgrace to the parliamentarians of this country that they have not managed to get this very simple reference of powers which would have solved a lot of the problems comprised in this jurisdiction. That is referred to in this report. There is also a useful reference in this report to the maintenance philosophy and the ability to recover maintenance. That is a matter which is, of course, before us at present. I refer to the statement the report makes on policy objectives. It says: The Council is aware of the need to increase the level of contribution of liable parents but would be concerned if this objective were pursued at the expense of other social policy objectives including adequate levels of payment for children of sole parents and reducing the current disincentives for sole parents to seek paid employment. We would have to consider there important objectives in any legislation. I take slight issue with some of the comments Senator Harradine made at the end of his speech. The report sets out statistics on divorce. It shows, I must say, an encouraging sign. There has been a reduction in the numbers of divorces over a few years. It was expected that in the early days of the Family Court there would be a fairly high jump in the number of people who had been trying to get divorces but who had not done so under previous legislation. There has been quite a considerable drop in the last few years. In 1983 there was a 4.7 decrease. Senator Harradine spoke of the objectives in 1975. It was, of course, intended that reconciliation provisions should be considered. I could not agree with him more that more money should have been spent over the years on pre-marriage counselling, stopping people, perhaps, from getting into marriages they should not have been getting into and, therefore, avoiding some of the problems which could occur later. I know that these things have not been done sufficiently because not enough money has been spent on them, but, on the whole, we find that there is a settling down of the Court and the circumstances of the law. A smaller number of people are divorcing now than a year or two ago. We have better judges and better facilities now than we have had before. This is an encouraging sign, but once again I say that it is up to the States and the Commonwealth to reach agreement and to bring all matters together. They are failing. They are dragging their heels and causing this great reform of the 1970s to not reach its fulfilment. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 17 February, on motion by Senator Watson: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(3.28) —The Automotive Industry Authority annual report is the first report for the Authority and covers the period 24 October 1984 to 30 June 1985. During this time the Authority has been quite busy, holding 28 meetings, establishing permanent accommodation and facilities, recruiting qualified staff, establishing industry links through consultation and also visiting Japan. The broad thrust of the Government's policy is sound in that it is seeking to provide through the Authority a predictable and stable environment in an industry which is expected to oversee significant structural change. Whilst the legislation empowers the Minister to request the Authority to report on a number of automotive industry matters, it is rather disturbing that the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) did not bother to request a report on any matters under the relevant sections of the legislation which he can do. I think this prevailing Government attitude of creating a protective shield or body between a problem area and the Government, particularly in an area which could be of embarrassment to the Government, is unfortunate because that body will take most of the blame when things go wrong. We created a similar shield in this Parliament the other day in the form of the Federal Airports Corporation. I believe the report itself is, unfortunately, a rather superficial document because the Authority is meant to report in detail not to the Parliament but rather to the Government. So the ordinary member of parliament is left with questioning Ministers on some pretty important issues. However, I believe that the people within the Authority are doing a professional job. They cannot talk much about reducing models, sharing parts and so on, because a lot of the information that they derive is essentially of a confidential character. I believe that the Authority performs a useful and independent role. It is also responsible for overseeing the local content plan. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed from 18 February, on motion by Senator Missen: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.31) —The ninth report of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, which is before us, is a very good report. I think that we should congratulate the Authority and its Chairman, Graeme Kelleher, on the quality of the report and the information contained therein. I guess, as a Queenslander, it is fair to say that all Queenslanders look on the Great Barrier Reef as their very own. But then again, it must also be recognised that for very good reasons all Australians look on the Barrier Reef as their own. Thus, in 1975 an Act to establish the Authority was proclaimed. As one can imagine, that presented an opportunity for confrontation to take place between the Federal Government and the State Government. However, to the credit of everybody concerned, recognising the strong wills involved, a very good relationship has been set up. That does not mean that things go smoothly all the time and there is not a diversity of opinion. The way in which the Authority operates, with the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service being responsible for the day to day running, is working very well. I think that that is to the credit of the people involved in both the Authority itself and the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service. As everyone would understand, the Great Barrier Reef is a vastly complex eco-system. It is not, as the name indicates, one reef. The very fact that there are passages through the outer barrier of the reef soon gives the lie to that. The outer barrier of the reef is made up of many reefs. Inside the Barrier Reef there are many more reefs, coral caves and so on. Its vastness is beyond most people's comprehension. The Chairman stated: Because the Marine Park occupies an area which is larger than the combined areas of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, conservation of the Marine Park must always be carried out to a large extent by its users. Australia could not afford to manage the Park in the absence of public support. That is very true. To survive, the Barrier Reef has to be understood first. It is there to be used, not abused. It is there to be enjoyed. Thus, one of the main roles of the Authority is that of an educative process. The Authority is doing that. It is putting kits together and going to the schools so that young people in particular can understand that it is not only our reef but also the reef for future generations of Australians. It is there to be enjoyed and used but certainly not to be abused. In other words, people have to try to understand it so that it can be protected. I take issue with both Senator Sanders and Senator Missen in their comments the other day. Senator Missen referred to the fringing reefs near Cape Tribulation. He said: It is a problem which concerns the people of Australia because it-- that is, the road- has caused the destruction of some parts of the reef near the shore. Senator Sanders reiterated that. I think, I could say, in the kindest terms, that that is not true. The very fact of building a road does not necessarily mean that there will be masses of silt and the destruction of the fringing reefs. There have been many roads built in north Queensland. There has been a road that has extended from the Daintree River to Cape Tribulation itself. One would surmise that if the siltation flowing down from the construction of the current road was going to cause great damage and the destruction of the fringing reefs it would have happened with the building of the road up to Cape Tribulation, but of course it has not. Senator Georges —What sort of road is it? There are different types of roads. Senator COLLARD —They all start the same. Firstly, the environment is disrupted by the use of bulldozers and so on. Having said that, I indicate that if anybody flying up and down the coast looks down there after any wet season or storm he will see the plume of the silt going out to sea. It is not as if this has occurred only since the white man came. What about the Burdekin River? There is a delta there which has been laid down over thousands of years, not the last 200 years, because of the silt coming down. The plumes are generally dissipated because of the north-south wash behind the reef. Some of the reefs are built in an area where a plume goes out and is dissipating. Those reefs, as have reefs in various other parts of the world, have learnt to adapt to the various circumstances in which they find themselves. The Authority has set up a monitoring program which will look at the reef near the Cape Tribulation road. The program will look at other fringing reefs near other roads which have been built and also at a reef which is nowhere near a road as a control section. I commend the Authority for doing that. I trust that we will learn something from it. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 18 February, on motion by Senator Harradine: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.37) —The points that I need to make in respect of the report of the Australia-Japan Foundation relate to the Australian lecture series in Japan. I consider that it would be inappropriate for me at this point, in view of committee hearings of the Senate and the attendance of certain persons at those committee hearings, that I comment on that at this stage. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Consideration resumed from 18 February, on motion by Senator Reid: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 19 February, on motion by Senator Haines: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 19 February, on motion by Senator Sir John Carrick: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(3.39) —Year after year the annual report of the Department of Transport perpetuates the nonsense that the Department is `concerned to encourage', or is `placing emphasis on', our coastal shipping being efficient, reliable and reasonably priced. The words `efficient, reliable and reasonably priced' have been in the Department's annual reports for years. The inclusion must be automatic. The words have never been heeded and they have never had any effect. Australia's coastal shipping is nothing short of a disaster area. It is subject to the Navigation Act, which effectively gives the Australian maritime unions a monopoly over coastal shipping and this monopoly has been ruthlessly exploited. All vessels engaging in the coastal trade must be licensed by the Department of Transport and vessels will only be licensed if manning standards are, to use the expression in this year's report, `adequate'. `Adequate' means complying with Australian safety, crewing and accommodation standards and Australian wage rates. A total of 104 vessels were so licensed in 1984-85. The report says that three new Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd ships-two of 147,000 dead weight tonnes and one of 220,000 dead weight tonnes-will operate with crews of 26 each. Australian ships of this size currently operate with crews of 32, and the report correctly says that this represents an improvement of 19 per cent. But foreign crews for such ships are as low as 23 and-this is the crunch-we require two crews per ship per year, so that a crew of 52 will still be required for each ship in Australia, whereas foreign ships would require at a maximum a crew of 39 for each ship. In addition, foreign crews do many tasks which Australian crews, by award, do not do and which therefore have to be performed by shore dockyards, thereby increasing the unavailability time of a ship. This extra time and cost, plus the number of strikes by maritime unions, hardly makes the Australian coastal service `reliable' or `efficient'. However, I welcome this first sign of a reduction in manning levels per ship. Manning levels alone are not enough however, and I suspect that costly concessions may have been granted to these crews as a reward for a reduction in crews to something closer to overseas levels. I have always insisted that a reduction in crew levels is useless if total crewing costs increase. What we must ensure is a reduction in the manning costs per ship. Annual and daily manpower costs of each Australian ship are at least double those of comparable Swedish or West German ships-ships from countries which have higher standards of living than we do. As an example of the unions' exploitation of their monopoly, BHP's shipping costs have been estimated to be at least $20m more per year than they would be if the company was using Swedish or West German ships. These extra crew costs greatly increase our transport costs, which then have to be borne by the Australian community, and reduce our international competitiveness, which of course is critical at a time when we are borrowing $1,000m a month to support our current standard of living. Inefficiency in transport is critical. The Industries Assistance Commission found in its report on the fertiliser industry that shipping in an Australian ship adds about $20 per tonne to the price of phosphate and this extra cost, of course, is borne by the hard-pressed farmer. Senator Button —It is not, Senator; it is really borne by the manufacturer. I do not disagree with the point that you are making; I think the cost is horrendous. Senator HAMER —Well, it is borne by someone and it means higher production costs. In its draft report on chemicals and plastics, the IAC had this to say about the Australian coastal shipping industry: The Commission has suggested in the past that the Government forward it a reference on coastal shipping to enable the regulation of coastal shipping to be closely examined with a view to identifying means by which cost imposts on Australian industry can be lessened. Our coastal shipping, which should be the most economical method of transporting cargo between coastal centres, has been pricing itself out of business and that, coupled with our deplorable waterfront performance, has imposed very great extra costs on the whole Australian community for the benefit of a small number of militant and overpaid trade unionists. It is high time that we had a full inquiry into the whole present state and future needs of our coastal shipping trade. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(3.43) —As Senator Hamer is very experienced in the coastal shipping area and knows the maritime problems, it was very interesting to hear what he had to say. In speaking to the annual report of the Department of Transport for 1984-85, I must say first that this is a very comprehensive report and to speak on all its various facets would take some considerable time. Very briefly I wish to speak to the section relating to the railways. I spoke to the Australian National Railways Commission annual report a few weeks ago. That report indicated that the ANR was at least showing a profit, and from looking at that particular report I believe there has been a very substantial turn around. The railways were in the red but now they are a viable operation. That is extremely important and when one remembers that one can see that we are going through a very important period. With proper organisation, upgrading and such, the railways will be very viable in the future in Australia, which is a vast continent. I am particularly interested to see that there has been consultation with railway unions. The Department of Transport report says: Consultations with the rail unions continued during 1984-85 as an important part of the Government's strategy to improve understanding and co-operation within the rail industry. This is very true, and it is extremely good to see that within the railway development there will be a Railway Industry Council. The report says: Discussions at Ministerial level, through the Australian Transport Advisory Council, and with the rail unions on the major problems facing Australian railways resulted in an in-principle agreement to the establishment of a Railway Industry Council (RIC). Rail authorities and unions will participate in this Council. I believe it is essential for the rail authorities and the railway union to come to some agreement and work together within this particular Council to plan the future of the railways. There can be no future for the extension or viability of the railways within Australia unless the railway unions come to an agreement and participate very strongly. The future of railways in Australia depends on the participation of the rail unions concerned. For too long we have seen disruption within the railway system caused by strikes by the unions concerned. I am pleased to see that at last there will be this co-ordination between authorities and unions to plan the future. Unions have a very important part to play in the development of the railways. The success and the viability of railways in the future will depend on the railway unions' participation. As I have said before, I believe there is a tremendous future for railways in Australia and the unions have a most important part to play in it. I will not go on to the subject of the continuation of the north-south rail link. Construction has been completed from Tarcoola to Alice Springs, but the Alice Springs-Darwin link is still wanting. However, I will say that with the development of the railways now-the development to a viable state of affairs through the progressive attitude of the ANR-it will be of considerable importance that this rail link from north to south should be completed. All in all, when one looks at the progress that has been made within this area of the Department of Transport relating to the railways, one finds that it is very encouraging. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(3.49) —The Department of Transport annual report for 1984-85 is a good and well-structured report and the format is informative and imaginative. It is encouraging that the Department is tackling some of the less conventional aspects of road safety-for example, bicycle safety and helmets, driver education, better standards for commercial passenger vehicles, control of unsafe spare parts and accessories and also the difficult problem of safety on rural roads. It is to this area that I wish to direct the rest of my remarks. The report mentions the rural crash study. This study was carried out by the Northern Territory Department of Transport and Works, the Queensland Department of Transport and the South Australian Department of Transport's Division of Road Safety. That study began last year and was announced in this report. The aim of the three studies is to determine which factors influence the frequency and distribution of crashes on rural roads and, in addition, to assess the relative importance of factors and interactions between factors. This is the most important study which we could make. In our highly urbanised society most people live and drive in urbanised areas. Yet, more people die in Australia each year from road crashes in rural areas than die in urban areas. The Australian Democrats have been pressing for action on this issue for a long time. Last year during May and June the Hon. Ian Gilfillan, member of the Legislative Council in South Australia, conducted three phone-ins in South Australian rural areas on the subject of the country road toll. A large number of calls were received from a wide range of people of many different ages. The phone-ins identified a number of issues. The first was the lack of public transport in rural areas for those who drink and need to get home; the second was the poor skills of urban drivers in handling their cars on rural roads; the third was the dangers caused by heavy transports on these roads which sometimes are made out of gravel and whose surfaces are not as good as those of roads in the city; fourth was the presence of a large number of `black spots' and dangerous sections in rural roads. These have been drawn to the attention of those responsible for road maintenance in those areas. I hope that the Commonwealth Government will ensure that those `black spots' are handled and that the roads in those areas are repaired. The lack of public transport as an alternative to drinking and driving in these country areas is a major concern. The distances which country people drive in order to socialise makes the problem of drink driving crucial and more difficult than in the city. Country social life often revolves around alcohol consumption at football clubs, cricket clubs or the local pub. Unlike city dwellers who have access to public transport or taxis when they are `under the weather', country people have little choice but to drive home. Even in major country towns people only rarely have any alternative to driving. This is one area that the rural crash study must consider. Another area of concern which was revealed during the phone-ins was driving skills, especially for city people who rarely drive on rural roads. Rural roads are a totally different kind of road condition from urban roads. The speeds are greater, many roads have gravel shoulders, on which cars can skid, they are unlit at night and require completely different skills to those skills required for city driving. Drivers on rural roads require more sophisticated techniques which should be taught in city driving schools. For example, if a car hits the gravel shoulder, in order to prevent a skid the driver must not brake but drive carefully and unhastily out of the situation. The rural crash study must look into raising the skill levels of urban drivers to a level where they can cope with open road conditions. We must also make certain that heavy transports are looked after and that, as quickly as possible, the fast-track legislative package is introduced into the States so that the safety conditions for heavy transports and for other users of the roads can be improved. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(3.55) —Transport and transport costs are at the very heart of our economic dilemma in Australia. Freight costs are the most central of all costs. Australia is in a dilemma. We have unemployment. We have an adverse balance of trade. We have an inability to service our debts because we are not cost productive in our international trade. In fact in Australia we cannot support competitive manufacturing industries. A good rule of thumb in looking at transport costs runs this way: For primary industry 80 per cent of all costs incurred by farmers is incurred off-farm. They are outside the ability of the farmer to control. However, the second and fundamental issue is that, of all the costs of all commodities and services, something like 40 per cent are freight, in its broadest sense. Therefore, when one looks at the very heart of costs one sees that the very issue which ought to be engaging governments of Australia is that of freight. The annual report of the Department of Transport is bland and, with respect, platitudinous. Today freight in Australia in all its forms-road, rail and sea-is scandalously ineffective and inefficient. When I was a young student at university sea transport was the cheapest of all movements of freight. It was cheaper by one-half the cost of rail or road. Today sea transport is uncompetitive. It is far too dear. Today in terms of overseas trade we are facing not only costs involved in moving freight-goods and commodities-to seaports from around Australia but also there are unnecessary immense extra costs in port handling. I mention the costs of handling grain and coal. I think the Japanese decided they would by pass Sydney for grain handling because of the delays, indeed, the inefficiencies in handling freight. If I were to look at one major subject to which the Commonwealth ought to direct its attention at this moment I would look at a major study of freight and all its aspects in Australia. Indeed, if there is something central to Australia and something that can establish a co-partnership between the States and the Commonwealth and get them working together I suggest that this would be putting the elements of freight handling in Australia into a more efficient and rationalised system. I say this completely in a bipartisan way. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), who is at the table, is facing this as his central problem. As I said, 80 per cent of all farm costs are incurred off-farm. Forty per cent of all costs are freight. Therefore, let us get to the heart of this. Let us, as best we can, establish an inquiry. We are good at inquiries on lots of superficial things. Let us establish an inquiry to look at freight costs-to look into the very heart of our sea transport. Senator Hamer, who has expert knowledge in this area, has pointed out the disabilities. What a tragic situation it is that Australia with its immense littoral-its immense coastlines-really cannot run its own Australian-manned shipping services. The Australian people themselves are good people when they understand the nature of the work and the job to be done. We ought to have a very large indigenous Australian shipping service. Because we look at conflict instead of consensus we are costing ourselves out of a job. We are destroying what could be a great contribution to getting costs down in Australia and to getting jobs for the Australian people. I rose to speak because I consider this subject of immense importance to the whole of the main task ahead of us in tackling the one central thing of the economy-how to make Australia more cost competitive. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed from 19 February, on motion by Senator Sir John Carrick: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(4.00) —I rise to speak on the annual report of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission because it will be the last report that the Commission in its present form will present to this Parliament. Legislation is currently before this Parliament to change the name and the nature of the Commission. I speak as a former Minister who had the privilege of being responsible for the Atomic Energy Commission. Therefore it is timely to pay tribute-I think the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) who is present in the chamber will agree with me-to the work and services of those who have been responsible for the Commission in its present form. The Commission has made one major transition when the former Government, under a rationalisation plan, separated the Australian Atomic Energy Commission and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. The Commission managed that transition with great adaptability. I pay tribute in particular to the Chairman of the Commission, Professor Max Brennan, an eminent nuclear physicist who has brought to his task skill and dedication. I pay tribute to those who have served as deputy chairmen and members of the Commission, in particular Dr Walker, who carries the administrative tasks. The Australian Atomic Energy Commission has indeed had a good record in Australia. There will be a change, not so much in the relevant Act or in the Commission's powers, because the legislation before us, apart from changing the Commission's name, will not alter to great effect its powers of research, but because the Government has foreshadowed that it is its policy to introduce legislation further to restrict this Commission. The Government has been making great noises about one aspect of this Commission that is to be a major feature in the future. I do not want to deprecate it. I refer to the production of radioactive isotopes. The fact is that these isotopes have played and are playing a significant part in industry, medicine and agriculture. I want to put the situation in its true perspective. One does not need a nuclear research establishment to produce radioactive isotopes. The nature of the Commission is such that to overemphasise that this is the key focus of what the Commission needs is to make a false projection. In fact, it is quite possible to produce these isotopes in a commercial cyclotron in a commercial way. I am not saying that I am advocating that that should be done, but I am saying that in looking in the future at the work of the new Commission, the Senate and the community at large should not be beguiled into thinking that the Commission will be doing major work just by dwelling upon the use of isotopes. A commercial cyclotron is quite capable of producing them. What is important is that there should be available in Australia, through the universities and elsewhere, a facility for maintaining the peacetime knowledge of our students and future lecturers in the nuclear field. In a world that is growing more and more hungry for energy and because this present glut of oil is disguising the fact that we will run out of renewable fuel, one cannot tell when we will need to utilise the nuclear cycle for peacetime electricity generation. I rose primarily to pay tribute to those who have done excellent work, to those whom I have known and who have been involved in projects such as synroc, uranium enrichment and in other various fields. I wish those at the workface today every success for the future in their journey. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(4.05) —I rise to speak on the thirty-third annual report of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. Like Senator Sir John Carrick, I too pay tribute to the Commission which has done tremendous work for Australia over the years. The present staff and the people who have served on the Australian Atomic Energy Commission are to be commended for what they have done for Australia. Today, I wish briefly to refer to that section of the report relating to the rehabilitation of overburdened heaps at Rum Jungle. Honourable senators will recall that Rum Jungle is some 60 miles from Darwin, near Batchelor. From 1954 to 1969, uranium was mined there by Consolidated Zinc Pty Ltd. There was a very savage deterioration of the environment. This was due to the mining and treatment operation and the disposal of waste products which was carried out within the strictures of the environmental regulations applying at that time. They were quite insufficient. It is important that we see just what poor mining operations can do to the country. It should be stressed too that the pollution at Rum Jungle resulted mainly from the pyroetic nature of the overburden and from the ore treatment processes and that it was not directly related to the uranium mined. I believe that the Federal Government, the Northern Territory Government and those who were sub-contracted to work on the rehabilitation of Rum Jungle are to be very much commended. I refer particularly to a report on the rehabilitation of Rum Jungle produced by the Northern Territory Department of Mines and Energy. I commend the project engineer, Mr C. G. Allen, and his staff, who carried out this work for the Northern Territory Government, which was financed by the Federal Government. Those who saw Rum Jungle in the first years were appalled by the death of the Finniss River. Plants and fishes died in the river; it was more or less dead. The water in Whites open-cut and Dysons open-cut was of extreme depth and so poisonous that no one could use it, not even as a sporting facility. The two governments have brought about the rehabilitation. I understand that a budget of some $20m was made available for this work. It is to the credit of all concerned that this work was carried out within the budget allocated some year ago. Even with depreciation, by making some savings in some areas, those involved were able to complete the work. I have been to Rum Jungle within the last few months and seen the rehabilitation project. Most of the work has been completed. It is something that most honourable senators should see if they are interested in such rehabilitation work. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —Order! The time allocated for the consideration of Government papers has expired. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —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 VIGOR(South Australia) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Consideration resumed from 19 February, on motion by Senator Sir John Carrick: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed from 13 February, on motion by Senator Durack: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Senator Missen had moved by way of amendment: Leave out all words after `That', insert- `debate on this Bill be deferred to enable consideration of the reference to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, or such other standing or select committee that is able to handle the inquiry, of the provisions of the Bill and other proposals already made or subsequently brought forward to provide a scheme for the effective assessment, collection and enforcement of maintenance payments (whether by order of a court, agreement or otherwise), so that both parents and spouses will pay adequate maintenance from their own resources before reliance is made on pensions or other payments by the Government'. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.10) —There has already been substantial debate on this measure and the Government's position has been well outlined in Senator Tate's contribution but it is, nonetheless, appropriate that I formally put on record the response of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and the Government to this private member's Bill, the Family Law Amendment Bill 1985. May I say at the outset that it is gratifying to see the concern for maintenance recipients which was expressed in Senator Durack's second reading speech but it is unfortunate in our view that the practical effect of the Bill will not satisfy the concerns which he identified. The Bill deals with two broad issues: The effect of social security on the size of maintenance orders or agreements and enforcement by imprisonment. We see the Bill as being inadequate in both of those areas and, as a result, the Government opposes it. Let me explain in a little more detail why we oppose it. I will refer first to the social security aspect. Sub-clause 3 (1) of the Bill proposes to add two new sub-sections to section 75 of the Family Law Act. The intended effect of proposed sub-section 75 (3) seems to be to require the court awarding maintenance to disregard the existence of possible social security benefits. The Government is firmly of the view expressed by other speakers that primary responsibility for the support of children should rest with the parents of the children. Nevertheless, it believes that the approach taken by proposed sub-section 75 (3) is too simplistic and may create great hardships where there are not the financial resources to allow total support of two family units. Decisions of the Family Court of Australia already hold that only where financial resources are inadequate should social security be considered. The case of F and F, (1982) FLC 91-214, for those interested, which was a decision of Mr Justice Fogarty, referred to by Senator Tate, clearly held this. It was recently reaffirmed in the case of H and H, for which the reference is (1985) FLC 91-654. There is a case for clarifying the wording of the Act to make this clear. The Government proposes to do this when the next Family Law Act is substantively amended. I interpolate that if we could guarantee a shorter debate on the Family Law Act when we did bring in an amendment we might be minded to introduce an amendment of this kind much earlier. Senator Durack —We can fix it up on this Bill if you give it a second reading. Senator GARETH EVANS —Not in the terms in which Senator Durack has advanced it. As helpful as his intentions may be, I am afraid that, as is so often the case, the execution does not match the aspiration. The Bill also proposes to add sub-section 75 (4) which purports to deal with priorities as between the needs of the party to or a child of a marriage, on the one hand, and responsibilities assumed since that marriage, on the other. The court is directed to give `such priority as is just and reasonable in all the circumstances'. This may amount to none at all or to a negative priority. No guidelines are given to determine the priority. Anything that could be encompassed by the new sub-section will already be considered under other provisions of sub-section 75 (2), including paragraph (a) which reads: . . . any fact or circumstance which, in the opinion of the court, the justice of the case requires to be taken into account. Clause 4 of the Bill amends section 87 of the Act by excluding arrangements for child maintenance from court-approved maintenance agreements. It would, in the Government's view, be a very drastic step to remove these arrangements from the scope of section 87 agreements. These agreements are a useful means for parties to finalise their affairs on marital breakdown without the trauma of continuing court proceedings. It is conceded that some of these agreements may have been structured to maximise social security receipt. Nevertheless, the Family Court in Bailey and Bailey, (1981) FLC 91-041, held that, in considering whether a maintenance agreement is proper, the Court should also consider the interests of the community at large. Again, while some legislative clarification might be useful, this will be considered in the context of other amendments to the Act. I now turn to the question of imprisonment, the other main preoccupation or focus of Senator Durack's Bill. Clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill seek to strengthen the enforcement system by increasing the use of imprisonment for maintenance default. In the Government's view they do so in entirely inappropriate ways. Section 107 of the Act prohibits imprisonment for simple failure to comply with an order for the payment of money. It is expressed not to affect, however, the provisions of section 108 which permits imprisonment for contempt of court. Thus section 107, for example, prevents imprisonment of a person who did not have the money to pay the amount ordered. It does not prevent imprisonment of someone who has the resources but wilfully defies a court order. The report of the National Maintenance Inquiry in 1984, which was referred to by Senator Walters and Senator Missen in their contributions, examined this topic of imprisonment in some depth-I refer to pages 311 to 320-and recommended against the repeal of section 107, while at the same time urging attitudinal changes on the part of some judges and magistrates who seemed reluctant to use their existing contempt powers in appropriate cases. The Government supports the view expressed in that inquiry and accordingly opposes the repeal of section 107. We take the absolute view that no one should be imprisoned simply because they are poor. We oppose clause 6 because it gives the judges no guidance as to what is reasonable imprisonment. We think that is necessary if any sense is to be made of this proposal. While again acknowledging the need for action to be taken in this area, we take the view that this Bill is not the appropriate means of doing so. It will not in our view alleviate the problems of maintenance beneficiaries, and that is what it ought to be all about. I make it clear that the Government is not standing still on this issue. The question of appropriate enforcement mechanisms is being considered at the highest level by a sub-committee of Cabinet. Senator Durack —You started considering that three years ago. You were going to fix it up then. Senator GARETH EVANS —But it was not considered by a sub-committee of Cabinet then, Senator. Senator Durack —But you were going to fix it up yourself. Senator GARETH EVANS —I was getting there. It is being considered by a sub-committee of Cabinet, chaired by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) and involving the Attorney-General and other relevant Ministers. We hope to produce an integrated-- Senator Durack —That inspires confidence. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am pretty impressed. I think they are a pretty impressive lot. We hope to produce an integrated package with appropriate law reform proposals and administrative mechanisms. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Debate resumed from 6 December 1985, on motion by Senator Robertson: That the Senate take note of the report. upon which Senator Crichton-Browne had moved by way of amendment: Leave out all words after `That', insert `the Senate- (a) accepts the necessity for the interior finish of the Senate Chamber in the new Parliament House to maintain in suitable form the dignity and atmosphere of the present Chamber; (b) considers that it is appropriate for the new Chamber to have a basically wood-panelled appearance, taking advantage of, and making use of the wide range of timbers to be found throughout Australia; and (c) rejects the proposal, recently revealed to Senators, for the walls of the new Chamber to be lined with fabric of varying colours, not consistent with the traditional red colour common to Westminster-style Upper Houses.'. (Quorum formed) Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(4.20) —The question of the interior decoration for the new Parliament House has, of course, caused a great deal of disturbance. I would like to raise a couple of matters relating to the concept of panelling in the new Parliament House, which has caused a great deal of controversy and concern to some members. Senator Chipp —Is there anything on which you do not have a view? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I hope that, like the honourable senator, I will have the opportunity of being in the new Parliament House. I think everyone in this chamber should have the right to have a view. Whether it is accepted or not is beside the point. I am surprised that Senator Chipp, who apparently espouses principles that people should have a fair go, is not prepared to allow me to do so. I would like to express some concern on the question of the panels and the fact that they are to be of textile. I draw the attention of honourable senators to the panels high in the chamber, which appear to me to be tired and to show the consequences of a fair degree of wear. I am not certain what fabric is involved, but it does seem to me from this point in the House that they do not seem to have worn particularly well. I hope that the sort of textile that people have in mind would not suffer the fate that the fabric in this chamber has. There is no doubt that for reverberation purposes there is a need for great care to be shown in the panelling of the chamber. Mr President, the question you answered at Question Time today clearly indicated the importance the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House places on that, and quite rightly so. When I asked the architect yesterday whether wood panelling would cause reverberation time problems, he said that it would and that that was one of the major reasons why the move was towards the solution of fabric, apart, of course, from the cost. Senator Haines —He also said that red would make the wood look dirty, which I thought was an extraordinary statement to make. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —The honour able senator is right. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Michael Baume has the floor. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Mr President, I am nonetheless grateful for that interjection. I am glad that at least one member of the Australian Democrats is prepared to discuss the matter seriously. The question that was concerning me, apart from the one of appearance, was one of practicality-about sound. The architect did say that it was true that straight wood panelling would create reverberation time problems, but he conceded that if there were alcoves, protrusions and lumps of wood in the wall the reverberation time problems would be resolved. Senator Haines —The lumps are in the seat. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —The logs are in the seats in many instances. Many senators are much more attracted to the conventional wood panelling than to the concept of having fabric on the walls. On the other hand, I think it is absurd for the new Parliament House to be designed, like the camel, not by one committee but by committee upon committee upon committee. Senators should be very careful indeed in believing that they are the font of all knowledge and wisdom on the matter of the room that they should be working in. Nevertheless, I think it is also improper and ridiculous for those making these decisions not to listen to the wishes and desires of the people who will occupy the chamber. It is unfortunate that the options available were not provided to senators in a reasonable time and there was not the opportunity for the discussion which is now belatedly taking place. From my discussion with the architect yesterday it seemed to me that it is not possible to have wood panelling as long as it is not simply flat and without appropriate lumps and bumps, corners and protrusions such as the broadcasting box and so on, which do bounce the sound around a bit. Senator Watson —And some drapes. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —And some drapes, as the honourable senator says. The opportunities are great for showing off Australian wood, just as one could argue that there is the opportunity, under the architect's present plan, for showing off some Australian textiles. But the question surely revolves around what this Senate feels is appropriate to its status and its traditions. It seems to me quite right and proper that the Senate should feel it has the capacity to have some input. If I may be critical, it is only now that the Senate has had that capacity for input and it is too late. If we insist on changes-that is, if we have the capacity to insist on changes-it will add to the cost, it will involve delay. I fear that there will be obstruction put in front of us in terms of trying to get what we want if in fact wood panelling is the majority opinion of what we want. I think also that senators have different views of the actual colour of the textile up the wall. I feel confident that it will drive many senators right up the wall. Senator Colston —Some of them are up there already. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Some of us are around the ceiling, being in free flight most of the time. I feel that it is proper for the Senate to express its concern and perhaps the hope that the Committee will make it clear to the architect-after all the Committee is the client and there can only be one client-that the end users of the chamber are far from satisfied with the nature of the interior decoration. There are plenty of comments about the carpet-the extent of black in the current carpet and whether there is such a thing as a traditional carpet. The House of Lords, as I remember, burnt down in the early nineteenth century and none of the original carpet was kept on record so that we could see what a really long tradition is all about. There seems to be an accepted view in the Senate of what is Senate red and that is a deeper red, a richer red and a stronger red than the pink which is intended to be put on the walls. I express my concern that the chamber is not as I would have hoped it might be. I think there is a great case for incorporating wood in the panelling-not flatwood panelling which seems to be the modern trend, but a panelling that gives us an opportunity to see displayed the skills of Australian craftsmen and the particular beauties of Australian wood. The way we must go about it is simply to make a request to the client rather than to harass the architect. The experience of the Sydney Opera House and the problems that emerged there were clearly because there was no evident single client with whom the architect could continually relate. We have to avoid any situation emerging in this construction where the Senate, the House of Representatives or anyone else considers himself to be the client and takes unto himself the right to demand and instruct the architect on what is right and what is wrong. I believe that we have the right to complain a little to the client-acting on our behalf and on behalf of all Australians, but on our behalf to the extent that we will be using the chamber-that our wishes have been ignored and that we did not have an opportunity at an appropriate time, before this went so far down the track, to have any input on the decision between wood and textile. Having looked at what appear to be textile panels at the top of this chamber, which I presume are for acoustic purposes-- Senator Colston —They are to soak up the water when the rain comes in. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —We hope that that is one problem we will not have in the new and permanent Parliament House. Perhaps architects now have worked out how to put roofs that work on buildings. If those panels are an accurate reflection of what happens to textiles over time-if developments have taken place such that we are to be locked in to the textile decision-I hope that those panels are not the sort of thing that will appear in our new chamber. I stress that in my view the pink colour is unattractive. It does, I regret to say, remind me of some senators' eyes early in the morning. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(4.31) —An old colleague of mine, who was getting towards the end of his career when I came into this place, was former Senator Cavanagh. I understand that when there were discussions about where the new Parliament House would be built-that was before the time I came in-he used to say, a little facetiously: `I don't care where it is as long as I'm in it'. I think that Senator Cavanagh probably facetiously would say something like that today: `I don't care what it is like, as long as I'm in it'. That would have been Jim Cavanagh's facetious comment, but I think he would have taken this matter quite seriously. Some of us might not be in that Parliament although we probably all hope that we will be. I suppose 20 years from now none of us will be in it. We are building it not for this Parliament but parliaments of the future; for those people who will represent the people in the national Parliament long after we have gone. I am on the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House. Senator Tate —True confessions. Senator COLSTON —It might be a true confession, but I am probably taking a lot more interest in this matter than a lot of other people in the chamber because of the fact that I have been on that Committee for a long time. I take my role seriously, as one who should be doing his best to make sure that the Parliament we will occupy in a couple of years time is a fit place for the national representatives. In my role as a member of the Committee I have listened to many arguments, not only on the particular matter we are talking about today. I have had differing opinions when things have first been brought before us. After hearing the arguments of those people, who know much better than I do the technicalities of the matter, I have been swayed to accept the arguments. On some occasions the arguments of the Committee have been accepted by the architects and all of those associated with the construction, so it has been a two-way street. We do not come in to the Committee with any pre-conceived ideas and stick to those pre-conceived ideas if we see that the evidence is overwhelming on the opposite side. Let us look at the amendment before us. The first part states: . . . the Senate- (a) accepts the necessity for the interior finish of the Senate Chamber in the new Parliament House to maintain in suitable form the dignity and atmosphere of the present Chamber. . . I suppose that we could not build another chamber which will have exactly the same sort of dignity and atmosphere. I put to the Senate that we will have a dignity in the new chamber, if it is constructed and decorated in the way that we have outlined in the report and as has been shown to us in the model in King's Hall. I do not think that we have to worry about the dignity and atmosphere of the future chamber. Certainly the atmosphere will be different because it will be a larger chamber. I would hope that the dignity will be more than the dignity we sometimes see in this chamber. The next part of the amendment states: . . . the Senate . . . considers that it is appropriate for the new Chamber to have a basically wood-panelled appearance, taking advantage of, and making use of the wide range of timbers to be found throughout Australia. . . Why is it appropriate? I suppose it would be nice for us to have the idea that we would be able to use wood products grown in Australia to make it a truly national chamber, or something like that, but that is about the only reason that has been put forward. Part (c) of the amendment, which is tied in with part (b), states: . . . rejects the proposal, recently revealed to Senators, for the walls of the new Chamber to be lined with fabric of varying colours, not consistent with the traditional red colour common to Westminster-style Upper Houses. I have heard the arguments on a number of occasions in the Committee about the necessity for fabric walls and I accept them. When the Committee meets tomorrow, if this matter is brought before it, I will still be accepting them. If those in the chamber who do not like that sort of attitude from one of their representatives feel highly incensed about it they can make moves to take me off the Committee. I will stick to the original proposal because I think it is fine. The arguments that have been put before us have been cogent arguments that this sort of finish is necessary. In conclusion, I will say something about the traditional red colour. The amendment states: . . . not consistent with the traditional red colour common to Westminster-style Upper Houses. What is the traditional colour? We are not sure. We think that this is perhaps the traditional colour. If one goes to those States of Australia which have upper houses-there is no longer an upper house in Queensland-one will see that the colour varies from State Parliament to State Parliament. Anyway, why should not we, as the Australian Parliament, set a pattern which will be followed in Australia? Why do we have to be hide-bound to a colour which might have been in the House of Lords at some stage? We have different reds in this country and there is no reason why we should not use a colour which is slightly different from the one we have been used to. If this matter is discussed by the Committee tomorrow, I will be putting forward my view that the decision made by the Committee previous to this discussion should hold. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(4.38) —I think that we should consider what we require in the new Senate chamber in the new Parliament House. I suggest that we require, firstly, that the Senate chamber should be functionally efficient, not least in the area of acoustics. We want an elegant chamber which will recognise traditions-not necessarily British traditions. We have our own traditions now and we want to recognise the traditions we have established. Finally, it has to be one which will stand the test of time, not one which is trendy for a particular period, whether it is the 1980s, or for that matter the 1880s. We have to have a chamber which will last for a long time. Others may have different impressions but I think these requirements are adequately expressed in the brief given to the architects and interior design consultants. The Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House was appointed by us and is supposed to supervise these things. It is now proposed that we should impose on that Committee's design brief some particular extra requirements of our own. I would submit that we have no skills in this chamber in the relevant disciplines. It seems to me that we do not have skills to fit out a room that will be lofty and artificially lit. I do not think we have the relevant skills in acoustics. These are very important matters. In the past we have delegated to experts the job of meeting broadly expressed requirements. I watched with interest when this sort of worry occurred in respect of the magnificent Victorian Arts Centre. There was a great deal of worry about whether the interior decorating was going to be a success. In fact, it has turned out to be a magnificent success. However, let us suppose that the Victorian Parliament had taken on itself to give a direction to the architects that the main theatre was to be as near as possible to the design and style as of the Princess Theatre of the 1870s. That would have been an absurd direction. We are very nearly saying the same thing. What we want to ensure is that this building will stand the test of time. We have given an appropriate direction. We have employed experts to do this. I think we meddle at our peril and at the peril of the design of the building itself. Senator SIBRAA(New South Wales)(4.42) —I intend to make only a brief contribution. I have just been chairing a discussion group of members of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence and United States State Department officials. We were discussing the South Pacific nuclear free zone. I told the group that I had to leave to come to this chamber because we were going to take a vote on what the colour of the new Senate chamber walls will be. I do not think that went down particularly well. I was irritated by Senator Michael Baume's contribution this afternoon. The honourable senator was really saying that somehow those of us who were elected to the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House have not done our job. I was elected to the Committee in July 1981 and I have served on it ever since. Senator Colston was also elected in July 1981 and is still a member of the Committee. Senator Reid was elected early in 1983. I mention that because Senator Reid has been an excellent member of the Committee and she has a much better attendance record at committee meetings than I have. I think all honourable senators should read the speech that she made on this matter last December. In May 1982 the Committee approved the design proposals for the Senate chamber. The interior design was finalised and approved by the Committee in 1984 and 1985. The presentation was made to honourable senators in mid-September 1985. Maybe that is where we went wrong. I am not going to argue about the acoustics or the lighting this afternoon because, quite frankly, I have had to rely on the experts in this field. However, that does not mean that the Committee has rubber stamped all the decisions of the experts. The Committee has heard lots of arguments and debate. I will just mention a few. Early on we debated at some length whether all the tennis courts would be located on the Senate side or whether some would be on the House of Representatives side of the building. That might not sound a very big issue, but the debate about that went on for some months. We had an argument about a child care centre. We debated whether such a facility would be included in the building. I see that this matter is listed on the business paper for tomorrow. To my knowledge, we have been perhaps not arguing but making decisions about a child care centre for about two years. This debate is still going on. We have had differences of opinion over what sort of crockery and cutlery should be put in the new Parliament House. Car parking involves the expenditure of millions of dollars. We had to make decisions on how many car parking spaces ought to be provided, where they ought to be and so on. I mention these matters which have been debated for a long time. I was elected-or I believe I was elected-to represent all senators on that Committee. Therefore, I do not think we should debate all of the issues in this chamber. I mentioned the consideration that the Committee has given to child care facilities. I think a debate on that matter in this chamber would run for some days. I have gone back through all of the papers since the debate that took place last December. I have read what the architects and all the others have said. I am convinced that if we alter the decision we will increase the cost. I know that some people would ask why we cannot do that if we are going to spend $800m anyway. However, I also believe-- Senator Crichton-Browne —How much are the paintings costing? Senator SIBRAA —I should not answer interjections, but I will say that I do not know the cost of the paintings. However, I believe that a large number of them will be provided by the Australian National Gallery on a rotation basis. One thing I am sure of is that if we make a decision that is contrary to the one that was recommended to the Committee we will delay the finalisation of the Senate chamber. I ask all Opposition senators to read Senator Reid's speech. We are talking about Australia and we are not trying to follow the design of the Westminster building. The new Parliament House is a unique building. I believe that when finished it will prove to be one of the world's great buildings. Like Senator Colston, I know how I am going to vote today. More importantly, I know how I am going to vote on the Committee tomorrow where my vote counts. Quite frankly, nothing that anybody might say this afternoon will convince me to change my vote. I am sticking with the recommendation that has been made. Senator Colston has already said that he is going to vote in this way. I would expect that some members of the Committee from the other side of the chamber are also of that opinion. When this matter is resolved we will be able to get on and finish the building. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(4.45) —I rise to express concerns in three areas, namely, choice of textiles; lack of evidence of linkages with the States, recognising that this is a States rights House; and a lack of historical visual evidence of Australian traditions. Firstly, I believe that we are going to have problems with the choice of the textiles chosen and the positioning of those textiles. We will also have problems in respect of colour and texture. The pattern chosen is one of modern craft design and will not give any symbolic historical links. There will certainly be many difficulties in regard to the collection of dust and cleaning will be a major problem. Of course, the fabric will tend to deteriorate in time. I believe it is unfortunate that the architects have not recognised that not only is the Senate a House of review but also it is a States House. I think there is evidence of this behind the presidential chair. The timbers throughout this building have been taken from all the States. I think it would be unfortunate if we lost that sense of identity with the States. I would like to see the presidential chair and the surrounds for about five to six feet in length and six feet in height behind it incorporated into the new design if possible. I think the new Senate chamber should reflect a continuity of our history. I think it is unfortunate that there is not a lot of evidence in the architectural design of the new chamber of linkages with the past and of important things that have happened. I believe that the new chamber has a somewhat modern and austere look. Festival Hall in London certainly has this quality. That building functions pretty well but it is not aesthetically pleasing to the eye. I would like the Joint Committee on the New Parliament House to consider the matters that I have mentioned. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(4.48) —Mr President, I wish to report a conversion. I have come to the view, moved only by the evidence of my own eyes, that there is sufficient merit in the proposal put to honourable senators in the display in King's Hall for me to support the proposal. In speaking of that conversion, I want to emphasise that I am not at all impressed by threats that any other view would lead to undue delay or additional cost of the new Parliament House. As far as I am concerned, that is not an argument and should never have been put forward in certain material that has been distributed to us. It is an insult to try to blackmail us by using that sort of argument. As a result of the debate that look place last December, for the first time we have had presented to us-the people who will actually live and work in this environment day by day-the textiles that are proposed for the wall surrounding the Senate chamber itself. The display that has been presented and the model that has been put on show give one some idea of the scope of the carpet area in particular and the way in which the fabric will cover portions of the chamber. This will be but a part of the overall area surrounding the Senate chamber and the galleries. This demonstration shows that the fabric does have merit. At night, in King's Hall, the fabric takes on a colour which is very beautiful indeed. It has a very deep, rich tone which I find very attractive. Under the very harsh morning light from a skylight in King's Hall which seems to mediate the strong sunlight through a bluey-grey filter, it looks horrible. But I have been assured by those who have been responsible for the display that that type of mediation of the strong Australian sunlight will not be the type of light that reaches that area of the Senate chamber. There will be a mixture of natural and artifical light, and it will not be of that colouring to bring out, I think, unduly or in an emphasised way the pinks that we have in the early morning viewing of that fabric. I believe that the Press, when it took up and reported the debate last December, did not sufficiently convey some of the exaggeration and the humour of that occasion at the end of the session and took it all far too seriously. It was a serious matter to raise, but, of course, some of us spoke in exaggerated terms. I do not regret having spoken in that way, but with the evidence having been presented to my own eyes I now find that I can support the proposal that has been put forward. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(4.51) —It is with some diffidence that I speak on this issue because I am a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House. In one way honourable senators could argue that as a member of that Committee I should not be canvassing a point of view, but should be reflecting the views of one's colleagues. Senator Colston and Senator Sibraa have entered the debate and I feel that it is valid for me to put some of the information I have gained while I have been on the Committee to the Senate. I compliment Senator Sibraa on his honesty because during the period I have been on the Parliament House Committee I cannot recall having seen Senator Sibraa at one of the meetings, and I am glad he referred to and acknowledged that in his speech. I happen to have an old-fashioned view that architects serve the client. One ought to try to satisfy the interests and desires of the client. One would have to be particularly insensitive in this chamber not to recognise the degree of controversy that the proposals have occasioned amongst our fellow senators. Whether they are right or wrong is not the issue. The point is that a very high level of concern has been demonstrated after the belated display of what the design of the chamber was going to be to the members of the Senate. It is on that basis that I think this debate is justified. One of the difficulties we face is that the Senate is not the client. The client is the Parliament House Construction Authority, but the Authority does have to, indirectly, take some notice of what we are saying. Whether we are going to be able to reverse this decision, if that is the wish of the majority of the members of the Senate, the debate and the portrayal of points of view is worth having. I regret that the architects and the Authority left it so late in the day before they had the common sense or the courtesy to approach the client which would have been an elementary thing to do. In dealing with the new Senate chamber, the first thing the Senate must appreciate is that there has been a great mistake made, not with the furnishings but with the size of the chamber. I do not know who was responsible for that. Whether it was the result of the brief given to the architects or the Authority in the first instance, or whether the architects took it upon themselves to design a chamber as large as that, we are faced with a chamber that is considerably larger than the present one. We are faced with a chamber which for one day every three years will accommodate not only the senators but all the members of the House of Representatives. That has given us a chamber that is very large and it will lack the intimacy that this chamber has. That is the fundamental problem we are facing. The United States Senate is quite a small chamber. The House of Commons has 600 members, but nearly half of them cannot get a seat in the chamber; this preserves the intimacy which is very important for the debates that take place. There is nothing we can do about the new chamber; it is literally set in concrete. It is poured and there is not a damn thing any of us can do about altering the size of it. I will move to one of the most powerful arguments that has been advanced by the advisers on the use of fabrics on the walls. We have been told that that is because of reverberation. I do not wish to go through the technicalities of it, but bluntly, that is arrant nonsense. The great concert chambers of the world are lined either with wood or most commonly with a rendered concrete finish. I am very surprised that an architectural firm that hails from New York has not taken the time to go through the Lincoln Centre, or paid the money to go to the magnificent Metropolitan Opera and been in that quite huge auditorium there. It may be that our architects do not have any cultural pursuits-I do not know. All the great concert halls of the world are not lined with fabric and the acoustics are at a premium in those chambers. If we need any further confirmation of the difficulty that the architects are in with respect to reverberation or acoustics in the chamber, we have to have a look at what is not shown on the model and look at the overhead display of microphones. The cats cradle that we have up there is visually unacceptable but it seems that this is a necessary dictate because of the acoustics of the chamber. One of the other justifications for the choice of colours relates to the great red centre of Australia. We are in the business of being parliamentarians, not denizens of the centre of Australia. With respect, the colours of the great Australian outback have absolutely nothing to do with the colours used in the House of Representatives or the colours used in the Senate chamber. My great fear about this is that we have designed a chamber that not only will be number one off the rank for the architectural prize of 1988 but also because of its inherent design, will date very rapidly. It is going to be passe within a few years and it is going to be very much last year's effort. All of us here and our successors will be using that chamber, not for ten years or fifty years, but I hope that it will last the people of Australia for some hundreds of years, and it requires a different vision to the vision that has been placed on it at present. The final point I make is the matter of cost. Undeniably a penalty would be involved in not proceeding with that present design, but if wood panelling was substituted for fabric I do not believe that the cost increase would be more than very marginal. We are not going to buy those specially woven wool fabrics for a handful of beans. It will have to be a special weaving job, and quite a few square feet of surface is involved. The net extra cost of using wood panelling will not be terribly much. While I am on the question of cost, there are areas of waste that can be picked up. We have an Art Acquisitions Committee which is going around all the basket makers of Balmain, or whatever Mr Keating calls them, buying objects d'art, folk art, and all that sort of thing which again will date very rapidly, to furnish the members and senators rooms, and the hallways. As somebody said before, the Australian National Gallery has more pictures that it can ever display, and there are other pictorial assets that the Commonwealth has which can be used to furnish the new House. If we are short of a few dollars we can easily pick money up from those sort of activities to provide an environment which the Senate wants. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(4.59) —I am sorry that the debate has been interpreted by some members of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House as an attack on them, their integrity, their taste or anything else. I do not think that was intended, although the rather hurt comments from some members of the Committee would certainly have led me to believe that they felt that this was some kind of personal attack. It is not. I think it is a mixture of our feeling in some way left out, although the Committee members were representing us, and in other ways our concern about the sort of heritage that we are providing for, not only for future members of parliament but also for the future citizens of Australia for whom I think this is an essential part of their heritage. I know that many of us here fit into the category of not knowing much about architecture, but we do know what we feel comfortable in. That in itself is a reasonable attitude to take. After all, we are often in here 12 hours a day. We are, therefore, the ones most concerned with our surroundings. I spoke to the architect yesterday morning and he told me that he thought this was the ugliest chamber he had ever seen, which got my back up to start with, although I was not being terribly tactful myself about the display. So I guess it was a bit of giving and taking. Senator Withers —He really meant the inhabitants. Senator HAINES —No. He followed that up by telling me that one cannot have red with wood because it makes the wood look dirty. Senator Crichton-Browne —He told me green. Senator HAINES —He did go on to tell me that if one changes the colour of red one has to mix it with green and a whole lot of things which I have long since forgotten from the days when I did physics. He said that this was an ugly chamber and that wood looks dirty if it is put with red. Looking around here, perhaps it needs a bit of a clean, but I cannot see anything terribly wrong with it. Senator Withers —Some Mr Sheen. Senator HAINES —A bit of Mr Sheen, as Senator Withers says. I do not think that this is an ugly chamber. The first time I set foot in here I felt a very welcoming influence, not necessarily from the people, although they certainly helped. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —I was good to you. Senator HAINES —Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle was indeed welcoming. It is a chamber that is immediately welcoming. I take Senator MacGibbon's point that we are moving into a much larger chamber. Senator Elstob —Jim Cavanagh used to say it didn't matter where it was so long as he was in it. Senator HAINES —Indeed he did. Perhaps it will be a much less welcoming chamber. The point is that all of us will be in there for hours on end and we have to feel at home. As far as the consultation process is concerned, I know that many of us took part in sitting upon the prototype chairs which were provided to us last year. I think that many of us felt decidedly unhappy with those. They had drawers underneath and to get at them one had to get down on the floor. There were pull-out tops to the tables with which one could have taken off one's kneecap or some other part of one's anatomy if one's knee was not in the road. There were steel runners on the drawers that could have chopped off one's fingers when one put them back in. There was a back to the seat that was so inflexible that I think most of us would have had bad backs by the end of a long Committee session. Senator Missen —Life wasn't meant to be easy. Senator HAINES —It was not going to be easy in that seat. Most of us would have felt much older than our years after a very short time. I understand that there is now another prototype. I wonder why we did not just go to a car manufacturer. After all, car manufacturers are in the business of making comfortable seating for those of us who sit in cars for a long time, travel long distances and so on. Anyway, I was assured that it was all ergonometrically done or whatever the expression is, but it seemed that the comfort was about the same as the word-that is, rather awful. Those senators who complained and had it withdrawn did a service not only to us but also to future generations of politicians. Somebody asked me a little while ago whether I was a woody or a weavey. I guess that I am a woody. I have no objection to woven fabric. I just do not happen to think that it is particularly appropriate on the walls of a chamber, however vast Senator MacGibbon describes it. I would have thought that there were sufficient varieties of wood in Australia for us to be able to use them to make the place feel as welcoming as this chamber has always been. Certainly, enough of our timber fits into the endangered species category for us to want to preserve it for our children and our children's children. There are traditions to be observed. One speaker opposite-I forgot who it was; it may have been Senator Watson-said that they are Australian traditions, not necessarily British or Westminster traditions, and the use of our timber will probably be a much more lasting tradition than getting the colours of a piece of fabric to change four or five times a day in the same pattern as Ayers Rock does under various lights, which is apparently what all of this is about. We face other problems too with having a fabric-lined chamber. The question of cleaning has already been raised. One presumes the colour will fade over time. It will inevitably wear out and require replacement. Even if bolts of the fabric are retained for that purpose, any woman who has ever let down a hem on a skirt will know that the change is very visible to anybody who cares to cast an eye over it. Senator Crichton-Browne —The change in the fabric, do you mean? Senator HAINES —Yes, because some parts of it have been exposed to more light than others. With natural light coming into the chamber, we leave ourselves wide open to all the fading problems that occur in natural light. Inevitably, after a period of years, various sections of the chamber walls will be in different coloured fabric, although the fabric is allegedly the same. I am not roused to great passion over all of this. If we are to have a new and permanent Parliament House it might just as well be one in which we are all comfortable, which is efficient and effective, which has good acoustics, which is redolent of Australia's heritage and which will allow future generations to know that the Australian Parliament, in this era at least, was concerned about our own traditions and heritage as well as our comfort and the colour of the blasted carpet. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(5.07) —I feel it is our duty to say a few words and to express our views on this subject. As posterity comes along people can then point the bone at us and show us where we were wrong, but at least we will have spoken. I refer to Senator Tate's very reckless attitude today to telling the truth by saying that he has changed his mind, which is a very unusual thing for a senator to do. I think it is to his credit that he has done that. Frankly I have changed my mind. My initial impression- Senator Haines —Are you a woody or a weavey? Senator MISSEN —I am more of a woody than a weavey, but I am not prepared to go to the wall on it. Originally I was a dyed in the wool conservative tory, who favoured the traditional red, the Westminster traditions, and who likes this old chamber. My natural reactions were in favour of those who did not like what was being suggested. Frankly I think that one must take a lot of notice of what the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House has decided. I served on that Committee for about eight years, until a couple of years ago when there was a great rush and push and I fell off it. During that time I saw that members of the Committee did a lot of work on it. They obtained advice from architects who knew something about the matter. We are rank amateurs. We know what we like, but we do not really know much about the questions of colour and so forth. I believe that we cannot set ourselves up against the experts, nor against the advice which the Committee has taken. Senator Puplick —You have spent a lifetime defying experts; why stop now? Senator MISSEN —Not on colour. I have heard the architects talk about the strange effects of the colour red on people and so on. I never knew that those sorts of things happened in this chamber. Nonetheless, I think that one has to make up one's mind about it. I think that the modern style, the designs and the lighter colourings which have been suggested, although it is regrettable that we do not have the other colours, are things which we must accept. Senator Crichton-Browne —Why? Senator MISSEN —I am convinced that we need a lighter tone. We cannot have dark red and wood in this larger chamber, because of the acoustics. Senator MacGibbon —That's not true. Senator MISSEN —I am sorry, but that is what the architects said to us in discussion. Let me say this to Senator MacGibbon: Although the new Senate chamber is larger than this one, that is not because on one day in every three years members of both Houses will have to be accommodated in it. At the moment the House of Representatives and the Senate are identical in size. In future the House of Representatives will be larger than the Senate, but the Senate will be larger than it is now. That means that there are problems which have to be met and given close attention by those who are responsible for designing it. Therefore, I do not believe we should delay this matter any longer. We should accept what has come to us from the Committee and agree to the designs. I believe that the designs, seen in context, will be rather attractive. I do not believe that the House of Representatives can be completely different from the Senate. Both will have this graduated colour. It would be strange if we had this unique little eighteenth century Senate and a twentieth century House of Representatives. If it were the other way round I might be agreeable to it, but as it is I do not think we should go in that direction. I think we should accept what is suggested and defeat this motion. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.12) —First, I had better declare what I am-I am a woody, and what is more I am a Tasmanian woody because I believe that people from my State really appreciate the timbers. Anyone who has built a home-recently or in the past-will know that usually there is an argument with the architect. The architect usually has definite ideas one way or the other and the person whose home it is wants to tie the design in with his or her own way of living, likes and dislikes. As Senator Haines said so well, if one wants a place in which one feels comfortable then of necessity one must introduce one's own likes and dislikes. Otherwise we should all be living in homes built by experts and would probably end up with little boxes on the hillside. We have seen and spoken to the architects of the new building and we have now reached the situation where a lot of us simply do not agree with them. There is no harm at all in saying to the architects `Alter this bit' or `Alter that; you are right here, but you are wrong there'. Surely we can have some say in the design of a chamber in which we will spend many, many hours. Senator Haines is right when she says that red is a very difficult colour. It is difficult to ensure that it does not fade. The central lighting, which is natural lighting, will certainly make the colour fade and Senator Watson, who has great expertise in textiles, has already said that the material will gather dust because the particular weave is one that is prone to gathering dust. In a number of years it will look shoddy and it will go out of date. We have realised from our experience with this place that timber only improves in looks over the years, whereas material certainly does not. I suggest that we be allowed to have some say in a chamber in which we will spend many hours in the future. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Before I call the next speaker, I draw the attention of senators to the fact that this debate will end at 5.38 p.m. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(5.15) —This might be the first time that we get a gag motion through without much trouble! I simply take the opportunity to rise for a very few minutes to make my comments, which are not dissimilar from those that I made on the last occasion that I spoke on this matter. Senator MacGibbon said that there was considerable difference of opinion and that a lot of passion had been raised about this issue. I think that is the sort of thing that happens when a whole lot of non-experts insist on having their say on things about which they are quite clearly not well informed. It is quite reasonable for us to be consulted, but ultimately the decision about these matters should go back to the experts. None of us would have any understanding of colour as has Mr Travis, who took us through the display the other day. We can say what we like or what we do not like, but his expertise gives him the ability to talk about the effect of colours in space, the effect of colours under light, and so on. For the record I must say that I am delighted with the colours that were displayed in the exhibition in King's Hall. I think they go very much to the colours of the heart of Australia and, for that reason, I like them very much. None of this, of course, means that I am dissatisfied with the present chamber, but none of us were consulted as to how this was designed and we have just accommodated to it. I presume that that is what will happen when we all arrive in the next chamber. It is most important to realise that we are not experts and we do not understand the scientific and significant discoveries about the acoustic requirements of the chamber, much less its colour requirements. Experts are employed at considerable cost to make those decisions on behalf of the Parliament House Construction Authority and I do not see that any of us are better placed than the experts in that Authority to do anything more than give an opinion and make some comment. Ultimately it is those people with the professional skills who will make the final decision on our behalf. I find no trouble dealing with the idea of fabric on walls. Any number of buildings in Australia for any number of years have had fabrics of many varieties, from suede to wool, on their walls and these seem to be no more difficult than any other material. I can see that my comments are absolutely gripping the Senate's attention! Honourable senators are vastly caught up with what I am saying! Therefore, my only comment is that I think we should behave responsibly, and while we are free to make comments-and we welcome the opportunity from the Parliament House Construction Authority to make those comments-I do not think we should presume that making comments gives us the right to make final judgments and decisions. Comments are a different matter and we welcome the opportunity to make them, but I would be very pleased to leave the ultimate decision in the hands of the experts. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(5.17) —I think it is important that we have a vote today because if we do not we will not reflect the views of the Senate to the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House. I will take up very quickly the point that was made by Senator Sibraa. It was never the intention of this motion or the mover of it that the resolution be one that directs the Committee; rather it was intended to be indicative and a reflection of the views of senators about the interior design of the new Senate chamber. That is further reinforced by the fact that both the Whip from the Labor Party and the Whip from the Liberal Party sent out circulars to all senators asking them to indicate their preference. I assume that the purpose of that exercise was to indicate in some way-- Senator Tate —I did not get one. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Well, perhaps yours got lost or was filled in by someone else; they were certainly sent out. The purpose of the circulars was to indicate the general views about the new chamber. A considerable number of those circulars were not filled in and returned; so at least we are now giving senators a chance to make a judgment. Of course, as my amendment indicates, I enjoy the environment in which we presently work and operate. I am not saying that I am so fixed and rigid that I am not prepared to see some sort of compromise. In fact I am reminded of the High Court and the fact that when the then Chief Justice, Sir Garfield Barwick, was told that he could not have wooden panelling because the acoustics would be intolerable, he said `Well you find a solution', and the solution was found. If one looks at the recommendations for the new chamber one sees under the acoustic assessment of the scale model of the Senate chamber that it was clearly demonstrated that the answer might be in the form of a discreetly slotted timber panel system over minimum depth of 50 mm of fibreglass or mineral wall. Then it goes on to talk about a preferred system which would utilise cloth-faced modular treatment over similar materials. In other words, the report is telling us that we can have timber. The acoustics have been tested and it has been found that timber is suitable. What was set out in King's Hall yesterday was, I think, patently dishonest, or at least what was said to me by two gentlemen who were there. We have an option. One ought not be confused or confounded by what has been put to us by those who were briefing or debriefing people yesterday. I was interested to note also that originally the suggestion was that we would have the proposed colour because it was Pilbara red, or Pilbara pink, as I think it was described. Having lived in the Pilbara for six years I can tell honourable senators that it bears no relationship. Having pointed that out to the architects they have now changed it. It is now a gum tree red, because apparently that is something slightly less disputable. I, for my part, am not satisfied that architects are the repository of all knowledge and all wisdom. I have had enough architects doing enough buildings for me to know that they have one obsession in life, which is never to do the same thing twice. They believe that if one is going to build a Senate chamber one should make sure of one thing: One should cast one's own personality, one's own character, one's own style and one's own influence on it. One should make sure that it does not look like anything ever done by anyone else before. So the architects and the good little artists out there yesterday have been quite certain to ensure that they do something which will stamp on the new Parliament House their design. They will not have a reflection of tradition, of style, of previous culture, the views of the Senate or anything which vaguely resembles that which has gone on in the past and which we have seen before. Senator Haines —Do you know what they will want next: An entirely new set of senators. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —With modest exceptions I am not so hung up about that. It depends on who the exceptions are. Yesterday I was so impertinent as to suggest in one of my lighter moments that the colours remind me of what I perceive to be the inside of a women's loo in a Coles cafeteria. Senator Haines —When were you last in the women's toilet at a Coles cafeteria? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I said `I perceive'. I must say that with a couple I was talking to yesterday I was probably getting closer to a women's loo than they would have been. Yesterday those people took grave exception to my judgments because I did not agree with them. I think that there is a blind commitment to ensure that what we get is totally different to that which we presently have. In fact, one of the gentlemen there said that most of us were colour blind anyway and that we did not see the colour. I tried to explain that the colour is in the eye of the beholder. It is how one sees the colour that counts, not how other people see it. I thought that was a startling revelation to make. It is hardly a reason for arguing in support of the proposition that is put. I remind honourable senators that the material which they see above them is material put up there for the purpose of ensuring some acoustic protection. Honourable senators can see the marvellous benefit of that faded, grotty, dirty material. Now we want to have both the side walls and back walls in the new Parliament House a vulgar common pink which will be subject to daylight and which will fade, which will attract dust and which, as Senator Haines quite properly and sensibly said, will not be able to be replaced because the colour will change as time goes on. Of course, besides anything else we all know it will date. I really hope that the vote taken this afternoon will not be steeped in prejudice. I hope it is not a vote that will create a dichotomy between the traditionalists and the new enlightened. I hope that honourable senators will make a serious judgment based on what is best, most suitable, most accommodating and most satisfactory for this chamber. It is not an argument between the eighteenth century Whigs and Tories. I am sorry that I get the distinct impression that there is likely to be a dichotomy between one side and the other. I would hate to think that there is a de facto Caucus on one side and a free vote on this side. So, if the vote is held on the other side and if enlightened senators on this side move across, of course we are bound to lose the vote. I hope that we see some courage, integrity and honesty and that we do not see the sort of dichotomy which is inevitable in these sorts of situations. I put it to honourable senators that there are some excellent reasons for maintaining the basic traditions of this chamber in terms of the colour of the carpet, the colour of the seats, the style of the seats and the walls. The walls do not have to be all wood. They can be a nice mixture. Clearly we are running out of time. I hope we can get this matter to a vote. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(5.25) —I must enter this debate as every other senator seems to have done. Senator Haines —Senator Crichton-Browne closed the debate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Crichton-Browne did not close the debate. Senator Cooney is allowed to speak again on the matter. Senator COONEY —I would like to say that a lot of the talk in this chamber really goes to the credit of the architects. It is a very interesting concept that has been expressed. It is as though the architects did not know that the weavey, the material on the wall, would fade and all that sort of stuff. If what the architects have been accused of today is correct they ought to give back their brief. That really cannot be so. It seems to me that we have set a group of architects this building project. They have produced this building which everybody seems to consider is a great building, except for the material. I think it is absolutely extraordinary that we should not, therefore, accept their advice on this matter. In fact, what we seem to be doing all the time is saying, in relation to this one point only-that is the material and the colour on the wall-that they are wrong. We are saying that in every other aspect they have produced a magnificent building. Everybody praises it. Senator Haines —I would argue with you about that. Senator COONEY —If the honourable senator thinks that the new Parliament House is wrong elsewhere, that is a different point. However, everyone else seems to think that it is the most magnificent building going except for this point. That seems an extraordinary suggestion to make. If we are paying the architects for the work we should let them do their work. As Senator Grimes would say: `If you want to do your own operation, do it'. Imagine taking out one's own appendix or doing one's own plea. If one gets half way through and says `That is not the right way to make an incision; that is not the right knife to use', where does one get to? Senator Haines —Hurry up, Barney. Senator COONEY —I ask the honourable senator to hold on. We have an architect. If we have a dog, let it bark. We have got the architects, so let them put the building up as they have designed it and let us get on with it. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Crichton-Browne's amendment) be left out. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 43 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Michael McIntosh, G. D. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Macklin, M. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G. (Teller)Brownhill, D. G. C. Short, J. R. Carrick, Sir John Teague, B. C. Coleman, R. N. Townley, M. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Vanstone, A. E. Durack, P. D. Vigor, D. B. Haines, J. Walters, M. S. Knowles, S. C. Watson, J. O. W. Lewis, A. W. R. Withers, R. G. Aulich, T. Jones, G. NBaume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F. Black. J. R. McClelland, DouglasBolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P. Chaney, F. M. Maguire, G. R. Childs, B. K. Mason, C. V. J. Chipp, D. L. Messner, A. J. Coates, J. Missen, A. J. Collard, S. J. Morris, J. Colston, M. A. Parer, W. R. Cooney, B. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Devlin, R. Reynolds, M. Elstob, R. C. Richardson, G. F. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. Foreman, D. J. Sanders, N. K. Gietzelt, A. T. Sheil, G. Giles, P. J. Sibraa, K. W. Grimes. P. J. Tate, M. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walsh, P. A. Hamer, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Harradine, B. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed. HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION BILL 1985 The Bill. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.35) —Earlier in the debate, the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) was given leave to incorporate in Hansard a copy of the passages of the Human Rights Commission teaching kit for schools which relate to life and to the family. I have had a brief look at them. I point out that the passage dealing with the family is far more divisive and undermining of family rights than I first thought after hearing what had been said by Senator Short. Honourable senators speaking in this debate have concentrated on the paragraph which says: In Australia-a liberal, capitalist, multicultural democracy, with social welfare proclivities, a highly stratified class structure, a value system that is a secular, racist, sexist, and materialistic-the family reflects and promotes this fact. That is just not true. The person who wrote that, be it Dr Pettman or someone else in the Human Rights Commission, should be sacked, and I mean that, because that paragraph is saying that ours is a secular society. Does the Government believe that Australia is a secular society? Senator Missen —Of course it is, unfortunately. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Missen says it is a secular society. Senator Giles —Yes, it is. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Giles says it is. Does any other senator think it is? Senator Gareth Evans —I do. Senator HARRADINE —This is not a secular society; it is a pluralist society. Senator Gareth Evans —That is not an inconsistent proposition. Senator HARRADINE —It is inconsistent. The paragraph states that this is a secular society. Senator Gareth Evans —You want a theocracy? Senator HARRADINE —It is not a theocracy. Senator Gareth Evans —I mean that it would be if you had your way. Senator HARRADINE —That is an insult to me, my religion and my citizenship and the honourable senator ought to know better than to say that. Senator Gareth Evans —If what I have said is all those things, Mr Chairman, I willingly withdraw. Senator HARRADINE —That such a statement may be put to school-children is a very serious matter. The characteristic of secularism is a belief that human actions have neither supernatural significance nor any divine relevance. Some people in this pluralist society believe that their actions do have a supernatural as well as a natural significance. There are others-those who regard themselves as secularists-who say that they do not agree with that belief. Each group is entitled to its view, but one group is not entitled to impose its views on the rest of the community and therefore it is not entitled to characterise the whole of our society as being of one type or an other. The Human Rights Commission's characterisation of our society as a secular society is a lie-it is not true. We are a pluralist society. That is an attack on our society. If this is the way that the Human Rights Commission is going down the track, we ought to have a very good look at whether or not we pass this legislation. The paragraph referred to our society as being materialistic. Unfortunately, we experience a great deal of materialistic and grasping attitudes in society, but that is not the ideal that ought to be put to school kids. Senator Robertson —It is a fact, though, isn't it? Senator HARRADINE —Unfortunately, yes, but some people do not live by materialism. We are all trying to-- Senator Robertson —It is a fact. It is a materialist society. Senator HARRADINE —Unfortunately I have to say to Senator Robertson that there are materialistic values in our society which are attempting to gain the ascendancy. But I would not be prepared to say that it is a materialistic society; that the fundamental and core values of our society are materialistic. Senator Robertson —I think, with respect, you are being very naive. Senator HARRADINE —I am talking about the fundamental and core values which provide the cohesive force of the law. Senator Gareth Evans —This is fascinating. Senator HARRADINE —It is fascinating but let us look at the next sentence: The picture is far from . . . clear, however. Quite the contrary. Senator Gareth Evans —There you are; that is your qualification. Senator HARRADINE —No. The sentence reads: The picture is far from static or clear, however. Quite the contrary. As our society has changed, so, in symbiotic fashion, has this `fundamental group unit'. What an insult to the family! What does `symbiotic' mean? Does any one know what it means? Senator Boswell —You tell us. Senator HARRADINE —I will tell honourable senators what `symbiotic' means. I was trying to get a dictionary so that I could look it up again but I was not able to. From my recollection, `symbiotic' is a description of those animals or birds which eat off the offal of the others. Senator Gareth Evans —No, that is coprophargic. Senator HARRADINE —Who has a dictionary? In the Oxford Dictionary `symbiotic'-- Senator Gareth Evans —`Symbiotic' means an organic inter-relationship between all the different bits. That might be one form of it. Senator HARRADINE —The derivation of `symbiotic' is each eating off the offal of the others. Senator Gareth Evans —No, it is not. Senator HARRADINE —If it is not, I must have been reading the wrong dictionary. Senator Missen —Mr Chairman, I take a point of order. What is lost on me is the relevance of this to the Bill. I know it is very fascinating but I suggest that we will not finish considering this Bill in 3,000 years if we continue in this way. It has nothing to do with it. The CHAIRMAN —The Committee is discussing the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill. The performance of the existing Human Rights Commission is therefore relevant and Senator Harradine is in order. Senator HARRADINE —I will keep away from dictionary definitions, Mr Chairman, and refer to another passage: The conventional Anglo-bourgeois model of Mum, Dad and the Kids (plus assorted `rellies') has never been adequate as a description of the Australian family, though it has been very powerful in defining expectations in this regard. What a racist remark by the Human Rights Commission. It describes Australian families as Anglo-bourgeois. What about all of the Italian and Greek families and all of those families who regard the traditional family, if one likes, for want of another word, as most important? What about those families? I believe we ought to continue to look at what this passage states: Meanwhile, the conventional model as defined in Anglo-Celtic terms has become progressively less accurate as an account of conventional behaviour. Again, that is a racist remark and an insult to all of those families of Greek and Italian parentage and the like. It is all very well for the Human Rights Commission to laugh about it. Why does it not do something about it? I will see that something is done about it, unless this sort of thing is overturned. Senator Missen —How are you going to do that? Senator HARRADINE —As a member of parliament I will ask the Minister what responsibilities and what rights we have to ensure that this garbage is not put down the throats of our kids, undermining the fundamental institution of society. This is the conclusion: There are, in other words, a number of group units that people find `natural' and `fundamental' in the performance of familiar functions, and if Article 16 (3) is to be given a fair go, governments are obliged to acknowledge and allow for this fact. Those are the words of the Human Rights Commission. It will interpret `family' to mean anything, presumably, that anybody feels to be natural or fundamental. Well, how does that square with the provisions of the Family Law Act? How does that square with the provisions of the Marriage Act? Under the Family Law Act, of course, the family is described as the fundamental group unit of society, and the basis for that is a marriage meaning the union of a man and woman voluntarily entered into for life. That is the wording of the legislation which this Parliament has passed and adopted. That is the express will of the Parliament. Here we have a creature of this Parliament, established under statute, propagating and promulgating something which is the direct opposite of what this Parliament regards as being the basic unit of society. I am very concerned that in these words we see-and I expressed this concern during my speech on the second reading of the Bill-an attempt to promote individualism under the guise of individual freedom to the detriment of the rights of society as a whole, and particularly the fundamental group unit of society, the family. I think, to be fair to the Minister, he regarded it as somewhat odd. But I regard it as more than odd. I believe it is incumbent upon the Human Rights Commission to withdraw those offending sections. When I say offending, they are not personally offending, although I suppose it is offending to the rights of families, but it offends against the principles underpinning the laws of this nation. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(5.48) —I want to say a few things in answer to what Senator Harradine has said. It has been the practice of people throughout this debate to take things right out of context and manufacture them into enormous questions. Senator Harradine —What manufacturing have I done? Senator MISSEN —Senator Harradine has had his go. He can listen to me for a moment. This book is entitled Teaching for Human Rights. It is designed to be an assistance to teachers, not to students. It suggests that teachers can raise questions and promote an interest, and it develops various aspects of human rights. Of course, it has one or two odd features about it-not, I think, particularly the one that Senator Harradine was talking about. Although that aspect is rather roughly worded, one could say that most of those things are found. Members of this society are given to holding values which are secular and to getting on and helping themselves and so forth. That is found in families. I think there is nothing very extraordinary about those comments. Two paragraphs have been taken out of context and criticised. I read through the whole book over Christmas wondering what terrors I would find. I found it excellent in general. The matter to which Senator Harradine has referred required considerable amendment and needs to be balanced. I wrote to the Human Rights Commission and said so. I have had a reply from Mr Bailey. Unfortunately I have not got it here. He said that the Human Rights Commission will be considering and altering it in the next edition. I think the next edition is being considered now. It appears that some of these matters have slipped by without being noticed by the commissioners. Naturally they do not have the opportunity to vet and clarify every document that goes out. A song and dance has been made about that. It has been the same throughout the whole public campaign that has gone on. People have been trying to attack the Human Rights Commission, which I think does an enormously fine job in the community, a job which we as parliamentarians would never do. We would never be able to perform the same human rights work on our committees. The people that the Fraser Government put into office, such as Dame Roma Mitchell and the other members of this Commission, are worthy of great support from the Australian people. Senator Harradine —I will bet you that none of the commissioners read this. Senator MISSEN —That is probably right; they have not read all the details properly. Homer blinks and everyone makes mistakes occasionally. I am told that this is to be altered in the next edition. It is quite healthy that people should point out defects and should object to things. Senator Harradine has a point. He is entitled to raise objection. Perhaps the expression to which Senator Harradine takes objection could be more felicitously phrased in the next edition. It is designed to raise arguments between people; it is not designed to be a tablet of faith. As to the remark about the provisions of the Family Law Act and the fundamental rights of marriage, honourable senators know the circumstances of that. It is not a very important part of the Act; it is just one of the expressions in the Act which indicates that we do regard marriage as an important aspect. Therefore to throw that at the person who wrote this as though there is some sort of intimidation is, I think, quite foolish. I think that this is irrelevant to the present issue of a Bill. There are important issues in the Bill, but this is not one. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.55) —When we were debating this matter just before lunch I raised the question of the Government's policy as enunciated by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) in this chamber yesterday in answer to a question about the way in which the Government proposes to handle the application of the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights Commission legislation to the problem, as it sees it, of the State electoral laws. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, if passed, will give it the power of investigation into State laws and the acts and practices of State officials. The Minister said that it will be invited to make a report on the State electoral laws which may offend the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Minister went on to say that the Government had some expectations, at the very least, of receiving a report that the State electoral laws, or some of them, were in conflict with the International Covenant or the Bill of Rights, which has adopted the same wording, and that then the Commonwealth would give the States an opportunity of correcting those laws to bring them in conformity with the guarantee in the Bill of Rights and, if they did not, the Commonwealth would fix it up by legislation introduced into this Parliament. The statement which Senator Gareth Evans made yesterday was also put to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), who did not seem to be quite so forthcoming in revealing the Government's policy. Thanks to Senator Evans we do have the full revelation of the deal that has been done in Caucus to pacify the legal back bench committee which has been demanding legislation to deal directly with State electoral laws and also to try to satisfy the demands of the Australian Democrats. I noticed in one of the papers today that the Government's proposal, as enuniciated by Senator Evans, has already drawn a very strong reaction from the Premier of Western Australia. Perhaps the Government will start to revise its ideas if one State Labor Premier after another sees this as the thin end of the wedge, as no doubt they will. No matter what they might think about their electoral laws-we know Mr Burke is very critical of the Western Australian electoral laws-and whatever they may think of the Premier of Queensland and Queensland electoral laws, they will all understand the threat to their independence which this proceeding of the Federal Government will entail. It is quite clear that if the Federal Government gives in to the present campaign against Queensland and Western Australian electoral laws and ultimately uses the power of this Parliament under the external affairs powers as interpreted by the High Court of Australia in the Franklin Dam case to impose the will of this Parliament on the States in relation to their electoral laws, that can be done in respect of any other State laws which can, in some way, be seen to be in conflict with the International Covenant. We do not even need to have the Bill of Rights to do that; it can be done even if the Bill of Rights legislation never passes this Parliament. The new policy or deal which has been revealed by Senator Evans to its full extent does raise an absolutely fundamental question on the whole package of legislation. It is not something new; it has been well thought out. The Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen, foreshadowed that the Government would do this sort of thing some months ago. Strangely enough the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) only a few weeks ago when he was up in Queensland said: `Oh, no, we would never do that. We would never pass Federal legislation which would apply to State electoral laws'. Apparently Mr Young was not really across what the Government thinking was-or whatever it was, it has now changed-as the Government has clearly embarked upon a course of applying the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the Bill of Rights, if it is passed, as a means of imposing Federal legislation on the States in the whole area that may be covered by the Covenant or the Bill of Rights. It is totally hypocritical for the Government to draft the legislation in such a way. The Government has said that the legislation does not apply to State laws or to acts and practices of State governments and that all it can do under the Bill is to seek a report from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission on State acts and practices. The Government obviously has been pulling the wool over the eyes of the State Labor Premiers in this regard, who have not really seen the significance of what the Government is about. Now it is there for all to see. Senator Evans's statement yesterday, which has had wide publicity and has already drawn a very strong riposte from the Premier of Western Australia, reveals the real and true attempt by this Government to change the Federal Constitution, not by going to the people in a referendum but by this back door method of seeking reports from the Human Rights Commission and using those reports-if it finds that the State law is inconsistent with the guarantee in the covenant or the Bill of Rights-as justification for Federal legislation to apply directly to the States and to override State laws. The true purpose of this legislation was revealed clearly by Senator Evans's answer in the Senate yesterday. I asked Senator Evans about this and I got an offhand reply. I think he was hoping that the Bill would go through smoothly before lunch and he did not want to delay it. I raised with him the question of whether or not this legislation will mean that the Government will be able-it will be forced by pressures on it, as it has been forced in relation to State electoral laws maybe in relation to other State laws-to legislate to override State laws. The Government may not have to be forced much because I think it wants to do it, but it wants to have some degree of respectability by having a report from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission so that it can say: `Here we are, we are justified in the action we are taking'. The fact of the matter is that it is not just State electoral laws. We know what head of steam is raised about other State laws, particularly laws relating to public assembly in Queensland and Western Australia. No doubt in other States where these things have arisen, those laws may be found to be contrary to the guarantee in the Covenant. Many other State laws could be found by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to be contrary to the Covenant, depending on who is appointed to that Commission. This Bill will be the vehicle and principal instrument by which the Bill of Rights will be applied directly-even though there will be a circuitous route before it is applied-to State laws. Let there be no mistake about it; on more and more occasions there will be Federal laws overriding State laws which, except for the wide interpretation of the external affairs power in the Franklin Dam case, are certainly not within the power of this Parliament. The Bill of Rights will be used to make a fundamental change to our Constitution and federal system. It will not be done directly by referendum, by the will and consent of the people, but it will be achieved in this indirect, devious and dubious way so that this Government can achieve the long-standing objects which it knows that it cannot hope to achieve by a referendum which is put to the people in their full knowledge after full debate. The Government will achieve this major change in our Constitution by those methods. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.05) —I want to ask the Minister a question with regard to Article 25 (b) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, contained in the Schedule to the Australian Bill of Rights Bill, which states: To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors . . . Given the statement the Minister made in this place yesterday in answer to a question, and the response given by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in the other place in answer to a similar question today, that the Government would undertake to legislate if a report from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission were such as to point out that there was a denial of that part of the Covenant, upon what function would the Commission be relying to do that? I refer here to clause 11. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.07) — Several questions have been raised. Firstly, for the record, in the light of our earlier discussion, I record that the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary definition of `symbiosis` is as follows: Association of two different organisms (usu. two plants, or an animal and a plant) which live attached to each other, or one as tenant of the other, and contribute to each other's support. I think that is a rather delicate and charming description of the interrelationship between the family and society and does not justify any of the crude and sordid suggestions made by Senator Harradine. I know that he will acknowledge that in good grace. The next question, raised by Senator Macklin, was as to the basis on which it would be anticipated that the Government would be asking the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to investigate whether or not State laws are in conformity to the kinds of rights set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and more particularly, as I said yesterday, the right to universal and equal suffrage guaranteed by Article 25 (b) of the Covenant and Article 6 (b) of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. It would be anticipated that the power under which the Commission would operate in scrutinising electoral laws in this way would be the power set out, not in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill which we are debating at the moment, but rather in proposed section 25 (d) of the Bill of Rights Bill, which states: to examine enactments and, when requested by the Minister, proposed enactments for the purpose of ascertaining whether the enactments or proposed enactments are, or would be, in conflict with the Bill of Rights, and to report to the Minister the results of any such examination . . . It would be anticipated, and the Attorney- General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has indicated as much, that it would be the conformity of State electoral laws with Article 6 (b) of the Bill of Rights that would be the subject of the reference to the Commission. Senator Chipp —With great respect, the Prime Minister evaded that question yesterday at the Press conference. Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not accept that. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) did not have the terms of the briefing note that I have from the Attorney-General. Senator Chipp —There was no direct commitment. He was asked to give it and he did not. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am sorry. I had this discussion earlier with one of your colleagues and I happen to have in front of me the relevant transcript of the Press conference. Let me read it into the record. The journalist asked: Prime Minister, do you really intend to legislate separately for the Bill of Rights to override state gerrymanders and if so when? The Prime Minister said: What we have said there is that if the Bill goes through you would expect to get, I would think fairly early, a report from the Commission on the question of how state electoral legislation met the requirements of the convention. I think his reference to convention can be reasonably taken to mean the requirements of the Bill of Rights itself. He continued: And I can't therefore put an actually time specific point on it, but I would expect that within this year we should be in a position, if the Bill is passed and the Commission reports, we would be in a position within this year. That is, to so enact. I honestly think that that is as specific as is reasonable to request of someone operating without a written brief in front of him. Senator Chipp —It says `in a position to'. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes, be in aposition. However, the point was made earlier on in the debate that we cannot judge what an independent commission will produce in the way of its report. It is not an artificial exercise that we are contemplating. There are real questions as to what the meaning of this language of universal and equal suffrage is and any action we took would be contingent upon a report, both as to the proper meaning of that language in the Australian context and its application to the States. However, the commitment is there and I do not believe it is fair to try to read that commitment down in the way that has been suggested. Senator Missen —Have you got any legal opinion to suggest that that covenant will cover it? Senator GARETH EVANS —As I have said on numerous occasions before in this place, it is a matter for argument, and no doubt will be argued, as to whether the expression `universal and equal suffrage' means one vote one value in the full sense of electoral equality that most of us are talking about when we think about the electoral inequality in the Queensland and Western Australian situations or whether rather it simply-- Senator Chipp —That really depends on how many States righters are on the High Court at the time. Senator GARETH EVANS —Well, one might say that of the whole course of constitutional interpretation since Federation. It might, on the other hand, mean simply one person one vote. There is that question and the travaux preparatoires from the international debates at the time-and no doubt we will get on to this if ever we get the Bill of Rights itself-deal with this particular question. For example, the Secretary-General's annotations on the draft covenant prepared by the Commission on Human Rights state as follows in respect of the phrase `universal and equal suffrage': The provision, it was thought, would leave States Parties to the Covenant free to regulate their own electoral systems, provided each vote carried equal weight. That is the decisive description of the intent to the extent that it would be gleaned by the Secretary-General and the parties joining in the discussions at the time the covenant was put together. So there is strong support. But equally there are counter arguments and that has always been frankly acknowledged and I think Senator Macklin and Senator Chipp are both aware of that. There are other constitutional problems, of course, which have always been frankly acknowledged in moving from Commonwealth legislation of this kind to apply it to the States; not only the question as to whether the external affairs power is applicable to separate and piecemeal legislation of the kind that is being contemplated as distinct from a provision occurring in the context of the parent Bill as a whole, but also the further question as to whether the doctrine of implied prohibitions has any application where one is talking about the application of Commonwealth law to something as central to a State's functioning as its electoral system. All those issues have been frankly acknowledged over the years that this has been a matter for debate. There is a very real question as to the way in which the court would resolve this issue when it came before it, as it undoubtedly will. However, please do not be under any misapprehension about the strength of the Government's commitment to do what we can as a Commonwealth Government to rectify the various obvious wrongs that do exist in this most fundamental human right of all. Let me turn finally to what Senator Durack said on a similar subject. I think it was a little disingenuous of him to suggest that there was anything terribly new in principle about what I said yesterday on behalf of the Government in terms of the enactment of a separate piece of legislation. It has been said on a number of occasions by Mr Bowen, the Attorney-General, as I think Senator Durack acknowledged, that this was a course that could be followed-the Humans Rights Commission considering alleged or possible breaches of rights in the States and reporting accordingly with that possibly in turn being followed by attempted remedial Commonwealth legislation. What I can say to Senator Durack is that I think it is generally acknowledged that the electoral guarantee question is probably the most important and immediately compelling area for government action of this kind at the moment. Voting rights are different from other rights in the sense that they do create the basic ground rules within which a whole system of government and system of law are constructed. They are absolutely fundamental, in many ways more fundamental than many other rights or classes of rights. To that extent, the action that is taken in respect of so central and fundamental a right is not necessarily to be regarded as a precedent for action that might technically be able to be taken so far as other classes or kinds of rights are concerned. Electoral laws and electoral rights are different. They are extremely fundamental. It is for that reason that they have been singled out by a Senate standing committee as justifying separate and distinct treatment from other classes of rights. I repeat that what is involved here is not necessarily a precedent at all. Let me make the final point that, of course, none of this really has a hell of a lot to do with the Bill presently before us-the Human Rights Equal Opportunity Commission Bill-to the extent that the Government has foreshadowed the exercise of going to the Commission and seeking a report. It will not be under the provisions of this Bill; it will be under the provisions of, as I said, clause 25 (d) of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. So we have an opportunity to debate that when and if we ever get to it. It is further the case, of course, that if the Commission does produce a report which leads the Government in turn to prepare further legislation, that legislation will have to run the gauntlet of this Parliament and there will be ample opportunity to debate it here on that occasion. Of course, having run the gauntlet of the Parliament, it will no doubt have to run the gauntlet of the courts as well. So to erect the kind of elaborate scenario of shock, horror and neurosis that Senator Durack contributed to this debate a few minutes ago is, I think, quite inappropriate and in fact irrelevant to the terms of the Bill presently before us. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(6.18) —My shock, horror and neurosis are brought on by the devious methods of the Government and the attempts that it is making to pull the wool over the eyes of its own State colleagues and generally of the people. I would like Senator Gareth Evans to tell us why the Government is handling the legislation in this way. The Government has access to the most expensive advice from the constitutional Bar that can be obtained in Australia. If the Government wanted to challenge the Queensland electoral laws or the Western Australian electoral laws, I would think it would get far better advice on this legal question from the constitutional Bar or from its own well qualified constitutional lawyers than it would from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. It is very unlikely that any of the members of the Commission, no matter how well qualified they are in other respects, will be distinguished constitutional lawyers. It could be that one of the members will be a constitutional lawyer, but he would be one out of four. This seems to be the oddest possible way of going about this question. If the Government really wants to do something about this matter it has available to it the means, the instruments, the advice and, subject to the final decision of the High Court of Australia, the powers. There is no need to explain the situation to Senator Evans because I am sure he understands it. However, I want him to tell us why the Government is not proceeding along the obvious path. Why is not the Government seeking an opinion, or why has it not sought an opinion, from leading members of the Bar if it wants to do something about the State electoral laws? Why has it not asked them what chances it has of being able to maintain an interpretation of the covenant? Having got a favourable opinion, as the Government may well get from that source, it could draft legislation using the expanded interpretation of the external affairs power adopted in the Franklin Dam case. It could bring that legislation into this Parliament. The Government appears to have the numbers in the Senate. There is no political impediment. I would be very surprised if it could not obtain that legal advice, although I may not agree with it, but that will not impress the Government. The Government will get, I am sure, the desired legal advice. Senator Missen —If the Government had it already it would be here on the table. Senator DURACK —I do not know about that. I do not understand the devious and underhand way that the Government is proceeding. I want the Government to come clean and tell us what it is about. Senator Harradine —We have got the matter referred to the Electoral Reform Committee anyway. Senator DURACK —The Government could wait and get that report but, with respect, the members of the Committee on Electoral Reform will not be able to answer the nitty gritty question which is one of constitutional law. There are two elements in this: It wants the legal advice-it has the numbers in the Parliament-and it has the High Court of Australia decision which gives it the constitutional vehicle of expanding the powers of this Parliament to override State electoral laws or any other laws which may be struck down as inconsistent with this Government. As I said this is where I suffered the state of shock or whatever it is that I am supposed to be suffering from. Senator Harradine —Horror. Senator DURACK —It horrifies me that the Government should be so devious and misleading. This whole exercise is one of misleading the people. The Government has misled and lulled its State colleagues into a state of acceptance and is acting as though it is not affecting them in any way. Apparently it believes that by going through this rigmarole it will achieve its purpose by totally indirect means. Yesterday, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was being a bit cagey about this, but it was revealed in the Press. Senator Gareth Evans revealed the matter in perfect clarity; and I am grateful that he has finally come clean and told us what the Government is really doing. It has finally revealed its hand and an enormous issue of State rights will emerge. It has emerged already from Premier Burke in Western Australia. If the Government is serious about doing this, why does it not get on with it instead of going through this absurd charade of referring this matter to the Human Rights Commission which has no expertise at all on this issue. When it gets a report from the Commission it can legislate in this Parliament, and dragoon and threaten the States. I would be grateful if Senator Evans would give me some explanation of why the Government is going about the matter in this way instead of dealing with it in the direct way which is perfectly open to it. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.24) —I am happy to respond to Senator Durack's invitation. What the Opposition is inviting the Government to do is to brush aside in a thoroughly brutish and insensitive way the processes of open consultation and input from the States which we would not contemplate ignoring. He is inviting us to rush to judgment on the difficult, technical and legal issues involved without fully and carefully weighing and evaluating them; and giving them the care and attention to detail and over the time span that we know he would himself. I simply indicate that I am shocked at the suggestion that he makes. It does not reflect the deep and intense commitment that I know he has to democratic values and the values of open government. I indicate to him that, compelling as he may have thought his lullaby may have been, we will resist his siren song on this occasion. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.25) —I thank the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) for his answer to my previous question and draw his attention to section 9 (1) (d) of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981 which, I remind the Senate, is one of Senator Durack's splendid pieces of legislation. On my reading, that provision is duplicated in clause 11 (1) (k) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill. Is that not sufficient to undertake an inquiry into State legislation? Was it not the case that the Human Rights Commission undertook an inquiry into the electricity situation in Queensland which would have been possible, without the Australian Bill of Rights Bill, to undertake under clause 11 (1) (k)? Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.26) —It seems to me a pity that Hansard cannot pick up the cynicism and the tone of voice that Senator Gareth Evans used. Senator Macklin —I was thinking that too. I do not agree with Senator Walters often, but I do agree on this. Senator WALTERS —Yes. I feel it is a great shame that Hansard cannot make little notations. It seems to me that what Senator Evans is proposing is that the Commission take the States on. The States, as a rule, have money to fight it in the courts, and no doubt, as Senator Evans indicated, those fights will go on in the courts. Does the same thing apply to the electoral laws of local governments? Will the Commission be looking at the elections of local governments in the same way as they will be looking at the elections of the State governments? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.26) —I suppose technically they could, but I do not think there is any expectation or indication of any desire that they should at this stage. As to Senator Macklin's question, I indicate that it would, I suppose, be technically possible for a similar inquiry to be conducted by the Commission under the powers in clause 11 of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill which mirror in some respects the powers in the original Human Rights Commission Act. It would not be in relation to clause 11 (1) (e) that the Commission would be acting because the enactments referred to are not State enactments but Commonwealth and Territory ones. The power the Commission would have to be acting under would be paragraph (j) which gives a power to report to the Minister as to laws that should be made by the Parliament or action taken on matters relating to human rights. It is much less explicit and direct. Senator Macklin —Does this apply under paragraph (k)? Senator GARETH EVANS —We can use paragraphs (j) and (k) together in that sense. It is technically possible to do it, but it is a far more direct route to go down the explicit provision in the Bill of Rights Bill itself which specifically refers, among other things, to State enactments. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.28) —I am always very cautious when anyone says `practically speaking, yes we could do it, but of course, we never would'. That is not the sort of legislation I think ought be possible to be passed through this Senate. To begin with I do not trust Senator Gareth Evans. I know very well that the Australian Labor Party has on its platform a provision to do away with the Senate. That has been on the Labor Party platform for many years. It was Senator Evans who cynically said at one of the Party meetings that the provision ought to be taken off the platform because it was no longer popular with the people; but that does not mean to say that it can be thrown out. That is the sort of statement that concerns me. Practically speaking, the interference in local council elections can also take place because local councils do not have the sort of money that State governments have, and they would not be able to fight in the courts. The whole thing, obviously, can mean interference with the States' electoral laws. It is the prime intention of the Government that the Commission can also go into local government election laws, and into the Senate itself. Consideration interrupted. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 6.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. The Chairman having reported accordingly- The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 6.30 p.m., I put the question. That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 6.30 p.m. till 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 11 March 1986 The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 473) Senator Childs asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 21 August 1985: (1) Has Qantas appointed Yves Saint Laurent, The French couturier, to design its new uniforms as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on 6 August 1985; if so: (a) how widely did Qantas advertise for this appointment and what time limit was set for local designers to produce and submit design portfolios. (b) were any leading Australian designers asked to submit designs, and were local designers given equal opportunity with overseas designers. (c) what funds have been spent by Qantas in its search and consultation with overseas designers. (d) has Qantas actually commissioned the new design to be done by Yves Saint Laurent; if so, will Qantas reconsider its decision, and allow for a local, rather than overseas designer, to be appointed. (2) Does Qantas have any plans for its staff to wear locally designed uniforms during the Bicentennial year. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Qantas has advised that it has accepted Yves Saint Laurent's design for the Company's new uniforms for flight attendants and key customer contact ground staff. (a) For some 15 months the Company sought an Australian designed uniform, using an independent panel of distinguished fashion and design experts to evaluate the various submissions. Following expressions of interest by some 43 Australian designers, a short list of eight recognised Australian designers was given two months to prepare a design concept and present this to the judging panel. The panel recommended to Qantas that none of the submissions was acceptable, but if the Company still desired an Australian design, one of the eight finalists could be given a second opportunity to develop a totally new concept. As the Company was most anxious to commission an Australian designer, one of the finalists was given a further six months for this task. On 13 March 1985 this designer made a final presentation to three Australian members of the judging panel. It was the unanimous conclusion of these judges that this further attempt did not meet the overall standard of design excellence that was needed. This conclusion was supported at the time by the Staff Advisory Panel, which has been actively involved in this project. This panel consists of representatives nominated by the Cabin Crew Associations, Federated Clerks Union and the Australian Transport Officers Association. Following the disappointing outcome of attempts by Qantas to obtain an Australian designed uniform, the judging panel at the Company's request put forward a list of leading international designers who were then approached. After consideration of the business submissions put forward by those designers, the Company entered into an agreement with Yves Saint Laurent to present a design submission. (b) Qantas believes it has given Australian designers considerable opportunity to create the new uniforms. Furthermore, the Company believes that it has given local designers preference by initially only seeking Australian design submissions. (c) As regards the costs associated with search and consultation with overseas designers, one Company representative was sent for discussions with international designers. Qantas has advised that these costs are difficult to quantify, as other matters quite separate from the uniform issue were also covered while overseas. However, expenses incurred on accommodation, meals and other associated travel costs were in accordance with the normal conditions applying to Company personnel travelling on duty. Subsequently a staff advisory panel, made up of nine staff representatives nominated by their respective unions and two employees representing management travelled to Paris for discussions with Yves Saint Laurent from 3-7 September 1985 on the design of the proposed new uniforms. Also accompanying the panel was Ken Cato, the Melbourne designer who has been working with Yves Saint Laurent. Qantas has advised that the cost of sending the panel to Paris was approximately $15,000, which covered hotel accommodation, meals and other associated expenses in accordance with various industrial awards. Travel to Paris was by way of London, and Qantas has advised that in line with Company policy, no commercial passengers were denied seats on its services to enable the panel members to travel to and from Paris. (d) Acceptance of the Yves Saint Laurent design was announced by Qantas on 27 November 1985. The company announced that the uniforms will be manufactured entirely in Australia, at a total cost of $2 million, and that Australian fabrics will be used wherever possible. Manufacture will commence shortly, and the new uniforms should begin appearing on Qantas aircraft and in Company offices from the middle of this year. (2) Qantas has advised that its new uniforms will have a life span of 5 to 7 years, and that the new design will therefore be in place prior to, during and after the Bicentennial Year. (Question No. 691) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 14 November 1985: (1) Are the statements by a Department of Aviation Officer claiming a flight over Ayers Rock during the recent handover ceremony did not break any air regulations correct. (2) Was no regulation breached and will no further action be taken in this matter. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. (2) The following regulation irregularities occurred in relation to Air Navigation Regulations 125 (1) and Flying Operations Instructions part 20 series 1 the flight was categorised by the pilot as private rather than aerial work the prior approval of the Regional Director had not been sought concerning area used for picking up the banner. These breaches were assessed as not compromising safety. The pilot has been counselled. No further action will be taken on this occasion, in accordance with normal Department of Aviation procedures. (Question No. 257) Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 7 May 1985: (1) Does the Queensland Government still fail to allocate the necessary funds to enable the Blue Nursing Service to operate at maximum efficiency. (2) As the Federal Government subsidises Home Nursing organisations on a dollar-for-dollar basis with the States, does this mean that almost $4 million in Federal funds which is available to Queensland is not being taken up. (3) In view of the invaluable work done by the Blue Nursing Service in giving home nursing to the aged and disabled, is there any action the Federal Government can take to persuade the Queensland Government to increase its allocation to the Blue Nursing Service. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) In Queensland home nursing is provided by 6 organisations of which the largest is the Blue Nursing Service. This service provides nearly 400 nurses, in addition to those already employed when the Home Nursing Scheme commenced operation in November 1956, to meet domiciliary nursing needs. Each nurse costs the Service in the region of $25,000-$28,000. This cost is not met in total by State/Commonwealth contributions, and the Service must raise its own funds to make up the salary shortfall. (2) The Blue Nursing Service was estimated in November 1984 to be entitled to receive, on the basis of numbers of nurses employed, almost $4 million in Commonwealth subsidy above the amount expected to be paid to it in 1984-85. Funding is not quite on a dollar for dollar basis. The Blue Nursing Service was established before 1956 and under present legislative arrangements, is entitled to a Commonwealth subsidy of $18,580 pa for each nurse employed after the commencement of the Scheme in November 1956. However, it can only obtain this amount if the State matches it. In November 1984 it was estimated that in 1984-85 the Service would be employing 418.29 nurses in addition to those already employed when the scheme became effective. This number of nurses, at the rate of $18,580 pa, would entitle the Service to a Commonwealth subsidy of $7,747,860. However, the Queensland Government advised that the State would pay only about 50% of the new rate. State assistance would therefore be $3,850,525, with an additional $60,000 coming from local government authorities. This meant that the Blue Nursing Service was entitled to an additional $3,827,336 from the Commonwealth to which it could not gain access because of State funding limits. (3) The State Government has primary responsibility for health and welfare services in Queensland. The Commonwealth is presently taking all action possible to achieve improvements in the provision of domiciliary care services. All States and the Commonwealth are agreed that there is an imbalance between institutional and community care services. The introduction of the new Home and Community Care Program will help to develop community services. Four existing legislative programs are incorporated under HACC including the Home Nursing Subsidy Act. All States reached agreement with the Commonwealth to participate in the Program to develop a range of basic maintenance and support services. Existing rates will be paid to organisations, and development may occur through the additional $65 million provided from 1984-85 to 1986-87 pending the development of guidelines on the quality of services, revised funding arrangements etc. (Question No. 322) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 May 1985: (1) Does the exchange of notes between the United States (US) and Australian Governments relating to the Haig/Street Agreement (1981), as well as the Agreement itself, provide that the Australian Government is to have consultations with the US and that the Australian Government's agreement to any upgrading of B52 operations relevant to stagings through Australia is required. (2) Given the upgrading of the Strategic Offensive Forces in Guam over the next 18 months have consultations between the US and Australian Governments occurred. (3) Has the Government given permission for the continuation of B52 stagings under the 1981 Haig/Street Agreement and the extension of the Agreement in 1982 after the deployments to Guam take place. (4) Can the Government assure the Australian people that none of the B52 bombers are armed or nuclear-armed through some Australian Government verification procedures. (5) Will the Government confirm that the US policy of neither confirming or denying whether its craft are nuclear-armed or not, is irrelevant in this case as the B52s staged through Australia are meant to be neither armed nor nuclear-armed. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The exchange of notes of 11 March 1981, which constitutes an Agreement between the United States and Australian Governments concerning the staging of USAF B52 aircraft and associated KC 135 tanker aircraft through Australia, provides inter alia that the agreement of the Australian Government will be obtained before the facilities at RAAF Base Darwin are used in support of any category of operations other than ``for sea surveillance in the Indian Ocean area and for navigation training purposes''. The Agreement also provides that arrangements will be made for consultations to ensure that the Australian Government has full and timely information about strategic and operational developments relevant to B52 staging operations through Australia and that the Agreement shall continue in force until terminated on one year's notice in writing by either Government. (2) While there have been routine consultations between Australian and US personnel involved in arrangements for B52 flights in Australia, no formal consultations specifically concerning US plans to strengthen its forces in Guam have taken place between the two Governments. No proposals have been made to alter the nature of B52 operations through Australia. (3) See answer to part (1) above. (4) All the B52 aircraft which have been staged through Australia have conducted low level navigation training flights on the basis of the arrangements announced by the then Minister for Defence on 3 February 1980. This statement, which was agreed by the US, provides that the aircraft ``would be unarmed and carry no bombs''. The Australian Government is confident that all USAF aircraft staged through Australia have in fact been unarmed. This confidence is derived not only from our firm belief in the good faith of our ally, but also from the particular operational characteristics of the agreed B52 activities. For safety reasons, it is not practice to carry weapons of any sort in aircraft undertaking low level navigation flights. Moreover, the stringent security measures which the US Air Force always takes to protect its nuclear weapons while on the ground are not applied when B52s stage through Darwin. In light of this the Australian Government sees no requirement for verification arrangements. (5) The arrangements which cover B52s staging through Australia do not contravene the US policy of neither confirming nor denying the presence of nuclear weapons on board its ships and aircraft since the B52s are unarmed and carry no bombs. (Question No. 778) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: (1) Has the review of the Lobbyist Registration Scheme referred to in the Annual Report of the Department, been undertaken. (2) Has the Special Minister of State received the Report; (3) When will the Report be made public and/or presented to the Parliament? Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) The Report, which was based on a survey of all registered lobbyists and of special interest groups, recommended some minor refinements to the operating procedures for the Lobbyists Registration Scheme. A copy of the revised guidelines and application forms (which commended operation on 1 January 1986) has already been forwarded to you for information. (Question No. 104) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) Was the DODGE satellite launched on 1 July 1967 and supported by the Orroral Valley satellite tracking station formally designated 1967-66F (see answer to Question No. 4236, Hansard 6 May 1982, P. 2500). (2) Was the satellite concerned with gravity experiments for the U.S. Department of Defense. (3) Was this satellite also designated DODGE-M. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) No, it was designated DODGE-1. (Question No. 779) Senator Peter Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 6 December 1985: Could the Minister for Health supply the details of payments to all private hospitals between 1 July 1984 and 30 June 1985 in a similar form to the way in which they were set out in the Senate Hansard of 1 December 1982 at pages 2970-2974. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following data in answer to the honourable senator's question: PAYMENTS TO PRIVATE HOSPITALS IN NEW SOUTH WALES-METROPOLITAN AREA Payment period: 1.7.84 to 30.6.85 Hospital name Payment $ Alanbrook Hospital... 278,200 Allowah Hospital... 367,980 Alwyn Hospital... 93,104 Ashburn House Private Hospital... 133,500 Baulkham Hills Private Hospital... 1,398,876 Bellevue Hospital... 195,520 Betric Hospital... 140,920 Bexley Private Hospital... 568,568 Bigge Street Private Hospital... 358,300 Bradleys Head Hospital... 170,960 Brisbane Waters Private Hospital... 619,878 Bromalan Hospital... 203,820 Buckhurst Hospital... 62,160 Buena Vista Hospital... 148,660 Cambridge Private Hospital... 19,140 Campbelltown Private Hospital... 329,370 Carinya Hospital... 24,456 Castle Crag Hospital... 16 Castlewood Hospital... 193,190 Dalcross Hospital... 550,294 Delmar Memorial Hospital... 397,930 Eatons Children's Hospital... 174,180 Evesham Clinic Hospital... 168,560 Fairfield Heights Com Hospital... 346,608 Famenoth Hospital... 212,832 Findlay Hall Hospital... 9,400 Greenoaks Hospital... 450,468 Guildford Heights Hospital... 230,010 Highbury Hospital... 304,634 Hirondelle Hospital... 212,720 Hughlings Private Hospital... 362,360 Hunters Hill Hospital... 313,952 Hurstville Com Coop Hospital... 234,542 Hydebrae Hospital... 81,660 Idaho Hospital... 299,972 Jamison Hospital... 423,512 Jean Colvin Hospital... 140,820 Kareena Hospital... 495,510 Kirribilli Hospital... 196,940 Kogarah Hospital... 292,470 Longueville Private Hospital... 209,430 Lynton Hospital... 116,336 Mandalay Hospital... 116,440 Manly Waters Hospital... 231,480 Mater M/Cordiae, Crows Nest... 1,293,316 Metropolitan Eye Hospital... 218,716 Mount St Margarets Hospital... 1,083,472 Netherleigh Private Hospital... 404,258 North Gosford Private Hospital... 1,119,284 North Harbour Private Hospital... 314,124 Northside Clinic No. 2 Hospital... 645,826 NSW Masonic Hospital... 375,812 Ocean Beach Hospital... 186,740 Orange Grove Hospital... 124,720 Pacific Hospital... 252,738 Pennant Hills Community Hospital... 99,700 Petersham Hospital... 233,648 Poplars Community Hospital... 198,270 President Private Hospital... 273,010 Rock Castle Hospital... 250,080 Roma Hospital... 202,220 Rose Bay Private Hospital... 112,900 Rosslyn Hospital... 165,290 Scottish Hospital... 150,140 St Annes Private Hospital... 22,760 St Davids Hospital... 219,012 St Edmunds Hospital... 75,840 St John of God, Burwood... 474,012 St John of God, Richmond... 776,984 St Margarets Private Hospital... 398,326 St Vincents Private Hospital... 2,545,928 Sydney (Private) Clinic... 107,560 Sydney Adventist Hospital... 3,293,688 Sydney Private Clinic, Waverly... 280,886 United Gardens Hospital... 53,670 Waddell House Hospital... 203,880 Wandene Hospital... 130,180 Wentworthville Comm Hospital... 405,360 Western Private Hospital... 239,266 Westside Hospital... 119,846 Wolper A&G & NSW Jewish Hospital... 288,360 Area total... 29,219,500 PAYMENTS TO PRIVATE HOSPITALS IN NEW SOUTH WALES-NON METROPOLITAN AREA Payment period: 1.7.84 to 30.6.85 Hospital name Payment $ Albury Private Hospital... 429,138 Allambie Hospital... 111,900 Baringa Private Hospital... 378,060 Calvary Hospital... 1,042,660 Cape Hawke Mem Hospital... 219,806 Christo Road Hospital... 368,980 Dudley Private Hospital... 362,672 Hunter Valley Private Hospital... 219,390 Illawarra Private Hospital... 521,338 Illawarra Rehab Centre... 37,960 John James Memorial Hospital... 325,748 Lake Macquarie Hospital... 188,050 Lingard Hospital... 1,218,664 Macquarie Hospital... 222,168 Mayo Hospital... 248,520 Minchinbury Comm Hospital... 258,750 Port Macquarie Private Hospital... 317,424 Shellharbour Hospital... 234,946 St Elmo Hospital... 8,000 Tamara Hospital... 262,922 The Nowra Comm Private Hospital... 515,458 Tweed Heads Private Hospital... 394,038 Warners Bay Private Hospital... 483,420 Westlakes Private Hospital... 389,400 Area total... 8,759,412 State total... 37,978,912 PAYMENTS TO PRIVATE HOSPITALS IN VICTORIA-METROPOLITAN AREA Payment period: 1.7.84 to 30.6.85 Hospital name Payment $ Ainslie Hospital... 151,710 Alencon Hospital... 100,940 Allendale Hospital... 235,678 Avenue Hospital... 762,800 Baronor Hospital... 200,774 Batman Hospital... 88,760 Beleura Hospital... 349,086 Bellbird Hospital... 372,528 Bethesda Hospital... 210,930 Boreham F.W. Baptist Hospital... 114,838 Bryson Hospital... 90,900 Camberwell Hospital... 178,138 Cedar Court Hospital... 349,370 Chadswood Hospital... 127,010 City of Chelsea Bush NR Hospital... 202,726 Como Hospital... 486,000 Coonara Hospital... 114,710 Coonil Hospital... 141,780 Croydon and District Hospital... 299,310 Dandenong Pinelodge Clinic... 167,420 Dandenong Valley Private Hospital... 374,364 Delmont Hospital... 178,360 Diamond Valley Com Hospital... 400,890 Donvale Hospital... 266,600 Dorset Hospital... 151,076 Epworth Hospital... 2,531,304 Evancourt Hospital... 150,280 Florence Nightingale Hospital... 236,960 Freemasons Hospital... 1,540,604 Gisborne Bush Nursing Hospital... 111,780 Glenrest Hospital... 187,920 Hartwell Hospital... 188,728 Hastings Bush Nursing Hospital... 150,810 Hopetoun Hospital... 101,700 Kahlyn Hospital... 157,700 Lilydale Bush Nursing Hospital... 409,722 Linacre Hospital... 397,950 Malvern Hospital... 208,500 Maristowe Private Hospital... 75,920 Masada Hospital... 413,868 Melton Hospital... 138,670 Mena House Hospital... 242,300 Mercy Hospital... 1,567,760 Mitcham & District Hospital... 407,100 Mont Albert & Surry Hills... 165,510 Montclair Hospital... 124,280 Moreland Hall Hospital... 26,460 Mornington Bush Nursing Hospital... 334,080 Newhaven Hospital... 60,960 Northpark Private Hospital... 246,630 Olympia Hospital... 92,960 Pakenham Bush Nursing Hospital... 106,986 Peninsula Private Hospital... 479,280 Preston Hospital... 120,376 Reservoir Hospital ... 435,540 Ringwood Hospital... 289,110 Sacred Heart Hospital... 1,154,240 Settlement Hospital... 58,460 South Eastern District Hospital... 896,448 St Frances Xavier Cabrini Hospital... 2,825,364 St Vincents Private Hospital... 2,343,680 St Andrews Hospital... 2,033,480 St Elmo Hospital... 253,400 St John of God, Brighton... 176,740 Strathmore Hospital... 93,540 Sunbury Private Hospital... 177,150 Sunshine Hospital... 232,984 The Melbourne Clinic... 669,018 Trentwood Hospital... 164,920 Vaucluse Hospital... 558,106 Victoria House Hospital... 226,220 Vimy House Private Hospital... 329,980 Warburton Sanitorium Hospital... 148,700 Warley-Cowes Bush Nursing Hospital... 92,460 Warringal Private Hospital... 655,196 Waverley Hospital... 610,350 Wellington Private Hospital... 343,000 Windermere Hospital... 153,450 Winston Hospital... 93,260 Yarra Junc & Dist BN Hospital... 83,790 Area total... 32,192,382 PAYMENTS TO PRIVATE HOSPITALS IN VICTORIA-NON METROPOLITAN AREA Payment period: 1.7.84 to 30.6.85 Hospital name Payment $ $ Avoca Bush Nursing Hospital... 68,560 Ballan and District Soldiers... 61,220 Berwick Bush Nursing Hospital... 166,710 Beulah Bush Nursing Hospital... 111,900 Birchip Bush Nursing Hospital... 77,700 Charlton Bush Nursing Hospital... 105,300 Chiltern Bush Nursing Hospital... 71,640 Cobden Bush Nursing Hospital... 97,420 Euroa Bush Nursing Hospital... 123,960 Heyfield Bush Nursing Hospital... 67,120 Holy Cross Hospital... 580,590 Hopetoun Bush Nursing Hospital... 104,040 Korong Bush Nursing Hospital... 53,540 Lancefield Bush Nursing Hospital... 63,220 Merino Bush Nursing Hospital... 42,560 Mirboo North Bush Nursing Hospital... 89,680 Mount Alvernia Hospital... 889,576 Mount Romnya Hospital... 29,204 Mountain District Private Hospital... 253,030 Murchison Bush Nursing Hospital... 63,060 Murrayville Bush Nursing Hospital... 87,860 Nagambie Bush Nursing Hospital... 74,772 Natimuk Bush Nursing Hospital... 68,260 Neerim District Soldiers Hospital... 95,940 Nenagh Hospital... 54,660 Nyah District Bush Nursing Hospital... 62,240 Pyramid Hill Bush Nursing Hospital... 78,660 Rainbow Bush Nursing Hospital... 71,820 Sea Lake Bush Nursing Hospital... 85,588 Sherbourne Clinic... 307,650 St. John of God, Ballarat... 1,366,888 St. John of God, Warrnambool... 215,780 Tongala Bush Nursing Hospital... 62,280 Toora Bush Nursing Hospital... 38,520 Trentham Bush Nursing Hospital... 94,660 Trethowan Hospital... 203,600 Violet Town Bush Nursing Hospital... 61,980 Walwa Bush Nursing Hospital... 26,260 Yackandandah Bush Nursing Hospital... 84,220 Area Total... 6,261,668 State Total... 38,454,050 PAYMENTS TO PRIVATE HOSPITALS IN QUEENSLAND-METROPOLITAN AREA Payment period: 1.7.84 to 30.6.85 Hospital name Payment $ $ Allamanda Private Hospital... 1,208,880 Andrea Ahern Private Hospital... 111,060 Arthur Cooper Hospital... 73,360 Belmont Dev Pty Ltd Hospital... 673,890 Boothville Hospital... 96,600 Buderim Private Hospital... 279,900 Canossa Hospital... 1,191,080 Fermoy Hospital... 173,320 Holy Spirit Hospital... 1,431,524 Mater M/Cordiae, South Brisbane... 1,942,764 Mount Olivet Hospital... 1,661,840 New Farm Clinic Hospital... 192,060 North-west Private Hospital... 164,940 Palm Beach-Currumbin... 272,700 Pindara Hospital... 831,630 Selangor Hospital... 361,628 St Andrews Hospital... 976,672 St Andrews War Memorial Hospital... 1,437,200 Sunnybank Private Hospital... 781,244 The Peninsula Private Hospital... 287,742 Toowong Private Hospital... 98,040 Turrawan Hospital... 417,926 Wesley Hospital... 2,668,120 Area Total... 17,334,120 PAYMENTS TO PRIVATE HOSPITALS IN QUEENSLAND-NON METROPOLITAN AREA Payment period: 1.7.84 to 30.6.85 Hospital name Payment $ Allora District Co-op Hospital... 29,768 Birdsville Hospital... 700 Calvary Hospital (Private)... 1,087,488 Clifton Co-operative Hospital... 46,880 Coen Hospital... 680 Crows Nest Hospital... 66,660 Friendly Societies Hospital... 239,430 Glandore Hospital... 241,220 Killarney and District Memorial Hospital... 74,980 Mater M/Cordiae, Mackay... 1,322,144 Mater M/Cordiae, Rockhampton... 1,256,342 Mater M/Cordiae, Townsville... 1,198,648 Mater M/Cordiae, Bundaberg... 624,000 Noosa District Hospital... 183,198 Park Haven Hospital... 101,010 Pioneer Valley Hospital... 167,880 Pittsworth and District Hospital... 115,160 St Andrews Hospital... 598,758 St Aubyns Hospital... 168,656 St Johns Hospital... 462,028 St Stephens Church Hospital... 466,260 St Vincents Hospital (Private)... 1,862,384 St Andrews Hospital... 646,858 Wesley Hospital... 68,880 Area Total... 11,030,012 State Total... 28,364,132 PAYMENTS TO PRIVATE HOSPITALS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA-METROPOLITAN AREA Payment period: 1.7.84 to 30.6.85 Hospital name Payment $ Abergeldie Private Hospital... 331,830 Ashford Community Hospital Incorporated... 1,722,980 Blackwood and District Community Hospital... 303,420 Burnside War Memorial Hospital Incorporated... 872,004 Calvary Hospital... 1,911,424 Central Districts Private Hospital... 472,632 College Park Private Hospital Ltd... 130,300 East Terrace Private Hospital... 213,756 Fullarton Private Hospital Pty Ltd... 258,230 Glenelg District Community Hospital Incorporated... 287,412 Hartley Private Hospital... 116,560 Hindmarsh Memorial Community Hospital Incorporated... 80,760 Holdfast Private Hospital... 105,960 Hutt Street Private Hospital Pty Ltd... 210,900 Kahlyn Private Hospital Pty Ltd... 103,440 Kiandra Private Hospital... 264,300 Le Fevres Private Adelaide Hospital... 139,872 Memorial Hospital Incorporated... 822,940 Monreith Private Hospital... 109,160 North Eastern Community Hospital Incorporated... 307,412 Northern Community Hospital Incorporated... 270,122 Parkwynd Private Hospital Pty Ltd... 145,718 Pier Private Hospital... 95,164 Salisbury Private Hospital... 160,442 Salvation Army McBride Private Hospital... 82,980 South West Community Hospital... 155,180 St Andrews Hospital Incorporated... 1,724,764 Stirling District Hospital Incorporated... 191,520 The Griffith Private Hospital... 247,980 Wakefield Memorial Hospital Incorporated... 937,680 Western Community Hospital Incorporated... 913,040 Area Total... 13,689,882 PAYMENTS TO PRIVATE HOSPITALS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA-NON METROPOLITAN AREA Payment period: 1.7.84 to 30.6.85 Hospital name Payment $ Ardrossan and District Hospital Incorporated... 75,440 Hamley Bridge Memorial Hospital Incorporated... 68,280 Kadina Community Hospital Incorporated... 82,360 Keith and District Hospital Incorporated... 165,820 Mallala District Hospital Incorporated... 90,760 Moonta Jubilee Hospital Incorporated... 128,020 Area Total... 610,680 State Total... 14,300,562 PAYMENTS TO PRIVATE HOSPITALS IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA-METROPOLITAN AREA Payment period: 1.7.84 to 30.6.85 Hospital name Payment $ Attadale Hospital... 442,830 Avro Hospital... 132,330 Bethesda Hospital... 471,630 Bicton Private Hospital... 348,960 Cambridge Hospital... 619,670 Glengarry Hospital... 648,932 Harrow Hospital... 260 Kaleeya Private Hospital... 395,418 Martindale Hospital... 75,600 Mount Hospital... 230,490 Mt Lawley Hospital... 76,590 Ngal-A Mothercraft Home Training Centre... 17,820 Niola Private Hospital... 135,260 Oats Street Hospital... 176,370 South Perth Community Central Hospital... 342,090 St John of God, Rivervale... 346,050 St John of God, Subiaco... 3,939,876 St Annes Hospital... 1,493,828 St Josephs Hospital... 160,400 Stirling Hospital... 429,514 Undercliffe Private Hospital... 216,210 Area Total... 10,700,128 PAYMENTS TO PRIVATE HOSPITALS IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA-NON METROPOLITAN AREA Payment period: 1.7.84 to 30.6.85 Hospital name Payment $ St John of God, Bunbury... 1,102,240 St John of God, Geraldton... 364,066 Area Total... 1,466,306 State Total... 12,166,434 PAYMENTS TO PRIVATE HOSPITALS IN TASMANIA-METROPOLITAN AREA Payment period: 1.7.84 to 30.6.85 Hospital name Payment $ Calvary Hospital... 1,145,148 Hobart Clinic... 65,300 St Helens Hospital... 541,624 St Johns Hospital... 629,796 Area Total... 2,381,868 PAYMENTS TO PRIVATE HOSPITALS IN TASMANIA-NON METROPOLITAN AREA Payment period: 1.7.84 to 30.6.85 Hospital name Payment $ St Lukes Hospital... 482,902 St Vincents Hospital... 599,960 Area Total... 1,082,862 State Total... 3,464,730 PAYMENTS TO PRIVATE HOSPITALS IN AUSTRALIA-ALL AREAS Payment period: 1.7.84 to 30.6.85 Final Totals... 134,728,820