Tuesday, 11 March 1986 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The PRESIDENT —It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death, on 1 March 1986, of Mr Olof Palme, Prime Minister of Sweden. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I move: That the Senate expresses its deep regret at the death, on 1 March 1986, of Mr Olof Palme, Prime Minister of Sweden, condemns the brutal act which took his life and tenders its profound sympathy to his widow and the members of his family and to the Government and people of Sweden. I am sure that all members of the Senate were shocked and saddened to hear of the murder of Mr Olof Palme. Such a criminal act should receive the strongest condemnation and I am sure that it has it from this House. Prime Minister Palme's tragic and untimely death was a great loss to Sweden and the world. He had served his country in various portfolios since 1963 and was Prime Minister for 11 years. In the Swedish context, notable for its tradition of peace and non-violence, the senseless futility of this act stands out all the more starkly. Sweden has lost an outstanding leader. The Prime Minister, Mr Olof Palme, worked vigorously towards maintaining a strong economy, achieving full employment and safeguarding the welfare of the Swedish people. It was a notable feature of his leadership that his concern for economic and social justice did not end with the affairs of his own country. He brought the same passionate commitment to these ideals to bear on his approach to world affairs and did so, moreover, with a real depth of intellect. Olof Palme was a man devoted to promoting economic development, social justice and peace and he understood the interrelationship of these objectives. Mr Palme's global commitment to the democratic process and to the rights, freedoms and well-being of all people is attested by the policies which he adopted. His stand for fundamental human rights can be seen in his championing of the campaign against racism. He promoted a generous refugee policy, believing it to be an important expression of international humanitarian solidarity. He believed that rich nations should join in the struggle against poverty in order to achieve a more just world order. Olof Palme was Vice-President of the Socialist International and led its working group on the southern Africa question. He was a member of the important Brandt commission which studied questions concerning the relationship between rich and poor nations. In November 1980 Mr Palme was appointed as representative of the United Nations Secretary-General to seek a peaceful solution to the Iraq-Iran conflict. He stood firm on Sweden's policy of neutrality and worked tirelessly to promote world peace and disarmament. Olof Palme's contribution to the international debate on arms control and disarmament won him wide acclaim during his chairmanship of the Commission on Disarmament and Security from 1980 to 1982. He was an idealist without illusions. He recognised that general and complete disarmament was a long term objective which could only be achieved through patient and careful negotiations that took account of international security concerns-those of the United States and the Soviet Union in particular. Palme did not consider nuclear deterrence to be an acceptable permanent basis for international peace and stability, but he accepted that it was the only viable option as an interim security measure while arms control negotiations took place. The Australian Government's approach to arms control and disarmament shares many of the perspectives of the Palme report on these issues. Olof Palme also played a significant role in the setting up in 1984 of the conference on disarmament in Europe which aims to build confidence and reduce the risk of conflict between states in Europe. He firmly believed, as does the Australian Government, that questions of peace and disarmament in the nuclear age should be the concern of all nations and should not be left for the nuclear weapon states and the big powers alone to determine. His passing is a great loss to all of us throughout the world, regardless of ideological divisions between those in the East and those in the West; regardless of economic divisions between the people of the North and those of the South. It is for his contribution to the noble goal of transcending such divisions which exist in this imperfect world that Olof Palme will be most widely remembered. Senator Don Grimes, the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister for Community Services, will represent the Australian Government at Olof Palme's funeral, which is to be held in Stockholm on 15 March. Senator Grimes was a personal friend of the late Prime Minister, having met him on a number of occasions at meetings of the Socialist International. He is also known to Mr Palme's widow, Lisbeth. The attendance of Senator Grimes at the funeral is a mark of the deep respect which the Australian Government has for Olof Palme's achievements in the cause of world peace and social justice and of the friendship which Australia feels for the Government and people of Sweden. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —On behalf of the Opposition I wish to support the expression of sorrow at the death of Olof Palme and the condemnation which was expressed by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) of the senseless act of violence which brought about his death. There was, I think, in the hearts of many Australians very deep sorrow at the tragic death of the Prime Minister of Sweden and there was a great deal of concern at the senseless act of violence which brought it about. Of course, it was totally unfitting that a man who had dedicated himself so completely to the pursuit of peace should die in such a violent way. My own regret at hearing the news was immediately followed by the realisation that for many members of the present Government Mr Palme had particular significance as a leading European socialist and as a leader of the Socialist International. I am very pleased that Senator Grimes, who was a particular friend of Mr Palme, is able to represent the Australian Government and the Australian people at the funeral. It occurs to me that in many respects Mr Palme was what many in the present Government would wish to be in the very substantial programs which he was part of implementing over many years in his own country. I was struck when I was reading something of him to find that his expression on gaining government after a fairly radical introduction to politics as a student and otherwise was: `The soup will not be eaten as hot as it is cooked'. I thought that perhaps that was an experience which many present Ministers would have had in terms of current politics. The Opposition, whilst acknowledging that at times there were differences between its own approach to the pursuit of peace and that put forward by Mr Palme both domestically and on the international stage, acknowledges his continuous pursuit of that great objective, acknowledges that in many respects he embraced ideas which are central to our own thinking, including the maintenance of a strong defence force for his own country and for the temporary importance of the deterrence in maintaining peace. The main object of speaking today is simply to express the very deep regret which the Opposition has at this most untimely death and which we share with all members of the Government at this very unhappy time. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I would like to join the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) in their expressions of sympathy for and outrage at the murder perpetrated in the friendly and neutral country of Sweden. Senator Button quite rightly has outlined many of the causes which Mr Palme embraced in his long career in politics. Some were issues with which many of us would agree, others were issues with which some of us might not necessarily agree. With a man of Mr Palme's calibre it is necessary to look behind the politics and to see the man. He was a man of great concern and compassion for his fellow human beings. It is one of the world's tragedies that a man, a world leader and the leader of his nation, could not go about with his wife and mix among his people, could not go to such an innocuous event as the theatre, without being gunned down in such a cowardly fashion. On behalf of the members of the National Party of Australia I support the expressions of sympathy put by the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition. Senator HAINES(South Australia) —On behalf of the Australian Democrats I would like to join my colleagues from other parties in expressing our sadness and regret at the death of Mr Olof Palme, and to extend our sympathy to the widow and children of a Prime Minister who was greatly respected. He was, as one headline put it, a leader who searched for a better world. In doing so, it would seem he acquired the affection and support of the majority of his compatriots, apart from a minority of apparently extreme right wing Swedes. His countrymen and women regarded him as a caring human being, as an humanitarian politician, and as a Prime Minister whose pursuit of a policy of armed neutrality had won Sweden respect on the world stage, while still managing to keep his country out of conflict with other nations including, of course, that most threatening neighbour, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. On the home front, Mr Palme's Social Democratic Party had put Sweden in the forefront of social reform by introducing policies that even his conservative opponents did not try to dismantle during their brief period of power between his two reigns as Prime Minister. More important, I suspect, to most Swedes was the fact that in the two periods when he was leader of their country he set Sweden firmly on the world stage as a country to respect for the way in which he handled its foreign policy. Olof Palme proved that it was possible to be neutral without endangering his country, to be critical of the United States' policies without being anti-American, and to be tough with Sweden's neighbours, the Russians, without making his country vulnerable to attack. His evenhandedness in the area of foreign policy is probably best indicated by the fact that he managed within a period of several years to anger both the Russians and the Americans by demonstrating, first of all, against the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia in the late 1960s and, shortly afterwards, publicly denouncing the United States for its bombing of Vietnam. The latter caused the Americans to recall their ambassador for some time, and the former produced an angry response from the Russians. That a man who was dedicated to promoting world peace, who was evenhanded in his criticism of those who promoted aggression, and who was forward looking in preparing his country for a sound economic future could be so cold-bloodedly and deliberately destroyed by a political opponent is, as the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, said a tragic irony. What struck me as most sickening about the whole affair was the enthusiasm of the celebration by certain elements of the Right in Sweden, who regarded Mr Palme's assassination as some kind of victory. Indeed, I understand, it was the revelry of some right wing students celebrating Olof Palme's death with champagne at Chamonix which led to his teenage son first learning of his father's assassination. The world is, as the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, said, rightly shocked and saddened at Mr Palme's death and with it the silencing of one of the world's most intelligent and outspoken proponents of peace. Again, on behalf of the Australian Democrats, I extend our sympathy to a country which has lost a caring and just leader, and our condolences to his family in the sad and tragic loss of a loving husband and father. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services) —In a world where every minute of every day someone dies an unnecessary and tragic death, it is very saddening that today we should be moving a motion of condolence on the death of Olof Palme who, as Senator Button has said, has been known to me for some time. He was the Leader of the Social Democratic Labor Party in Sweden, the party with the longest continuous history in that part of the world, an extraordinary party which was formed in 1889 yet Olof Palme was only its fourth Leader. When he became Prime Minister of Sweden he was the youngest head of state in Europe. Olof Palme came from a very small country yet he was internationally extremely well known, as anyone reading the newspapers after his death would have realised. He was an extremely well known and respected international statesman, despite the fact that he was not a physically imposing man, despite the fact that he came from a very small country and despite the fact that over the years, as Senator Haines has pointed out, he frequently irked both of the super-powers. There are very few people who have been described as revisionists, as those in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics are want to call people who are social democrats or democratic socialists, and at the same time are described, as Jeane Kirkpatrick described him, as a deliverer of revolution in the world. Olof Palme laboured long and hard to put across three messages. The first was the right of individuals, whoever or wherever they are, to be free to take part in the decisions which affect their lives and to have the right to stand up and speak for others. Secondly, he stood very firmly for the right of small nations to stand up for their rights and the right of others to demand of the super-powers that they be taken notice of, and to do that as frequently as possible but at the same time to have the capacity to retain the security of their own nations. He did that all his political life. The third thing for which he fought was peace. As Senator Button and Senator Chaney have pointed out, he worked in the area of disarmament, yet while fighting vigorously against nuclear weapons-indeed, while fighting vigorously for disarmament generally-he recognised that in the case of his country and other European countries there was a necessity, as he and his Party saw it, for the peaceful use of nuclear power. As a result of that he lost two elections, but that did not stop him from working very hard internationally and nationally for a better, more equal and equitable world. He and his Party in Sweden have had the capacity to develop a welfare state in a country which provides levels of excellence in manufacturing, design and development for which it is world recognised and at the same time have maintained a very low unemployment rate, a low inflation rate and economic growth. It is a secret that many people in the West, as Senator Chaney has said, would like to know. I knew Olof Palme as Vice-President of the Socialist International. At the Socialist International he was so respected that whenever he spoke there was silence. In speaking he combined the vigour and earnestness of someone who felt very strongly about the subject on which he was speaking with a continuous call for reason on behalf of those who were taking different views. I remember that he played a very important role in a debate in Denmark where the Australians-Gough Whitlam and I-and the French were having a considerable disagreement about what happened in the South Pacific. Olof Palme had the capacity to agree with us but placate the French so that they did not actually walk out on that occasion as they had done in the past. Willy Brandt, who was a personal friend of his, said: I do not know how the gap can be filled that has been left by the violent death of Olof Palme. But I do know that we shall honour him best by continuing his work. I think those words could be well directed not only at members of social democratic and democratic socialist parties throughout the world but to all of us who believe in democracy and who strive within the democratic system. I will go to Stockholm on Saturday with sadness but with some pride that I can represent my Party and, I hope, this whole country at the funeral. I think it is a measure of his respect that there will be some 12 Prime Ministers and heaven knows how many other heads of state there. Sweden has lost a great man; the world has lost a great man. His wife Lisbeth and his three sons have lost an honoured husband and father. I am glad that this Parliament has seen fit to pay respect in the way it has to this very great, very respected, very peaceful and loving man. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales) —All those who have been earnest students in the last decade or more in the search for peace and disarmament will know of Olof Palme and his work. Some might differ in detail regarding the mechanisms of his pronouncements and assertions, but one would have to recognise the sincerity of the man, indeed the quality of greatness which gave him a prominence in the world in this sphere. I personally was not privileged, as Senator Grimes was, to have met him but I have read much of his pronouncements. I have been a student of his chairmanship of conferences and of the Palme report. The world has seen a man from a nation that is non-aligned coming forward with vigorous ideas, willing to test those ideas and willing to accept from others a verdict that is right or wrong, but pursuing them in what ought to be the real battlefield of peace-the conflict of ideas as to the right mechanisms to achieve peace and not the conflict of force. One can argue about mechanisms, and that ought to be the argument of a freedom loving country, but one does not emphasise one's arguments with the use of force. As others have said so well today: What a tragedy, what a tragic irony that in this International Year of Peace one of the great leaders for peace in this world should have fallen by violence. That is an enormous tragedy indeed. Olof Palme came from a nation which, however small, is contributing mightily to the dialogue for world peace. It is true that if one is non-aligned one has more elastic side limits within which to manoeuvre. When one goes to conferences-whether it is United Nations conferences or the conference for disarmament in Geneva-one can see the great freedom that such countries have to express their views. I personally found great interest and great edification in talking to the ambassador for disarmament from Sweden when I visited Geneva. He expressed a view of a small country embattled by outward pressures, a country that was devoted to peace and whose leaders were giving leadership in this regard. There may have been ideological differences between a person such as Olof Palme with his broad ideology and me. I cannot find myself at difference with his goal, which was to achieve world peace with dignity and freedom. He recognised the pragmatism of that journey towards total disarmament, and towards that end I think we all share in his goal. I want to add my voice, as one who has spent quite some years, as have others in this place, studying the pursuit for peace and disarmament, in acknowledging that Olof Palme was a national leader, an internationalist, a person who added very greatly to the dialogue for the pursuit of peace, whose immortality lies in his work. I think it was Christopher Wren's son who wrote on the northern door of St Paul's Cathedral-I think it was in Latin: `If you would seek his monument, look around you'. I think we can say, when we look at the United Nations, the Conference on Disarmament, or wherever in the dialogue for peace: `If you would seek Olof Palme's monument, look around you'. I add my tribute to his nation and to his family. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —I also extend my sympathy to the Swedish people and Government and to the family of Olof Palme. He was a person of peace. He exemplified Sweden's place in the world-a prosperous yet caring society, a nation with a conscience and concern for the plight of a humanity in suffering. Olof Palme promoted and reflected his nation's concern in world affairs by combining a sense of moral idealism with considered Swedish pragmatism. As leader of the Social Democrats and Swedish Prime Minister for a decade, he committed his nation to a sophisticated form of corporatism in which state intervention was used not only to promote economic growth and efficiency, but also to promote justice and equity. Internationally, Olof Palme promoted the link between wealth and equity by becoming a primary architect of his nation's commitment to both peace and justice issues. He committed Sweden to giving one of the highest aid percentages of any Western nation to help developing countries, and he often promoted the cause of justice, whether it was through seeking a solution to the problems of southern Africa or seeking a peaceful resolution of the conflicts in central America. I will not reiterate what other senators have said about his wonderful work in the field of nuclear disarmament. The Swedish people have been profoundly shocked by the violent assassination of a person who worked for peace. As a note at the place where Mr Palme was gunned down said, who has killed our peace dove? His death is a tragic loss to Sweden in particular and to all people who nurture his ideals of a free, just and more peaceful world. Olof Palme will be remembered as one who dedicated his life to humanity in the cause of justice and peace. Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable senators standing in their places. 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 shows: That the Hawke Government should; pass on on the full benefit of lower international oil prices on 1 March 1986; not increase or extend fuel taxes; and maintain its tax cut commitments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment to the Import Parity Pricing policy. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Archer (from 27 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: (1) The Agreement between the United States of America and Australia concerning the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap may be terminated by either Government on one year's notice from 19 October 1986. (2) In the event of war between the United States and the Soviet Union, access by the United States to Pine Gap's facilities makes it a probable nuclear target. (3) Access by all nations to Pine Gap's capacity to monitor and verify compliance with existing and future nuclear limitations treaties could contribute to world peace and security. (4) The people of Australia are entitled to be consulted, through their representatives in Parliament, on any extension or modification of the Agreement affecting their lives, security and welfare. And your petitioners humbly pray that: (1) The Agreement between the United States and Australia concerning the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap be terminated one year from October 1986. (2) Public discussion and inquiry be instituted into the feasibility of negotiating a new agreement with the United Nations during the International Year of Peace offering the verification facilities of the Pine Gap base to all nations. (3) Any agreement concerning the future use of Pine Gap be referred to Parliament for ratification. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Tate (from 10 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate. In this session of Parliament the proposed Bill of Rights will come before the Senate to be debated. We, the undersigned, would like to voice our protest at the proposed Bill. 1. Because of the haste and secrecy with which this legislation was passed through the House of Representatives despite the fact that it will adversely affect areas of immense importance to liberty and freedom and is contrary to the spirit of the Australian Constitution. 2. The Bill is based upon the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which has been rejected by both the United States of America and Great Britain but accepted by the Warsaw Pact countries. We therefore believe there is a potential threat to our national security through making treaties of this kind with foreign nations, many whom do not practice the principles that they have covenanted to uphold. 3. Because our Australian Constitution states that `whereas we the people' give you the government these rights, the Constitution limits the right and power of government. The proposed Bill of Rights reverses this totally and states that `we the government, give you the people these rights'. This totally reverses the nature of government in this country. 4. Our rights and the principles of freedom are now protected by current legislation, Common law and the present Constitution. 5. Because it transfers the power of interpretation of legislation from the Parliament of Australia (the democratically elected institution) to the Courts (unelected body of people). 6. Because the Bill of Rights will be administrated by the Human Rights Commission which is an unelected body of people with powers which are outside and not subject to the normal processes of law-no appeal, closed hearings, no legal representation. 7. 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 just as inevitably the centralised control, by government, on human behaviour. We therefore request that you vote to reject this proposed Bill of Rights in any shape or form being introduced in Australia. Yours humbly. by Senators Button (from nine citizens) and Foreman (from six citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows that: We, citizens of Australia, have gathered in Adelaide on this Thursday 6 March 1986 to ask the Senate to uphold the freedoms we already enjoy and not to limit them by a vaguely-worded, so-called Bill of Rights, which gives unprecedented power to an unelected Human Rights Commission and overrides the sovereignty of the Australian States. We ask you to reject completely the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jessop (from 828 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian Bill of Rights Bill is a harmful, dangerous and divisive proposal, the provisions of which are authoritarian and anti-democratic. Your petitioners therefore pray: That the Senate reject this Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vigor (from 20 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 certain Trade Unions are currently forcing employers and employees to join union-controlled Superannuation schemes through industrial blackmail, thereby extending the Unions' economic power and at the same time infringing individual rights. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: (i) Guarantee that Occupational Superannuation is a matter of individual choice (ii) Declare illegal industrial standover tactics which force people to join superannuation schemes controlled by, or sponsored by, trade unions (iii) Protect those companies and their employees who establish their own superannuation arrangements at the enterprise level (iv) Ensure that union or industry-based schemes are not disguised pay rises by providing that employees must also make contributions. (v) Provide that control of the funds of such schemes is vested in the elected representative of the contributors to those schemes (vi) Oppose any backdoor attempts at achieving compulsory unionism. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Messner (from 19 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 whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Durack (from 1,093 citizens). 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 businesses; 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 17 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric System and request the government to restore the Imperial system. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from 23 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 support the following Bills introduced by Senator Chipp: Australian Airspace (Nuclear Weapons Prohibition) Bill 1985 Australian Waters (Nuclear-powered Ships Prohibition) Bill 1985 Australian Waters (Nuclear Weapons Prohibition) Bill 1985 Nuclear Weapons Prohibition Bill 1985, the passage of which would prohibit the entry of aircraft carrying nuclear weapons into Australian airspace, the entry of nuclear powered and/or armed ships into Australian waters, and the development, testing, manufacturing, transportation or storage of nuclear weapons in Australia. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that all Senators, regardless of political affiliations, support these Bills-not just for our sake but for our children. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from 81 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 Sibraa (from 63 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 Archer (from 175 citizens), Peter Baume (from 103 citizens), Brownhill (from 36 citizens), Sir John Carrick (from 191 citizens), Chaney (from 106 citizens), Richardson (from 81 citizens), Sibraa (from 45 citizens), Walsh (from 20 citizens) and Walters (from 54 citizens). Petitions received. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, unless otherwise ordered, at its rising on Friday, 14 March 1986, adjourn till Tuesday, 18 March 1986 at 2 p.m. 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 Treasurer (Mr Keating) told the Australian people on 3 February 1986 that: (i) ``the economy is still in very good form'', (ii) ``the policy settings are right'', (iii) ``things are very much on track'', ``the portents for continuing prosperity of the economy are good''; (b) notes that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said on 13 February 1986 ``the economic fundamentals of policy making in this country are right and will continue to deliver the economic and employment growth that has put Australia so far ahead of anywhere else in the rest of the world''. (c) notes that on 5 March 1986, barely one month after these assertions (the same day the Federal Government began advertising its claimed achievements on growth and employment) a leaked submission by the Treasurer was reported to have advised Cabinet that the economy was now at such a ``critical stage'' that there is no option but to make significant cuts in Government spending and to reduce the rate of economic growth and employment growth; (d) asks the Government to make a full and proper report to the Parliament on the major changes in economic policy involved in its belated reversal of its ``growth at any price'' approach as evidenced in published extracts from the leaked Cabinet submission. (e) requires the Government to confirm or deny that the Government now believes, as the leaked document states, that: (i) unless Government spending is cut by $1.4 billion, the deficit for next financial year will rise to $6.4 billion' (ii) this financial year's deficit will be $200m over budget at $5.1 billion, despite a $1.1 billion rise in tax collections (and implying a similar rise in spending) (iii) economic growth will fall in 1986-87 to between 3 per cent and 4 per cent, giving little prospect of further cuts in unemployment, (iv) reducing the balance of payments deficit will be ``difficult and protracted'', and (v) it will be ``difficult to obtain further restraint in wages''; and (f) expresses its concern that many Australians have been misled by false Government assurances into taking decisions which may now cause them financial distress. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the Hawke Government and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) for failing to protect National Estate areas of Tasmania, including Farmhouse Creek and the Lemonthyme, from the depredations of the Gray Government, the Tasmanian Forestry Commission and the logging industry; (b) notes with concern that such failure to protect the National Estate has forced citizens to defend the areas personally, in the face of physical assault by company thugs while Tasmanian police looked on; (c) urges the Hawke Government immediately to send Australian Federal Police to National Estate areas to protect the civil rights of Australian citizens in the face of increasing provocation and the encouragement of violence by the Gray Government; and (d) urges the Hawke Government to ban all woodchipping and logging in National Estate areas of Tasmania. Senator JONES(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, noting that- (a) Queensland was the only Australian State where the number of people receiving unemployment benefits rose in the 12 months to the end of January 1986, according to the records of the Commonwealth Department of Social Security; (b) in the 12 months to the end of January 1986 the number of recipients of the benefits rose from 112,068 to 113, 531, an increase of 1.3 per cent; (c) in every other State the number of recipients fell by 10.2 per cent in Victoria, 7.2 per cent in Western Australia, 6.2 per cent in Tasmania, 5.5 per cent in South Australia and 2.9 per cent in New South Wales; and (d) the national average, although distorted by the appalling result in Queensland, nevertheless fell by 4.2 per cent, condemns the Queensland Government for this performance and for its overall efforts in the economic field which are clearly retarding the efforts of Australia as a whole. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate condemns the Federal Government in its dereliction of reponsibility to the Australian people in allowing, without a public inquiry- (a) a company controlled by one man, namely Mr Robert Holmes a Court, to bid for control of Australia's largest remaining Australian-owned company; (b) this company to borrow $2,000m off-shore without investigating the sources of these funds; and (c) the interest charge on this off-shore borrowing to be written off against the profits of a variety of companies. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate condemns the Queensland Government's plan to revoke National Park status of Lindeman Island and urges the State Government to meet its responsibilities for this World Heritage area as set down by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I incorporate the list in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal-Third Report South-East Region on Remote Commercial Television Services. 2. Australian Trade Union Training Authority- Annual Report 1984-85-Pursuant to Section 58 of the Australian Trade Union Training Authority Act 1975. 3. Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions-Guidelines on the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth. 4. Accounting Standards Review Board-Annual Report 1984-85. 5. Building Research and Development Advisory Committee-Report on Building Research and Development. 6. Committee of Review of the Adult Migrant Education Program-Report entitled `Towards Active Voice'. 7. New South Wales Local Government Grants Commission-Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to Section 10 of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976. 8. Victoria Grants Commission-Annual Report 1984-85-Pursuant to Section 10 of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976. 9. Queensland Local Government Grants Commission-Ninth Report 1985-Pursuant to Section 10 of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976. 10. Advance to the Minister for Finance-Statement on expenditure for January 1986. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I inform the Senate that Senator Evans is currently Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. Mr Hayden will return to Canberra from the Philippines tomorrow. Senator CHANEY —My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, follows earlier questions and his answers on the car industry, the most recent being on 20 February. I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that since that time the Vehicle Builders Union has estimated that up to 15,000 jobs could be lost in the industry because of the Government's proposed tax. Given that new vehicle registrations in January were 13 per cent lower than 12 months ago and that the industry faces a difficult year because of factors such as the currency depreciation, unleaded petrol and changes to sales tax, and in the light of the Government's refusal to abandon the fringe benefits tax, has the Government yet decided on any changes or modifications to the Treasurer's original proposal? Senator BUTTON —The answer to the honourable senator's question is no, but as soon as we decide we will let him know. Senator COATES —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry a question about forestry activities in Tasmania, highlighted by the appalling attitude of the Gray Liberal Government and the forestry companies to conservationists protesting at Farmhouse Creek. It is a fact that the Premier of Tasmania is displaying an extraordinary lack of co-operation and is still refusing to sign the agreement with the Federal Government for the export woodchip industry beyond 1988 in the terms to which he agreed towards the end of last year? In view of Mr Gray's intransigence and his going back on his word now that the State election is out of the road, will the Minister for Primary Industry agree that the time has come to tell the Premier that, if he is going to maintain that attitude, all bets are off and that the Commonwealth will now take a much tougher position and insist on more stringent conditions on all woodchip exports instead of the reasonable compromise of last year so that our responsibility to protect the National Estate as well as jobs is fulfilled? Senator WALSH —I am advised that the view of Mr Kerin on this matter is that it shows how ineffective is the politics of confrontation as practised by Premier Gray and mountebanks like Dr Bob Brown and Senator Sanders, and one could probably add some of the companies involved. If the Tasmanian Government continues to play the Premier's confrontationist, States rights games, the Commonwealth will have no choice but to place stringent conditions on each and every woodchip export licence from 1988 onwards. Senator DURACK —I ask the Minister for Resources and Energy: In view of the continuing fall in world oil prices since the determination which was announced by the Government to take effect from 1 March, which would of course result in a further fall in the petrol prices Australian motorists are paying, will the Government, as foreshadowed in that statement, move to an earlier and more flexible adjustment of its determination of oil prices and not wait until 1 May, which is the next one scheduled? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is the case that in Mr Keating's and my joint statement of 24 February we said on behalf of the Government that we had decided to retain our regular two-monthly reviews of import parity pricing but that the Government would keep, as Senator Durack said, that oil market situation under close review and would act if an earlier review of the import parity price seemed desirable. It is also the case, to fill in the figures, that the 1 March IPP was based on a base price of $US16.77 and that the world oil market has further weakened since then, with the basket used to calculate that price now in the $US12 to $US13 range, which, if fully passed on, would involve another loss to Government revenue of the order of $500m to $600m and an associated drop at the petrol pump of around another 3c to 4c a litre-not another 10c or 11c a litre as I have heard in some rather extraordinary speculation. The situation is that it is simply not yet clear whether this fall will be sustained such that an IPP adjustment earlier than 1 May becomes obviously necessary. I can say no more at this stage other than that the Government intends to keep monitoring the situation very closely to keep the prices under review. We will make a decision later this month as to whether or not to review them earlier than would otherwise be the case, especially in the light of developments at the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries meeting scheduled to take place in Geneva next week which, it seems, will be followed by a meeting with a number of non-OPEC producers. It is perfectly possible, though not necessarily likely, that in the aftermath of that production decisions will be made which will change the whole price situation quite fundamentally once again. So against the background of that kind of day to day and week to week uncertainty, we are not anxious to rush to judgment as to whether any earlier review is necessary, but, as I said, we will certainly keep monitoring the situation closely. Senator MORRIS —Has the attention of the Minister for Aviation been drawn to the recent report of a task force initiated by the Sydney Chamber of Commerce urging that a third runway be built at Sydney's Kingsford-Smith Airport? If so, what response does the Government propose to make? Senator GIETZELT —I think that all senators would be aware of the report commissioned by the Sydney Chamber of Commerce designed to put pressure upon the Australian Government to provide a third runway at Mascot and so contribute, as the report suggests, to an easing of the traffic problem and an increase in tourism. I think Senator Morris would be aware that all of the councils in the southern part of Sydney, in the eastern suburbs, St George and the Sutherland shire, regardless of political make-up, for the last 20 years have consistently opposed any suggestions that any further runways should be constructed at Kingsford-Smith airfield because of the traffic problems and the noise that would be associated with an increase in traffic. It is 25 years since the Commonwealth Government was advised of the need for additional airport facilities in Sydney. For 25 years successive governments, particularly Liberal-National Party governments, have hedged on making the important decision about a second international airport in Sydney. The report that has been put out by the Sydney Chamber of Commerce ignores the basic fact that an additional airport should be constructed. This Government has bitten the bullet. It has made the decision to build a new airport at Badgerys Creek. The Minister for Aviation, whom I represent in the Senate, has indicated that a third runway is not necessary and will not be built and that the Government's decision to select a site at Badgerys Creek will put an end to the dithering and procrastination that have gone on for the last 25 years. I would suggest that the self-appointed experts who do not understand or comprehend the basic problems associated with air movements in our capital cities, particularly in Sydney which is the major international airport, might well leave their views to the professionals and to those whose responsibility it is to plan air traffic movements in our country. There is plenty of capacity remaining at Kingsford-Smith Airport and there is no possibility at all that the Government will act upon the report commissioned by the Sydney Chamber of Commerce. While the Government recognises that Badgerys Creek is a long way from construction and completion-the land has only just been acquired-it is taking certain steps to improve the airport capacity at Mascot. New terminal facilities will be provided and new taxi-ing improvements will be made at the airport to make up for the neglect of past years. I assure Senator Morris that the concerns of local government and residents in that region prompted the Government to make the decision to go to Badgerys Creek. Senator SANDERS —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In view of the strong stand taken by the Government on the Franklin Dam issue, will the Hawke Government now act immediately to protect the National Estate areas of Tasmania from woodchipping and logging, particularly as Senator Walsh has indicated today that such action is contemplated in the future? Senator BUTTON —The answer given by Senator Walsh encompasses the only sort of response that I can make to that question. I understood Senator Walsh's answer to be that, insofar as the issuing of woodchip licences in 1988 and beyond is concerned, the Government would have to take account of the position adopted by the Tasmanian Government. That is the major question at issue. I will certainly refer Senator Sanders's question to the Prime Minister and see whether he has anything to add to that answer. Senator SANDERS —I ask a supplementary question. Is it not a fact that the refusal of the Government to take the option of attaching significant conditions to export licences is due to a lack of political courage, not a lack of constitutional power? Senator BUTTON —I have been asked whether the decision of the Government is due to a lack of political courage or, alternatively, to a lack of constitutional power. The fact of the matter is that the Government made a decision about this matter which is quite clear, however unpalatable it may be to Senator Sanders. That decision was made not with either of the considerations which Senator Sanders puts in my mind by his supplementary question. That decision has been made and Senator Sanders can characterise it as he likes, but that is not the subject of a legitimate question, in my opinion. Senator ELSTOB —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I refer to a national study into the situation of mothers who relinquish their children. Is the Minister aware that the study confirms that relinquishing mothers continue to suffer from lack of professional and family support? Is the Minister aware that nearly all research into adoption has concentrated only on the placed child and the adoptive parents? Will the Minister agree to investigate the matter further and ensure that the needs of relinquishing mothers, especially follow-up health care, are not overlooked? Senator GRIMES —I am not aware directly of the report referred to by Senator Elstob. I am aware, however, that in recent times there has been some concern that mothers who relinquish their children are not being cared for as adequately as they might be. I will refer the report and the matter to the Minister for Health with the intention of getting an early answer for Senator Elstob in an attempt to see whether we can ensure that conditions improve. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —My question is addressed to the Minister for Education. I refer the Minister to the present situation regarding the payment of both the unemployment benefit and the tertiary education allowance. Can the Minister explain why a young person living at home and receiving the unemployment benefit can actually receive more than a sister or brother, also living at home, who is receiving a tertiary allowance benefit because of further study? Does this not seem to be a strange situation in which the unemployed person receives the greater benefit for staying at home and doing nothing while the person trying to further his or her career has to scrape to feed or clothe himself or herself? Is this not a case of destroying the incentive for further education while at the same time encouraging young people to go on the dole? Senator RYAN —It is certainly true that when our Government came to office in March 1983 there was a substantial gap between the allowance paid to a student who was eligible for the tertiary education allowance and the unemployment benefit. Since that time our Government has developed a common allowance so that this year, for example, the gap has been significantly closed and after another two years the levels should be the same. I agree with the implication in Senator Bjelke-Petersen's question that it is very discouraging for young people from poorer families to undertake tertiary studies when in doing that they actually get less support than they would if they were in the labour market looking for a job. I do not agree, of course, that unemployment benefits are paid to young people to sit at home and do nothing. They ought to be looking for jobs. The work test administered by the Department of Social Security ought to be ensuring that they are indeed answering job applications and attending interviews. However, it certainly is my view that a gap between the two payments does act as a disincentive for students from poorer families. It is in recognition of that that our Government has taken steps to close those gaps so that by 1988 the levels of payment, on an age related basis, should be the same. Of course, at that stage it will still be the case that there will be a parental means test in regard to the education allowances but not in regard to unemployment benefit. That is in recognition of the fact that the unemployed young person theoretically is looking for a job and therefore is part of the labour market. Senator SIBRAA —Has the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs seen reports of proposals made by South Africa for the commencement of the implementation of the settlement plan for Namibia? What is the Australian Government's attitude towards the South African proposal, in particular the linking of Namibian independence to the withdrawal of Cuban forces in Angola? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government has noted President Botha's announcement last week on 4 March that South Africa is prepared to begin implementing the United Nations Security Council Resolution 435 on 1 August if a firm and satisfactory agreement about the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola can be reached by then. Australia of course strongly supports the early independence of Namibia and takes the view that the United Nations Security Council resolution remains the only acceptable and agreed basis for an internationally recognised settlement in Namibia. We are deeply concerned that a Namibian settlement has been delayed for so long and that extraneous factors have so far prevented the early implementation of the United Nations settlement plan. Australia continues to be concerned that the linking of Namibia's independence to the withdrawal of Cuban forces remains an element in South African Government's latest proposal. This Government has consistently rejected that kind of linkage as a precondition for the implementation of Resolution 435. The Government hopes that the South African Government's reaffirmation of its commitment to the United Nations settlement plan will lead to the unconditional implementation of Resolution 435 without delay. The Australian Government rejects any moves to pre-empt or bypass the United Nations settlement plan and would regard any such measures by the South African Government in relation to the establishment of constitutional bodies and the transfer of power in Namibia to be null and void. I mention finally that on 19 June last year Australia voted for the United Nations Security Council Resolution 566 on Namibia, which called on member states to consider the imposition of selective voluntary sanctions against South Africa should South Africa not give immediate effect to United Nations Security Council Resolution 435. Senator PUPLICK —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Trade aware that an export market development grant of some $25,000 was credited last year to a rat bag organisation known as the Creation Science Foundation Ltd? Has this so-called foundation, which is tax exempt as a religious organisation, written off $92,000 because of the failure of the company's investment agents-an amount equal to 60 per cent of the total donations which it received? Is the Minister concerned that export grants are being used to subsidise religious organisations, and particularly that such a bogus organisation can be a recipient of a large payment of public moneys, which is then wasted? Will he also draw to the attention of the Treasurer for review the tax exempt status of this body? Senator BUTTON —I was unaware of any of those circumstances, which certainly as related by Senator Puplick have a degree of horror about them. I will convey the allegation of the tax status of this company to the Treasurer for investigation. I will ask the Minister for Trade whether he can have some inquiries made regarding the export market development grant to which Senator Puplick referred. There was also a question as to whether I would be concerned about this matter if the facts were correct. The answer to that question is, of course, yes. Senator JONES —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and refer to the medication Tylenol, which has twice been subjected to adulteration by cyanide while on sale to the public at retail outlets in the United States of America. Is that drug still freely displayed for sale in Australian supermarkets? What assurances are available to the general public from the Federal Government that the product is safe from any similar action in Australia? Senator GRIMES —Tylenol was available in Australia but only in a limited area-northern New South Wales and, I think, Queensland. It was available in Australia in individually packed blister packages, so any attempt to contaminate the capsules in this country without its being obvious to the consumer would have been almost impossible. However, the product sponsor has decided to withdraw the capsules world-wide, and this withdrawal began in February in Australia. I think the action was aimed more at consumer confidence for the company than at safety considerations but, still, the substance is being progressively removed, despite the extreme unlikelihood of any contamination in this country. I believe we will not see a repetition of the unfortunate American experience. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation and refer to the decision of the Government to construct a new airport at Badgerys Creek. Since that decision must have included prior decisions as to the specific uses of that airport at Badgerys Creek, what are the intended uses of the airport? Is it intended to accommodate all international aircraft functioning to and from Sydney? Is it intended to include any interstate, intrastate or commuter aircraft at Badgerys Creek? Is the Government aware that more than 50 per cent of passengers from commuter and intrastate aircraft have follow-on bookings on interstate and international airlines? How does the Government envisage the transit of such passengers between two airports situated some 40 miles apart and separated by the traffic entanglement of a major city, Sydney? Senator GIETZELT —The honourable senator asked me a number of questions relating to the breakup of traffic movements at airports, particularly the one to which he referred. There is no doubt that they are factors which affect traffic movements. The matter requires further information than I am able to provide on the basis of what is given to me as the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation. There is nothing in my brief that would enable me to reply satisfactorily to Senator Sir John Carrick about the different categories of traffic movements of intrastate and interstate aircraft, as well as the small aircraft that use our airports. However, I will draw that matter to the attention of the Minister for Aviation and seek an early response. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I have a supplementary question. Does the Minister say that he, a member of the Ministry-in this case the representative Minister here-is part of the decision-making process to determine a new airport and does not know personally what the purposes and uses of that airport will be? Secondly, will he provide an urgent answer to the detailed questions I have asked? Senator GIETZELT —They are matters which surely come within the policy considerations of the Minister for Aviation. As I indicated to Senator Sir John Carrick, the specific questions he asked of me are not provided for in my brief and therefore I am not able to give him the sorts of answers he requires. I accept that the questions are relevant and that the guidelines ought to be examined by the Department of Aviation, but they are matters which surely come within the province of the Minister to determine and I will draw his attention to them Senator COLSTON —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs received representations from the Professional Officers Association of Queensland to refuse visas for overseas teachers invited by the Queensland Government to teach in Queensland technical and further education colleges? Does the Association argue that the Queensland Government has made no real attempt to review its TAFE teacher training, recruitment and retention policies? Has the Department received any request from the Queensland Government that overseas teachers be permitted to take up positions in Queensland TAFE colleges? If so, how many positions are involved and what has been the Department's response to the request? Senator GRIMES —I am informed by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs that the Professional Officers Association, on behalf of Queensland TAFE teachers, wrote to the Minister on 21 February requesting that the Department not proceed with visa issues to any nominees until the Queensland Government agreed to discuss the proposal with them. The Professional Officers Association claimed that insufficient efforts were being made by the Queensland Government to train and retain TAFE teachers and that locally trained teachers were available. The Queensland Department of Education approached the Department in early February regarding the entry of some 50 tertiary and further education teachers under the employer nomination scheme for teaching courses associated with the hospitality industry. However, since then the Queensland Government has lodged only one nomination and this nomination has not been approved. Some employer nomination scheme requirements are still to be met. For example, the Queensland Department is still to demonstrate that it has a commitment to training local teachers rather than relying on overseas recruitment. The nomination will not be approved unless the outstanding requirements are met by the Queensland Department. At the time of the writing of this brief there had been only one application and that has been rejected for the reasons I have given. Senator SHORT —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce and follows the question asked of him earlier by Senator Chaney concerning the Government's fringe benefits tax proposals for the motor vehicle industry. Is the Minister aware that the huge devaluation of the Australian dollar over the past 15 months has significantly increased the price of imported vehicles and components for locally manufactured vehicles and has thereby made the industry's compliance with the local content rules of the Government's car plan increasingly difficult? Is it a fact that the fringe benefits tax is likely to have the effect of reducing the average size of the motor vehicle fleet in Australia and that, because the imported content of smaller vehicles is greater than it is for larger vehicles, this will make it even more difficult for the local industry to comply with the Government's car plan? How does the Government propose to resolve the difficulties for the motor vehicle industry which the contradiction between the Treasurer's economic and taxation policies and the Minister's car plan has caused? Senator BUTTON —Yes, I am aware that the devaluation has substantially increased the price of imported motor vehicles and the price of a number of components used in the Australian manufacturing industry. The price increases for components have led to considerable problems for some companies, and one in particular. I am asked whether the fringe benefits tax if applied in its suggested form would result in what the industry calls down-scaling; that is to say, lead to lesser use of the medium to larger size cars. That depends very much on the rates which are struck in respect of various mileages for cars. It is too early to make a final determination on the effects of a fringe benefits tax on down-sizing until one looks at the final form of the fringe benefits tax. I am also asked whether the effects of the devaluation would lead to serious problems for companies in terms of the local content element of the plan. I think the answer to that question is yes. I have asked the Automotive Industry Authority to consult with the industry and to make recommendations to me about that matter in the near future. I have had discussions with the Authority already on that question and I suspect that we will be in a position to make an announcement about that quite shortly. Senator Short concluded by asking how the various differences between the policies espoused by the Treasurer and the elements of the car plan will be resolved. Senator Short —The contradictory policies. Senator BUTTON —Yes, but I think with respect that is a little confusing because a number of policies, some of which the honourable senator has mentioned, or a number of impacts on the car plan other than the fringe benefits tax, would affect the viability in the long term. I think the question of the local content problem can be resolved. I hope that the question of down-sizing can be resolved. I would regard each of those matters as important, and an announcement will be made as soon as possible. Senator ZAKHAROV —Is the Minister for Veterans' Affairs aware that at the Australian Labor Party National Women's Conference in January concern was expressed about the level of care and support available for older women, including funding of research into the diseases of aging, such as osteoporosis and Alzheimer's disease? Since a high proportion of older women are entitled to medical treatment and services through the repatriation system, can the Minister outline what steps are being taken and contemplated to improve the level of care available to them? Senator GIETZELT —It is true that concern was expressed at the Labor Women's Conference about the problems of aging persons in the community generally and specifically as those problems related to my Department, the Department of Veterans' Affairs, which, through the Repatriation Commission, operates nine repatriation hospitals all of which can be largely described as hospitals providing care for aging persons. The average age of veterans is 67 years, so most of the patients would be in the aged group. The repatriation hospitals will look after aging people. We have recently extended a number of services and provided new facilities to meet the sort of problem to which Senator Zakharov refers. Since this Government took office three years ago, over $100m has been spent in our repatriation hospitals to bring them up to modern standards and fit them out with the latest equipment. Most of the equipment will provide care for aged people and will provide those beneficiaries with the best possible care. Another $50m is committed to complete those particular works and to buy the latest equipment. Expert staff has been encouraged to continue with research by funding, which has been increased by $270,000 in the last financial year. Twenty persons are employed specifically in this area. Topics under investigation by the staff include fluid balance, diabetics, the effects of vitamin A on cancer cells, thrombosis, Alzheimer's disease, senility, malaria and osteoporosis, which Senator Zakharov referred to, as well as respiratory and bowel conditions, which are common problems facing the aged. Of course, the general problems facing aged persons are matters for the State public hospital systems which provide similar types of services and facilities. There are 70,000 elderly women who are entitled to treatment by the Department of Veterans' Affairs, either because of their own war service or because they are war widows. They benefit directly from the expertise of Veterans' Affairs doctors and specialists who are employed in the repatriation hospital system. The basis of our experience in that area is then disseminated by the contribution of articles to medical journals. I think one can say that there is a general concern by the Government, at both Commonwealth and State level. We do whatever we can, having regard to the financial resources available to us, to provide the best possible care for persons in the aged category. Senator SIDDONS —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I remind him of this question which he asked in the Senate of the Minister representing the Treasurer on 16 December 1982: (1) Is the Treasurer aware that the 1982 Report of Mr Holmes a Court's Bell Group Limited showed the unusual result of net profit after tax . . . exceeding net profit before tax . . . (2) Is the Treasurer further aware that the tax of approximately $4.6 million that would normally have been payable on the net profit for 1981-82 was reduced to a negative figure because of net tax benefits of $5.9 million from sources such as profit on sale of investment and plant, and rebatable dividends a good deal of which arose not from normal productive business efforts but from sallies into the share market and takeovers. (3) Will the Treasurer make a statement explaining- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is making his question very long. He is giving a lot of information. I suggest that he come to the point. Senator SIDDONS —Senator Evans went on to ask whether-- The PRESIDENT —I ask the honourable senator to paraphrase. Senator SIDDONS —Senator Evans went on to ask whether it was fair to the pay as you earn taxpayer to be asked to pay tax when a large corporate raider could get away with paying no tax. Senator Evans also asked the Minister representing the Treasurer-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the honourable senator to come to the point of his question. Senator SIDDONS —Thank you, Mr President. I will do so. I would like to know, in view of Senator Evans's concerns in 1982, whether he agrees with the Government's refusal to inquire into the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd takeover, whether he is still worried about the money lost to the tax system through takeovers and, therefore, whether he would support moves to abolish negative gearing for takeovers. Senator GARETH EVANS —The question in December 1982 was a darned sight better than the one we have just heard today, not least because it clearly secured some results, whereas this one will not. The question in 1982 was directed, of course, among other things, to the anomalies that then existed in the law of capital gains tax as it applied to share transactions of this kind. That is, of course, one of the things on which this Government has been keenest and swiftest to move. Senator Puplick —Where is the legislation? Senator GARETH EVANS —The drafting of the legislation leaves something to be desired, but the passion with which we espouse the policy cause has left nothing at all to be desired. The particular matters to which Senator Siddons referred as having preoccupied us in 1982 have no resemblance to the particular scenario that has unfolded on this occasion. Senator Siddons —Nonsense. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am indebted to Senator Siddons for describing that response of mine as nonsense. The difficulty is to answer any question in detail at this point without getting into the restrictions on the communication of information which have afflicted, and no doubt will continue to afflict, the Government's presentation of its response on this matter. The short point is that the Government, as was announced today, does not believe that there is any public interest issue involving the revenue or anything else involved in this case such as would justify the Government's intervention on the basis of the very extensive knowledge which is available to us at this point in time. Senator CROWLEY —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Health been drawn to newspaper reports today about the Australian Medical Association urging doctors to `cease bulk billing and ignore fees set by the Federal Government'? What are the consequences of the AMA and its 18,000 members following the above advice? Will it mean increased costs to individual patients-I am presuming that doctors are not planning to reduce their fees-and what are the implications for Medicare and the Government? Senator GRIMES —The Australian Medical Association made that call in a statement that it put out announcing that it would refuse to participate in the 1986 medical fees inquiry. In this extraordinary statement the AMA claimed on the one hand that rebates paid for services provided by general practitioners to pensioners and others were too low. Yet, on the other hand, it refuses to participate in an inquiry to look at those fees. From memory I think it had been willing to participate in this arrangement since 1966. In fact, I think in the last two years medical fees as a result of the inquiry have increased by something over 16 per cent. These increases are decided on as a result of the independent annual reviews that are carried out by Mr McKenzie. It is not clear from the statement put out by the Australian Medical Association just why this year it wants to take its bat and ball and go home. The AMA claims that it has made this decision because the inquiry has been delayed. However, it knew of and was consulted about those delays by the Minister for Health and the Department of Health. The main reason for the delays was deciding what the terms of reference would be. Now that that has been decided-and it is my understanding that the AMA has not too much complaint about the terms of reference-it is difficult to understand why it will not take part in the inquiry. It may be that it is unwilling to let a proper arbitral body look at the fees that its members charge. Of course, one of the difficulties facing the medical profession is that there is a much increased number of medical practitioners in this country. In particular, we have a greatly increased number of general practitioners. It is quite interesting to drive around Sydney, particularly at weekends, and find surgeries with lights on at night. Surgeries are open all day. It is almost like having Kentucky Fried GPs around the place. I assume that that is a result of increased numbers. The thing that fascinates me about some of my medical colleagues is that they are the greatest arguers for market forces to control industry until those forces affect their own industry. It seems to me that the large numbers of medical practitioners and GPs want to maintain or actually increase their relatively high fees and maintain their income despite the fact that there are many more of them per patient than there used to be. That position, of course, cannot be sustained. As my colleague Dr Blewett has said, if medical practitioners want a guaranteed income, the Government is certainly happy to talk to them about the salaried medical service and about getting more of them into a salaried medical service. I think it is a bit unfortunate that the medical profession has taken this attitude. If its members are unwilling to go before a properly constituted arbitration system, if they wish to go ahead charging fees but, in particular, if they wish to do what the AMA wants them to do-and that is stop the time honoured tradition of charging pensioners only the standard pensioner fee-of course there will be increased costs to some patients and some considerable disability to some patients. There will be increased costs to the health service generally in this country, which cannot be justified. Governments of any political persuasion under those circumstances would be forced to take action as a result of irresponsible activity like that, but I think we will wait and see whether good sense prevails in the medical profession in the next few weeks. Senator ARCHER —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Science seen a recent report concerning the Commission for the Future? The report quotes Dr Shirley Smith, one of the organisation's commissioners, as describing the organisation as, firstly, a bureaucratic mess and, secondly, contrary to its stated aims, as merely preaching to the converted. Is the Minister not concerned at this report? What action does the Government plan to remedy this obviously serious situation? Senator BUTTON —Any person or organisation who has those words used about them, of course, would be concerned. I have not seen the comments by Dr Shirley Smith and have no comment to make about them. They could well be true. On the other hand, they could be false. I will refer the question to the Minister for Science and see whether he has any more elucidating comment which he would like to make in addition to what I have already said. Senator BLACK —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry: In view of this Friday's proposed meeting between the Federal Minister for Primary Industry and his Queensland counterpart to discuss financial support for the Queensland sugar industry, can the Minister advise the Senate whether there are any encouraging signs that a support package for the industry may soon be finalised, in view of the Queensland Government's continued attempts to distort the facts on sugar industry assistance and to ignore that State's substantial responsibility to the industry? Senator WALSH —Senator Black's question referred to `any encouraging signs'. I note that there is in today's Australian Financial Review and in the Courier-Mail, and possibly in some other newspapers for all I know, a report of a statement apparently made by the Queensland Government or the Premier within the last couple of days. Frankly, I am not sure what it means, but the Australian Financial Review quotes the Premier as saying that the Queensland Government would provide up to $8m a year for the next three years to assist the industry with interest and stockholdings and interest on advance payments. I am not sure what that means, but the report goes on to say that he remained adamant that his Government would not contribute to a price support scheme. Of course, from the very beginning a basic condition of the Commonwealth package, which has been on the table now for about seven months-six months anyway-was that Commonwealth money for price support had to be matched by the Queensland Government. That condition has been agreed by the New South Wales Government. It has not been agreed by the Queensland Government and, if the Australian Financial Review report is correct, still has not been agreed by the Queensland Government. However, I suppose it is in one sense encouraging because I note that in the Townsville Daily Bulletin today the Premier is quoted as saying `We have gone beyond what was suggested before. This is actual money', thereby acknowledging the essentially fraudulent nature of the Queensland Government's previous offer which was, according to the Queensland Government, to provide $170m, which was loan money on which some interest subsidy may be paid and which over a period of years may have totalled $24m but certainly was nowhere near $170m. So in the Premier's own words this time, the Queensland Government, for whatever purpose I am not quite sure, is putting up what the Premier calls actual money instead of the $170m of phoney money he previously offered. The $170m is a bit like Schrian Oskar's oil mill, Milan Brych's cancer cure and Stephen Horvath's hydrogen engine-they exist only in the mind of the Premier and have no substance in reality. Recently there were discussions on deregulation between the Commonwealth Minister for Primary Industry and Queensland growers and millers. Another essential part of the Commonwealth Government's package was deregulation of the industry, which has been stultified by the Queensland Government and which has been precluded from reaching the levels of economic efficiency through economies of scale that its technical efficiency makes feasible. Putting an end to that strangulating web of regulations has always been a condition of the Commonwealth package. I understand that further industry meetings on that subject are being held this week in Queensland. In view of the Queensland Government's antics in the past, and directly relevant to Senator Black's reference to a cause for optimism, the Commonwealth will be closely examining the Queensland proposal when it is received to ensure that it too is not illusory, as the previous Queensland Government propositions have been. On Friday Mr Kerin will be meeting his Queensland counterpart in Brisbane in another attempt to negotiate a suitable contribution from the Queensland Government. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate able to advise us on the present situation with regard to the Customs Officers Association industrial dispute? Will he also advise us as to whether there is any likelihood of an early resolution of the problem in New South Wales and Victoria? Senator BUTTON —The Customs officers current industrial dispute purports to relate to the question of body searches of passengers and a rule or measure that was introduced by the Customs management providing for senior officers to authorise, be present at or, in fact, conduct body searches themselves. The action taken by the Customs Officers Association in respect of this matter, which was the subject of some negotiation, has been described by some people as spurious. I neither add to nor detract from that description; I merely report it. I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association, which also has a coverage of membership within the Customs personnel, has been very critical of the action taken by the Customs Officers Association. While it is not appropriate for me to give any weight to this fact in my answer, there is speculation that much of this disputation revolves around competition for membership between the two industrial organisations. A day or two ago I received a report on the matter before it spread to Melbourne Airport. I do not have up to date information about the matter. I will try to get that information for the honourable senator as soon as possible and will advise her. I should add that the question of coverage of the respective organisations for Customs officers is a matter which is currently awaiting hearing before a full bench of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. I understand that there have been some difficulties regarding the Commission's capacity to arrange a full bench and that matter is being pursued to see whether the hearing might be brought on as quickly as possible. Senator VALLENTINE —I refer my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. What specific measures has the Australian Government taken in any forum to persuade the United States of America, with which we are purported to have a special relationship, to seriously consider supporting and extending the Soviet Union's moratorium on the testing of nuclear weapons? Does the Government endorse the view expressed by the Ambassador for Disarmament, Mr Butler, that we would not waste our time on an empty unilateral gesture and that such a moratorium is unverifiable, even though it is supported by such an eminent group as International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War which received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985, and even though Mr Butler now supports establishing an international verification agency because he believes that verification is capable of solution at a technical rather than a political level? I refer again to the first part of my question which I am now asking for the third time, and I am seeking a direct answer. If the Government has done nothing to persuade a positive response to the Soviet moratorium, which will soon expire, I challenge it to have the guts to say so. Senator GARETH EVANS —This is a pretty heavy question for a Quaker, as Senator Walsh just reminded me. The Government's position on the Soviet Union's moratorium on nuclear testing was conveyed in an answer to an earlier question without notice which I received from Senator Vallentine and which I had incorporated into Hansard on 20 February 1986. The relevant part of that answer ran as follows: 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 a comprehensive test ban treaty. 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. As that answer clearly states, Australia welcomes any interruption in nuclear testing programs. But a moratorium is not the Australian objective in this field. Our objective is a comprehensive test ban treaty. The long history of the quest for an end to nuclear testing clearly indicates to the Government that a comprehensive test ban treaty will simply not be concluded until it is demonstrated that compliance with such a ban can be verified with high confidence. The Government is seeking to have put in place the means of monitoring compliance and in this way to put beyond doubt the capacity to verify compliance with a comprehensive test ban treaty. As to the reference to Mr Butler's remarks, I have not seen a formal record of the comments to which Senator Vallentine refers, but if he has been reported accurately, those remarks, when looked at against the background of the Government's policy and the responses that I have indicated, are clearly not inconsistent with the thrust of that policy. Senator MISSEN —Is the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce aware of a recent speech by Dr Keith Boardman, the Chairman of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, to the Australian Industrial Research Group's symposium in Adelaide, in which he expressed a growing concern that takeovers had reached a point where they were acting against the national interest and that long term industrial growth was being sacrificed for short term corporate survival, including the threat that that imposes on research and development? Secondly, is he also aware of the concern expressed by Sir James Balderstone that the proposed takeover of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd by Mr Holmes a Court may cause a cutting off of the substantial BHP research and development program in order to add to short term, pre-tax profit? Thirdly, if so, is the Government acting irresponsibly in not presenting urgent legislation to the Parliament to act against raiders who borrow large sums at home and abroad and bank on some institutions selling out in order to show quick, short term results in a competitive situation? Fourthly, when will the Government show some leadership in this situation? Senator BUTTON —Senator Missen has asked a question in four parts. The first part is whether I am aware of a speech by Dr Keith Boardman at a symposium in Adelaide in which he expressed concern about takeovers. The answer to that part of the question is yes; I was at the same seminar. He then asked whether I was aware that Sir James Balderstone had expressed concern about the fact that if a Holmes a Court takeover of BHP is successful, Mr Holmes a Court may cut off the BHP research and development program in order to add to short term profit. Yes, I am aware of both those expressions of concern and of the views expressed by both those gentlemen. Having said that, I must say that I am appalled by Senator Missen's lack of care which is unusual in a person of his erudition, sensibility and care about the use of the English language. The third and fourth parts of the question simply do not follow from the first two parts. I was asked whether I was aware that these two gentlemen had views and, if so, would I not agree that the Government was acting irresponsibly. The Government has not acted irresponsibly in this matter. I think it has acted, in a sense, with great care. Generally the Government believes that takeovers of public companies are matters that are normally left to the judgment of the market, subject to compliance with the takeover code and other relevant legislation-a matter which is currently being tested, in the interests of shareholders, in an action in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Senator Missen also raises the question of the revenue implications and the effects of negatively geared takeovers. I can inform him that although there are a number of facts which I could put to the Senate about this matter which would not encourage the view that Senator Missen implies in his question, the Government is examining those matters and a decision will be taken in due course. The Government is examining those matters in the context of the implications for companies generally, which was the point raised by Dr Keith Boardman. Dr Boardman did not make his comments, as I understand them, in the context of the current BHP matter. Senator Missen —I did not say that he did. Senator BUTTON —No, I know the honourable senator did not and I am not suggesting that. In general, the Government will look at those matters and the Treasurer will bring forward a submission to Cabinet on those issues in the near future. Having said that, let me just return to the anxiety expressed by Senator Missen and the view expressed by Sir James Balderstone. I personally take the view-and I believe the Government does too-that it is not the Government's business to arbitrate in competing claims, some of them somewhat wild, made by protagonists in a company takeover which would not be described as friendly. Things have been said on both sides and I do not think it is the Government's function to arbitrate in those matters. However, the Government saw as its function the need to be satisfied in respect of a number of matters relating to the proposed takeover of BHP by Mr Holmes a Court. The Government identified two interests which were of concern to the Commonwealth and to taxpayers. The first was the continuing viability of the steel industry and commitments to the steel plan. The second was the question of any adverse effects on the revenue base to which I have already referred. Because the Government was concerned about those matters in the particular case relating to BHP, it went to endless trouble to try to satisfy itself about those matters and, to the best of its ability, it has done so. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that the Presiding Officers and the Public Service Board, as respondents to the relevant industrial award, have lodged with the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission a formal notification of an industrial dispute within the Commonwealth Parliamentary Refreshment Rooms. In taking this action we are seeking an early cessation of the campaign of strikes and to open the way for the aspirations of staff for higher wages to be properly considered and resolved in harmony with national wage case principles. We have requested that the dispute be listed for hearing by the Commission as a matter of urgency. The Speaker and I have called a meeting of the Joint House Committee at 8.30 a.m. tomorrow. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(3.39) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. This dispute has been the cause of many stoppages which have been notified at the last minute to members of the Senate and House of Representatives. We knew late this morning that there was to be a strike and that no services were to be available over the luncheon period. Presumably this situation is continuing. I wish to express the view that, although this may be a continuing dispute, it is high time that this Parliament looked at the question of privatisation-if I can use that terrible word-of the parliamentary refreshment services. Clearly, we are not getting the appropriate services here. We are being used-- Senator Puplick —As the meat in the sandwich. Senator MISSEN —Yes, that is right. That is the appropriate expression. Senator Chaney —It is doing wonders for the health of us all. Senator MISSEN —It is perhaps doing wonders for our health because it means that we are going out to have a good meal elsewhere. However, I do not think the cost of Commonwealth cars and the other expenses caused by the strikes are doing good. I think it is high time that this matter was brought to a head. If the parliamentary dining room cannot cope with the needs of the Parliament we should find people of sense outside in private enterprise who will do so. I believe we should place on record that we will not meekly sit down and take this forever. Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(3.42) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This is the third report of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal on the establishment of remote commercial television services. This report covers a region which takes in most of south-east Australia throughout the States of New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania. In particular it concerns those regions which presently are unserved or underserved by existing commercial television services. Unlike the areas covered in the previous reports which we have dealt with in this chamber-the first of which concerned itself with the south-west region of Western Australia and the second one with the remote north-east region of Queensland-this is an area in which there already is penetration to a certain degree by a certain number of television services. This is a zone where it is not so much a matter of there being no television services as a matter of there being limited television services. It is an area which is underserviced rather than unserviced. In New South Wales and Tasmania over 50 per cent of the geographic area is already served by existing commercial television stations; only about 20 per cent of the geographic area of Victoria is presently unserved. Therefore these remaining areas will be part of the remote community television service. The decision of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal is that the licence should be granted to Satellite South East Pty Ltd, which is a consortium made up of 12 existing broadcasters, each of whom hold an 8.33 per cent interest in Satellite South East Pty Ltd. The Tribunal has been adopting this as a general mechanism. Whereas in the south-west of Western Australia the decision was to provide the licence to the Golden West Network, which was in fact a sole operator, in the second report dealing with the remote north-east region of Queensland the licence was given to Queensland Satellite Television, which was a consortium of 11 companies. It is interesting to note that between the second and third reports the Tribunal has managed to bring down a unanimous report concerning the awarding of the licence whereas in the Queensland report there was in fact a dissenting opinion by one of the members of the Broadcasting Tribunal. Therefore it is pleasing to see that the process of the awarding of remote commercial television service licences continues. However, it raises a number of matters which the Government has still failed to address. The first and most important of these is the extent to which these licences are to be integrated with remote area radio services. I believe that in a number of areas in fact we are jumping ahead to the provision of television services in advance of the provision of radio services, which I think should have been given priority. The second area which the Government is still failing to address is the ownership and control provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act. This is an area which has been very much complicated by the entry of consortia into the granting of licences. The Government needs clearly to address the ownership and control provisions. I understand that in fact an investigation is under way but we have no details as to the parameters of that investigation or, indeed, its time-table. It is another area of continued indecision by the Government in critical areas of broadcasting and the provision of television services. This report also gives me the opportunity to note the appointment of Ms Deirdre O'Connor as the new Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal as successor to Mr David Jones, who is to take up an appointment to the Bench in Victoria. It gives me the opportunity to place on record my personal tribute to Mr Jones for having conducted the affairs of the Tribunal throughout a most difficult time with a considerable degree of skill-although I note that it is unfortunate during the last couple of years the extent to which the Tribunal has become nothing more than yet another lawyers' playground. I hope that Ms O'Connor has continued success in the very difficult task which faces the Tribunal in trying to get some sense and some rationality into the development of broadcasting services in Australia, which are clearly in need of major overhaul, and the Broadcasting and Television Act, which is clearly in need of a major rewrite. I shall look forward to future reports from the Tribunal at least attempting to come to grips with some of these matters once the Government gets off its collective backside and gives a bit of direction to the industry and to the Tribunal about the way in which it sees services developing in the future and, in particular, the use of new broadcasting technology. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(3.47) —I thank Senator Puplick for raising the subject of David Jones, the former Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, who has now become a County Court judge-the first solicitor in Victoria to achieve that honour. I think it is justly deserved. He is a man who brought a great deal of dignity and sense to the job as Tribunal Chairman. I wish to place that fact on record. I also wish the new Chairman, Deidre O'Connor, all the best. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(3.48) —I wish to say a few words on the third report of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal on remote commercial television services. As Senator Puplick said, this report deals with the south-east region. It grants the remote commercial television service licence for the south-east region to the regional consortium Satellite South East Pty Ltd. It is a consortium of a dozen existing regional television stations in the appropriate areas of Australia. As the report says, the licence has been granted on the basis that SSE has demonstrated that it is not a monopoly and that it has the technical, managerial and financial capabilities to operate the licence. I welcome the decision. I am familiar with some of the stations that go to make up the consortium and I believe that they are technically and in other ways a very fine group of stations and fully deserving of this licence for the south-east region although, as I understand, it is not a licence that will do other than merely provide a very valuable community service to the people in remote regions. The economic viability of such a licence is by no means an assured thing. There are a couple of points in the report to which I want to draw attention because I believe this report leads to other issues which still have to be resolved by the Government and which the Government has not yet addressed or turned its mind sufficiently towards. I draw the attention of the Senate to the conclusion contained in paragraph 5.19 on page 85 of the report, which states: Thus it is apparent that the battle lines have again been drawn over program supply and distribution. The Networks take the position, with respect to programs for which they have the Australian rights (which generally is over half the programming televised by the regional stations), that those programs will not be available to regional stations where they propose as part of the delivery chain to use RCTS as an SPS. SPS, of course, is a satellite programming service. That is an important statement, I believe. It contrasts very sharply with the attitude of the regional television stations that they should be allowed to negotiate program rights independent of distribution, and so after negotiating a fair commercial price for their rights they can make their own plans so far as distribution is concerned. The other paragraph of the report to which I draw attention is paragraph 6.56 on page 101, which states: The Tribunal draws attention to its conclusions in Chapter 5 on the issue of RCTS/SPS and program rights and distribution. The Tribunal believes that they are important issues to be addressed by the Government in its review of the ownership and control rules- a matter to which Senator Puplick referred- equalisation of services and regulation of networking. We have a situation in which the Government is soon going to have to take some decisions that will have a major effect on television in this country questions of ownership and control, networking provisions, and the role and place in Australia of the networks compared with the regional television stations. I believe the Government has a major responsibility, when it does start looking at these matters and taking these decisions, to place full weight on the important role that the regional television network channels in Australia play in the overall context of television in this country. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(3.53) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I rise to comment briefly on the Australian Trade Union Training Authority report for a number of reasons, not the least being some association of my own with the Authority in that I have been involved with the Authority in South Australia and have contributed briefly to some of the courses there. I recollect a very hamfisted piece of manoeuvering in the Senate last year on the occasion of this paper being tabled; as a result of a motion moved by Senator Lewis we were able to speak to this very report for, I think some two hours. So we have comprehensively reported on the Trade Union Training Authority in the past, and it is almost for old times sake that I feel we should recall to the Senate the 1984-85 report. This is the tenth report from TUTA and it is very interesting to note that it has conducted 4,290 courses for over 80,000 trade unionists throughout Australia. That may not convey much to people, I suppose, but for those who have addressed the question of the training of people in the workforce and in the trade union movement, those figures represent a wonderful achievement and a tremendous gain, particularly on what was available prior to 1975 which was, in effect, nothing. The report details some of the events and some of the steps taken to address the difficulties, or perhaps the changes necessary, after an examination of the Trade Union Training Authority and its management structures. That process was underway, but it was not contained in last year's annual report. In this report we have some summary of the events, the procedures to that point, and statements by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) on how far the review and examination, and the decisions taken as a result of that review and examination, had been put in place, and they will shortly be implemented if they have not already been. The report states: Mr Willis said that the government remained committed to the support of TUTA's work. ``An efficient, progressive and well-led trade union movement is of crucial importance to all Australians'', he said. I think that goes very much to a dimension that sometimes is not acknowledged, the importance of exactly that-efficiency, progressivity and properly educated trade union leaders. We cannot possibly have adequate negotiations between one group that has all information or all responsibility, and one group that has most insufficient of any of that. I think the Trade Union Training Authority has contributed very much to a more focused and programmed educational program for trade unionists-certainly judging from the numbers, which have all increased. The report lists the number of people who have made use of the courses and the number has increased. It is quite clear that workers are taking advantage of the courses provided. Another point which ties in to that appears under the heading of `Occupational Health & Safety'. The Executive Board's policy has always limited the amount of trade union training in occupational health and safety to about 15 per cent of the Authority's resources so as not to reduce education or training opportunities in other program areas. This report states that the actual achievement was 16.9 per cent. I suppose, overall, that is not too different from 15 per cent. The report goes on to say that, now we have a National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, it will and has started to provide resources both for the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Confederation of Australian Industry to promote and conduct health and safety training in industry. I draw the attention of honourable senators to the fact that that resource goes not only to the ACTU but also to the CAI. The Government clearly acknowledges, through the funding from the Commission, the importance of properly trained occupational health and safety workers on both the management and workers side of the equation. It is no good, as I have said before when talking about the importance of trade union training in general, to have one significant part of a negotiating team clearly disadvantaged. I am pleased to be able to draw the attention of the Senate to the report. I recommend it. It is a small but very well printed little document that goes very much to acknowledging the changes that have happened in the Trade Union Training Authority. It goes into much more elaborate detail on the course work provided and the number of unionists who have taken up the opportunity to make use of those courses provided. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(3.57) —I would like to say something about the Australian Trade Union Training Authority report. The profile of unions usually presented to the community is a distorted one because it highlights their role as parties to conflict. This is a distorted profile because the conduct of industrial conflict is only one of the many roles unions play. If one looks at pages 28 to 30 of this annual report one will see what is meant by that statement. The courses conducted at the colleges that TUTA runs include such matters as drug and alcohol in industry, the accord, advocacy techniques, training techniques and so on. It is important that unions representing employees be led, and led efficiently, with people trained in the various areas, they need to be trained to conduct the affairs of the unions properly. In any industrial area the welfare of the workers and of the enterprise in which the workers work must be taken into account, as well as the public welfare and the public good. Those three factors are crucial when one is considering what is an appropriate outcome to an industrial matter. Since the workers are represented in the vast number of cases by their unions, it is important that the people who conduct and run the unions, who form the executive of those unions, be skilled and learned, and therefore can conduct the affairs of the union not only for the workers sake but also for the public welfare as a whole. I mention also the list of unions, set out on pages 30 to 32 of the report, which are represented at TUTA courses. If one reads through the list, one sees the number of unions that are never heard of in the public arena because they do not provide the grist for the publicity that is usually given to unions-that of being parties to an industrial dispute or conflict. It is very salutary for us all to read the unions set out in that list which conduct the affairs of their members in an efficient and benign way-benign not only for the sake of the workers but also for the public as a whole. While we have places like the Trade Union Training Authority educating the executives of unions and the people on the shop floor to conduct these very important affairs in a better way, the more apparent is the need for such an institution. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(4.02) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The first annual report of the Accounting Standards Review Board, although only a small document, gives evidence of moves already under way to establish approved accounting standards in Australia. The Board was established in 1983 by the Ministerial council for Companies and Securities with the expressed purpose of establishing a system for the approval of accounting standards in accordance with predetermined criteria and also to impose obligations on directors and auditors of companies in respect of these particular standards. Directors of companies will be required to comply with an applicable approved accounting standard unless they can prove that compliance with that standard would result in the records not showing a true and fair view of their financial transactions. In the discharge of its functions the Board also has power to determine priorities in consideration of proposed accounting standards, to review and report on standards referred to it and to conduct public hearings and invite public submissions into any aspect of its public functions. It also has a number of other functions. The Accounting Standards Review Board to date has received several submissions from the Australian Accounting Research Foundation and the Australian Shareholders Association. It has set itself a target of exposing nine standards for comment and public scrutiny by the end of this year. These include accounting for leases, disclosure of revenue, accounting for goodwill and accounting for the revaluation of non-current assets. I wish to raise one issue about the disclosure of revenue. Each year companies are required to prepare, among other documents, a balance sheet and a revenue statement. I believe that in preparing a revenue statement there is a recognised concept of matching costs with revenue applicable to that particular period. I therefore find it somewhat strange that the accounting profession has been so tardy in not requiring its members and companies to separate interest charges into two components-those relating to the fixed capital component and those relating to the working capital component. I think that the revenue statement should show only the proportion of the interest charge which is a cost for the period under review, such as increasing current assets or a charge in the working capital component. I believe that we should distinguish between that and the fixed component which shows interest charges which give rise to changes in the capital structure of the company and increase the fixed assets. This matter has received some comment of late in relation to taxation issues. I believe that the separation of interest charges should be given some consideration as part of the Board's exposure draft to ensure that there is a proper matching of costs with revenue, especially interest costs. Unless this separation of interest costs is made we will perpetuate the artificial distortions between the treatment of interests and dividends in company accounts. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(4.05) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I regret that the Building Research and Development Advisory Committee report demonstrates what a problem the building industry generally is in. The housing industry is in a bureaucratic mess, which makes it terribly expensive and slow and creates numerous problems on the way through. In line with what Senator Cooney said a short while ago, I think he would concede that in the area of commercial building there is an industrial problem of considerable magnitude which has a great effect on the nature of the construction industry. I regret that the main conclusions of the report-I have read it fairly quickly-seem to be, firstly, that it requires another committee to be set up and, secondly, that it requires additional funds to be provided by the industry to put together another secretariat to produce more information. I do not find in the report a list of inquiries that have been held into the various aspects of the building industry over the past decade, but such a list would be relevant so that we could see what has happened with all the inquiries that have taken place so far. About five years ago we had a housing cost inquiry. It was a lengthy inquiry which did a very good job. It produced three large volumes which sit on the shelf. To the best of my knowledge, not a thing transpired to change the situation in the house building industry. The report refers to the question of non-government resources. I suppose we could take this to be a voluntary or compulsory taxation on users, but whichever way one expresses it that is what it is talking about. Frankly, I cannot see that just the collection and dissemination of information will change anything very much. It seems that the people who put together this report are placing a lot of faith in that aspect of it because it is probably the only aspect that has not been tried or recommended by a whole variety of other organisations and inquiries. That may well be partly as a result of the composition of the particular committee. It comprised very eminent people, but they may have been too eminent. There were no house builders or real estate people amongst them, but there were university people and other people at that level who may not have fully grasped the real problem in the grass roots organisation. There is about two-thirds of a page of acro- nyms and abbreviations in the report, two-thirds of which relate to organisations which already are tied up with various aspects of research. The list includes the Division of Building Research, the National Building Technology Centre, the Central Investigation and Research Laboratory, the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Divisions of Chemical and Wood Technology, Energy Technology, Soils and Water and Land Resources, Telecom Australia Research Laboratories, and pages more of organisations which contribute to this area already. It concerns me that because we have a problem of this magnitude and nothing has been done to this point the easy thing to do is to recommend that another committee be set up to concentrate on another problem area of the building industry, but it is, with great respect, unlikely to change anything that we do now. It will be expensive. It will be another secretariat and another tax on the industry. It will further slow down and make more difficult the operations of the building industry and of people trying to get buildings constructed. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator SHEIL(Queensland) —I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The time allocated under Sessional Orders for the consideration of government papers has now expired. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Ryan) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of all or several of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage, and the consideration of all or several of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole, and as would prevent the reading of the short titles only on every order for the reading of the Bills. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. First Readings Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(4.03) —I move: That the Bills be now read a first time. Debate (on motion by Senator Sheil) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Ryan) read a first time. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(4.04) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to protect Australia's heritage of cultural objects and to extend certain forms of protection to the cultural heritage of other nations. As a result of these steps, Australia will be able to accede to the 1970 UNESCO convention on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property. All nations possess objects which illustrate in unique or significant ways there history and culture. In Australia's case some of these objects date back beyond recorded history to the deep roots of aboriginal life; others relate to the period of exploration and settlement and to the progressive growth over the last two hundred years of a distinctively Australian society. In speaking of cultural objects I am not simply referring to works of art, although the cultural heritage obviously embraces paintings, prints, crafts, sculpture, manuscripts, books, furniture and other art objects. I am referring to the full range of cultural heritage material. This also includes stamps, coins, maps, military objects and technological objects, including machinery, scientific material, inventions, archaeological finds, artifacts from aboriginal life, Government records, important documents, photographs, films and television material. Rare and valuable cultural objects are increasingly sought after by collectors. In recent decades a thriving international market has developed with high prices being paid for rare objects. In some instances systematic looting of cultural treasurers is known to be organised by black-market operators in the big buying centres. The loss of material has reached crisis level in certain countries, particularly in the Third World, which has already suffered depletion at the hands of explorers, colonists, traders and missionaries. UNESCO has long been active in encouraging its member states to protect the finite and vulnerable evidence of their cultural histories. In 1970 UNESCO drew up a convention to deal with the question of illicit international trafficking in cultural treasures. Fifty-three nations have now become parties to this convention, which imposes treaty obligations to return important cultural objects illegally exported from other parties. The definition of cultural material given in the convention is broad, embracing archaeology, pre-history, history, literature, art and science and includes the range of material which I mentioned a moment ago. Although its primary focus is on illegal international traffic, the convention proposes other forms of protection, including a national inventory of protected cultural property, support for collecting institutions, rules for curatorial conduct, educational measures, controls on antique dealers and supervision of archaeological sites. Australia's decision to accede to the 1970 convention was announced by the Minister for Education to the general conference of UNESCO in Paris in October 1983. The Legislation before the house will put us in a position to do this. These steps have been long advocated by our museums, galleries, libraries and archives. The States are big holders of cultural collections and have a direct interest in this matter. I have been anxious to ensure therefore that whatever steps the Commonwealth took should be acceptable to the States. The proposals embodied in the Bill have the support of the States. Most of the protective measures set out in the 1970 convention have long been practised in Australia, both at Commonwealth and State levels. The Customs Act 1901 and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Heritage (Interim Protection) Act 1984 provide protection for certain categories of cultural material. The States and Territories have laws which affect the removal of objects from archaeological sites and regulate the operations of antique dealers. All governments in Australia support collecting institutions which fulfil many of the convention's objectives, namely conservation, security, presentation and public education. In general our record on protection of our cultural heritage is good and the responsibility is widely shared. In deciding how to approach the matter of accession to the 1970 convention the Government has taken the view that the Commonwealth should not attempt to subsume or replace arrangements already in hand at state or local level. However there are certain steps which must be taken at Commonwealth level before accession and those steps are the subject of this Bill. In summary the Bill provides for: New export and import controls to regulate the movement of important cultural objects. This will enable the establishment of reciprocal arrangements with other countries for the return of illegally exported material. A national heritage fund to help with the acquisition of important cultural objects prohibited from export and for associated purposes. New Administrative arrangements to manage these Commonwealth initiatives and maintain liaison with the States. Let me deal first with the export and import controls. I should say at the outset that the Government is not seeking to stop movement of all cultural material or even most of it. We are concerned only to see that those objects the export of which would constitute an irreparable loss to our cultural heritage remain in Australia. The categories of material to be protected are outlined in clause 7 of the Bill. A national cultural heritage control list will be drawn up, setting out these categories in greater detail, together with the criteria by which export controls will be exercised. The criteria will include such factors as age, rarity, quality, monetary value and extent of inclusion in public collections. The control list will distinguish between class A objects, namely those objects so rare and important as to be considered inalienable and class B objects which in certain circumstances may be given an export permit. Much of this material is already prohibited from export under the Customs Act and subject to seizure and forfeiture if an offence is committed. The relevant schedules of the Customs Act have been developed over many years, yet do not cover all categories of important cultural material. When the new control list is established the present regulations under the Customs Act will be appropriately amended. All the categories to be included in the control list will be prescribed by regulations, thus subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The control list will be widely circulated and people owning valuable objects will have every opportunity to inform themselves as to the nature of the export controls. In drawing up the arrangements for Australia we have studied Canada's experience with similar legislation. There, in any given year, less than twenty objects are prevented from export. Most of these are bought for display in public institutions or for return to tribal museums or communities in the case of Indian material. I would expect the Australian experience to be somewhat similar. The Act provides for strong sanctions against illegal export and attempted illegal export. Since we are concerned only with objects of great importance it is proper that people taking such objects out of the country without authority should be subject to heavy penalties. An object which has been exported unlawfully will be immediately forfeited to the Crown, so that we may move at once to institute recovery proceedings overseas. In the case of attempted illegal export, the object will be seized and liable to forfeiture. However, the owner will have the right to seek recovery for possession through the courts. Of course there will be certain instances in which international movement of important objects may be warranted for purposes of conservation, study, exhibition or display, or an owner may for a temporary period be residing in another country. In such circumstances conditional export permits may be issued. Given the range of cultural material for which permits may be sought, it will be necessary to have access to expert advice. A register of expert examiners will be established, including institutions whose professional staff will provide this service and individuals from academic, commercial and other backgrounds. If, despite the export controls, an important object is illegally exported from Australia and is subsequently found in a country which is already party to the 1970 convention, the Commonwealth will be able to seek the return of that material through official channels once Australia has become a party to the convention. This will occur as soon as possible after the Act is proclaimed. The import controls will apply only to important cultural material which has been imported into Australia without the requisite export authorisation from the country of origin. There will be no search of incoming luggage or freight. The import controls exist solely to enable Australia to respond if an official complaint is received from a foreign government that an illegally exported object has been brought to Australia. If a foreign government does not consider an object sufficiently important to lodge such a complaint, then we do not consider ourselves as having an obligation to protect that country's cultural property on its behalf. Although these controls relate essentially to Australian's treaty obligations under the 1970 convention, they will also make it possible for the government to provide this form of protection to countries which may not yet be party to the convention. An institution or individual buying an important cultural object from overseas will need to be satisfied that the requisite export authorisations have been issued in the country of origin. This is already the practice of all reputable collecting institutions and private collectors. In any case the interests of innocent third parties are safeguarded by the 1970 convention. A country requesting the return of an object is required by the convention to offer financial compensation to an innocent third party purchaser. I made reference earlier to the National Cultural Heritage Fund. The decision to establish the fund addresses two important matters of principle. The first is to ensure that important objects of the National Heritage which are barred from export should be readily available to the Australian public. Where objects are refused export permits, they will be acquired wherever possible for display in a public collection. The Fund will help facilitate these acquisitions. The second principle relates to the rights of owners. The Bill is designed to recognise an individual's right to enjoyment of property while establishing the nation's right to restrict the movement of that property where it represents an irreplaceable part of the cultural heritage. We realise that, by imposing export controls, we are in a sense intervening in the rights of individuals to dispose of property as they see fit. We therefore believe that a means should exist of helping an owner to reach a fair price on the local market for an object which he may have wished to sell internationally. The administration of this Act will require close co-operation between Commonwealth and State departments and authorities. A Committee will be established to assist in the administration of the new arrangements. The Committee will advise on the establishment of the National Cultural Heritage Control List, maintenance of a register of expert examiners, advice on the operation of the export and import controls and on allocations from the fund. The Committee will also provide advice periodically on the general situation with regard to the Movable Cultural Heritage and on policy issues which may require resolution. It is intended that the Committee will operate in a flexible manner and will respond readily to special applications. It is essential that the membership of the Committee should reflect the diverse professions with involvement in Cultural Heritage matters. I therefore propose to ensure that the membership of the Committee includes representatives of archives, museums, libraries and galleries, as well as universities, which hold large cultural collections. Other people will be appointed with an eye to relevant experience and access to the professional expertise which will be required to run the new arrangements efficiently. The Committee will also include a nominee of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. This recognises that special provisions may be required for the protection of our unique Aboriginal heritage and in particular rare artworks or secret/sacred objects. I propose to consult on these matters with my colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in order to ensure that the administrative arrangements will accommodate the particular needs of Aboriginal tradition and society. The costs of implementing the legislation will not be great, approximately $50,000 for administrative costs for 1985-86, and approximately $200,000 for 1986-87. Both staff and costs will be accommodated within my existing departmental resources and approved portfolio targets. An important component of initial costs will be an educative program to inform the public of this protection to cultural heritage. The amount to be provided to the fund will be a matter for Government in the budget context. Finally let me stress that the convention is not concerned with restitution of cultural property taken from this country in the past or brought here in past years from other countries without proper authority. The restitution of cultural property is the subject of other Unesco efforts, but it is not the subject of the 1970 convention nor the purpose of this legislation. Rather the concern is to draw a line across history to ensure that, in future years, transfers of important and valuable cultural objects from one country to another take place in a legal and orderly fashion and that sanctions imposed will discourage illicit trafficking in cultural material. People all over the world are becoming increasingly aware of the precious and finite nature of their cultural heritage. Australians are now more conscious of the distinctive experiences and values of their national life. Those objects which uniquely represent that heritage should, wherever possible, remain in Australia for Australians to enjoy. There are too many countries whose citizens have to travel to museums and galleries in other lands in order to see the vestiges of their national heritage. We cannot allow this to happen to Australia. This legislation is designed to ensure that it does not happen. Mr President, I commend this Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Ryan) read a first time. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(4.05) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill provides for amendments to the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983. The amendments arise from the experience of the operation of the Act since it came into effect on 5 March 1984. The amendments clarify certain functions and powers of the Director as well as provide amendments to the existing Act where the existing provisions have required review since the Act came into effect. Clause 3 of the Bill clarifies the circumstances in which the Director is authorised to present indictments in respect of offences not included in the committal order made by the magistrate. The amendments provide that, where a committal order is made in respect of one or more offences, the Director is authorised to present an indictment in respect of:- (a) any other offence for which a person was examined (that is, the subject of the committal proceedings) but not committed for trial; or (b) any other offence founded on facts or evidence disclosed in the course of the committal proceedings. In addition, the amendments provide that the Director is authorised to present an indictment where no committal order has been made provided the defendant consents. However, except in the circumstances described, the Director is not authorised to present an indictment where no committal order was made at all or for an offence not included in the committal order. Accordingly, the effect of these amendments is that the Attorney-General will decide whether an indictment should be presented where no committal proceedings have been conducted, except where the defendant consents to an indictment being presented in such circumstances, or no committal order made. Pursuant to this clause, sub-section 6 (3) of the Principal Act is also amended to make it clear that the operation of an instrument referred to in sub-section 6 (3) does not depend upon publication in the Gazette. The amendment will also permit the delaying of gazettal where public gazettal in relation to a particular person may prejudice the investigation of that person. Clause 4 of the Bill amends section 9 of the Principal Act to provide that the Director may act as counsel or solicitor for an authority of the Commonwealth where that authority is a party to a proceeding in respect of a matter- (a) that has arisen out of, or is connected with, the performance of any of the functions of the Director; or (b) that may result in the performance by the Director of such a function. This amendment will enable the Director to act on behalf of persons who may be the subject of civil proceedings in connection with matters in which the Director has advised or may advise. An example of such a situation is where the issue of a search warrant has been challenged. Clause 5 of the Bill inserts a new section 15A to the Principal Act to permit police prosecutors to represent the Director in remote localities in proceedings for summary conviction of a person or in connection with formal matters related to committal proceedings. The purpose of the amendment is to avoid the cost and expense of sending the director's legal staff to remote localities for relatively minor hearings. In relation to the amendment proposed in clause 6 of the Bill, provision was made in the civil remedies amendments to the Act, by virtue of the Director of Public Prosecutions Amendment Act 1985, for the prohibition of particular evidence or information in proceedings for civil remedies referred to in those amendments. The new sub-section 16A (1A) provides for a similar prohibition of publication of evidence or information in proceedings for the recovery of pecuniary penalties. The purpose of the amendment referred to in clause 7 of the Bill is to enable the Director, with the approval of the Attorney-General or a person authorised in writing by the Attorney-General, to employ persons under term contracts. The terms and conditions of such persons are subject to the approval of the Public Service Board. The amendment provided for in clause 8 removes certain controls from the Director's capacity to engage consultants and other contractors for services. On 2 July 1984 the Public Service Board notified all Departments and authorities that they should make decisions to engage consultants and other contractors for services without reference to the Board within the financial limits set out in the Budget process for such expenditure. Since the date of the notification Departmental Secretaries have been responsible for the engagement of consultants and other contractors for services without reference to the Board. The amendment removes the requirement that the engagement of consultants by the Director be approved by the Attorney-General or a person authorised by the Attorney-General in writing for that purpose. Clause 8 of the Bill introduced into the House of Representatives contained a further amendment removing an additional requirement that the terms and conditions of such engagements be approved by the Public Service Board. However, an identical amendment was made to the Act in the Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendment Bill 1985 which secured passage through the Parliament late in 1985. Accordingly, this further amendment was deleted in the House of Representatives and is not before the the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Sheil) adjourned. Assent to the following Bills reported: Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Amendment Bill 1986 Federal Airports Corporation Bill 1986 Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Bill 1986 Judiciary Amendment Bill 1986. Consideration resumed from 20 February. HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION BILL 1985 The Bill. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(4.18) —I have a number of questions that I would like to put to the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), who is at the table, with regard to the powers residing in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to investigate the infringement by State legislation of rights listed in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I point out that the Covenant is, in fact, appended to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill. I want to clarify whether HREOC has the power to operate independently in investigating the infringement by a State bureaucracy or by State legislation of any of the rights stipulated in the Covenant or whether it can act only in conjunction with the Australian Bill of Rights and therefore is in a position to act on any infringement by the States only after the Australian Bill of Rights has been passed? The CHAIRMAN —Before I call the Minister I should make it clear that when the Committee last met it resolved to take the four Bills separately. We are considering the first Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill. The question before the Committee is that the Bill stand as printed. Senator Haines —That does not render in- operable my question? The CHAIRMAN —No, I am only clarifying what your question is related to, Senator. Senator Haines —It is relating to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.19) —Mr Chairman-- Senator Haines —A simple yes or no will do, Minister. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Haines ought to be well aware by now that that is congenitally impossible, not least because of the formidable sophistication with which questions are asked by her in this place. The first point to appreciate is that the Human Rights Commission has no jurisidiction at the moment to investigate actual practices of State governments-- Senator Haines —That is the Human Rights Commission as it stands now? Senator GARETH EVANS —As it stands now it has no such jurisdiction under the Covenant. Senator Haines —We know that. Senator Missen —We don't know that at all. I don't agree with that. Senator GARETH EVANS —The honourable senator may not agree with it, but so far as the State is concerned the situation that will exist when the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is established by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill that is before us now is no different. However, when the Australian Bill of Rights is enacted with its companion piece, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill, the States will be able to be the subject of investigation by the Commission for breaches by their laws of the Bill of Rights. The definition of human rights in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill will change with the enactment of the Bill of Rights, so that the investigation will be of breaches of the Bill of Rights, rather than breaches directly of the Covenant. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(4.21) —Is that the case notwithstanding that there is an appendage, a Schedule, or whatever one wants to call it, to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.21) — The Covenant is there at the moment because the jurisdiction of the Commission is couched in terms of breaches of human rights, with human rights being defined by reference to the Covenant. Senator Haines —Which is appended to the Bill. Senator GARETH EVANS —It is appended to the Bill. After the Bill of Rights Bill is passed, there will be a further amendment to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act, as it will be by then, to change the definition of human rights to make that definition not one by reference to the Covenant itself but rather to the Covenant rights as picked up by and made into domestic law by the Bill of Rights itself. The idea was to create two quite separate and distinct pieces of legislation which could stand or fall separately. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, by itself, will have jurisdiction by reference to the Covenant, at least so far as Commonwealth and Territory acts and practices are concerned. When the Bill of Rights is enacted as a separate piece of legislation, the definition of human rights will be changed in the way in which I have indicated and the Covenant will be removed from the appendix to the HREOC Bill. Senator Haines —What is it there for now? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is there now because the definition of human rights, which is the subject of HREOC's jurisdiction, is a definition which is based on the Covenant. But after the Bill of Rights is passed and proclaimed into law, that definition of human rights, by reference to the raw text of the Covenant, will no longer be necessary because we will have a definition of human rights that can be based on the terms of the Bill of Rights. Although the Bill of Rights is, of course, in turn based on the Covenant-it must be for constitutional reasons-it will avoid confusion and uncertainty of having two sets of formulated general guarantees, having the Covenant still in existence as a source of jurisdiction when one has the Bill of Rights. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(4.23) —I accept that the Australian Bill of Rights is putting into effect through legislation the requirement under Part II, Article 2, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant, which states: Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant. All I want to know is whether it is an essential requirement that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission have the Bill to refer to or whether the Covenant itself will be satisfied if the other measures it refers to in Part II Article 2 paragraph 2 include the Schedule remaining in the HREOC Bill-that is, simply to allow it to have a look at infringements of rights. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.25) — The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has no jurisdiction in relation to a State, whether under the Covenant or anything else, under the HREOC Bill that is now before us. HREOC will acquire a jurisdiction in relation to the States after the enactment of the Bill of Rights Bill and the consequential amending Bill that goes with it. When that Bill is enacted later on, HREOC will have acquired a jurisdiction in relation to the States for breaches of `human rights'. But the human rights breaches by a State that it will be able to examine at that stage will be human rights as articulated in the articles of the Bill of Rights, rather than as articulated in the terms of the Covenant. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(4.26) —The Minister said a few minutes ago that the Human Rights Commission as it currently stands does not have the right to make these sorts of inquiries at the State level. I remind the Minister-or tell him, if he did not already know it-that the Queensland division of the Australian Democrats lodged a complaint with the present Human Rights Commission about the Queensland electoral laws. It was not told by the HRC that the HRC did not have jurisdiction. It was told that the inquiry would be a lengthy one and therefore it did not have the time, the staff, the money or whatever to undertake such an inquiry into State laws. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.27) —I think the source of the confusion here-it may also have informed Senator Missen's interjection earlier-is the different capacity which the existing Human Rights Commission has, and which the new Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission will also have, to advise the Commonwealth Attorney-General as to what initiatives or what changes to the law it should make that are within its constitutional power to enact in order to improve the condition of liberty or whatever. It is not a power to investigate complaints about acts or practices. The existing Human Rights Commission has a power to initiate recommendations based on perceived deficiencies in State law. I should have made that statement part of my original answer. That does not refer to a response to a complaint, but it is the kind of investigation of a State law which the honourable senator might well have in mind in the context, I suppose, of electoral laws, but not electoral practices, in the States. On the basis of the existing Human Rights Commission Act, which is in turn based on the language of the Covenant, or on the basis of the new Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act, which is in turn based on the Covenant, one could embark upon some inquiry under that generalised jurisdiction into perceived deficiencies in State law. But that would not be the same as a formalised investigation into practices relying upon the particular, direct and immediate jurisdiction that is newly vested by this legislation. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(4.28) —The purpose of my interjection was to say that my understanding is that it was argued at the time when the previous Act came into existence that there was a power, even though it was an implied power, in the Commission to look at State laws insofar as it could compare one with another and recommend Federal laws, but not to look at acts and practices or breaches of human rights. That seems to be expanded. That was the point I was making by way of interjection. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(4.29) —In accepting, at least for the moment, the response that the Minister has given, there still remains the problem that the current Human Rights Commission argued that an inquiry into Queensland's electoral laws would be a lengthy one and therefore, presumably, it would take quite a while to issue a report. The Government has given an undertaking, I gather, that it will give the States an opportunity to bring their laws into compliance with the Australian Bill of Rights requirements and that, if such legislation from the States is not forthcoming, the Commonwealth will enact overriding legislation, Is the Minister prepared to say whether the Government will institute an inquiry through the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and under the Australian Bill of Rights terms into the various malapportionments in the various States' electoral laws-that includes Western Australian's upper House as well as Queensland's lower House and the proposed changes that are rumoured to both the New South Wales and Victorian upper Houses-or whether it will allow those governments time to bring their laws into compliance? If it is going to do that, how long is it going to allow each State? Is it going to allow the States various lengths of time in respect of various pieces of legislation? For example, will the Government crack down harder on electoral malapportionment than on some other piece of legislation which infringes rights outlined in the Bill of Rights? Also, how much time does the Minister think it is appropriate to give an individual government to get its Acts, so to speak, together? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.32) — How soon the Commonwealth is able to act on this depends on how soon the Australian Democrats enable us to pass this legislation and set the clock ticking down the track that Senator Haines has outlined. As I made perfectly clear in this place on behalf of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), on 19 February, I think, and as he made clear and as others have also made clear, the Government wants these Bills-the HREOC Bill and the Australian Bill of Rights Bill-enacted. The Government will make early reference to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to inquire into electoral laws and perhaps associated practices-I do not seek to pre-empt the precise terms of reference-thus enabling HREOC to embark upon, very quickly, the kind of investigation which has been the subject of public discussion. The kind of time frame that the Attorney has in mind is a reference taking of the order of three months to complete by HREOC after which a further appropriate period of time, and the Attorney has here in mind of the order of two months, would be given to the States to respond to any adverse findings the Commission might make about the character of the laws in the particular States in question. In the event that all these contingencies were satisfied-an adverse report and a demonstrable unwillingness by the State in question to act to correct the perceived deficiency-the Commonwealth would act immediately at that stage to introduce legislation. The Attorney said, and I also said on his behalf, that our expectation would be that such legislation, should all those conditions be satisfied, could be introduced in the Budget sittings. Whether that timetable will be able to be met to that extent is, I suppose, in a little doubt at the moment because of the slippage of time that is involved in the passage of the Bill and the time that necessarily will be involved in establishing the Commission once this legislation is eventually passed. But, certainly, on any view, against the background of those sorts of views as to the timing involved, it certainly would be possible, and it would be our hope and expectation now, that such legislation could be introduced in the Budget session. Senator Haines —This year's Budget session? Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes, this year's. I think Senator Haines will appreciate that there is only so far that one can stretch time in this respect and the kind of time frame we have in mind would, I hope, be accepted by her as reasonable in all the circumstances. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(4.34) —There has been some suggestion that the Queensland Government would move the proverbial heaven and earth to stop the Commonwealth Government from having an inquiry undertaken by HREOC or from introducing legislation to override its State laws. Has the Government sought any advice at all as to the likely outcome of any attempt by the Queensland Government or, for that matter, the Western Australian Government or any other government to seek an injunction or to take some other steps to prevent the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission from making an inquiry? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.35) — The Commonwealth is armed to the back teeth with highly competent and professional constitutional lawyers in its own ranks. I can assure the honourable senator that these contingencies have undoubtedly been borne in mind. The reality is, I suppose, that were applications for injunctions to be sought and were the litigation so resulting to turn into full dress challenges to the Bill of Rights, even in its present proposed form, with limited application to the States, that would have the effect of throwing out the kind of timetable that I have mentioned. But I suppose we all have to be realists and anticipate some kind of constitutional challenge at some stage or other to this legislation. Whether it comes now or later in the day, or on both occasions, remains to be seen. The honourable senator's guess is as good as mine in that respect. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(4.36) —Assuming then that we manage either to override or sidestep various injunctions and an assortment of other hurdles that are thrown in the way of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission making inquiries into the electoral systems of various States, there are still a few other problems that need to be resolved. According to recent statements by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), the basis for the inquiry will be that Queensland's or Western Australia's or anybody else's electoral system in one House or another contravenes Article 6 of the Australian Bill of Rights and therefore Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government, on the other hand, has also acknowledged on a number of occasions that there is a distinct possibility that Article 6 does not in fact mean one vote one value but rather one person one vote, or, as the Queenslanders still persist in saying, one man one vote. In the event that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission does leap over all of the aforementioned hurdles, gets to make an inquiry and presents an inconclusive report with regard to the status of the Queensland, Western Australian or any other State governments electoral laws simple because Article 6 is not precise enough to make an absolute determination, what attitude will the Government then have to producing overriding legislation that will ensure that every House in every parliament in every State in this country is elected according to the most democratic principles that we can come up with? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.38) — The honourable senator is piling hypothesis on hypothesis. Senator Haines —Oh, come on, Gareth, I can read too. Senator GARETH EVANS —All I can say is we will cross that particular bridge when we come to it. I suppose it is not strictly necessary as a precondition to valid Commonwealth legislation, based either directly on the covenant or indirectly on the covenant through the Bill of Rights itself, that there be a preliminary inquiry; but the view that has been taken by the Government is that it is highly desirable, and probably highly desirable from a technical viewpoint, that that particular course be followed. I simply make the point that the option probably would not be absolutely closed off by a report of the kind that the honourable senator has mentioned, which is inconclusive as to the matters in issue, but if the Commission was inconclusive in the way that has been indicated, obviously that would be a highly relevant circumstance the Government would have to take into account. It really is very difficult to answer hypothetical questions of this kind. On the face of it, there is sufficient foundation in the travaux preparatoires at the international level to justify the Government's confidence that universal and equal suffrage will be construed as extending to one vote one value. There is enough in the travaux to justify that confidence. It is our hope, and I think at this stage our expectation, that a commission would so find, but obviously it is quite improper to anticipate the findings of an independent commission on so central a point in issue, and we simply must await the findings of the Commission before I could give any conclusive response on the part of the Government as to what we would do. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(4.41) —Presumably the Queensland Government or another State government could go to another court to get the term defined. Leaving that aside, since we are playing hypotheticals today, what would happen if the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission decided, having investigated Queensland's, Western Australia's and anybody else's electoral laws, that none of them infringed Article 6 because of its interpretation of Article 6? Is the Government likely to take some sort of action then? If we want yet another hypothetical, is the Government prepared in that event or in the event of any other stumbling block cropping up which seems insurmountable actually to have the concept of one vote one value written into the Federal constitution-by referendum of course? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.42) — Again I can only say that these are hypothetical questions which would be addressed by the Government if and when the occasion arose. I make the point that the Government has made a very firm political commitment to somehow tackling what we perceive to be the highly inequitable voting systems that prevail in Queensland, certainly in the Western Australian Upper House, and arguably perhaps in some other parts of the country. That political commitment to do something about that perception would strongly remain. We want, obviously, a considered and objective report from a commission which would be of a composition that would be respected in the community at large and not perceived simply as a formal procedural hurdle to be jumped as quickly as possible. Under that circumstance I think it would be quite inappropriate for me to engage in any further conjecture on what the circumstances of our response might be in the event that the Commission came up with a report of the kind that the honourable senator has indicated. She would have to acknowledge the reasonableness of that response. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(4.43) —I have, the Minister will be pleased to know, only two more questions at the moment that I want to put to him. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, of course, was ratified by the Fraser Liberal Government in 1980, if I recall correctly, and therefore brought with it the commitment to implement the articles in the Covenant, as Part II, Article 2.2 of the Covenant says, through either legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognised in the present Covenant. Given that all that has happened, is it not possible, if the Australian Bill of Rights Bill is passed, and whether or not the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission reports favourably or unfavourably with regard to electoral laws in the various States, for the Commonwealth to tackle electoral gerrymanders any- way, because that requirement is there? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.44) —I have already answered that question as best I can when I said that, in my view, there may still be some residual technically available capacity to rely directly on some part of the terms of the Covenant without the apparatus of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and, for that matter, the Bill of Rights itself, being employed. We are getting into very difficult constitutional waters here. The power under section 51 (xxix) of the Constitution to legislate with respect to external affairs is not simply to legislate on any subject matter that captures the Commonwealth's fancy from time to time. It is a power to legislate for the genuine domestic implementation of an international treaty obligation or some other form of international obligation which may not be necessarily couched in the form of a treaty. The Commonwealth undoubtedly much enhances the chances of any of its legislation surviving constitutionally if that legislation takes place in a context which is clearly and unequivocally one of the domestic implementation of an international treaty obligation. It is not a matter, as we are constantly accused of being enthusiastic about doing, of going around the world and looking at a number of multilateral treaties and bilateral treaties to which we may have become party over a period of several decades and plucking particular heads of power out of those treaties like baubles off a Christmas tree in order to embark upon some legislative adventure which would not otherwise be open to us. Senator Missen —That would not wash constitutionally anyway, would it? Senator GARETH EVANS —That is what I am saying. Quite apart from our desire as a government not to behave in any way that could be objectionable or colourable to men of good will and legal propriety, that sort of exercise would run the risk, constitutionally speaking, of falling on its face. What we do must be and must be seen to be part of an exercise in implementing a genuinely international obligation, and to that extent any exercise in relation to the securing of universal and equal suffrage much improves its chances of success if that exercise takes place in the context of the total legislative exercise, the enactment of a Bill of Rights, and if it takes place in the context of the enforcement mechanism that has been deliberately created to ensure respect for the Covenant and for those rights in the Bill of Rights. If we are relying directly on a section of the Bill of Rights which in turn relies on the Covenant, and if we are relying as a precondition to the legislation on the machinery created deliberately by the Parliament to enhance our capacity to implement international obligations and so on, it seems to me that we are also enhancing the ultimate chances of survival. That is a very long way of making what is a quite short point. We may be able to legislate directly on suffrage issues based on particular language of particular clauses in particular treaties, but we have a much better chance of doing so at the end of the day if we follow the course and the sequence of events that the Commonwealth has proposed. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(4.47) —Finally, I ask: If the Australian Bill of Rights were deferred in some way or defeated or amended in some manner not acceptable to the Government, what role would the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission have? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.48) —If the Government were to go ahead with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill under those circumstances it would have a role that, for practical purposes, would be indistinguishable from that of the present Commission. It would have functions under the sex discrimination, race discrimination and any other legislation that might be vested in it. Senator Haines —Are you saying that the Government may choose to abandon not only the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission but also, as a consequence of sunset clauses coming into operation at the end of this year, the Human Rights Commission and probably the Sex Discrimination Commissioner as well if it does not get the ABR? Senator GARETH EVANS —That is a hurdle the Government will cross, like so many others, when it comes to it. Senator Haines —You were the one who said `if', not me. You were the one whose first word in answer to my question was `if'. Senator GARETH EVANS —I have no particular current instructions on that matter. I simply make the point, as I have all the way through this discussion, that here we are talking about a total package of legislative response which we believe best implements our international treaty obligations and best honours our election commitments to introduce machinery and accompanying legislation. It may well be the case that anything less than the whole package represents a very unsatisfactory residue indeed which would require the Government to rethink the legislative package it has identified. I will not go further than that at this stage, because these matters are again hypothetical. We hope, trust and believe that the legislation in the form of the total package will be passed. If those expectations are disappointed, we will cross that bridge when we come to it. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.50) —Some of the responses of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) have evoked in my mind further doubts about the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission which I believe need to be clarified. They certainly need to be clarified for me. They might be as clear as crystal to everyone else in the chamber. I refer to the schedules to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill with which we are dealing at the Committee stage. Senator Walters —What page? Senator HARRADINE —They are at pages 34 onwards. Schedule 2 is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Schedule 3 is the Declaration of the Rights of the Child. Schedule 4 is the Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons. Schedule 5 is the Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons. I seem to recall that in a response to Senator Haines the Minister said that in some way or another one or all of the schedules will not be operative. Perhaps he could explain that to me. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.52) —There is only one Schedule involved, and that is Schedule 2 of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill-the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. That would become inoperative in that location. It would still recur as a schedule to the Australian Bill of Rights Bill, so it would be there as part of the total legislative package. The reason for its disappearing from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act, as it would then be, and its being part of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill Act is that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission would no longer retain a jurisdiction to investigate directly complaints or whatever based on breaches of the Covenant. The HREOC jurisdiction would be to respond to complaints or inquiries based on the Bill of Rights itself, the reason being the essentially practical one that if we have an international covenant setting out certain rights with all sorts of qualifications and language and beside it we have a charter of rights in the Bill of Rights Act itself, employing slightly different language at relevant places with the qualifications slightly differently expressed-- Senator Harradine —That is the nub, isn't it? Senator GARETH EVANS —We will come to the reasons for each one of those changes when we get, mercifully soon I hope, to the Bill of Rights Bill. There are good reasons for that. Having gone down that track of writing a charter of rights in succinct language that will serve all the functions that we want it to serve in a domestic context, but we would strongly argue still picking up and being wholly legitimate in constitutional terms by virtue of that relationship with the covenant, rather than having those two things lying side by side in that way, which would generate confusion, we have taken the view that it is wholly preferable for the HREOC to have its jurisdiction confined to the Bill of Rights itself. Certainly the Declaration on the Rights of the Child, the Convention Concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation in Schedule 1 and all the other schedules will remain as part of HREOC's investigative and advisory jurisdiction in exactly the same way as they exist under the present Human Rights Commission Act. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.55) —I think the Minister has gone to the nub of the matter. First of all, why did the Government include in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill which we are going to vote upon a schedule which will not be in the Act? It is in the Bill. Is the Government going to take it out of the Bill or not? Secondly, the Minister, in his explanation, has admitted that the articles in the Schedule to the Australian Bill of Rights Bill are in some way different from those of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. If they were not different, there would be no confusion if the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights were retained as a schedule to what will be the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act. The Minister has clearly told us that it must come out of that Act because unless it does come out there will be confusion, presumably on the part of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, as to what are and what are not human rights. We were told by the Minister in answer to Senator Haines that from here on out human rights will be as provided not in the articles of the International Covenant but in the articles in the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. He knows as well as I do, because we have both looked at those articles, that they are different. The proof may be found in his statement that Schedule 2 will have to come out of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act because if it does not there will be confusion in the minds of the members of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission as to the interpretation of human rights. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.57) —I do not want to deny Senator Harradine his joy of discovery, but the approach to this matter is quite explicit in the scheme of the legislation that has been before the Parliament all along. There are four Bills before us, and they fall into two groups. It was originally anticipated that they may well be enacted at different times, but they have come together and are being enacted simultaneously. As such it might look a bit odd, but the reason for this approach lies in the way in which historically they were derived. The first group of Bills is the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill. That is a completely self-contained package of legislation. The other self-contained package of legislation is the Australian Bill of Rights Bill and its companion piece, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill, a quite small Bill. The sole purpose of that accompanying Bill, the fourth one that I mentioned, is to remove Schedule 2 from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act and to make clear that the definition of human rights for the purposes of the operation of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act is human rights as defined in the Bill of Rights rather than human rights as defined by reference to the Covenant. It has all been there. It was originally anticipated that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission would be in force, in operation some time before the Bill of Rights itself for one reason or another was in force. It was envisaged that HREOC could best operate if there were maximum continuity between it and the existing Human Rights Commission, with the same jurisdiction in relation to the Covenant and referring to the same language in the Covenant as was previously the case. Now it is very likely, with the two groups of Bills going through together, that it would not have been necessary to deal with this in this way. I think Senator Harradine can understand the logical sequence that is involved. It may still be the case-it is in the command of the Senate to control these things-that we will get the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission legislation in place but will have to wait some time before the Bill of Rights comes into force. Because we cannot control those circumstances, we have written the Bills in that way. No doubt before this debate is over there will be many more discussions as to differences in the language between the articles in the Bill of Rights Bill and the clauses of the Covenant, and the reasons for them. I simply make the point that it has never been the Government's intention at any stage for there to be differences of substance between the articles in the Bill of Rights and the clauses in the Covenant, for reasons not least of which is the desire to keep it constitutionally sound. This is essentially for reasons of clarification, streamlining and presentation and, not least, the desire to remove some misunderstandings which have been assiduously promoted by some of the opponents of the Bill with whom Senator Harradine has, on occasions, been associated. I refer in particular, for example, to the right to marry and found a family. The language of the Covenant has been changed there. Instead of sticking with the language there which says that every man and woman of marriageable age has the right to marry, we have added a reference to make it abundantly clear what was implicit by clear. We have added the expression `the right to marry a person of the opposite sex'. Senator Harradine cannot have it both ways. It is a little rugged for him to argue that there needs to be this clarification in the language of the Bill of Rights because of the alleged ambiguity or whatever of the Covenant and then triumphantly to claim that there is now some fundamental difference of a possibly sinister kind between the language of the charter and the language of the Covenant. There is no intention for there to be any difference in substance; the only difference is of form, in each case for good reasons, and we will explain those reasons, no doubt during the Committee debate of each one of these clauses. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.02) —I must take issue very strongly with Senator Evans. At no time have I ever raised, nor has he seen any evidence of my ever raising, the question of the right to marry and its application in any other sense than the one that we normally accept. The Minister can look at the documents that I have produced and he will see that that was never amongst the matters of concern. Senator Haines —Unfortunately a lot of people got very confused. Senator HARRADINE —I do not blame them for getting confused, particularly as a schedule was shoved in the Bill here and then whacked out in another Bill, only five minutes afterwards. It does not make sense in any way other than that which the Minister has stated, namely, the definition of human rights will now be those that are contained in the Australian Bill of Rights and not those contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. That brings us to the question of jurisdiction. Is the Minister saying that the Australian Bill of Rights relies solely on the external affairs power? Senator Gareth Evans —I do not think that we have ever said anything else. Senator HARRADINE —It relies solely on the external affairs power. The Minister may say that but of course the courts may not, as Senator Missen has pointed out. The courts did not say that in the case of Fairfax v. the Commissioner of Taxation, nor did they take that attitude in the dams case. Yet, when we had the dams debate in this chamber the Minister stood up and said that the legislation was founded on the external affairs power and, insofar as certain aspects were concerned, it was founded on the corporations power-- Senator Gareth Evans —And a miscellany of other powers as well. They were quite explicit in the text of that legislation, which is not the case here. Senator HARRADINE —But as the Minister knows, the courts may not adopt that attitude and have not adopted that attitude when considering other pieces of legislation. Senator Gareth Evans —That would be a windfall gain, not one that we are pitching for. Senator HARRADINE —That is a very interesting admission. The Minister describes it as a windfall gain. In fact, the hope of the Government is that at some future stage the courts may interpret this very broadly and not simply as an exercise for the implementation in Australia of some international obligation. Indeed, the objects of the Australian Bill of Rights make that very clear and I will come to that discussion later. I cannot see how the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission can, under this legislation, have any authority to investigate enactments or proposed enactments of a State unless those enactments or proposed enactments deal with rights as contained in the ICCPR-not in the ABR, but in the ICCPR. One would not have constitutional power to have the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission investigate enactments of a State if it were dealing with rights, for example, which were not quite clearly and specifically those detailed in the ICCPR, together with the relevant derogations contained therein. I know that that is another argument that we will have when the Australian Bill of Rights Bill comes up because that is where the legislation is deficient. It is deficient in the explanatory memorandum. I turn to page 9 of the Bill which refers to the functions of the Commission. One of these functions, outlined in clause 11 (1) (e), is to examine enactments which, in this Bill, are defined not as State enactments but as Commonwealth or Territory enactments. That clause says: to examine enactments, and (when requested to do so by the Minister) propose enactments, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the enactments or proposed enactments, as the case may be, are, or would be, inconsistent with or contrary to any human right, and to report to the Minister the results of any such examination; Under the previous Human Rights Commission Act, because of the operation of the Acts Interpretation Act, section 15a (b), the Human Rights Commission, in my view, should have had regard to what was discussed when the original Bill was before the House of Representatives and was passed by that House. That provided the extrinsic aid to the interpretation and administration of the law. Senator Missen —You would get more value from the debate in the Senate, I think. Senator HARRADINE —That may be so but in the particular case I am raising, it may not be so. I cannot recall the debate here, Senator Missen. Senator Missen —The main debate was here. Senator HARRADINE —It was, but I wish to recall the question of the right to life. The House of Representatives passed by 58 votes to 46 a definition of human rights in the following terms: Human rights means the rights and freedoms recognised in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or in any relevant international instrument and includes rights before birth. The significant point that is made here-and let us make no error about what the Minister and the Government are doing-is that the Government is now saying that that no longer applies. Senator Gareth Evans —That did not finish up in the Human Rights Commission Act. Senator HARRADINE —I did not say that it finished up there. Had the Minister been listening he would have realised that I was making the point that under section 15a (b) of the Acts Interpretation Act, the Human Rights Commission may, in the words of the Act, but in my view is obliged to, have regard to the explanatory memorandum, what has taken place, the journals of the Parliament and so on. In the particular case of the rights to life, the Human Rights Commission had for its consideration, as an extrinsic aid for the interpretation of the legislation, that resolution. It also had as a very definite extrinsic aid the Schedule relating to the rights of the child which clearly states that those rights include rights before as well as after birth. What we are being told by the Minister now is that in fact the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, insofar as it is going to examine enactments or proposed enactments-presumably State enactments-will not have regard to human rights other than those that are provided for in the Australian Bill of Rights Bill, which the Minister has now said are not necessarily the same as those in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. One goes to the explanatory memorandum of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill and sees that when it talks about the right to life-Article 18 of the Covenant-it provides that that right to life provision does not apply in abortion cases, or words to that effect. Therefore, the universality of rights as provided for in all of the other covenants-including the Declaration of the Rights of the Child-will then be undermined by what we will be doing in the ABR Bill. That is the point which I think must be borne in mind. We are changing the whole concept of human rights from that which has been established by international treaty to that which is being delimited by the explanatory memorandum to the Australian Bill of Rights. Senator Missen —Which may have disastrous constitutional possibilities for it. Senator HARRADINE —Of course, as Senator Missen says, it could well do. Either we will have an efficient and operative Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission or we will not. It opens the way for a whole lot of legal argument. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.13) —With respect, I think most of Senator Harradine's comments, as he himself acknowledged from time to time, are better directed towards the Australian Bill of Rights Bill, which is the Bill which gives the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission functions in relation to these matters, rather than this particular Bill, which does not. To the extent that it might help to set Senator Harradine's mind at rest may I just mention that the definition of human rights, as it will continue to be after the enactment of the Bill of Rights, is still broad enough to encompass references to the rights as set out, for example, in Schedule 3 of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill-the Declaration of the Rights of the Child. We are not saying that the definition of human rights is confined to those rights identified in the Bill of Rights itself, within the four corners of that piece of legislation. We are saying that to the extent that there is a potential source of confusion between the Bill of Rights statement of the rights based on the Covenant and the language of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights itself, the relevant reference point for the Commission is the Bill of Rights. However, the Commission still has a number of other reference points up its sleeve in investigating human rights matters. One of those is the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, which, as I recall it, was the vehicle for the particular resolution which Senator Harradine mentioned, rather than the particular clause in the Covenant itself. It was in that context of the discussion of the applicability of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child that that occurred. I may be wrong about that. I do not assert that with any great confidence. However, the point I make simply is that there are many more dimensions to the definition of human rights and many more references to other covenants than just the reference to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The only point of the earlier discussion was to indicate that there is potential for confusion, not as to substance but as to form, between the Covenant on the Civil and Political Rights and the language of the charter of rights in the Bill of Rights. It is that confusion which we are seeking to avoid. I do not think that any larger implications of the kind Senator Harradine is seeking to draw should be brought into the debate in that way. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.15) —I agree that most of this matter is more appropriate for debate on the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. I concede that. Senator Gareth Evans —This is just a warm-up. Senator HARRADINE —I am flagging this point because I believe it is a serious point. I will be asking the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) quite definitely. Does the explanatory memorandum to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill relating to Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights limit the powers of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to investigate proposed enactments, or enactments, as they affect the rights of the child before and after birth? By all means the Minister may take it on board. I think we need to have a clear indication of what it all means. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.16) — Mr Temporary Chairman, may I suggest that a better occasion to debate this matter would be in the debate on the Australian Bill of Rights Bill rather than now, when these issues are not addressed by any of the language in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill which is now before us. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Jessop) —I suggest that we refer to that matter later. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(5.16) —by leave-Perhaps this is an appropriate occasion, if questions have ceased, for me to move the amendments standing in my name. I move: Substantive amendments (1) Page 8, paragraph 8(1)(d), line 2, leave out the paragraph, insert the following new paragraphs: `(d) 3 members who shall be persons who, from their experience in non-government representational groups, minority groups or social service organisations, have specialist knowledge and experience in human rights activities; and (e) 3 other members who shall be persons nominated biennially by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General to represent the States, being person of knowledge and experience in human rights acts and practices.'. (2) Page 8, sub-clause 8 (2), line 3, leave out `other member or'. (3) Page 8, sub-clause 8 (2), line 4, after `paragraph (1) (d)', insert `or paragraph (1) (e)'. (4) Page 8, sub-clause 8 (3), lines 5 and 6, leave out all words after `President', insert `shall be appointed as a full-time member.'. (5) Page 8, sub-clause 8 (4), lines 8 and 9, leave out `or a member referred to in paragraph (1) (d)'. (6) Page 8, after sub-clause 8 (4), insert the following new sub-clause: `(4A) The members referred to in paragraphs 1 (d) and (e) shall be appointed as part-time members.'. (7) Page 8, sub-clause 8 (5), line 11, after `(d)', insert `or (e)'. (8) Page 8, sub-clause 8 (9), line 25, after `(d)', insert `or (e)'. (9) Page 30, sub-clause 44 (3), line 6, before `At a meeting', insert `Subject to sub-section (3A),'. (10) Page 30, after sub-clause 44 (3), insert the following new sub-clause: `(3A) Between meetings of the Commission the President may, at any time, convene a meeting of the full-time members of the Commission which meeting may, subject to the control of the Commission, carry out the day to day affairs of, and perform the functions of, the Commission and for the purposes of such a meeting of the Commission a quorum is constituted by a number of full-time members that is not less than one-half of the number of full-time members for the time being holding office under section 8.'. Consequential amendment (11) Page 2, sub-clause 3 (1), definition of `appointed member', line 10, after `(d)', insert `or (e)'. These amendments relate specifically to the membership of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. I remind the Committee that under section 7 of the Human Rights Commission Act the present Human Rights Commission consists of a Chairman and a Deputy Chairman and not less than five or more than nine members. The nine members may be part time members. During the period for which the Commission has operated there have been a substantial number of members-I think five or six-who have operated as part time members, who have operated, I think, effectively and usefully and who have been quite instrumental, in various ways, in taking an interest in various aspects of various reports and in checking reports under preparation by members of the staff of the Commission. Although I suppose at times their keenness and interest may not always have been appreciated by staff members, I think they have been very valuable in keeping the Commission on an even keel and, I suppose, in keeping the organisation from being a totally bureaucratic organisation, which it would otherwise be. As I remember, the Bill which the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), as Attorney-General, was proposing before the last election proposed that part time commissioners were to be abolished altogether. However, in this Bill one will see that the part time commissioners are reduced to as little as one. Clause 8 of the Bill states: (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. Some of those other members can be part time. However, we could now have the situation in which the Commission will be almost totally-if I can say so-bureaucratic and the full time members will totally dominate the Commission. The part time member or the one other member who may belong to the Commission could have no real significance. Therefore, the amendment which I have moved and which I believe will have the support of the Opposition and, I trust, the support of other sections of the Senate deals basically with three things. In the first place it amends paragraph (d) so that instead of stating `at least one other member but not more than 3 other members' it states: (d) 3 members who shall be persons who, from their experience in non-government representational groups, minority groups or social service organisations, have specialist knowledge and experience in human rights activities; I then go on to add another category (e) which states: (e) 3 other members who shall be persons nominated biennially by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General to represent the States, being persons of knowledge and experience in human rights acts and practices. I think basically that is a continuation of the present situation except, of course, there will be precisely three commissioners from non-government organisations and three representing the States. Those State commissioners, one presumes, will rotate. The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General will decide that such and such a State is to be represented on the Commission for two years and that some other State is to be represented later on. They would be people who are knowledgeable in this area and, therefore, not people who just go to make up numbers. In the first place these would be people who would contribute their knowledge as non-government organisational members who are concerned with human rights, and in the second place they would be people from the States who know the particular problems of their own and other States and who will bring that experience to bear in discussions which take place. If we are to have a Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission-it does appear, by noting the numbers in this chamber, that that is going to happen-it ought to be a body which is fairly representative and, therefore one which, if it is going to look into any aspect of State laws or State positions, ought to comprise people who have some knowledge of or can be approached and told the position by the States and therefore are representatives in that sense. That is the basic structure which I propose in this amendment. Much of the rest of this amendment is consequential. It provides in (1) (d) and (e) that people shall be appointed as part time members. Obviously, it is important that those members should be people not fully engaged in that activity but also engaged in other activities which have been the cause for their appointment to this position. The third part of this structure which I bring in is contained in part 10 of the amendment. It inserts clause (3A), which states: Between meetings of the Commission the President may, at any time, convene a meeting of the full-time members of the Commission which meeting may, subject to the control of the Commission, carry out the day to day affairs of, and perform the functions of, the Commission, and for the purposes of such a meeting of the Commission, and for the purposes of such a meeting of the Commission a quorum is constituted by a number of full-time members that is not less than one-half of the number of full-time members for the time being holding office under section 8. I regret the somewhat cumbersome nature of that last expression, but I take that from the existing clause which deals with a quorum and which means, of course, that if we have a quorum of a smaller body we need a smaller quorum. The purpose of this is that this would be a Commission of slightly larger numbers than at present and it therefore would be difficult to meet as regularly and as often to deal with the day to day affairs and to carry out the normal functions. I suppose important issues would be deferred until a meeting of the full Commission and this meeting would be subject to the control of the full Commission. I include this clause so it will not lead to the Commission being too cumbersome an organisation but one whose full time members can meet between meetings. I commend to the Senate the structure in these amendments. I suggest that it accords with the Opposition's idea of federalism and the idea that the States should be consulted. It also accords with the belief of, I think, all members of this chamber in the voluntary principle that people who belong to non-government organisations have an important part to play in human rights activities, and that they keep their feet on the ground and will not be carried away by being too close to the heady air of Canberra. They will come here with other members knowing the organisations they belong to and I believe this would strengthen the position of the organisation. It depends on whether the Bill of Rights holds up constitutionally. Without it, the Commission could still stand and play an active role. I believe that a Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission which has this type of component on it would be a stronger body, and therefore the amendment should be supported. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(5.24) —The Australian Democrats will be supporting Senator Missen's amendments, although I wonder why amendment (6) is there in the form that it is. I would have thought it would have been sufficient simply to rewrite sub-clause 8 (4), but it does not do any harm in the way it is currently worded. I do not believe that the amendments suggested by Senator Missen, apparently with the approval of the Opposition as a whole, are going to impede in any way the workings of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. On the contrary, I would have thought that they strengthened its value with the addition of the specific expertise which is listed in amendment (1). I am, of course, as I suppose everybody in here is, aware of the advisory committee's potential under clause 17, but it is, as the clause stands, only a potential. Sub-clause 17 (1) says at the moment: The Minister may, if the Minister considers it desirable, establish an advisory committee or advisory committees, and an advisory committee so established shall perform such of the following functions as the Minister directs- It then lists several of those functions. There is no commitment in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill, whatever may or may not be in the explanatory memorandum and whatever assertions may or may not come from the mouth of the Minister in a minute, actually to establish those advisory committees. Certainly there is nothing in the Bill as it stands before us to indicate that those advisory committees are going to have any power at all to effect decisions or recommendations, or take part in the writing of the report. As has happened in the past to advisers and advisory committees all over the place, they may be listened to with more or less enthusiasm and then ignored. What Senator Missen is doing is, in fact, expanding the expertise on the Commission itself and making sure that the input from such non-government representational groups, minority groups or social service organisations as may take the hearts and minds of Government Ministers will be used to good effect by the Commission, as indeed will people nominated by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General to represent the States. That, of course, is of particular value given the right that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has to investigate State legislation with regard to its being inconsistent with various parts of the Australian Bill of Rights. In the unlikely event of the Minister being able to persuade me in the next 30 seconds that there is something positively horrendous, unconstitutional or devilish about the amendment Senator Missen has brought forward, we will certainly be supporting it. I hope the Government accepts that it does not have the numbers in this place and, with whatever good grace the Minister can sum up, bows to the inevitable. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.28) — There is no shortage of good grace, but there is a little disappointment that I must express at the Australian Democrats rushing so quickly to embrace an amendment which from many points of view is a slightly peculiar one, at least if Senator Missen is to be taken at face value in his expression of a desire on one hand not to impede the work of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, and on the other hand to give recognition to a variety of interests which he says are not sufficiently represented in the Commission's structure at the moment. The first point I make is that there is no doubt that this amendment, at least in its current form, would significantly impede the work of the Commission as it was proposed to operate. The primary reason for that is Senator Missen's deletion of paragraph (d) of clause 8 (1), which enables there to be appointed as full time members, apart from the President, who may or may not himself or herself be a full time member, and apart from the race and sex discrimination commissioners, at least one other but not more than three other members. I say to Senator Missen right now that it was the Government's intention to appoint two other full time members to the Commission-or at least one other, perhaps the second depending on later circumstances-one who would have specialist functions in due course in relation to privacy when legislation was enacted, and one who was intended to be a generalist with responsibilities not essentially of an administrative kind, but largely for the research, education, and promotional functions of the Commission. The whole concept of the Commission, as it has been articulated in this form right from the outset, was a tight working group of professionals, each with functional responsibilities in a particular area. To reduce, as Senator Missen's amendment would, the full time component of the Commission down to three, and possibly even two if the President is not a full time member, would seriously impede that proposal. I am not sure whether Senator Missen intended to secure that result, or indeed whether he was even aware that that was the proposal the Government had in mind as far as the operation of the Commission was concerned, but I ask him and the Democrats to reconsider the implications of the amendment as far as the removal of paragraph (d) in its present form is concerned. Even if one were to adopt Senator Haines's suggestion to enable Senator Missen's three non-government organisation experienced people to be appointed, either as full time or part time-which might appeal as one way through the dilemma I have just enunciated-there would seem to me to be very great difficulty in appointing someone with a particular functional responsibility for some area if that person were on the Commission not by virtue of that functional responsibility but by virtue of possessing the kind of qualifications that Senator Missen has set out, even if it were desirable for a person to possess such qualifications. Perhaps Senator Missen could ponder that. The other point I make is that the way in which Senator Missen's amendment is cast-I believe in good faith-is that it is not desired to interfere with the Commission being able to operate as a commission in the absence of its part time add-on member, that the full Commission- albeit that the full Commission is now reduced to three members-can meet on other occasions. Senator Missen acknowledges, therefore, that his part time add-on members will not be essential, integrated working components of the Commission. There is no requirement that the full Commission, as now identified by him, with the part time members as well, meet on any given number of occasions per annum. No doubt, as a matter of good faith, if this system were imposed it would meet as a full commission a number of times per annum, but there is no requirement that it so meet. For all practical purposes, in the form in which this amendment has been cast, it seems to me that the add-on part timers are not to be distinguished in any significant way from the members of the advisory committees whom it has always been the Government's intention to appoint under clause 17. I take the Committee to clause 17 of the Bill, which Senator Haines has already mentioned, which provides for the establishment of advisory committees. In particular I take the Committee to the explanatory memorandum which accompanies the Bill, in which the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) said it was proposed to establish three groups of advisory committees. He said: It is at this stage proposed to establish a National Advisory Committee on Discrimination in Employment . . . That is essentially to perform the role that is presently played by a body of that name which has a prior and separate existence but will be integrated into this new total organisation. The second body referred to is: . . . an Advisory Committee comprising the heads of State equal opportunity bodies to advise on matters such as co-ordination of procedures under Commonwealth/State co-operative arrangements developed under clause 16 . . . I suggest that that particular proposed advisory committee is a much more immediate way of capturing the ongoing involvement of the State Attorneys-General than are the three members of the Commission to whom Senator Missen refers. The third category of advisory committees to which the Government referred is: . . . regional Advisory Committees, which will keep the Commission in touch with community opinion and assist the Commission in its public information and promotion work. It has always been acknowledged frankly by the Attorney-General and me that it is highly desirable for the HREOC based in Canberra to have that leavening of experience of those who are engaged in other occupations and roles in the community at large. We have seen the advisory committees as the best mechanism to ensure that, rather than bloating the membership of the Commission. What this amendment proposes is a strange body, a very narrow full time group reduced to unworkably narrow dimensions I suggest, combined with a large group of six part time members performing various functions, who are not required and have no right, by virtue of Senator Missen's amendment, to meet with the other members of the Commission on any occasions at all. It is not as if the Commission is being given any real additional teeth, if that is the right word, by the addition of these extra members. If the advisory committees work as they are intended to-I give a commitment on behalf of the Government that they would-it seems to me that this amendment in this respect is unnecessary because a formalised role is proposed already. In short, it is unnecessary and it is undesirable because of the deletion of paragraph (d) which limits the capacity to appoint full timers to particular functional responsibilities. The final point I make is that it is also expensive, more expensive than the advisory committee concept. Once we appoint people as part time members of the Commission we have to give them some kind of fee in accordance with Remuneration Tribunal principles-$3,000 or $4,000 a year I think-quite apart from their costs of attending particular meetings, which would have to be paid to members of an advisory committee. We would be adding six recipients of largesse in this way at a time when the Opposition, Mr Howard and everyone else is screaming at us to curb our expenditure in all sorts of ways. I ask Senator Missen and the Democrats particularly, who have rather jumped to conclusions on this matter, to reconsider their enthusiasm for this amendment and to contemplate some of the difficulties that are caused for the concept of an effective working commission by an amendment in these terms. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(5.37) —I comment on the remarks made by Senator Haines and Senator Evans. Dealing firstly with the question of advisory committees, I do not feel that they are any substitute for people being members of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and making decisions. I have always felt that this is a mere palliative. People may advise and they may sit elsewhere and give their opinions, and they may be ignored entirely by the full time commissioners. That does not put them on any plane of equality or give any opportunity for their views to be given serious consideration. I think it is a good idea to have and I am in favour of having advisory committees, but let them be additional, let them meet in different places and advise on specific things. They are secondary to the Commission. I think that the Commission should contain part time members and State representatives. I do not hold with Senator Evans's argument at all in that respect. In regard to the other argument that the amendment would make the extra members part time-not the President, because I think that he or she can be full time under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, so I do not want to get involved with that at all-I do not see any particular problem with that, although this amendment was drafted rather hurriedly this morning. If we have a privacy commissioner-if the Government puts a privacy Bill through this Parliament, as I hope it does-it would be an easy matter to amend this legislation by adding the privacy commissioner as a member of the Commission. When we have such a person I think he should be a member. I imagine there are already generalists who attend to general matters in the Commission-- Senator Gareth Evans —No. Research, education and promotion; to be the person out there. Senator MISSEN —I am sure there are already people employed by the Commission to do that. Another full time bureaucrat on the Commission is not required. Senator Gareth Evans —It is not a bureaucrat, it is a figurehead, in the same way as the sex discrimination and race discrimination commissioners are figureheads for those areas. What about when the Australian Bill of Rights Bill is enacted? Will there not be a need to get out there under the charter itself, for which you have a sneaking sympathy? Senator MISSEN —I think the charter is a dead loss and has no hope of surviving a challenge. We will leave that aside until we come to it. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission may be the body that carries on and takes the place of the Human Rights Commission, which ceases to exist in December. We have to watch this position very carefully to see that it is a body that is most representative and widespread. If the Government does, in fact, appoint a privacy commissioner, by all means it would be understandable that one of the amendments needed to this Act would be one which would put him on this Commission and give him a place along with the other people who have been named. That would be the easiest thing in the world to do. Until that happens I think we should retain a preponderance of part time members and, therefore, a preponderance of people who are not wedded to the bureaucratic control of human rights. I think they are more akin to the feeling of the people and what is needed. I believe that they are an essential part of this body. I do not think that the amendment is unwise. When it comes to having a privacy commissioner, then is the time to include him in the Act. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.42) —The Opposition supports Senator Missen's proposals. It is totally at variance with the Government's concept of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission that is proposed by this Bill. Indeed, that was one of the major objections against this new body which I advanced in the second reading debate. The Opposition is quite alarmed at the idea of having a Human Rights Commission which substantially comprises full time members who are holding specific responsibilities. The Government seems to see it-Senator Gareth Evans has just reiterated this concept-as a commission comprising a race discrimination commissioner, a sex discrimination commissioner, a privacy commissioner and presumably others, if in due course it has time to dream up other pieces of legislation and new forms of control of this kind. Senator Gareth Evans has indicated that the Government might want to appoint a full time generalist, whatever that may mean. Whatever the Government seeks to have appointed to this body, the end result clearly is that it is going to create a great and ever growing bureaucracy. This will become a new human rights bureaucracy. That has already been happening under the policy of this Government and under the present Commission. Earlier in the Committee stage I gave figures of the extent to which this Commission has increased its staff and expenditure. It was a ludicrous comment for Senator Evans to say a minute ago that Senator Missen's proposal will add costs when he, as Minister, about quadrupled the budget of the Human Rights Commission by engaging a great deal more staff, such as consultants and others. The fact is that the Government, by its policies, has greatly expanded the size, cost, staff and budget of this Commission. When it is boiled down, further part time commissioners, presumably the advisory bodies, will have to have their fares paid and may even be paid an attendance fee. There will be associated costs. If it is all washed up, there will not be much difference in the cost, which is certainly of absolute minute proportions when one considers the extent to which the Government proposes to keep on increasing the human rights full time, highly-paid bureaucracies. The proposal to involve representation from the States on the Commission is one of merit. The States have been negotiating agreements with the Government to participate in this body. That is a very useful way of proceeding. The Opposition believes that this idea should be commended as well. Without going into any great length, I just want to put on record that this is not just Senator Missen's proposal and the Opposition will support it. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(5.45) —I can see the point that the Minister is concerned about, but I still support what Senator Missen is getting at in his amendments. As the Minister has said, there is not going to be any compulsion for the six new people to be included in all or any of the discussions. I was not convinced completely of his argument about clause 17, the advisory committees being netted all these wondrous things, special people being put on these committees and equal opportunity commissioners and various other commissioners being appointed to this body. There is no reason why they could not be included in Senator Missen's proposed new paragraphs (d) and (e). I suppose in some attempt at getting this legislation through before dinner we could look at leaving clause 8 (1) (d) as it is and adding Senator Missen's proposed new paragraphs (d) and (e) as new paragraphs (e) and (f). This would then allow for the injection of the sort of experience in social services and minority group areas and so on as well as people representing the States and leave provision as is already in existence under clause 8 (1) (d) for one other member, but not more than three others. I think we would probably find that there would be one other member of the sort that Senator Gareth Evans was talking about and that the additional two members are likely to fall under Senator Missen's new proposal. While I certainly take heed of Senator Durack's comments about a bureaucracy being there, about nine people are already involved in the current Commission. So it is not as if we are coming up with a particularly unwieldy body given the part time capacity of most of these people. I would have thought that they could also be incorporated as part of the advisory committees, so that we have people there with expertise who are also either full time or part time commissioners. I know that this has been dropped with some suddenness on everybody in the chamber, but I would be interested to hear Senator Missen's views on this matter and comments from the Minister. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.48) —Although Senator Haines has invited comments from the Minister and Senator Missen, I will provide them gratuitously for her. The fact is that the Opposition would not be happy to leave the proposal as Senator Haines suggests because we are trying to keep this organisation within some reasonable bounds. We do not want to see the appointment of any more full-time people. Senator Missen has made provision in his amendments for there to be a full-time President. That would satisfy the desire that the Government seems to have to appoint some generalist, as Senator Evans calls it, to the Commission. If there were some other piece of legislation which dealt with privacy or some other topic which needed to be run by a full-time person, that person could be added at a later stage. The Parliament could decide whether it wanted to follow that procedure. It would not be left open-ended, as is now the case with the Human Rights Commission, with the Government deciding how far it will expand its full time role. If paragraph 8 (1) (d) were left as it is, the Government could add another three full-time people as well as the three part-time people representing special groups, and the three members from the States. In the Opposition's view the Commission would become too large. But the main objection that we have is that we want to limit the composition of the Commission being dominated by the full time commissioners. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(5.52) —I certainly take the point that Senator Durack has made. Doing these sorts of negotiations on the run is a bit difficult, of course, but I wonder whether the senator's concern would be satisfied if paragraph (d) simply read `at least one other member', and we then launched into Senator Missen's proposed two groups of three. Senator Gareth Evans —That does not help. Senator HAINES —If that will not satisfy the Minister, we might as well stick with Senator Missen's proposal. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.53) —It is no good being churlish, Senator Haines. I am only trying to be helpful. `At least one other member' leaves it open-ended as to whether there will be more than one. If we deal with it that way it leaves quite indeterminate the numbers from the point of view of the determination of quorums and so on, which upsets Senator Missen's scheme of things. Senator Durack was at least quite frank in his objectives in supporting Senator Missen. He wants to emasculate completely the concept of an effective, functional and full time Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. I do not believe that that was Senator Missen's objective. I think Senator Missen's objective was to retain that original concept of a full time, effective and functional commission, but add to it a leavening of part time members which would have a more substantial relationship to the Commission than the advisory committees. I do not agree with him, but at least I understand that reasoning. I ask Senator Haines to look at it in those terms. If she is insistent on getting the part timers aboard as extras in the Commission, so be it; there is nothing we can do about it. But I ask honourable senators not to emasculate the concept of an effective, full time and functional Commission which will require the services of more than two and a half persons, including the Sex Discrimination Commissioner and the Race Discrimination Commissioner. I hope I did not misunderstand Senator Missen. Under his model does the President have to be a full time member? Senator Missen —Yes. Senator GARETH EVANS —That is another aspect that I prefer to leave. He might be suggesting the appointment of a figurehead in the appropriate circumstances, with the full time role being played by someone else. I simply ask Senator Haines to stick with what I thought was a constructive suggestion. It does not totally ease the Government's pain about this amendment, but at least it partially eases it and in a way that is consistent, as I understood it, with Senator Missen's essential rationale for his proposal. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(5.55) —There is some problem in dealing with a complex situation such as this on the run. Senator Missen gave me a copy of his amendments and I certainly support the thrust of what this amendment is getting at. As I indicated earlier, I am basically suspicious of any clause which states that the Minister may do something if the Minister considers it desirable. Given the behaviour of the current Government in the past, that is cloud-cuckoo-land stuff. I think what Senator Missen is attempting to do is to improve the function and the effectiveness of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. But I will not be pushed into deciding whether we are having one, but not more than three, additional members, whether we should delete that provision and add what Senator Missen wants, or whether we should leave paragraph 8 (1) (d) as it is and add something else from Senator Missen. I am asking you, Mr Chairman, whether there is any process available to use to adjourn consideration at this stage so that the three parties can get together. It is far too complicated to start letting pique, excessive enthusiasm, pride or anything else get in the way. I would be very grateful if we could have some time to discuss the various possibilities and the end result of those possibilities. The CHAIRMAN —To answer your question, Senator Haines, there are two procedural possibilities. One is to report progress. As there are three other Bills to be considered, that is probably undesirable. The other procedural solution is to move to defer further consideration of the Bill. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(5.56) —We are nearing the end of the Committee stage, but there are other matters to be raised. I wonder whether we can defer consideration so that over the dinner break we can see whether we can find any solution to this problem. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(5.56) —I do not think we can consider the rest of the Bill. The Minister would have to be involved in the discussions, so we could not consider any other part of this Bill. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.57) —I endorse Senator Missen's suggestion, which is simply to defer consideration of this subject matter to see whether there are any other matters between now and half past six which we can usefully discuss. If it becomes apparent that there are no other matters in this Bill that honourable senators want to discuss, I suggest we adopt the Chairman's formula of deferring further consideration of this Bill and moving on to the next Bill before half past six. But let us exhaust such remaining consideration as there is of other matters to do with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill and get it over with. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Haines, in that case the appropriate motion to move would be to defer further consideration of these amendments until consideration of the Bill has been completed. Do you wish to move that way? Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.58) —I would like to comment on this. I came into the chamber to hear that there is a cosy arrangement for a tripartite meeting to arrange to fix up something. Let me make a couple of points about the type of proposition in the Bill with regard to the appointment of commissioners and the appointment of members of the advisory committees. To my way of thinking, these appointments may do what the Government wants them to do, but they will not do what should be done in addressing equally and fairly the basic and fundamental human rights of individuals in Australia. Apart from the President, people will not be able to consider these questions without preconceived ideas. There is the Race Discrimination Commissioner and there is the Sex Discrimination Commissioner. Somebody will be appointed, according to the Minister, to concentrate on privacy. What about the rights, for example, of the large number of people in the community who belong to one income families? They are becoming an endangered species because of the discriminatory actions of government over successive years which force many of them to seek and to rely on two incomes rather than one income. This surely is a denial of their rights. It is a denial of the rights of children. What is the Human Rights Commission doing about that? We have not heard a thing from the Commissioner about the inequity of the taxation system-a system which provides no horizontal equity. It is denying children their right to a fair and equal opportunity before the law. Appointments are to be made to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission for a particular purpose. I am not saying that the existing appointments were made on that basis. However, certainly the bent of some of the staff and some of the people who have been preparing occasional papers-one in particular-would seem to indicate that they do not understand from where basic human rights are derived. That point will be raised when we debate the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. However, the Government's proposal and the proposal put forward by Senator Missen, insofar as it relates to the three so-called specialists, fall into the same trap. It is proposed to appoint people with specialist knowledge and experience in human rights activities. I put it to the Committee that people on the street would not know what one was talking about if they were asked whether they had specialist knowledge and experience in human rights activities. However, in fact, each and every one of them would know from the time they were socialised that they certainly had specialised knowledge and experience of not only their human rights but also the human rights of those with whom they come in contact. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission will be an elitist group, a more elitist group than exists at the moment. We should bear in mind that we in the Parliament are going to be hostages to that group because under the Australian Bill of Rights we will be handing over to the Commission the responsibility for interpreting fundamental laws. Instead of taking our decisions properly, instead of ensuring that the protection of these rights is adequately provided for in statute law and, if we are wrong, taking the brunt of any criticism, we are neatly going to hand over this responsibility to a Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission. Again, I acknowledge, this is probably an argument that should be addressed when we are discussing the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. However, I feel that the point must be made now that the Government is to set up a more elitist group-people with special knowledge and experience in human rights. Who are these people going to be? Who is to choose them? What is meant by human rights activities, group activities and individual activities? What is meant by representative minority groups? Are they going to include Muslims? What is meant by social service organisations? Will these include charitable organisations and people who have been working with the poor? I assume that the Government has been considering whom it is going to appoint. We would like to know just whom the Government is considering appointing. If it is to be somebody concerned with privacy, why privacy? Why not freedom of expression? Why not the right to life which is a very basic and fundamental human right? I ask the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) to come clean and to tell us freely, if he has the information, what the Government intends to do in respect of its appointments to this body. Motion (by Senator Haines) agreed to: That further consideration of Senator Missen's amendments be postponed. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.05) —I would like to speak on a new subject. As Senator Evans would know, penalties for contravening certain regulations or provisions are mentioned all the way through the Bill. For a start, provision is made on page 12 of the Bill for a $1,000 fine in the case of a natural person or a $5,000 fine for a body corporate for the contravention of any direction given by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Again, there are fines of $1,000 or $5,000 for failure to comply with requirements. Quite a considerable fine of $1,000 or $5,000 can be imposed if one insults a commissioner or someone acting on his behalf. I am not quite sure what one has to do in this respect. The Bill also provides for a fine of $1,000 or $5,000 if one gives false or misleading information in the eyes of someone. I am not quite sure who that person is. In such a case the Bill provides for a fine of $2,500 in the case of an individual or $10,000 in the case of a body corporate. Can the Minister tell me who looks at these penalties or offences? Who would judge the situation if it were considered that I, for example, had insulted one of the commissioners? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.08) —Senator Walters should appreciate that it is not the Commission itself that can impose any of these-- Senator Walters —I sincerely hope not. Senator GARETH EVANS —Clearly not; that is clear from the terms of the legislation. All of these things can be enforced as offences only in the ordinary way; that is to say, as a result of prosecutions duly brought before a properly constituted court and with the decision being made accordingly. The scale of the penalties is set by a reference to equivalent sanctions that are contained in a mass of other Commonwealth legislation which seeks to require compliance with investigative procedures of various kinds. The distinctions between individuals and bodies corporate and so on and the order of magnitudes are based on, I think, a table of these penalties that is maintained by the Attorney-General's Department in order to keep some consistency across the whole body of Federal law in this respect. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.09) —Does that mean that, if I am hauled up before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and I say `Go jump in the lake' when I am asked to supply personal papers, I could then be charged by the Commission and dragged before a court of law because the Commission believed that I had insulted one of the commissioners by using such language? If that is the case, I would be up for a considerable sum of money in defending myself against the Commission. Is that what the Minister is referring to? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.10) —I appreciate that this is the sort of extravaganza that Senator Walters is now seeking to develop as she did in her correspondence to the Australian recently about the sad case of Ann Citizen-not an original scenario, I hasten to add, but one that seems to have forebears, unacknowledged elsewhere, in one Mr Richard Stanley, I think. Maybe it came from a common source in On Target or something of that kind. This notion that one, as a citizen, could be dragged before the Commission to explain oneself really misrepresents the basic thrust of the Commission's role, at least so far as the Bill of Rights is concerned; that is to say, the Commission does not have jurisdiction in relation to alleged breaches or complaints of breaches of the Bill of Rights by ordinary citizens. The jurisdiction extends only to acts or practices of government or persons representing government, so one would not be there because someone had claimed some right-breaching act or practice by one. Even in her capacity as a senator I do not think Senator Walters could come within the jurisdiction, as I understand it; she would be there only as a representative or agent of government and no doubt would be responding in accordance with government policies. Senator Haines —A sort of Estimates committee all over again. Senator GARETH EVANS —We have to consider what the alternatives are. If we say that that person shall produce papers, documents and so on to enable the investigation of complaints to proceed, and if we say that there shall be compulsory conferences and so on but have no sanction or element of compulsion, we make nonsense of the enforcement procedures set out in the Bill. It is a question of judgment right at the outset as to whether the Bill is to have any teeth at all in terms of a role for the Commission in ensuring the settlement of disputes. If we did not have any of these sorts of provisions, which are very common in this sort of legislation not only throughout the world but around Australia, we would have the representatives and agents of government departments and instrumentalities simply saying: `There are no sanctions of any kind and we will not be involved in it'. The only way in which some third person, I suppose, other than the complainant or the official target of the complaint, could come before the Commission is in the context of a power that exists for the Commission to seek other people to come before it who it believes may be able to assist it in some way in the conduct of its inquiry. There are some sanctions attached to that, and maybe that is what Senator Walters had in mind. Again the threshold point is: Are we to have any kind of machinery at all or is it to be purely an exercise of a government body, the Human Rights Commission, investigating these things without any capacity to ensure that it is an effective investigation? Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.14) —I do not think that Senator Evans could have read my letter to the newspaper. He probably got some secondhand information on it because, had he read it, he would have known that the person I referred to was a public servant. However, his comment is inaccurate and he keeps on repeating it. I will not go into that. I will come to it later perhaps on the next Bill because it relates more to that. I would be grateful if, in consideration of the next Bill, Senator Evans were to tell me where my letter to the newspaper was wrong. He called it an extravaganza. I have referred to a public servant, and I would be very grateful if he could tell be where that is wrong. I do not believe it is an extravaganza. It is, I believe, 100 per cent correct. Let us get back to this Bill. Senator Evans has told me that a matter can go to a court of law and that, therefore, a person has to go to additional expense to defend himself in that court against the Human Rights Commission in all the situations mentioned in the Bill. Can he tell me why the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or similar body cannot be used? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.15) —The provisions that govern the bringing of people before the courts for Commonwealth offences are essentially those set out in Part X of the Judiciary Act 1903. If Senator Walters wants some more explicit reference to what technically enables these sorts of things to be the subject of determination in the courts, I simply refer her to section 68 of that Act, which sets out in quite elaborate detail the ordinary procedures for summary offences and so on that apply under Federal laws otherwise created. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal jurisdiction is not an available or appropriate alternative in this matter. That exists in order to re-examine on the merits particular decisions which have been made and which adversely affect individuals, corporations or anybody else. It is a mechanism for the review of government decisions. The whole essence of the AAT jurisdiction is to bite on a decision. What we are here talking about is acts or practices which may not involve reviewable decisions at all but may involve some pattern of discrimination or behaviour, perhaps institutionalised behaviour in the case of a whole department or a whole agency, which is at odds arguably with the provisions of the Bill of Rights. What one might be confronting when one seeks to explore that pattern of behaviour, that practice, that set of acts, is absolutely obtuse resistance from the people in question as to whether or not they will co-operate with the inquiry. The AAT, I think, has similar provisions to this for people who refuse to go before it. The proper comparison is between the kind of inquiry the AAT does into the merits of a decision and the kind of inquiry the Commission will be doing into the merits, as it were, of an act or practice of a department or agency under the Bill of Rights. Just as the AAT as an investigating agency needs a supporting apparatus to ensure that it can conduct effective inquiries and so on and that people will bring before it the papers and information necessary for it to make a decision, so too it is necessary for the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, if it is to do its investigative job properly, to have this supporting apparatus. One does not imagine that in practice these powers will be much used, any more than they are used, in the most extraordinarily isolated circumstances, by any other Commonwealth investigative body performing these sorts of functions. But they are there, and they are there to encourage in a very deliberate statutory way the co-operation of various people to ensure that the inquiries can be effectively conducted. I simply conclude by saying that this is probably not the right occasion to debate Senator Walters's scenario of Ann Citizen, or Betty Bureaucrat, as she might be more appropriately called, but I will be happy to rise to her challenge and explain where she is wrong in that account when we get to that particular Bill, which is probably the more appropriate vehicle for discussing it. I might just mention before I sit down the analogy which also exists and which may in many ways be a more appropriate analogy, that is, the Ombudsman, who has a roving jurisdiction to inquire into maladministration, as it were, at the Commonwealth level. Of course, the Ombudsman has a variety of compulsory powers, very similar to those in issue here, available to him under section 36 of his Act. It just makes the point in yet another way that what we are taking about here are not unusual, extravagant or outrageous powers but simply those which have been thought necessary by this Parliament in a whole variety of other contexts in the past to ensure that investigations and inquiries carried out are effective ones. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.20) —I refer to clause 26 of the Bill which states in part that a person shall not insult members of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Obviously, I would be one of those who would not do such a thing and would counsel against it. I am aware of the fact that there is not a general provision in the Crimes Act that states that insulting a Commission is a crime. I am also aware that there is a whole series of Acts of Parliament with provisions stating that a person shall not insult an authority. This case deserves special consideration. Arising out of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission's arranged agreements could be a denial of rights which citizens feel they have had over time. It may well be that a person will get very hot under the collar if his rights or interests are severely affected by a non-elected body perhaps making some deal with a government department or authority over which that individual would have no say, although that person may have been brought before that body for the purposes of examination. Because that person's interests may have been in some way taken away from him, he may feel slightly hot under the collar and let out some words of complaint. Unfortunately, we may be forcing people into that sort of situation by introducing this type of legislation which provides for the interpretation of fundamental laws by a non-elected body. If we try to protect certain interests by introducing legislation in the Parliament the people that are affected have a say over us. They can say: `Right, we won't vote for him next time' or `We'll kick out that Government'. With regard to the members of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission-and with judges, for that matter-the people will have such a right denied them. They cannot elect those people and they cannot recall them. Somebody who feels his interests have been affected may let out a few words of complaint. Clause 26 of the Bill stipulates that that person can be fined for such an expression. I do not condone that, but I believe that we ought to know what we are doing. We have deprived the citizenry of its democratic right. I suggest-again, I would not advise it-that we are now saying to the people: `You have no rights to have a say with regard to what the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission does or what judges do in regard to the interpretation of fundamental laws. If you go crook about them, we will fine you'. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.24) —I make the point in response to Senator Harradine that the reference in clause 26 (1) to `insult' is only in the context of an actual ongoing inquiry examination where someone is carrying out an actual investigation. One can insult members of the Commission to one's heart's content, subject to the laws of defamation and so on, as being unworthy defenders of human rights, or something of that kind, that one might be minded to say. The provision we have here is analogous in many ways to contempt in the face of a court. Senator Harradine —I prefaced my remarks by saying that the provision is in many pieces of legislation. Senator GARETH EVANS —It is designed expressly as just a gloss, I suppose, on the concept of not interfering or obstructing the conduct of the Commission in the exercise of its duties. I expect the commissioners to be a pretty robust group of individuals. After the business of having to listen to honourable senators opposite attacking them day in and day out, to accept appointment would involve a certain thickness of skin at the end of it, anyway. The notion of the commissioners leaping to court to seek punitive action against someone who has just lost his temper with them in the context of an inquiry or investigation is, I think, highly unlikely. For that reason, I do not fuss too much about any proposal to remove the word `insult' from the list of words in clause 26 (1). I simply make the point, as Senator Harradine, in fairness, did himself, that this list of verboten things is a very common one in statutes of this kind. It is reflected, I think, in the existing Sex Discrimination Act provisions and so on. That is the reason why it is in this Bill. If there is any evident majority mood in this Committee to take the word out, it is not something the Government would want to resist unto the death. I have indicated the reason why it is there. We could live without the reference to `insult' although we certainly could not live without reference to hindering, obstructing and the other matters mentioned in that clause because they are crucial considerations for the effective performance of the Commission. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.26) —I would appreciate the word `insult' being taken out of clause 26 (1), much and all as the Minister for Resources and Energy said that he did not anticipate or expect that provision ever to be used and that certainly the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity commissioners would never worry about an odd word being thrown at them. We did not expect the Human Rights Commission to tell Mr N. A. Brown, a member of the other place, that he was not ever to come back to the New South Wales Human Rights Commission. We do not expect the Commission to do lots of things that it does, but indeed it does them. I for one would very much like the word `insult' to be struck from that clause. If the Minister is not very upset about its being struck out, I would appreciate his saying in the next two-minutes: `Okay, let's get rid of it'. I agree that we should leave in the words `hinder' and `obstruct', but the word `insult' seems so trivial. Senator Gareth Evans —There is no amendment before the Chair. I am not in a position to move such an amendment. I indicated that should there be a majority sentiment-I do not know what the Australian Democrats pivotal position is and how they will exercise their responsibility on this occasion-- Senator WALTERS —I move: Page 19, sub-clause 26 (1), line 40, leave out `insult'. Amendment agreed to. Sitting suspended from 6.28 to 8 p.m. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(8.00) —Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I had indicated that I wished to raise a matter with the Minister, arising out of the discussion we had when the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill 1985 was in Committee on the previous day of sitting. At that time I was very intrigued by certain statements that had been made by both the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and Senator Evans about the way in which the Government proposed to use this new Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and presumably the Bill of Rights, although perhaps that is not in itself vital to this operation. Their remarks were an indication of the policy and objectives of the Government and the use to which it wishes to put this Commission. No doubt Senator Evans will remember that, in answer to a question in the Senate during the last week we sat, he repeated much of what the Attorney-General had said in another place at another time about the Government's intention to refer to the new Commission the question of whether certain State electoral laws-presumably those in Queensland and Western Australia-complied with the guarantees in the Bill of Rights and/or the international covenant itself. He then indicated that the Government fully expected the Commission, which, mind you, has not yet been appointed, to make a finding that was agreeable to the Government's own view that these laws were not in conformity with the provision of the covenant which the Government interprets to mean that there is a guarantee of one vote one value for all elections in Australia. On receipt of that finding from the Commission the Government would take up this finding with the States and give them the first opportunity of taking action to bring their laws into conformity with this finding of the Commission. If they did not do so the Commonwealth would then legislate to give them effect to that finding of the Commission. It is fairly notorious that that ploy of the Government, which seems largely designed to satisfy the Australian Democrats' concerns about the way in which the Commission would operate and the use to which it would be put in matters relating to electoral laws, has been reconsidered by the Government. Statements have been made in the last few days to the effect that Senator Chipp has put to the Government that this method of proceeding which I have just outlined was not really acceptable to the Democrats-and I fully understand why it would not be acceptable to them-and that the Government would apparently consider a firmer commitment that was requested of it. Mr Hawke was reported as considering the matter over the weekend. I know that Ministers have had a number of other things to consider over the weekend, such as leaks from among their ranks, Cabinet submissions which have somehow been found on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald, and Caucus criticisms of Cabinet over the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd and Aboriginal land rights. Obviously they have been very busy. Nevertheless, here we are. We have the legislation in front of us now and it seems to me to be important for us to know what the Government proposes to do about this matter. Is it still the Government's policy that it should go through this procedure of asking the Commission to investigate this matter? The Commission, as we have heard today, will presumably consist of a race discrimination commissioner, a sex discrimination commissioner, a generalist, perhaps somebody else and a president, who may or may not be part time, whatever his or her qualifications. It is very difficult to see how these people will be able to throw much light on the difficult legal questions which arise on this problem of whether the international covenant and the new Bill of Rights will guarantee one vote one value elections in Australia. Is this to be confined only to State elections? Will it apply to Federal elections? Will it apply to local government? Is this the intention for these people and whoever else may be appointed by the Government? Honourable senators should remember that this legislation will be passed by this Parliament, if the Democrats continue to support it, and it will be passed with the very clear object-as contemplated by the Attorney-General, by Senator Evans and perhaps by the Prime Minister, I do not know-of having a commission which will give the Government the advice it wants in order to justify legislation being brought into this Parliament. If the Government gets its legislation through-it has a race discrimination commissioner and a sex discrimination commissioner already-it will appoint a new president, a full time generalist member and perhaps some other person as well who will represent other interests. The Government will make these appointments presumably knowing what it wants the Commission to advise it. The Government is confident, even before it has appointed the Commission, that that Commission will in fact be comprised in such a way that it will give the Government the advice it wants. It needs that advice in order to satisfy the Democrats so that they will support the legislation. We have a most incredible situation in which this Parliament is being asked to pass legislation to enable this Government to carry on a charade-to give it the power to appoint whom it wants to participate in that charade, and then to come back to this Parliament before the year is out in order to satisfy the Democrats, with a report showing that it has studied these matters. Senator Evans was very upset when I said these things last time we debated this because he thought that we should consult the States and all that. He thought it right that we should have a commission that would consult widely and consider this matter in an independent way but which, nevertheless, would come up with a finding that the Government wanted before it had even appointed the new commissioners. That is what the Government is asking this Parliament to do. I want to know whether the Government is still on that course or whether it has decided to accede to a more direct and honest way of approaching this matter, which the Democrats are now seeking from it. I raise that again because we are being asked to vote tonight, presumably, on whether this Bill should be passed at all. We are now dealing with certain amendments to it. I know I cannot ask questions of the Minister in a third reading debate so I would like to know whether the Government is still on this totally disreputable and devious course it has been outlining or whether it has now seen the error of its ways and again will succumb to other blandishments which the Australian Democrats are using. At least that proposal which has been reported widely, and about which in fact Senator Macklin has made a statement, would indicate clearly that the Government is to make a commitment to take this action and not use the Human Rights Commission in this completely devious and disreputable way. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(8.11) —I have the same worries about the Human Rights Commission being used in this way. I think that for the last five years the Commission has done a pretty good job. It has dealt with something like 10,000 applications which have mostly been concerned with discrimination of one sort or another. Clearly the Commission is to be turned to a more political purpose. Maybe the purpose is desirable but clearly it is somewhat equivalent to asking judges to deal with matters which are highly political. Therefore, the appointment of commissioners becomes of more concern because people fear that those commissioners have been appointed for a political purpose. I fear that the turning of the Human Rights Commission into the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission may be an unfortunate turn because this may well lead to it becoming more political and dealing more specifically with questions, for example, of electoral reform. It may lead to the Commission dealing with a matter which this Parliament has not taken up but which perhaps it should. The Commission thereby will be placing itself in a position in which it is more likely to be attacked and criticised by people who object politically to the decisions which it makes. Therefore, I join Senator Durack in expressing this concern for the change in the nature of the Human Rights Commission which may happen under the proposals which are being discussed between the Australian Democrats and the Labor Government and which, it is indicated, is to be one of the important offshoots of the setting up of this Commission. I want also to ask a question involving another matter. I refer to the question of timing. I hold the view-I have said so in this Parliament on the second reading of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill-that what is done is unconstitutional. I believe that the Bill of Rights Bill will not stand up to challenge partly because of the complete change in the nature of the rights which are set out. I think the redrafting of those rights has been fatal to the Bill. If I am right in this-I believe of course that the Law Council of Australia in its submissions agrees very largely with the points I am making-and assuming that that goes by the board, I ask whether one is left with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission or whether, with the Government tying that Commission so much to the new Bill of Rights and substituting that for the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Commission is likely to be struck in the same way? One could imagine that it could last and that it could operate separately. However, tying it together with this legislation is such that I fear that we could have a scenario whereby, at the end of this year, after a lot of litigation has taken place, litigation dealing with the constitutional validity of this Bill is not finished and the Human Rights Commission as we now know it has ceased to exist because of the sunset clause which operates from December, thus leaving us with nothing. If the High Court of Australia should then find both the Bill of Rights Bill and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill invalid we are left with nothing. Therefore, I fear that as a result of the time factor here we may well find that this could be the result. I wonder whether the former Attorney-General, the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), has an opinion. He has not expressed himself on the constitutional validity of this Bill at all, although a number of senators, including Senator Sir John Carrick and myself, have cast doubts. The Minister has never expressed a view one way or the other. I want to know whether he has a fear that this Bill may well lead to the destruction also of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. I put that to him. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(8.15) —There are just two points which I want to raise which go back to a discussion that we had earlier about Article 6 in the Bill of Rights Bill and its effect on the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in any inquiry it may undertake into State laws. Some four hours ago we were discussing just exactly what definition would be placed on the words within Article 6 which relate to equal suffrage and the one vote one value concept. I wonder whether it would be a requirement, for example, that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, in its attempt to determine just how that would affect the electoral laws, go back to the United Nations General Assembly debate on this Article in New York on 8 November 1961 and, in fact, refer to what the British delegate had to say at that time. It is, of course, most appropriate to our particular situation. That delegate made the point that originally the United Kingdom had favoured the deletion of the words `universal and equal suffrage' from that particular article in the Covenant on the grounds that it believed that the words were redundant in the article because the article began with the words `Every citizen shall have the right'. However during the debate the United Kingdom delegates apparently changed their minds and Lady Tweedsmuir had this to say: It should be made clear, however, that the use of the word `equal' did not imply that each vote should be guaranteed identical weight by means of some kind of proportional representation in the electoral system. According to the Annotations each State had its own electoral system. The more direct system was better suited to the United Kingdom than proportional representation. Of course, each vote carried equal weight in the sense that there was only one vote per person and it was cast for by a member of the House of Commons who had exactly the same rights and duties as any other member. If that was the general belief of the third committee of the United Nations General Assembly in 1961, I imagine it would be very difficult for the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to identify the term in any other way. That is one half of what I want to say. Can the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) tell me whether, when the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was in fact ratified by the Fraser Liberal Government in 1980, Article 50 was derogated from or not. Article 50 states: The provisions of the present Covenant shall extend to all parts of federal States without any limitations or exceptions. I presume-since that must be read together with Part II, Article 2, paragraph 2, which requires a country or a state which has ratified that Covenant to put that Covenant into effect either by legislation or by some other means-that a Federal government of this sort, as indeed happened with Canada when it introduced its Bill of Rights, would, as an obligation as a ratifier of the Covenant, have to extend the impact of the Bill to the States, unless, of course, the Covenant was derogated from at the time it was ratified. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(8.20) —One of the characteristics of a really good filibuster is that, firstly, the points raised bear little or no resemblance to the particular matter before the chamber and, secondly, that insofar as they do, they are shamelessly indifferent to the fact of having been raised earlier in the debate and squarely answered. We have seen all those characteristics at work in the last 20 minutes while waiting for Senator Missen's revised amendments to turn up. They have now turned up and are around the chamber, so I can keep my reply mercifully brief. As to Senator Haines's requests for elucidation of various matters in Article 25 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, I mention that my earlier expression of confidence about the likely interpretation of the expression `universal and equal' and the reference to the travaux preparatoires on which that was based was founded not by reference to what some representative of the United Kingdom delegation might not have thought this was all about, but rather to the Secretary-General's annotations on the draft Covenant which state in respect of the relevant phrase: The provision it was thought, would leave State Parties to the Covenant free to regulate their own electoral systems, provided each vote carried equal weight. Senator Haines —That is what she said. She does in fact agree with those annotations. Senator GARETH EVANS —But the honourable senator's authority on this matter seems to adopt a rather bizarre interpretation of the expression `equal weight', if I might be so bold as to put it in those terms. Equal weight surely means equal value as distinct from everyone having a vote. To that extent, although this is an argument that is going to ultimately have to be resolved by the High Court, there is plenty of ground for supposing that one vote one value interpretation of the clause has got some legs. As to the terms in which the Covenant was ratified by the Fraser Government in 1980, I can tell it from my certain recollection that Article 50 was very heavily qualified and derogated from indeed so far as the application of the Covenant to the States was concerned. Regrettably, I do not have the text of that declaratory qualification to hand at the moment, but we can supply it as the evening wears on. It was that unwillingness to accept the implications of the Covenant in its application to the States that was so much resisted by the Australian Labor Party in opposition and in government, and in result we are the ones who have in fact withdrawn the reservations and declarations involved, particularly those that bear upon the construction of that Federal clause in Article 50. Senator Haines —What about Article 2? Was there any derogation from that? Senator GARETH EVANS —What was Article 2 about? Senator Haines —It was requiring ratifiers of the Covenant to put provisions of the Covenant into legislative or some other form. Senator GARETH EVANS —No, there is no derogation from that. The claim that was always made was that the Covenant in its emasculated form in which it was adhered to by the previous Government was in fact sufficiently observed by the law and practice of the Commonwealth then in place. There was no express derogation that I can recall, but we can check that. So far as Senator Durack's contribution is concerned, I honestly think that the points he raised were very fully canvassed by me in response to Senator Haines's earlier interrogation as to the Government's intentions in the event that various hypothetical scenarios happen to unravel later in the year. I did go in some detail to questions of timing that would be involved. At all stages though-this is also in answer to Senator Missen-I was very careful to make the point that the Government perceived the new Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission as a very much independent body, as a body whose credibility depended on its independence and the quality of its contributions. We made no assumptions at all about the likely outcome of the Commission's deliberations on the question of electoral laws or anything else, and in the event that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission came forward with a report that did not in fact produce some resounding findings about Queensland and Western Australia then we would cross that bridge when we came to it. Certainly we have made no such sordid assumptions from the outset. To do so would be utterly at odds with the conception of this Commission as being a fearlessly independent body, as undoubtedly it will be. As to the suggestion that HREOC would have no role left for it other than to operate in the area of the Covenant or the Bill of Rights, and Senator Missen's concern about what would happen if the Covenant somehow ceases to be available as a support for the Commission's operations, I simply respond by saying that HREOC has a number of clearly identified functions to perform. Both through the Sex Discrimination Commissioner as a member of the Commission and with the role of the Commission itself, it is the agency administering the Sex Discrimination Act. It is the agency administering the Racial Discrimination Act. It is the agency that in due course, when we have privacy legislation enacted, which I hope will be quite soon, will be the agency responsible for that major and important piece of foreshadowed legislation. Quite apart from the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights there are the investigations and inquiries and reporting functions that are properly exercised in relation to those three other very important declarations to which Senator Harradine has given much emphasis-the declarations of the rights of the child, of the disabled and of the mentally retarded. Senator Harradine —I have not got to ILO 111. I will get to that shortly. Senator GARETH EVANS —There are all sorts of exciting things the Commission will be responsible for doing. To suggest that it exists merely as some sort of rump organisation to do the bidding of an evilly minded government on a miscellany of political escapades, the kind of picture that was created by Senator Durack tonight, is very misleading and I do not think it need occupy the further time of the Senate, particularly since Senator Missen has his revised amendments ready to go. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(8.28) —I make a very brief observation on that last point. It is refreshing to hear the vote-buying tactics that have been adopted by the Government and the Australian Democrats out in the open. We heard Senator Haines address 10 very succinct and direct questions to the Minister for Resources and Energy and he answered each of them directly. Those questions were followed up by another more pertinent question: `Do you really believe that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission will have the power to make this-- Senator Haines —I do not think it does. Senator HARRADINE —I think the honourable senator is right. She is rumoured to be intelligent. Senator Haines —No, I was stated to be intelligent; I was rumoured to be a woman. Senator HARRADINE —I am sorry, yes. I was also rumoured to have four books outstanding from the Library. That is a total untruth; I cannot read. That was in the same article. I think what Senator Durack said was absolutely correct. He put it very succinctly. We have heard what has been happening, and in the response from Senator Gareth Evans he let the cat out of the bag when he said: `Of course, it will be up to the High Court to determine these issues'. That is where I disagree with Senator Durack. I am sure he does not believe that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission can report back by the end of this year on this particular subject. There is no doubt that it will be in the High Court for the next five years. If that is the basis upon which the Democrats are going to vote for the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill, I wonder how many of them will be here in five years time. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(8.30) —I seek leave to substitute the amendments as redrafted for the original amendments. Leave granted. Senator MISSEN —I move: (1) Page 8, paragraph 8 (1) (d), leave out the paragraph, insert the following new paragraph ``(d) one other member''. (2) Page 8, after paragraph 8 (1) (d), insert the following new paragraphs: `(e) 3 members who shall be person who, from their experience in non-government representational groups, minority groups or social service organisations, have specialist knowledge and experience in human rights; and (f) 3 other members who shall be persons nominated biennially by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, being persons of knowledge and experience in human rights acts and practices.''. (3) Page 8, sub-clause 8 (2), leave out the sub-clause, insert the following new sub-clause: ``(2) The President, the other member referred to in paragraph (1) (d) and the members referred to in paragraphs (1) (e) and (f) shall be appointed by the Governor-General.'' (4) Page 8, sub-clause 8 (3), line 5, leave out ``or members''. (5) Page 8, sub-clause 8 (4), line 9, leave out ``paragraph (1) (d)'', insert ``paragraph (1) (e) or (f)''. (6) Page 8, sub-clause 8 (9), line 25, after ``paragraph (1) (d)'' insert ``or that there is less than 3 members appointed under paragraph (1) (e) or (f)''. (7) Page 8, sub-clause 8 (9), line 27, leave out ``that paragraph'', insert ``paragraph (1) (d) or three members of the Commission appointed under paragraph (1) (e) or (f) as the case may be''. (8) Page 30, sub-clause 44 (3), line 6, before ``At a meeting'', insert ``Subject to sub-section (3A),''. (9) Page 30, after sub-clause 44 (3), insert the following new sub-clause: ``(3A) Between meetings of the Commission the President may, at any time, convene a meeting of the full-time members of the Commission which meeting may, subject to the control of the Commission, carry out the day to day affairs of, and perform the functions of, the Commission and for the purposes of such a meeting of the Commission a quorum is constituted by a number of full-time members that is not less than one half of the number of full-time members for the time being holding office under section 8.''. I think that the amendments have satisfied the problems which were raised by Senator Evans, Senator Harradine and Senator Haines, which we talked about during the suspension of the sitting for dinner. Under amendment (1) one member is to be added to the Commission under clause 8 (1) (d) instead of the existing provision of `at least one other member but not more than 3 other members'. There will be one member, who will be a full time member, and that will enable the Government, if it wishes, to appoint someone to the positions mentioned. If a privacy commissioner is appointed, there could be a subsequent amendment to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission legislation to include that person, but that is a matter for subsequent decision. The amendments include three non-government representational people and three members representing the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. As redrafted, the amendments adopt the criticism Senator Harradine made. Other alterations are made, particularly to cover the problem of a quorum. There will now be at least three full time members, so the quorum must be two, otherwise it would have been one. I think that the amendments cover the objections raised. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(8.32) —I indicate that while Senator Missen's revised amendments are substantially less destructive to the effective working of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission than would have been his original draft-we are grateful to him for appreciating that and amending them accordingly-I still must indicate that the revised proposal is unacceptable to the Government and the Government would wish to have recorded its opposition, fruitless though that may be in the face of the forces arrayed against us on this occasion. The reasons are those I earlier outlined and I do not need to repeat them. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(8.33) —I find myself in reluctant agreement with Senator Evans, but for absolutely different reasons. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1985 The Bill. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(8.34) —I think it is important that one does not repeat but reminds the Committee of what was said previously in Committee in relation to this question. I will not repeat it because there will be an opportunity in considering the Australian Bill of Rights Bill to look at the actual provisions. We must realise that no valid reason has been put forward for the deletion of the second Schedule from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill other than what is perfectly clear to everyone; that the basis upon which human rights are to be interpreted is no longer to be that in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I take this opportunity to ask whether it is intended that the external affairs power be utilised by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission for the purposes of its function in considering complaints under International Labour Organisation Convention No. 111. Perhaps Senator Gareth Evans might be able to answer that when we deal with the Australian Bill of Rights legislation. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(8.35) — On the first point raised by Senator Harradine, he will have an opportunity to make that speech again about the removal of Schedule 2 because it was not this Bill-- Senator Harradine —I said I would not repeat it; I said I would `remind'. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Harradine will have an opportunity to remind me about it again, because it is not this Bill that knocks it off, it is the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill, which we will be dealing with fourth, after the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. As for the International Labour Organisation Convention No. 111, the jurisdiction to investigate complaints arising under that is already established by Division 4 of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill. Senator Harradine —In effect there is no change? Senator GARETH EVANS —There is no change in that respect. There is not intended to be any change, nor has any been made, I believe. Bill agreed to. AUSTRALIAN BILL OF RIGHTS BILL 1985 Clause 1 agreed to. Clause 2 (Commencement). Senator HAINES(South Australia)(8.37) —We have an amendment to sub-clause 2 (3), which presently reads: Section 11 shall come into operation at the expiration of 5 years after the day fixed for the purposes of sub-section (2) of this section. This element of the legislation relates to the time given to the bureaucracy to get its house in order. We believe that five years is considerably longer than is necessary for any efficient bureaucracy to sort itself out. I move the following amendment: Page 1, sub-clause (3), line 11, leave out `5 years', insert `3 years'. It would seem to us that three years is any amount of time for Federal Government departments to do what is expected to be done under clause 2. I believe that it was the initial decision of the Government to put in three years. Certainly it is much more consistent with the lead time that was given under the Sex Discrimination Act, for example, than is five years. It was only under pressure from some sections of the bureaucracy, which felt that it would be easier for it if it had a little longer, that five years was finally decided on. We think that it could come back to three years and not be any the worse for that. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(8.39) — I am sorry to disappoint Senator Haines for her spirited opening contribution to the Australian Bill of Rights Bill, but the Government is unable to accept the reduction of so-called sunrise period from five years to three years. The period that has been identified was fixed after consultation with various departments within the Commonwealth Government. We believe that a comparison with the two-year period of the Sex Discrimination Act is inappropriate because that Act is of so much narrower effect than is this Bill and the implications of this, as a result, need that much longer to untangle and to be thought about. We believe that some judicial interpretation under clauses 10 and 12 of this Bill might be expected in the course of the five-year period which will, in turn, help government agencies to determine whether existing laws need amendment. On balance, we simply take the view, which I hope will be shared by the Opposition, that a five-year sunrise period is reasonable in all the circumstances. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clause 3 (Objects). Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(8.41) —My interest in this clause is in paragraph (a), which states: to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all persons without discrimination; My question is whether the word `universal' should be before the words `human rights'. A quality of a human right must surely be in its universality. Therefore, I wonder whether the word `universal' should not really appear before the words `human rights'. We in Australia cannot promote respect for human rights universally throughout the world by this legislation. This Bill does not provide for that. Senator McIntosh —Universal respect for human rights. `Human rights' is the prominent expression and it is the respect for it you are putting. Senator HARRADINE —One of the key factors of any human right is its universality. I think everyone would surely agree with that. Senator Gareth Evans —If that is right it is redundant if it is used to qualify the expression `human rights'. Senator HARRADINE —I will come to that later where the matter of human rights is provided for and then qualified. Senator Gareth Evans —Where? Senator HARRADINE —In Article 18, the right to life. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Jessop) —Order! I suggest that the honourable senator direct his remarks through the Chair and that the Minister refrain from unnecessary interjection. Senator HARRADINE —As an example I just give that indication. Paragraph (b) states: to that end, to give effect to certain provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights . . . But paragraph (c) states: to ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as set out in the Australian Bill of Rights are infringed by or under any law in relation to which that Bill of Rights operates has an effective remedy; Is it a fact that paragraph (c) does go beyond the external affairs power; that is to say, one can see that paragraph (b) does rely on the external affairs power, but we have had the indication by the Minister in charge of the Bill that in fact human rights are now those not in the ICCPR, but those that are contained in the Australian Bill of Rights. Therefore it appears to me that paragraph (c) goes beyond the external affairs power if it is to be regarded as an object of this piece of legislation. Finally, paragraph (d) states: to promote, enhance and secure, as paramount objectives, the freedom and dignity of the human person, equality of opportunity for all persons and full and free participation by all Australians in public affairs and public debate. What is the significance of the word `person'? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(8.45) — The language of clause 3 (a) is, I think, self-explanatory in its statement that the first object of the Act is to promote universal respect for human rights. It is not just respect as such; it is universal respect, universal within Australia and universally within the world. Whether that object is attainable is something that might be argued, but as an objective it is presumably a thoroughly worthy one and the word `universal' has a real significance in that context. To apply the word `universal' before `human rights' would be, I think, to create an impression that everywhere else in the Bill, unless we went in for repetition, there was some distinction between ordinary human rights and universal human rights. No such distinction is intended. Human rights are human rights, full stop. The kinds of human rights with which we are here concerned are those spelt out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. There may be some arguments which we will come to in the context inevitably, I suppose, of Article 18 about the right to life as to where the parameters of the right in question begin and end and in respect of whom or what the right in question is applicable to. But I honestly do not believe there is any conceivable significance that one can invest in the particular choice of language in sub-clause 3 (a). The statement of objective (b) is simply to identify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as being the source document for this Australian Bill of Rights to make quintessentially clear, if it is not already, that this is what this Australian Bill of Rights is all about-the domestic implementation of that commitment. Objective (c) is to make the point that this is more than a merely declaratory Bill of Rights. It does aim at giving people, whose rights are infringed by or under any law to which this is applicable, an effective remedy. As such, it is picking up the substance of Article 2 (3) of the International Covenant and that is something which is very much worth saying. Objective (d) is a very important sub-clause because it is designed to set out the paramount objectives in the Bill of Rights which are to get pre-eminence, as it were, if and when conflicts of rights arise, as they may do. There may need to be a balancing of interests where one provision of the Bill of Rights in practice proves to conflict with another provision, or where the rights of one individual under provision of the Bill of Rights conflict with the rights of another individual under that or another provision of the Bill of Rights. The three particular objects here identified as the paramount objectives, namely, the freedom and dignity of the human person, equality of opportunity for all persons and full and free participation in public affairs and public debate, are the central core of the objectives which is recognised as the central core in the preamble to the ICCPR. So it is not a merely arbitrary choice that informs the identification of those objects. They are again ones that emerged in the views of the States party to the treaty as the paramount objectives. We anticipate that sub-clause (d) will prove to be a quite important interpretative tool for the courts when vexed questions of conflict of rights arise in future. There is no particular significance to be ascribed in this context to the expression `human person'. It will remain undoubtedly, I suppose, again a matter for argument here and elsewhere as to whether `person' means anything more than life in being in the traditional common law formulation. Certainly it is not intended to add any additional lustre here to the argument which may be lacking in the language in Article 18. It is simply an affirmation of the importance of individual humanity as a key objective of the Bill and one to be given prior or paramount status if and when that should come into conflict with other rights of a lesser order of significance that are set out elsewhere in the Bill. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(8.51) —The Minister referred to the preamble to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Let me remind him that the preamble to the ICCPR states: Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Recognising that these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person, . . . It is clear that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights deals with the word `person' in a way which is entirely different from how that word has been dealt with in certain legal and common law judgments in respect of born persons. That is the point that I would like the Minister to make clear. Is the word `person' in clause 3 (d) used in a similar manner to that in which it is used in the ICCPR or is it used to describe someone who has been born? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(8.52) — The expression as it appears in clause 3 (d) is meant, I suppose, to be conterminous with the expressions in Article 18, which in turn are meant to be coterminous with the substantive right to life provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Senator Harradine —I was reading from the preamble. Senator GARETH EVANS —To the extent that Senator Harradine was reading from the preamble, what he was talking about was a reference to all members of the human family. It seems to me that that is essentially a rhetorical expression. It certainly does not add anything to the argument that the foetus or the life not yet in being in the common law sense is to be regarded as a worthy object of protection here. This sort of language, like all the language, I suppose, that we are talking about, is neutral on that point. It is a matter for ultimate determination by the courts as to what is precisely the ambit of that expression. But I cannot see how the language of clause 3 (d) affects the outcome of that argument one way or the other. It is not meant to. Clause agreed to. Clause 4 (Interpretation). Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(8.54) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 2, sub-clause (1), definition of `act', after paragraph (b), insert the following word and paragraph: `; or (ba) by or on behalf of a trade union or body corporate,'. (2) Page 5, sub-clause (1), definition of `practice', after paragraph (b), insert the following word and paragraph: `; or (ba) by or on behalf of a trade union or body corporate,'. Clause 4 of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill is, of course, a definition clause which has a very major impact on the way in which this Bill will operate. It defines the jurisdiction of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission which is established by another Bill. The Bill gives jurisdiction to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in respect of acts and practices which are alleged to breach the provisions of the Australian Bill of Rights as set out in Part II of the Bill. The importance of this point is the extent to which the word `jurisdiction' of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission can relate to acts and practices. In our view the acts and practices should be confined to those of Commonwealth public servants or authorities. However, the Government has seen fit to apply these acts and practices in a much broader way. They are defined to extend to an act which is done by or on behalf of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory, an act which is done by or on behalf of an authority of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory, or an act which is done in relation to Australian citizens, either within or outside Australia. We believe that there is far too wide an application of acts or practices in this Bill of Rights for reasons which I have already given elsewhere. But if the Bill is to be defined in this very broad way-namely, to apply to acts and practices by people acting on behalf of the Commonwealth Government or of a State or a Territory, or practices by authorities of those bodies-we believe that it should extend to the acts or practices done by or on behalf of a trade union or a body corporate. It is notorious that in this day and age the average person whose human rights may be in question may be affected not only by government but also by corporations or trade unions. Under this Government, in particular, we are living in an age not only of big government but also of big unions and big business. If acts, practices, enactments and legislatures and so on, at both the Commonwealth and State level, are to be judged in accordance with their conformity with the Bill of Rights, other major institutions in the society in which we live are equally required to be, and ought to be, judged in the same way. As I said, we could be saddled with a Bill of Rights to which we are completely opposed and which we will continue to vote against. However, if we are going to have a Bill of Rights and a Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to protect the rights of individuals in this country, it is as well for us to recognise that the rights of individuals are constantly being affected by trade unions and big corporations, not just by government. The Mudginberri dispute last year in the Northern Territory involved a small group of people working in an abattoir who reached an agreement with their employer about the terms and conditions under which they were going to work. As the agreement was within the award that was laid down by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, the claim could not be made that the parties were operating outside of the Commission. Under that agreement the employees were working satisfactorily and getting better conditions and pay than would have been applied under the award. This small group of people was then bludgeoned by government-the Government failed to do its duty, and the High Court of Australia has now decided that the Government failed to do its duty-and severely bludgeoned by a trade union which picketed the operation. The Government gave in in a most disgraceful way. That was an example of individuals in this country badly needing some protection. They needed protection against a trade union and they needed protection against a government. I do not know whether the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission legislation or the Australian Bill of Rights would have advanced the position of these people. Certainly some legislation which had been put on the statute books by the Fraser Government did help them. If we are to put on the statute books of this country a Bill of Rights which guarantees the rights of individuals and advances the individuals' rights and human rights in this country, those rights may be just as likely challenged, threatened, taken away or modified in some way by the activities of trade unions and, unfortunately, also by big business or big corporations. We know where threats come from. They usually come from combinations or organisations. One might say: `Oh well, perhaps one individual may be badly affected by another individual'. But, historically, governments are certainly a major threat as far as real dangers to human rights are concerned. In the society in which we live those threats are likely to come from big combinations of power, not only government, and particularly trade unions. Threats may also come from large corporations acting in combination against individuals. Laws such as the Trade Practices Act have done something about these things. Of course, we as an Opposition think that is the proper way to go. This Parliament tackles these matters when new forms of danger to individuals arise from time to time. We think the proper way to go is to use the legislation which is available to us. Unfortunately the Senate voted to give the Bill a second reading and we may yet have a Bill of Rights included in our legal system. What sort of a Bill of Rights is it if it is going to protect people against only one form of overweening power, namely that of government, and when other big groupings of people in this country can exercise overweening power against individuals? This Government is not really interested in human rights. It has a cosmetic desire to pander to a small group of people that it thinks is influential. It wants to mollify that group by proceeding with this Bill of Rights. This Bill of Rights is not going to be of much use at all. If the Government was really interested in preserving the rights of individuals it would recognise this fact. It has failed to do so. We believe that the Government should be confronted with the reality of the world and society in which we are living. We have moved the amendments in an attempt to expand the operation of the guarantees in this Bill of Rights beyond that of people in their dealings with government to people in their dealings with trade unions or corporations. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.06) — The Opposition amendments introduce an unfortunate element of low farce into these proceedings because, if adopted, they would completely be at odds with what the character of this whole Bill of Rights is meant to be about and, of course, that is one of the reasons they have been moved-to try to reduce any coherence or consistency of philosophy to negligible proportions and to make the Bill of Rights an object of derision. The truth of the matter is that the philosophy of a Bill of Rights is straightforwardly this: A Bill of Rights regulates the behaviour of governments in their jurisdictions and the behaviour of governments as that behaviour in turn affects human beings, human persons. It has never been part of the philosophy of a Bill of Rights that it protects corporations, corporate bodies; it is not part of the philosophy of a Bill of Rights that it protects trade unions as corporate bodies; it is not part of the philosophy of a Bill of Rights that it protects commercial corporations. Senator Chipp —But what governments does it affect? You used the plural. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am talking about the theory, the philosophy. It is to protect individuals against government-arms of government, agencies of government, departments of government, individual officers-- Senator Haines —Only Federal ones in this case. Senator GARETH EVANS —Well, in this instance yes, and that is something we can argue about in another context. To the extent that acts or practices of government are defined as they are by this clause, the reference is to the acts or practices of a Commonwealth, a Territory or in fact a State. To the extent of being able to report upon the behaviour or the laws of a State government, State agencies or individual State public servants, that jurisdiction is there. So it is governments in the plural sense but the full teeth of the Bill of Rights are, of course, applicable only against the Commonwealth, as Senator Chipp rightly points out by way of interjection. But the point I am trying to make is that the Bill of Rights exists for the benefit of individuals and it operates against government. I know that Senator Durack wants to turn this into a low and trivial sort of farce of a debate by introducing Mudginberri and all the rest of the pantheon of devils that litter his particular intellectual and emotional landscape but this is not what this particular debate is about. It is about getting enacted a piece of legislation that will be sensible, that will in fact be coherent and that will in fact withstand constitutional challenge. I appreciate that Senator Durack's objectives extend to none of those things. He does not want it to be intelligible, coherent or informed by any philosophy of human rights consistent with the international protection of human rights, and he certainly does not want it to withstand constitutional challenge. I understand that, but I simply hope that those others in this place who will have some voice in determining the outcome of this amendment will appreciate the extent to which this cuts across the basic philosophy and objectives of the Bill of Rights. The regulation of the conduct of persons, whether they be natural persons or corporate persons, is a matter for the ordinary law. The Bill of Rights is not intended to play any role in the relationships between individuals and other individuals, or individuals and corporations, or trade unions and individuals, or trade unions and corporations within the private sector. That is simply not what it is about. It is not what it was envisaged to be about by any of those who wrote its language. The travaux preparatoires are full of references to human beings and the relationship of human beings to government. They simply do not contain any reference at all to the status of corporations. To the extent that that is so, this amendment would simply lack not only any coherence in the framework of this legislation but also constitutional validity. It is not as if the Commonwealth even has any residual power under the corporations power or anything else to legislate for this, as it might conceivably elsewhere, because trade unions come within the ambit of Commonwealth constitutional power only to the extent that the regulation of their behaviour is properly incidental to the establishment of conciliation and arbitration procedures under section 51 (xxxv) of the Constitution. I simply repeat that this is constitutionally unsound. It is a little emotional and political foray by the Opposition. It is utterly without merit. It designedly has no regard whatever to the concept of this legislation. It is a quite shameless little amendment that has been moved and I urge, under all those circumstances, that it be rejected by the Committee. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(9.12) —I must say that I was surprised when the Opposition chose to move this amendment since, as Senator Evans pointed out, it extends the ambit of the legislation. Having listened for some time to the rather fanciful notions coming from some members of the Liberal Party and the National Party about what this Bill was or was not going to do and who it was going to protect from what, I am surprised that they have realised that it has not offered any protection to individuals from things such as trade unions and corporations, whether large or small. In fact, to listen to some of the speeches from Liberal and National Party senators one would have thought that this piece of legislation was going to set neighbour against neighbour and have all sorts of organisations and individuals attacked by anonymous complainants of one sort or another. As Senator Evans pointed out, the Bill before us provides protection to individuals only from infringements of their liberties by Federal Government bureaucracies. The Australian Democrats are on record as arguing that the legislation should go beyond that and that it should at least extend to the protection of individuals from infringements of their rights and liberties and freedoms by State governments and bureaucracies and by local government instrumentalities. Given that we intend to move an amendment of our own in that regard, it would be churlish in the extreme if we did not support an amendment which extends the ambit of the legislation to bodies whose history of infringing the rights of individuals exceeds those of both State and Federal governments. As Senator Durack pointed out, that covers not only trade unions but also big business in particular and, I have no doubt, other businesses and bodies corporate as well. Senator Evans complains that the Bill is likely to finish up being challenged constitutionally in the High Court. We spent several hours before the dinner suspension canvassing what was likely to happen as far as court challenges were concerned with regard to Article 6 and the rights or otherwise of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to investigate State electoral laws and for the Federal Government then to act on those laws. If we are going to have one lot of challenges we might just as well have a whole lot of others and get the whole lot cleared up absolutely. On the grounds that the Democrats believe that individual citizens have the right to be protected by people other than simply the Federal Government and its bureaucracies, we will be supporting the Opposition's amendments to extend the legislation to cover trade unions and bodies corporate. I think it would be only honourable of other senators on this side if they at least considered an amendment we will be moving later which also extends the ambit of this legislation so that it picks up the derogation of rights and freedoms by State governments and State government bureaucracies and considered very seriously whether or not they should be as pigheaded as they have indicated they are going to be and oppose that amendment of ours. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(9.17) —I support the amendments. I want to ask the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), who is dealing with the Bill, what he would say to an employee who lost his job and his livelihood because of union pressure. I am thinking in particular of an electrician on the new Parliament House site who did not comply with a Builders Labourers Federation directive when working on that site. Pressure was subsequently brought to bear on the Authority to have him sacked and he was of course blackbanned by the union and has not worked since, being unable to find employment in his trade. The Minister might say that that is anecdotal evidence of little consequence, but it is not the only incident I know of on that particular site, not to mention many other incidents of a similar nature around Canberra over the last few years. What do I or what does anybody else say to a person in that position when this Government will do nothing to protect them? What sort of a Bill of Rights is it when the only answer is to say: `Bad luck, if it relates to a union nothing can be done about it'? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.18) — What Senator Reid says to somebody like that is that the Bill of Rights has no conceivable application to his case, any more than the Bill of Rights has anything to do with the right to clean air, the right to social security, the right to education, the right to a whole variety of other goods or things which people take seriously. The Bill of Rights is not a universal panacea for every ill claimed by any individual that may have been inflicted upon him by some other individual or corporation or body in this society. To complain about its inadequacy for those reasons but at the same time in another breath elsewhere in this debate to talk about the draconian potential of this Bill of Rights for setting citizen against citizen is to engage in the most squalid kind of hypocrisy, which I have come to expect of course from the Opposition and am utterly unsurprised by. What I am surprised by is the way in which the Democrats have chosen by their response to this amendment to trivialise this debate in a way that I guess has become all too familiar in this place. The Democrats, through people such as Senator Chipp, at least have a fierce commitment to the concept of a Bill of Rights as something standing between the citizen and overbearing government. They have a perfectly natural desire to extend the range of protections to all forms of government-not only the Commonwealth but the States and local government as well. I can understand that desire-it is one I have promoted myself in the past-but to lend his name and the Democrats' name to this absurd extension of the concept of the Bill of Rights, at the same time as there is no evident desire on the part of the Democrats to extend the protections to the depredations that can be caused against individuals by big business, even though Senator Siddons has made that his charter of faith for the week in the context of other matters now before the Government and the Parliament, is to be absurdly selective and trivially selective and to act in a way that undermines what the whole character of this Bill of Rights is about. It is about the citizen versus the state. One could argue how widely the concept of the state might properly extend, and we will argue about that in the context of later clauses, but to somehow extend the concept of the state into the private sector, the domain of trade union behaviour and so on, particularly when there is an utter inability or unwillingness to articulate as to how any of the articles in the Bill of Rights could possibly extend to the circumstances of an individual complaining about trade union behaviour in relation to him is not acceptable. What is involved here? Is it his right as a member of a family? Is it his right to privacy that will be affected? Is it his liberty and security and the concept of his right to be informed of the grounds of arrest? Is it his right to peaceful assembly? None of those things are applicable to the context of an individual versus a trade union. There are all sorts of other areas of domestic tort law, industrial law and labour law which are applicable and ought properly arguably to govern those sorts of situations. The law of conscientious objection in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act is perfectly relevant and applicable to the rights of an individual, vis a vis his own trade union. That is something that can be readily acknowledged on both sides of the chamber. This just trivialises an important debate. To go down this track is to do so for reasons that have not been fully or thoroughly thought out by the Democrats in apparently choosing the course that they have chosen. I simply ask them in the time that is available to us before we vote upon this Bill, which may not be very long, to reconsider their position. Senator Chipp —With great respect, you have not given us logical reasons for our opposing it either. It has just been invective and rhetoric. Senator GARETH EVANS —Logical reason No. 1 is that the Bill will be constitutionally unsound if it purports to go beyond-- Senator Chipp —So it can be challenged like everything else in it. It can be challenged in the High Court. Let them fix that. Senator GARETH EVANS —If the honour- able senator does not understand that there is a difference between a Bill which bears a random approximation-- Senator Chipp —I know I am a lesser mortal than you, but please be tolerant. Senator GARETH EVANS —If the honourable senator does not understand that there is no difference between some piece of legislation which bears just a random approximation to an international treaty or a head of power and one which obviously amounts to a serious attempt-maybe it fails-to get close to the terms of that, with the utmost respect, the honourable senator has not begun to understand what the constitutional argument is all about. If he has not understood that no Bill of Rights which presently exists anywhere in the world and no Bill of Rights that is any conceivable forebear of this one has anything to do with what happens in the private sector but they all have everything to do with what happens between citizen and government, again, with the utmost respect, he has missed the entire point about Bills of Rights. If he does not understand that there is nothing in the language of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in the description and definition of the rights which are there set out which could conceivably be of any utility to an individual claiming to be affected in his behaviour by the activities of some union, once again, whether this is a logical argument or not, or whether it appears to the honourable senator to be a logical argument or not, it indicates that he simply does not have the necessary degree of familiarity with the language of the Covenant. It is palpably absurd for the Democrats to go down this track. They have chosen to do it. They have chosen to trivialise the Bill. They have chosen to do that at the same time as they are demanding all sorts of explanations about what the Government will do and how the Bill will apply, and so on. One could hardly blame a Government spokesman if he reacts in the way that he has against what demonstrates just a complete indifference to the basic principles on which this debate is proceeding and to which I had thought previously the Democrats were at least committed. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.24) —Unfortunately for us, in trying to conduct a sensible and rational debate on this matter we are faced with a Minister at the table in the person of the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, who has been brought up with one narrow view of what human rights are all about. He is the product of the human rights industry, if I might call it that, of his generation. He is the product of an educational system-the law school and so on that he came from-which at the time had one view of human rights. That is the view that he has now espoused and which he will continue to espouse, but he denigrates anybody who has any broader or different view on human rights from that which he has in his own mind, which he learnt at his law school, which he taught, I suppose, and about which he has lectured to us in this chamber for years. The Minister cannot understand such views. He accuses everybody who has a different view-maybe we have a broader view, but it is certainly different-of trivialising the debate or not understanding the first principles of what all this is about. Senator Gareth Evans —You understand perfectly well. Senator DURACK —I understand the Minister's point of view. I was a victim of the same sort of education as his. I hope that I have been able to escape from it and come to a wider understanding of the issue. If one looks at these sorts of instruments with an unprejudiced mind, without all that clutter which has blinkered Senator Gareth Evans in his approach to these things, there is no reason in the wide world why when looking at the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights one cannot see there the guarantees of rights in absolute terms that are accorded to individuals. Sure, there are many articles in the International Covenant which are relevant only to protecting individual rights against government. Obviously, when the Covenant talks about criminal laws and the rights of accused people and so on, it must be talking about the relations between individuals and a government. There are many other clauses in the International Covenant, as indeed there are in the Bill itself, which are couched in very broad terms indeed. Let us take Article 18, the right to life article, in the Australian Bill of Rights, which states: Every human being has the inherent right to life and no person shall be arbitrarily deprived of life. Will anybody suggest that life is something which will only be threatened by government? Life is threatened in many other ways. Senator Gareth Evans —Kids' stuff. Senator DURACK —The Minister says this is kids' stuff. This statement emanates from his narrow education, his narrow focus on this subject. It comes from the fact that he has had a narrow education and has a narrow interest in people with regard to this subject. It may well be that historically that Article is correct. I suppose the American Constitution is regarded as the foundation for the thinking behind this Bill of Rights. The fathers and the creators of those guarantees in the United States Constitution were rightly concerned in their day and age-200 years ago, when Senator Evans said all the ideas that he now espouses came about-with the overwhelming powers of governments, usually the powers of dictators, kings, tyrants and so on. There are plenty of those in the world today. When the International Covenant was brought into operation it was concerned with the same thing-the tyranny, the dictatorship and the acts of murderous rulers of so many countries in the world, most of which is still rampant, despite having international covenants and the United Nations and everything else. Senator Harradine —There are more now. Senator DURACK —There are more of them. Of course, great concentration is given by human rights people in the world to these issues and to governments. The fact of the matter is that we are being asked to pass a Bill of Rights for Australia, for our society and for the concerns of Australians in 1986-not the concerns of the Americans in 1776, not even the concerns of other countries in 1946 or 1966 or whenever these matters were debated in the United Nations. We are being asked to improve the rights of Australians today. Senator Evans says that it is absolutely ridiculous to talk about rights apart from those which are concerned with governments. He answered Senator Reid by saying that this Bill did not protect her constituents' rights any more than it protected the right of free air or the right of this or that. That is exactly what we have been saying all along about this debate. In our society, in our democracy and in our parliamentary system, the rights of people are protected by the democratic process, by us in this Senate or those in the other place and by our courts. We have evolved a system which protects, considers and is concerned about the rights of all Australians and not just those rights which are the concerns of this document. The major issues in the debate on this amendment have emerged very quickly and it is a very good thing that they have because we will continue to have this same debate throughout most of the amendments. We in the Opposition say that, if we are to have a Bill of Rights in Australia, let it be a relevant Bill of Rights. Let it be relevant to the concerns of Australians. Australians are not simply concerned with what rights there may be against government, they are concerned with a whole range of threats which may emerge to their rights. We have brought this amendment forward because we believe that rights are being threatened in particular by other large combinations in this country, not just by governments. We have instanced trade unions and bodies corporate. The reality is that although the human rights movement may have its origins in the threats to these rights by what was then the big visible combination, namely, government, in modern times such combinations are by no means confined to government; they extend very clearly and obviously to trade unions and they may well extend also-although it is not so easy to see examples of it-to the large corporations in this country which no doubt exercise considerable power over people. Fortunately by laws of this Parliament we have done a great deal to control the exercise of those powers by both corporations and trade unions. I do not think we have done enough to control those by trade unions, but if we are to have some statement which is presented to the Australian people as their charter of rights or Bill of Rights let this charter be one which deals with the reality of the society in which we live and areas where there are major threats to that society. We will have subsequent debates on this matter as a result of amendments by the Australian Democrats to extend this more fully to the States. We will debate that later, but the Opposition believes that under our federal system this should not be extended. However, this provision of the Bill does extend to State and Territory governments. This definition of `act' or `practice' extends to Commonwealth and State acts and practices on behalf of Commonwealth, State and territory governments. We say that, if the Government intends to extend it in that broad way, it should also extend the provision to trade unions and bodies corporate. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(9.36) —The last time the Minister spoke I was under the mistaken impression that he was answering the matters that I had raised. I suppose to be fair to him he touched upon them briefly at the same time as he suggested that members of the Opposition had been putting citizen against citizen. If it pleases him to say that sort of thing, he should feel free to do so, but I have a perfectly clear conscience that I have said nothing that could be interpreted in that way. I am merely concerned about the sort of person who is virtually deprived of being able to work as a result of the actions of others. I would have thought that that was important. The Minister then went on to vilify the Australian Democrats. I am sure that they can look after themselves, but, if that is the best sort of argument that he has, we are interested to hear it. The Minister referred to the family and all sorts of other ways in which rights can be protected. I found this very interesting because I could not help but then think: `Why on earth do we need this Bill if all those other sorts of rights which are not included are, in fact, capable of being protected in other ways?' I agree that they probably are protected, but why do we need the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill 1985 when we are only dealing with the Commonwealth Government and there are organisations like the Ombudsman, various tribunals and a whole range of places where people can go if they think they have been hardly done by by the Commonwealth. The other extraordinary thing about the Minister's answer at that time was the fact that he kept talking about the Commonwealth as though it were some magic in itself. He totally failed to recognise that the Commonwealth only manifests itself in the actions of public servants, many of whom are my constituents. I find his attitude to them totally offensive and I shall raise this again as the debate proceeds. Luckily for me, I was brought up in a much better law school than the Minister. One of the things that I can recall from so long ago was that people had some place in society and were of some importance. But obviously public servants have no importance whatever to Senator Evans. The monolithic state dominates his thinking. If one looks through this Bill one finds that nowhere is the actual respondent, the human being who is in fact subject to the sort of vilification that goes on under this, in any way protected at all. He has no rights and, if the Minister is prepared to come into this Parliament with a Bill like this that protects everybody else but not the servants of the Commonwealth, it is time that he took it away, had another look at it and started putting in some clauses which have some regard for the people who are the servants of this Government. Why these people should have any loyalty to the Government I cannot think. There are two categories of people to whom I refer-those who have lost their livelihood through the action of trade unions and whom the Government has refused to consider or have any regard for, and the public servants themselves. If the Minister does not want to deal with that now, I will raise it again later. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.38) —Oh dear, one lives in hope that one day Senator Reid will come to this place on a matter of public importance or a piece of legislation and actually raise her sights to the issues of principles involved in it, rather than making another cheap pitch for page 5, page 7 or page 9 of the Canberra Times or whatever sustenance she derives from her own particular parish pump. It is quite unbelievable the extent to which Senator Reid can bring her own particular brand of trivialisation to the most important matters. Senator Reid said that it was inappropriate for the Commonwealth Parliament-- Senator Walters —On a point of order, Mr Chairman: If Senator Evans is going to indulge in these petty, personal attacks and his abuse which we have become so used to, I am just warning him that this debate can go on for many, many days. He had better behave himself or else we will continue it. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It is a matter for the Chair to see that Senator Evans behaves himself. Senator GARETH EVANS —It was not much good giving Senator Walters a win before dinner because she is still as grumpy as she was before. Anyway, we will sort this out later. The point I want to make to Senator Reid is that the sort of point she makes could equally be made against a Commonwealth Government and Parliament, including our own previous Liberal Government, introducing legislation to establish an Administrative Appeals Tribunal to deal with the decisions of public servants made on their merits, to introduce an ombudsman dealing with complaints made against the behaviour of public servants acting on behalf of various departments and agencies and introducing the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. The Bill of Rights simply takes its place in a long list of legislation which has been passed by governments over the years-in recent years only, in this country-to protect citizens from either deliberate or inadvertent or negligent exercises of government power in a way that in one way or another interferes with individual rights. It is not an attack on the virtue of public servants. It is absurd to suggest that. I hope that Senator Reid will not pursue that particular point. The only other point I wish to make is in response to Senator Durack's contribution. We have had a lot of reference to various honourable senators' study of the law in the last 10 minutes or so. All I can say is that Senator Durack must have won a postgraduate doctorate in the study of humbuggery because there were two particular pieces of advanced humbuggery in what he had to say to us a few minutes before and which can be briefly and succinctly identified as follows: First of all, the particular manifestation which has been identified by the Australian Democrats is the willingness to extend the Bill of Rights to the trade unions and other bodies corporate but not-this has been clearly foreshadowed even if it does not arise starkly in the present proposed section- a willingness to extend the operation of the Bill of Rights to States or other institutions of government in this country. To be selective in that particular way simply is to lack any kind of credibility. The second piece of humbug we have had from Senator Durack is to talk as he did about the limitations on the capacity of the Human Rights Commission to investigate complaints and the Bill of Rights to identify them when he himself was the architect and author of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981, which defined acts and practices of a colourable kind as those engaged in by or on behalf of the Commonwealth, an authority of the Commonwealth or under an enactment. He did not extend in the Commonwealth at large the operation of his Human Rights Commission to the acts or behaviour of bodies corporate or trade unions for the very good reason that he well understood then, and as he well understands now, that the whole object of an exercise of this particular kind is to create rights for individuals against government, to create avenues of redress for individuals against government. That is what a Bill of Rights is all about. It is not what a sex discrimination Bill is all about; that is to create rights not only against government but against private bodies and persons. It is not what a racial discrimination Bill is all about; that is to govern rights as between citizens, as between individuals and bodies corporate as well as between individuals and government. It is not what a privacy Bill is all about. It is not what a lot of legislation of a piecemeal kind dealing with particular civil liberties problems is all about. It is what a Bill of Rights Bill is all about. It is what the whole debate has been about since this thing got started. The idea was to create a Human Rights Commission which would have the primary responsibility to deal with, as would the courts, the rights guaranteed in an overarching Bill of Rights which dealt with the citizen versus the State and, underneath that, a litter of other pieces of legislation dealing with particular kinds of civil liberties problems, some of them involving citizen versus the State in a more detailed kind of context and others involving citizen versus citizen, but with the Human Rights Commission having its role and jurisdiction in relation to some of those areas. That is the concept. It is clear. It is explicit. It is conceptually sound. It is constitutionally sound. It is the kind of concept which Senator Durack was perfectly willing to adopt and, indeed, advocate when he was Attorney-General in 1981. He has chosen, for reasons that can only be described as humbuggery, to take an alternative course here tonight. As a result I think he deserves no respect for taking that course. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Durack's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Michael Mason, C. V. J. Baume, Peter Messner, A. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G. Brownhill, D. G. C. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Carrick, Sir John Sanders, N. K. Chipp, D. L. Sheil, G. Collard, S. J. Short, J. R. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Siddons, J. R. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Haines, J. Vanstone, A. E. Hamer, D. J. Vigor, D. B. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Lewis, A. W. R. Aulich, T. Giles, P. J. Black, J. R. Harradine, B. Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R. Coates, J. Morris, J. Coleman, R. N. Ray, RobertColston, M. A. Reynolds, M. Cook, P. F. S. Richardson, G. F. Cooney, B. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Crowley, R. A. Ryan, S. M. Devlin, R. Sibraa, K. W. Elstob, R. C. Tate, M. C. Evans, Gareth Walsh, P. A. Georges, G. Zakharov, A. O. Gietzelt, A. T. Knowles, S. C. McKiernan, J. P. Chaney, F. M. McClelland, DouglasMacklin, M. J. Grimes, D. J. Missen, A. J. McIntosh, G. D. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —by leave-I wish to make a comment in relation to the division which has just been held. The Opposition as yet does not have a replacement in the Senate for Senator Peter Rae, who has retired. His replacement has not yet come to the Senate. To provide a balance Senator Button has not voted and I thank the Government for honouring this arrangement. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.51) — Dealing with the first of the amendments of the Government, I move: (1) Page 3, sub-clause (1), definition of `Covenant', line 43, leave out `the Schedule', insert `Schedule 1'. This amendment alters the definition of `Covenant' by changing the reference to the Schedule of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill to reflect the fact that a second schedule is to be inserted. The text of the Covenant will be located in Schedule 1 and a list of Acts which are to be accepted from the operation of certain divisions in the Bill will be found in the new Schedule 2. I will deal in a later amendment with the reasons for the insertion of the additional schedule. Amendment agreed to. Clause 4, as amended, and Clauses 6 and 7-by leave-taken together. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.52) —There are three amendments that deal with Norfolk Island. The first one is an amendment to clause 4 in which the definition of `Territory' is amended. At the moment it says ` . . . does not include the Northern Territory'. That should be amended to read `or Norfolk Island'. As the amendments deal with the same subject, page 7, clause 6 (1) also needs an amendment to exclude Norfolk Island, and there is a further amendment to clause 7 to exclude Norfolk Island. I seek leave to deal with these three amendments together. Leave granted. Senator DURACK —I move: (1) Page 6, sub-clause 4 (1), definition of `Territory', line 20, at end of definition, add: `or Norfolk Island'. (2) Page 7, sub-clause 6 (1), lines 41 and 42, leave out `and of Norfolk Island'. (3) Page 8, clause 7, at end of clause, add: `other than Norfolk Island'. The Opposition is concerned about the application of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill to Norfolk Island because of the particular constitutional status of Norfolk Island and the peculiarities of it. Very strong representations have been made by the Government of that Territory not just to the Opposition but to this Parliament. The Opposition feels that there is great substance in the matters that have been put to it. Norfolk Island has limited self-government under the Norfolk Island Act, which was passed by this Parliament in 1979. If I remember rightly, that was as a result of a royal commission of inquiry into the administration of Norfolk Island and the nature of the constitutional framework which it should enjoy as a territory with special status in relation to Australia. The island, of course, is a small one with a population of only 1,950 people. The pressure on land use in Norfolk Island and the composition of its population are matters of very grave concern to the inhabitants of that island. Norfolk Island residents, as we know, do not vote in Australian elections. In order to qualify to vote in Norfolk Island elections residence is required for a continuous period of three years. Also, people have to have the intention to live their indefinitely. Norfolk Island has legislation to control permanent residence. It has an immigration Act which was assented to by the Governor-General of the Commonwealth, under the present Government, in March 1984. That control of migration to Norfolk Island applies to Australian citizens as well as to foreigners. I think Australians may be regarded virtually as foreigners in that Territory. If I may say so, that has been accepted by this Parliament in the legislation I have referred to and was approved of by this Government as recently as March 1984. Australian and Norfolk Islanders do not pay Australian taxes on their Norfolk Island-sourced income, and fortunately for us their Government has financial self-sufficiency. As I said, there are some very peculiar features of the relationship between Australia and Norfolk Island. The concern in the Territory is that these arrangements, which really go to the heart of the society of Norfolk Island, namely the control of people being able to reside there permanently and the control of their electoral system, and which give rights to residents of a permanent character may well be challenged if this Bill of Rights were applied to them, particularly the right guaranteeing freedom of movement. One of the articles clearly guarantees freedom of movement. The immigration Act to which I referred would seem likely to be struck down as being not in conformity with that piece of Territory legislation. Clearly, from the description I have given of the size and nature of the island and the society on it, unrestricted immigration would cause a complete change to the character of the society, and indeed of the island. As I have said, there is perhaps not quite the same likelihood, but there is a concern and there is a possibility that its electoral laws would be affected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Norfolk Island Public Service is restricted to permanent residents of the island as part of the general policy of Norfolk Island to maintain the cohesiveness of the society which it has enjoyed for centuries. For this combination of reasons, the Chief Minister and other Ministers have made representations to the Opposition, which the Opposition has studied and believes have merit. For those reasons we are moving these amendments to exclude Norfolk Island from the ambit of the Bill, the same as the Bill excludes the Northern Territory, except in relation to the matters we have already debated. This Bill, because of federalist principles, is said not to apply to the States. Of course, we know perfectly well that that guarantee of the Government is false and misleading. The Government, despite those factors, is claiming that this Bill is in accordance with federal principles. The fact that the Government's proposal excludes the Northern Territory emphasises the fact that we are observing the Federal principles, because the Northern Territory is a self-governing Territory. Norfolk Island may not be as fully self-governing as the Northern Territory; nonetheless, it has a real measure of self-government and it has these social peculiarities I have described, which I believe should be decided by the Norfolk Island legislature. If the laws which have been passed, which I have described, cannot be passed the whole nature of the island and its social life probably will be irreparably damaged. On the principle that the Government has decided to exclude the Northern Territory-it says it excludes the States, although we know that indirectly this Bill will be used against the States; but that is another part of the debate-we believe that it would be appropriate for Norfolk Island to be excluded as well. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.04) — Because Norfolk Island is a Territory of Australia, the Commonwealth has obligations under international law to ensure that our treaty obligations are met on Norfolk Island. That is an obligation which is not affected by the island's status as a Territory in the transition to internal self-government. This point was accepted by Senator Durack when he led debate in this place on the Human Rights Commission Bill in 1981. As he may or may not recall, that legislation was expressed to extend to every external Territory, including Norfolk Island. The principle was thus once again clearly laid down. Again, it is a form, I dare to suggest, of humbug to suggest that there is something new, peculiar and sensitive about the course that is being taken by the Government in bringing Norfolk Island within the ambit of the present legislation. The Bill of Rights is simply intended to replace the existing implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights under the existing Human Rights Commission Act. It seems to us that it would be unacceptable to withdraw the protection of the individual against Government action which already exists on Norfolk Island-I suppose we now have to say against corporate and trade union action, even if trade union activity is not distinguished by its presence on Norfolk Island-without replacing it with the protection that is provided by the Australian Bill of Rights. I conclude by saying that Norfolk Island is a charming and delightful place, as both the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and I well know from having spent holidays there in recent times with our families. We have no particular desire to destroy the special flavour of that place and we do not need a lecture from Senator Durack or anyone else to persuade us about the special character of that place. It has a number of special laws, including immigration laws of the kind Senator Durack mentioned, which are designed to protect its status as a small island with a delicate ecostructure and limited resources. In our view the special environmental, historical and cultural circumstances of Norfolk Island may well lead to those laws being justified under Article 3 of the Bill of Rights, even where similar laws in other parts of Australia might well by comparison be called into question. To the extent that does not occur, questions of special exemption could later be considered by the Government. I understand that there have been some communications from the Attorney-General to the Norfolk Island authorities along those lines. The basic point remains that Norfolk Island is part of Australia's jurisdiction. It cannot, for all its charm and special character, exist in some special isolated pocket where fundamental rights and liberties are not worth the same or guaranteed in the same way as is the case elsewhere in Australia. We feel an overriding commitment to those individuals who have often claimed the desirability of those kinds of protection in a Norfolk Island context and we believe that in principle, quite apart from the precedent Senator Durack set with his own 1981 legislation, Norfolk Island ought to be covered by this legislation, so we reject the amendments accordingly. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.08) —I will deal with the answer Senator Evans has made to these amendments in expressing the Government's rejection of them. It seems to me that the only argument he advanced was the fact that the Human Rights Commission Bill, which was introduced in this Parliament when I was Attorney-General in the Fraser government, was applied to and does apply to Norfolk Island. Senator Evans, who has been very free with accusations, abuse and so on in this debate, is ignoring the fact-I will not use the same sort of language he has used to advance his arguments against his opponents in this debate-as he must well know, that the Human Rights Commission legislation only gave the Commission the power to look at laws of the Federal Parliament or of Norfolk Island, as it would have been, to decide whether they were in conformity with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This Bill of Rights will strike down laws if they are found by a court not to be in conformity with the Covenant. There is a vast difference between this Bill and the Human Rights Commission, which was only a body to look at Federal laws or proposed laws and to advise this Parliament whether in its opinion they were in conformity with the Covenant. It was then for this Parliament to make the decision whether that law would be brought into conformity with the covenant. It was only an advisory body, which is vastly different from the application of this Bill of Rights to Federal laws and, as defined, the laws of Norfolk Island. All Senator Evans can say in answer to that in reality is that under Article 3 it may be that Norfolk Island laws prevail. Even though they are in breach of the Covenant the immigration law is the most obvious-counsel might be able to persuade a court that the guarantee of the rights and freedoms under the Bill is subject to the Norfolk Island laws being reasonable limitations as demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Apart from the absurdity of judges being asked to make any decision on that matter-we have had something to say about it and we will have something more to say about it later in this debate-how can the Norfolk Islanders have any confidence that their laws, which are severely restricting Australians going to Norfolk Island, can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society? They can be justified if the will of this Parliament were to preserve the nature of Norfolk Island society and the charm of the place, which Senator Gareth Evans has apparently experienced. There is a cohesive social unit there which we, as legislators, may well decide should be preserved for various reasons-maybe because of its charm, according to Senator Gareth Evans, or maybe because of the people there, for whom we have a responsibility and who have been led to believe that this was a way of life that we were prepared to accept and accord to them. When this sort of matter is determined by the Federal Court of Australia or, indeed, perhaps by the High Court of Australia, how can those sorts of considerations be brought into play and how can those people be given any assurance that they will be able to demonstrate that these are reasonably justified in a free and democratic society? I would have thought it would be almost impossible for judges to make a decision of that kind. The Norfolk Islanders have to rely only on a decision of the Federal Court and the exercise of these strange powers demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. No wonder the Norfolk Islanders want to have a better assurance of their way of life, the preservation of their way of life and of their island's ecology and environment than what Senator Evans is going to give them. What a pathetic argument that is. It is perhaps not quite as pathetic as his argument that because the Fraser Government included Norfolk Island in the Human Rights Commission Act, it should be included here. That can be demonstrably shown to be a totally false argument because the two things are quite different. But it looks as though the Norfolk Islanders are only going to have that protection because the guarantee in very absolute terms of freedom of movement is simply not compatible with the sort of restriction on immigration for permanent residence. I will read Article 15 for the benefit of Senator Evans. This is a good example of how this whole exercise can be given effect to. Article 15 states: Every person lawfully in Australia has the right to freedom of movement and choice of residence. That is an absolute guarantee and it applies to Australia and Norfolk Island under this Bill. The poor old Norfolk Islanders will have to argue in the High Court that their immigration laws, which are very restrictive, as I have already said, should apply. They are going to have to convince the Federal Court judges in the first place and then the High Court, if they can afford to go any further, that their laws may be justified because there are restrictive, reasonable limitations that can demonstrably be justified in a free and democratic society when the rights of persons are stated as being those which a free and democratic society should enjoy; namely, freedom of movement and choice of residence. I would like Senator Evans to explain how he would formulate an argument to the High Court which said that the Norfolk Island immigration laws, restrictive as they are, can be upheld under the Bill of Rights. It is almost a certainty that if we pass this law now applying the Bill of Rights to Norfolk Island there will be a total destruction of that small society, and the whole way of life of those people would be completely and utterly changed and probably destroyed forever. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.15) — Lest it be thought that the argument goes by default, might I say there is substance in the permissible limitations argument based on Article 3. The language there comes from the Canadian Charter. We will be talking about it later, but I simply make the point that the notion that this is somehow beyond the wit, the comprehension or the ability of the courts to apply is not well founded in fact, given the experience of the Canadian courts. Having come fresh from a discussion with the Canadian Chief Justice a few weeks ago about this, I think I can say that with some confidence. The particular language talks in terms of such reasonable limitations prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. There are all sorts of limitations that may well be construed in context as reasonable. Article 15 of the Australian Bill of Rights, dealing with the freedom of movement, states: Every person lawfully in Australia has the right to freedom of movement and choice of residence. That must be already, for the general run of the mill Australian, subject to reasonable limitations and not subject to be construed absolutely, otherwise local government zoning laws as to areas that could properly be the subject of residence would have no chance of surviving the slings and arrows of the Bill of Rights in the court. Of course there are limitations of all kinds on most of these rights which are going to have to be acknowledged, accepted and understood. There will be room for argument around the edges. In the particular context of Norfolk Island, I think there is ample room for argument about the application of Article 3 should anyone choose to litigate it in this context. I further made the point-I mentioned it indirectly in my opening remarks and I will mention it more directly now-that in a letter of 2 January 1986 to the Chief Minister of Norfolk Island the Attorney-General confirmed that he, in a previous discussion with the Chief Minister, undertook that if the operation of the Bill of Rights resulted in jeopardy to the existing legal arrangements in the areas of local immigration-he mentioned one or two other matters-he would support the enactment of specific overriding conditions if necessary. That is one of the options available under the Bill of Rights, enacted as it is as an ordinary Act of parliament and capable of amendment and of limitation in that way. That is one of the reasons-the need to tread carefully in some of those areas-that we have all along opposed the immediate introduction and application of a constitutional Bill of Rights, unamendable for all practical purposes and potentially overreaching in some of its applications. I say all of that to make the point that there may be some appropriate exceptions as far as Norfolk Island is concerned which are cheerfully acknowledged by the Government. But there are many other areas of application of the basic guarantees which are and must be regarded as in principle equally applicable to the citizens of Norfolk Island as they are to other Australians. Against that background I think it is perfectly reasonable for the Government to take the view that Norfolk Island should be subject to the basic operation of the Bill. I repeat that I hope the amendments will be rejected accordingly. Senator Harradine —Pursuant to the Standing Orders I request that the Minister table the document from which he quoted. Senator GARETH EVANS —I decline to do so on the ground of confidentiality, since I have not had an opportunity to check the point with the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and he may not wish-or the Chief Minister, for that matter, may not wish-the whole of the letter to be made public. The CHAIRMAN —An assertion by the Minister that the document is confidential is sufficient, Senator Harradine. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.22) —Mr Chairman, I think it is very important, because we are dealing with amendments by Senator Durack which go to the heart of this question. If there is information from the Norfolk Island Chief Minister which is relevant to our consideration of this matter, I believe it all ought to be made available by the Minister. I am sure that the Standing Orders would allow me to move certain motions so that the document is tabled. It was the first time that I knew of any communication between the Chief Minister of Norfolk Island and the Government. It is quite obvious that the Chief Minister of Norfolk Island must have been concerned about the operation of the Bill of Rights in Norfolk Island. It must have been of great concern to him for him to write to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) about the operation of the Bill. Again, I believe it is incumbent upon the Minister to at least defer this and seek the approval of the Attorney to have the document tabled. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.23) —I am perfectly happy to seek the approval of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). I indicated that as a matter of normal courtesy to a fellow Minister a document which may or may not have some status which is not apparent on its face ought to be properly subject to reference to him. It cannot possibly affect the outcome of this consideration. The document I was referring to was not a letter from the Chief Minister of Norfolk Island to the Attorney; it was a letter from the Attorney to him. It is not in that sense the kind of document that Senator Harradine seems to think it is. It cannot possibly affect the outcome of this consideration. If the honourable senator wants to defer the matter, that is fine. But he should appreciate that it will not affect the issues of principle that are involved. It is just another demonstration of the flexibility with which the Government is approaching this matter in order to keep as many people satisfied as possible. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(10.24) —I do not think anybody is arguing about whether the Committee is entitled to have that piece of paper tabled. We are, I think, discussing whether we can find some process by which to give the Minister time to seek approval from the two people he has mentioned he would want approval from and not stop us from continuing to consider the Bill. I am prepared to move, or Senator Harradine can move, postponement of consideration of this clause. The CHAIRMAN —There is no need for that. I imagine the Committee will be considering this Bill for some time. The document could be tabled, if the Minister so chose, at any stage, and not necessarily while we were considering this particular clause. Senator DURACK(Western Australia (10.25) —Mr Chairman, that is quite unsatisfactory to the Opposition and to me. Having received representations from the Chief Minister of Norfolk Island and his Ministers some time ago-no doubt other senators have also received representations-we have been impressed by the concerns that they expressed. The arguments that they put to us seemed to be well founded. Certainly Senator Evans when he first replied to me did not advance any argument that guarantees had been given to Norfolk Island, nor has he indicated whether Norfolk Island is satisfied with the answers given by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). Because of the difficulty in following most things that the Attorney-General states, I think it would be very important for us to see the document so that we can see what the Attorney-General has said to the Norfolk Island Chief Minister and what the Chief Minister of Norfolk Island has said in response. Has he actually accepted what has been said? It may affect the view that the Opposition takes in relation to this amendment. If the Government has given some cast-iron written guarantee, to adopt a current phrase, after further discussion with the Chief Minister we might decide not to press the amendment. But as things stand at the moment, particularly because of the way in which this information has come before the Committee, we are not by any means satisfied with something that is tossed off late in the debate. When all is said and done, this amendment from the Opposition has been on the table for some weeks. The Government has known that. If the simple answer is `Norfolk Island has agreed happily with us now and it has accepted the offers and guarantees of what we will do to fix things up if something goes wrong under the Bill of Rights'-- Senator Gareth Evans —I haven't said that. Senator DURACK —We want to see what has been said. Quite honestly, we want to see for ourselves. We want to see how satisfactory it is. We want to know how Norfolk Island reacts to it. When that is done we might still wish to press the amendment. But at this stage, before the Committee votes on this amendment, we believe it is imperative that the document be made available. The CHAIRMAN —Unless there is any move to postpone clause 4, I will put the question. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Durack's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller)Baume, Michael Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Missen, A. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G. Carrick, Sir John Sheil, G. Collard, S. J. Short, J. R. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Teague, B. C. Durack, P. D. Townley, M. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Vanstone, A. E. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Harradine, B. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Jessop, D. S. Aulich, T. Jones, G. N. Black, J. R. McClelland, DouglasBolkus, N. McIntosh, G. D. Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R. Chipp, D. L. Mason, C. V. J. Coates, J. Morris, J. Coleman, R. N. Ray, RobertColston, M. A. Reynolds, M. Cook, P. F. S. Richardson, G. F. Cooney, B. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Crowley, R. A. Ryan, S. M. Devlin, R. Sanders, N. K. Elstob, R. C. Sibraa, K. W. Evans, Gareth Siddons, J. R. Georges, G. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Vigor, D. B. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O. Knowles, S. C. McKiernan, J. P. Chaney, F. M. Foreman, D. J. Messner, A. J. Macklin, M. J. Reid, M. E. Button, J. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —by leave-Mr Chairman, I wish to make a statement relating to the division. As Senator Peter Rae's replacement has not yet come to the Senate, by arrangement with the Government Senator Grimes has not voted. I thank the Government for this arrangement which brings about parity in the voting. Consideration interrupted. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being after 10.30 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! I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.35 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 26. Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act-Orders 1986- No. L4-Livestock for slaughter or breeding purposes to the Peoples Republic of China, dated 3 January 1986. No. M27-Revocation of Meat Order ``M'' Series, dated 17 February 1986. Automatic Data Processing Equipment Bounty Act-Return, for year 1984-85. Banks (Shareholdings) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 Nos 21, 23, 24. Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Act-Return, for year 1984-85. Bounty (Bed Sheeting) Act-Return, for year 1984-85. Bounty (Berry Fruits) Act-Return, for year 1984-85. Bounty (Books) Act-Return, for year 1984-85. Bounty (Commercial Motor Vehicles) Act-Return, for year 1984-85. Bounty (Computers) Act-Return, for year 1984-85. Bounty (Electric Motors) Act-Return, for year 1984-85. Bounty (High Alloy Steel Products) Act-Return, for year 1984-85. Bounty (Injection-moulding Equipment) Act-Return, for year 1984-85. Bounty (Metal-working Machine Tools) Act-Return, for year 1984-85. Bounty (Paper) Act-Return, for year 1984-85. Bounty (Penicillin) Act-Return, for year 1984-85. Bounty (Printed Fabrics) Act-Return, for year 1984-85. Bounty (Ships) Act-Return, for year 1984-85. Bounty (Steel Mill Products) Act-Return, for year 1984-85. Bounty (Textile Yarns) Act-Return, for year 1984-85. Bounty (Tractor Cabs) Act-Return, for year 1984-85. Bounty (Twostroke Engines) Act-Return, for year 1984-85. Commonwealth Electoral Act-Australian Electoral Commission-Certificate of the Electoral Commissioner, setting out the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth and of the several States and the number of Members of the House of Representatives to be chosen in the several States, dated 18 February 1986. Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 28. Defence Act-Determinations 1986- No. 5-Salary of Permanent Force Members and others. No. 6-Antarctic Allowance. No. 7-Outfit Allowance For Special Appointments. No. 8-Education Assistance Overseas. No. 9-Overseas Living Out Allowance and others. No. 10-Temporary Rental Allowance. Export Control Act-Export Control Orders 1986- No. 1-Export Control (Orders Consolidation). No. 2-Prescribed Goods (General) as Amended (Amendment). No. 3-Export Meat Orders as Amended (Amendment). Fisheries Act- Fisheries Notices- No. 158-Prohibition relating to boats in the Northern Prawn Fishery, dated 13 February 1986. No. 159-Prohibition relating to taking prawns, dated 13 February 1986. No. 160-Prohibition relating to taking prawns off Northern Territory dated 17 February 1986. No. 162-Prohibition on the taking of shark, dated 21 February 1986. No. 163-Prohibition on the taking of shark, dated 21 February 1986. Plan of Management No. 3-Northern Prawn Fishery. Fisheries Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 18. Governor-General Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 16. Health Insurance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 Nos. 19, 20. Judiciary Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 22. Lands Acquisition Act-Statements (2) by the Minister describing land acquired by agreement under sub-section 7 (1) of the Act, for specified public purposes. National Crime Authority Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 29. Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Act-Return, for year 1984-85. Passports Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 25. Phosphate Fertilizers Subsidy Act-Return, for year 1984-85. Public Service Act-Determination 1986 No. 8. Radiocommunications Act-Standard 1985 No. 2-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 339. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 17. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Ordinance 1986 No. 1-Standard Time and Summer Time (Amendment). Ship Construction Bounty Act-Return, for year 1984-85. States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984- Determination under sub-sections 9 (3) and (4), dated 7 February 1986. Direction under sub-section 29 (1) to vary Schedules 10-13, dated 21 February 1986. Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 27. QUEEN'S PROCLAMATION: A proclamation by Her Majesty the Queen was tabled, notifying that Her Majesty had proclaimed the following Act to come into operation on the date and time specified: Australia Act 1986-3 March 1986, 5.00 a.m. Greenwich Mean Time (Gazette No. S 85, 2 March 1986). GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S PROCLAMATIONS-COMMENCEMENT OF ACTS: Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General were tabled, notifying that His Excellency had proclaimed the following Acts and sections of Acts to come into operation on the dates specified: Excise Tariff Amendment Act (No. 2) 1985-Sections 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9-3 March 1986 (Gazette No. S 79, 28 February 1986). Health Legislation Amendment Act (No. 2) 1985-Sub-sections 26 (1) and (3), section 29, sections 31 to 36 (inclusive), sections 39, 40 and 41, sections 44 to 54 (inclusive), section 56 and section 71-22 February 1986 (Gazette No. S 64, 21 February 1986). Petroleum Revenue Act 1985-3 March 1986 (Gazette No. S 79, 28 February 1986). Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983-Amendments made by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 1) 1985 (other than the amendments of sub-section 34 (3) and Schedule 1)-1 March 1986 (Gazette No. S 81, 28 February 1986). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 102) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) Is the Memorandum of 29 July 1979, relating to the TRANET Station at Smithfield and designating the United States Department of Defense and the Australian Department of Defence as the co-operating agencies, a publicly available document. (2) On what date was the designation TRANET Station 112 changed to TRANET Smithfield 412; and on what date was the designation TRANET Station 412 changed to TRANET Station 545. (3) What is signified by these changes in the designation of the TRANET Station at Smithfield. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) The TRANET Station changed its number from 112 to 412 on 10 February 1971 and from 412 to 545 on 14 June 1983. (3) A change of station number occurs when there is a change in the station datum (i.e. a change in the geographical coordinates of the station antennae) and/or a change in the format of the field station's data. The change from 112 to 412 was made because of a change in the format of data and the change from 412 to 545 was made because the Station's antennae were moved. Neither change altered TRANET Smithfield's role of a passive tracker of orbiting satellites. (Question No. 491) Senator Sanders asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 22 August 1985: (1) Why has the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Ordinance, which was passed by the ACT House of Assembly on 17 April 1984, not been presented to the Federal Parliament. (2) When will the Government be acting on its commitments by enforcing the ACT Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Ordinance on behalf of the people of the ACT, given the Government's commitment to disarmament, and its recent support for the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. Senator Gietzelt —The following answer has been provided to the honourable senator's question: (1) The proposal passed by the ACT House of Assembly on 17 April 1984 will not be presented to the Federal Parliament as it is in conflict with both Government policy and Australia's international treaty obligations. The Government is committed to ensuring that Australia remains a nuclear weapons free country, both under the terms of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. The Government has decided that, in line with its obligation under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the trade in uranium for peaceful purposes and the use of radioactive materials in medical and other research activities will not be prohibited. The declaration of the ACT as a nuclear free zone as envisaged by the Assembly's proposal could hinder such activities within the ACT. (2) Given the above, the Government will be taking no further action in relation to the Assembly's proposal. The Government does, however, remain committed to disarmament as is demonstrated by our membership of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and our central role in the formation of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. (Question No. 664) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 7 November 1985: (1) What progress has been made by Mr John Steinle in his analysis of the resource levels within Australian Capital Territory government schools. (2) What schools have been visited to date. (3) What schools are yet to be visited. (4) What is the basis for selecting these schools and excluding others. (5) When is the analysis due to be completed. (6) Will the analysis be made available to the community; if so, when. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Mr Steinle has not completed his analysis and the report of an Analysis of Resource Levels in Australian Capital Territory Government Schools was released on 20 January 1986. (2) Fifteen Australian Capital Territory Schools were visited: Urambi Pre-School Griffith Primary Hawker Primary Narrabundah Primary Richardson Primary Spence Primary Caroline Chisholm High Deakin High Ginninderra High Telopea Park School Wanniassa High Erindale College Hawker College Narrabundah College Koomarri Special School (3) None. (4) Schools were chosen to include a range of sizes, levels, ages and socio-economic enrolment areas. Some were included at the specific request of Mr Steinle. (5) See response to (1) above. (6) Copies of the report were sent to all those who had participated in the analysis. Further copies are available for purchase from the Office of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority, Macarthur House, Lyneham, Australian Capital Territory. (Question No. 673) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 12 November 1985: 1. Does the Government know the present whereabouts of Mr Robert Trimbole. 2. If the Government does not know his present whereabouts, why has no effort been made to keep track of his movements. 3. If the Government does know his present whereabouts, are efforts being made to return him to Australia to face trial; if so, when does the Government expect to have Mr Trimbole back in this country; if not, why not. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney- General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Australian Federal Police have continued the search for Mr Trimbole since he was released from custody in Ireland in February 1985. The Australian Federal Police have been working in conjunction with police forces in other countries in relation to those investigations. Any further disclosure of the Government's knowledge of Mr Trimbole's whereabouts is likely to prejudice those investigations. (Question No. 674) Senator Mason asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 11 November 1985: (1) Will the supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Second Sydney Airport Site Selection Programme be forwarded to all parties who made submissions at the same time it is forwarded to the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment and the New South Wales Department of Environment and Planning. (2) Has either the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment or the New South Wales Department of Environment and Planning had access to the document to date. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Supplement to the second Sydney airport (SSA) draft EIS is being sent to all those who made submissions. This is in accord with normal practice under the provisions of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974. (2) Evaluation of the Supplement by the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment was conducted during November and was also in accordance with the Act. It is now complete. Formal advice has been received by the Minister for Aviation that the environmental assessment of SSA options is adequate. At the same time the New South Wales Department of Environment and Planning examined the draft EIS and the Supplement and has indicated that these documents meet their particular standards. (Question No. 685) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 14 November 1985: (1) Has the Federal Government taken steps to examine the feasibility of using in Australia airships, such as those used by the French and the United States military, for civil and military operations. (2) Has the Government examined their potential use as a radar base, which could be used in conjunction with the F/A-18 operations-for example, operating over the Indian Ocean-to provide early warning of intruders and to provide coastal surveillance. (3) If the Government has undertaken such investigations, what conclusions have been drawn to date on the airships' feasibility. (4) If no such investigations have been made, can the Minister for Defence give details as to why such a potentially valuable surveillance aid has been ignored, particularly as it is quite clear that Australia's surveillance capacity must be upgraded. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. A Request for Proposal issued by my Department on 13 December 1985 for Airborne Surveillance Warning and Control Systems explicitly includes airship based systems. (2) A departmental study of airborne surveillance systems is examining the potential contribution of various systems, including airship based systems, for airborne surveillance and airspace control. (3) No conclusions have been drawn at this stage. (4) See (1) and (2) above. (Question No. 698) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 27 November 1985: (1) Have detailed reports been received by the Australian Government on the November Geneva Summit talks held between United States' President Reagan, and Soviet leader Gorbachev; and if so, and after detailed analysis by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Prime Minister, and the Cabinet, could the Minister inform the Senate at the earliest possible date of what the ramifications are to Australia. (2) Will the result of the talks have any effect on- (a) the ANZUS Treaty; (b) Australian-American relations; (c) Australian-USSR relations; (d) Australia's policy for disarmament; and (e) the prospects for a lasting, enduring world peace. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Australian Government was briefed by the United States and the Soviet Union on the outcome of the summit talks between President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev. The Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence and I were personally briefed on the summit talks by the special emissary of President Reagan, Allan Holmes, Director, Politico-Military Affairs in the State Department. I was also briefed by the Soviet Ambassador. As I stated publicly at the time following the summit talks the outcome was better than most of us hoped for and in realistic terms as much as we could have expected. I also said that I could not see any change in Australia's relationship with either the Soviet Union or the United States arising from the summit talks. The summit talks do not affect the ANZUS Treaty, Australia-United States relations, Australia-USSR relations nor Australia's policy in the disarmament area. President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev agreed in their joint statement that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought and emphasised the importance of preventing any war between them, nuclear or conventional. They also agreed to accelerate work on the Geneva arms talks with a view to accomplishing the tasks set down in the Joint US-Soviet Agreement of January 1985 of preventing an arms race in space and to terminate it on earth, limiting and reducing nuclear arms and enhancing strategic stability. Both leaders also called for early progress in areas where there is common ground, including the principle of a 50 per cent reduction in the nuclear arms of both countries, appropriately applied, and the idea of an interim INF agreement. Australia welcomed this outcome and believes that attainment of these objectives would establish the basis for a lasting, enduring world peace. (Question No. 702) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 26 November 1985: (1) Will the Minister for Health take urgent action following complaints from people, particularly in the Bundaberg region regarding delays in hearing test appointments by the National Acoustic Laboratories, which are apparently now 7 months, to ensure the situation is improved, and will he outline measures he will take towards this end. (2) What are the best and most advantageous procedures the deaf can take to gain the earliest possible advice and assistance. (3) Has there been any improvement in services to the deaf since Senator Jones first raised this matter on 24 March 1982 when the previous Fraser Government was in office. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I have been concerned for some time about prolonged waiting times, due to heavy demand for National Acoustic Laboratories (NAL) services throughout Australia, and have taken action to address this problem. Additional staff resources have been made available and it is intended that average waiting times at all permanent NAL centres around Australia will be reduced to a maximum of 3 months by the end of June 1986. Waiting times at all visiting NAL centres will be reduced to a similar maximum waiting time, except where the demand for service is so small that visits are only made at intervals greater than 3 months, and clients are unable to travel to a larger centre. At Bundaberg, 26 new pensioner cases currently waiting will all be seen during the next regular visit to that centre in February 1986. Future visits to this centre are planned for every 2 months for the remainder of this year. Accommodation at the centre has recently been improved by establishing a fixed centre with sound proof test facilities. This will enable the quality and standard of service provided to clients in the area to be upgraded. (2) Persons who suspect that they may have a hearing problem should, in the first instance, consult their doctor who will advise regarding treatment or referral. Advice as to whether they may be eligible for NAL hearing assistance, is available to persons who contact a NAL Hearing Centre, or a specialised welfare organisation. For those who cannot attend a hearing centre, many hospitals throughout Australia have audiology clinics which offer advice and assistance. All persons under 21 years of age with hearing problems are eligible for NAL assistance and do not require a doctor's referral. (3) Since 1983 there have been a number of improvements in services to the deaf. These improvements are: new hearing aid selection procedures resulting in improved hearing aid use; a range of better hearing aids and services, such as vibrotactile aids for profoundly deaf persons; purchase of commercial FM systems for issue to children; free repair of privately owned FM systems; and free battery issues for cochlear implants; more satisfactory services to country clients throughout Australia by providing 6 new permanent hearing centres in rural areas (5 more centres outside the capital cities are planned) and more frequent visiting services; recruitment and training of additional staff to overcome waiting time problems, particularly in Queensland, South Australia, West Australia and Tasmania; a new NAL building at Chatswood, with $1 million provided to fit out research facilities, expected to be opened in March 1986; a feasibility study of a proposal for the manufacture of hearing aids in Australia by private industry. In addition, hearing research funding provided through the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) has to date resulted in the development of the cochlear implant prosthesis (Bionic Ear) for the profoundly deaf. (Question No. 733) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 28 November 1985: Would Federal safety, speed, or other regulations, as proposed in the Interstate Road Transport Act 1985, rank higher or lower than State regulation legislation. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Where there is any conflict between Commonwealth and State legislation, including regulations, then as a general rule the Commonwealth provisions prevail. However Section 52 of the Interstate Road Transport Act provides that State laws are not overruled unless, amongst other things, they are in direct conflict with regulations relating to vehicle registration and operations made under Section 13 or regulations relating to monitoring devices made under Sections 37 and 39. (Question No. 734) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 28 November 1985: (1) Is there any appeal under clause 51 of the Interstate Road Transport Act 1985 (The Act) if registration is refused under 15 (4) ii; if not, what appeal procedures are available. (2) Is there any appeal under clause 51 of the Act against unfair allocation of funds under sub-clause 23 (3); if not, what appeal process will be provided. (3) Under sub-clause 23 (6) of the Act what limits are there to the imposition of conditions by the Minister and what appeal procedures are there. (4) Why was it not the preferred procedure to make a revocation a further function of the Court if sub-clause 27 (8) allows the licensing authority to revoke a disqualification after the Court has been given the power to disqualify. (5) Who is to keep the Register under sub-clause 31 (4)-each State, one State, the advisory body, the Federal Department or some new body, and at whose expense will the registry be maintained. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. Sub-paragraph 15 (4) (b) (ii) of the Act does not deal with refusal of registration but rather with consequences following the cancellation, expiry or surrender of registration. A decision under sub-paragraph 15 (4) (b) (ii) would be subject to review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (`the AD (JR) Act'). (2) No. The allocation of payments under sub-section 23 (3) of the Act would be subject to review under the AD (JR) Act. (3) Conditions imposed under sub-section 23 (6) of the Act must be relevant and for the purposes of the Act. The imposition of conditions under sub-section 23 (6) would be subject to review under the AD (JR) Act. (4) Sub-section 27 (8) provides that a licensing authority may only revoke a disqualification where, under sub-section 27 (7), a court has specified a date after which a disqualified operator may apply for revocation. Accordingly, revocation was considered to be an administrative function and more appropriately performed by a licensing authority. In effect, a licensing authority would be acting as a parole board in this situation. A decision made by a licensing authority under sub-section 27 (8) is reviewable under section 51 of the Act. (5) A central register would be established by the Federal Department of Transport and maintained on the basis of information supplied by the States and Territories. Any costs associated with the register will be met from within the financial allocations to the Department. (Question No. 745) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 3 December 1985: Why is the Northern Territory Education Department, Adult Education Section apparently endeavouring to prevent a Commonwealth education building program from going ahead at the Belyuen Aboriginal Community, against the wishes of the Belyuen people, and against the wishes of their community council, as well as going against the result of investigations conducted by Feppi (Northern Territory Aboriginal Education Consultative Group) and the Commonwealth Aboriginal Education Advisory Body, which support the project. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The project in question, developed through Belyuen council and school and designed to promote building skills for people in outstanding centres, was proposed and approved for Commonwealth funding under the special courses component of the Aboriginal Study Assistance Scheme (Abstudy) in mid 1985. I understand that there were some initial difficulties within the Northern Territory Department of Education concerning support for the project. These problems have been resolved and the project now has that Department's full support. The program began operating on 4 November 1985, for 20 weeks full time. Approximately 15 students are participating. (Question No. 747) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 3 December 1985: (1) Is there a capital city bias in the newspaper advertising practices of a majority of Federal Government Departments and statutory authorities, which means that announcements of financial grants and government inquiries rarely appear in non-metropolitan newspapers. (2) Does this discriminatory practice virtually ignore a significant section of the Australian community, whose members are unaware of fundamental government information and availability of financial assistance. (3) How does the Government disseminate information and can the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism undertake to have current procedures reviewed to ensure that up to one-third of taxpayers are not expected to pay for advertising which fails to recognise regional Australia. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) There is usually some bias towards the mass-circulation metropolitan newspapers, reflecting the fact that they reach the largest numbers of the target audiences. The Government nevertheless recognises the importance of non-metropolitan papers to rural dwellers and as a matter of policy, encourages departmental advertisers to include them in advertising schedules. The degree to which they are included is, however, influenced by the availability of departmental funds. The types of advertising cited in the question- announcements of financial grants and government inquiries-are classified as non-campaign advertising which, under the recently revised central advertising system, is arranged by departments and some statutory authorities direct with the Government's master advertising agency for non-campaign advertising, Gordon & Gotch Ltd. Most departments tend to stipulate the selection of newspapers. If non-metropolitan newspapers have not been included and officers of Gordon & Gotch Ltd consider they should have been to reach the desired target audience for the message, then they will recommend this to the departmental advertiser. The decision to include all, some or none of the rural newspapers then rests with the departmental advertiser and a decision which does not favour rural papers is invariably the result of budgetary restrictions. The non-campaign master agency Gordon & Gotch has reported that advertising for financial grants and government inquiries has in recent months favoured the mass circulation metropolitan dailies and national newspapers. From the start of the revised centralised advertising system on 1 October 1984 to 30 November 1985, departments and authorities spent $9,575,914 on non-campaign advertising in major metropolitan/national newspapers and $699,008 in rural newspapers. (2) No. The mass circulation metropolitan/national newspapers achieve substantial penetration into rural markets. (3) Ministers are individually responsible for information programs relating to government programs and policies within their portfolio. Co-ordination mechanisms are in place to help ensure that the information activities are properly planned and fit within the broad objectives of the government. The basis of selection of media for such campaigns or notices is to determine the most efficient, cost effective means of reaching the highest possible numbers of the desired target audience, having regard for the nature of the message. Recognising, however, the importance of local newspapers to rural dwellers, the Government has a policy, administered by the Information Co-ordination branch of the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, which encourages the use of provincial press in departmental advertising campaigns or notices. (Question No. 769) Senator Tate asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 6 December 1985: (1) Is it true the ``Housing Related Projects'' which had previously formed part of the ``Community Management and Services'' and ``Social Support'' functions were identified by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs as involving the transfer of 80 staff and a budget of $18m, not including administrative costs. (2) Can the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs explain the marked difference between the Department's assessment of budget and staffing requirements for the ``Housing Related Projects'', and those actually transferred to the Commission. (3) It is true that the $5m expenditure now claimed to have been transferred from the Department to the Commission includes an amount of $2.5m for the Town Campers Assistance Program, which is outside of the ``Community Management and Services'' and ``Social Support'' functions. (See answer to Question on Notice No. 606, Hansard, 26 November 1985, p. 2311). Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The assessment of $18m and 80 staff referred to the proposed transfer of the Department's Community Management and Services municipal and essential services function, including the provision of infrastructure related to housing, and elements of the Social Support program to a proposed new housing authority. The establishment of this body did not proceed. It was not proposed that the same functions be transferred to the Aboriginal Development Commission, but that there be a rationalisation of directly related housing services supported under the Department of Aboriginal Affairs Community Management and Services and Social Support programs. This involved the transfer to the Commission of projects costing $5m. (3) The $5m which transferred from the Department to the Commission included an amount of $2.5m for the Town Campers Assistance Program which was part of the Community Management and Services function. (Question No. 780) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 11 February 1986: (1) What research is currently being undertaken for the biological control and/or eradication of the European wasp. (2) Have funds been specifically allocated to the project. (3) How many and which institutions and/or agencies under the Minister for Primary Industry's jurisdiction are actively engaged in this matter. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1), (2) and (3) No research relating to the European wasp is currently being undertaken in institutions or agencies within the Primary Industry portfolio, nor have any moneys been allocated from the various primary industry Research Trust Funds to initiate such research. For information on research work in hand see the reply on 19 February 1986 provided by the Minister for Science to an identical question (No. 776) asked of his representative in the Senate. (Question No. 781) Senator Archer asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 11 February 1986: (1) What journals, digests, files, periodicals and the like are produced by instrumentalities within the Special Minister of State's portfolio. (2) For each publication (a) when was it established; (b) which section within the Minister's portfolio produces it; (c) how many staff are involved in its production and for what percentage of time are they involved; (d) how often is it produced; (e) by whom is it printed and what is the print run; (f) what is the circulation and to whom and where is it circulated; (g) who has editorial control; (h) what are its stated objectives and; (i) what are the printing, staff and administrative costs associated with its production. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The attached table contains the information requested for the instrumentalities within my portfolio. Name of Publication Date Established Production Area i) Staff involved ii) Staff time involved Frequency of Publication i) Printer ii) Print run Circulation i) To whom ii) Where Editorial Control Objectives Cost i) Printing ii) Administrative iii) Other DEPARTMENT OF THE SPECIAL MINISTER OF STATE DOSMOS News 22 March 1985 Public Relations i) PR Officer ii) 2 days per fortnight Fortnightly i) Photocopied ii) 345 i) staff in DOSMOS and outriders ii) Canberra and State locations Senior Assistant Secretary, Operations Unit Enhance staff relations and internal understanding of portfolio Not available AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE Platypus Jan 1984 Information Office i) 2 ii) Not available 4-5 times a year i) Canberra Publishing & Printing through AGPS ii) 3,500 i) AFP staff, law enforcement and Government agencies ii) in Australia and overseas (staff only) Editorial Board Provides information and education material and discussion of law enforcement issues i)ii) $35,000 iii) Staff Costs: $25,000 (salary estimate) AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION AEC Newsletter June 1975 Information Section i) Publications Officer ii) 10 Days per issue Quarterly i) Canberra Publishing & Printing ii) 820 i) AEC Staff ii) Head Office and State Branches The Electoral Com- missioner Assist communication within the Commission i) $2,000 pa ii)iii) Not available NATIONAL POLICE RESEARCH UNIT NPRU Review May 1985 Research i) 6 ii) 60 staff days per annum Twice yearly i) Varies according to quotes ii) 3,000 i) to police officers, academic institutions and libraries ii) in Australia and overseas Director Provide information and educational material i) $18,000 pa ii) $3,000 iii) Not available Funded two-thirds from State sources NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY Nil AUSTRALIAN POLICE COLLEGE Nil COMMONWEALTH GRANTS COMMISSION Nil AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE Nil ACADEMIC SALARIES TRIBUNAL Nil REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL Nil (Question No. 788) Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: (1) Has the Minister for Immigration received a copy of a submission to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations from the National Council of Health Organisations in relation to Nursing Manpower Planning; if so, are any officers from the Minister's Department part of an Inter-Departmental Committee formed to report on the submission. (2) What other action is being taken in relation to the submission. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I have received a copy of this submission. Responsibility for co-ordinating the Government's response to the submission rests with the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Questions on how this is to be done should be directed to him. (2) My Department will be contributing material for a co-ordinated response and advising me on aspects of the submission which impinge upon my responsibilities. I am maintaining a close interest in these issues. (Question No. 812) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: (1) How many statutory authorities currently exist under the auspices of the Minister's Department. (2) What are the names of these authorities. (3) What appeal mechanisms, if any, exist for the general public to lodge a complaint against these authorities. (4) If it is proved that any member of staff of any of these authorities is guilty of incompetence, what action, if any, could be taken by a member of the public to sue the authority for compensation; if it is not possible to sue the authority, why is that the case. (5) How many cases concerning these authorities are currently before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and what is the delay at present between the listing of a case and its hearing before the Tribunal. (6) If any statutory authority under the Minister's Department cannot be sued, will the Minister consider amending the relevant legislation to make this possible. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Two (2) The Australia-Japan Foundation and the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research. (3) There is no specific appeal mechanism. Decisions would be subject to the ordinary system of administrative law review. (4) Section 8 of the Australia-Japan Foundation Act 1976 and section 4 of the Australian Centre of International Agricultural Research Act 1982 provide that the authorities may sue and be sued in their corporate name. (5) There are none. (6) Not relevant: see answer to question (4). Senator Gareth Evans —On 27 November 1985 (Hansard, page 2359) Senator Durack asked the following question, without notice: I refer the Minister representing the Attorney-General to the view expressed by the Attorney-General yesterday that `it would be appropriate' to use the Bill of Rights legislation to change the electoral systems of Western Australia and Queensland. I also refer the Minister to the comment by Premier Burke of Western Australia that his Government had always maintained that the matter should be dealt with in Western Australia; in other words, by the State . . . I ask the Minister: Do the views expressed by the Attorney-General represent a decision of the Federal Government? Does the Minister agree that any changes to State electoral laws should be dealt with by the electors in the States and not by the Federal Parliament? The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: As the Attorney-General pointed out in his Second Reading Speech relating to the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985, the Bill will not override State laws. This is because the Government hopes to achieve if possible a co-operative approach to human rights protection. Certainly, it would be preferable for the Western Australian Parliament itself to effect the electoral reforms that are so badly needed in respect of the Legislative Council in that State. Senators will be aware, however, that despite a number of attempts by the Government of Western Australia to effect those reforms, the gross disparities in the number of voters in different electorates for the Legislative Council remain. All attempts at reform, even those seeking to resolve the issue through a referendum, have been rejected by the Opposition in the Legislative Council. Senators will recall the recommendation of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs that the provision in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which guarantees ``universal and equal suffrage'' (see Art. 6 (b) of the Bill of Rights) is ``so fundamental that it should not be subject to displacement by any State.'' The Government has much sympathy for this view, since electoral discrepancies of the kind that exist in Western Australia represent the gravest imposition on the most basic political rights of the citizen. However the Government takes the view that, even in this important area, State law should not be overridden until the relevant State Government or, in the case of Western Australia, the relevant State Opposition, has had an opportunity, following the enactment of the Bill of Rights, to amend the law so as to give full and proper effect to this most basic civil right. Finally, I note that the Attorney-General said in his Second Reading Speech that, if action on the part of the States to remedy legislation which is shown to breach the Bill of Rights is not forthcoming, the Commonwealth reserves the right to enact specific overriding Commonwealth legislation, and to extend the operation of the Bill of Rights to the States. Senator Walsh —On 4 December 1985 (Hansard, page 2900) Senator Reid asked me, as Minister for Finance, a question without notice concerning the proposals for the financial partnership between the Commonwealth Government and the proposed Australian Capital Territory Council. The question was one more properly in the Treasurer's portfolio, and the Treasurer has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question: The Commonwealth will enter into detailed negotiations with the ACT Council to reach an agreement on transfer arrangements. As a basis for these negotiations and to facilitate a smooth transition of responsibility, the Government has developed the following principles in respect of financial undertakings and guarantees which will ensure that the ACT is treated with fairness and equity in comparison with the rest of Australia and in recognition of the unique circumstances prevailing in the ACT: (a) The ACT Council will operate its own treasury and accounting system in respect of the transferred functions; (b) the Council will have revenue raising powers consistent with its responsibilities and borrowing powers subject to the guarantee of, and approval by, the Commonwealth; (c) the Commonwealth will co-ordinate the budgeting and financing of territorial expenditures and revenues remaining with the Commonwealth in an integrated manner and separately report on these on an annual basis, commencing with the 1986-87 Budget; (d) Commonwealth funding levels during the five year transition period will be guaranteed for the first two years to maintain per capita real standards current at the time of transfer, provided the ACT maintains its per capita real revenue effort. For the next subsequent years funding levels will be agreed with the ACT Council to smooth the transition of financial arrangements consistent with Commonwealth, State and local government financial arrangements, and with the unique circumstances prevailing in the ACT because of its national capital character; and (e) the Commonwealth Grants Commission will conduct regular reviews of Commonwealth financing of ACT functions and the ACT Council will have the right to apply to the Grants Commission for periodic reviews of its financial relations with the Commonwealth. Senator Gareth Evans —On 6 December 1985 (Hansard, page 3176) Senator Durack asked me, as the Minister representing the Attorney-General, the following question, without notice: I refer to reports that have been attributed to a spokesperson for the Attorney-General that the Government has decided on the membership of the commission to prepare a new Constitution for Australia, presumably by 1988. Is the chairman of the Commission Sir Maurice Byers, the former Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth? Will other members of the commission include, among others, former Prime Minister Whitlam and the former Premier of Victoria, Sir Rupert Hamer? Can the Minister say who would be the greater proponent for increased power for the Commonwealth at the expense of the States, Mr Whitlam or Sir Maurice Byers? Has Sir Rupert Hamer been selected as the sole representative of the interests of the States on this commission? Will the product of this commission, whatever it comes up with, be referred to the Australian Constitutional Convention, directly to the people or just to the waste paper basket? The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The inaugural meeting of the Constitutional Commission was held on 31 January 1986 in Sydney. The terms of reference of the Commission are: `To inquire into and report on or before 30 June 1988 on the revision of the Australian Constitution to: (a) adequately reflect Australia's status as an independent nation and a Federal Parliamentary democracy; (b) provide the most suitable framework for the economic, social and political development of Australia as a federation; (c) recognise an appropriate division of responsibilities between the Commonwealth, the States self-governing Territories and Local Government; and (d) ensure that democratic rights are guaranteed.' The Commission is chaired by Sir Maurice Byers, the former Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth, and includes five other distinguished members-the former Prime Minister Mr Whitlam, QC, the former Victorian Premier, Sir Rupert Hamer, Mr Justice Toohey of the Federal Court of Australia, Professor Leslie Zines of the Australian National University and Professor Enid Campbell of Monash University. Each member brings a wealth of knowledge and experience in constitutional matters to the Commission. Sir Maurice Byers was Commonwealth Solicitor-General from 1974 to 1984 and played an important role in constitutional developments during this period. Mr Whitlam has a long-standing commitment to constitutional reform and unique experience as Prime Minister at a time when Commonwealth legislation survived nearly all High Court challenges but the machinery of government and constitutional conventions came under great stress. Sir Rupert Hamer was instrumental, as Victorian Premier, in establishing the Australian Constitutional Convention in 1973. He has taken a keen interest since then in constitutional review. Mr Justice Toohey of the Federal Court of Australia was Aboriginal Land Commissioner for the Northern Territory from 1977 to 1982 and also had a distinguished career at the Western Australian Bar prior to his appointment as a Federal Court Judge. Professor Leslie Zines is Dean of the Law Faculty at the Australian National University and is a leading authority on Australian constitutional law. Professor Enid Campbell of Monash University has written extensively on constitutional and administrative subjects and is currently a member of the Tertiary Education Committee's inquiry into legal education. The Commission is assisted by five advisory committees comprising prominent Australians who are representative of all sections of the community. It is expected that they will make a significant contribution to the work of the Commission. The Commission will also involve the public as well as business, trade unions and financial institutions as much as possible during the course of its inquiry. It is to be hoped that, given the importance of the task before the Constitutional Commission, a bipartisan approach will prevail. Senator Button —On 17 February 1986 (Hansard, pages 417-418) Senator Zakharov asked Senator Walsh, in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, a question without notice concerning a meeting between the National President of the Country Women's Association, Miss Dorothy Ross, and the Prime Minister. Senator Walsh undertook to provide her with a report of the meeting from the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Yes. I had a very productive discussion with Miss Ross about the survey of rural women's needs which is shortly to be conducted by the Country Women's Association in association with the Office of the Status of Women. This will be the first such survey ever to be conducted. The survey is to be sent to each of the CWA's 55,000 members and will be available through the rural press to country women who are not CWA members. I indicated to Miss Ross that I was looking forward to receiving the results of the survey and to getting a clear picture of rural women's needs as women themselves perceive them. (Question No. 100) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: Have any satellite ground stations in Australia been involved in tracking, controlling, receiving data from, or otherwise communicating with, satellites of the United States Department of Defense Satellite Data System (SDS); if so, what are the names of these ground stations and what are the formal designations and dates of launch of the SDS satellites with which these stations have been involved. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: No. (Question No. 343) Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 31 May 1985: What would be the cost of implementing a system of income tax splitting between spouses under the present income tax rates. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The cost to revenue of permitting married couples to have their income taxed as though each partner received half of the total income of both partners, based on the projected 1985-86 income year distribution and using the 1985-86 income tax rate scale, is estimated at $2,500 million. (Question No. 641) Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 6 November 1985: (1) What are the terms of the general agreement between Australia and the United States of America in relation to the flights of United States' military aircraft over northern Australia. (2) Can the Minister for Defence give an assurance that these aircraft do not carry nuclear weapons. (3) Do these aircraft sometimes fly at low altitudes, for example, about 500 feet, constituting a hazard to light aircraft. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The terms of arrangements covering the staging of B52 flights through Australia are contained in a Press Release of 3 February 1980 by the then Minister for Defence, a Parliamentary Statement of 11 March 1981 by the then Prime Minister (Hansard 11 March 1981, pp. 666, 667), and a Press Release of 16 October 1982 by the then Minister for Defence. I refer the honourable senator to these documents. (2) All the B52 aircraft which have been staged through Australia have conducted low level navigation training flights on the basis of the arrangements announced on 3 February 1980. This statement, which was agreed by the United States, 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 United States practice to carry weapons of any sort in aircraft undertaking low level navigation flights. Moreover, the stringent security measures which the U.S. Air Force always takes to protect its nuclear weapons while on the ground are not applied when B52s stage through Darwin. (3) B52 aircraft regularly fly along pre-arranged and publicised low jet routes in northern Australia. They normally fly at an altitude of 800 ft above ground level, although this may vary according to terrain. For every flight the Department of Aviation is notified in advance and a Notice to Airmen is issued. The B52s are in radio communication with the Department of Aviation which provides appropriate traffic information to all known civil and military aircraft in the area. Thus there is no hazard to light aircraft posed by these flights. (Question No. 708) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 28 November 1985: (1) Was a federal investment allowance allocated to Fairmont Resorts Ltd, in relation to a resort or a retirement village, or both, at Leura, New South Wales; if so, was this allowance to be secured by 30 June 1985. (2) Has the allowance been secured; if so, under what conditions, and what is the amount of the allowance. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's questions (1) (2): The Treasurer is unable to supply any information in relation to the honourable senator's request. Express provisions in the income tax law prohibit the disclosure of information about a taxpayer's affairs to another person apart from persons and authorities specified in the income tax law. (Question No. 721) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 27 November 1985: (1) What was the nursing-hour need, as assessed under the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Patient Classification System, in each ACT hospital, nursing home run by the ACT Health Authority, and the community nursing sector during each day in October and November 1985, and what was the number of nursing-hours made available in each case on each day mentioned. (2) What is the standing of the 1984 agreement made between the then Capital Territory Health Commission and the Royal Australian Nursing Federation in relation to the matching of increased workloads with increased staff. (3) How many nurses have resigned from the ACT Health Authority and its predecessor in each of the last 12 months. (4) What is the cost of advertising paid for by the ACT Health Authority during the current dispute. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Terri- tories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The following table provides the information sought in respect of this part of the question about hospitals and nursing homes run by the ACT Health Authority. Community nursing services are not included as the ACT Patient Classification System does not fully apply to this area of nursing. HOSPITALS Royal Canberra and Woden Valley Date Required nursing hours WVH RCH Provided nursing hours WVH RCH Variation WVH RCH October 1985 1... 1,673 2,167 1,598 2,014 -75 -153 2... 1,686.5 2,092.5 1,602 1,943 -84.5 -149.5 3... 1,673 1.991.5 1,606 2,087 -67 +95.5 4... 1,582 2,103 1,472 1,926 -110 -177 5... 1,374.5 1,734 1,361 1,864 -13.5 +130 6... 1,327 1,687.5 1,413 1,824 +86 +136.5 7... 1,432 1,847.5 1,544 1,858 -112 +10.5 8... 1,574 1,962.5 1,568 1,939 -6 -23.5 9... 1,664 2,023 1,603 1,934 -61 -89 10... 1,638 2,053.5 1,595 2,052 -43 -1.5 11... 1,684 2,001 1,521 1,822 -163 -179 12... 1,525 1,802 1,376 1,756 -149 -46 13... 1,480.5 1,835.5 1,486 1,798 +5.5 -37.5 14... 1,659 2,008.5 1,516 1,920 -143 -88.5 15... 1,693.5 2,133 1,607 1,981 -86.5 -152 16... 1,841 2,288 1,545 1,934 -296 -354 17... 1,673 2,312.5 1,594.5 2,034 -78.5 -278.5 18... 1,724 2,382 1,546 1,897 -178 -485 19... 1,477.5 2.006 1,481 1,792 +3.5 -214 20... 1,494.5 1,862 1,438 1,778 -56.5 -84 21... 1,613.5 2,174.5 1,614 1,987 +0.5 -187.5 22... 1,711 2,170.5 1,551 1,913 -160 -257.5 23... 1,793.5 2,152 1,562 1,926 -231.5 -226 24... 1,704 2,109.5 1,636 2,026 -68 -83.5 25... 1,663.5 2,189.5 1,558 1,930 -105.5 -259.5 26... 1,434.5 2,035 1,478 1,885 +43.5 -150 27... 1,471 1,976 1,458 1,844 -13 -132 28... 1,620 2,195.5 1,560.5 1,946 -59.5 -249.5 29... 1,710 2,234.5 1,542 1,896 -168 -338.5 30... 1,748 2,199.5 1,602 1,968 -146 -231.5 31... 1,692.5 2,160.5 1,727 1,994 +34.5 -166.5 November 1985 1... 1,778 2,126 1,650 1,903 -128 -223 2... 1,546.5 1,889 1,544 1,823 +2.5 -66 3... 1,514 1,895 1,533 1,808 +19 -87 4... 1,690.5 2,246.5 1,628 1,975 -62.5 -271.5 5... 1,687 2,221 1,623 1,869 -64 -352 6... 1,765 2,272.5 1,532 1,899 -223.5 -373.5 7... 1,699.5 2,278.5 1,658 1,955 -41.5 -323.5 8... 1,684.5 2,344.5 1,588 1,857 -96.5 -487.5 9... 1,598 1,999 1,486 1,786 -112 -213 10... 1,552.5 1,988 1,528 1,774 -24.5 -214 11... . . 2,010.5 . . 1,947 . . -63.5 12... . . 1,959 . . 1,915 . . -44 13... . . 1,841.5 . . 1,551 . . -290.5 14... . . 1,807 . . 1,524 . . -283 15... . . 1,715.5 . . 1,427 . . -288.5 16... . . 1,766 . . 1,548 . . -218 17... . . 1,682.5 . . 1,541 . . -141.5 18... . . 1,770.5 . . 1,550 . . -220.5 Note: 1. Figures for 11 to 30 November 1985 inclusive not available for Woden Valley Hospital due to industrial action by RANF nurses at that time. 2. Figures for 19 to 30 November 1985 inclusive not available for Royal Canberra Hospital due to industrial action by RANF nurses at that time. NURSING HOMES Jindalee and Allambee Date Required nursing hours Jindalee Allambee Provided nursing hours Jindalee Allambee Variation Jindalee Allambee 30.9.85 to 6.10.85... 2,670 2,892 2,365 2,515 -305 -377 7.10.85 to 13.10.85... 2,666 2,887.5 2,489 2,554 -177 -333.5 14.10.85 to 20.10.85... 2,460 2,892 2,555 2,556 +95 -336 21.10.85 to 27.10.85... 2,662.5 2,955 2,714 2,572 +51.5 -383 28.10.85 to 3.11.85... 2,776.5 2,974.5 2,692 2,610 -84.5 -364.5 4.11.85 to 10.11.85... 2,833.5 2,995.5 2,667 2,556 -166.5 -439.5 Note: 1. Nursing home figures on required and provided nursing hours are calculated on a weekly basis only. 2. Figures are not available for 11 to 30 November 1985 due to industrial action by RANF nurses at that time. (2) The 1984 agreement with the Royal Australian Nursing Federation on matching nursing numbers with the nursing workload under the A.C.T. Patient Classification System is still in force in respect of hospitals and nursing homes. (3) The number of registered and enrolled nurses who resigned in each month of 1985 is shown in the following table: NURSES RESIGNATIONS 1985 Month Registered nurses Full-time Part-time Enrolled nurses Full-time Part-time January... 18 9 2 1 February... 22 8 3 1 March... 32 12 5 3 April... 22 9 5 3 May... 25 8 5 . . June... 21 12 4 . . July... 14 10 4 4 August... 21 11 8 2 September... 26 14 2 2 October... 21 14 4 2 November... 19 17 4 4 December... 38 13 2 5 Total... 279 137 48 27 (4) The cost of advertising by the A.C.T. Health Authority during the nursing industry dispute was $4,756. Senator Walsh —On 22 May 1985 (Hansard, page 2336) Senator Watson asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, the following question without notice: Is there a higher than usual rate of issuing of income tax assessments this month compared with those issued in the month of May in previous years? Is the Minister aware of reports of a high element of inaccuracy in many of these assessments? The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: In answer to the honourable senator's first question-Yes, there was a higher than usual rate of issuing of income tax assessments in May 1985 compared with the corresponding period in previous years, as is apparent in the following table which was provided by the Commissioner of Taxation: Period Assessments issued Increase over prior period 28 April 1983 to 24 May 1983 ... 238,772 1 May 1984 to 29 May 1984 ... 284,660 45,888 (19%) 30 April 1985 to 28 May 1985 ... 466,320 181,660 (64%) The major reason for the increase in the number of assessments issued during the relevant period in 1985 was an industrial dispute which continued for some weeks from February 1985 and which delayed normal processing. In relation to the honourable senator's second question, the following tables set out the number of disputed assessments which arose during approximately corresponding periods in recent years; however, it is not possible to determine the proportions attributable to inaccuracies by taxpayers in preparing returns or inaccuracies in the preparation of income tax assessments by the Australian Taxation Office. Period Disputed Assessments Increase 28 April 1983 to 24 May 1983 ... 25,279 1 May 1984 to 29 May 1984 ... 26,015 736 (3%) 30 April 1985 to 28 May 1985 ... 44,346 18,331 (70%) 25 May 1983 to 22 June 1983 ... 23,439 30 May 1984 to 4 July 1984... 24,215 776 (3%) 29 May 1985 to 26 June 1985 ... 33,757 9,542 (39%) 23 June 1983 to 27 July 1983 ... 19,325 5 July 1984 to 8 August 1984 ... 27,195 7,870 (41%) 27 June 1985 to 31 July 1985 ... 41,007 13,812 (51%) Because end of year statistical processing involves parts of weeks, precisely comparable periods cannot be indicated for periods straddling 30 June. The income tax law prescribes a period of 60 days from the date of service of a notice of assessment in which a taxpayer may lodge an objection against that assessment. In addition, a period of three years is available from the date on which tax becomes due and payable under an assessment in which a taxpayer may seek an amendment effecting a reduction in his or her liability to correct a mistake of fact or error in calculation. Accordingly, while the figures in the preceding table show a significant increase in the number of disputes received between May and July this year when compared with the corresponding periods in prior years, and this would reflect the incidence of relatively late assessments mentioned, it should not be assumed that all of the disputes arose from assessments issued during May.