Wednesday, 12 March 1986 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Seek for Australian merchant seamen's time served on ships of the United States of America to be added to time served on Australian ships during war time to qualify for the Australian service medal. by Senator Maguire (from 14 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament House assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, humbly pray that the parliament act to outlaw the practice of the large petrol companies also controlling petrol retail outlets in competition with independent petrol distributors and retailers who they supply, thus acting in a position of unfair competition, and leading to the large companies exerting unconscionable pressure on those independent distributers and retailers. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vigor (from 163 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned 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 Parer (from 63 citizens). 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 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 MacGibbon (from 223 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. Your petitioners most humbly pray: (i) that the Hawke Labor Government pass on the full benefits of lower international oil prices on March 1st, 1986; and (ii) that the Hawke Labor Government does not increase or extend fuel taxes and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Parer (from 447 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian Bill of Rights will do nothing to advance the rights of Australians, because it is dangerously ambiguous and will cause confusion within the legal system; it endangers our Federal system; and it is to be administered in an authoritarian manner inconsistent with the present legal rights of all Australians. Your petitioners therefore pray: That the Senate rejects the Australian Bill of Rights Bill and all cognate Bills. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Jessop (from 97 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill 1. Offer nothing more than is already available under Common Law, 2. Deny some Human Rights and do not include others, 3. Give dangerously wide powers to an unelected body, and 4. Could cause far more damage than they could possibly cure. Your petitioners request that the Senate should: Completely reject both the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Harradine (from 617 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate. The humble petition of we the undersigned citizens of Australia respectively showeth that: The high interest rates on home loans of 13.5 per cent has and is placing the recipients in a financially disastrous position, as thousands have lost their homes and thousands more will do so if these appalling conditions continue for the young and established home purchasers. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your House urge politicians that therefore no government or opposition in a power position should continue to tolerate this cruel, vicious procedure that shatters the very structure of family life. We need a five year period to reduce this absurdity by tackling it at its source. Firstly, interest repayments on home loans to be reduced by 2 per cent annually for the next five years or until it is down 6 per cent. This would, or should diminish union demands, and cause no hazard for investors, who could reinvest in Government projects, or other worthwhile ventures and also ease the burden on Social Securities. Your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. Initiated by John Knight, 18th February 1986. by Senator Bolkus (from 428 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 humbly pray that the Senate rejects this Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Bjelke-Petersen (from 12 citizens), Jessop (from 27 citizens), Messner (from 11 citizens), Parer (from 66 citizens) and Reid (from 219 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: 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 both by 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 presentation. 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. by Senator Harradine (from four citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we oppose utterly the proposed Bill of Rights because this Bill will Restrict our rights to those listed in the Bill Transfer to government powers not given nor intended to be given by the Constitution Threaten our rights by making them subject to the will of this or any future Government Turn the Human Rights Commission into a political Star Chamber with unjustifiable power Abrogate Common Law and common liberty Set the State above the individual We the undersigned believe in democracy and freedom and earnestly entreat you to recognise that this Bill will undermine the fundamental basis of these. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should reject the Bill of Rights. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sheil (from 954 citizens). To the honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we deplore the proposed Bill of Rights because it adversely affects areas of the liberty and freedom of Australians. It will operate against:- The States and our Federal system of Government Criminal Justice The Police Education Families Employer/Employee relations It will remove the power of the people through Parliament, by giving power to a new more powerful Human Rights Commission which is not elected, but can act as a Star Chamber. We do most earnestly wish to keep our system of Common Law. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should reject this Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sheil (from 1,202 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 Boswell (from 26 citizens), Durack (from 23 citizens), Harradine (from 377 citizens) and Mason (from 81 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned respectfully shows: That we strongly support ``The A.C.T. Smoking and Tobacco Products Advertisements Prohibition Bill'' introduced by Senator Evans, because it represents the first positive national step towards the eventual elimination of widespread serious ill health caused by smoking tobacco. And your petitioners as is duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vigor (from 150 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament. The Petition of the undersigned shows that because it will cause serious harm to the community, the Parliament will not legalise the possession, sale, hire or supply of any publication or video tape, video disc, slide or any other recording from which a visual image can be produced, which displays degradation of any human person, particularly women and children, or animals; scenes of explicit sexual relations showing genitalia detail; acts of violence and sex; sexual perversion such as sodomy, mutilation, child pornography, urolagnia, coprophilia, necrophilia, bestiality; or the use and effect of illicit drug taking; explicit fellatio and cunnilingus; explicit nudity. Your petitioners pray the Senate, in Parliament assembled, that you will give this matter earnest consideration and condemnation and your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Bjelke-Petersen (from 25,728 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned shows that because it will cause serious harm to the community, the Parliament will not legalise the possession, sale, hire or supply of any publication or video tape, video disc, slide or any other recording from which a visual image can be produced, which displays degradation of any person, par- ticularly women and children, or animals; scenes of explicit sexual relations showing genitalia details; acts of violence and sex; sexual perversion such as sodomy, mutilation, child pornography, urolagnia, coprophilia, necrophilia, bestiality; or the use and effect of illicit drug taking; explicit fellatio and cunnilingus; explicit nudity including touching genitalia, erect penis. Your petitioners pray the Senate, in Parliament assembled that you will give this matter earnest consideration and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Collard (from 124 citizens). Petitions received. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, 10 sitting days after today, I shall move: That paragraph 45 (g) of the Health Authority Ordinance 1985, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 69 of 1985 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I give notice that, nine sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Navigation (Limitation of Shipowners' Liability) Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1985 No. 317 and made under the Navigation Act 1912, be disallowed. Senator MASON(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, recognising that Australia is now considered by most responsible authorities to be a nuclear target in time of war, is of the opinion that- (a) the Federal Government should undertake urgent consultations with the State governments to establish feasible, practical and cost-effective measures to protect the Australian people in our cities in the event of a nuclear attack; (b) because enormous costs and many years would be needed to build underground shelters, emphasis at this stage should be directed towards the outer zones of our cities, where damage could be expected to be much less than in the city centres, but where facilities for evacuation and treatment of people would be needed, including the following: (i) the holding on computer, in full-time State headquarters, of major public transport movements so that trains and buses could be taken over at any time and diverted to a planned shuttle service to evacuate the outer zones of cities; (ii) regional committees in planned evacuation areas to supervise the maintenance of facilities for decontamination, clothing change and blood transfusions which would be necessary to save the lives of many of those affected by radiation sickness; (iii) emergency billeting and food supplies in regional centres, planned as evacuation destinations; and (iv) any other measures considered after consultation to be relevant in the circumstances; and (c) the Government should treat this matter, and the allocation of funds to it, as urgent in view of the fact that measures of the type proposed would save hundreds of thousands of lives which would otherwise be lost and would avoid the appalling disorder, confusion and destruction that would inevitably result from our present lack of any kind of effective planning in the event of nuclear war. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate notes the significant potential damage to the South Australian economy of the fringe benefits tax on motor vehicles and of high interest rates on housing and calls upon the Federal Government to state its policy and intentions in these areas in the light of frequent Press reports that the Government intends to modify the fringe benefits tax and to introduce a new package involving overseas borrowings, for housing. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) noting the Federal Government's belated admission in a leaked Cabinet document that the economy is now at a critical stage requiring severe cuts in Government spending and reductions in the rate of growth of the economy and employment; (b) acknowledging that this admission is contrary to assurances given as recently as 4 weeks ago by both the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that `the economy is still in very very good form' and `is on track' and that growth will continue; and (c) recognising that the Government can no longer justify its failure to implement appropriate economic measures by pretending that the economy is in good shape, calls on the Government to introduce a mini-budget aimed at transferring the burden of economic management away from excessive reliance on high interest rates and into policies that reduce government spending, hold down the rising labour costs that are destroying Australian business, remove discriminatory taxes that damage the small business and farming sectors, and reduce both interest rates and inflation, which are so much higher than those of our trading competitors. Senator JONES(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, noting that- (a) the Australian Medical Association (AMA) is urging its members to hold the community to ransom by stopping bulk billing; (b) such a course, if adopted, would cost patients up to an additional $5 a week per visit to a doctor; (c) it would add a cost of 90 cents to each individual claim processed by the Health Insurance Commission thus placing an intolerable financial strain on the Medicare Service; (d) Medicare, since its introduction, has done much to relieve the financial pressures of illness from those least capable of bearing those costs, condemns the AMA for its proposed actions, and urges the Federal Government to take a firm stand over its latest threat of industrial blackmail. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) expresses its concern at the obvious inability of the Federal Government to properly administer and allocate government grant schemes, namely: (i) the Community Employment Program (CEP) grant to the Women's Centre Inc. for the purpose of running Tilley Devine's Wine Bar in Canberra, (ii) the Community Employment Program grant to jobless action to produce The Housing Book of which 25 percent of its contents is devoted to the illegal use of other people's property, and (iii) the Community Housing Expansion Program grant to the Wyuna community for accommodation; and (b) calls upon the Government to review its criteria for grants and tighten the administrative arrangements for the allocation of grants. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate notes that the Federal Government is in dereliction of its duty by refusing to mount a public interest inquiry into the Bell-BHP takeover bid on two grounds- 1. The Government claims that it must not intervene in normal commercial matters, but should let the market sort things out, which is an untenable position in view of the fact that the Government has put $100m into the steel division since 1983, giving the taxpayer de facto equity in the company, and that BHP is the largest private employer in the country and controls the vital steel and oil industries. 2. The Government has decided not to act on the takeover purely on the strength of undertakings given by Mr Robert Holmes a Court as these undertakings can be broken, and indeed in the past Mr Holmes a Court has broken such undertakings. The PRESIDENT —Order! I draw honourable senators' attention to the fact that in giving notices of motion they should give them by way of an intended resolution, not as an affirmative statement of fact. I ask all honourable senators to take note of that in their presentation of notices of motion. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate notes the deplorable state of the Australian Capital Territory bus service (ACTION), and condemns the Federal Government for its inability to provide the people of the Australian Capital Territory with adequate public transport. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, 10 sitting days after today, I shall move: That section 76 of the Health Authority Ordinance 1985, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 69 of 1985 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. I ask that, with the concurrence of the Senate, the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Australian delegation to the third meeting of the OECD Environment Committee at ministerial level-Report-together with the text of a statement relating to the report. 2. Australian Electoral Commission-Report on informal voting 1984: Senate. 3. Canberra Retail Markets Trust-Annual report 1984-85-Pursuant to section 27 of the Canberra Retail Markets Ordinance 1971. 4. Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service-Annual report 1984-85-Pursuant to section 52 (1) of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1975. 5. Australian Wheat Board-Annual report 1984-85-Pursuant to section 63 (1) of the Wheat Marketing Act 1984. 6. Australian Dried Fruits Corporation-Annual report 1984-85-Pursuant to section 36 (1) of the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation Act 1978. 7. Australian Electoral Commission-Annual report 1984-85-Pursuant to section 17 (4) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. 8. National Companies and Securities Commission-Annual report 1984-85-Pursuant to section 52 of the National Companies and Securities Commission Act 1979. 9. Companies and Securities Law Review Committee-Annual report 1984-85. 10. Subsidiary agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Korea concerning squid jigging by fishing vessels of the Republic of Korea. 11. Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations-Annual report 1984-85-Pursuant to section 6 of the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations Act 1976. 12. Advisory Council for Inter-governmental Relations-Report 9: Resource Development and Inter-governmental Relations-Pursuant to section 5 of the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations Act 1921. 13. Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority-Financial statements 1984-85-Pursuant to section 63m (3) of the Audit Act 1901. 14. Australian Forestry Council-Summary of resolutions and recommendations of the twenty-second meeting of the Australian Forestry Council. 15. Australian delegation to the twenty-ninth session 1984 of the United Nations General Assembly-Report. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education) —For the information of honourable senators, I table the report on the philosophy, aims and policy guidelines for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education developed by the National Aboriginal Education Committee. I seek leave to make a statement relating thereto. Leave granted. Senator RYAN —The NAEC is the Government's principal adviser in the field of Aboriginal education. I value that advice very highly. In this report as in all its work, the NAEC has taken pains to ensure that its approach reflects Aboriginal community views, that its conclusions have been reached only after extensive consultation, and that its recommendations are directly related to the resolution of some of the practical, day-to-day problems facing Aboriginals. All honourable senators will appreciate the difficulties entailed in formulating a coherent and comprehensive set of aims and guidelines for all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. We need to start, as the NAEC has started, by recognising the importance of diversity, of flexibility, of incremental progress and of continuing consultations with all the communities involved. The NAEC report presents, in a particularly cogent and sometimes trenchant way, the views of my Aboriginal advisers about future directions for Aboriginal education. Its conclusions are challenging. The NAEC has focused especially on: The full recognition and development in education of Aboriginal cultural heritage; the desirability of ensuring that education is undertaken in harmony with cultural values and choice of lifestyle, for Aboriginals living in urban areas as well as for those in traditional communities or homeland centres; the importance of including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander studies in the curriculum in early childhood, primary, secondary and tertiary education; as a corollary, the importance of establishing programs which promote cross-cultural understanding. I accept those points of emphasis. I accordingly accept that Aboriginal people should be given the responsibility to participate in planning policies to implement the programs envisaged and to take on a major role in teaching services throughout the Commonwealth. I spent last week travelling through the Northern Territory examining Aboriginal education and training programs which we help to finance and co-ordinate. Honourable senators will be aware of the Government's substantial financial commitments in this field and of the range of innovative programs we-in co-operation with the States and the Northern Territory-have helped develop. Many urgent and basic questions still need to be resolved. They concern the priority to be given to bilingual education, the need to expand the range of vocational training provided, the importance of increasing the numbers of Aboriginal teachers in Aboriginal communities, and-perhaps most important of all-the need to develop courses so that they lead on to productive jobs, either in the general labour market or in Aboriginal communities. We need time and money to solve those problems, but we also need enthusiasm, energy, dedication and commitment. Those qualities are evident in every section of the document I have just tabled, and in all the work of the NAEC. Our policies in the field of Aboriginal education are developed in full co-operation with the States and the Northern Territory. We would also welcome co-operation from the Opposition and the Australian Democrats. The stakes are too high for any partisan squabbling or divisions. We all need to work together to make progress in the important areas the NAEC has outlined, since achievement of those aims will benefit and develop all Australians. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.15) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper and statement. It is good to have this statement by the National Aboriginal Education Committee before the Senate and to have the accompanying ministerial statement of the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan). Like some other senators here, I have worked with Mr Paul Hughes, Mr Errol West and other members of the NAEC and have appreciated the work they are doing and the goals they are seeking to achieve. I would like to emphasise something the Minister did not emphasise, but which I know she would share, and that is the extent of Aboriginal disadvantage in almost any area one cares to measure. Whether it is health, education, employment or other adverse things such as rates of imprisonment or sickness, Aboriginal Australians are at the bottom of every statistical table. They bear an enormous burden of disadvantage and this extends across to education. I remember well when I first came to this place I went to Walgett with a Senate committee under the chairmanship of then Senator Keeffe. We met with the principal of the primary school there, Mr Laurie Craddock, who told us that when he came to the school the rate of illiteracy and the inability to read or write at the end of grade 6 had been a figure which was exactly equal to the rate of Aboriginal enrolment in that primary school. He had been able in his time there to introduce programs which had altered completely that rate of illiteracy and innumeracy. He had people reading, writing and participating in education. The same Laurie Craddock has gone on to promotion. I think he is now a very senior officer in the Education Department in New South Wales, and it is no wonder with that kind of commitment and achievement. One of the things that emerged, with which the Minister would agree, is that some of the reasons people were not achieving well was that perhaps the educational programs were not appropriate, but in addition to that there were factors of health-people could not hear what the teachers were saying and they were inadequately nourished-and their home circumstances were not adequate to allow them to cope well in the school environment. So we had a tragedy in education as it affected Aboriginal Australians. They saw it as giving them nothing. The question that has always concerned me is the extent to which a school system which represents the dominant culture in society can be expected and required to meet the needs of any minority group or culture. We certainly have that expectation, but we have plenty of evidence that the school system fails far too often to meet the needs of minority groups in the community. Of course, it is not all negative. We have some emerging examples of continuing Aboriginal educational successes. I notice in this report, which I have had a chance to scan but not to read, a photograph of Eric Wilmot. This remarkable Australian, who happens to be an Aboriginal, was a stockman until his mid-20s when he went back and took some further education. He then qualified at tertiary level. He was the Director of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. Three or four years ago he was the Australian inventor of the year because he invented a new gear-box which is now coming into production. He is now the professor of education at James Cook University. No great fuss; he just happens to be an Aboriginal. There is a whole group of Aboriginal Australians emerging now who have succeeded in a big way through our education system. I am not suggesting that it is all negative, but if one looks at statistics it has been far too negative. The NAEC is quite correct to draw attention to the need to do something, because the problem is there. When we look at what might be done, one of the things for which I hope the NAEC would push very hard is the inclusion of strands about Aboriginal Australians in the general education curriculum for all Australians. While we are worrying about the educational needs of Aboriginal Australians, all of us need to be made aware of the Aboriginal history of this country and of the way in which we interact with Aboriginal Australians. Not enough is being done in the general educational stream to pick up those strands. It is not necessarily enough to propose a separate education system. One approach might be for the Aboriginal people to say: `The only way to solve this is to give us our own educational system to allow us to march to our own drum.' In some circumstances that might help. We have done a number of things which apply specifically to Aboriginals. I am reminded of the Aboriginal secondary grants scheme, under which certain resources are made available for Aboriginal secondary students. When I was Minister what emerged very rapidly was that there was nothing wrong at all with that scheme, but that there were many poor white Australians who could equally have taken advantage from it. Many of the things which are being proposed by the NAEC in fact could be of benefit to a wider group of clients. I think the focus of education in Australia really has to be to equip, enrich and empower children to control their own lives when they become adults. If those are the aims of education, clearly education has failed Aboriginal Australians over some generations. Too many of the people I have met have certainly not felt they have been enriched, empowered or equipped. On that basis education has been a failure. The Minister has asked us for multipartisan support for the kind of approach she is seeking. Many of the things which are being proposed and which she has mentioned we certainly do support. For example, some of the references to bilingual and bicultural education we think can do nothing but good and we would like to see something done. But the key to multipartisan support will not just be fine sentiments or fine words; it will be action by the Government, action which we can see to put into place some of the proposals which the National Aboriginal Conference has been putting up. If the Government, in fact, intends to reject the NAEC suggestions on good grounds, it should come here and say so, but it should indicate what it intends to do to pursue the goals of equipping, enriching and empowering Aboriginal Australians, for in the end nothing less will do. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.24) —The Government has introduced a report by the National Aboriginal Education Committee entitled `Philosophy, aims and policy guidelines for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education'. As Senator Peter Baume has suggested, the statement by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) is full of fine words. I do not feel at all charitable towards the Government in terms of Aboriginal education or anything to do with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders at the moment, and certainly not this week with its historical type of denigration and backing off from the policies that it has already announced. Having attended a very large meeting last night of over 400 Aboriginals I can assure the Senate that they feel exactly the same. We again have a set of fine words which presumably will result in exactly the same type of action as the last lot of fine words we had in these areas. In 1984 the NAEC issued a report entitled `TAFE for Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders'. What has happened? Almost nothing. It then issued a further statement entitled `Aborigines and Tertiary Education: A Framework for the 1985-87 Triennium'. What has happened there? Almost nothing. The Minister's statement contains fine words, but I doubt whether we will see any type of implementation of those proposals, as we have not seen anything from previous reports of this Committee. The Committee has put forward a very cogent and a very forceful position that has to be taken account of. This week, Aboriginal groups concerned about the media, which is an incredibly important part of education in Australia, are awaiting some response from the Minister as to whether the types of support statements that have been made, will be followed by cash commitments. Next Monday, these people will appear before the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to argue their case for getting the footprint satellite over north Australia. The Minister is too busy to meet with them this week. They have been advised to tell the Tribunal to put off its hearings for a month. They have been given the general runaround. Yet the central zone Aussat satellite footprint will obviously be of vital importance to Aboriginal people in terms of their culture and intrusion into their culture. It has as much to do with education, and possibly more, than do schools. Yet the Government makes no commitment. It just tells them to go away and not to bother. It tells them to tell the Tribunal to put off its discussions. On the one hand we get these fine words, but what do we get on the other? The commitment of this situation is important. An agreement to consider these types of recommendations is important. I, like Senator Peter Baume, wait for the Government's response in terms of what it will do, not what it says it will do. It is fairly obvious to me that if Aboriginal and Islander people are given an opportunity to involve themselves in media production, they will be able to provide to their people enormous educational benefits. Yet the Torres Strait Islander people were not even informed of the hearing into the granting of a commercial licence in north Queensland. They were not even told that there was an inquiry into the granting of a commercial licence for a television station which will beam into their area. Anyone who has visited those islands would have an understanding that the intrusion of commercial television will probably be more important than the establishment of a school in changing that community's culture and setup. Quite frankly, at least from my perspective and certainly from the perspective of those Aboriginals who attended the meeting last night, they can no longer trust this Government. They wait for action. They wait for the Government's announcements about what it will do, rather than pronouncements about its good intentions. I will reserve my judgment with regard to this report until we hear from the Government and its commitments-and its financial commitments-to the goals that are set out in this report. I think the Government is very lucky to have a committee of this calibre. It has been the case on so many occasions in the past that the Aboriginal committees that have been formed to advise the Government have almost invariably produced conscientious, far-sighted reports. Of course, the major Aboriginal consultative body has been destroyed. I ask the Minister in this House for a commitment on when it would be replaced. I was told it would be replaced in June last year. I now understand that no funds will be available until June next year-two years later than the commitment that was given in this place by the Minister for Education. The Aboriginal people put their position very strongly to me last night, and I think we are in a situation where we must remain totally sceptical about the Government's good intentions in this regard. We must call for action in these areas before we can go any further. The report refers to a number of significant advances that Aboriginal people have made in various areas. I think we are all now very much aware of that. We have all met Aboriginals who have completed a variety of tertiary education courses. For the first time we have an Aboriginal doctor. We also have increasing numbers of Aboriginal lawyers and Aboriginal teachers. In many cases those people are dedicating themselves, in a very self-sacrificing way, to the advancement of their people. I think what they are doing puts many of us in the white community to shame. They are putting aside what could be lucrative careers and devoting themselves to their own people. They are setting an example to so many others. One finds, in talking to teachers of Aboriginal students, that for the first time there is a turnaround; that many Aboriginal students now want to go on because they can see the successes that have been achieved by other Aboriginal people. Let us not put it down to the fact that governments have caused this. By and large almost every one of those people have done it on their own. They have worked through the normal system. At the moment very little has come of arrangements such as the enclave at Monash University to assist people. We hope that those types of developments will proliferate in the future because there is a need for accelerated courses in these areas. We need to be able to say to the triple certificated Aboriginal nurses who wish to become doctors that we will establish special courses for them. These nurses have seen it all. They operate in communities where they are the only medical health provider. They deal with every conceivable problem that is presented to them. Many of the nurses who have had experience in the field and have worked in the area of medicine for long periods now wish to become doctors. As yet the only courses which have been offered to them are courses in other countries. One Aboriginal nurse said to me that she wishes to undertake her training in Australia. She does not wish to study at a university in the United States of America that has offered her a free place and a scholarship. She wants to do it in this country because she is an Australian. I hope that we will be able to discuss these matters more extensively at some other stage. Education is, of course, of vital concern to Aboriginal communities. One cannot visit and talk for any length of time with members of any Aboriginal group without being made very aware of their commitment and drive to make sure that a number of their people achieve so that they can take their place and argue their own role in the white society. I remember quite vividly talking to an Aboriginal school principal in Arnhem Land. When I asked him about the attendance record of kids since he became the principal, he said: `We now have all the Aboriginal children attending'. I said: `How do you achieve it?' He said: `I go around and kick their backsides if they do not come'. That was an interesting comment because for the first time in that community the Aboriginal children, who attend a school which has white teachers on the staff, have to do what they are told by an Aboriginal principal. The mere fact of putting an Aboriginal principal in charge of the school has created a totally different model for those children, a model which has shown that Aboriginal people do not always have to tug the forelock, that they do not always have to be in subservient positions, that they are as capable as any other Australian of taking positions of command, authority and eminence in our society. It is a pity, in view of the racist campaigns that have been conducted over the past few years in Australia, that some people did not spend some time, some energy and some grey matter on talking and thinking with those Aboriginal people about the ways in which they wish to advance themselves. I have nothing against the statement that the Minister has made. I think the report is excellent, pointing the way forward for government action. My only concern is the possibility of no government action to follow. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.36) —Madam Acting Deputy President, may I first say how pleased I am to see you back in the chair after a long absence. It is a return that is welcomed by all of us, but on behalf of the Opposition I certainly welcome you. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —Thank you. Senator CHANEY —Senator Macklin, in his response on behalf of the Australian Democrats to the statement by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), gave the Senate a timely reminder of some of the Government's manifest failures in Aboriginal affairs. The Minister in this statement has called for bipartisanship, and that is a call to which I wish to respond. I do not wish to labour the point but, since this is the first parliamentary opportunity I have had to speak on this subject since the Government announced its attitude on the national land rights question, I think I should say in this place, as I have said outside, that I believe that the proper course would be for the present Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), to resign, and indeed for Senator Ryan to resign, given the clear promises that they made to the Aboriginal people of Australia over a long period in opposition and in Government, promises which they have now clearly dishonoured. The fact that they dishonoured them is not a point of issue in that the decision to move back to a federalist approach is welcomed by the Opposition, but I think it represents a very poor manifestation of any political principles, and in my view the honourable course for both Ministers would be resignation. To return, however, to the matter before the Senate, which is the report of the National Aboriginal Education Committee, I think it important to focus on the real prospects for common cause in this area. Aboriginal affairs has become a very divisive area in Australian politics, but I think no Australian would wish to deny to Aboriginal Australians an education which would help to equip them for life in Australia in the 1980s. I think that all Australians would wish to see achieved the broad objectives laid down by the National Aboriginal Education Committee. If I could single out one objective that I think is of critical importance, it is the objective that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education lead to personal development and the acquisition of skills and learning needed for Australia today. That point is acknowledged in the Minister's statement where she says that perhaps the most important thing of all is to develop courses so that they lead to productive jobs either in the general labour market or in Aboriginal communities. Indeed, it goes beyond the question of jobs; it goes into education for the general life skills required for the sort of personal independence that Senator Peter Baume referred to. None of us wishes to delay the return to the debate on the Bill of Rights, but it is an indication of the interest which honourable senators have in this topic that a number of other Opposition senators wish to speak after me. I acknowledge the interest of Senator Sir John Carrick with whom I spent some time in the Northern Territory when he had Senator Ryan's job as Minister for Education. We took that trip specifically to visit Aboriginal communities and to discuss the sorts of issues dealt with in this report. I acknowledge his contribution in this area. More recently I went to the Central Reserve with Mr Ross Lightfoot who is now the member for Murchison-Eyre following the recent State election in Western Australia. It was a notable feature of that visit, which took him not only to the Central Reserve but also to Wiluna and Mount Margaret, that there has been a very considerable development of educational facilities in that area. I must say that I was impressed by the expansion and refinement of facilities since my last visit in the 1980s. I think that some of the issues which are brought out in the National Aboriginal Education Committees report become very apparent when one visits those communities and sees the work which is being done. Whilst acknowledging the very great personal contribution which has been made by individual teachers, the contribution of the Western Australian Education Department in the provision of what seemed to me to be some very high standard facilities, the contribution which was made by the Aboriginal curriculum development people in Western Australia and the work of people such as May O'Brien, who will be well known to you, Madam Acting Deputy President, I can say only that many questions are left in one's mind about the ability of the current educational system to equip young Aboriginal people for independent lives in the community, whether it be within the central reserves, those outback towns or in the cities if the people choose to move there. I do not think any of us should underestimate the very great difficulties facing those people in making the transition from their present situation to one of greater personal independence. My main purpose in speaking in this debate was to say that I think this matter will require the sort of bipartisan co-operation which the Minister has sought and which I am sure will be forthcoming from the Opposition on this important issue. It will also require the taking of a long view. There is no prospect that by dint of some inspired government intervention over a short period there will be a complete turnaround and a complete solution. It requires a multi-generational approach. We have to be prepared to put in a consistent effort over a very long time. I ask the Government when making its response to the National Aboriginal Education Committee report to take that very long view and to commit itself to a consistent and principled approach to the education of Aboriginal and Islander people. That means giving good support to those non-Aboriginal Australians who go to live in areas which are often very difficult to provide the essential input at the professional level. I am very pleased that Mr Ross Lightfoot has taken such a positive interest in this issue and in other aspects relating to the Aboriginal population in his electorate. I believe that he also would wish to work in a bipartisan manner with the present Labor Government in Western Australia and with the new Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Ernie Bridge, who faces very great challenges as an Aboriginal person holding that office in Western Australia. I for my part look forward to working with Mr Lightfoot and, indeed, with everbody who is concerned with advancing Aboriginal education not only in Western Australia but also around the rest of Australia. I commend the report for the Government's earnest consideration. I welcome the Minister's suggestion that we should adopt an approach which involves co-operation from the Opposition and the Australian Democrats. I express the general hope that, now that the Government has taken its more difficult decisions in the field of land rights, we can move to a broader bipartisan approach to Aboriginal affairs in other areas to the very great advantage of Aboriginal people and, I believe, to the very great advantage of the Australian community. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(10.43) —I also welcome the report of the National Aboriginal Education Committee entitled `Philosophy, aims and policy guidelines for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education'. In the time that is briefly available, I wish to add to the comments of my colleagues Senator Peter Baume and Senator Chaney and those of Senator Sir John Carrick, who will speak after me, in welcoming this report and in commending the work of the National Aboriginal Education Committee. Whilst I also welcome the statement made in the chamber this morning by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), I reiterate our common theme that we will be looking for credibility in those statements through the actions of the Government. During the last fortnight's session when the Minister brought down a ministerial statement on national language policy which contained the Government's response to the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts reports and recommendations in that field, I had similar things to say. I was concerned that the Minister's warm and happy statement of commitment and of promise needed to be followed up with distinct action. In respect to this particular report, my colleagues and I believe-and I am sure that the Minister will share our view-that Paul Hughes and his Committee colleagues are doing an excellent job in working with Aboriginal communities throughout Australia and in giving advice to us all on ways of overcoming the disadvantage of which Senator Peter Baume spoke clearly in his remarks. I wish to focus on the remarks in the report that relate to the Torres Strait Islanders as one particular group of Aborigines which is in need of enhanced education programs. The report refers very positively to bilingual, bicultural education and a number of us in the Senate have been dismayed that, whilst there have been real advanced, for example in the north of South Australia in remote Aboriginal communities and the Northern Territory particularly throughout the 1970s, there are significant areas, not least the Kimberleys, remote areas of New South Wales and more particularly north Queensland where there is more evidence of deficiency. In north Queensland inadequate resources have been given to teacher education and there has been inadequate planning and provision for bilingual education. The report that has been presented to the Senate rightly emphasises that the language of many Australians is an Aboriginal language such as Kala Laga Ya in the Torres Strait area, which is the majority language of most of the outer islands, and Merriam Mer, the distinctly different family of languages related to Papua, which is spoken on Murray Island. There are not only those historic indigenous languages, but also Aboriginal English and Torres Strait Kriol. There is a recognition in this report that the means to the best foundation for education of children in that area, as we have seen in South Australia and the Northern Territory, is a bilingual approach in the primary years. There is reference in the report to this trend continuing to Year 10. I reinforce and welcome the attention that has been given to those matters, which are also set out in the Senate report `Towards a National Language Policy'. I conclude by saying that we in the Senate, especially here in the Opposition, whilst welcoming the Minister's warm sentiments and clear promises, will judge the credibility of those statements by the actual action of this Government. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(10.48) —Madam Acting Deputy President, I join with Senator Chaney in welcoming you to the chair and in wishing you many years amongst us in the full health that you are now enjoying. I also welcome the report of the National Aboriginal Education Committee. That committee is a body of very great significance to Australia. I have been associated with it in the past and I know of its expertise and the value of its advice. I rise because essential to the report is the necessity expressed by my colleagues to get well established bipartisanship on this issue in the longer term. If indeed, in the course of my remarks, I appear to be somewhat critical of or abrasive towards the Government it is only to expose the difficulties and to move towards a centre stage. I acknowledge the happy smile of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, and I hope he will join me on the journey. I must say this, and it may be taken as abrasive, that when I took over as Federal Minister for Education in late 1975, and I had an exciting journey of some four years in that portfolio, I found that by far the greatest problem that confronted me in education was the most difficult and complex problem of the Australian Aborigine. When I started I thought that I knew some of the solutions. After four years I concluded that I knew the questions to be asked, but not the solutions. It is very important indeed to know the questions, because if one knows the questions to ask, one might get the answers. I think that we have been asking the wrong questions. I must say again, and this can also be taken as abrasive, that I believe that both the Whitlam and the Hawke governments have suffered from the defect that they either have not truly understood the essential problems of the Aborigine or have not sought to and have rather sought to design the public relations label rather than the product. If one wants to damage an issue one looks to the public relations instead of the product. I believe fundamentally, and I say this from my heart, that the real problem is that there has been a growing alienation between the Aboriginal community and the rest of the Australian community because of the failure to tell the caucasian community, the white Australian community, the nature of the problem and how we can come together in its solution. A lot of very clever phrases have been used in this respect, phrases such as: `You, the Aboriginal people, can have a choice-you can go back to your own cultures and live in them, you can come into ours or you can commute'. That all sounds grand but the fact is that from the moment the first white man came to Australia that position was totally compromised. It was compromised not only by force or dispossession-they themselves were ugly things-but also by more fundamental things. The white man brought things that could not be described as a range of virtues, but more a range of defects for the Aborigine. The Aborigine found himself confronted with a whole range of white man's diseases, particularly upper respiratory tract infections and social diseases that he had not had before and could not cope with. If one visits an Aboriginal school the first problem one notices is otitis media, the disease of the middle ear, which Senator Peter Baume, as the previous Minister, would have known very well. That is a disease that so delimits the ability to hear that, until the penicillin needle can be brought to the student, a suitable environment cannot be created. That in itself is fundamental. The Aborigines also suffer conjunctival diseases of the eye and trachomas. The white man also brought his foods and created a whole host of changes. There was a change from a high animal protein diet to a diet which included dampers, sugars, teas and other substances which have created many problems. Middle age diabetes is a plague among Aborigines. Therefore it is no use saying that the Aborigine can go back to his own culture. He must go back with a penicillin needle, the sulphur drugs and the support systems that are needed. We took a very proud people, people who were proud to be hunters and nomads, and told them they should put on clothes. We forced upon them our value judgments. Of course, in an environment where there is no dry cleaning and there are no washing machines, we have helped them along to an environment of lice, vermin and destruction. When we see Aborigines sitting in the creek bed, clothed and looking derelict, we tend to denigrate them and criticise them; but they are our creation, in the same way as 350 years ago the Americans brought the negroes from Africa and set about changing and compromising the whole future of those people. We cannot say: `Get back to your own culture'. We have done more than that. We found a people who were nomads, with a culture entirely different from ours, who never built a permanent structure or home, who never undertook animal husbandry or agriculture but who were very competent in living in a vast and difficult society. They could live in a forbidding land and survive essentially because of the packing together of the extended family. We cannot understand that extended family as a belonging of 50 to 100 people packed together. Thinking to be helpful, we have applied to them our social security and health schemes. We have said to them: `You can go back to your cultures; you can go from the towns to the settlements, to the outstations, to the homelands, but you take your social security benefits with you'. That situation in itself is now past change, but in doing that we have said to those people that they have no need for significance in their community, no need to strive, no need to hunt, no need to forage, because we will support them totally with social security. We ourselves have created the dilemma. I am not saying for one minute that I would not take the penicillin needles, that I would not take the support systems. That is not part of what I am saying. I am saying that, the Europeans having compromised the situation, we must try to understand the Aborigines and how they find themselves today. When we look at the human conflict in suburbs such as Redfern we tend to take a brutal view. We tend to fail to understand a people who have lived in their skin groups and clans and who fervently want to be together. By advocating that the support systems go out, the whole of the culture based on hunting and foraging and the dream worlds as the protector of the family group has gone. We find them sitting in dirty clothes in creek beds, but it is we who through our systems have brought this about. It is we who basically have stripped from them their human dignity. I do not want fine phrases. I accept that on both sides of this place there is understanding. I look to Senator Robertson, for example, and acknowledge his sympathetic understanding of these people. I look to many other honourable senators. What I do not want are fine phrases. I want a policy that allows us all to move together to rebuild the dignity of the individual human in the best way we can, wherever we find that human being-whether we find him tribalised, on the settlements, the outstations, the homelands, whether moving between those places, or in Redfern or Fitzroy. What we need to do is, first of all, to understand the plight they are in at this moment and then try to work with them. We are dealing with the Bill of Rights in this House, and the most important freedom and liberty a man has-if I can express it so-is his responsibility to respect the right of the other fellow to be free and different. That is very hard because here is a culture which is so different from ours that it offends us. I once said to a very fine Aborigine at Yirrkala in the Gove Peninsula: `Look, I can get you the garbage contract, worth $200 a week. It would be good.' He said: `Why should I? If I do, I have to take the money back to the fifty people who are part of my group. I will have to share it.' There is a kind of collective sharing in the extended Aboriginal family that we do not understand. It was not that that person was, in the good old Australian phrase, a bludger or that the rest of them were bludgers but that that was the situation those people found themselves in. We need to work within that context and we need to do it throughout the whole of Australia. I have risen to my feet primarily to say that the first step we should take is to disabuse the bulk of the Australian people of the ugliness of this problem. We should strip back the image of drunkenness, of violence, of dirt, of lack of employment, and understand why this has happened. We should realise that we can never again let them live wholly in the culture in which they once were. That culture has gone with the introduction of all man's diseases and all man's support systems. We should never brutalise but always try to keep the dignity of the people as we move along. We can do that best of all in an education system because we have the whole variety of education through all its different phases in Australia. When I was Education Minister I tried to get affirmative action for Aborigines. I tried to say that of the 150,000 Aborigines in Australia there were probably only about 30,000 or 40,000 who were adults and who wanted work. If Federal, State and local governments had affirmative action and were to pick out Aborigines here and there and offer them work, not in some compartmentalised system but understanding that Aborigines are different and need encouragement and help, we could absorb that whole employment demand ourselves, without asking private enterprise to do so. Using a perhaps pejorative phrase, in the ordinary concept of things there are people in Australian employment designated as `slow workers'. What we ought to do by way of affirmative action is to make available in every niche a place for Aborigines, but only where those around them understand their nature, their culture and want to help them. Otherwise the difficulty will be immense. I rose particularly to commend the National Aboriginal Education Committee and the various recommendations. The warts have been on the nose of all governments. The warts are on the nose of the Australian community. I do not defend law-breaking Aborigines, as I do not defend others who break the law. I do not defend that at all. I try to explain it. I do not try to whitewash the situation at all. My basic plea is for both Government and Opposition to enter into a compact to tell the Australian people what the problems are. If we tell the Australian people what the problems are and they become sympathetic, as they ought to be and must be if we are to have a solution, then the solution will be found within the community itself. Solutions come with human understanding. They come with affection and with a reaching hand. Above all, they come with the desire to protect and preserve the right of those people to be different. They are different. They are fundamentally different in every ethnic way. It is not for us to force them into a compromise to be like us. To force people to be like us is an abrogation of all human freedoms. We have to recognise that they are compromised and that they cannot go back, but that they have a culture which is as rich or richer than ours and religions and tribal rituals which are richer than ours and that we will try to protect them. We must look to the NAEC and other groups and stop trying to score political points against each other about who aids the Aborigines and who has done more for the Aborigines. The fact is that we have had a failure of understanding of the real problem. If we get to a true position of bipartisanship then the Aboriginal people in Australia can live with dignity and a great future. Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Button for Senator Grimes) agreed to: That the Senate, unless otherwise ordered, at its rising on Friday, 14 March 1986, adjourn till Tuesday, 18 March 1986, at 2 p.m. 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 Button) read a first time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(11.08) —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- On the 10th of December 1985, the Government announced its intention to continue the highly successful Community Employment Program (CEP) for a further three years beyond 30 June 1986. This Bill is to give effect to that intention. The CEP was introduced by the Hawke Government in August 1983 in response to the massive problem of long-term unemployment in the Australian labour market. When this Government took office in March 1983 the Australian economy and labour market were in a parlous state. The economy was in deep recession, the worst for 50 years, and employment was continuing to plummet. By September 1983 the unemployment rate had reached a post war high of 10.4 per cent and the incidence of long-term unemployment had escalated alarmingly. The previous Government had failed utterly to fulfil its election promise to provide jobs for all those wanting work. Despite the effects of international recession, the Hawke Government provided the environment and leadership to turn this tide. It came to office with a firm commitment to generate economic recovery through the pursuit of expansionary macroeconomic policies in the context of the historic prices and incomes accord with the trade union movement. The Government's overall economic strategy has proved remarkably successful. Economic growth has averaged around 5 per cent per annum, the highest rate of sustained growth since the late 1960s. We undertook to create 500,000 jobs in the first three years in office, and this objective was achieved last November-5 months ahead of schedule. Over 548,100 new jobs have now been created since the Hawke Government came to office in March 1983, and our annual rate of employment growth of 3.8% during 1985 was the best performance by any Western industrialised country. Unemployment has been reduced from over 10 per cent to less than 8 per cent. Despite this impressive growth performance, the Government has always acknowledged the special difficulties faced by the long-term unemployed and other groups of disadvantaged jobseekers, such as Aboriginals, the disabled and migrants with English language difficulties. These people have limited prospects of getting a job, even in times of general economic recovery. The longer a person is out of work the greater the loss of skills and confidence, and the more reluctant are employers to recruit such a person. The incidence of long-term unemployment was a major social problem confronting the Hawke Government. By November 1983, over 260,000 Australians or 41.8 per cent of all those out of work had been unemployed for 9 months or more. This represented a tragic waste of human and economic resources which the Government was determined to address through special measures designed to improve the employment prospects of these disadvantaged jobseekers and enable them to share in the benefits of general economic recovery. The Community Employment Program was our major response in this area. The Program provided worthwhile work experience on community-based and public sector projects for the long-term unemployed and other disadvantaged groups, with the objective of breaking the vicious circle of prolonged unemployment facing such people and assisting them back into the general labour market. Legislation established the CEP as a three-year program when introduced in May 1983, and the Program was formally launched by the Prime Minister in August of that year. The Hawke Government has allocated $1 billion to CEP in its first 3 budgets, which makes CEP the largest labour force program ever implemented by a Federal Government in Australia. The results have been outstanding. To date, Federal funds have been committed to provide for more than 16,000 projects sponsored by community organisations, local government and State and Federal Governments. More than 87,000 short-term employment opportunities have been created for long-term unemployed and other disadvantaged jobseekers. In terms of its targeting performance, CEP has been particularly impressive. Long-term unemployed persons, ie. those with nine months or more prior unemployment represent over 62 per cent of all CEP placements to date, with 77 per cent of placements during 1985-86 being from this category. The average prior duration of unemployment amongst all CEP participants to date is 58 weeks and 70 weeks for those placed during this financial year. This is a remarkable achievement and shows that the Program is really reaching the core of long-term unemployed persons. The CEP is also targeted towards migrants with English language difficulty, Aboriginals and disabled persons. Participation in the program by persons from these groups has increased progressively and is now well in excess of the representation of these groups amongst the ranks of those registered as unemployed with the CES. During this financial year 12 per cent of all placements have been Aboriginals, 14 per cent disabled persons and 10 per cent migrants with English language difficulties. One of the most outstanding achievements of the CEP has been its success in meeting its objective of equal female representation in jobs created under the Program. The CEP was the first labour force program to take up the challenge of the Government's equal opportunity policy in this way. To date the overall participation of women in the Program has been 38.6 per cent. This includes the Jobs on Local Roads component which initially did not have a target for women. If this component is excluded then the overall participation rate for women on projects approved to date is 42.7 per cent and on projects approved in 1985-86 it is 52.6 per cent. In 1985-86 the target of a 25 per cent placement rate for women on the local roads component is actually being exceeded by 5 per cent. CEP has also proved extremely successful in improving the job prospects of those who have participated. A survey undertaken by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations in March 1985 showed that 41 per cent of ex-CEP participants were in employment 6 months after leaving CEP, with 59 per cent having been employed at some time during this 6 month period. A second survey in July 1985 indicated further improvements in these post-program results to 46 per cent and 61 per cent respectively. In addition, research by the Bureau of Labour Market Research shows that participants in this type of program experience a continuous improvement in psychological well being and are more able to cope with any subsequent period of unemployment than are non-program participants. The decision to continue CEP is based on both evidence of the continuing need to assist the long-term unemployed and other disadvantaged groups in the labour market, and on its level of success to date. Despite economic upturn there is no room for complacency about the employment prospects of the long-term unemployed. Although the number of people unemployed for 9 months or more has declined by 50,000 or 24 per cent to 210,300 over the two years to November 1985, there are still 92,400 who have been unemployed for two years or more. This latter group lost their jobs in the massive downturn in the labour market under the Fraser Government during 1982-83 and need the assistance of CEP. The continuing need for assistance for the long-term unemployed is reinforced by short-term projections undertaken by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations which show that even under optimistic scenarios for economic and employment growth, the total number of long-term unemployed persons is not expected to fall significantly as a percentage of total unemployment over the next 2-3 years. The success of the CEP has ensured that it will remain an important part of the Government's overall strategy for assisting unemployed persons. The CEP's public sector orientation, which creates work for those persons least able to benefit from employment opportunities created in a period of economic upturn, complements other Federal Government initiatives designed to assist the long-term unemployed, such as the wage subsidy schemes provided through the new Jobstart initiative. Besides being successful in terms of its fundamental objectives the CEP can also be judged by its administrative performance. Cost effectiveness has been maintained in that 75 per cent of CEP funds are spent on labour, and administrative costs have been contained to 3 per cent of the CEP budget. A further positive efficiency indicator is the fact that the cost to the Commonwealth for a six month equivalent job has declined from $9,887 in 1983-84 to $9,817 in 1984-85. In addition, the community at large has benefitted from the CEP. Although the major objective of the Program is to assist the long-term unemployed a secondary objective has been to provide services and facilities of community benefit. Consequently the Program has funded a variety of projects from road upgrading, parks and gardens, sport, recreation and tourism facilities, to environmental enhancement and arts and heritage projects. The performance of CEP to date has been excellent. Although there have naturally been some operational problems, this is to be expected in a program of this size. The Government is currently in the process of consulting with those administrators and sponsors who have participated in the CEP in order to gain constructive input into the formulation of the new program. We believe that it is necessary to undertake this process of consultation before final decisions are taken both on the Program and Financial Guidelines which determine the structure and administrative arrangements for the new Program. The Government is sure that this process will result in an even more effective program to assist the long-term unemployed whose disadvantage in the labour market still continues and is a major concern of this Government. On the basis of CEP's success in meeting the needs of this group, its effective administration and its benefit to the community, the Government feels fully justified in continuing this important initiative. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage, and the consideration of such Bills together in Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Second Readings Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(11.10) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- APPLE AND PEAR EXPORT UNDERWRITING AMENDMENT BILL 1986 The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Apple and Pear Export Underwriting Act 1981. The Bill will come into effect on the day it receives Royal Assent. The Apple and Pear Export Underwriting Act established an export underwriting scheme for apples and pears for the 1981-85 export seasons. Underwriting involves the guaranteeing of a minimum return by the Commonwealth Government in a year when prices fall below average export returns achieved in recent years. Its objective is to provide industry with an appropriate insurance against sharp export market downturns without masking longer term market trends. Under the terms of the previous scheme underwriting payments were to be made on all exports of apples and pears, separately, in years when the average export return was less than the determined underwritten or ``floor'' price. The ``floor'' price was equal to 95% of the weighted average export return for the preceding four export seasons. An underwriting payment occurred in one year only-in 1981 when $4.8 million was paid in respect of exports of apples. This Bill proposes that underwriting be extended for a further five years but under modified terms and conditions, both in respect of the previous scheme and also the recommendation of the Industries Assistance Commission in its 1985 Apples and Pears report. It is proposed that underwriting continue to operate separately for apples and pears but in addition it should now also apply, separately, to forward and at risk export sales. Forward sale exports are those which have been sold prior to shipment and `at risk' sales are those shipped before sale. In each instance, the ``floor'' price is to be at a level equal to 85% of the average return received for that type of sale in the best three of the preceding four seasons. The Government considers that the proposed scheme is an improvement over the previous scheme and the IAC's recommendation. Major criticisms by industry of the previous scheme were that, given the relative differences in `at risk' and forward sale export returns for apples no meaningful underwriting insurance was being given to the apple industry and the method of calculating the floor price resulted in one bad price year unduly limiting the prospect of payouts in succeeding low price years. Similarly, the IAC's recommendation involving underwriting `at risk' sales only, at a level of 80%, was seen by the industry as too restrictive. In addition there was particular concern that the IAC was proposing termination of underwriting for the industry after only three years. It is considered that the terms of the Government's scheme contained in the Bill deal fully with these concerns. It is intended that the scheme be reviewed by the IAC prior to the end of the five years. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. AUSTRALIAN APPLE AND PEAR CORPORATION AMENDMENT BILL 1986 The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Act 1973. The Bill will come into effect on the day it receives Royal Assent. The Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Act 1973 reconstituted the powers and composition of the previous Board and vested in the Corporation various export control powers and functions. One of these functions is to advise the Minister on those persons who may export apples and pears. Under the existing regulations apple and pear exporters must be licensed with licences issued by the Minister on the recommendation of the Corporation and subject to certain eligibility criteria, such as marketing experience and financial standing. The Bill seeks to provide for the Corporation in future to issue export licences itself, rather than the Minister, and to be empowered to charge a licence administration fee. This will result in the Minister being removed from involvement in the day to day administration of the licensing system and is consistent with both the Government's policy relating to statutory marketing authorities in the primary industry area and existing legislative arrangements for meat exports. As a separate but related issue the Corporation has agreed upon, in consultation with industry, a policy of restricting the number of licence holders as a means of improving exporter co-ordination and co-operation. This policy was determined by the Corporation, after a long period of examination of the industry's exporting arrangements at a time when exports of apples and pears have generally been declining. The Industries Assistance Commission has also recently looked at the industry's export arrangements and, in its August 1985 report on the industry, suggested that the Corporation's export controls be largely removed. The Government has not accepted the IAC's suggestion on the basis that the Corporation's export policy should be given the chance to work. Under the proposals contained in this Bill the Corporation will be solely responsible for administering the policy in relation to determining the issue of licences. Unsuccessful applicants will continue to have the right to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Bill also provides for a number of amendments of a machinery nature. The most significant of these is to place the requirement on the Corporation that it be subject to the discipline of corporate planning as a means of improving its operations and accountability to industry and Government. These provisions have been included in the legislation of some other primary industry statutory marketing authorities and will as soon as practicable be introduced for the others as part of the recently announced policy relating to these authorities. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —The President has received a letter from the Leader of the Government, Senator Button, requesting a change in the membership of Estimates Committee A. Motion (by Senator Button)-by leave-agreed to: That Senator Cooney be discharged from further attendance on Estimates Committee A and that Senator Ray, having been duly nominated in accordance with Standing Order 36AB, be appointed a member of the Committee. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —The President has received a letter from the Leader of the Government, Senator Button, requesting a change in the membership of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. Motion (by Senator Button)-by leave-agreed to: That Senator McKiernan be discharged from further attendance on the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory and that Senator Morris be appointed a member of the Committee. Consideration resumed from 11 March. AUSTRALIAN BILL OF RIGHTS BILL 1985 The CHAIRMAN —During the proceedings last night, for the purpose of considering Senator Durack's three amendments together the Committee, by leave, took clauses 4, 6 and 7 together. As the Bill is being considered clause by clause and to allow the debate to proceed in a logical way I suggest that it may be appropriate to postpone further consideration of clauses 6 and 7 until after the consideration of clauses 4 and 5. Is that the wish of the Committee? There being no objection, it is so ordered. Clause 4, as amended, agreed to. Clause 5 (Interpretation of Bill of Rights). Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.13) —I move: Page 7, clause 5, lines 37 to 39, leave out the clause. This clause was originally included out of an abundance of caution in order to ensure that certain rules of interpretation in the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 would be available in the interpretation of the articles in the Bill of Rights charter part of the legislation. Further consideration has revealed that the clause is really not necessary since the rules in the Acts Interpretation Act apply to all parts of all Acts. Furthermore, it was feared that the presence of the clause might have some unintended effects on the Bill's operation and it was decided that the most appropriate course was simply to delete the clause in question. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.14) —I do not rise to oppose Senator Gareth Evans's amendment on behalf of the Government. I am not aware of any statement or explanation, apart from the ordinary explanatory memorandum, that the Government has made in regard to its 13 amendments to the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. Is there any theme to these amendments, or are they all purely ad hockery and patching up exercises which, one would have thought, the Government has had plenty of time to deal with already? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.14) —I think Senator Durack will well appreciate from his days as Attorney-General that there is minor cleaning up that almost inevitably arises with any Bill of any complexity in the course of its passage. I do not think any of the Government amendments have any substantive effect. The first one we dealt with yesterday was to delete the word `the' before `Schedule' and substitute `Schedule 1'. This clause is purely a formal one, as I have explained. They are all of that kind and we will do our best not to detain the Committee too long as we deal with each of them in a row. I would be happy, in a sense, to deal with them all at once, but I think it probably suits the convenience of everyone, including posterity, if we deal with them in sequence in the appropriate place so that I can explain each time what they are about. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Evans, I think the draftsman has given you the amendment in a somewhat convoluted way. You are seeking to leave out the whole clause. The simplest way to do that would be to vote against the clause when I put the question that it stand as printed. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.15) —I am not entirely satisfied with the explanation given by the Minister. The Australian Bill of Rights Bill will pass over to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the courts the interpretation of fundamental laws and will give them a very wide degree of discretion. The Minister said that the original purpose of putting in this clause was to ensure that the operation of the Acts Interpretation Act, and presumably of section 15AB of the Acts Interpretation Amendment Act 1984, would apply; that is to say, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the courts would be required in the interpretation of the laws to have regard to a number of things: Those questions that are arising out of this debate; statements that are made by the Minister; votes that are taking place in this chamber; and the explanatory memorandum. I want to know what are those unintended consequences which the Minister fears might occur if this clause is contained in the Bill. The Minister said that one of the reasons this clause is being taken out is that it may well have had some unintended consequences. What are those unintended consequences? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.17) —Some extravagantly technical point to this effect was apparently made by the Western Australian Solicitor-General; that there might have been some unintended displacement of the operation of section 109 of the Commonwealth Constitution. I confess that I have no idea what the substance of the point was, and if I stop to find out we would be delaying proceedings by about 20 minutes. The short point is that it was an abundance of caution that put it there in the first place. Because of the unusual drafting form that is adopted of separating out the particular provisions and putting them in separate articles of a single section, there was a concern that maybe that would mean that the ordinary principles under the Acts Interpretation Act were inapplicable to those things. I think it is universally acknowledged that it is desirable that the general principles of interpretation be applicable to these clauses. I did not understand Senator Harradine to be saying anything different. Under the circumstances, rather than create other potential for confusion, as people wonder what on earth this provision is about, it seemed desirable simply to delete it. Clause negatived. Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to. Clause 8 (Australian Bill of Rights). The CHAIRMAN —We will deal with this clause article by article. Article 1 (Entitlement to rights and freedoms without distinction). Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.20) —I move: Page 8, line 17, after `birth', insert: `, disability'. The purpose of this amendment is to spell out what might already be contained in the words `or other status'. Indeed, there are some overseas cases which would suggest that the meaning of the words `or other status' includes the word `disability'. I am referring to the case in the Netherlands, of which doubtless the Minister would be aware. It seems to me in that case that to spell out the word `disability' does not do any violence to that clause or run foul of the types of propositions the Minister was making last night about expanding beyond the original intention of the Government and the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is useful to draw out of the meaning of the words `or other status' the word `disability', since when one looks at the range of items which are set down-race, colour, sex, language, religion, politics or other opinion, national or social origin, property and birth-one has ranged through most of the major bases for discrimination within our particular society. There are probably two others, one of which Senator Vigor reminded me of a moment ago, and that is age. The other one, to which we have moved an amendment, is disability. One is acutely aware that in the past few years in Australia disability has lessened as a ground for discrimination. Since the international year dedicated to the disabled, corporations, governments and almost all institutional organisations have directed their attention to the problems of the disabled, from the very low but very practical suggestion of having ramps to the very important suggestion that one would discriminate against someone on the basis that he or she may be severely disabled yet incredibly mentally capable. Those movements in our society, if one is to take the Government's intention with regard to this Bill, would be enhanced by specifically spelling out that we do not wish in Australia to have any derogation from the rights and freedoms of any individual because he or she is in some way disabled. I think that would be a further contribution to Senator Cooney's suggestion during the second reading debate that the items contained in the Ten Commandments have always been extremely important, but there is no harm in their being put down in tablets of stone. Likewise in this area, if we wish to make these types of comments about very important items such as race, sex and religion, we should also make them about those people who suffer from some disability and who would find encouragement in the Federal Parliament proclaiming that their entitlement before the law and to human rights would in no way be derogated from because of their disability, of whatever kind. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.25) —The Government opposes this amendment for essentially technical reasons, not because of any desire to exclude disability from the categories of prohibited discrimination and not because of any belief that the present clause does not extend to disability-we do believe that it does-but rather because we think the language of the existing International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ought to be preserved in its entirety in order to better ensure the chances of constitutional survival of this Bill when and if it goes before the High Court of Australia. I think the best way of approaching this question is to get a very clear understanding at the outset as to what Article 1 and Article 4, the other equality clause, are each about. Probably in the drafting and interpretation of Bills of Rights there has been no other area so redolent with confused, woolly thinking and confused, woolly drafting than these questions of equality and non-discrimination. The draftspersons of this Bill have tried very hard to untangle the two separate equality concepts that are involved in the Covenant and to put them in two separate clauses. What Article 1 is about is essentially a procedural guarantee rather than a substantive one. Article 1 is a guarantee that everyone in the community, whoever they are, whatever status they happen to have, should be equally subject to the law and equally subject to, and equally able to take advantage of, the rights contained in the Bill of Rights. There should be no discrimination against anyone in the application of the rights and the correlative duties that are set out in the Bill of Rights. Every person is entitled to equality before the law. Everyone is entitled to the human rights and fundamental freedoms set out in this Bill irrespective of distinctions such as-and they are set out-race, colour, sex and so on. So the point about Article 1 is that everyone, whoever they are, is entitled to the fundamental rights and freedoms. That is hardly a surprising statement. We would expect that to be so. There are no categories of outlaw in our society and we would expect everyone in the community, whatever their status and however they might be described, to be subject to the operation of the law in general and this in particular. When we get to Article 4 it is a quite different equality guarantee and a much more powerful one. It is not merely of formal significance, it is really of substantial significance and it bears a very close resemblance in its likely effect to the equal protection clause of the United States America Bill of Rights. Article 4 says-we can talk about this in more detail when we get to it-that everyone is entitled to be treated equally by the law, whatever kind of law we are talking about, not just that everyone should be equally entitled to the operation of the Bill of Rights and to be equally able to claim protection of the Bill of Rights but that in particular areas of substantive law-whether it is tax law, insurance law, property law, immigration law or law about anything else-everyone is, prima facie, entitled to be treated equally. That of course is not a right which can possibly be enjoyed in an unqualified way because there are all sorts of reasons why the law will in fact need to treat people unequally. This clause and, indeed, all its counterparts elsewhere around the world are qualified accordingly so as to read in effect that the law shall treat everyone the same, unless there are proper and reasonable grounds for treating people differently. That is the point I want to make right at the outset about Article 4 so that its substantive significance, as compared with the essentially procedural significance of Article 1, can be appreciated. Coming back to Article 1, what we are talking about is not a right to non-discrimination in the traditional sense of the sex discrimination law and the racial discrimination law that we are familiar with, or in the equal protection sense of the United States Constitution. What we are talking about is simply a statement in many ways of the obvious-that everyone, whoever they are, is entitled to have the law at large apply equally to them and to be equally able to rely upon the guarantees contained in the Bill of Rights. Looked at in that way, it becomes less significant as to what one puts in the illustrative list of categories of status that is set out in Article 1. It is unambiguously inclusive in its formulation at the moment. What is being talked about here is irrespective of distinction, such as-I emphasise the words `such as'-race, colour, sex and so on. Then there is the open-ended category at the end-`or other status'. From the very drafting it is absolutely clear that a status such as disability would certainly be the sort of thing that is being here referred to. As Senator Macklin says, there is a case in the European human rights court which makes it clear that disability is such a status for the purpose of an equivalent provision. The difficulty I have with Senator Macklin's proposition is that if disability is included why not, indeed, include some other categories of status about which other people feel equally strongly? Why not have a reference to age and marital status which is equally clearly, in this context, the kind of thing that ought not to discriminate or distinguish one citizen from another? Why not identify half a dozen other categories of status-legitimacy versus illegitimacy, for example-which distinguish people one from the other? Why not? In a sense it does not matter because this is an open-ended list. It is just illustrative and to add some more illustrations, albeit not in any complete way, would not do any violence to the content of the clause, and from that point of view it is possible to say that one need not be too worried about the Macklin amendment. This gets me to the final point I want to make. It is a point that I did make strongly last night in another context and will make equally strongly in other contexts during the day; that is that it is tremendously important for those of us in this chamber who want to see a Bill of Rights passed that will be regarded as constitutionally valid that the final legislation bear as close as possible a relationship to the International Covenant as we can achieve. Any variation from the language of the Covenant needs to be understood as stylistic rather than substantive. There are a number of variations which the Government is proposing, but in relation to each of them we will argue that they do not, in any way, change the basic direction of the adherence to the Covenant and the concepts in the Covenant. When, however, wholly new concepts are added, such as was done last night with the extension of the protections of the Bill of Rights away from just protection against government to protections against trade unions and corporations, one is fundamentally changing what the Covenant is about and creating a piece of legislation which bears a conspicuous lack of identity with the Covenant in that respect. If we go on later today to add rights to property, rights to education, or some of the other things that people want to add in, for understandable reasons in each case-I am not contesting that there is a reasonable ground for argument looked at in its own terms-if we go on adding things which are not there in the Covenant and which cannot be justified by reference to the Covenant, we are creating a piece of legislation which is getting further and further away from its parent treaty and in respect of which it becomes harder and harder to argue that the legislation is a good faith attempt to implement and apply domestically the terms of that particular treaty. So far as Opposition senators are concerned, that is exactly what they would like to achieve. I understand that and I am not fussing about that-it is an entirely legitimate political tactic-but for those of us who approach the matter from a different perspective and say `We want a Bill of Rights and we want a Bill of Rights that will withstand constitutional challenge', that is an absolutely disastrous tactic. Senator Harradine —Wait until we get to Article 3. Senator Haines —I think in the long run you are just going to have a list of things which are likely to be challengeable. So don't quibble over this one; there's a love. Senator GARETH EVANS —All I say to Senator Haines is that, while the temptation is enormous to go on adding baubles to the Christmas tree, there is a very real danger that at some point she will add so many bloody baubles to the tree that it will fall over and she will have nothing left at all except a handful of shiny propositions which she will be terribly pleased about and which have done her no end of good with some constituency or other during the five minutes she has been advancing that particular cause, but which are absolutely disastrous to the long term success of the whole enterprise. I ask her, with as much conviction as I can muster on this occasion, with as much sincerity as I can bring to bear-- Senator Haines —That is not much, is it? Senator GARETH EVANS —That is a very great deal, because I have been living with this for a decade or more-to please rethink what she is doing with these various clauses. The amendment before us is a small example. I am not suggesting that in itself it has gigantic substantive significance or that in itself it would be enough to push over the tree. What I am saying is that the cumulative effect of these various variations, add-ons, excursions away from the basic concept and the basic language of the Covenant, are very dangerous indeed. In their entirety they will produce a piece of legislation which runs a very profound and grave risk of being declared to be not a good faith attempt to adopt and apply that Covenant. It is for all those reasons that I indicate that the Government is not prepared to accept this amendment. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.36) —The Opposition supports the amendment the Australian Democrats have moved. It is really quite unbelievable to hear the Minister say that the Government will not support the inclusion of disabled people in the category of those persons who are entitled to equal rights before the law. It may be that he has some technical legal reasons for taking that position, but I am afraid it will be very difficult to convince Australians in this day and age that the category of disabled persons is not to be given specific recognition in a Bill of Rights. Article 1 lists the traditional bases of equality of people, irrespective of distinctions as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political opinion, national origin, property or other status. The Democrats say that `disability' should be included in that list. Clearly, everyone-except the Government-would agree with that view. This is a very good example of the Opposition's criticism of the Government's whole approach to the Bill of Rights and its failure to bring to this Parliament a proper instrument which would give effect to the needs, aspirations and interests of modern Australians, and not just those guarantees that could be agreed upon in the United Nations in 1966, 20 years ago, when interests and concerns may have been similar in many ways, but were not by any means equal to or picking up those interests that Australians have today. Indeed, the matters that the international community wants to emphasise have probably changed dramatically since 1966. Only a few years ago the United Nations promoted the International Year of Disabled Persons, when great attention throughout the world was focused on disabled people. It was a very important matter for people in this country because as a nation and as a society we started to pay much more attention to the problems of disabled people. We have seen many examples of special provisions being made for disabled people that were not made previously. When the Fraser Government set up the Human Rights Commission we paid particular regard to the need for disabled people to be represented directly on the Human Rights Commission. In fact, two members-one of them, I think, has since resigned-of the Human Rights Commission were disabled people and they made a notable contribution to the actual workings of the Human Rights Commission. In those circumstances, where there is such widespread interest in, concern for and action taken in regard to disabled people, it is quite inappropriate in a document such as this to ignore them and say that they will be treated as being included under `other status', or that there is no need to specify them because there is a general statement to the effect that every person is entitled to equality before the law. If that is the argument, the Article should not list all the other groups of people who may be the victims of discrimination. We know that people have been discriminated against for various reasons and that is why the Article refers to the grounds of race, colour and religion. For heaven's sake, all those groups of people in the past have been denied equality before the law and that is why they are included in the catalogue of people who are entitled to guarantees under the Bill of Rights. Probably it was a lack of understanding that led to disabled people as a group not being thought of as needing this sort of protection. That is no reason why they should not be included in the Article. We in Australia have already recognised this problem and have taken action on it, but we should not start to ignore them or forget about them. They are entitled to be catalogued here in the same manner as the other groups who historically have been disadvantaged in the world, including Australia. The Government's totally legalistic approach is a disgrace. Presumably this will be its approach all along. We were told last night that we could not protect people against the powers of trade unions or big corporations because the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights does not cover that point. That is what Senator Evans claimed, but I do not agree with him. We will argue that later. If this Parliament is to pass a Bill of Rights which has any meaning or use, it must be relevant to the day and age in which we are considering it, and to the future. What is the good of having a Bill of Rights guaranteed by this Parliament if it is not relevant to the concerns of modern Australians? Fortunately, modern Australians-except, apparently, the Government-are very concerned about the disabled. We should not have a bar of the nonsensical argument we have just heard from Senator Evans. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.43) —I want to make a point about the Government's refusal, on a specious ground, to accept this amendment. It says that to include the word `disabled' in the Article would remove it slightly from the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We will have plenty of chances to see that the Government has been very selective in the application of the rights under the Articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to the Articles in the Australian Bill of Rights. Senator Haines —And the wording they use. Senator HARRADINE —Indeed, the wording, as Senator Haines has said. A further indication as to why the inclusion of the disabled is appropriate in the Australian Bill of Rights is that the Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons is a Schedule to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill. Part of the obligation that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is required to discharge under the Human rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill which we passed last night is in respect of and on behalf of disabled persons. I wonder whether the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) is looking a little forward-- Senator Gareth Evans —Do you mean me or him? Senator HARRADINE —Yes, I will say `the Attorney-General', if he has given instructions to the Minister not to accept the amendment. I wonder whether the Minister is looking a little further ahead as to what may happen and what amendments may be required as a result of certain statements that he made last night as to the application of clause 3 and the definition of `person'. I wonder whether that applies to the life after birth or the life before birth. He would well know that as a result of what he said it is now necessary for somebody to clarify Article 18-that is the right to life article-and apply it not only to born persons. Article 18 relates to the Declaration of the Rights of the Child which, of course, is part of Schedule 3 of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill. That schedule, in part, states: Whereas a child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth . . . Of course, the Government can see that, if it accedes to this proposition concerning the disabled, it will open the way for somebody to move amendments referring to the provisions of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child which forms part of Schedule 3 of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill. What we are doing now, of course, is mentioning the disabled, who are referred to in Schedule 5 of that Bill. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(11.48) —The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) has invited us to adopt his basic argument that the Bill has been designed as closely as possible in line with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and that no amendments should be introduced which would in any way contaminate that Covenant. I have to say two things in that regard. The Government took absolutely no notice of that principle in the designing of this Bill. Where it suited it, it flew wide; where it suited it, it flew narrow. Let me make it perfectly clear-this will contaminate almost every article in the legislation-that this Bill takes little or no notice at all of the various limitations and qualifications that the International Covenant applies. Where it suits the Government, it ignores them altogether; where it suits it, it takes a narrow view. In fact, if Article 1 of the Australian Bill of Rights is drawn largely from Article 2 of the Covenant-I presume it is, although I think the Minister has drawn upon other articles and asked us to look at them-surely the Minister has no fear at all about what might happen in a court of law. Article 2 of the Covenant says this: Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognised in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. The words `without distinction of any kind' are imperative. The collective word `status' is also used in the Article. Senator Gareth Evans —I agree with that. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —The Minister agrees. Therefore, by his agreement, he must agree that he ought to adopt `disability' because that cannot, under any circumstances, in plain language be subject to challenge. The Minister having agreed, presumably the Government will give its support. While I am on my feet I would like to point out that my great worry is that the Bill has been designed contrary to what the Minister says. Time and time again what is said in the Bill bears no close relationship at all to what is said in the Covenant. For example, no doubt Article 1 will be subject to a great deal of challenge. Lawyers have put to me that insofar as this Article refers to every person enjoying equality before the law-I stress `every person', without qualification-it overlooks the limitations in terms of legal capacity of people such as enemy aliens. Do we give them equality before the law? It also overlooks such people as bankrupts, certified mental incompetents and prisoners. Further, it ignores the fact that the Crown in some circumstances enjoys preferred status. These absolute facts are known to us. Every one of us knows that there is not, and rightly so, equality before the law in these things in a free society. In my view, and in the view of others, the entitlement to the rights and freedoms guaranteed in Article 1 is better stated in Article 2 of the Covenant on which this entitlement is based. It has been said, and I agree, that in many ways Article 1 is misleading and will do the very thing that the Minister says he wants to avoid. This set of articles will open a Pandora's box of legal challenges. Senator Macklin's amendment is impeccable and is now recognised as such by the Minister. However, the Covenant fails to make any qualification or distinction at all and then talks about `other status'. Surely a disability is a status in itself. I find the Minister's defence completely unconvincing and I suggest that both sides of the Committee should now support the amendment. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.52) —Just briefly, the arguments that I would have put have in fact already been put ably by other senators. I would like to follow up the extrapolation of the analogy that the Minister put in respect of a Christmas tree. Quite frankly, the Minister might not get a chance to do very much Christmas tree decorating because he is so busy. Actually, if decorations are put up around the tree reasonably the tree will not fall over. Senator Harradine —If it is balanced. Senator MACKLIN —Yes, a balanced approach should enable us to keep the tree standing up so that all of our Christmases do not come at once, as the Minister suggested they would. As I suggested, the purpose of the amendment is to spell out something that is contained in our social structure. Senator Durack also raised this point. We are talking about something for Australia. If in fact we had never had or did not currently have problems in respect of people with disabilities being discriminated against, this might be something that we would put aside. The reason we have taken up this matter rather than some of the others that the Minister has raised is that it is still a major area of discrimination within our society. It is still very difficult for many disabled people to compete on equal terms. Although they may have equal capacity for appropriate employment, it is difficult for them to compete on equal terms. I suggest that those people who either have disabled children or are disabled themselves are very much aware of the many subtle ways in which discrimination occurs. I believe that we are, as it were, taking the Covenant and spelling out something which, as Senator John Carrick has pointed out, is inherent; it is there. So we cannot be doing violence to it. Indeed, I seek a response from the Minister to the legal argument. I cannot see any way in which any of the eminent judges of the High Court would have any concern about its being there. I also cannot see how it will be, as it were, part of those cumulative baubles that are going to tip the tree over. I do not see how they are added together. Although the Minister has explained to me privately, I must admit that I am still relatively confused as to why the High Court would take up this one and others and, as it were, say: `Since there are so many, this implements something different'. I would have thought that the High Court in this instance would do as it did in the Franklin Dam case, which will obviously parallel this one when it goes to the High Court, when the judges picked their way through the legislation and took out clauses and Parts. I believe that this in no way adds to what is going on. It merely spells out to the Australian community something which the Australian community has already expressed its concern about and is seeking to remedy. Hence, I believe that it cannot do the type of thing the Minister has said it will do. Senator Harradine referred to the fact that the Government-and the Minister acknowledged this-has already made some significant changes in wording. Is he suggesting that the Parliament's adding to the changes that the Government has already made will tip the tree over or is he suggesting that those which the Government has made do not fall into that category? I would be interested in his response to that. As I understand his argument, he said that the changes which the Government had made were exemplifying the philosophy, understanding and intent of the covenant. I would have thought that this amendment is doing precisely the same. I cannot see how this amendment differs from the types of changes that the Government has made to the Bill. I would be interested in the Minister's response to that. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.57) —The further we go in this debate the more we realise that it is just not possible to bring forward a just and comprehensive Bill. Senator Evans has said that he believes that Senator Macklin's amendment in this area is understood and that there is no need for words to be added. I gather that Senator Evans thinks that all those suggestions put forward by Senator Sir John Carrick are also clearly understood. But what about Aboriginal culture? Do we say to Aborigines acting under their own laws that our law will override their cultural laws? I will be interested to hear the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) answer that because, as I see it, this Article would override the cultural laws of many Aboriginal tribes. Is that the intention of the Bill? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.58) —I respond quickly to Senator Walters by saying, as I did in my first contribution, that Article 1 will not have the effect of overriding anything. It is simply a formal statement of a really rather self-evident proposition in a society such as ours; that is to say, there is nobody who is either of too high a station to be above the reach of the law nor anyone of so low a station as to be beyond the reach of the protection of the law. That is really what Article 1 is all about. That is in a sense the answer to Senator Sir John Carrick's point about enemy agents. Article 1 is applicable to enemy agents in the sense that ours is a society that does not acknowledge the right of anybody to lynch an enemy agent without the due process of law. An enemy agent is, of course, subject to discriminatory legal provisions which treat that person differently from other citizens, but at least he is subject to the application of the law with all its different provisions, and that is all that Article 1 is about. The sort of point that Senator Walters wants to make about the legitimacy of differential treatment for different groups is better made in the context of Article 4, which is the substantive guarantee of the equal protection of the law, the prima facie right of everyone to have the law operating in exactly the same way as it affects them, subject to reasonable variations. Then we can get into an argument as to what is a reasonable variation for a group such as a cultural minority and so on, but it is not really applicable to Article 1. It is a different point being made. In respect of Article 1, I accept the basic point of Senator Macklin's argument and indeed Senator Sir John Carrick's argument that there is no substantive change being worked in the operation of Article 1 by adding a reference to disability. I accept, as I hoped I made clear, that the language of Article 1 is unambiguously inclusive. The particular categories there set out are illustrative only and indeed the protection extends to those of all other identifiable statuses. To that extent it does not do great damage to the chances of constitutional survival. It is a small point I am making. I am making it in a much more vigorous way in the context of other changes that are being proposed which-- Senator Macklin —Does it do any more than your changes? Senator GARETH EVANS —Maybe not some of them. For example, the business about the right to marry someone of the opposite sex is a change to the language but not a change to the substance. To the extent that this can be characterised as a change to language and not to substance I cannot disagree with the force of the argument. I am not going to stand here making obtuse arguments for the sheer hell of it if a sound, logical point is made by somebody on the other side; I acknowledge it. All I am saying is that if that change of substance is unnecessary to make clear to the courts or anyone else what the real issue is in the language of a particular right, it is undesirable from the point of view of securing the ultimate viability of this legislation that we make linguistic variations for the sheer hell of it. Senator Macklin —To the citizens, not to the court. Senator GARETH EVANS —Maybe so, but any linguistic variation has a potentially cumulative effect. It may be a small additional effect in this instance and a much larger effect possibly elsewhere, but any change adds to the impression that this is not a bona fide, good faith attempt to implement in domestic law the language and the concepts of the Covenant. To that extent it is dangerous. The other objection, I guess, to adding disability specifically is simply the presentational difficulty that is involved when one is selective in this way. Nobody has advanced a good argument why age or marital status, to take just two additional kinds of status-and there are others that we could quickly think of-should not be added, because they would not change the substance either. Maybe some group out there-the pensioners' lobby perhaps-would be only too delighted to have some reference to age here. I could not disagree if an argument were put on their behalf in exactly the same way as it has been put on behalf of the disabled by Senator Macklin, but it indicates the sort of arbitrary quality of any additions to this list and the undesirability accordingly of making such additions unless there is a strong overriding reason. There is no strong overriding reason. I do not pursue the opposition on behalf of the Government to the point of division because I acknowledge that no really substantive change is involved, but I indicate that we will resist changes of this kind which, in their potentially cumulative effect, ultimately in our view put at risk the status of the Bill. The final point I would make in relation to the rather down-market contribution of Senator Durack is that, if it needs to be said, the reason for our unwillingness to put the word `disability' in is for the technical reasons I have just been talking about. It has absolutely nothing to do with any lack of respect or enthusiasm on our part for the rights of the disabled. We are second to none in our willingness to act to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the disabled. We have fully accepted the legitimacy of the claims being made. There is no question of any belief on our part that the rights of the disabled are not presently protected by this clause and the reason for opposing this is not any lack of interest, desire, enthusiasm or respect for the position of disabled people. It is simply for the essentially technical reasons I have been trying to articulate. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.05) —I do not think that all honourable senators believe that all wisdom rests in Senator Evans. Despite his assurance that the proposition I put up would be better dealt with when discussing Article 4, I believe that it rests, and that legal opinion says that it rests, in Article 1. We should add the word `culture' to that list of baubles in Article 1 to which Senator Evans referred. There are so many other words we ought to add as baubles to that list that I believe the whole Article is just a shambles. It does not cover the areas that are of concern to the Opposition. While we agree with the Australian Democrats' amendment, I believe that a lot further consideration should be given to other baubles to be hung on that list. I ask Senator Evans to explain to me why Aboriginal law regarding marriage, for instance, or other cultural pursuits and cultural reasons for their law would not be disadvantaged by Article 1. Does he suggest that all Aboriginal people will have equal protection under Article 1 in any of their cultural disputes? I would be interested in following that argument. Does this Article override the cultural laws of the Aboriginal people? I see that it does because it says that everyone in Australia will have certain rights, irrespective of any distinction such as race-it is underlined very clearly-colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, and so it goes on. How will that Article not override Aboriginal culture in the example I have suggested? The CHAIRMAN —Order! The question before the Chair is that the word proposed to be added by Senator Macklin's amendment be added. After that has been dealt with, the whole Article will be open for further debate. I wish to clear that first question with the Committee in an orderly manner. The question is: That the word proposed to be added by Senator Macklin's amendment be added. Amendment agreed to. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.08) —The short point is that Article 1 is not about the equal operation of the substantive provisions of the law. To the extent that there is any provision about that, it is Article 4. Article 1 is not about the equal protection of the law; Article 1 is about a very different concept-the concept of equality before the law. I know that Senator Walters can be forgiven for confusing them because they have been much confused in many other legislative and constitutional treatments of this issue and in much of the literature. But I think they are separate and distinct concepts and it is very important to separate them. There has been some redrafting of the language of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in terms of the location of these concepts to separate them. I reiterate my view, for better or worse, that this debate about the protection of minority rights and whether the substantive provisions of the law of marriage or anything else should be equally applicable to different minority cultures is a debate that we can better have in the context of Article 4. It is also an issue that is addressed, I remind Senator Walters, quite explicitly by Article 5 of the Bill of Rights, which talks about the rights of minority groups, including particularly the rights to enjoy their own culture. Again, that is a quite explicit statement of the kind of matter and the kind of interest that she has put in issue by her contribution. What we are talking about, to go back to Article 1, in that clause is a much more generalised protection and one, as I kept saying before, which is an essentially formal protection in a society such as ours. It acknowledges the right of everyone, irrespective of status of any kind, to enjoy the particular rights and freedoms that are set out in the Bill. No category of people is denied any of the rights that are here set out. It is the right of everyone to be equally subject to the operation of the law and the legal system. There is nobody so high in status, for example, a head of government such as President Marcos, whom the law shall not reach; nor is there anyone so lowly in status or so different in status by virtue of cultural characteristics or anything else that the law-the legal system-does not reach or does not touch in that general sense. That is all that Article 1 is about. From that point of view, I would have thought it was an extremely uncontroversial clause. It simply does not give rise to the sorts of issues about which Senator Walters is concerned. There are other clauses that do that, and I will be very happy to debate them when we get to them. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(12.10) —I seek clarification on Article 1. As I read it, clause 1 of Article 1 says precisely what clause 2 says. There is almost absolute precision between the two except that the word `enjoyment' creeps into clause 2. If it is important to add to the word `sex' by mentioning `men and women' specifically, let us have another paragraph that refers to people of different colours and other paragraphs that refer to people of different languages, different religions, different politics, et cetera. It seems to me extraordinary that men and women should be picked out. Taking the generics of the definition of the word `sex', one wonders whether children are not important or whether they have a right to be included in a catch-phrase at the back of the Bill? I do not want to appear to be vexatious, but will we have arguments about transvestites? It seems absolutely clear that clause 1 of Article 1 says what clause 2 says. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.12) — Senator Sir John Carrick is not being vexatious at all. He would be surprised perhaps to learn that I agree with him completely. In an earlier incarnation, I had a major discussion with the draftsman and miscellaneous other people about this matter on the grounds that the concept in sub-article 2 is exactly the same as that encompassed in sub-article 1. The answer with which I kept being confronted, and that has been the experience of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) too, is that there was in the case of the sex issue an added reason not only politically perhaps to give explicit recognition to men and women to it but also that Article 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights does explicitly address this issue when it states: The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant. That is a spectacularly redundant clause, in exactly the same way as-- Senator Durack —You have all those women's advisers too. Senator GARETH EVANS —I appreciate that the honourable senator did not have that problem, with results that are plain to be seen in terms of his Party's present condition in Opposition. I guess it is an early manifestation of international feminism to have this Article separated out and treated in that way. It is redundant and some drafting problems of this kind which recur in the International Covenant are readily acknowledged by the Government, being itself an instrument and the product of this kind of gathering. One of the things that we are trying to do rather than perpetuate some of the confusions and redundancies is streamline the presentation of the Articles. This is one bit of streamlining that we have not accomplished. I think I have explained quite frankly the reasons why. In technical terms, if you like, it is a desire to be seen to be giving explicit effect to Article 3 as well as a generalised guarantee in Article 2 of the Covenant. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(12.14) —I do not want to add to the tautology of the clause by my remarks. If we are going to use that logic, and if there are any other articles that relate to race, colour, sex or language, and they are abundant, I say that we need the paragraphs I suggested. I put to the Minister more bluntly that what is proposed is something that is very dangerous in a semi-legal document. We are putting in public relations shop windows when it suits us and leaving out other profound matters when it does not suit us. It is a public relations shop window exercise to say that we recognise equality between the sexes. That kind of nonsense does the Government no credit. I believe that paragraph 1 of Article 1 is absolutely adequate, as the Minister says. Indeed, I wonder whether he will use the same logic for every article in the Covenant itself. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.15) —Let me respond quickly by saying that of course we would be compelled to use that logic were there any other articles like Article 3 which pulled out a specific category and said that in respect of that category such people were entitled to the same rights and freedoms as everyone else, tautological as that may be. The reality is that for one reason or another, maybe the public relations enthusiasms of the drafters of the original Covenant, there is no other clause that I can recall to that effect elsewhere. I further add for the record that I do not accept that we have omitted from the final draft any right of substance in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights itself. Indeed, we have been roundly rubbished by various opponents of the legislation for including some rights such as freedom from slavery and servitude which are in the Covenant clearly, unequivocally and explicitly, but which are thought by some people to have no possible application in Australia today. We have been scrupulous in our desire to pick up all the substantive issues in the Covenant itself, maybe with an excess of caution in terms of picking up explicitly Article 3. I have acknowledged the point as frankly as I can and I do not think that I can take the argument any further. Article, as amended, agreed to. Article 2 (Effect of Bill of Rights on existing rights and freedoms). Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(12.17) —As it stands, Article 2 is quite unsatisfactory. That is why I wish to move amendment (3) standing in the name of the Australian Democrats. I move: Page 8, lines 22 to 24, leave out the Article, insert the following Article: `Nothing in this Bill of Rights shall be taken to diminish, derogate from or prevent the exercise of any right existing apart from this Bill of Rights.' I believe that the only way in which we can reassure the many Australians who wrote to my colleagues and me and protect many other Australians is to actually make it clear in Article 2 that this particular Bill of Rights is not a prescription for the rights that Australian people have, that it is in fact just a list of items or rights which the Government agrees to give to individuals in the dealings of that Federal Government with those individuals. We need to take every possible step to encourage the judiciary not to treat the Bill of Rights as a limiting document. We must not allow them to treat it as a prescription or a list of rights which are the only rights available to individuals. We need to reassure people that hard-won rights in relation to which there is no legislation are not thrown out as a result of this Bill of Rights. The Government's proposed wording protects rights or freedoms existing under or recognised by any other law. The problem is that if the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Evans, is to be consistent in sticking to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights he should really look at Article 2 in Part II of that Covenant, which says: Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes . . . The Government has translated this into its version of Article 2 but that translation is a piece of legal baffledegab which is sufficient to make me believe that some of the people who wrote to me were justified in their worries. The Government's version says that: A right or freedom existing under, or recognised by, any other law-- and that is where it finishes- shall not be taken to have been diminished or derogated from by reason only that the right or freedom is not set out in this Bill of Rights. Basically this Article 2 does not include the options that are covered by the Constitution, by the common law, by tradition, or by common understanding of the people of Australia. It means that this Australian Bill of Rights Bill is a prescription and that is what I object to. There is no way in which I will vote for a Bill which becomes a prescription of rights for the Australian people and is limiting. It is not enough that we just simply cover the rights under any other law. We need to ensure as much as possible that the Bill of Rights will not cut across present rights and freedoms or their exercise. That is what most people have been worried about. If this is just a Bill of certain rights, it is quite innocuous. It is reasonable for us to protect people against the action of Federal Government bureaucracies. In that case I would support it. But if this is to be a Bill of Rights which is a prescription of the only rights which Australian people have, it is an extremely bad and dangerous document. I believe that in no way should any rights or freedoms be taken away and the only ones that are guaranteed not to be taken away are those under the law. In this particular case, the Bill of Rights-- Senator Gareth Evans —Could you give us an example of the kind of right not guaranteed by law that you think might be taken away by the Bill of Rights? Senator VIGOR —There are examples that have been quoted and I was about to come to some of these. For example, there is the right to own property, which is not mentioned in here. If this is a prescription that right has been denied. Senator Durack —But you are going to fix that up. Senator VIGOR —Yes, we are going to fix that up, we hope. That is why we are moving in that direction. There are a number of other areas where the Minister has said that he has stuck slavishly to the Covenant but where in fact he has not. Take the case of prisoners. If somebody is imprisoned unjustly, under the United Nations Covenant that person will have a claim against the state. Funnily enough, the Government does not want to give people that right here. That certainly has not be carried across. If the Minister is honest in what he says and he intends to slavishly follow the Covenant, he must have the decency to include all those provisions. There is a provision for equality of both partners in a marriage which is considered under the Covenant and which is in no way mentioned in the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. I have digressed from Article 2 because of the Minister's question. In this particular case the Bill of Rights is based on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. That Covenant was ratified by the Fraser Government on 13 August 1980, nearly eight years after it was signed. The United Kingdom signed the same Covenant in 1968 and ratified it in 1976. The United States of America signed the ICCPR in 1977. The importance of the Covenant is that it is an international yardstick for human rights. That signatories or parties to that Covenant abuse it is lamentable; however, this cannot be used as an argument for abandoning the Covenant. I would certainly like to support a Bill which introduces it in Australia but I cannot do so while Article 2 remains in the form that it is in now. Indeed, those who are familiar with the outstanding work of Amnesty International on behalf of prisoners of conscience will recognise the value of the Covenant. Time after time the circumstances of political prisoners are ameliorated because individuals from around the world can point to the rights and freedoms that the authorities have subscribed to by endorsing international covenants such as the ICCPR. It is a duty that we have towards those countries which are worse off in rights than we are to actually support this type of legislation, providing that it does not remove something from our own people. Without such covenants and other international declarations of human rights and government obligations, a lot of prisoners of conscience would not have been released. A lot of people would still be languishing in prison without charge or trial if the international community could not point to the guarantees that had been given and, unfortunately, in a number of countries around the world, are being broken. We are in a better position to make those points and to be taken seriously if our own house is in order. To the extent that we succeed in putting our own house in order and in being able to point to legislative indicators of that, we will be able to show some solidarity with the oppressed people of the world and play a part in fighting human rights abuses. I believe we could best achieve this position by starting with a basic international covenant on civil and political rights and adding some other rights such as the right to own property. In fact, we are moving to do this later on. We should add those rights that are relevant and appropriate to the Australian people but in some cases may not be relevant to other political systems. The Government has not always kept to the basic wording of the Covenant. It has not taken up all the Articles of the Covenant. This is particularly so in the area of imprisonment and in the matter of propaganda for war. I wonder why. It has not taken up the prohibition of incitement to violence through the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred. I certainly ask the Minister why these things have been missed out. I believe that if we are going to subscribe to international covenants we should do so wholeheartedly and not in a piecemeal manner. The same basic human rights standards should apply to State governments and their instrumentalities. We are not taking our rights seriously unless we extend them to the States. All too often we have boards, officials and inspectors with extensive powers and an attitude which readily gives rise to the abuse of these powers. Once we have ratified a covenant of international standing we should not leave escape routes for State governments or anybody else, otherwise we undermine not only-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator Vigor, you are getting fairly well away from Article 2. Senator VIGOR —Mr Chairman, I believe I am right on the point of Article 2. If the Bill is to be taken as a prescription, and that is the way I read Article 2, we will limit and undermine people's rights. I would be prepared to accept this provided our amendment is passed. I was explaining why I consider it to be dangerous to have the existing wording for Article 2. The CHAIRMAN —Very well, proceed. Senator VIGOR —Thank you, Mr Chairman. I believe that we undermine our credibility if we do not follow those words. As I pointed out, Article 2 in the Bill does not go as far as the Covenant. The Covenant refers to `legislative or other measures'. I say to the Government that if it is not prepared to extend the application of the Bill of Rights to the States, if it is not prepared to accept the extra rights put forward by the Australian Democrats, and if it is not prepared to tighten the guarantee that the Bill will not take away the rights and freedoms presently in existence, which is what Article 2 is about, the Government is not fair dinkum. Under those circumstances I believe I would have no alternative at all but to vote against the Bill of Rights at the third reading. This is an extremely important aspect to me. It is not a prescription. I support the amendment standing in our name, which states: Nothing in this Bill of Rights shall be taken to diminish, derogate from or prevent the exercise of any right existing apart from this Bill. Honourable senators will note that I have not limited it by using the word `law' or by mentioning any other way in which this right came about. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(12.29) —Article 2 points up the total defect in the Bill of Rights Bill. It indicates that the Bill has included a selective list of rights and excluded many others. It shows that the Bill has made its own selection but has left out profoundly important human rights. The Government argues that it has built these under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights from which the head of power is drawn. The Government has relied on this head of power, but, in this particular case and in no others it has not gone on to search for any other heads of power. I have reminded the Senate in the past that the Government has not been reluctant in any way to look to treaty powers. Indeed, it is one great argument within the Federal system of government that one could virtually destroy the sovereignty of the States by invoking treaty powers. I remind the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) that a former Attorney-General of Labor persuasion was willing to suggest that he should use the international treaty on migratory birds in order to prevent the State of New South Wales allowing industrial development at Towra Point on the southern end of Botany Bay, on the basis that migratory swallows from Russia and Japan paused at Towra Point on their way to the Antarctic. If we are looking at treaty powers-that is what this clause 8 is based on-then I have to say that they have no difficulty with migratory swallows but they have great difficulty today in looking for heads of power to find fundamental rights such as the right to private property, the right to pursue the employment of one's choice, the right to seek an independent school, and the right to protection of the unborn. These are terribly and fundamentally important rights. There is nothing in this clause that protects corporations, nothing that protects freedom of speech in terms of the media. This clause shows the absolute fundamentals. It is no use the Government saying that it is introducing the clause with the apologia saying: `If we have left something out do not think that we have not thought of that and we want to protect it'. If the Government wanted to protect those things it has excluded, why did it not then find a protection for the things it has now excluded? The reason is very simple: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was a communist and socialist compromise within the United Nations. The fact of the matter was that no such covenant could be brought about without the support of socialist, communist and many totalitarian states. What happened with this Covenant was that there was a narrow compromise to encompass those things. For Australia to attempt to build in a democratic system a Bill of Rights based on a covenant which was a narrow and very unsatisfactory compromise is a nonsense situation. It fails to understand the very spirit of Australia, and therefore clause 2 in itself actually is a reason for rejection of the whole Bill. I sympathise with Senator Vigor in his arguments. My trouble is that I do not believe that his amendment is effective in any way at law or that it would achieve any of those things he sets out. Whilst I may not support Senator Vigor in regard to the amendment itself, let me say that everybody in the Australian community should understand what this means. A selection and a rejection indicate a frame of mind. They do not indicate the narrowness of a head of power. How could any socialist government, a Whitlam or a Hawke government, confess to the Senate that it was shy of using the wide treaty powers? After all, such governments have always been keen to open the Constitution as wide as possible. Indeed, it is not the lack of heads of power that denies the Government all the interesting things which will be the journey through the other Articles, it is that is has made its own selection and said: `This is what we regard as important. The others are not important. We will put in a catch thing like that repetition of the men and women clause in Article 1 because it will look good as part of the shop window. Let it be understood that if we have left something out, that does not mean that we do not think much of it; it has to be protected'. That is a nonsense situation. In my view the clause itself is a disgrace. For example, I omitted to say that the International Covenant would not have tolerated freedom not to associate, freedom not to join a trade union. Of course, that freedom is not expressed in this Bill of Rights. Time and again what we have done here is to build a Bill of Rights based on what totalitarian states, who were then the majority in the United Nations, conceived as the environment for their rights. I do not believe that we can make any kind of amendment that would satisfy this because it is a genetic defect. It is inherent in the Bill itself. It is, if you like, a chromosomae defect. Senator Harradine —A mutation. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Yes, a mutation in itself. We cannot make this Bill better by altering this clause. One of the dangers when we have a devised Bill like this in which we elect to have a firm number of rights but leave others out is that we delimit the rights that we prescribe. By prescribing rights we are delimiting them. If anyone has any doubts about that, the very testing of any one of those rights in the High Court of Australia will produce a decision which puts a corral around them and delimits them. In a free society we should not be going about putting in bondage our social, ethical and moral views. So we delimit what we have said and we are in grave danger of diminishing what we have not said. We are in grave danger of saying that this society does not believe in these kinds of situations at all. It has been said by others that we are picking a few rights, not even the most fundamentally important ones. I have mentioned those rights. After all, an essential freedom in a free society is built around the right to possess property, the right to own, the right to acquire, the right to build a family around possessions and so on. The right to the protection of life, for example, is fundamental. There is the right to associate or not to associate, the right of corporations to protection, the right of the media to protection in terms of freedom. These are not listed in the Bill at all. The Government has not only fossilised, as others better than I have said, a series of rights that it has chosen; it has shown a diminution of the other rights by their rejection. Let not anybody from the Government say to us that it has not got heads of power for this. I will be delighted if it tells us that it is willing to recognise that international treaties ought not to be a skylight through which the limitations of the Australian Constitution could escape. I repeat, one should keep in mind the background: When the Commonwealth Constitution was agreed to in 1901 the five subscribing States believed that they were giving only absolutely limited and prescribed powers to the Commonwealth, that the Commonwealth could not go beyond that ceiling and that the States had all the residual powers. They never dreamed that by giving the external affairs power under section 51 the making of treaties, internationally, would give the powers to permeate through virtually every aspect of Australian society. So I do not want to hear from the Government the plea that we have to keep this under the International Covenant itself. In any case, if the Government had wanted to entrench these things it could have had a Commonwealth-State meeting of Ministers and Premiers. It could have got an understanding, if it had wanted to, about the great protections that were needed. It did not need to seek heads of powers. It could have got things by way of ministerial councils, as has happened in a thousand different ways before, but it sought not to do that. The important thing is that the socialist Government has its blueprint on this Bill. This Bill, by what it says and leaves unsaid, describes the Government. It describes the Hawke Government as a government that regards these particular powers and rights as prescriptive and limited, and the ones that have been left out as not being of sufficient merit to come into it. I do not believe that any kind of amendment is going to improve Article 2. It is the defect in the whole Bill of Rights. It is the fundamental reason why at the third reading stage every senator who believes in the true freedom of the Australian people should reject the Bill. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.40) —I will try to untangle some of the threads that have been set running in the debate so far. It seems to me that there are two separate issues that have been addressed in various ways in Senator Vigor's and Senator Sir John Carrick's contributions. One is the question as to what this clause is all about and how it fits into the general framework of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. There is a second question as to the adequacy or otherwise of the drafting of the clause to achieve its objective. On the first point let me say just this: There is no question of this Bill of Rights ever being intended to be a complete compendium of all the rights which are presently enjoyed by Australians or claimed by Australians; that is to say, all the rights which presently exist under law, whether by way of legislation or common law; rights which are acclaimed to exist; and rights which may be recognised in the sense of being the subject of international treaties but not yet treaties which are translated into domestic law. There is a whole variety of rights of that kind, of various characters, actual and claimed, which do exist or which might be identified. Not all of them by any means were ever intended to be in this particular Bill of Rights. What this Bill of Rights is about is an attempt to pick up and apply as domestic law the particular set of civil and political rights that are set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Lest it be thought by Senator Sir John Carrick's reiteration of this point that this is somehow a narrow or confined list, let me just remind honourable senators of the kind of ground that is covered in the international Covenant and is covered in our charter: Equal protection of the law, rights of minority groups, right of participation in public life, freedom of expression, freedom of thought and conscience, freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief, right of peaceful assembly, freedom of association, right to protection of privacy in the family from arbitrary interference and other rights associated with the protection of the family at law-the right to marry and to found a family, rights of the child-and freedom of movement rights of persons in Australia and to enter and leave Australia. There is a series of rights relating to life, liberty and the criminal process: The right to life as such; the right to liberty and security of the person; the right not to be held in slavery or servitude; the right to be informed of the reason for one's arrest and of charges; the right to consult a lawyer and to remain silent; rights in relation to hearings, release and trial; the right to test the lawfulness of detention-the traditional habeas corpus; the presumption of innocence; the right to a fair hearing; the rights of the accused relating to trial; rights in relation to non-retrospectivity, review of conviction and sentence; no trial or punishment for the same offence; rights when imprisoned, when deprived of liberty; and rights in relation to no torture or inhuman treatment and no experimentation without consent. That is what this Bill is about. It is enormously diverse in the array of things that it covers, but there are common linking threads. They all relate in one way or another to basic political and civil rights. They are not necessarily even exhaustive of that list of civil and political rights that many of us might want to add to, but they are nonetheless a coherent whole. I am fascinated with Senator Sir John Carrick's suggestion, in fact his invitation, to wander at large around possible heads of Commonwealth power with a shopping bag to find heads of power which might support a further excursion of Commonwealth legislative intervention in this area. That is not a course which Senator Sir John Carrick normally is prone to recommend. It may have been an available course, but it is not one the Commonwealth has chosen to follow in this instance. There are many other kinds of rights which may or may not fit within this broad category of political and civil rights which are already well protected by law. The right to property is one very good example of that. It is protected at the Commonwealth level by constitutional protection as well as legislation concerning non-compulsory acquisition without compensation. It is protected at the State and Territory level, not at a constitutional guarantee level but certainly by legislation again guaranteeing non-compulsory acquisition without appropriate compensation. There are lots of rights of that kind protected by legislation or by common law which we have not picked up. There is a whole panoply of rights set out in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which have been deliberately omitted from this exercise. Not for want of constitutional power, because that is readily there, did we choose to hang our hats on that particular international treaty to which we are a party, but it is simply not appropriate to treat those rights in the same way as we treat these other rights, all of which are capable of legal protection through the agencies of the courts and similar instrumentalities in a way that is simply not the case for that category of social, economic and cultural rights-the rights to education, employment and so on-which tend to get confused so often in the debate. They are essentially rights of a kind that are best protected by the devotion of adequate and appropriate government resources. They are not the sorts of things we can run litigation about. Consideration interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-Senator Grimes left today to represent the Government at the funeral of the late Prime Minister of Sweden, Mr Olof Palme. He will return to Australia on 22 March after attending a meeting of the Socialist International in Oslo. The Minister for Social Security, Mr Howe, will be Acting Minister for Community Services in Senator Grimes's absence. All questions in this chamber which would normally be directed to Senator Grimes, either in relation to his portfolio or those he represents, should be addressed to Senator Ryan. Any queries in relation to the management of Government Business in the Senate should be directed to me. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance. Is it true that the document entitled `1986-87 Budget Strategy', which was leaked to the Sydney Morning Herald last week, foreshadows a tax take of $59.7 billion, which is $1.1 billion above the Budget estimate and almost 14 per cent higher than last year? If the Minister does not wish to answer a question about a leaked document, I ask him in his capacity as Minister for Finance whether it is a fact, on the information presently available to the Government, that it appears that there will be a tax take of $57.9 billion this year, which is $1.1 billion above the Budget estimate and almost 14 per cent higher than last year. Given this projected revenue outcome, how does the Government propose to meet the Prime Minister's renewed commitment of yesterday to the trilogy as it affects taxation revenues? Senator WALSH —I certainly will not comment on documents which have been published and are claimed to be authentic government documents. I will answer the substance of the questions. Of course, all of these figures will be subject to substantial changes over the course of the next few months, but the present expectations are that receipts will be close to $1 billion-less than $1 billion, but close to $1 billion-above the Budget estimate. That does not conflict in any way with the trilogy commitment given by the Prime Minister prior to the 1984 election because the relevant leg of the trilogy was that taxation revenue as a proportion of gross domestic product would not on average during the term of this Parliament be higher than it was in 1984-85. Even if one likes to adopt a more strict definition-that it will not be higher in any of those years-the present estimate of tax revenue as a proportion of GDP is very much the same. I cannot give precise figures-I am not being evasive about this, but I do not have precise figures in my head-but it will be the same proportion of GDP as it was in the previous year. The principal reason to this stage for the revenue being higher was increases in Bass Strait oil production, although because of the lower price which will apply from 1 March the total oil revenues will be within the Budget estimates. Again I am going from memory, but there were significant increases above Budget estimates on excises in general, which account for about half of the increase, plus sales tax and so on. Senator BOLKUS —I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs to President Reagan's current efforts to raise Congressional support for $US100m in mostly military aid for the Contra rebels in Nicaragua. In view of the Sandinista Government's widely approved human rights record, especially in the areas of health, education and the general area of human rights, as well as its policy of a commitment to a mixed economy and in view of the fact that the so-called freedom fighters have a record of being nothing more than disorganised, cold-blooded butchers, I ask: What action is the Australian Government taking to express its objection to any further intrusion by the United States Administration in the affairs of this small Central American country? Senator GARETH EVANS —The President and senior members of the United States Administration have recently made statements underlying their determination to see the Sandinista Government in Nicaragua replaced by supporting the Contras who are engaged in domestic insurgency, mostly from safe havens in neighbouring Honduras. Moreover, the United States Secretary of State, Mr George Shultz, has hinted at the use of United States marines. These statements have been made in the context, as Senator Bolkus said, of seeking support for a request to the United States Congress for approval to spend $US100m on civil and military aid to the Contras over the next 18 months, succeeding the $US27m limited to non-lethal aid which the approved for the 12 months ending on 31 March. So far it is the case that Congressional consideration of the request has not been totally sympathetic to the Administration. Australia has been very closely watching developments in Central America and continues to believe that military action will not solve the problems of the region. The supply of military aid to the Contras, in addition to the non-lethal aid they already receive, can in our view only increase tension there and add an unwelcome complication to the difficult task of the Contadora countries and their supporters in working towards a negotiated solution of conflicts in the region. On the question of human rights, it has to be said that the record of the Contras is atrocious and does not give cause for confidence in their democratic credentials. Mr Hayden has previously expressed some disappointment over the Sandinistas' disrespect for the legitimate rights of their political opponents in Nicaragua and that also has to be taken into the balance in any judgment about this area. As to the last part of the question, as in the past, the Australian Government will make known to the United States its concerns on Central American issues where appropriate. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I refer to the Press conference which the Minister had with the Treasurer on 24 February at which the Government's new policies on oil and oil tax- ation were announced. I remind the Senate that both the Minister and the Treasurer agreed that the new oil tax introduced to offset the loss in Government revenues from falling world oil prices would be reduced if oil prices increased in the future. Subsequent to the Press conference the Minister said that appropriate adjustments will be made only if significant rises occur in world oil prices. What rise in world oil prices will be required to trigger a reduction in the new excise that is about to be imposed? How will that adjustment to the excise be determined? Senator GARETH EVANS —In the immediate future it appears that we are more likely to face a fall in world oil prices compared with the 1 March import parity price than a rise, but it remains the case that the Government is committed not to extracting any windfall benefits from the product excise imposed by way of revenue compensation at the time of the 1 March IPP increase. I said that it was the Government's position that the excise rate would be adjusted in response to any significant change in the IPP. That of course applies not only in relation to a move up but also a move down. It may well be the case that if oil prices drop by an obviously insignificant amount there would be no particular view within the Government that the product excise should rise by an equally insignificant amount to cope with that. Senator Durack —May or may not be. Senator GARETH EVANS —It may not be the case that we would take the view that the product excise should rise to cope. A lot depends, of course, on what counts as an insignificant change, but I simply make the point that we have been quite straight forward in saying that this is a revenue compensation exercise; it is not a revenue acquisition exercise and we would, as indeed I said at that Press conference, be in considerable difficulty justifying our action if we acted in such a way as to treat the product exercise we have added on this occasion as cash in hand in the event that product prices went up. We just simply have no desire to act in that particular way and we will make the adjustments accordingly. A precise mechanism has not been worked out for making those adjustments, but I imagine that it will continue to be the notification in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette and through tabling in the House of Representatives in the usual way. There is no particular mystery about that mechanism. It has been adopted in the past and will, no doubt, be adopted in the future, with the appropriate excise rate being struck in accordance with the principles I have already indicated. Senator DURACK —I ask a supplementary question. That was an interesting answer but I really asked whether the Minister could give some indication of, to use his favourite phrase, the order of magnitude required before this adjustment process could be introduced? What does he mean by a significant rise in world oil prices or, for that matter, a significant loss, I suppose? Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Durack is requesting me to quantify something that at this stage I am not in a position to quantify. It is a matter for Government decision. What I am in a position to do is reiterate the principles in which both Mr Keating and I stated the Government's position at the time of that Press conference, and those principles, which I firmly reiterate now, are that we will not make any windfall gains out of the product excise; we will not hang on to product excise except perhaps for some trivial gain or we will relinquish the possibility of some trivial gain in the event of a downward shift, because of all the administrative complications and the machinery complications that are involved in changing the excise rate right across the nation. There would obviously have to be a reasonably significant move in order to justify some change to all of those rates and all the huge administrative cost involved in changing the rate. But the principle remains the same. We have made the commitment to take product excise only by way of partial compensation for the loss of crude oil excise and, to respond to the sorts of things Senator Siddons has been saying to us publicly, we do not intend to make any windfall gains out of that. I mention finally that the trilogy is itself a constraint on windfall gains. We cannot make some substantial addition to revenue without running headlong into the discipline imposed by the trilogy on the revenue side. So not only is there no intention to do so and not only have we said we will not in the context of oil policy but we are also constrained by the additional discipline of the trilogy commitment to stop us doing so. Senator McKIERNAN —My question is addressed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I refer him to allegations in a media release on 9 March by the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Tim Fischer, that the Government is contemplating imposing an assets test on war disability pensions. Is there any substance to this allegation? Senator GIETZELT —As we come up towards the Budget, there will be a great deal of conjecture and controversy about changes in government policy in respect to a whole range of issues affecting every Minister. I am somewhat surprised that Mr Fischer would put out a Press statement that suggests that the Government was seriously contemplating the establishment of an assets test for disability or totally and permanently incapacitated pensioners. Firstly, I refute that. There is no truth in that suggestion. I do not know where he got that information from and I find it difficult to comprehend why a person I have been working with since he was appointed by the Leader of the Opposition as the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs would make a public statement without checking the facts with me, my office or the Department of Veterans' Affairs. He certainly would have been reassured that the Government does not contemplate any such proposition. The Government accepts, as indeed the Opposition when in government accepted, that disability pensions are compensation for illness or disabilities arising out of war service and, therefore, compensation should not, in any way, be associated with any sort of test. A person may be a millionaire or have limited means. If he is injured in an accident the court has no regard to his station in life; it has regard to whether he should receive compensation, and that is the position of a government. However, since Mr Fischer made that statement and it received some publicity, a number of veterans' organisations, including the TPI congress that I was at this morning, have expressed concern because it does create unnecessary anxiety and concern and people react, particularly veterans in the 70- to 80-year bracket. Whilst every Minister in one way or another is being asked by the Government to effect savings, some areas are completely sacrosanct. Disability pensions will not be affected. No cuts will be made in this or any other Budget of the Labor Government. Senator VIGOR —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I ask whether the Government stands by its policy statement contained in the document entitled `Government Strategy on Aboriginal Broadcasting' of 27 November 1985, namely: That Government policy is to financially support CAAMA (Central Australia Aboriginal Media Association) as the Centre for Aboriginal Television in Australia. Is the Government aware that next Monday the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal licence hearing for the central zone Aussat footprint will recommence and that by that date the applicant, Imparja, which represents all Aboriginal communities within the central zone, will need to be in a position to specify the level of funding support, both capital and recurrent, for its application? As Imparja's funding support is crucially dependent on the level of government funding for CAAMA, which is Imparja's principal shareholder, will the Government state by next Monday the level of budgetary support it intends to make available to CAAMA if it is the successful applicant for the licence? Senator BUTTON —I am not quite sure why this question has been addressed to me, but as it has been I will try to provide Senator Vigor with an answer. The Government stands by the policy which was enunciated late last year by the Ministers for Communications and Aboriginal Affairs on the subject of Aboriginal involvement in broadcasting to regions with substantial Aboriginal populations. This includes an examination of appropriate levels of financial support for the Central Australia Aboriginal Media Association, CAAMA, an organisation with which I have had some personal involvement in years gone by. The policy resulted from the Government's consideration of a report entitled `Out of the Silent Land'. The Government is also well aware of the timing of the Broadcasting Tribunal's Central Australia remote commercial television service licence hearing and the application by Imparja representing Aboriginal communities in the licence zone. I understand that the licence application is heavily dependent on government funding. As a result of very recent considerations of these matters by the Ministers for Communications and Aboriginal Affairs, interested parties have been invited to a meeting with Commonwealth representatives to take place prior to the Broadcasting Tribunal hearing. The issues raised by Senator Vigor will be fully discussed at the meeting. We are aware of the interest of the Northern Territory and South Australian governments in these proceedings and it would seem appropriate for representatives of these governments to participate in any round table discussions. The Commonwealth will also be initiating that. All of those activities are designed to take place, as I say, prior to the commencement of the hearing of the Broadcasting Tribunal. In answer to the final part of the question as to whether the Government would announce its budgetary allocation in respect of this matter prior to next Monday, I think the answer is probably not. Senator VIGOR —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. In the light of the declaration, how does the Government explain the logic of funding the Central Australia Aboriginal Media Association but not providing the funding early enough to allow CAAMA to be a viable applicant for a broadcasting licence, having regard to what the Broadcasting Tribunal has said? This licence is over an area-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator can ask a supplementary question. He is not entitled to make any statement. Has the honourable senator completed his supplementary question? Senator VIGOR —I really want to know how the Government explains its attitude in this matter, because 75 per cent of all remaining Aboriginal languages and Aboriginals practising traditional styles are in this area. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable member is making too many statements. I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Senator BUTTON —There would have been no need for a supplementary question if the honourable senator had listened to the answer to the first question. As he did not do so, I will give him a supplementary answer. In my supplementary answer I will repeat what I said in answer to the first question in response to his pressing for a public statement on the budgetary allocations prior to next Monday. My answer to that part of the question as to whether the Government would do that, is that it would probably not. My own position has firmed up since he asked the original question, and I would say it almost certainly would not. With the greatest respect, if the honourable senator had listened to the answer to the first question, I made it quite clear that the Government was aware of the issues to which he referred and was concerned about them. I recognised the fact that the success of the licensing application depended to some extent on government funding and I recognised what the honourable senator put about the importance of the service which will be provided if a licence is issued. I recognised all those things and said that the Government would deal with them at a meeting to take place prior to the licensing hearing and that it would address all those questions. The questions of whether there will be a public announcement about that is not of particular relevance, I suspect. Those who are directly interested in this matter will undoubtedly be informed of the Commonwealth's attitude. That does not require a public announcement. Senator CHILDS —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Health inform the Senate of the effect of a threat by the Australian Medical Association not to accept Medicare benefits as full payment for the treatment of pensioners? Senator RYAN —The AMA's threat not to accept Medicare benefits as full payment would place an unreasonable financial burden on the most disadvantaged group in the community. Many of the sick and aged would either not seek medical care or would become outpatients at public hospitals. Data from the Medicare payment system indicates that over half of all general practitioners generate more than $50,000 in fees for Medicare-related services. Those in full time practice receive an average of about $90,000 per year, and in addition receive extra income from workers compensation and third party patients and from visiting medical officer or sessional arrangements with hospitals. Since 1970, medical benefit fee schedules have risen by 314.3 per cent, while the consumer price index has risen by only 298.6 per cent. Clearly, medical practitioner fees have not been eroded over the past 15 years. In 1970 pensioners and other disadvantaged persons comprised 8.3 per cent of the population compared with 14.9 per cent in 1985. In the same period, the number of doctors in the population has doubled. The claims by the AMA that the increasing number of pensioners is affecting their income must therefore be seen as fallacious. It is a longstanding tradition among doctors that pensioners are not charged more than the Medicare rebate. The AMA seems to feel that doctors are owed a living by the community and that governments and the public should guarantee the incomes of their ever increasing numbers. Senator SHEIL —Will the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs inform the Senate whether he has any further information concerning reports that the Vietnamese communist army of occupation in Cambodia, in the province of Siem Reap, decided on 14 January to prepare to attack a civilian refugee camp inside the Thai border? Will the Minister also state what would be the position of his Government should an unprovoked breach of Thai sovereignty and attack on civilian refugees occur, and whether the aid that Australia is giving Vietnam would be suspended? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not appear to have any specific brief on that matter. I will refer it to the Foreign Minister and let the honourable senator know as soon as possible. Senator ROBERT RAY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. In the event of Mr Holmes a Court making a successful bid for the Broken Hill Proprietary Co Ltd, what are the implications for investment in Australia from those who have sold their shares in BHP? Is the Government worried that surplus funds of investors could be taken off-shore, or is the Government confident that allowing companies imputation will ensure that these funds are invested in Australian industry? Senator WALSH —It is believed that about 20 or 25 per cent of BHP shares are currently owned by overseas investors. If they are sold, one would expect that the money would very likely go off-shore. Bell Resources Ltd has made a partial bid for BHP shares, some of which is in the form of cash and/or shares in Bell. Depending on the extent to which either of those offers is taken up, that will also affect the flow of funds either within Australia or between Australia and overseas. It is unclear whether any Australian resident BHP shareholders would choose to place the proceeds of any share sales off-shore. Two general points can be made. Firstly, investors make the choice as to where to place their funds, having regard to relative rates of return, exchange rate risks, and so on. Any current investor in BHP shares is able to sell at any time and acquire assets elsewhere. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that acceptance of the Bell Resources bid will lead to any significant change in the existing preference for local versus overseas investment. Secondly, under a floating exchange rate any funds leaving Australia must be matched by funds coming in, unless, in the very short term, reserves could be run down. In the longer term, funds moving out of Australia must be matched in some way by funds moving in. The exchange rate and interest rate differentials change to see that that balance is maintained. For all those reasons it is not clear whether the partial takeover, if it is accepted, would have significant effects on the overall portfolio choice between local and foreign securities. The Government decided on that account that there is not a basis for any government intervention in the takeover. Senator LEWIS —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and concerns continuing disclosures about grants made to non-government bodies in the Australian Capital Territory during the term of Mr Tom Uren as Minister for Territories, the most recent being the grant to the Women's Centre Incorporated which was used to establish Tilly Devines cafe. Is the Government concerned about any aspect of these grants or is it just accepted that breaches of guidelines, impropriety and cronyism are penalties to be suffered by taxpayers when Caucus elects Mr Uren to the Ministry? Is it not time for the Government to investigate all the grants and, indeed, the appointments made during Mr Uren's term as Minister for Territories? Finally, will the Government set up an inquiry into all aspects of the controversial grants, including propriety and breaches of government guidelines and the reasons why the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and the Department of Finance failed to monitor the programs? Senator WALSH —In regard to the last part of the question, the Department of Finance does not know in detail what is happening in every other department in respect of expenditure. Senator Walters —Why not? Senator WALSH —The honourable senator asks `Why not?'. Well, honourable senators opposite say that they do not want to have a large bureaucracy. If they want somebody from the Department of Finance looking over the shoulder of everybody else in the Public Service who is writing a cheque or authorising a payment, we would need to have a Department of Finance about the same size as the rest of the Public Service, a prospect which has induced groans from some of my colleagues. In regard to the question in general, the Australian Federal Police have been requested to investigate the facts surrounding that CEP grant. Until that report has been completed I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to make any further comment. Senator LEWIS —I ask a supplementary question. In respect of the latter part of the answer, I did not ask the Minister to give us any information relating to the police investigations. I asked about the Government's investigation. In regard to the first part of the Minister's answer, I ask: Is the Minister not aware that it is stated on page 9 of the Commonwealth Government Directory that the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations has responsibility to monitor CEP programs; and that it is stated on page 3 that the Department of Finance, the Minister's own Department, has responsibility for monitoring staffing and expenditure in `(b) employment and industrial relations programs and the overseeing of the financial and human resources budgets relating to these matters'? Senator WALSH —I do not know what I am supposed to say to that. I do not know the Commonwealth Government Directory off by heart so I would not be able to comment on what Senator Lewis has just quoted. In response to the earlier part of the supplementary question, allegations have been made in the Bulletin about alleged impropriety and so on and they are being investigated by the police. Senator Lewis —What about all the other grants, all the cronyism? The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Lewis has asked his supplementary question. Senator WALSH —I do not know what stage the police investigations have reached except that they are, as I understand it, not completed. Until they are, I can only repeat that I do not think it would be proper for me to comment on it. Senator ROBERTSON —My question is directed to the Minister for Education. Has the Minister any comment to make, following her visit to the Northern Territory last week, on the adequacy of the education being provided for Aboriginal children by the Northern Territory Department of Education? Could she comment specifically on the present status of the bilingual program? Senator RYAN —Honourable senators will be aware that there has been a great deal of interest in the bilingual program. I have certainly received many representations from teachers in Aboriginal communities who believed that the bilingual program was under threat and that the Northern Territory Government was going to withdraw from it. I am pleased to be able to report to the Senate that my lengthy discussions with the Northern Territory Minister for Education, Tom Harris, have confirmed that the Northern Territory Government does intend to continue the program. It is operating in 17 schools now and there are plans for its expansion. I was able to see its operation in three schools in the Territory and it does seem to be achieving its primary objective-that of language maintenance of the Aboriginal children in the school. It also appears to have community support from the Aboriginal people in the comm- unities where these schools are placed. However, it is also true to say that it appears to be under resourced, particularly in respect of specialist curriculum advisers from the Northern Territory Department of Education. It would be my judgment that if the Northern Territory Government is as committed to the program as it assured me that it is, it needs to give a higher priority to the program in terms of the allocation of specialist resources. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, follows the recent reply he gave about disability cuts. He said that there would not be any. Does the Minister support, and will he act on, the protest by the Minister for Social Security against what he described as the Government's fetish over the deficit that has prompted severe spending cuts in his Department? When will the Minister for Veterans' Affairs be able to advise veterans of the impact and severity of the Minister for Finance's `leaked' proposals for cuts of $100m in veterans' entitlements in the coming financial year? Senator GIETZELT —Senator Baume would be aware that portfolio allocations in respect of the Budget are not matters for public debate and certainly not matters for debate within the Parliament. There is no doubt that every Minister is being persuaded to make economies within his particular portfolio. I am sure that every Minister will apply himself assiduously to that task. However, as far as my Department is concerned, I do not believe it would be possible to make the sorts of savings that have been suggested in some Press statement or release or leaked document or whatever. Certainly there is no intention on the part of the Government to make any substantial savings in the Department of Veterans' Affairs. It is a matter of some regret that public controversy should be raging on this matter when it is not a matter listed for serious consideration. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I ask a supplementary question. Do I take it then that the Minister is in fact giving an undertaking to veterans that there will be no spending cuts, no reductions in veterans' entitlements, in the coming financial year? Senator GIETZELT —As the Minister holding the portfolio, I do not believe that it is possible to make those sorts of savings. However, they are not matters upon which I can make a value judgment at this stage. They are matters which will be determined by Cabinet. Honourable senators opposite, particularly those who have been in government, will appreciate that these are matters which are determined in Cabinet. Certainly, I will be arguing very strongly against any further cuts in regard to Veterans' Affairs. Senator REYNOLDS —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. What developments are underway within the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to give encouragement to the establishment of women's information services in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities? What specific assistance has been offered to the Torres Strait Women's Association to enable it to pursue its important community welfare programs? Senator RYAN —The Government is concerned that Aboriginal and Islander women participate to the fullest extent in all of its programs for Aboriginal advancement. To this end the Department of Aboriginal Affairs recently undertook a 12-month community employment program project involving the employment of Aboriginal and Islander women in its 45 offices around Australia. The aim of the project was to provide further information to the Government to enable the further development of programs and policies and to ensure that they are more attuned to the needs of Aboriginal and Islander women. A flow on from this project is the permanent Aboriginal Women's unit which was established in the Department in January 1986. The unit's primary task is to advise the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and the Prime Minister, through the Office of the Status of Women, on issues which affect Aboriginal and Islander women throughout Australia, to provide to Aboriginal and Islander communities, through the Department's regional and area offices, information on women's issues, and to ensure that women's views are sought and taken into account in all departmental programs. The Torres Strait Women's Association very recently requested financial assistance to enable it to purchase four houses which were surplus to the requirements of the Far-North Queensland Electricity Board. However, the houses had been transferred to the State Education Department and are not available for purchase. This is the only specific request so far for assistance from this association. The area officer of DAA will continue to assist the association to pursue its objectives. Senator REID —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Territories. I refer to the long-running industrial dispute that has resulted in approximately 50 per cent of Canberra's Government owned bus fleet being off the road. In particular I refer to the apparent decision to withdraw buses taking students to and from non-government religious schools, but not government schools, as a consequence of this industrial action. I ask the Minister: Who makes the decisions as to which buses run each day under the current circumstances? Why have the bus services for non-government religious schools been withdrawn regularly while no buses have been withdrawn from government schools? Is this not a blatant example of discrimination against students from non-government religious schools? Has the Minister referred this discrimination to the Human Rights Commission and, if not, will he do so? Senator GIETZELT —It is true that there are industrial difficulties-overtime difficulties-in respect of the provision of ACTION bus services in Canberra. In fact there was yesterday a meeting with Commissioner Caesar of all interested parties with a view to resolving the difficulties. The availability of buses, I am advised, will improve progressively and buses will be available on all services for all types of passengers. The information I have does not suggest that there has been any discrimination in the provision of these services or the deletion of any of these services. The Government, of course, has not been involved in the decision making processes of the organisation involved, that is, the employees involved in the rationalisation of the services. There are industrial difficulties. The Government according to my information, is seeking to resolve those differences in such a way that no group of passengers is in any way disadvantaged. Senator MAGUIRE —Does the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security have up to date information on recent trends in unemployment benefit payments? If so, do they show a continued improvement over last year? How does the percentage change in South Australia compare with the national figure? Did any States go against the national trend in the last 12-month period? Senator RYAN —As shown in a table which I will seek to have incorporated in Hansard, on 22 February 1985 there were 60,610 people receiving unemployment benefit whereas at the same time this time there was a fall in this number to 56,903. This is a reduction of 3,707 people or 6.1 per cent. This compares favourably with the national reduction in the number of people receiving unemployment benefit of 5.2 per cent. For Senator Maguire's assistance, I seek leave to have the table to which I referred incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT STATISTICS: 28 FEBRUARY 1986 NUMBER OF CURRENT UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFICIARIES Monthly Movement Number Current (a) 31 January 1986 28 February 1986 Variation Number Percentage N.S.W.... 230,100 226,779 -3,321 -1.4 Vic.... 115,544 113,614 -1,930 -1.7 Qld... 113,531 112,930 - 601 -0.5 S.A.... 58,079 56,903 -1,176 -2.0 W.A.... 59,028 58,836 - 192 -0.3 Tas.... 20,473 19,865 - 608 -3.0 N.T.... 8,910 9,760 + 850 +9.5 A.C.T.... 4,322 4,469 + 147 +3.4 Australia... 609,987 603,156 -6,831 -1.1 Annual Movement Number Current (a) 22 February 1985 28 February 1986 Variation Number Percentage N.S.W.... 238,418 226,779 -11,639 - 4.9 Vic.... 129,069 113,614 -15,455 -12.0 Qld... 110,107 112,930 + 2,823 + 2.6 S.A.... 60,610 56,903 - 3,707 - 6.1 W.A.... 63,554 58,836 - 4,718 - 7.4 Tas.... 21,750 e...19,865 - 1,885 - 8.7 N.T.... 8,410 9,760 + 1,350 +16.1 A.C.T.... 4,424 4,469 + 45 + 1.0 Australia... 636,300 e...603,156 -33,200 - 5.2 (a) Number of persons paid during the fortnight ended on the date shown. e Estimated. Senator HAINES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General, if he cares to wake up. Is the Minister aware of two recent conferences on domestic violence and child abuse held recently by the Institute of Criminology? Can the Minister say whether the Attorney-General has received the resolutions which were passed by those conferences? I point out that in almost all cases those resolutions were passed with the unanimous support of local and overseas social welfare, legal, law enforcement, shelter and children's service experts. If the Attorney-General has received those resolutions, can the Minister say whether and when the women and children who suffer violences currently in Australia can expect some legislative or other government measures to provide them with the protection which is their due? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not aware of the conference. I am not aware whether the Attorney-General has received the proceedings. Accordingly, I am not able to answer the third part of the question, so the honourable senator might just as well have left me asleep. I will find out what I can from the Attorney-General and let her know as soon as possible. Senator ELSTOB —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Transport aware of a recent successful campaign waged by various unions in Whyalla, South Australia, to have the crew of the flag of convenience ship Opal City, registered in Monrovia, paid their reasonable entitlements? Would the Minister care to comment on the recent United Nations agreement on the international registration of ships? Senator GIETZELT —The Senate would be aware that the wealthy shipping combines over many years have been using the process of a flag of convenience to deny legitimate wages and conditions to seamen and that this has been a matter of grave concern to trade unions in Australia and, for that matter, in many countries. The Minister is aware of the delay to the vessel that the honourable senator referred to, the Opal City, and the failure of that company and the International Transport Federation to agree to legitimate rates of pay to the crew of that vessel. At the time the matter was first raised it came within the responsibility of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. However, since this matter has been on the agenda of the trade union movement in this and many countries for years, recently the United Nations has taken up the issue and established a convention on conditions for the registration of ships. That convention requires ship owners to have management representation in the country in which their ships are registered and satisfactory national ownership and national manning arrangements in that country. The convention also promotes improved application of international crew safety standards, terms and conditions of employment on ships and the protection of the marine environment. However, unfortunately the question of salaries and wages paid to the seamen is not yet part of the convention and the convention has not yet been ratified by Australia, although it is receiving the consideration of the Minister and of the Government. However, as we have to have ratification of that convention, limited as it is, by many countries before finally it has some impact upon this problem, all I can assure Senator Elstob at this moment is that the Government has it under review and is doing what it can within its power to ensure that a minimum standard is applied in respect of what has clearly been a breach of any basic wage and salary principles applying to people who work on ships sailing under flags of convenience. Senator VANSTONE —Has the office of the Minister for Education or the officers of her Department been preparing a review or assessments of aspects of Priority One: Young Australia for the Prime Minister? If so, will any such review be an objective assessment of the implementation of Priority One or will the taxpayer be treated to a cynical Yes, Prime Minister exercise in disguising the real problems of Priority One, the likes of which would make Sir Humphrey appear an amateur? Senator RYAN —It is the case that my Department and I believe other departments involved in the implementation of Priority One are preparing an assessment of how far the objectives have been achieved. I should add that that is the systematic practice of our Government. All of our programs are assessed to see how far they are reaching their objectives. Senator Gareth Evans —We brush up pretty well, too. Senator RYAN —As Senator Evans says, we brush up pretty well. As that process is under way, I cannot predict the outcomes, but I can say that the contribution of Priority One in education has been extremely successful. For example, there are 57,000 young people in post-compulsory education who were not three years ago. This is due partly to increased funding and improvements in curricula and also to the increased student allowances that were part of Priority One. The funding of increased tertiary places and increased contributions to technical and further education have also been very successful in assisting young people to have more opportunities. When the assessment is complete I will be in a position to give Senator Vanstone even more information about it. I assure her that, as far as my knowledge of Education's involvement in Priority One is concerned, there will be no need for Sir Humphrey's obfuscations because the facts will be very creditable. Senator VANSTONE —I have a supplementary question. In light of the Minister's reply, can the Minister explain how a communication from a senior adviser in her portfolio to the Director of the Office of Youth Affairs contains certain, one might say, delightful comments which would give rise to the Yes, Minister, or Yes, Prime Minister concerns, namely: We have . . . re-prepared the statistics . . . We believe that two other questions should be deleted from the list in their present form. . . . we would argue strongly that they should not become a major part-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is now giving information and is not asking a supplementary question. I ask her to come to the point. Five supplementary questions have been asked today and they have taken up a considerable amount of time, depriving other senators of the chance to ask questions. Senator VANSTONE —Mr President, I am sorry but there was so much noise that I did not actually hear what you said. The PRESIDENT —I said to the honourable senator that five supplementary questions had been asked to date. Supplementary questions are meant to elucidate answers, not to give additional information. I ask the honourable senator to confine her supplementary question to a question relating to the Minister's answer. Senator VANSTONE —In light of the Minister's answer that there would be no need for Sir Humphrey's obfuscations in the Department of Education, I ask the Minister how she can explain a communication within her portfolio suggesting that certain matters should not be a part of any public discussions or presentations that the Prime Minister may want to make. The communication also suggests that issues be rephrased as a new question and that further questions be asked which would give the Prime Minister a better report. Senator RYAN —Mr President, as you pointed out, the new information in Senator Vanstone's question does not constitute a supplementary question. I will simply say this: I am not prepared to comment on what is claimed to be a leaked document, but the organisation of presentation of material is a necessary process and all statistics related to Priority One will be publicly available. Senator GILES —Has the Minister for Education seen the article headed `Now we have the Ryan theory of accountability' by B. A. Santamaria in yesterday's Australian? I ask the Minister to inform the Senate whether her aim is to force the independent sector to abandon what Mr Santamaria is pleased to call: . . . its own educational and ethical objectives, and to substitute the same trendy left-wing `priorities' to be found in the Human Rights Bill, in the Government's affirmative action legislation and elsewhere. In forming accountability requirements of non-government schools, did the Minister consult with non-government school groups? Senator RYAN —Mr Santamaria's latest ravings in the Australian yesterday were drawn to my attention. If I can express admiration for Mr Santamaria on one point, it is for his tenacity. He has been writing the same hysterical, untruthful rubbish since the 1950s. Yesterday's article was another example of totally unjustified, emotional, near hysterical charges that bear absolutely no relationship to our Government's policy. As for his veiled imputations about me and my background, I am not quite sure what he means, but I am not and never have been a Marxist-a fact that Mr Santamaria seems unable to grasp despite the fact that he has been told it on a number of occasions. The question of the new accountability requirements is one that was very thoroughly investigated by the Commonwealth Schools Commission, and very extensive consultations were held with the non-government sector before those requirements were written in the legislation-that was in 1984-and since, in terms of the way in which they are to be implemented. There is no question that the non-government sector is satisfied with the Commonwealth Schools Commission's consultation. Insofar as there have been complaints-there have been very few complaints, I might say-they are based on an inadequate understanding of the Commonwealth's proper responsibilities. Our Government has to be accountable to the Parliament and to the public for the expenditure of funds. Where funds are made available for certain educational purposes, which they are, it is only proper that information be given to the Commonwealth so that it is in a position to account for those funds and to assure the public that they are being used for the purposes for which they were allocated. Senator PARER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce in his ministerial capacity and as Minister representing the Minister for Trade. Given that imports and exports both fell by 7 per cent in February in seasonally adjusted terms and 11 per cent and 19 per cent, respectively, in unadjusted terms, I ask: How does the Government see its promise of last year that the depreciation of our currency would lead to a turnaround in our balance of trade crisis? Senator BUTTON —I think that everybody who has been following this issue is now beginning to be fully aware of what is happening. Senator Parer should refer to what was said by government spokesmen about this issue last year. Senator Parer —It is getting worse. Senator BUTTON —No. I do not think it is getting worse, on proper analysis. Let me say that it was made quite clear last year by government spokesmen that an improvement in the balance of what is sometimes called merchandise trade would not be expected until later in 1986. I think that the Treasurer indicated this at Budget time. Insofar as what is happening in the major trading sectors, it is well known that a lot of this country's products in the agricultural sector are locked out of overseas markets at the moment by an overcapacity. Senator Walters —Lack of competitiveness. Senator BUTTON —Senator Walters said there was a lack of competitiveness. The honourable senator ought to get competitive-I do not think she is competitive-in the information stakes before she makes an interjection such as that. As I was saying to Senator Parer, as a result of overseas governments' policies and of overseas overcapacity in agricultural production in a number of areas, it has been very difficult to sell Australian agricultural products on world markets. This has been going on for some time. As Senator Parer will recall, during the period of Liberal government, there were great concerns about Australian beef being locked out of Japan and about the effects of the European Economic Community's policies, in particular the common agricultural policy, on Australian agricultural exports. As I recall it, the Minister for Overseas Trade and the Minister for Industry and Commerce in that period of government made about 23 trips between them to the EEC-they did not bother to stop in South East Asia on the way, as I recall it-to try to change those policies of the EEC, but without success. That sort of thing has been going on for a long period. The point can also be made about Australian mineral exports which, with the exception of coal, have been fairly restrained because of lack of demand. In respect of coal, that has been affected by relatively low international prices in the past few months or, indeed, in the past year. In that circumstance, a lot of attention has been given to Australian manufactured exports. Performance in manufacturing exports is not likely to represent a dramatic change immediately after a devaluation. I think this matter was discussed in a report of the National Australia Bank Ltd which was referred to in Press publications yesterday. Senator Michael Baume —It said the J curve did not exist. Senator BUTTON —I think the report said that it was an L curve or something of that kind. The important point I wanted to make was that the National Australia Bank made the comment that these problems were basically due to structural problems in the Australian economy which had been in existence for 30 years. Senator Michael Baume —You promised a month ago that they would get better. Senator BUTTON —There is not much point in the honourable senator's interjection. Yes, we said things would get better. They will get better. We will hold to that promise and we will be around for a long time to supervise their getting better. That is the rub; that is the thing which hurts. Let me not fail to remind the honourable senator that many of the policies adopted by the previous Government are directly responsible for some of the problems that we have today. I quoted that point from the National Australia Bank, which seemed to receive approval, but if I say it it brings out troglodytic groans from members of the Opposition, suffering as they do from intellectual anorexia. These interjections do not help. The Government has no reason for being enthusiastic about the February balance of payments figures; they represent a pretty steady position in the light of the January figures and as such they represent a better situation than that we confronted late last year. We do not expect any dramatic turnaround in that current account problem this month, next month or the month after. Senator ZAKHAROV —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Communications aware of a campaign by some supporters of the Opposition which seeks the sale of Telecom Australia to private enterprise? What would be the likely effect on rural subscribers in particular if such a sale were to take place? Senator WALSH —Of course I am aware that the Opposition is committed or has said at various times it is committed to selling off Telecom. For example, the present Leader of the Opposition said on 22 August 1985, when he was the shadow Treasurer: Within the principles of privatisation, I would be willing to see a substantial part of Telecom sold to the private sector. Only two weeks ago the same Mr Howard said in an interview published in the Age newspaper that privatisation would be restricted to the Australian Industry Development Corporation and the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. Ironically, back in 1981 the then Government announced that it would sell off the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation but it never did. That was part of the feeble statement made in May 1981 which was the end product of three months of labour by the Fraser Government's razor gang. One of the significant components of that feeble statement was the proposal to sell off the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation which, in fact, that Government never did. It will be different this time because the only way the Opposition Leader can fund his irresponsible spending promises is to flog off Telecom and a few other public assets. That is precisely what he intends to do, should he be placed in the position where he is called upon to honour his irresponsible spending promises. That list of promises on both expenditure and taxation sides amounts to $5 billion. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a specific list of those promises, together with the source of all the statements. Leave granted. The document read as follows- REVENUE IMPLICATIONS OF LIBERAL-NATIONAL PARTY COALITION POLICIES Estimated increase in Budget deficit in a full year in 1985-86 prices. EXPENDITURE (1) Tertiary education for unemployment benefit recipients... $600m (2) Additional expenditure on defence... $234m (3) Additional expenditure on health... $167m (4) Repeal of Assets Test... $140m (5) Provision of an immediate $100m advance for rural reconstruction for farm carry-on loans at concessional interest rates... $100m (6) $240 per tonne floor price for sugar... $75m (7) Abolition of export inspection charges... $52m (8) Disallowance of Freedom of Information Charges... $5m TAXATION (9) Income splitting... $1,900m (10) Abolition of tax on ``new'' oil... $480m (11) Abolition of non-cash fringe benefits tax... $320m (12) Re-institution of entertainment expenses allowance... $310m (13) Child Care Rebates... $180m (14) Abolition of fuel excise indexation... $108m (15) Abolition of tax on lump sum superannuation... $100m (16) Abolition of Sales Tax on oils and lubricants... $66m (17) Abolition of off-farm write-off limits... $65m (18) Abolition of Wine Tax... $60m (19) Re-institution of negative gearing... $55m (20) Restoration of IEDs and tax averaging... $23m (21) Re-institution of immediate write-off on expenditure on conserving or conveying water... $20m Total... $5,060m PLUS CAPITAL PROJECT (22) Construction of Alice-Springs-Darwin Railway... $588m SOURCE OF COALITION POLICIES AND COSTINGS (1) John Howard: `It is a condition of their receiving it (unemployment benefit) that they undertake a course of instruction in some tertiary institution for a period of 2 or 3 days a week', National Press Club, 28 August 1985. Estimated cost based on assumption of cheapest TAFE education. (2) John Howard: (Coalition) `Defence policy aims at restoring the Labor Government cuts in defence programs in 1983-84 and 1984-85', Press Release, 31 October 1984. Costs are Mr Howard's own estimates, updated to 1985-86 prices. (3) Jim Carlton: Medicare `improvements' in Opposition Health Policy, 30 October 1984. Treasury estimate updated to 1985-86 prices. (4) `We will abolish Labor's assets test', `The Liberal Direction for Australia', 1984 Policy Statement. Estimated cost for 1985-86 fiscal year. (5) Ian Sinclair: His `Save Rural Australia' Policy, released in Darwin, 6 November 1985. Cost in year of provision does not include administrative costs. (6) Ian Sinclair: `the Federal Government should pick up the total bill for underwriting the sugar industry . . . the level of support should be a minimum of $240 a tonne', Press Release, 25 September 1985. Cost of $75m p.a. based on expected returns of $217/tonne and 3.264m tonnes delivery. (7) Ralph Hunt: `called for the abolition of export inspection charges', Press Release, 23 April 1985. Treasury estimate. (8) Senate Vote, Hansard, 13 November 1985. Treasury estimate. (9) John Howard: `Only the Liberal Party has a taxation policy that includes income splitting for single income families', address to Victorian Division of the Liberal Party, 16 November 1985. Treasury estimate updated to 1985-86 prices. (10) Peter Durack: `We opposed the tax on new oil and . . . if on return to government we find that this tax is retarding oil exploration and development we will repeal them', Speech to AMIC, 2 May 1985. Estimated annual receipt based on actual collections to January 1986. (11) John Howard: ``The Coalition is opposed to the fringe benefits tax . . . and we will vote against it'', address to Victorian Division of the Liberal Party, 16 November 1985. Estimate based on Treasurer's statement, 19 September 1985. (12) John Howard: ``We believe it's absurd to ban all entertainment deductions . . . and we will vote against the Government's proposal'', address to Victorian Division of the Liberal Party, 16 November 1985. Estimate based on Treasurer's statement, 19 September 1985. (13) John Howard: ``Only the Liberal Party has a taxation policy that includes . . . tax rebates for child care expenses'', address to Victorian Division of the Liberal Party, 16 November 1985. Treasury estimate updated to 1985-6 prices. (14) Ralph Hunt: `called for axeing of the fuel excise indexation to the CPI', Press Release, 23 April 1985. Treasury estimate. (15) `We will reverse the Labor Government's changes to the taxation treatment of lump sum superannuation payments', `The Liberal Direction for Australia', 1984 Policy Statement. Estimated cost for 1985-6 fiscal year. (16) Ralph Hunt: `called for the removal of sales taxes on oils and lubricants', Press Release, 23 April 1985. Treasury estimate of revenue yield for 1985-6. (17) John Howard: ``The Coalition will oppose the proposal to limit the amount of off-farm income that can be offset against farm losses'', address to Victorian Division of the Liberal Party, 16 November 1985. Estimate based on Treasurer's statements, of 19 September and 28 November 1985. (18) `The wine tax will be abolished', `The Liberal Direction for Australia', 1984 Policy Statement. Budget estimate of revenue yield for 1985-6. (19) John Howard: `The Coalition will oppose the decision to abolish negative gearing', address to Victorian Division of the Liberal Party, 16 November 1985. Estimate based on Treasurer's statement of 19 September 1985. (20) Ralph Hunt: called for ``the restoration of IEDs and tax averaging'', Press Release, 14 December 1984. Estimate for tax averaging only; IEDs estimate not available. (21) Tony Messner, amendment to Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4), Senate Hansard 5 December 1985. Estimate based on Treasurer's statement of 19 September and 28 November 1985. (22) `The Federal Government should have some involvement in the area of transport, for example, building the Alice Springs-Darwin railway line', `The Liberal Direction for Australia', 1984 Policy Statement. Costing of the Independent Inquiry into Transport Services to the N.T. Senator WALSH —The irresponsible and wild spending spree which would increase the deficit by $5 billion is detailed in that document and I invite the Opposition to refute any of those items or to repudiate the statements that various Opposition spokesmen have made at various times over the past couple of years. In replying more directly to Senator Zakharov's question, I point out that the Minister for Telecommunications, Mr Duffy, answered a similar question in the House of Representatives on 23 August last year and the implications for telephone subscribers, particularly in country areas, are quite horrendous. The charge to subscribers in Dubbo, for example, would have to increase by $439 and in Armidale by $408-and this is just the annual fee. Connection fees in the Murchison area of Western Australia, where the present maximum connection charge is $1,350, would have to rise to somewhere between $20,000 and $25,000. The consequences of selling off Telecom are either that services in the country would be extremely expensive, so expensive that few people would be able to afford them, or, more likely, there would be no services at all provided in the country unless there was a direct budget subsidy of the order of $500m, which of course would have to be added to the irresponsible spending list produced by the Opposition and which I have already incorporated. Senator Messner —Could I ask the Minister whether he will table the document he just referred to if it was not the same as the one which he earlier incorporated? The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister tables the document as sought by Senator Messner. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(3.07) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The Senate has before it the report of a meeting of Environment Ministers of those countries which are members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. This is an important report because this meeting was only the third of its kind at ministerial level within the OECD. The important thing about this report is the extent to which it outlines the views taken by the Australian delegation leader, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, presumably on behalf of the Government outlining what is seen as the balance and the link between employment and the Environment. On page 24 of the report is the text of Mr Willis's address to the conference. He begins by saying: Australia shares the view of many countries that the major environmental challenge we face over the next decade is the wise management of national resources for sustainable economic growth. I believe that is a correct appreciation of the major challenge facing Australia and OECD countries in the management of the natural environment. Elsewhere in his speech, Mr Willis draws attention to the adoption of the national conservation strategy in Australia. I note once again the way in which the present Government has indicated its support for the national conservation strategy simply to draw attention to the fact that this strategy was originally pioneered by the Fraser Administration and was, in fact, first formally adopted by that Liberal Government. The report is also important in terms of indicating the necessity within any one country, as a member of the OECD, to achieve what is referred to in the report as `policy complementary'. It seems to me that, in looking at the whole range of environmental issues which come before a government, there are very often contradictory policies being pursued. For example, some of our taxation policies are occasionally quite at variance with the perceived environmental objectives of government. It has only been in recent years that an attempt has been made to integrate those policies in terms of development, environment protection, taxation and other related issues. The final point which I wish to make arising from the report is an indication of the extent to which for the first time there appears to be a far more broadly based appreciation of the need for international co-operation to deal with certain environmental matters. The report draws particular attention to the question of acid rain, sulphur dioxide pollution, which is a major problem in both Europe and North America. The interesting point about this is that the people who are suffering in North America are, by and large, the Canadians but the people responsible for the problem are those in the United States of America. The people suffering in Europe tend to be the Swedes and the people responsible for their problem are primarily the British and the Germans. It is only by the promotion of effective international agreements and arrangements dealing with the problems of environmental degradation and the threats to the environment which spread across whole continental land masses that these significant issues can be addressed. I am glad to see that at this ministerial meeting of the OECD attention was paid to that matter. At this stage it is not a major problem as far as Australia is concerned, other than in the area of the effects of French nuclear testing in the region. However, it is likely to have some effect as far as industrial development in Australia is concerned in terms of relationships with our neighbours to the immediate north. I think the report is a good one. It raises a number of significant issues which are of concern to Australia. I hope that arising out of the ministerial level meeting Australia will place itself in a position to learn from some of the lessons which have become apparent in Europe and North America and will not find itself repeating some of the mistakes made by national governments in those other continents. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(3.11) —I too hope that Australia does not make the same mistakes as other countries have made, but it looks as though we are going to. The third meeting of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Environment Committee at ministerial level was not attended by our Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, Mr Cohen. It was attended by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Ralph Willis. The meeting was held from 18 to 20 June, and its principal output was a declaration `Environment Resource for the Future'. The report states: The Governments of OECD member countries declared they will: Ensure that environmental considerations are taken fully into account at an early stage in the development and implementation of economic and other policies in such areas as agriculture, industry, energy and transport. They will promote effective integration of these policies, notably by: Identifying complementary objectives; Improving co-ordination between relevant authorities; Improving aids for decision-making; Extending the use of environmental impact assessment and appropriate economic instruments; Increasing public involvement. That was in mid-June. On 16 December 1985 the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, came out with his recommendations on Tasmanian woodchipping. He completely ignored all those fine items I just mentioned about co-ordination, environmental impact assessment and increasing public involvement. He ignored all those issues and instead, on the advice of his local State Australian Labor Party not to rock the boat before an election, gave Robin Gray exactly what he wanted in the Tasmanian woodchip field. Two-thirds of Tasmania is under woodchip concessions. Much of this is in the National Estate. It was a major issue and the Federal Government had the opportunity at the time- Senator Walters —Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Would you inform Senator Sanders that there is another paper on which he would accurately be able to talk about the woodchip industry? However, talking about this industry under the OECD report is I think very far fetched. I ask him to come back to the report before us. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —We are discussing a paper relating to the environment. While Senator Sanders is straying a little, I think he is within the subject of the paper before the Chair. Senator SANDERS —Since Australia did endorse the environmental views of the OECD and in fact was part of the decision-making process and mentioned the use of environmental impact assessment, I would like to discuss that whole process. The environmental impact assessment in the woodchip case was done by the forest industry itself and by the Forestry Commission, which in fact has as its job the promotion of the forest industry. Therefore, the environmental impact statement was nothing really but a justification for the woodchip industry. What has happened at Farmhouse Creek is a direct result of the failure of the Federal Government to take its OECD pledge seriously. If the Federal Government had lived up to its commitment made at the conference we would not have seen the confrontation or the difficulties there. What has happened is that the citizens involved in Tasmania were forced to take action since the Government would not act. This is the sad case where the people, the citizens, have to protect themselves from their own elected officials. I hope the Federal Government will take notice of its pledge given at the OECD Environment Committee meeting and that in future in the case of woodchipping at Eden and in Western Australia and any future woodchipping in Victoria, it will honour its pledge to examine the full economic and environmental impact of these activities. I hope it will ensure that both the environmental and economic resources of this country are wisely used. There is great hope in this document if the Federal Government takes it seriously. I trust that it will in the future. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(3.15) —I would like to make some comments on the report by the Australian delegation to the third meeting of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Environment Committee at ministerial level, which I think is very valuable. Following on what Senator Puplick said, it is true that it is time some international policies were formulated in order to protect the environment, in particular in respect of acid rain, about which we have been made aware over a number of years now. About four years ago I attended a science policy conference organised by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in Ottawa in Canada, where I raised the question of air pollution and acid rain. Of course, as Senator Puplick correctly pointed out, problems are being experienced in Canada because the prevailing winds carry the pollution, which is largely from coal-fired power stations but I guess also to a considerable extent from motor vehicles, over the Great Lakes. The result is that fish and forests in the neighbourhood are dying, and even birds are being affected. During a visit to Europe a year or so ago I made some inquiries about the problem of acid rain because I understand that in parts of Germany something like 80 per cent of the forests are dying. This largely results from the prevailing winds carrying the pollution from the United Kingdom, again due mainly to the proliferation of pollution from coal-fired power stations. At a conference in Munich, I think a year ago, the European Community decided that attempts should be made over the next decade or so to reduce the pollution from coal-fired power stations by 30 per cent. Inquiries in London about the problem and what is being done about it indicated that it would cost in the order of #150m for each power station to be improved with respect to scrubbing techniques. That is a fairly significant expense but, nevertheless, one that ought to be examined very carefully in the future. When I was in Germany I noticed a tremendous interest environmentally in the expansion of nuclear power facilities, and I was able to visit two nuclear installations out of Frankfurt. One station had an output of 1,275 megawatts and the other an output of 1,325 megawatts, I think. They drew water for cooling purposes from the River Rhine. I was impressed with comments that, due to the aeration of the water from the Rhine during the cooling process through the power stations, the water was able to be returned to the Rhine in a much purer state than when it was removed. That has had the environmental effect of bringing back the fish life. I believe that people in that part of Germany would like to see several more nuclear power stations introduced because they have tremendous environmental benefits and also because they would create no problems with acid rain. I think that is a very important aspect of this report. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(3.20) —The report by the Australian delegation to the Third Meeting of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Environmental Committee at Ministerial Level is an excellent report. As Senator Puplick has said, it recognises that the management and maintenance of the environment is needed to protect not only the quality of life of the community but also its health and property. As has been pointed out by Senator Jessop and others who have spoken in this part of the proceedings, acid rain has the capacity to destroy not only health but also property. Pollution, for example, has the capacity not only to spoil the fragrance of the atmosphere but also to make it injurious to health. The harvesting of trees has the potential not only to impair a delightful panorama but also to reduce the purity of the air. The dirtying of rivers not only makes for a less pleasant aspect but also destroys fish and other life. There is a great problem in this. Senator Sanders has mentioned Tasmania and perhaps that problem is much illustrated by what is happening there now. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), who represented Australia so well at the Conference, had something to say that is worth repeating. Part of it has already been quoted, but perhaps it is important to quote what he had to say about the dilemma of protecting the environment in a situation where economic activity is not only desired but seen as necessary. He said that it is important to consider what impact the environment has on the economic situation, particularly when the economy is going badly. He said: If governments are faced with a situation where economic growth is very difficult to achieve, where employment growth is very difficult to achieve, where there is high and growing levels of unemployment and a prospect comes along which offers jobs but at the cost of environment degradation, then that poses a very difficult choice for governments. That is always a difficult choice-it becomes a much more difficult choice in a situation of a sluggish or a no-growth, high-unemployment and growing unemployment economy . . . To some extent that is the situation in Tasmania now. It is an emotional issue-and so it should be. Although the economic consideration is a powerful one to take into account, the environment should also be considered. It is one that often times takes second place because the immediate gain, unfortunately, is what is often seen as the desirable one, whereas the longer term benefits that can be gained through maintaining the environment are often overlooked. It is a matter of balance, as all political questions are, but the disaster that can be brought about by overlooking the real demands that the need to maintain a proper environment make upon us is a proper and indeed an essential thing to keep in mind. Senator Jessop has spoken about the benefits brought about by the building of atomic power stations. Again, against the benefits he puts forward must be considered the waste that is produced by such power stations. The atomic wastes are very difficult to get rid of and in turn create a problem for the environment, a problem of pollution. There is also the consideration of the leak of radioactive material on Long Island. These are the sorts of things that governments, and indeed the community as a whole, has continually to keep in mind when balancing the potential economic benefits against the essential demands of environmental purity and environmental well-being which in the end are necessary to maintain a proper, happy and healthy community. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(3.25) —I had intended to speak on what is happening with the Farmhouse Creek situation in debate on a later paper, but I think it is appropriate that I follow Senator Sanders because much of what he said needs to be explained. The Farmhouse Creek area is a dedicated production forest area, not a wilderness area. It is over seven and a half kilometres away from the South West National Park. Senator Sanders —I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. I was discussing the Third Meeting of the OECD Environment Committee at Ministerial Level. I was relating my remarks specifically to environmental impact assessment and appropriate economic instruments as outlined in the report. Senator Walters has not mentioned the report once in her presentation. I suggest that the paper be discussed and her personal opinions about Farmhouse Creek be reserved for perhaps the adjournment debate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —There is no point of order at the moment. Senator Walters is just giving her introductory statement. I ask you, Senator Walters to observe the title of Paper No. 1 and to relate your statements to that. Senator WALTERS —Indeed, Senator Sanders was referring to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report and the Minister's response to it. I am just trying to correct his allegation that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) has any influence in the South West Park; therefore, his statements, comments and his agreement with the OECD really have nothing to do with the Farmhouse Creek area. The Farmhouse Creek area is not a wilderness area, much as Senator Sanders tries valiantly to put it forward as that. It belongs to the National Estate. It is an area that has been set aside for forestry since the early 1920s. Indeed, the road that has been constructed and is causing so much of the problem that Senator Sanders spoke about is a road that has been planned since amendments to the Forestry Act of 1983. It is important when we are looking at whether the Minister should make any comment about the Farmhouse Creek area in regard to the OECD that we recognise what the Australian Democrats and what the conservationists are attempting to do. They are attempting to paint the whole of the South West area as a wilderness area. As I have already indicated, the National Estate is not a wilderness area. Most of it has already been logged; most of it is coming up for its second logging. Senator Sanders —That is not true. Have you been there? Senator WALTERS —It is quite incredible to me that the troglodyte over there, who lives in a cave and never bothers to come out of it, will never understand the needs of the 200-odd men whose working lives depend on this forestry. It is quite absurd to expect the honourable member, who is in a well-paid job, to understand what this means to those men. Dr Brown, a member of the Tasmanian Parliament, placed himself under the moving wheels of an excavator. The fact that the men dragged him out and removed him from that dangerous position needs applauding, not condemnation by the Australian Democrats. I suppose the Democrats would prefer the wheels to have kept moving and crushed Dr Brown. Bruce Montgomery, who is a reporter with the Australian, said that he did not see any punches thrown at all in his period down there, but claims had been made a little later. Dr Brown and his cohorts have no right to be standing in front of or climbing under the equipment of men going about their lawful work. It is time that this minority group of radicals understood the legal situation, understood that they cannot interfere with men's jobs, and got out of the area altogether. The State Government is organising legislation along those lines, and I sincerely hope it will be implemented very soon. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.30) —I will be only two minutes, to allow Senator Jones time to speak. I wish to take up one question raised by Senator Sanders, that is, the decision by Mr Kerin was taken as a result of pressure put on him by the State branch of the Australian Labor Party. Firstly, as far as Mr Cohen was concerned-Senator Sanders will appreciate this-I understand that he was unable to go to that meeting because of illness. Senator Puplick —He was in hospital. Senator HARRADINE —He was in hospital, so he was represented by Mr Willis. Senator Sanders is blaming the Tasmanian branch of the Labor Party for the Kerin decision. I do not think he should blame the Labor Party in Tasmania too much because the Labor Party's decision in Tasmania to give Senator Sanders second preference on its group voting ticket is the reason that he is in the chamber at the moment. Many of those workers in the woodchip industry put a No. 1 vote in the box on the Senate voting paper for the Labor Party. When they did that they did not know that they were electing Senator Sanders, but they were. That is how undemocratic the group system of Senate voting is, and I think they should understand that. Senator JONES(Queensland)(3.32) —I wish to make a couple of comments on the report of the Third Meeting of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Environment Committee at Ministerial Level. In relation to the point made by Senator Sanders, Ralph Willis represented the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) at that meeting and I think he ably represented Australia's point of view and the Minister's point of view. The Minister was ill at the time and Ralph Willis represented him. As well as Ralph Willis representing Australia at that meeting, Mr Pat Galvin, the Secretary to Mr Cohen's Department, plus a number of other leading members of the Australian Parliament and members of the Australian conservation groups attended. The conference was held to discuss the problem of environmental considerations in relation to economic development. Mr Willis provided a very true and accurate point of view on behalf of Australia on economic development in relation to environmental management. I do not intend to go through the report, because I do not have time, but the overview of the report states: Ensure that environmental considerations are taken fully into account at an early stage in the development and implementation of economic and other policies in such areas as agriculture, industry, energy and transport. One of the points made in that overview, on which some emphasis is put, is increased public involvement. If one looks at what happened at Lindeman Island in Queensland and the environmental development there, one would have to say that there had been no public debate and no opportunity for people to say anything in relation to the national park in that area. Firstly, an offer was given to East-West Airlines Ltd and we found that there was no tender, no public debate and a State national park was to be handed away. Someone said to me earlier this afternoon that East-West has pulled out of the deal; I am not sure whether that is correct. If one takes note of the report, it is clear that it is the Australian view that there should be public discussion in relation to environmental and economic development in international areas as well as national areas. That means that we should have those sorts of public debates to discuss economic matters; not just to go ahead and allow Lindeman Island to be given to someone with no tender. There needs to be a public debate so that some consideration can be given to the environment on that island, what is intended to happen in relation to the development and what damage it will do to the State national park in that area. On this occasion no opportunity was given to the Parliament or to the people of Queensland to have the type of debate that was suggested in the report that was brought down after the discussion at ministerial level of the OECD. That point of view was put forward by a Minister who represented Australia and that Minister said quite clearly that there should be an increase in public involvement and public debate. Of course, that did not happen in the case of Lindeman Island in Queensland. I only hope that East-West Airlines has pulled out of the decision to go ahead with the development on the Island, as I was so informed just prior to this debate taking place. It needs to be pointed out also that, of the major points discussed at that conference, one of the most important points was improved arrangements for public information and participation in environmental decision-making. Lindeman Island was one of those typical examples where no opportunity was made available for that public debate to take place to allow for a reasonable decision to be taken on an economic and environmental management basis. Question resolved in the affirmative. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —The time allotted for the consideration of Government papers has expired. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed from 20 February, on motion by Senator Maguire: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(3.38) —The Joint Committee of Public Accounts investigation of HMAS Tobruk, report No. 223, indicated that there were serious deficiencies with the Department of Defence, particularly in relation to project management. We believed that these deficiencies required a more thorough investigation. Together with the Auditor-General's report of September 1983, which also highlighted unsatisfactory findings on a significant number of major defence projects, there appeared to be sufficient grounds for a major inquiry. The Committee therefore considered that it was necessary to examine the totality of activities associated with the acquisition of major defence equipment, even down to specific brands of equipment and also to examine in detail 16 individual projects in order to review the efficiency and effectiveness of defence project management systems. Unfortunately, it is with regrettable concern that we have to report the Committee's findings that of the 16 projects examined 11 may fail to be completed in time, to budget or to technical requirements. In three projects, the United States built frigates, the F111A attrition aircraft replacement and the Rapier, the major equipment items entered service requiring major modifications or the resolution of significant technical problems. I could go on for perhaps 10 minutes itemising the glaring deficiencies in our defence equipment. It is nothing short of disgraceful. In fact, the Committee made 68 recommendations with the object of improving effectiveness, efficiency and accountability of defence project management. I am pleased to note that the Government has already accepted a great number of these recommendations. I believe that the report is a further reflection of the malaise within the defence forces and I think gives rise to a growing concern within the community about Australia's ability to defend itself even from minor attack. I find it also of considerable concern that this country is becoming far too locked in to dependence on the technology of a particular power. I think this could lead to an embarrassing situation if and when the interests of that country were at variance with our own. I am also reminded of instances during the Vietnam war when Australian forces were without adequate spares or ammunition because France and Sweden espoused different views and philosophies from our own at that time. Too great a proportion of our defence procurement comes from overseas. Surely it is time we started to develop our own technology instead of shipping it in from foreign powers. Investigations have also revealed a lack of adequate technical training on board ships. Recent examples show that there is an inadequate number or even a lack of maintenance manuals carried on board ships, particularly when they are at sea. More often than not there is not even adequate knowledge amongst the trained personnel to contend with practical problems or difficulties. It is unfortunate that Australia lost four seamen in recent years because of the discharge of lethal gases. Three of these seamen were on board the Stalwart and Kenneth Dax was on the Tobruk. I believe a greater knowledge of the equipment and its problems and better training in the use of technology could stop more lives being lost in the future. Decision-making within the Department, I believe, leaves a lot to be desired. Costly modifications have had to be made to imported equipment, some of which should have been incorporated during the construction. Take, for example, the case of the FFG frigate. It is appalling that the US Navy knew in September 1976 that modifications would have to be made to accommodate the Sikorsky Seahawk helicopter. Yet the Royal Australian Navy did not analyse the economic feasibility of incorporating the modifications during the construction of any FFGs prior to 1979. Furthermore, it did not see the necessity for the modifications being made to US FFGs even though plans and specifications were received by the RAN late in 1979. As a result, decisions recently made to incorporate these necessary modifications, post-delivery will cost an estimated $51m. The Committee found it hard to accept that there should have been such a costly delay in incorporating these modifications. I commend the report to the Senate. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(3.44) —I rise to speak to the report by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts on defence procurement. We are worse off in this country in relation to defence than we were in September 1939. One has only to look at officer resignations, which are now running at a record level, and look at the total state of disarray of the reserves, particularly the Army Reserve, where the numbers are down because people have left in their droves. The Reserve has no role at all despite a general nebulous concept that it be integrated with the Army. We have some good equipment coming on line, but we have nowhere near enough and it does not cover a wide enough range of equipment. We have no ready reaction capability. The best we can do is to put a company group somewhere close by with seven days notification. That company group would be armed with packs and rifles, entirely devoid of transport, reconnaissance capability or any anti-armour capability. It is absolutely meaningless from a defence point of view. This has partly come about because of the policy of continental defence that the Australian Labor Party follows. It believes that Australia only needs to be defended against attacks against the mainland and, therefore, we have no capacity to preserve the peace and stability of our region, which really is the key to our security. We should be able to put forces, whether they are land, sea or air, into the regions of the Association of South East Asian Nations if they are under attack, to support them. Of course, this all comes from the no threat doctrine which the Labor Party loves. It is not so many years ago under another Labor Government that we had talk of no threat for 15 years. While the present Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) does not go around saying that, implicit in everything that the Department does and every statement from this Government in relation to defence is the no threat doctrine. I will be very surprised if when the report of Mr Dibb comes out we do not find that the no threat doctrine is enshrined once more in holy writ. In recent times as evidence of this inability to defend Australia we have had the release of the Newcastle-Geelong line. The Labor Party is prepared to give up everything north of the line from Newcastle to Geelong. That is how seriously it takes this problem of defence. It is reminiscent of the Brisbane line of an earlier Labor Government in 1942. As Senator Sir John Carrick drew to my attention at lunch-time, that fits in very well with Prime Minister Curtin's statement which was recorded in Hansard only eight months before the start of World War II that there was no threat facing Australia at all. It is a pity he did not tell those servicemen who went out and died defending the country through the ensuing five years. I think the report of the Public Accounts Committee is an excellent report. There are detailed points with which I disagree. I think the Committee could have taken a slightly broader view, but overall it is an excellent report and it draws graphically to the attention of the public the deficiencies in the way we buy equipment in this country. I think it is a reflection on the incompetence of the Government that a committee of the Parliament had to find this out. After three years of Labor government, we have seen a decline in the management of the procurement of defence equipment. Minister Beazley and the Cabinet have sat there while this situation has deteriorated all around them. It has been due to the hard work of Senator Georges and other people with high ideals in the Labor Party, Liberal Party and National Party that this report has been made. It is important that we get value for our money. At present we are spending 25.9 per cent of a very meagre defence vote on capital equipment. If we go back only a couple of years to 1982-83, the percentage of the vote was 17.4 per cent. Because we have gone up to 25.9 per cent of a meagre budget-I make no secret, as I have said on previous occasions here, that we should be spending twice as much on defence as we do-it becomes even more crucial that we get value for that money. Because we are spending so much on capital equipment, we have got cuts in the numbers of service personnel and in operational training. This report deals with the sorry history of acquisitions of equipment in the immediate past. It is not true to say that all is gloom. There have been some very successful projects managed by the Department of Defence, but regrettably they have been outstripped by the great number of unsuccessful ones. The classic successful one, of course, was the submarine weapons update program performed by Vickers Cockatoo Dockyard Pty Ltd on the Oberon boats where we went into an entirely new field of weapons sensors for the submarines. This was developed in Australia and was completed on time and on budget. I think the way the acquisition program of the F18 was managed was very successful. On a different plane, the Army project Raven-the concept of which worked up a new specification for radios-was something that was done within Australia and was done very successfully. The disasters that have taken place are legion. Regrettably most of them are related to the Navy. On Fremantle class ships, the tenders called for a design which had been proven in service. We bought a boat that had never been built. It turned out to be 25 tonnes overweight. As the incident with HMAS Wollongong demonstrated some months ago, it was a design which simply lacks hull integrity. If that ship had not stuck fast on the rocks it would have sunk. This is an inadequate design feature in the Fremantle class. The bulkheads will not withstand the water pressure; they are not watertight and they are not airtight. Piping and ventilation runs go through them. This is a warship; it is not a yacht. It does not have the required hull integrity. The question that can be asked by this Committee and this Parliament is: Why was that design ever accepted? The Committee deals at great length with HMAS Success, which is a very ironical name for one of the great programs of mismanagement by the Department. This Parliament was told that the ship would be built to a fixed price contract of $68m and it ended up costing pretty close to $200m. It is fair to say that it is a rather botched up design. While it will fulfil its role, it will not fulfil it in the way which was intended. The report also deals with the purchase of the new small arms for the Australian Army. I would like to make two points about this. The Army has decided to move from the FN/SLR rifle with a calibre of 7.62 mm to a calibre of 5.56 mm, which in imperial terms is .22 of an inch calibre. I think a very good argument can be made for retaining the heavier calibre because a weapon that is to be used in Australian conditions, and in most of the conditions in which we would be operating, is needed to engage targets at a considerably longer range than the close contact jungle patrolling for which the lighter calibre weapons are suited. Setting that aside, we come to the selection of the weapon. The weapon that was chosen was not an Australian design. The Australian designs that were submitted to the selection committee of the Department of Defence were not accepted. I think it is absolutely unconscionable that a simple weapon like a rifle, the basic infantry weapon, cannot be developed in Australia. If we cannot build our own small arms we should get right out of defence production and trying to support our own forces. It is an elementary thing. It is something we could do 50 years ago or earlier. The reason it was not accepted was purely that the Services or the Department of Defence wanted to buy overseas. I think that is a criminal mistake. We are talking about an initial order of about $180 to $200m, and over the years it will cost four or five times that amount. It is something we can do and it is something we should have done. There is no hurry for weapons. If we had an emergency we can buy weapons anywhere in the world to fill this role. In regard to the weapon itself, not only did the Department not buy an Australian-made weapon, it bought a weapon which is not much good. I think the best weapon in that field is the Israeli Galil, but it was not considered as a runner because the Israelis put too many conditions on it. Had the Defence Department gone back to the Israelis I think they would have relaxed a bit. Let us look at the AUG Steyr we bought. It is a very good looking weapon, a real space-age weapon, but it is not good to use. I had the opportunity to fire the weapon last week, with some members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. The weapon simply has no balance. It is a weapon that will be used for instinctive shooting, for snap shooting in close patrolling. With a weapon that has no balance, you cannot get anywhere. More importantly, it turns out that this weapon has a major technical problem. The propellant charge has to be modified considerably so that the automatic feed mechanism will work. Why are we spending $180m on a contract for something we must fix to start with? We are going down the path of HMAS Success, HMAS Tobruk, the patrol boats and the submarine program, buying something we know is not adequate and in which we must invest money to make it work. We will get something that works in a compromised way when it is finished. That is what this report is all about. I support it wholeheartedly. As I said before, there are some details with which I differ, but it has done a very important service to the Australian community. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 19 February, on motion by Senator Zakharov: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(3.54) —I began my remarks on the last occasion by pointing out that the Standing Committee on National Resources recommended that the Australian Government continue to support the Antarctic Treaty. It also recommends that Australia encourage the adoption of the Antarctic Treaty system to meet changing circumstances such as the increasing emphasis on environmental protection. I began to read an account from that peculiar little publication, the Hobart Mercury, of a British scientist who had been quite critical of the environmental conditions surrounding the Australian bases in the Antarctic. This scientist was Dr Ron Lewis-Smith who, according to the article, cites the neglect as evidence that Australia is not abiding by the Antarctic Treaty and is more concerned with securing its territorial claims with `grandiose' station developments than with scientific research. The article continued: He notes that Australia is doing little science at Casey (only one scientist will spend the 1986 winter there) and no program has been considered which would justify the major rebuilding program-and its attendant environmental desecration-going on there. He mentioned a number of horrifying situations in the Antarctic in terms of the rubbish being dumped around the bases. He referred to the conditions at the abandoned Wilkes station, which is two kilometres away from the old Casey station. He stated: . . . and at the new Casey construction site, the ugly debris of Australia's presence is plainly visible everywhere. . . . Tinned and bottled food, machine parts, buildings, chemicals-including more than 200 boxes of tinned caustic soda spilling their contents on the snow-metal drums, flares and explosives are scattered over at least a square kilometre. The article continued: There was no more joy at Casey. `It was disappointingly obvious to me within half an hour of stepping ashore that the environmental impact situation at Casey had got seriously out of hand . . . `As the summer progressed and the winter snow cover gradually disappeared, appalling amounts of rubbish, litter and other station waste-products were revealed.' Referring to Dr Lewis-Smith, the article went on: He, in common with other observers who visited the station recently, was aghast at Casey's rubbish tip, which he says is the worst he has seen at any station in nine visits to Antarctica. The tip is a shameful 2,000 square metres in area and up to two metres deep-shameful because official Australian policy is to aim for `zero impact' on the pristine Antarctic environment. Station rubbish is collected in an open trailer and dumped there twice daily, irrespective of wind force and with no separation of non-combustible, toxic and hazardous materials. It is doused with petrol and ignited. The article goes on and on. I think it is time the Antarctic Division lived up to the terms of the Antarctic Treaty. Senator Watson —Send a ship down and bring it back. Senator SANDERS —They did send a ship down there. The whole shipping program for this summer needs to be looked at in detail. We have endangered the lives of people in the Antarctic. There have been some breakdowns in equipment, but I think there have also been breakdowns in the management of the Antarctic program for this summer. The Antarctic Division would do well to take a hard look at its procedures before it risks any more lives. Senator Archer —Tell us how they have broken down. Senator SANDERS —The ships have broken down due to mechanical difficulties. Senator Archer —No, the organisation. Senator SANDERS —The organisation broke down because of lack of good planning. Page 29 of the report states: A difficulty encountered by the Committee in its consideration of these matters is the lack of a clear policy statement by successive governments on Australia's purpose in Antarctica. The Committee believes there is an urgent need for Australia to re-examine the purpose and objectives of its presence in Antarctica. That is exactly what the newspaper article was referring to. Are we there for science? Are we there to ensure our slice of the mineral pie? Are we there to protect the environment? It looks as though Australia is really more interested in making sure that when the goodies are handed out it is not left behind the door. Australia is remiss in a number of areas in terms of its treaty obligations and its ratification of treaties. Page 45 of the report states: A number of countries have announced their intentions of harvesting the crabeater seal but none has commenced. Recognising the vulnerability of seals for commercial exploitation, the Antarctic Treaty parties negotiated the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals. This Convention was signed by Australia in 1972 and came into effect in 1978 but Australia has yet to ratify it. Senator Puplick —Which one? Senator SANDERS —This is to protect the crabeater seal. It has not been ratified. Australia could do this quite easily, but it has not taken action in this area. The Committee actually recommends that Australia ratify the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals without delay. Senator Puplick —That one was ratified by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) legislation at the end of last year. Senator SANDERS —I can only go on what the report of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources states. Another interesting point is made under the heading `Status as non-militarised and nuclear-free zone' on page 64 of the Committee's report. The report states: Antarctica's status as a non-militarised and nuclear-free zone derives from the Antarctic Treaty which inter alia prohibits all measures of a military nature, such as the establishment of military bases and holding military manoeuvres; and bans nuclear explosions and the disposal of nuclear waste. Interestingly enough, I have a letter to the editor of the Pacific Defence Reporter headed `Warm message from chill Antarctic'. The letter states: Greetings from the South Pole. Since you and your organization are enthusiastic supporters of the Navy, I am sending you this letter from Antarctica to remind you, firstly, that 1986 is your Navy's 75th anniversary year and, secondly, of the distant and sometimes remote places in which your Navy is often found in its service to Australia. This is signed by Rear-Admiral N. Ralph, Deputy Chief of Naval Staff, a military person at the South Pole. One wonders, since Antarctica does have a status as a non-militarised zone, what this naval officer was doing at the South Pole. If any honourable senators here can answer that question, I would be glad for them to do so. Let us talk about wilderness. I would like to talk about the Tasmanian wilderness, but I will confine my remarks to the wilderness of the Australian Antarctic Territory and Antarctica in general. It is the last great wilderness area. Except where the bases have despoiled the environment with trash, runways and construction, Antarctica remains a wilderness. It is a prime wilderness area and deserves protection as such. One of the dangers which may arise as a result of Australia's actions is the proposed air transport system. The Committee mentions on page 78 of the report that a number of people who testified before the Committee were concerned about the possible environmental impact of an air transport system, particularly an airfield in the Vestfold Hills near Davis. Dr Johnstone, who testified before the Committee, believes that the Vestfold Hills, which he described as `the finest example in all Antarctica of a coastal oasis', would be drastically modified by the construction of the Davis airfield. Mr Harry Burton, an excellent gentleman from whom I once bought a motorcycle, stated that he was particularly concerned that airport site investigations have been taking place at Davis without any environmental protection measures having been established. He is an experienced Antarctic hand and has great concern about the status of the area in terms of its potential as an air base. Many environmental groups appeared before the Committee and all expressed their concern that the Antarctic be preserved for future generations. However, the Government completely fails to recognise their concern. In fact, it fails to have any particular concern for the environment itself, as shown by the environmental conditions around the bases and also by its lack of any action to back expeditions such as the Greenpeace expedition. It is interesting to note that the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) scathed the Greenpeace people for going to Antarctica, saying that they would get into trouble; but they went down and came out with no trouble at all while the Antarctic Division ships themselves had a lot of trouble. The final recommendation of the Committee is as follows: . . . That Australia propose to the Antarctic Treaty nations that a Conservation Convention for Antarctica be adopted which would strengthen existing environmental measures but permit resource exploitation under stringent environmental controls. I feel that that is fine but that the section which says `but permit resource exploitation under stringent environmental controls' should be struck out. We should simply adopt a policy which will save the Antarctic continent, without exploitation of any kind, for all future generations to enjoy. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(4.04) —The report of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources recommends a re-examination of Australia's policy towards Antarctica. It endorses the current policy of maintaining Australia's claim to sovereignty over the Australian Antarctic Territory, which represents 60 per cent of the Antarctic land mass by area or 42 per cent of the region by angle. It endorses Australia's continued support of the Antarctic Treaty, which has maintained stability and peace in the region for 25 years. It also endorses Australia's scientific endeavour in the Antarctic and its primary importance to decision making on Antarctic policy. It recommends that Australia reconsider its Antarctic policy with respect to its desire to recoup the costs of its Antarctic program by exploiting the living and non-living resources of the Antarctic. Science and conservation go hand in hand. The Antarctic environment is immensely fragile. There is no natural way in which rubbish can decay, oil spills can be absorbed or dust can be reincorporated in the earth. Senator Sanders has dealt very adequately with this aspect of our presence in Antarctica. I am pleased to see that the Antarctic Division of the Department of Science is talking about a clean-up program over five years in which it is going to cart rubbish back from Antarctica. Mining in the Antarctic would cause irreversible damage and a valuable natural wilderness and scientific laboratory which is extremely important to our long term survival on earth could be destroyed. Because of the difficult environment for man, scientific research proceeds very slowly in Antarctica. Data on both living and non-living resources is being obtained only slowly, and at a very high cost both to the individual scientists themselves and to the nations sponsoring them. It is essential, however, that adequate research be done on the natural resources in this area so that we can understand what the effects of over- exploitation can be on the continent. Currently, overexploitation is happening without research being carried out. Fishing has been practised in Antarctica for many years. The resulting disasters so far include near-extermination of several whale species, the fishing out of whole areas of fin fish around South Georgia Island and a devastating effect on the krill population of this area which is making it very difficult for the whale population to re-grow. The Russians continue to fish for fin fish in the Antarctic but refuse to provide data on their catch. It is important that enough pressure be put on the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to record its fish catches so that a watch can be kept on possible further depletion of this particular resource which may be extremely important to the future of mankind. Krill-those tiny prawn-like creatures which appear to be the primary food source of all the larger animals and birds in this area-are being harvested by Japan and the USSR. No statistics are being kept on this. Already evidence is mounting that this, as yet, `experimental' harvesting of krill may be seriously depleting the area. We do not know anything at all about the life cycle of krill that can tell us exactly-- Senator Puplick —What absolute nonsense. Senator VIGOR —Maybe the honourable senator does know, but I would be quite surprised. If he does I hope that he will be contributing to the debate. The length of its life cycle has definitely been underestimated and that is why the populations are being depleted. The basic message that I am trying to get across is that more research is needed. Research is also proceeding into the mineral resources of the Antarctic. Mining could cause irreparable damage to some areas of the Antarctic. We have to try to get adequate funds for research. In Australia most of our funds are being spent on getting an infrastructure-on building up bases which are comfortable for scientists to live in rather than on research. Less than 20 per cent of the money that is being spent in Antarctica is being spent on research per se. The rest is spent just on providing infrastructure. Australian scientists who have been carrying out research in the Antarctic for years are withdrawing from their programs. This year, for the first time, the Mawson Institute based in Adelaide has no researchers in the Antarctic and funding for this Institute of world renown is so inadequate that the University of Adelaide is considering closing it down when Dr Jacka, the current Director, retires in several years time. Research in the Antarctic requires such special support that the level of funding must be increased. We must look at the priorities and make certain that the spending is reasonable. The support problems in the area are problems of transport, accommodation and planning, and Senator Sanders has told us something about the breakdown in planning. Senator Crichton-Browne —What breakdown? Senator VIGOR —We have sent ships out there without adequate weather information and they have got caught in the ice. Transport from Australia to the Antarctic until this year has depended on the availability of charter ships like the Nella Dan. This year it was stuck in the ice, as were a number of other ships. Senator Crichton-Browne —We need some airstrips down there. That is the problem. Senator VIGOR —Coming to airstrips, I point out that even the Antarctic Division does not believe that, and I have talked to them recently. In fact the alternative of air transport to Antarctic bases has been investigated by the Antarctic Division, an environmental impact study was started, but it has been dropped because a cost-benefit study found that the cost and the times to transport people and goods by air are non-viable. The reason is the weather at the bases: The time required for getting air transport into the bases is longer than the time required for actually getting the ships in because there are so many days of the week in which it is impossible to fly safely. The Antarctic Division has assured me that no airstrips are planned to be built in the Antarctic by Australia in the foreseeable future. That decision has been taken as the result of a proper cost benefit study. I hope that the Australians will make available to the French their cost-benefit studies so that the airstrip at Dumont d'Urville, which is causing immeasurable ecological damage to that area, will actually be stopped. The French have to realise that the cost of their airstrip is just not worth it, especially if the Australians offered some other local support to them in return for their not continuing with it. Rebuilding of the three Australian bases is proceeding as fast as delays in transport and the short Antarctic summer permit. Funds for the Antarctic program apparently have increased considerably over the last couple of years, but most of this increase has been put into the rebuilding program. Because of the limited transport available, we are really wasting a lot of resources and it may well be worth accelerating the program in order that we can actually get on with some of the real research. The Division is also spending $1m per base on rubbish compactors, which I am sure Senator Sanders will be interested in, and they plan to use earth moving gear to take out the existing rubbish, the extent of which has been described by Senator Sanders. The problems of recovering garbage are very important. Australia has decided to containerise all the materials being sent to Antarctica so that the containers can be used for returning the rubbish. I commend the Division for that. I think that is an extremely important aspect of its work. We have to think about a maintainable ecosystem. Fuel requirements are currently planned to be minimised by wind energy research, which fits in with our Party's policy. A housing system is being developed with a view to its export potential for people at other bases in the area. As the Democrats spokesman on trade, I commend this. I believe that we have to think about Antarctica, which is our last great wilderness, and do our best to make certain that Australian and other people in the Antarctic do not do irreparable damage to the area. It is extremely important that we continue to support the Antarctic Treaty, which has made the most important contribution to peace in the world because Antarctica is a zone of peace. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(4.14) —Madam Acting Deputy President, before I commence my remarks may I take this opportunity, as this is the first occasion I have been on my feet since you have been back in the chair, to say what a pleasure it is to see you back in that place. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —Thank you. Senator PUPLICK —Secondly, I apologise to Senator Brownhill and my other colleagues who want to get on to the debate about dolphins and cetacea in captivity, but I am prompted to intervene in this debate because it really does get to the stage when one gets absolutely fed up with spokesmen for the Australian Democrats ranting on about such areas as the environment and Antarctic policy without having the faintest idea what they are talking about. Let me give just two examples. Senator Sanders waved his arms about the failure to ratify the Convention for the Protection of Antarctic Seals. I quote from Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 1) 1985, Act No. 65 of 1985, under the heading on page 12 of `Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980': Preamble- Add at the end the following paragraphs: ``AND WHEREAS Australia is a Party to the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals: ``AND WHEREAS it is desirable to make provision for giving effect to that Convention:''. It goes on to change the definition of `animal', to change the definition of `native mammal', to change the definition of `property' and to insert a whole series of new parts into the law. Back in May and June of 1985 we dealt with Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 1) which in fact ratified the treaty which Senator Sanders claimed had not been ratified. Senator Sanders —Take it up with the Committee. In December 1985 the Committee said that it had not been passed yet. Senator PUPLICK —I expect the honourable senator to have the wit and intelligence to do his own research on areas in which he claims to be a spokesman for his Party. As far as the second point is concerned, Senator Vigor complains here about the lack of research into and lack of knowledge of the lifecycle of the Antarctic krill. As my colleague Senator Cooney would know, the amount of research done in Australia into the lifestyle of euphasia superba, as the beast is properly known, is quite extensive. Australian scientists throughout the Antarctic Division, throughout the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and throughout the Australian National and James Cook Universities have studied euphasia superba at some considerable length and the details of the lifecycle of Antarctic krill are well known, as indeed are the controversies of the fishing arrangements and the particular problems which have arisen from the level of krill catches, particularly those undertaken by the Soviet Union. Similarly, Senator Vigor indicated a concern about the mining regime. Had he bothered to study the papers prepared by Mr Beeby, the New Zealand representative who chairs the mining sub-committee which deals with these matters in the Antarctic, he would have known that Australian governments, both this Government and its predecessor, have taken an extremely constructive approach to the development of the required pre-conditional environmental safeguards to be put in place before any minerals regime is established in the Antarctic. Back in May 1981, as I recall, Senator Jessop and I were both delegates on behalf of this Parliament to a meeting of the consultative parties to the Treaty which took place here in Canberra to deal with the conservation of the living marine resources of the Antarctic, and the extent to which the Government, of which we were then members, had established a very lengthy interest in the Antarctic I think needs to be recorded. Senator Vigor complains here that allegedly the Antarctic Division is responsible for the fact that the Nella Dan got trapped in an ice-floe. While one expects Commonwealth departments to have some degree of prescience in these matters, it comes as fairly strange to find that a government department is criticised because a ship a couple of thousand kilometres away in the Antarctic gets trapped in an ice-floe. If one of the United States or Soviet Union's nuclear-powered ice breakers is called upon to rescue an Australian vessel and perhaps to refuel or supply in an Australian port prior to going to the Antarctic to assist in one of these matters, it will be very interesting to see whether the Australian Democrats go through their schizophrenic problem of deciding whether they would rather have the ice broken or the nuclear-powered ship excluded from Australian waters. Presumably, given the way in which they have carried on about these things, they would rather have the Australian vessel trapped in the ice than use the nuclear-powered icebreaker to get it out. Senator Sanders —Isn't it funny? World War III could start and you would laugh about it. You would make a joke about it. Senator PUPLICK —The only chance of World War III starting would be if people were dumb enough to adopt the policy positions of the Australian Democrats. The next point to which I draw attention is the extent to which in essence Senator Vigor has failed properly to convey the representations which have been made by the Australian Government and the Antarctic Division in particular towards the French development of the airstrip at Dumont d'Urville. I think anybody who has paid attention to the representations which have been made as far as the French Government is concerned about its plans at Dumont d'Urville will know that the criticism made by Senator Vigor in that regard was quite unjustified. As somebody who did not want particularly to intervene in this debate, I do, however, believe that it was necessary, quite simply because, if the Australian Democrats are going to deal with a matter as important and as significant as Australia's policy in the Antarctic and are going to criticise both previous governments and the current Government over matters dealing with the Antarctic Treaty and Antarctic policy, they ought at least to do the Senate the courtesy of relying on the facts rather than relying on their imaginations. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(4.22) —Madam Acting Deputy President, may I also say how pleased I am to see you back in the chair. I look forward to working with you for many years. I wish to make a remark or two on the report entitled `The natural resources of the Australian Antarctic Treaty'. I have not had a chance to read it thoroughly, but I look forward to reading it in detail because I have been to the Antarctic and I have visited the South Pole. I have visited several research stations at Casey, the Scott and McMurdo bases and the South Pole itself. I was impressed with the amount of work the scientists were doing at that time in atmospheric physics, in their study of the ozone layer and the possible effect of fluorocarbons on that layer. Cosmic physics was a very important aspect of their studies. Ice core studies were being carried out using carbon dating methods to study the ice core so that scientists can trace the history of the area back to the Industrial Revolution and study the effects of world pollution. Biological studies are being carried out on the food chain, with particular emphasis on krill and its importance to the larger animals there. I was interested to hear Senator Vigor say that he was not in favour of using aircraft to convey scientists to the South Pole. I travelled on a Hercules which was equipped with skis. It is fairly expensive to equip a Hercules with skis. I think it costs something of the order of $2m to $3m. A quite sophisticated hydraulic mechanism needs to be applied. So it is an expensive operation. Having regard to the importance of scientific research in that area and the need to get more scientists down there and the fact, as Senator Vigor pointed out, that the Nella Dan occasionally runs into ice flows that prevent its passage to the Antarctic, it seems to me to be quite sensible that those in the Antarctic Division of the Department of Science should examine further the possibility of using Hercules aircraft. Senator Vigor —They have, and they have rejected the idea. That is where I got my information from. Senator JESSOP —They should re-examine it, I think, because the Americans-- Senator Zakharov —They just have. Senator JESSOP —What conclusion have they come to? Senator Vigor —That it is not viable. Senator JESSOP —They have changed their minds. It seems to me to be very important to get quicker access to the South Pole. I imagine that the Antarctic Division ought to have another look at it. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 29 November 1985, on motion by Senator Georges: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(4.25) —The tabling of the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare report on the keeping of cetacea in captivity marks a watershed for animal welfare in Australia. My decision, therefore, to oppose the Committee and issue a dissenting report was not taken lightly. Having taken that decision, I believe that I have been proven right by the only people who are qualified to comment. I refer to those scientists, marine park operators, zoologists and marine biologists who work in the field of cetacea. I have received telegrams, telexes and letters from organisations and individuals throughout the United States of America, Canada, Europe, the United Kingdom and New Zealand as well as from a variety of academics, researchers and scientists in Australian universities. The letters from organisations in the United States represent hundreds of different groups and involve millions of people. I have received letters from groups such as the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums, the International Union of Directors of Zoological Gardens, representing 38 countries, and the Society of Mammalogists and from universities around the world. Every letter was in support of my arguments. Each one has questioned the lack of scientific data, professional examination and evidence and the validity of conclusions. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard two of these letters as evidence of the strong feelings of the scientific and zoological community. Leave granted. The letters read as follows- THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND Chairman The Earl of Cranbrook ma, Phd Zoological Gardens Regent's Park, London NW1 4RY 01-586 0230 3 March 1986 Prime Minister Hawke Commonwealth Park Canberra EGT2600 Australia Dear Prime Minister The National Federation of Zoological Gardens of Great Britain and Ireland is the only organisation to represent zoological gardens and aquaria in Great Britain and Ireland. We have recently been informed that the Government of Victoria and the Central Senate of Australia are contemplating legislation to prevent the further development of marine parks and the phasing out of existing ones. Our attention has been drawn to the report of the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare as it applies to Dolphins and Whales in Captivity. We have now had the opportunity to read the extremely comprehensive report and as a result feel that the National Federation is in a position to respond in support of other world zoo bodies, who have expressed concern that unsatisfactory legislation may be enacted as a result of the Select Committee's recommendations. The Federation's opinion would be that the scientific evidence provided thus far, is not conclusive enough to warrant all the recommendations of the Select Committee. We believe that it was absolutely correct that such a study be carried out, and indeed in the United Kingdom at the present time, Dr Margaret Klinowska is undertaking a similar study, which has been commissioned by the Department of the Environment. There is no doubt that standards of husbandry need to be set and the scientific and important educational advantages of keeping cetacea in captivity should be given far greater emphasis by any dolphinaria that currently may be failing to do so. The National Federation hopes that the Senate will seek through legislation to improve the keeping of cetacea in captivity by ensuring that the standards of good husbandry which have already been achieved in some Australian collections, be implemented rather than closing down all dolphinaria because some collections are unsatisfactory. In the United Kingdom, the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 has been most effective in imposing standards. We cannot accept the conclusion of the Committee that the benefits of oceanaria are no longer sufficient to justify the adverse affects of capture for captivity. The burden of scientific proof within the report does not appear to have been met. The Committee itself seems slightly ambivalent over this matter as one of its recommendations is that the keeping of cetacea should eventually be phased out unless further research justifies their continuance. The Federation agrees with many of the recommendations relating to husbandry, display, education, research and licensing and agrees with the dissenting recommendations of Senator D Brownhill as set out in the report. Finally, we would wish to reiterate the belief that it is important that any decision relating to marine mammals in captivity, particularly those which are able to make an important educational and scientific contribution, should only be made on the basis of sound scientific evidence. We believe that details of the UK study mentioned above could be made available at an early time, and that this might prove helpful with regard to your own legislation. Yours sincerely R. J. WHEATER Vice-Chairman cc Senator George Georges Senator David Brownhill John Button, Leader of Senate Hon. John Kane, Premier Victoria Joan E. Turner, Minister for Conservation, Land and Flora Rodney Able, Marine World, Victoria AAZPA THE UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE NEW SOUTH WALES, 2308 Department of Biological Sciences Telephone 68 0401 7 February 1986 Senator D. Brownhill, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Senator Brownhill, I would urge you to carefully consider the Report on Dolphins and Whales in captivity of the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare. If the report is accepted in its present form not only could the study of these marine mammals be seriously curtailed but it would, in my view, set a very negative principle for future animal welfare legislation affecting scientific research. It is well accepted by the scientific community that the welfare of research animals is an important ethical consideration. Institutions have responded to recent criticism by establishing codes of practice and committees to oversee that they are applied. In this respect then, I applaud those recommendations of the Committee's report which will bring the management of animals in marine parks under such a code and appropriate supervision. Unfortunately it appears that the Committee has taken the view that even such ethical animal care is objectionable and should eventually be banned. This is of course simply the Animal Liberation Movement view and in this case it appears to be based largely on the supposed high intelligence of whales. Although this is a commonly presented view in television nature programs it has little support from those who actually study brain function and animal intelligence. That our society needs to develop an ethical system for its treatment and use of all living things is virtually a tenet of modern biology, but I am concerned that this ethic has a rational base and is not simply an emotional response supported by pseudo science or conjecture. If we take this route we fall into the trap of creating an ``unethical'' animal welfare system concerned only with the animals we find attractive, or are familiar with, and those that threaten or are ugly are overlooked. The living resources of our country need protection from exploitation and abuse, but to do this will require the knowledge of Australian animals and their environment which is the aim of scientific research. Curtailment of research will ultimately endanger native animals and threaten their welfare. Yours sincerely, John C. Rodger, Ph.D. Lecturer Senator BROWNHILL —I thank the Senate. In summary, my objections relate to three conclusions in the report; namely, recommendations 8.8, 8.9 and 8.10. My objections are based on two arguments-firstly, the emotional approach which has coloured the issue and, secondly, the lack of scientific evidence. On the question of emotive language, I cite three examples. The report contains such comments as: . . . a new ethic was emerging . . . aimed at shifting the perspective . . . to recognise the moral claims of other species . . . This may be found on page 29. Page 32 contains the following statement: . . . many consider that display of cetacea in a captive setting reinforces the notion that humans are entitled to dominate and exploit animals. . . . Page 85 contains the following statement: . . . oceanaria exploits cetacea primarily for profit and . . . this is morally indefensible . . . I do not believe that type of emotive phasing belongs in a serious Senate document. There is an assumption contained in those statements and throughout the report that somehow it is morally wrong for man to use animals in any way other than in a social, equal relationship. That is absurd. Where does that leave any animal enterprise? Where does that place the livestock industries in Australia or indeed the companion animal industry? There are many people in the animal liberation movement who have philosophies similar to those expressed in the quotes I have just read from the report. However, I do not believe that a Senate committee report should give them further credence. The second ground on which I object is the lack of scientific evidence to support many of the Committee's recommendations. Recommendation 8.7 argues: . . . the committee is of the opinion that evidence points to the probability that cetacea are highly intelligent animals with complex social behaviour. The truth is that there is not sufficient evidence to lead the Committee to that conclusion. The argument of dolphin intelligence and the secondary one, linking it with complex social behaviour, has been refuted by authorities around the world. In Australia both Dr Michael Bryden, from the University of Queensland, and Dr G. Phelps, from Atlantis, Western Australia, have written that there is no relationship between complex social behaviour and intelligence. Their argument is supported by many people working with dolphins and by researchers in universities around the world. Dr Phelps claims that at best scientific evidence and research would indicate that dolphins are on a par with dogs, pigs, seals, and bears. He and Bryden have both written that complex social behaviour is not regarded as a sign of intelligence. Bees and ants have complex social behaviour but they are not noted for their intellect. The second argument used by the Committee to support its claim for intellectual capacity is brain size. The classic rebuttal of that argument is the comparison between the male and female human brains. The male human brain is larger but it was long ago established that it is not superior to the female's. A wide variety of marine biologists, researchers, scientists and academics have objected to the Committee's conclusions. They claim that fundamental misconceptions have led to illogical and unsupportable recommendations. The scientific community is also concerned at the acceptance of scientific evidence from non-scientists. It argues that much misinformation has been reported from people who are discredited among authoritative bodies. An example of this is the evidence that was taken on loss of acoustic ability among captive cetacea. A study of papers on the subject indicates that there is no evidence to suggest that this is true. In Australia work has been conducted at Atlantis, Western Australia, over five years on this subject with no recorded loss being established. Mortality rates and longevity among captive cetacea have also been misreported by the opponents of cetecea in captivity. Claims of high death rates, quoted in the report, are outdated and irrelevant. Modern oceanaria have a high success rate in husbandry of their animals. Again, Atlantis is a leader. In more than five years of operation there have been no deaths. On the other hand, successful breeding in captivity is increasing with calves being born at Marine Land, South Australia, at the Porpoise Pool, Coffs Harbour, and at Warragamba, New South Wales. Claims have been made that little research is done with cetacea in captivity. Again this is wrong. Only recently a young student, Michael Hill, was a finalist in the BHP National Science Prize. His paper examined the bioacoustics of bottlenose dolphins, based on work he had done with dolphins in captivity in Western Australia. Other work has recently been completed by an American post-graduate student at Atlantis on feeding habits and aging patterns. He was unable to finalise his report without using captive cetacea. Recently the Committee Chairman, Senator Georges, was quoted on television as saying that little work has been done on the accidental trapping of dolphins in gill nets. The truth is that substantial work has been done on this subject and is continuing. This work would have been impossible without the availability of captive dolphins. More than 3,000 dolphins are trapped each year in gill nets. Only 50 dolphins are kept in oceanaria. Yet it is these captive dolphins that have attracted the attention of the animal liberationists while thousands of others die accidentally each year as a result of fishing operations. The argument is not in perspective. Perhaps the most obnoxious section of this report lies in the recommendation concerning the future of oceanaria in Australia. Supporters of the report argue that existing oceanaria should be allowed to continue. However, the phrase `for the time being' is included. That statement is economically irresponsible, mischievous and confusing. The innuendo contained in that phrase threatens the economic stability of every oceanarium in Australia. Whether the animal welfare supporter wishes to acknowledge the fact or not, in all animal operations there is an economic consideration. That applies equally to the RSPCA's program for rescuing stray dogs and to dolphins in captivity. Just as economic considerations had to be considered in the live sheep trade, so they must be considered in this context. We are talking about a business in Australia that attracts more than two million people annually. In summary then, this report presents a grave threat to a very healthy thriving business in Australia. It sets a very dangerous precedent for future deliberations of this Committee. That is a pity because there is much in the report that is good. The recommendations concerning improved standards are necessary and would be supported by everyone in the business. Restrictions on imports are also understood. Given the very obvious objections, the Government has no choice but to reject paragraphs 8.8, 8.9 and 8.10 and view very carefully many of the statements contained in the body of the report. I regret having to disagree with my colleagues on this issue, but I consider the Committee's findings far too important and the implications of those findings too far reaching to remain silent. If the Australian Government accepts this report in its entirety, not only has Australia lost the opportunity to become a leader in marine research, but we will also lose the opportunity to have the most modern oceanarium ever built on our shores. Additionally, we would be ridiculed by every responsible marine research institution, and victim for every ratbag animal liberation group that will use this decision to justify its more extreme animal liberation philosophy. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —Before calling Senator Sanders, I make the point that the debate on this part of today's program will conclude at 4.37 p.m., so the honourable senator has exactly two minutes. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(4.35) —Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. I will talk fast. I sat here in amazement while I listened to Senator Brownhill's contribution. Senator Brownhill is a latecomer to the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare-- Senator Brownhill —And so are you. Senator SANDERS —As I was, and we listened to the Committee evidence and also read the evidence. I feel that Senator Brownhill is on the wrong committee. He should be on a business and trade committee or perhaps a committee for the salvation of the dolphinarium. He certainly should not be on the Animal Welfare Committee because he is not thinking of the welfare of animals, but only of the welfare of his friends who run the dolphinaria. He ran around, he got a lot of free trips and free dinners, he went to look at dolphinaria, the operators sold him a line and he swallowed it hook, line and sinker. What he swallowed was the proposition that somehow it benefits the dolphin to be kept in captivity. What a load of rubbish. What rubbish to suggest that a dolphin is safer in a dolphinarium than out in the ocean because of the possibility of being gill netted out in the ocean. If we carried that proposition to its ultimate conclusion we should collect all the dolphins out of the open sea and put them in dolphinaria. I am certain that Senator Brownhill and the dolphinaria operators, of which there would be one in every town in Australia with a population of more than 10,000, would be quite happy about that. But what about the welfare of the dolphins? Senator Brownhill talks about the emotional approach yet he is emotional himself. He says that we are being emotional because we want to save dolphins and then he weeps great crocodile tears because the poor dolphinaria operators are going down the gurgler, so he claims. This is an animal welfare issue; the welfare of the dolphinaria is not at issue. In fact, there is a good case to be made that animals and plants have rights. They have the right to live. Why not? They have rights, just as we claim that we have rights. Animals should have rights too and that is what the Animal Welfare Committee is looking at. We must look at this in all of its aspects. People who claim these rights for plants and animals-and they cannot speak for themselves-should not be labelled as ratbags-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time for the consideration of committee reports has expired. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —For the information of honourable senators I table a report from the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House relating to the proposed construction of car park lighting within the Parliamentary Zone. Senator MISSEN(Victoria) —On behalf of the Committee I present the third report of 1986 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, concerning the Federal Airports Corporations Act 1986, the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Bill 1985, and the Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1985. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 3 dated 12 March 1986. Ordered that the report be printed. Consideration resumed. AUSTRALIAN BILL OF RIGHTS BILL 1985 The CHAIRMAN —The Committee is debating the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. By agreement we are debating each Article separately under clause 8. The Article before the Committee is Article 2, to which Senator Vigor has moved an amendment. The question is: That the words proposed to be left out by Senator Vigor's amendment be left out. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.42) —As I was indicating before lunch, the Government's response to Article 2 of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill is first of all to make the point that it is there for a purpose. That purpose is to indicate clearly that the mere existence of the rights set out in the Bill of Rights does not in any way amount to a diminution of the status of any other rights that may happen to exist independently-whether those other rights exist as a matter of strict law in the form of statutory rights or common law rights or whether, rather, they exist by way of some other claim of right which may not be formally recognised as a matter of law but which, as Senator Vigor points out, might be acknowledged in some international treaty to which Australia is a party and in relation to which obligations have been accepted but where those obligations have not been translated through into domestic law. Basically, what Article 2 says quite clearly and unequivocally in its present form, and it may be justified in being extended to some small extent to make it clear that the other rights that are not being affected by this Bill of Rights are treaty rights and things of that kind which are not, strictly speaking, part of the law, is that the Bill of Rights is not an exhaustive account of those rights which are deserving of recognition and protection. The reason Article 2 is there really is to counter squarely what has been one of the most common and unjustified attacks on the Bill of Rights, namely, that it is some sort of exhaustive account and that, rather than enhancing the condition of human rights in this country, the Bill of Rights would, as a result, in fact diminish them. The argument we have heard all too often that to define rights is somehow to restrict them is and always has been nonsense, but the language of Article 2 puts that claim completely beyond dispute. Just to put it clearly on the record, Article 2 states: A right or freedom existing under, or recognised by, any other law shall not be taken to have been diminished or derogated from by reason only that the right or freedom is not set out in this Bill of Rights. So it is acknowledged, as I began before lunch by saying, that there are plenty of other rights, properly so called, lying around, certainly recognised in law, which it is not the purpose of this Bill of Rights to address. Equally it is not the purpose of this Bill of Rights in any way to restrict the enjoyment of such other rights as might exist. This is very relevant, of course, to the arguments we will no doubt have shortly about the absence of protection in this Bill of Rights of the right to property or certain aspects of the right to education and perhaps a number of other rights that might be claimed to social security and things of that kind. The mere fact that those kinds of rights, for one reason or another, are not set out in this International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and not adopted in this Bill of Rights is not to be taken as signifying any lack of respect or any lack of protection for them. It is just that that respect is manifested and that protection is given in other ways than under this particular document. If one understands what Article 2 is all about, why it is there and how it fits into the scheme of things, the remaining question becomes one of the drafting of Article 2. Here Senator Vigor has expressed all sorts of concerns about that and has urged an alternative formulation, which he says is aimed at the same general conceptual approach but does the job better. I agree that his formulation is in some ways more succinct and punchy, but one of the difficulties about it is that it may in fact have the ultimate result of diminishing the enjoyment of certain rights which deserve to be fully and thoroughly protected. Let me explain how that might work. Senator Vigor's proposition makes it absolutely clear that any other right which may exist around the place continues to exist and be enjoyed irrespective of whether the subject matter of that right is addressed in this Bill of Rights. Rather than being confined, as the present draft of Article 2 is, to rights which are not addressed in this Bill of Rights, Senator Vigor's amendment protects the existence not only of rights which are not addressed in the Bill of Rights but also of rights which are addressed in the Bill of Rights. If we have a right which is not especially well protected under the existing law but is much better protected under the Bill of Rights, and yet the existing right goes on being protected, and the correlative duty associated with that existing right goes on being accepted, then we can have a situation where someone who is making a claim of right under the Bill of Rights will be met with the argument that that right is satisfied by the right which exists in a lesser form in the existing law. That is all very abstract. Let me give a concrete example of what it is all about. Take for example the Judges Rules, so called, at common law for the protection of suspects in criminal cases. Those Judges Rules, as is notorious, go some of the way towards protecting the suspect, but certainly not the distance that is covered in articles 19, 21, 22, 23 and so on of this Bill. I will not stop to track through the detail of that. I think it would be acknowledged that the particular rights in the Bill of Rights here, which are quite specific in this area, go further than, and are more substantial than, the Judges Rules rights. If we have a criminal suspect who is arguing that his rights have not been fully protected and he is met with the argument `Your rights under the Judges Rules have been protected' under Senator Vigor's amendment he is met with the difficulty, coming along to a court reviewing his application for protection, that the court would not be able to say that the Judges Rules have been displaced by the enhanced statement of rights in the Bill of Rights itself. Yet again, as so often in this debate, it is a technical point I am making. I am not denying in any way the endeavour lying behind Senator Vigor's amendment, but the very way in which it is written will have an effect that his draftsman has not anticipated and which would be most unfortunate. Let it be acknowledged that in his contribution to the debate and in subsequent discussion Senator Vigor has made it clear that his primary concern is to ensure that the other rights which go on being recognised are not just rights which are formally recognised as a matter of law, which is the way the Government's Article 2 is drafted at the moment. He is also concerned to ensure, as after all is Article 5.2 of the International Covenant on which all this is based, that other less well entrenched rights, less well protected rights, nonetheless are still recognised. He is talking about customary rights, which are not, under our system, recognised as a matter of law. He is talking about conventions which are not part of our domestic law but which do have a status. He is talking about international conventions, as well as other kinds, which create obligations internationally for us and which certainly create claims of right but which have not yet been translated and which it may be are inappropriate to be translated into domestic law. Some of the rights to education and so on under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights would satisfy that description. What he is asking is whether Article 2 should not be extended in such a way that it acknowledges the existence of those other categories of rights. If Senator Vigor wants to withdraw his previous amendment and cast an amendment in those terms, about which there has been some discussion, I do not think the Government would have any difficulty in agreeing with him. Perhaps that would be a satisfactory solution to this particular issue. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(4.50) —I rise because I understood the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) to say that it is nonsense to say that to define rights is to limit or restrict them. That astonishes me. I would not know how many times I have read judicial and legal statements on exactly this matter. One has only to think about it to realise that if there is nonsense it lies in what the Minister has said. A right is a community understanding in itself, and within a community understanding and within the abstract concept of that community understanding the community in its tolerance allows elastic limits; it allows a tolerance of movements within rights. As soon as one goes to a court and tests the rights, the firm walls of imprisonment of those rights are established. I cannot do more than stress that what we are talking about are not the things that give us freedom if they are written in words for the law to interpret. Rights and freedoms are what a community, by consensus, agrees exist at that time, and they are not imprisoned in any way. I think somebody better than I once said: `We vivisect the nightingale to probe the secret of its voice'. It is a beautiful concept which reveals in itself that when one seeks that mystique of the nightingale's song by looking with a scalpel one in fact takes away the mystique, takes away the beauty, and one is left with something that is not reality. The reality of rights are the abstractions, the values that the community places on those rights. The reality of rights is not their enforcement by law but the tolerance of the elbowroom of the community as they move through. I repeat, if we apply the test here of vivisecting the nightingale in this case those abstract freedoms to probe the secret of its voice will find what the vivisectionist does; that the mystique, the whole of the value has gone, that the laboratory itself, whether it is a legal laboratory or a scientific laboratory, has not the magic that the community and the consensus bring towards it. So I reject that. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(4.53) —As a result of discussions with the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), and of the statement made in Parliament, it seems that my aim would be adequately achieved by extending the context of the word `law' by adding the words `convention and custom' after `any other law'. I seek leave to withdraw my amendment and replace it with another amendment. Leave granted. Senator VIGOR —I move: Page 8, line 22, after `law', insert `, convention or custom'. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.54) —I will read, for the elucidation of everyone, what this Article, if so amended, would state: A right or freedom existing under, or recognised by, any other law, convention or custom shall not be taken to have been diminished or derogated from by reason only that the right or freedom is not set out in this Bill of Rights. Marvellous! As Senator Vigor said, the problem with which he was trying to grapple was simply that there was a whole range of rights, customs and conventions which people regard as very dear, and he was concerned that the Australian Bill of Rights Bill may override. He is dead right. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) knows that including those two words in this Article will mean absolutely nothing. Senator Sir John Carrick has made two very significant contributions on this question, revealing a very deep understanding of what human rights are all about. I believe that what he said should be taken notice of by this Parliament. What the Government and the Minister have done is simply to put the machinery in this legislation-the scalpel, if you like-and not go to the real philosophy of human rights at all. In so doing, the Australian Bill of Rights Bill is unique amongst Bills of this character in the democratic world. I notice that Senator Gareth Evans refers to the Canadian Bill of Rights frequently. No doubt he will refer to the 1982 Canadian decisions for support for Article 3, `permissible limitations', and we will spend a good long time on that. If the Minister is so keen on the Canadian Bill of Rights, will he include the preamble to that Bill so that we all know the philosophical foundation of rights? The Canadian Parliament, in the preamble to its Act for the Recognition and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, states: The Parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian Nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions; Affirming also that men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law; Since the Minister relies so much on the Canadian Bill of Rights, will he have that as a preamble to this Bill? Senator Missen —Is that the Bill of Rights or the previous legislation? Senator HARRADINE —No, this is their Bill of Rights. Does Senator Missen want the previous legislation? Senator Missen —No, I am wondering which it is. Senator HARRADINE —It is the Bill of Rights. Senator Gareth Evans —They got rid of that in 1982. That was in 1959. They regarded that as verbiage by the time they got to 1982. We are only interested in the 1982 version. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Evans is interested in the 1982 one. I am glad to have him on record as saying that. Will he put into this legislation the preamble to the 1982 Constitution Act? He has now been shown it. Does the Minister still say that he would like to have that in this Bill? This is the preamble for that Act: Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law: So the Minister is only interested in the 1982 Constitution Act. He is not interested in the philosophy behind it at all. He is only interested in the scalpels as described by Senator Sir John Carrick. He has divorced these rights from whence they are derived and he and the nation will be in dire trouble because of the actions of this Australian Bill of Rights. No wonder Senator Vigor was concerned about the operation of this legislation. When we deal with Article 3, I will prove to the chamber how this Bill of Rights will be used by the purveyors of hard core pornography in this country to strike down the customs and prohibited imports regulations and the Australian Capital Territory Classification of Publications Ordinance. In the United States the purveyors of pornography have used the freedom of speech provisions as scalpels to attack the rights of society. It is not the place, of course, to do that here, but that will come. I ask Senator Vigor to have regard to what I am saying and to realise that what he is putting in his amendment will have no effect whatsoever. Senator Gareth Evans —What is the effect of a preamble? If we were to put that in, what effect would it have? Senator HARRADINE —I challenge Senator Evans to put it in. It comes back to what Senator Sir John Carrick said. Of course, those rights that are selectively taken from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and placed in this Bill, or other rights which are not contained in this Bill, will be derogated by that very fact. As Senator Evans knows and as I know, after this Bill goes out, the political appointments which Senator Evans will make to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission will go out into the public arena and hold up this document as the charter. Those other rights that are not contained in this legislation will be derogated. They will be regarded as second rate rights. I believe that Senator Vigor was wise when he said that, unless some guarantee is obtained from the Government in this legislation by way of amendment, he ought to vote against it. No such guarantee will be included in any event by the words `convention or custom'. As evidence of that, where is the definition? Has Senator Evans provided Senator Vigor with an adequate definition of what is meant by a convention or a custom? Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.04) —The amendment, as has already been indicated by Senator Sir John Carrick and Senator Harradine, will not alter the situation at all unless Senator Evans agrees that the customs and conventions are as I see them. Then the amendment could do a lot because it could rule out a number of the clauses of this Bill. Senator Vigor has attempted to say to the Australian people: `I will vote for this Bill of Rights if it allows all existing rights as we know them, apart from this Bill of Rights, to exist in Australia'. Senator Evans has tried to assure Senator Vigor that instead of putting it in his words, which I admit would not make any difference, `conventions and customs' would work instead. Article 2, as amended, now states: A right or freedom existing under, or recognised by, any other law, convention or custom shall not be taken to have been diminished or derogated from by reason only that the right or freedom is not set out in this Bill of Rights. How does that apply to clause 29 (2)? We have a custom in this country-a convention or custom; call it what you like-that if a person has accusations made against him or her, that person can know who is making those accusations. If a person has allegations made against him or her, that person can know for sure that they are made by a certain individual. That is a convention very strongly held in this country. Clause 29 (2) states that where the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission considers that the preservation of the anonymity of a person who has made a complaint to the Commission under this proposed Act is necessary, the name should not necessarily be given. The anonymity of that person is kept. It is a very strong convention in this country that we know who our accuser is. It was not until this Bill of Rights was brought into the Senate that we found that it is no longer considered to be a convention. Indeed, it is not a convention that is covered by law, but will it be covered now and will the Minister tell me that it will be withdrawn? If he says yes, this new amendment will mean that clause 29 (2) will not give the right to the Commission to keep secret the name of the person making the allegations and that this new amendment will not get rid of that custom that we have held so dear, I will begin to listen to him. I doubt very much whether the Minister will rise and say that the Australian Democrats' amendment will alter the whole legislation and that under the Bill of Rights the commissioners will not be able to keep secret the identity of the person making allegations; that the commissioners will have to let the person who has been called before the Commission know who made the allegations. I will be very interested in the Minister's reply. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.08) — It appears, with the utmost respect, that Senator Walters has once again got the bull by the wrong appendage. We are talking about Article 2 of the Bill of Rights. I make it clear for this purpose that the Bill of Rights is the series of articles set out in clause 8. For the purposes of this clause and the other descriptions here, the Bill of Rights is not the Australian Bill of Rights Act, as it will be in toto, of which clause 29 (2) forms a part. We say in Article 2, or will if Senator Vigor's amendment is accepted, that to the extent there is a right existing and recognised in any other law than this-or if it is otherwise recognised by way of convention or custom-the mere fact that that right is not specifically set out, articulated or recognised in the 32 articles of this Bill of Rights does not in any way affect its status. If there is some overriding rule that would be acknowledged by the courts, of the kind to which Senator Walters referred, which is not dealt with in the 32 articles of the Bill of Rights, to that extent it will go on enjoying what other independent existence it may have. One of the interesting things that might give her some comfort is that a corollary of what I am saying is that if clause 29 (2) governing certain of the procedures of the Human Rights Commission investigating these matters is in fact offensive to one or other of the rights that are set out in the actual articles of the Bill of Rights we could have the situation where that procedure could be challenged under one of the heads of clause 8, one of those articles. That follows too as another corollary, which is an interesting point to think about, although I do not see where clause 29 (2) could be so challenged. Senator Walters —Why could it not be challenged? Senator GARETH EVANS —The honour- able senator's imagination is pretty fertile in these areas and maybe she can find a way. I do not honestly think there is anything in Senator Vigor's amendment which affects that particular argument, but equally there is not intended to be anything in it other than a clear declaration of what the ambit of this particular Bill of Rights is. Only someone with the most perverse imagination, the kind of imagination demonstrated, with the utmost respect, by Senator Harradine when he is slavering over a hot microphone on broadcast day-the only sight I have ever seen to rival it is that of a young lawyer in hot pursuit of a fast buck-could possibly think that the mere statement of these rights in the Bill of Rights did cut some sort of a swathe through other existing rights which may exist or which are acknowledged elsewhere in the community. But there are people with that kind of imagination and there are people who have made that kind of argument. Article 2-Senator Vigor's amendment adds another layer to it which, as I have indicated, is acceptable-and Senator Vigor's amendment state with absolutely clear-cut precision that the Bill of Rights cannot be perversely construed in that particular way, that other rights which may exist outside its ambit continue to exist notwithstanding anything in the Bill of Rights. That is not a difficult, an unhappy or an alarming proposition; it is a perfectly sensible proposition. I suggest that the Committee should accept it accordingly. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.14) —I want to make some general comments on Article 2 and the debate which has taken place on it. I think Senator Gareth Evans, on behalf of the Government, has been backed into a rather odd and confused situation in seeking to make a concession to Senator Vigor. If I look at Article 2 as a lawyer in purely legal terms, it is quite an innocuous and unnecessary Article. I can see why lawyers thought that it was a good idea to put it in. They wanted to make it perfectly clear that the Bill of Rights is allegedly guaranteeing a number of rights. We will be debating how it does that when we come to the next clause. We know that there are a whole lot of laws on the statute books created by judges under which people have got rights. Clearly we do not want to take away any of the rights that are already there. Probably most of the rights that people enjoy will not be covered by this Bill of Rights at all; they have been covered by all the laws that have been developed for hundreds of years by the courts and, particularly this century, by parliaments passing laws. The whole complex of the legal system under which we live has arisen in that way and this Bill of Rights is only a further part of that process. If one looks at this Article as a lawyer, one would not, in any way, be disturbed about it. If we were all thinking as lawyers the legislation would have gone through without any debate. The fact of the matter is that Senator Vigor expressed concern and that his proposed amendment goes to the very heart of the process of having a Bill of Rights. I can understand and sympathise entirely with what he is concerned about. He is really concerned that we have a Bill of Rights and we have an exercise like this going on at all. Senator Vigor has stated that people are concerned that by passing this Bill of Rights we are guaranteeing-Senator Harradine has made the same point-a certain discreet group of rights as being superior to, and different from, all the other rights and privileges that we enjoy in the free society in which we live-the fairly unique situation in this country. To meet this concern, Senator Gareth Evans has conceded to the extension of the word `law' to `conventions and customs'. Lawyers will be confronted with interpreting this. They will not understand and will say: `What is this custom, what is this convention which is different from a law? If it is not a law we do not understand it. We are there to enforce laws. What are these conventions or customs that you are talking about'? So it goes on. It is only confusing the issue even more. The fundamental point is that living in a free society we derive our freedom not from what government or parliaments conceded to us, but from the whole development of our community as a free society over hundreds of years. The notion that we have got rights only because the Government has given them to us is a legalistic approach, a lawyer's approach, to this whole issue. We have recognised that in our society we have got our rights as individuals. It is only by the imposition of laws on us that those rights are reduced or qualified in some way. This issue goes to the fundamental conception of our society and where our rights come from and how we enjoy them. Lawyers will give an answer to it in one way and they give it by way of legislation. Senator Vigor is concerned about this deeper and more fundamental question. He is rightly expressing that concern because so many other people have a concern about the very basic concept of a Bill of Rights. I think if one has that concern the proper thing to do-Senator Harradine has already mentioned this-is to vote against the whole concept of a Bill of Rights, because it is totally at variance with the nature of our society. We do not need Parliament saying we have got a whole lot of rights; we just do not need that at all-we have got them, we have enjoyed them and we have fought for them. Members of parliaments have got a basic obligation to the society we represent to preserve the fundamental freedoms which we have enjoyed as they have developed through the whole history of our society. It is not for a government or a parliament to pat people on the head and say: `You have got these rights. We are singling them out as the rights that you have'. Of course, Article 2 concedes clearly that we have other rights. We have all those other rights. We have them not only under laws that have been passed but under the guarantees of our free society. Religious people, philosophers and so on have used various expressions to describe the concepts of natural rights. I do not want to start debating them, but the nature of the rights of human beings has been a well known concept of philosophers and other thinkers for centuries. It is very difficult to explain them in words. The fact is that we know them when we see them, when we enjoy them, and particularly when they are being taken away from us. Last night the Committee very wisely expanded the interpretation and the application of this legislation so that it would apply not only to the acts and practices of governments but also to other large groups in the community that can affect individuals' rights, namely, corporations and trade unions. That was a step in the right direction. I do not believe that we can do anything about this particular Article. I do not think any amendments would make an improvement one way or the other because the Article expresses a fundamentally wrong approach to the question of preserving rights. The entire Bill of Rights is proceeding along those lines. I am quite relaxed, one way or the other, as to what wording is included in Article 2. I do not think it would make any difference whether it was included at all, whether it was included in the form the Government proposes, or whether it was in the form that is now proposed by the amendment we are considering. What Senator Vigor was really worried about was expressed in his original amendment. Unfortunately, that amendment does not have any meaning with regard to the enforcement of the clause by courts. They are concerned only with the rights that are formalised in laws passed by the Parliament or judgments of courts, whereas the fundamentals of our rights are engraved in the hearts and minds of people who have made a free society and who live in and will defend a free society. That is where our great strength comes from. That is where the real guarantee of the rights of our community comes from. I think this whole exercise, which is exemplified by article 2 and the various suggestions of what words may be used, is quite beside the point. I emphasise that the nature of this concern Senator Vigor has expressed, and the concern so many other people have expressed, means that the whole exercise of having a Bill of Rights is totally false, misleading, and contrary to the way in which we have achieved rights in our free society and the way in which we will continue to preserve those rights. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(5.24) —Senator Durack, Senator Sir John Carrick and Senator Harradine have expressed more eloquently than I could the views I was going to express, so I will be brief. It seems to me that, in regard to the amendment we are now considering and Senator Evans suggestions as to what might make Senator Vigor's amendment acceptable, Senator Evans is trying to have it both ways. On the one hand in his initial remarks he said that the changes being contemplated were really technical changes; on the other hand he said that the changes he is prepared to accept will meet Senator Vigor's point. But Senator Vigor's point is not a technical point. It goes to the whole philosophy, the whole crux, of what the Bill of Rights debate is about. I put it to Senator Evans that he simply cannot have it both ways. I also put it to him that in his heart of hearts he knows as well as we know that the amendment he is prepared to accept in no way alters his view or the Government's view of how this Bill will operate and the implications it will have. Senator Gareth Evans —It is declaratory; that is all. I have made that perfectly clear. Senator SHORT —In other words, from Senator Evans's point of view he is accepting a nothingness change. That is really what he is saying. If that is what he is saying, then he is saying that the real concern Senator Vigor and other senators on this side of the House have put to him is a nothingness as well. What we are saying is that there is a fundamental difference between his conceptual approach and what we are talking about. No amount of trying to redaft Article 2 to take account of the words Senator Vigor is now prepared to accept will alter that simple fact. We still have an attempt by the Government to impose a legalistic approach to what Australians regard as their basic rights and freedoms. That seems to me to be the fundamental difference. Senator Evans is saying that we can legalise and legislate to give people rights they already have and that it does not really make any difference if we do not spell out rights in this legislation. If it does not make any difference, why on earth do we have a Bill of Rights? His whole argumentation today has supported, I believe, the views we have put to him from day one of this whole exercise, that is, that this Bill of Rights in no way strengthens or improves the rights of Australians. On the contrary, the Government is attempting to legislate in a legalistic way to encompass the values, traditions and history of the people of this nation and their predecessors. It is not possible to legislate to somehow or other put parameters around those things; so the philosophical approach that is summed up in this Article, which in many ways is the key to the whole legislation-certainly it is one of the keys to the conceptual debate that is going on-is so different that no amount of drafting around this Article or any other clause, for that matter, will bridge the enormous gulf that exists in terms of the philosophical concept. We simply cannot legislate to give people rights, particularly when in a country such as Australia they have had rights and freedoms based on the history of the nation. They are not just encompassed in law. They are not necessarily encompassed in custom or convention, whatever those words mean. Our rights, our freedoms and our society are based on a much wider totality than that. As soon as we try to hem in those values and put them into some form of article in a legalistic piece of legislation, a blanket piece of legislation such as this, we immediately become discriminatory of rights. We immediately become selective of rights. Therefore, we immediately limit rights, and we automatically abrogate those rights and freedoms which most Australians have always thought they had anyway. Amendment agreed to. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(5.29) —I will make a brief comment because I think this Article lies at the heart of the philosophy of the Bill. The approach by the Government to writing a limited and fixed Bill of Rights suffers very much the same fate as the fixed, limited Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. When one writes something down and it is fixed, people try to probe it, to probe higher and higher to reach its frontiers, whereas in the House of Commons's unwritten constitution people take a value judgment to keep the stratum low and not to fly too far. I said previously that one must not try to define words such as `rights' and `freedoms'. Perhaps I can take this a little further. There is a lovely little song in the musical The Sound of Music entitled `how do you solve a problem like Maria?'. The last line of the song is: `How do you hold a moonbeam in your hand?'. I want to say to the Committee that this is the same problem as the problem of how one can hold a right or freedom in law. A moonbeam has quality, beauty and utility. It has substance in itself. But like probing at the nightingale, one finds one cannot hold it in one's hand. Fundamentally, the same problem arises when one tries to define freedom. If I can, let me define, I hope, as a philosophic liberal, what I think are my freedoms. First of all, I think freedoms are responsibility. I gain freedom by exercising my responsibility to give freedom to others and the right to be different. The right to be different is fundamental. So what we have is an abstract-something like the moonbeam in one's hand. How does one hold it? How can I define my responsibility? It is important that I rise to speak about this. When one puts in legislative form an abstract concept, one does what has happened to the written Constitution of the Commonwealth. Everybody says: `Let us try it up to its ceiling and beyond'. People now move amongst each other and say: `I will give him elbow room, I will give him his freedom, and if he seems to be taking a bit much, not to worry-we will bring him into line in the ordinary way; we will have a bit of a yarn'. That is how freedom is exercised at the moment. I repeat that the fundamental of all rights is responsibility. The fundamentals lie in a free society, not in any prescription by law of my duties because that would in fact hog-tie me. In free society rights are enshrined by the willingness of people to let other people be free and not by people seeking in a libertine way their own freedom because that would be licence. Fundamental to this situation is the willingness of people to create a situation for others to be free; the right of others to be different. Can we encapsulate that in law? Perhaps there is magic in that little song; how does one hold a moonbeam in one's hand? How does one hold in one's hand in a concrete way the very values that have taken thousands of years to evolve-Roman law, the evolution of common law, the Judaeo-Christian system, the British parliamentary system and the ordinary knocking together and elbowing in the path of life? How does one try to put that in words? When one does we lose the mystique of the moonbeam; we lose the mystique of freedom and rights. We turn these things into something that somebody will want to exploit. It is then a matter of people saying `Let me nudge it up to the limit; let me see how much more licence I can get', instead of saying `Hey, let us walk along together and not poke the other fellow in the eye'. That is my fundamental objection to Article 2. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.34) —Senator Harradine is really going to have to lift his game when it comes to Article 3. I think he has been getting seriously left behind in the rhetorical stakes over the last 10 minutes or so, even on a Wednesday afternoon. Senator Harradine —You have not responded in any formal way to what I have put up. I was just going to prove what Senator Sir John Carrick said by what the Minister has written. Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr Chairman, we are getting quickly back into a re-run of the second reading debate. I think that is unfortunate because we have now the competing philosophies of the Bill of Rights approaches getting a major sort of re-run. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The problem is that Article 2 is headed `Effect of Bill of Rights on existing rights and freedoms'. Therefore, the remarks are relevant. Senator GARETH EVANS —Let me just say, since we are talking about moonbeams, that really there are plenty of moonbeams around the place in the existing common law protection of rights which Senator Sir John Carrick holds so tenderly and so dear. I would refer him again to Senator Puplick's speech on 14 February if he wants chapter and verse some of the chimeras around the place when it comes to the existing alleged protections for human rights. The right to privacy under our present law is a very splendid example of a moonbeam utterly insubstantial, utterly intangible and in fact non-existent except in the eye of some romantic beholders around the place. The guarantee of equality in voting rights is a very spectacular example of a moonbeam in a number of different jurisdictions at the moment for exactly the same reason. The right to freedom of religion and freedom of religious exercise, which is one of the issues dearest to the heart of a number of people in this chamber, proved a very illusory moonbeam indeed in the Second World War when Jehovah Witnesses were denied the right to practise and preach their religion because it was offensive to the government of the day. The blacks in the United States of America, to give just one more example of many that could keep this debate going for a long time if I wanted to, found their particular rights to equality of treatment a very obvious moonbeam indeed until they were able to persuade the United States Supreme Court to come to their aid with the equal protections clauses of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights. That performed a miracle, a revolution, in a way that all the florid rhetoric of generations of men of goodwill had utterly failed to bring about. These rights set out in the Bill of Rights are not moonbeams. They are very substantial guarantees and they have been honoured far more in the rhetoric than the reality over the century or more of our existence as a nation and as a set of colonies before that. It is about time we did translate some of those moonbeams into substantial tangible legal reality. That is what a Bill of Rights is all about. The particular argument that we are having is whether the translation of certain rights, that are recognised generally around the place as worth having, into legislative reality works any damage on other existing rights-rights that would be recognised by the courts and other rights that would be recognised to exist or be claimed to exist even if not as tangible as legal rights that people would want to acknowledge and retain. The question that Article 2 is addressing itself to is whether the existence of the Bill of Rights, necessarily selective since it cannot be a universal compendium, not lest for constitutional reasons, has some deleterious or negative effect on other less tangible rights or rights around the place that are not here listed. What Article 2 is simply designed to do is to say that to the extent that there are other rights-maybe some of those on Senator Sir John Carrick's private wish list-that people hold dear but which are not addressed in the Bill of Rights, they are simply not affected one way or the other. I did not say that Article 2-- Senator Harradine —That is not what you say here, by reason only that the right of freedom is not set out in the Bill. Senator GARETH EVANS —I will put it another way. What this article is saying is that it cannot be said that a right does not exist simply by virtue of the fact that it is not set out in this Bill-by reason only of the fact that it is not in this Bill. What this clause is designed to do is to meet the wrong-headed objection promoted in so many quarters, with varying degrees of ignorance of cynicism, that the mere statement of these rights in the Bill of Rights somehow defined and delimited the list of rights that were freely available. It is a wrong-headed objection because any proper interpretation of the Bill of Rights could not reasonably lead to that conclusion. But for absolute certainty, to make the point clear, to put it beyond doubt, not just to lawyers but to ordinary citizens who are trying to make sense of all of this, we wrote in Article 2. It is not a substantive clause. It does not add anything more than clarity to the situation. Article 2 does not add a new guarantee of some kind and in that sense it is insubstantial. It is not meaningless; it is not useless; but it is not a substantive provision. It is a declaratory provision. That is the sense in which I was previously to be understood. It states, it articulates what is implicit in the Bill of Rights concept but which perhaps deserves to be made explicit because there has been so much misrepresentation and, in some cases, genuine misunderstanding. There is a virtue sometimes in stating the obvious. That is what Article 2 does in its original form; that is what Article 2 will do in a slightly amended form. That is what it is about and that is what this debate is about. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.40) —I am very heartened by the fact that we now have recorded in Hansard the fact that this Bill is in no way a prescription or a compendium of the only rights which people have. All sides of the Parliament have now said that. All parties have agreed on that fundamental principle. If we have achieved nothing more, we have the consensus which has been expressed poetically by Senator Sir John Carrick and more pragmatically by Senator Evans and which is supported within the possibly vague statement that we have ended up with in Article 2 of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. Senator Durack said that, as a lawyer, he in fact looked at what freedoms were by actually looking for a list of them. It would be a brave judge and a brave lawyer who interpreted this legislation now as a prescription because of those extra words which are inserted by this amendment. If we have in fact added two words that lawyers will find difficult to interpret, words which may be expressing things about moonbeams or about things poetic, those judges will be forced by the Acts Interpretation Act to actually read the debate to find out what we meant when we talked about this. I believe that the fundamental principle which underlies British law, that one has a freedom until it is limited in some way by the legal process, has been reaffirmed today in the debate, and if the amendment does nothing more than that it is worthwhile. Certainly it will mean that anybody trying to interpret this will have to put up with some of these arguments being brought up and the principles which we now hold dear being looked at again within that court of law to make certain that we are not getting a bad or poor or unjustifiable interpretation of this legislation. As such, I commend the amendment to the Senate. I believe that the statement by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), which would have to be looked at, goes some way towards satisfying the principle which I was supporting. Although its wording is not perfect-no human or prescription in law can be so perfect-it actually brings to the notice of anybody who is trying to interpret this legislation that there is much more to this idea of freedom and rights than can be expressed just within a list of Articles within a Bill of Rights. I believe it also allows us with impunity to support such a Bill as a support for those people in countries remote from us who do not have all of these freedoms and where torture is an every day event. It gives us solidarity with such people to be able to say: `At least Australia has put the United Nations covenant into law. Why have you not done that?'. We owe it to those countries to actually support the Covenant. I believe the Bill itself is fairly irrelevant to Australia with our current Government and parliamentary system. It is, however, something we can point to for people in other countries and say: `Do you have this as an acceptable minimum standard?'. That is exactly what we would be doing by ratifying the Covenant and passing this Bill. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.45) —The Soviet Union can do precisely what Senator Vigor said-it can point to its Bill of Rights. Let me just say that, if a meaningless amendment to an insubstantial clause is to be the basis upon which somebody supports the Bill, that is not my view of the situation. I believe that is the situation we are in in regard to Article 2. The Minister knows that it is an insubstantial clause; Senator Durack, a former Attorney-General, says that it is an insubstantial clause; we all agree that it is an insubstantial clause-legally as far as interpretation of the Bill is concerned. On the part of the Government, it is a declaratory clause, to use the words of the Minister, meaning of course, that it is a propaganda clause. As far as Senator Sir John Carrick, Senator Short and Senator Durack are concerned, it really epitomises the purposes of this Bill and gives us the opportunity of going to the fundamental issues surrounding the Australian Bill of Rights. That has been addressed by Senator Sir John Carrick, Senator Durack and Senator Short and, to be fair, by Senator Vigor. He started off by saying that nothing in this Bill of Rights shall be taken to diminish, derogate from or prevent the exercise of any right existing apart from this Bill of Rights. I think they are very fine words. I happen to agree with Senator Durack that if they are put in this insubstantial clause it would not make any difference because it would make no difference to the operative clauses of the Bill. But his purpose is a very worthy one. He, as are the rest of us, is concerned about the fact that the rights or, to put it at its lowest, the interests of a whole range of individuals and groups within society are going to be cut down by an interpretation of this Bill of Rights used by groups or individuals who want to go up to the ceiling, as suggested by Senator Sir John Carrick. If he wanted to do that, he has not achieved what he set out to do. All we will now have are the words `convention or custom' added to the word `law' in an insubstantial clause which will now say: A right or freedom existing under or recognised by any other law, convention or custom shall not be taken to have been diminished or derogated from by reason only that the right or freedom is not set out in this Bill of Rights. So what? If one were fair dinkum about it one would have taken out the words `by reason only that the right or freedom is not set out in this Bill' and would have put in the legislation words to this effect: A right or freedom existing under or recognised by any other law, convention or custom shall not be taken to have been diminished or derogated from by this Bill of Rights. Senator Vigor —I am willing to support your amendment. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Vigor says he is willing to support such an amendment. Senator Gareth Evans —I explained why that was a dopey thing to do, for God's sake! Senator HARRADINE —It might be a dopey thing to do as far as Senator Gareth Evans is concerned. Senator Vigor now says that he would be supportive of that proposition provided it were placed in an operative position where it could be properly interpreted by the judges or by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. That is the nub. Senator Sir John Carrick made a very important point, and he made it poetically. He was taken to task by Senator Gareth Evans who, I believe, did it in an unworthy way, with an ad hominem argument. Senator Gareth Evans —It was not ad hominem at all. Senator HARRADINE —Today is a broadcast day. I must point out that, unfortunately, the proceedings here will be broadcast only on one day this week and one day next week. Just because it is not broadcast day tomorrow and the next day, I say to the Minister that he should not think that he will not be hearing from me. I digress. The argument put forward by Senator Evans against Senator Carrick's point went something like this: There is a whole lot of these moonbeams around; why should they not be expressed in legislation? I do not think that Senator Sir John Carrick is opposed to that. After all, he and I and the rest of us in this chamber have been involved in the protection of the rights of individuals by statute law. What are we here for? We have been doing it all the time. Senator Gareth Evans —That is what we are doing again now. Senator HARRADINE —That is not what is being done; that is the problem. Some rights are being set down in broad fundamental ways which will be interpreted by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission or by the courts. We are therefore abrogating our responsibilities to do what the Minister reckons we ought to be doing-that is, we ought to be putting into statute law those rights which are being threatened somewhere or another and not handing over those responsibilities to non-elected bodies. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the courts-the Federal Court and the High Court-have been put into a straitjacket by the explanatory memorandum which is, of course, an extrinsic aid to the interpretation of the law. With respect to the matter that Senator Sir John Carrick brought up, which was very important, I will apply it to the example that I gave about the striking down of censorship laws in this country by the purveyors of hard-core pornography. Let me just tell the Minister what has been done deliberately. I do not say that the Minister thought of it, but somebody had the clever idea. I ask honourable senators to turn to page 48 of the Australian Bill of Rights. I ask them also to turn to pages 9 and 10 of the explanatory memorandum. Page 48 of the Bill of Rights contains the Article relating to freedom of expression which is part of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Senator Crichton-Browne —Which Article? Senator HARRADINE —Article 19, paragraph 3, as Senator Sir John Carrick indicated would be the case, states: The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) for respect of the rights or reputation of others; (b) for the protection of national security or of public order . . . or of public health or morals. What has the Government done? Senator Gareth Evans —You are talking about Article 3 now, not Article 2. Are you going to have a re-run of all this in Article 3? Senator HARRADINE —I am just taking up what Senator Sir John Carrick has just said. What are the permissible limitations in pages 9 and 10 of the explanatory memorandum? I ask honourable senators to have a look at those pages. What do they say? They say nothing about the special duties and responsibilities of people to respect the rights or reputations of others in spite of the so-called freedom of expression. I ask honourable senators to bear in mind that this will result in an open go for the hard-core pornographers to attack our laws. Has not society a right to protection from that sort of activity? Let us see what page 9 of the explanatory memorandum says. It says: The various justifications for limiting rights or freedom set out in the Covenant include such important matters as the protection of national security, public safety, public order . . . and public health. The Government has deliberately left out the words `or morals', which are contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and it has gone even further. I refer to page 10 of the explanatory memorandum which refers to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the judges. They will be told that it is a guideline set down under law for them to interpret these broad laws. Page 10 of the memorandum says: However, in order to produce an inspirational charter of rights in a simple declaratory style, the drafting technique of consolidating the qualifications into one Article has been used in preference to attaching detailed qualifications to individual Articles. The next paragraph of the explanatory memorandum goes on to say that no notice will be taken of certain rights including respect of the rights of others; it will take what is useful in a free and democratic society. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator MacGibbon) —Senator Harradine, will you please direct your remarks to Article 2 and not Article 3. Senator HARRADINE —Mr Temporary Chairman, I will direct them at length at a later stage to Article 3, because I am concerned not just with that right. The Government has to give an answer to that point which was raised by Senator Sir John Carrick. Everybody agrees that this Article is insubstantial. A meaningless amendment has now been moved. It is meaningless because there is no definition of `convention' or `custom'; therefore, those two words are meaningless. It is a meaningless amendment to an insubstantial Article, and I certainly would not be one who would vote for this legislation on that basis. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(5.58) —I want to direct some remarks to the effect of Senator Vigor's amendment. Since obviously we are getting a preview of Article 3, a lot of what has been said about that Article by Senator Harradine needs to be qualified. When we are discussing Article 3 and when one looks, as I will, at the case of Handyside v. the United Kingdom in the European Court of Human Rights, one can demonstrate that ways exist in which the problem of the control of pornography can be overcome. I do not want to confuse Article 2 with the discussion on the United Kingdom legislation regarding the prohibition of the Little Red Schoolbook in the Handyside case. We can do that when we come to Article 3. I will read Article 2 in its amended form to show what one of its effects will be. The Article as amended would read as follows: A right . . . existing under . . . any . . . custom shall not be taken to have been diminished or derogated from by reason only that the right of freedom is not set out in this Bill of Rights. That in fact will be the effect of adding part of the amendment that Senator Vigor has put before us. I will read that again: A right . . . existing under . . . any . . . custom shall not be taken to have been diminished or derogated from . . . Senator Evans is right in saying that when I spoke during the second reading debate I criticised the lack of adequate protection provided by the common law for a number of rights. Senator Evans's lengthy quotation of what I had to say only proves the truth of the maxim that the devil may quote scripture for his own purposes. Nevertheless, the effect of what Senator Vigor has put to us and what Senator Evans says the Government will accept is to substitute something which at least is testable for something which is not. A right or freedom existing under or recognised by any law means that presumably one can go to a statute book and find that law. Presumably there is a degree of certainty about that law. Either it will be established, by having been written down, or it will be established in the judgments of various courts. People will at least have some idea of what that right is. But who is to define convention or custom? Who is to say what were the conventions of 1975? By common agreement? I would have thought that the events of 1975 demonstrated that there is no such thing as common agreement as to what convention may be. Yet by Senator Vigor's amendment, a right need not be a convention existing under or recognised by a law; indeed it would not even have to be recognised because one can read it as a right existing under any convention or custom. It is not just a matter of who will define convention, but who will define custom? Who will stand up and say that Islamic custom has greater weight or validity than Judaeo-Christian custom or indeed that Aboriginal custom has a lesser or greater claim to recognition? When one comes to the recognition of customs-- Senator Vigor —Part of the idea. Senator PUPLICK —I am glad that Senator Vigor said that it is part of the idea, so that the custom of Aboriginal marriage arrangements or the custom of female circumcision for Islamic women-- Senator Vigor —That is not in Australia. Senator Crichton-Browne —It happens all the time in Western Australia. Senator PUPLICK —Senator Vigor says that that is not in Australia. Once again that shows his abysmal ignorance of the actual facts of the matter. It happens in Western Australia and it happens in New South Wales. It is not correct to say that there are not customs and conventions which are peculiar to and important to certain sections of the community but which nevertheless are either rejected by or not supported by the overwhelming majority of the Australian community. As a result of Senator Vigor's proposals, it would fall upon the courts to start making judgments about the status and validity of customs and conventions. This in fact is what Senator Vigor will achieve by writing down: A right . . . existing under . . . any . . . custom or convention shall not be taken to have been diminished or derogated from by reason only that the right or freedom is not set out in this Bill of Rights. Unless we are then going to have a whole series of prohibitions as to what customs or conventions are not to be accorded some status, I believe that the insubstantial clause will be turned into something much worse by the addition of Senator Vigor's proposed amendment. The addition of what are claimed to be meaningless words in the amendment are, in fact, not meaningless. They are opening up yet another area in which the whole question of the recognition and protection of human rights becomes an issue of political controversy, rather than an issue of agreement within the wider community. If one is attempting to say that where there are rights which are recognised, which are accepted and which have some basis in law and are therefore testable, these should be replaced with a vague catalogue of customs and conventions, and if one believes that that is anything other than damaging to the process by which human rights can be protected and advanced, one is fooling oneself. If indeed it is an insubstantial clause, then like Prospero's insubstantial pageant it will not just be a matter of things that dreams are made of; it will be something that nightmares are made of. Senator Vigor's amendment, far from effectively strengthening, spreading or enlarging those areas of human rights that are actually to be protected in some fashion under this Bill, will in fact do great damage to the community's perception of what Bills of Rights are attempting to achieve. We will have a situation in which, far from strengthening human rights in Australia, we will be taking a major step in weakening and perverting them. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.08) —I am forced to my feet rather unwillingly at this stage of the debate because until now it has been getting rather repetitious. Senator Puplick's contribution to the debate amounts, as he must know, to a grotesque misrepresentation of what this clause is about. When Senator Puplick engages in a grotesque misrepresentation, I can at least acknowledge that it is not out of ignorance because he is too intelligent to be so misled. When he engages in such a grotesque misrepresentation, it is as a deliberate political tactic and he should be ashamed of himself for dragging this particular scare weapon out of his armoury on this occasion. The reality of the matter, as he well knows, is that Article 2 in the form in which we have been debating it gives no legal status or effect to claims of right based on custom or convention that may exist within the community. All that Article 2 does to such claims of right based on custom, which may or may not be palatable to people like Senator Puplick or to the community at large, is to say that their status one way or the other, legally recognised or not legally recognised as the case may be, is unaffected by the fact that the particular subject matter of that claim of right does not happen to be mentioned in the Bill of Rights. That is all that Article 2 says. It is not a matter of Article 2 in some indirect or roundabout way giving aid, comfort and recognition to some custom of clitorectomy which Senator Puplick was talking about and which obviously would be abhorrent in the Australian community. I would expect this sort of argument to appear in the context of Article 5 of the Bill of Rights, which talks about recognition of minority cultures, but it is really perverse in the extreme to try to give this sort of rabbit a run in the context of Article 2. It is just not about anything of that kind. Article 2, if it is construed as an instruction to the courts not to weigh in the balance any legally recognised right against the rights that are set out in the Bill of Rights and not to regard any legally recognised right as diminished by its non-presence in the Bill of Rights, that is one thing. In that sense I suppose it is a useful instruction to the courts. It may be-in fact, it is-the case that the courts do not recognise in our system claims of right based on mere custom or convention. To that extent the courts will not be confused by the language of Article 2; they will simply ignore it in this respect because it is stating the obvious. They will not have to wrestle with the interpretation or the application of those words because those words are simply there to make a declaratory point, as we said earlier on. I cannot go over this ground again without repeating arguments that have already been repeated ad nauseam in the last hour and a half. I simply make the point that I think Senator Puplick's contribution was unworthy of him and unworthy of the Senate to the extent that it amounted, as it clearly did, to a deliberated fabrication of what Article 2 is all about. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(6.11) —I rise to comment on Senator Evans's response to my assertions that rights and freedoms are best left free and not delimited, that they contain qualities of abstraction, and that they depend for their creation so much on the recognition of responsibility by individuals. Indeed, I pointed out, perhaps a little poetically, the words of the song `How do you hold a moonbeam in your hands?', about which Senator Evans sought to make a little journey of whimsy. Let me go on that journey of whimsy with him. As I interpret him, what he said was that if we look at common law, to the parliament, to the judiciary, in this free society of ours we will not find entrenched a number of freedoms and rights. He said that we would do better if we put them in writing, thereby enshrining them. The history of Bills of Rights is completely against that argument. I think it was Senator Harradine who pointed out that perhaps one of the best examples in the world of a Bill of Rights is that of Soviet Russia. In so many countries which have Bills of Rights, all those denigrated moonbeams to which I referred carefully have been treasured and put into words in Bills of Rights while having no substance at all. Fundamentally, it is not the document itself that gives the rights or confers the freedoms. It is the system that surrounds the community that does that. Soviet Russia and many of the totalitarian countries have remarkably good Bills of Rights, but the trouble is that in those countries the system is geared to deny rights. Fundamentally, what we need for rights and freedoms is a parliamentary system and a judiciary that are free and separate from the Executive, an evolution of common law, but, above everything, an evolution of values, morals and ethics so that the community itself is evolving its rights. For Lord's sake, we should not think it is clever to say that it is wrong to talk of moonbeams. Let me say-I have said it in this Parliament before-that I have a fervent belief that the poets better than the plumbers describe human life and its mystique. I have a particular belief that the poets better than the legal plumbers and the legal technicians can encapsulate the spiritual qualities of human life. Let us make a joke of it if we like. The fact of the matter is that the very words, rights and freedoms are great abstract concepts that cannot be encapsulated in a prison of legislation or Acts of Parliament. By doing so we delimit such freedoms. By doing it to a very large extent we destroy them. Let me stick to my moonbeams. They have substance, beauty and quality. Above everything else, they depend on the magic that freedom and rights must have. That is the magic-that a free society poses a voluntary responsibility on individuals. It is not done in an Act of law at all. This society could not work if the responsibilities of human beings were simply prescribed. It works because human beings understand their responsibilities and want to widen the freedom of others because they know that their freedoms are widened in that way. No amount of prescription of law, no amount of law saying that as a citizen one must allow the right of the other fellow to be different will bring that about. It can only be brought about in the hearts and minds of people. Senator Evans has talked about America. I happened deliberately to have been in the United States of America for quite some months during the 1960s in order to see the evolution of the freedom of the blacks. I moved amongst them, I lived amongst them, and I sat as an observer on Lyndon Johnson's committee to look into the whole question of black rights. That did not come with the passing of the laws. It came with the emergence of the American conscience. Senator Evans —The Bill of Rights was the vehicle. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —It was the American conscience which gave the theatre and the environment. I commend to Senator Evans a reading of the report of the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, which was set up with people such as Percy and Kirkham as members. They said to the American people: `You have created this monster. You took these people 250 years ago from Africa as slaves. You brought them here. You enslaved them, you dehumanised them, you refused them the right to be humans. You refused them the right of marriage. You wanted to breed them because it was a capital asset. You denied them rights'. It was the exposure of the horror of some 250 years, the exposure of the heartache of the Civil War from 1861 to 1865, when Americans lost more people than they did in World War I and World War II together, that brought that change about. It was the recognition by the Americans that they had done wrong and that a right now had to be done. Similarly, no amount of passing of laws will give our Australian Aborigines a right to dignity, a right to a proper place, a right to be different in our society. I think it is utterly wrong to assume that. In fact, I was passing along a street in Atlanta or in Alabama when I saw in the middle of the city a huge area overrun with jungle. When I asked `What is that?', I was told: `That was the zoological gardens'. I asked : `Why do you put it in the past tense?' They said: `It was a zoo until they passed a law. The law said that the blacks as well as the whites should go into the zoo, so we closed the zoo'. That is the first class evidence of how the law works. When one went in the 1960s to look at the situation one realised that the American people looked to their consciences. If I appear to have been speaking in the abstract on this matter it is because the essence of the argument is to try to understand that freedoms and rights are not things to be put in captivity at all. They are free-flying things. They are the creatures of the society that creates them. If we try to capture them we will restrict them and destroy them. I repeat: Those little moonbeams that Senator Evans had so much joy about and which he thought would be so much better put in writing are in writing in so many totalitarian countries. When one takes out the scalpel one sees that there is nothing there. Let us have them in our hearts and minds and not in some document. In any case Senator Evans's arguments fall very short because they are very selective. He wants put into writing only those rights and freedoms that he wants in writing. He leaves out all the others. He has an absolutely selective judgment when he comes to the protection of rights. I stick to the poets. I reject the plumbers. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(6.19) —The debate on clause 8 has been very important because it goes to the very heart of the Bill of Rights. Senator Vigor has moved an amendment which I think originally sought to give expression to a different view of the Bill of Rights Bill from that of the Government. As I have said, the Opposition is opposed to the Bill of Rights. Some of the reasons why we oppose it certainly are bound up with the concerns Senator Vigor expressed in the amendment he first proposed. The difficulty with that amendment was that it was very difficult to interpret, looking at it as a lawyer, how it would work and operate, bearing in mind that it is largely lawyers who are going to have to make it work in the future. However, Senator Vigor has withdrawn this amendment. I think he has agreed to a suggestion by Senator Gareth Evans that Article 2 should be amended so that it reads: A right or freedom existing under, or recognised by, any other law, convention or custom shall not be taken to have been diminished . . . That, I think, creates considerable difficulty in interpretation if one is looking at it purely as a lawyer. Senator Vigor has indicated that what he really does not believe should be in this clause at all are the words `by reason only that the right or freedom is not set out in this Bill of Rights'. Although I did not hear him say this, I understand that he has indicated that he would be pleased to delete those words, so that what we would have would be: A right or freedom existing under, or recognised by, any other law, shall not be taken to have been diminished or derogated from by this Bill of Rights. I believe that is entirely consistent with the view the Opposition has been expressing in relation to this matter, and I would certainly be prepared to support Senator Vigor's amendment if he were so disposed. Indeed, if he is not, I would be prepared to move that those words be deleted. If Senator Vigor has the carriage of this, I put the proposal to him. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.22) — Before we get too excited about changing the clause yet again, might I remind the Committee about the difficulties that would flow if the clause were recast in the way that Senator Durack is now proposing. That would take us back to the central difficulty that the Government saw and expressed with the original version of Senator Vigor's amendment; that is, that it would put at risk the full useful effect of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill in its operation in relation to those areas where there are some existing legal rights in areas covered by the Bill of Rights. If we were to draft it in that way we would have standing alongside each other the existing protection, for what it is worth-and I gave as an example the judges' rules in relation to criminal suspects, which are recognised as a matter of common law-and the enhanced protections in the Bill of Rights itself. We would confront the courts and everybody else with the problem of saying which set of rights were, in fact, to be regarded as the governing ones. On normal principles of interpretation we would say that the common law rules were overridden by the statutory formulation of them, especially in that the statutory formulation is, on the example we are using, more far reaching. But if we had a clause expressed in the way Senator Durack has just suggested and that Senator Vigor originally drafted we would have a situation where those normal principles of interpretation would not apply, and we would have sitting there alongside each other the new rights in the Bill of Rights, the new far reaching protection, and the diminished original rights with its, of course, corresponding diminished duties and obligations as far as police officers and so on are concerned. It would create a situation where the diminished right would have at least as much status as the enhanced right under the Bill of Rights. It is an interpretation problem with significant substantive effect that would be created if we went down that particular track. That is the reason. It is not because of any problem in principle about the greater or lesser recognition of other rights, but for that reason that I suggested earlier on-that there were difficulties about the original framing. Those arguments are equally applicable here. I will conclude while I am on my feet by responding, not again with as much flourish as Senator Sir John Carrick, to one of the points he made. I fully accept his sincerity in arguing, and indeed the force of his argument, that in many ways a crucial guarantor of liberty is the prevailing set of values that operate in a society. I fully accept, and I have accepted it every time I have been on my feet on this topic over the last 10 or 15 years, that rights are better protected in societies with liberal democratic values of the kind that we have in Australia than they are in countries without those traditions, without those values. I draw to Senator Sir John Carrick's attention that very useful distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions when it comes to the argument about Bills of Rights having no effect in totalitarian societies and the suggestions that are made accordingly that a Bill of Rights will have no effect in ours. I fully accept that the existence of a Bill of Rights, statutory or constitutional, is not a sufficient condition for the protection of liberty; that is to say, it is not in itself a sufficient guarantor that liberty will in fact be respected and protected. We need something more than that; we do need a liberal dosage of those values of the kind that Senator Sir John Carrick was talking about. We have to have a Bill of Rights operating in a society where there is a basic substratum of respect for those crucial values. What I would argue and argue very strongly, but not at great length because it is a familiar argument, is that with all the best will in the world to simply rely on those values, to rely on the self-restraint of legislatures, of bureaucrats, of police officers and all the other people who exercise authority in our society, is not enough. It is not a sufficient condition. It is necessary that we add something more, and that something more is piecemeal legislation such as the sex and racial discrimination legislation but also specifically the kind of over-arching guarantees that we are talking about here with the Bill of Rights. It is that which, to offer one little flourish of my own, was the yeast in the United States, that really turned that slowly evolving public opinion that was beginning to recognise in the early 1950s the enormity of the evil that had been done to the black population of the United States. It was the existence of the Bill of Rights, the equal protection clause, the litigation avenues available under it, that enabled blacks to get ahead of that public opinion and to anticipate it by perhaps two decades, and to get the Supreme Court applying these rules, these prescriptions, in a way that was enormously useful. More than that, it was absolutely crucial to the recognition and protection of that group of people's rights. In so many other ways that one could refer to Bills of Rights around the world have played that useful role. I am not saying that without a Bill of Rights liberty would be a desert, a non-existent thing; what I am saying is that at the margin Bills of Rights can be very useful indeed, and it is at the margin essentially that this debate is occurring. I say no more. I think it is important that we conclude this debate, time getting on as it is. We recognise the utility of Article 2 in its present form, perhaps a slightly enhanced utility with the extra words that Senator Vigor has proposed. We recognise that this is what the clause is about. I suggest that the Committee should enact it, pass it, and get on to the discussion of what is by universal agreement around the chamber a more substantial issue yet to come. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.24) —I would like to do that, but Senator Evans has just given us one example of what occurred with the Bill of Rights in the United States. He ought to know that it was because certain people were appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States that that occurred. I will give him some other examples of what occurred. Senator Evans is saying that Bills of Rights are the be all and end all of what ought to be done in this-give it to the courts. I remind the honourable senator of what has occurred in respect of the United States Bill of Rights. The rights appear as amendments to the United States Constitution. Let us look at the Tenth Amendment, which deals with rights held by the States and the people. Those rights were included primarily to calm the apprehensions of States rights advocates. In fact, they were later cited frequently by opponents of racial desegregation. The Fourteenth Amendment originally was enacted to protect the freed man from the abrogation of his rights. That became a virtual nullity as the protection of the rights of negro citizens. Under Article 1 of section 10, the proscription of State violation of the obligation of contracts was interpreted to include everything from private contracts to State-granted charters of incorporations to private companies. The second section of the Eighteenth Amendment was designed to protect dry States against the violation of their laws. That has become, by interpretation, something not intended at all. The Supreme Court of the United States has held that the amendment permits States to levy taxes on the importation of liquor from other States; a kind of tax that until that time was clearly unconstitutional. Under the establishment clause of the American Constitution a State may not proscribe from its school curriculum the teaching of Darwin's theory of evolution because of `its supposed conflict with the biblical account, literally read'. There is also the example to which I referred previously. Still further is the decision of the Supreme Court upholding the Hatch Act, which forbids most Federal employees from engaging in active political party affairs. They are all interpretations of broadly based so-called human rights provisions in the United States of America. Take the First Amendment relating to the freedom of speech. That has been used in the United States by the purveyors of hard-core pornography to attempt to strike down the laws in that country relating to censorship and obscenity. That is what we will be opening up with this Bill of Rights. For Senator Evans to accuse us, as it were, of being against human rights is pathetic. I believe that if human rights need protection, we as members of Parliament, particularly as members of this Senate which has prided itself over the years as being the protector of individual rights, ought to be the ones who do so by statute law, not by this broad approach of setting into a Bill of Rights broad fundamental laws to be interpreted by a non-elected Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, which is a propaganda body as well. I use that not in the pejorative sense, but it will be a propaganda body which is non-elected, as are the courts. If we make mistakes we have to suffer those mistakes and cop it. If we make mistakes the people can vote us out of office, or vote individual senators or members out of office. If the courts make decisions which have far reaching effects on society and on individuals in society and if those people are frustrated by those decisions, they do not have any recourse against those who have made those decisions. Senator Gareth Evans —We can change the law. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Evans said that we can change the law. Yes, we can change the law. Senator Gareth Evans —We have the last word. Senator HARRADINE —We have the last word. Listen to what he is saying. Last night we heard Senator Janine Haines ask 10 or 12 questions of the Minister. She asked whether the Minister would ensure that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, as its first job after this Bill goes through, went to Queensland and looked at the Queensland electoral laws. She also asked the Minister to ensure that a report came to the Parliament on that question. What do honourable senators think will happen about all of this? Will the Parliament be able to withstand the sorts of pressure that will be applied? Parliament may be able to, but certainly the Government will not. What will happen? The Government will make political appointments to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, give that body an agenda and it will give its recommendations to Parliament. Let us look at what we have told the courts in respect of the question I mentioned before, as just one of the examples. Under the Acts Interpretation Act the Government, in its explanatory memorandum, has put the courts in a straitjacket. The Government is not requiring the courts to do what Senator Sir John Carrick said ought to be done and what the Minister said earlier ought to be done; that is, there are special duties and responsibilities for the respect of the rights or reputations of others. The Minister has discarded that; it is not in the Bill for the courts to consider. In respect of freedom of expression the Government has deliberately left out the words contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the words `protection of morals'. Senator Gareth Evans —We have not deliberately left them out. The explanatory memorandum directs the courts to go to the Covenant. Senator HARRADINE —No. Senator Gareth Evans —Rubbish! It is an appendix to the statute. Senator HARRADINE —Clause 3 (2) states that it is only insofar as it is a limitation of the right, not an extension of the right. Senator Gareth Evans —It is not an extension of the right. Senator HARRADINE —It is an extension of the right. For example, let us look at freedom of expression as it relates to a purveyor of pornography. We on the Joint Select Committee on Video Material have had evidence that much of this stuff is generated by the Mafia. An organised criminal group could use the freedom of expression provision in the Bill of Rights to attack the laws in this country which, inadequate as they are, give some protection to the rights of the citizens on the basis of this question of protection of respect for the rights and reputations of others and the protection of morals. Why do we do that in respect of children? The Government has deliberately left out the word `morals' and the Minister will have to explain why. Senator Gareth Evans —It is not deliberately left out. Senator Walters —Put it back in. Senator Gareth Evans —All right, we will put it back. No problems. Senator HARRADINE —Will the Minister put those words in clause 3? Senator Gareth Evans —Not in the clause. I will explain why in a minute. Senator HARRADINE —Of course the Minister will not put them in there. I do not think Senator Vigor has fallen for it, because I believe that he will support the amendment and he is sticking to his guns. I admire him for that. I am not going to fall for what Senator Gareth Evans has just said because it indicates clearly what the Government has done; that is, it has ignored all of the provisions in the articles in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and changed the derogation power so that it relates only to what is a reasonable limitation prescribed by law as can be demonstrated justified in a free and democratic society. Is not the United States a free and democratic society? Look what has happened there with its obscenity laws. I believe that we have come to a crossroad. The clause that has been recognised is an insubstantial clause but it has permitted a debate which has gone to the essence of the problem. For my part I believe we, as members of parliament, do have the responsibility of ensuring that the rights of individuals if they are not adequately catered for by common law or in other ways are properly protected by specific statute law. This is not a specific statute law; it is a law which details broadly based rights and it passes over to non-elected bodies the task of interpreting those particular laws in accordance with the straitjacket guidelines that have been put to them by the Government. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(6.42) —Much has been said about the American Bill of Rights. Senator Sir John Carrick has said that he has actually been to the United States of America, he has been amongst the blacks, he has lived among them as if they were some strange group of people and has observed them. Senator Harradine has studied the Bill of Rights. But I do not think either one of these fine gentlemen has actually appreciated the Bill of Rights for what it is. The Bill of Rights has allowed America to change with the times. It was established well over 200 years ago. The Americans could never have foreseen all the changes which would happen in that country over that period and so it was left open to interpretation; it had to be broad. One cannot go running to parliament every time something changes. It has to be open to interpretation, and that is what the courts did-they interpreted it, and they interpreted it as the situation changed. Senator Crichton-Browne —Depending on the appointments to the Supreme Court. Senator SANDERS —Depending on the appointments to the Supreme Court, but America does not have long-running governments and it works out that the Supreme Court gets a pretty balanced set of judges. It is incredible in the United States that even those who start out as avid right wingers when they are promoted often see the light and become more progressive. Perhaps the same thing could happen here. Even retired Liberal politicians might be appointed to some High Court office and see the light and become progressive in their old age. One would hope that that might happen. In the United States not too long ago the Governor of Georgia, Lester Maddox, was proud to hand out axe handles to people and say: `Go beat up the blacks. I will turn a blind eye. Go ahead and beat up the blacks'. He owned a restaurant and did not want integration in his restaurant. We tend to view the United States from this end as a nation of excesses. I suppose it is, but it is not the only place in the world where injustice exists; it can exist here. It is becoming more and more prevalent in Australia. We have a situation in Tasmania, which is not unlike the Georgia of the 1960s, where people who are not in favour with the Government, as the blacks were not in Georgia, where they were not even allowed to vote, can be assaulted in front of police while the police stand by and do nothing. This is exactly what happened at Farmhouse Creek, where the environmentalists were breaking no law and yet they were deprived of their civil rights. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator MacGibbon) —Order! Senator Sanders, would you come back to Article 2, please. Senator SANDERS —Much has been said here about civil rights and about the American Bill of Rights. I am pointing out that we do need the same type of protection as the Bill of Rights has been giving. We have had the Bill of Rights denigrated in this chamber. I am defending the Bill of Rights and showing that it is needed in this country to protect the rights of citizens because of the excesses now being shown by State governments. We will get into this matter later and discuss why it should extend to State governments. Senator Gareth Evans —We will get into it in about July at the present rate. Senator SANDERS —Perhaps by July, as Senator Gareth Evans says, but we do need it; we need it very soon. I would like to point out that unless people here really have studied the American Bill of Rights and lived with it they should not comment adversely upon it, because I believe it has helped to solve many of the social problems which have plagued that country and could do a great deal for this country as well. Amendment agreed to. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(6.46) —I do not want to be vexatious, but we have just had a statement from Senator Sanders that there were great virtues lying in the Bill of Rights and that they protected the people of the United States of America. I ask honourable senators and Senator Sanders in particular whether they have heard of the Yellow Dog contract. Does Senator Sanders know what a milestone that was? It was a contract upheld by the courts under the Bill of Rights and a contract that was only rejected in the end when along came President Roosevelt and changed the Supreme Court. As the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) would know, that contract was one of the ugliest denials of rights. It was a contract which said: `In consideration of you giving me a job I will guarantee that I will not get into any kind of organisation at all'. Senator Gareth Evans —It was the spirit of the age that created that constraint in the first place. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Senator Gareth Evans will know the Sacco Vanzetti case. It was an absolute milestone in the lack of freedom for the American people. I put this to the honourable senator because the Bill of Rights did not make these decisions at all. The matter lay fundamentally in the quality of the hearts and minds of the people who were appointed to the Supreme Court. It is important to know that the only reason that the Yellow Dog contract went was not because someone challenged it under the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights allowed it. It was because Mr Roosevelt conceived the idea that he could pass a law to retire judges at a particular age and, therefore, put in a completely new set of judges who interpreted the Bill of Rights as saying that the yellow dog contract was a foul thing and ought to go. How can anyone get up in this place, knowing American history and knowing the evil that surrounded the Sacco Vanzetti situation over the years in America, and say that these things could not happen under a Bill of Rights? They happened because there was not a judiciary that was sensitive to the rights and freedoms of the people. They happened because a judiciary did not regard itself as a custodian of rights. It was only after the Supreme Court was changed with vigour and violence by President Roosevelt that so many of the absolute tyrannies that lay around America were abolished. So let us not have any lectures on the fundamental basis of the Bill of Rights. What it simply means is that, just as in Russia-- Senator Georges —The courts cannot operate unless they have rights established. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Yes, but let me remind the Committee that there is a Bill of Rights in Russia. The interpretation of the Bill of Rights by the Kremlin leads to an entirely different situation. The Bill of Rights of itself does not have too many blemishes. It is the interpretation of it by the executive, by the judiciary, that brings about the problem. I never thought that I would find-- Senator Georges —It is chaotic if you do not have any statutes upon which the court can rule. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I am interested in the interjection because I acknowledge that Senator Georges is one who in his own light has fought for rights. I may not agree with him, but I respect the fact that he has fought for freedoms and rights. Indeed, the fact is that in this country we have not had to resort either to referendum or to statute to protect the valuable rights we have. Senator Sanders —We do not have all those rights; that is the whole point. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Senator Sanders has shown his deficiencies to the world by that remarkably simplistic attempt to see all virtue in a written Bill of Rights. I acknowledge that when the American Bill of Rights was written-I think it was in 1791 that the clauses were approved-it was a valuable instrument for that day. I acknowledge that over the years the interpretations by the courts have created, as is the case with our own Constitution, an entirely different meaning to the Bill of Rights than it was ever meant to have. Senator Georges —They had a basic document upon which to work. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —What I say to the Committee and to Senator Georges is that his freedoms and rights-the very right he is asserting daily, the right to challenge the law of the day, the right to be different, the right to take up causes-are enshrined now. We do not need a Bill of Rights to do what Senator Georges has done. Senator Georges —It is easier to do it with a Bill of Rights. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —One does not need it at all. The fact that he can do it is vital. I simply rose to say that one should not cite simplistic cases. One should refer to American history and ask about the Hoover regime and the Yellow Dog contract. One should ask about Sacco Vanzetti. One should ask about all of these kinds of things and remember, therefore, that it was not the protection of a Bill of Rights, it was the protection of a reformed Supreme Court that gave the ultimate freedoms to the people in America. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(6.43) —I did not intend to say anything, but I must refute this rather petty argument. Senator Sir John Carrick picked out several examples. Certainly, no one has ever said that the Bill of Rights has ever covered all instances and that no injustices were ever created in the United States under the jurisdiction of the Bill of Rights. What we are seeing here is a case of privilege. Senator Sir John Carrick does not need a Bill of Rights. He is protected in this country by the Establishment, by the web of protection that surrounds the privileged in this country. This Bill of Rights is for people whom he does not represent and who would not vote for him-people who have no money and no status in the community. Those are the people a Bill of Rights defends and has defended. He talked about simplistic cases. If he wants to name yellow dog cases and others, I am sure we can go through them one by one and show that the advantages of the Bill of Rights far outweigh any abuses that have happened in the United States and which were ultimately sorted out, as even he must admit. Once again, I must say that in my mind the Bill of Rights allowed the United States to reach its pinnacle of democratic development. It is now going downhill simply because of the right wing white-anting of those freedoms by people such as Senator Sir John Carrick. I deplore it in the United States and I would deplore it in Australia. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(6.55) —I believe that the amendment Senator Vigor first moved on behalf of the Australian Democrats gave very real expression to concerns which not only are held by the Democrats but also very widely in the community. They are concerns which are shared entirely by the Opposition. However, the problem with the wording of the first form of Senator Vigor's amendment was that it referred to a `right existing apart from this Bill of Rights'. It would be very difficult for anybody to ascertain the meaning of that without further explanation. When he spoke to it, of course, he did explain it, but we were still left with the problem as to how it would be interpreted, as it undoubtedly would be, by the courts in due course. When this was pointed out to Senator Vigor he sought to amend the existing provision in article 2 to read: A right or freedom existing under, or recognised by, any other law, convention or custom shall not be taken to have been diminished or derogated from by reason only that the right or freedom is not set out in this Bill of Rights. The point is that the purpose of the Government in bringing in article 2 is quite different from the purpose Senator Vigor had in proposing his original amendment. He desired, quite rightly, to preserve a whole range of rights which people enjoy-apart from those contained in this Bill of Rights-under other laws, be they laws of this Parliament, judgments of the courts or, indeed, as he has expanded it, with the consent of the Government to cover conventions and customs. It is a very broad, wide concept which goes beyond the narrow definition of legal rights to which this Bill is directed. It is directed only to limiting rights or guaranteeing rights that are set out in this Bill. It virtually ignores, apart from this article, all the other rights that may be contained not only in legislation that has been passed already, but also in legislation which may be passed in the future. Consideration interrupted. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator MacGibbon) —Order! It being nearly 7 p.m., pursuant to sessional order I put the question: That I do leave the chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. The Temporary 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 7 p.m. The following papers are tabled: Acts Interpretation Act-Correspondence relating to a request for extension of time for presentation of the Human Rights Commission Annual Report 1984-85. States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984-Directions under sub-sections 37 (1) and 41 (1) to vary Schedules 18-21, dated 5 December 1985 (2), 11 December 1985 (2), 13 December 1985 (2), 16 December 1985 (2) and 18 December 1985 (2). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 789) Senator Colston asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 11 February 1986: (1) Has the Minister for Finance 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 Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes; no. (2) I understand that, because of the breadth of issues raised in the Submission, copies have been distributed to several Commonwealth Departments for careful examination. On the basis of comments received, and further discussion with the National Council for Health Organisations (NCHO) and the Royal Australian Nursing Federation, a consolidated response to the NCHO on behalf of the Government will be prepared. (Question No. 819) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: (1) How many statutory authorities currently exist under the auspicies 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 Grimes —The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Currently one statutory authority exists within my portfolio. (2) The Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, established under the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Act 1979. (3) The Ombudsman (Commonwealth) may investigate action by the Institute that relates to a matter of administration; the Human Rights Commission may investigate conduct of the Institute; the Federal Court has jurisdiction to review decisions or conduct of the Institute to which the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 applies. (4) The Institute may be sued in its corporate name. Civil proceedings may be taken for torts if damage or economic loss is suffered. (5) The Administrative Appeals Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review matters arising under the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Act 1979. (6) Not applicable.