Tuesday, 8 April 1986 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The PRESIDENT —It is with deep regret that I inform honourable senators of the death on 30 March of Senator Alan Missen, who served Australia and Victoria with great distinction in this place from May 1974 to March 1986. As a founding member of the Liberal Party of Australia, his contribution to the development of post-war politics in this country was substantial. Last Friday, 4 April, together with a number of our colleagues, the Acting Clerk of the Senate and the Usher of the Black Rod, I attended Senator Missen's funeral and conveyed the deepest sympathy of all senators to his widow, Mollie. Senator Missen was a highly regarded and respected member of the Senate. He was a consistent and uncompromising civil libertarian and the stands he took on many issues in this chamber were also based on the highest of principles. I had the honour of serving with him on a number of parliamentary committees in which capacity he also gave unstinting and untiring service. He will be greatly missed by all of us who had the fortune to know him and to serve with him in the Senate. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I move: That the Senate expresses its deep regret at the death, on 30 March 1986, of Senator Alan Joseph Missen, a Senator for the State of Victoria from 1974 and a former Chairman of a number of Senate Committees, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service, and tenders its profound sympathy to his widow in her bereavement. Alan Missen was an outstanding parliamentarian who made a great contribution to his political party, this Parliament and our country. Insofar as I speak today on behalf of the Government, I want to acknowledge and applaud his distinguished career, his personal charm and character, his tolerance and his humanity. I do not wish to dwell on that career because it is well documented in newspapers, in Hansard and, in the minutes of a dozen organisations espousing noble causes and will be further recorded in speeches made here today. Rather, I want to pay a personal tribute, and memoir in a sense, to Alan Missen that of necessity must be somewhat anecdotal. Our life paths were in some ways parallel, at times closing together and intersecting and at times being much wider apart and diverse. We first met in 1951 at the time of the referendum seeking to outlaw the Communist Party. At that time Alan Missen was President of the Young Liberals in Victoria and I was president of nothing and but a junior member of the Australian Labor Party. We grew to know each other quite well then and over subsequent years we saw quite a bit of each other. I debated with him under the auspices of the Victorian Debating Society. I remind the Senate what a formidable team Alan Missen and his wife Mollie constituted when they were in a debate together. I learnt that to my great cost quite early in my career. We entered the Senate together in 1974. On the hustings we held many more debates which I must say were always characterised by great fairness on both sides and I believe that was because Alan Missen set the tone of those debates. We worked together on a number of community issues such as trying to help the Timorese refugee community in Melbourne and things like that where I learnt to admire his great dedication and organisational skills. I have referred to his debating talents and of course I believe that he always carried out his role as a parliament- arian in a similar, very fair way. Last week a very senior Minister in this Government in the House of Representatives who hardly knew Alan Missen said to me `that Alan Missen seems to have been a very good bloke' and I said `Yes'. He said: `You know, he drove me mad asking me questions about various issues but they were always the right questions'. I think that, in its own way, is a very humble but simple tribute to Alan Missen's career. On Friday last I attended his funeral in Melbourne. It was a moving service and eloquent tributes were paid to him by his political colleagues. I think perhaps the most moving compliment of all was shown by the wide selection of community groups and interests which were represented at that funeral. Afterwards, standing outside, a grey figure amongst other grey politicians, a young man approached me and invited me to join Amnesty International. I was shocked to find that he did not know I was a member of Amnesty International but, of course, everybody knew that Alan Missen was. I spoke with representatives of the Timorese community. A lady from Sri Lanka came up to me and said: `Senator, now that Alan Missen is dead, please do not forget the plight of the Tamil people because there is a danger that it will be forgotten now that he is gone'. Of course, that is a danger which we all ought to think about and try to avoid. I knew what these people were talking about because, at the saddest time of my life Alan Missen and his wife Mollie stretched out to me a hand of friendship which I will never forget. Alan Missen was a warm human being of many talents. His life and work were unfettered by the constraints which motivate most of us in politics and in this profession, if I can call it that. They are the constraints imposed by ambition and the sorts of fierce tribal loyalties which we develop in a place such as this. Alan was a refreshing free spirit and every society and every group needs one. He will be very greatly missed. I think the best thing is for those of us who remain to remember the things he stood so courageously for. On behalf of the Government, members of my Party and particularly myself, I wish to extend deepest sympathy to his wife Mollie and to acknowledge a great career. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —On behalf of the Opposition I support the motion of condolence which has been moved by Senator Button on behalf of the Government and I thank him for the words that he has spoken about Alan Missen and the personal remarks which he made about him. As far as members of the Opposition are concerned we have lost a valued colleague, we have lost a friend and, of course, the whole Senate has lost an outstanding parliamentarian. I think it is worth making some reference to the formal record of Alan Missen's participation in the Senate since 1974. The record discloses the central interests which he had and which he pursued very strongly whilst he was there and, indeed, long before he came to Parliament. He was involved with the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances for much of his time here and with committees such as the Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills, and with the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for the whole of his term in the Senate. He served on the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act which continued work that he had done on the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee and which made use of his extensive professional knowledge in that area. He worked both within Australia and outside Australia with respect to the parliamentary control of delegated legislation. As the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) has said, he had a very close and long connection with the Australian parliamentary group of Amnesty International. He was a former President of the Australian Debating Federation. He was recently a member of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority and he was a National Vice-President of the International Commission of Jurists, to mention just a few of the activities for which he was well known. That bare record shows his consistent interests in and concerns for civil liberties, the oppressed and deprived, the law and the Parliament. His final contributions in the Senate were typical of his record here. He sponsored amendments preserving part time representation on the Human Rights Commission. He was not seeking to make a technical point; he was aiming to prevent the bureaucratisation of that body and to keep it in touch with the realities of human rights. He also sought, successfully, to have State representation on that Commission. His maiden speech in this place, in August 1974, was on trade practices legislation. It is an unusual maiden speech because it is not concerned with broad questions of principle but rather with particular technical concerns which Senator Missen had about the legislation, and it is therefore typical of one aspect of his work-his assiduous attention to detail which marked him out among senators. I would like to quote a couple of simple sentences because they could be applied again and again to his contributions in this place. After referring to the fact that the legislation had significant consequences for the people and industries of the country, he said that the legislation: . . . consequently should be considered very carefully . . . The amendments which have already been foreshadowed by the Opposition will I think improve the legislation. He took very seriously from the time of that maiden speech his role as a senator to improve the legislation which goes through this place often without very many senators' or members' eyes being cast over it. He made his last speech on the plight of refugees, and that was no doubt the most appropriate way that he could have ended his parliamentary career. He referred on the second last day he was here, during the debate that we have on matters of public interest, to the tragedy which had beset various refugee Afghan people. He quoted a former soldier of the Soviet Union as saying: The tragedy of the Afghan nation is made worse by the silence of world public opinion. That is a useful sentence to remember because Alan Missen was always concerned to make sure that tragedies were not forgotten and that public opinion would not be silent. I found when reading that speech yet another organisation with which he was connected. He was the patron of the Australian Relief Committee for Afghanistan. Only Alan could have adopted that role. I do not think that Senator Missen was unique in his interests but he was remarkable for his consistent and detailed application to his interests and concerns. His membership of committees and other organisations was never formal; it was never a matter of mere attendance. He gave assiduous attention to the details and to the facts, and he formed his views and stood by them. He was utterly consistent in that, whether his party was in opposition or in government. We all received many contributions from him in the form of his opinions and his research findings. He would issue after each Senate sitting a report on that sitting and distribute it widely. I was sorry to reread his last summary and find him expressing a gloomy view of the Senate's present activities and its failure to scrutinise government legislation and regulations, and I hope that we will honour his memory by living up to his request that the Senate perform that role better in the future than it has in the past. I thought that another good example of his work would appeal to the previous Labor Attorney-General, Senator Evans who, having so often found him an ally, often also found him to be an opponent when he was Attorney-General. I found that in 1981 he issued to his Liberal colleagues, and no doubt to his National Party colleagues, a paper entitled `The Seven Deadly Sins of Omission' from the Federal Government's 1981 Freedom of Information Bill. If he gave Liberal Ministers a hard time in what he saw as their sometimes dragging their feet on freedom of information, I have to say that I was greatly consoled when he gave the same hard time to Senator Gareth Evans and to his successor on the same issue. The enormous interest Alan Missen showed in the attack on organised crime was a more recent feature of his life and work, and his determination that there should be strong and effective measures some saw at odds with his considerable concern for civil liberties. It is worth mentioning that at this time, because it is a reminder of how fatuous it often is to label people. Alan Missen bore the label civil libertarian and I think he properly bore it, and some thought he lost an entitlement to it when he thought that organised crime was such a serious problem that it required significantly strong measures. I thought that it was an interesting facet of Alan's ability to look at the facts and to analyse them, and not to be locked into a position, that he took the strong stance he did. I would like to quote briefly from something he said in 1985 about organised crime, because it is very relevant today. Many senators would have heard the ex-royal commissioners Moffitt, Woodward, Costigan and Williams speaking on this subject as recently as yesterday. Senator Missen said: I don't think many people really understand the extent of organised crime in this country. I don't think they appreciate that basic civil liberties are about having a country free of corrupt officials, a country where you can go to the judges and use the proper processes of law. There was a lot more he said in that field that is worth quoting, and I hope will be quoted. To me it was a significant and important part of his more recent years as a member of this place, and as a politician. A lot of people will speak about Alan today and I limit my contribution in acknowledgment of that. I make just a couple of personal references. I first served with him on the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, and it was there that I learned to admire his dedication to work and his sincere concern for his principles. I later saw him bring into operation the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. That was important to me because it was an idea I had fostered and then, as a member of the Government, had to oppose. I saw him introduce it notwithstanding the opposition of the then Government and show that it worked and would contribute to the legislative process. I am grateful to him for that particular contribution. I, as a member of Amnesty International but one of the less known and I would say deservedly less known members, like the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) admired Alan Missen's work and activity on behalf of prisoners of conscience of whom, sadly, there are far too many around the world. We became friends through our work together. I worked with him as a colleague as Senate Whip and as Leader of the Opposition. I suppose it would be because I was Senate Whip that I feel I can say that I acknowledge that as a friend and as a colleague he was sometimes difficult, because of the strength of his views and his convictions on issues, but he was a man who did not let issues override friendship, and I am grateful to him for that. As has been said by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Missen had a talented wife. She was a loyal and devoted wife and she has our love and sympathy. They shared a great deal; the debating that was mentioned by Senator Button and many other things. She will miss him and, on behalf of the Opposition, I express our sympathy to her and our affection for him. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —On behalf of the National Party of Australia, I join the mover and seconder of this motion of condolence on the death of our departed colleague Alan Missen. As Senator Chaney said, and indeed as was mentioned in some of the moving tributes in the service that I was privileged to attend on behalf of the National Party on Friday, Alan was a difficult friend. I suppose I would be less than honest if I did not say that the National Party in this place found Alan's relationship with us at times difficult. Having said that, I think it is one of the signs of maturity in this chamber that it is not long before one looks beyond the philosophical veneers with which we cloak ourselves when we come in here and sees what it is that motivates a man. It has already been mentioned that the motivation which kept Alan going with such intensity was human rights and civil rights, which I suppose could all be summed up in the phrase, the dignity of man. In the pursuit of that Alan was unwavering. He was affronted by racism, by bigotry and by unjust imprisonment-all those things that he thought and, indeed, knew degraded the life of a human being. He was affronted by organised crime. Senator Button mentioned Alan's debating abilities. He was, indeed, a good debater. He was not aggressive but he was certainly thoughtful, thorough and intense. He was first and foremost a parliamentarian and secondly a politician. His committee work will be here long after our memory of Alan is gone because the work he did on committees and in the formation of some of them-as Senator Chaney said, even against his Government-will be there as a fitting memorial for him. We will all benefit from the work that he put into those committees for years to come. I suppose one could also say that Alan was a loner because of all those things we have mentioned. He was a loner, not because he was anti-social or because he did not like the friendship of his colleagues, but basically because he saw things differently. I guess we see them in a philosophical way, a State's way, a national way or an international way, but Alan reduced them not to their simplistic forms but more or less to their human terms. That is how he saw everything and judged everything. I suppose one could say that he was idealistic as well as being altruistic. I could not help thinking of that during the service when for the final hymn we sung those words of Blake's set to Parry's beautiful rendition of Jerusalem: Bring me my bow of burning gold! Bring me my arrows of desire! Bring me my spear! O clouds, unfold! Bring me my chariot of fire! I shall not cease from Mental Fight, Nor shall my Sword sleep in my hand, Till we have built Jerusalem, In England's green and pleasant Land. I suppose Alan's whole life revolved around building that new Jerusalem. Significantly, the New Testament lesson was also on that theme-from Revelation 21. His building of the new Jerusalem did not know any national boundaries, but it was certainly his motivating force. It demanded all of his being and ultimately demanded and took his life. Mr President, the National Party would like to be associated with all the remarks today and to extend sympathy to Mollie. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —Mr President, I join the Australian Democrats with the motion of condolence moved by Senator Button and supported by other senators. We want to place on record our deep regret at the passing of Senator Missen. Although I, as Leader of the Party, am pleased and honoured to give my Party's support to this motion, Senator Haines and Senator Mason, who had special reasons to admire and respect Senator Missen, will also be looking for your call later in this tribute. I find it quite salutary to recall that on the last day of sitting of this Senate-20 March-I was standing in this place making a contribution to some debate when I heard a familiar voice from a seat nearby interjecting about what I was saying. As was usual with Senator Missen, his interjections were never made to score a cheap political point or to be a smart-alick. The interjection, which I acknowledged, was made to try to be helpful and to try to improve the tone of debate in this place. Here I am, on the first day of this sitting fortnight, standing up, and I reflect that I was not dreaming in a million years, when I stood here just one sitting day ago, that Senator Missen would not be alive and active in this place today. That brings home to us the significance of our existence and the relatively short time that we have in which to make a real contribution to our fellow human beings while we are here. We can do a lot worse in pursuing that aim than looking at the standard of excellence set by Alan Missen in that endeavour. He was a man with a well deserved reputation for supporting the underdog and the oppressed. He was a true small `l' liberal, who staunchly followed the principles of John Stuart Mill. He was widely and properly recognised as a man of great courage. I worked with Alan Missen in the Liberal Party for many years and I recall with great pleasure the many battles that he and I fought in that Party, sometimes just the two of us, and I remember that he was a good and honourable companion to have in a battle. In the Senate, since I came here in 1978, I have had the pleasure of serving with him on many committees, including the memorable committee that helped to save the Franklin River from extinction. I suppose that one of the greatest tributes that one could pay to Alan Missen would be to say-those of us who have worked with him would agree-that he could never be taken for granted; that he was always his own person. He was always a person of ultimate intellectual capacity, who would hear evidence on a point and then make up his own mind irrespective of what kind of pressures were applied to him. Alan Missen will be greatly missed in this place, for both his personal and his intellectual capacities, and, indeed, for his international reputation for the championing of human rights, and that will ensure that his special qualities remain as a worthy example for others to follow. I, too, pay a tribute to his delightful wife Mollie. Like Senator Button, I, too, have been engaged in debates with her. Fortunately for me-unlike Senator Button-I was always smart enough to be on her side. She is a delightful person. On behalf of my Party, I send condolences to her at this sad time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy) —Like everyone else in this Parliament, I am asked occasionally why it is that people become politicians; what is it that drives us or motivates us to put up with the hostility and the cynicism, with the perhaps limited financial rewards-at least as compared to those of some of the professions, such as Alan Missen's, the law-and with the crazy, health-destroying hours and pressures that are our lot. My short and, perhaps, rather glib standard answer to that sort of question has always been that there are two basic motivations that I can discern in all of us who become politicians, to a greater or a lesser extent-there is megalomania, and there is idealism. The proportions might vary quite dramatically from case to case but elements of both are always present. I have to say that the life and parliamentary career of Alan Missen constituted, I think, the extreme limiting case for that theory. If there was any element of power hunger about Alan, he kept it extremely well hidden. He was absolutely, unequivocally and uncompromisingly an idealist-right over at the far, idealistic end of the political spectrum. Alan Missen believed intensely and passionately, as has been said, in an immense variety of humane and worthy ideals and causes, both within Australia and overseas. He fought valiantly and heroically against abuses of civil liberty wherever he found them. He fought for decency and respect for human rights and for justice, not only in a long list of individual cases but also in the way in which institutions and systems of government operate. He did have a long view, and the microcases that he pursued were almost invariably the vehicle for some or other macro reform that he was also pursuing. In fighting his causes, Alan was indefatigably and sometimes infuriatingly persistent-infuriating, when one felt, as his friends on both sides of politics sometimes did, that he had grabbed some particular bull by the wrong horn and could not, or would not, be persuaded to see that particular cause in some more balanced light. He certainly stretched his friendship with me on a couple of occasions during the long and vigorous war that he waged, as Senator Chaney has already mentioned, against the Government in general and me in particular on the organised crime issue, when we each regarded the other as adopting thoroughly misguided and perverse positions. But that friendship was never in any real danger at all of rupture, and nor was the immense respect I had for him over many years as a person and a parliamentarian, because there was always so much that was just, fearless and admirable about him, always so much that was worthwhile about the causes that he espoused. Let us think about those causes: Freedom from political oppression in every country, whatever its ideological makeup, which he pursued, of course, through Amnesty International; the cause of the protection of liberty in the legislative process, concerns which are more often, I suppose, in this society casually overlooked than deliberately ignored, but which are ignored nonetheless and which need mechanisms to correct them and which Alan pursued in his role, as has been said, as Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, the new Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs and all other forms of procedures in this place; the cause of improvement in the quality of public administration, which he pursued through a number of different kinds of campaigns, but none more effective than that which resulted in freedom of information legislation, an issue on which, as has already been indicated, at least in principle Alan and I saw exactly eye to eye, which made us both rather solitary figures within our respective parties from time to time, particularly when we were in government; the cause of improvements in our constitutional system, which Alan vigorously pursued in a variety of forums, not least in his co-patronage with Don Chipp and me of the Campaign for Constitutional Change, one of those numerous causes which did not get very far off the ground, it has to be acknowledged; the causes of improvement in the quality of life for individuals to the extent that that can be achieved through reforms to the law and the legal process. Again, there was no achievement more considerable, I guess, over all the years in this respect than what he did and was able to influence so far as family law was concerned. I guess that one of the issues for which Alan Missen will longest be remembered, and certainly that which endeared him, perhaps more than anything else to those on this side of the chamber, was the stand he took on the proper role of the Senate during the 1975 constitutional crisis. There has been a tendency in this place to reserve the label of good senator, good Senate man or great Senate man for those who have made it an article of faith that this institution should or must have the kind of overweening powers in relation to the House of Representatives claimed for it in 1975. Alan Missen did not ever believe that the Senate should have the power to block Supply or in any other way to destroy the capacity to govern of the properly elected government of the day. But he was, in the fullest possible sense of the description, a great senator, a great Senate man. Alan, I believe, had exactly the right perception of the proper role and function of the Senate in our constitutional system, not as a House of destruction but as a constructive House of review dedicated to improving the quality of legislation, scrutinising the Executive Government, monitoring the bureaucracy, and acting, particularly through its committee system, as a springboard for ideas. Alan used all the avenues and procedures available to him as a senator to the fullest; exercising all those roles but also enhancing the way in which those roles were exercised by the institution as a whole in the work that he did as chairman, and founding father in many instances, of those various committees. Let me finally say that Alan Missen had, as most of us do, a number of disappointments during his political life, none greater, I suppose, than his not making the front bench, even when the climate was perhaps a little more receptive to his particular brand of Liberalism than it is at the moment. In particular, there was his disappointment at not getting to be either shadow Attorney-General or Attorney-General, jobs for which he was eminently well qualified-although I kept telling him that the job of Attorney-General was not really all that it was cracked up to be. But there was no need in reality for him ever to feel disappointed about what he accomplished in his career in this place because those monuments are, as has been said, all around in legislation such as the Family Law Act and the Freedom of Information Act, to which he massively contributed, in the reports of the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee under his chairmanship, in the international standing and credibility, as again has been said, of our Regulations and Ordinances Committee and Scrutiny of Bills Committee which he brought either to existence or to maturity with the work under his leadership, along with the pages of Hansard in which he pursued issue after issue with great debating skill and merciless enthusiasm. Mollie, to whom all our hearts go out at this terrible time for her, can be very proud of Alan for everything he stood for and accomplished. I am certainly proud to have known him, to have been able to work so closely with him over so many years across political boundaries on so many issues dear to both him and me, and to have been able to call him friend. Alan Missen was a fine, spirited, independent and idealistic soul. There have not been very many like him in Australian politics, and there will not be again. I mourn his passing. Senator DURACK(Western Australia) —I support the motion of condolence moved by Senator Button and supported by Senator Chaney and other senators on this very sad occasion when we speak and are present in memory of Alan Missen. I had not known Alan for as long as had Senator Button or Senator Chipp, but during the years that he and I served in the Senate since he first came in 1974 I was very closely associated with a number of the issues and ideals which were very dear to Alan's heart. I met him some time before he came to the Senate when we were on a Party committee looking at policy matters. Honourable senators will not be surprised to know that the policy that we were discussing was freedom of information. At that stage, he was endeavouring to develop a policy for the Liberal Party of Australia on that important subject. I frankly concede that the work of that committee and particularly Alan's enthusiasm for that subject and the strong arguments that he presented first interested me in freedom of information. A few years later, when Alan came to the Senate, he pursued that subject with great vigour, as he did many other causes. The cover of the brochure at the funeral service referred to Alan Missen as senator for Victoria and champion of human rights. That was a most apt description but, of course, he was a champion of many causes other than human rights, although one can define that matter in very wide terms. I suppose that a great many of his causes clearly came within the term of human rights and he pursued them, as we know, with great vigour. He also had a great many other interests, causes and ideals. For instance, he was interested in and strongly supported environmental issues. He pursued them with the same sense of purpose and idealism as human rights. He was interested in a surprising number of different issues. As Senator Chaney said, Alan Missen's maiden speech was on an amendment to the Trade Practices Act, which seems to be very removed, particularly on the technical side, from his usual human rights interests. Above all, Alan was an issues person. He was really interested only in the success of the policies that he pursued. He certainly did not pursue his political career with any obvious personal ambition or to obtain power although he succeeded overwhelmingly because of the power of ideas and the strong purpose with which he pursued those ideas. Although he may not have been seen to be a politician who sought power, he did achieve it and, I think, he was entitled to believe that he had succeeded in many areas simply because of the force of his ideas and the vigour with which he pursued them. As I have said, Alan and I worked together on a number of matters which were very dear to his heart, both in government and opposition. We had many differences in respect of those matters but I believe that the differences we had were ones of means, not ends. He always sought fulfilment of the ideal, the full purpose of the policy that he espoused. He was not very interested in compromising and that always makes it difficult in politics, which is so much about the art of compromise. I sometimes wondered whether he felt dissatisfied. He achieved many of his purposes by the strength with which he pursued them and the persuasion that he exercised. Many of the issues that he pursued were ultimately on the statute book in one form or another and freedom of information is an obvious example. Human rights legislation and a whole series of legislation that this Parliament has enacted over the last decade in relation to the rights of people against the Government, the Executive and administrative review in one form or another are all very much due to the strong support that he always gave them. Thus he had every reason to feel that he achieved his purposes. As I have said, I hope that he got satisfaction from that, although one often wondered whether he did. He always seemed to have something of the divine discontent about him, the hallmark of the artist and I suppose of the idealist, but I think he achieved a great deal. Two characteristics impressed me greatly. They stood out in a very glowing way and perhaps compensated for some of the difficulties there were in working with him. One was the effort he put into anything he did. He was a very, very hard worker. He worked long hours and effectively. He never seemed to stint himself. His was an outstanding career and an example to us all of what can be done by dedication and hard work; of course, bringing to bear his own great abilities. He had many great abilities and he put them to the best use at all times. The other characteristic which impressed me greatly was his integrity. He would always tell a person what he felt; he would always say when he disagreed and he would always say when he intended to take a different view, whether that be in the private councils of the Party, in this chamber or at other public platforms. Those two characteristics stood out and for some people who worked with him they were great compensation for the differences that sometimes-in fact very often-occurred. I believe he did wear himself out. Of course, he died unexpectedly and very suddenly. He may well have lived longer if he had looked after himself more. From talking to Mollie, I think she felt that too, but she understood why he did it. Of course, it is a great sadness for her that the man that she loved so much and supported so splendidly all his life was lost to her at an earlier age than perhaps otherwise would have been the case. But he got his satisfaction from continuing with the work that contributed to his death at an earlier age than perhaps would have been the case in other circumstances. I am sure that he was pleased to pursue and got his satisfaction from pursuing those great ideals in the great work that he did. His widow, Mollie, to whom we all extend our deepest sympathy today, understood that. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —As a fellow member of the rather large class of 1974 in this place, I would like to say a few words of respect for the late Alan Missen. As my colleague John Button has said, Alan Missen was a free spirit. If he was ambitious for power or position in this place, he never let any of us know that and he certainly did not seem to allow any such ambition to be a constraint on his activities in this place in what he said and did and in the issues that he followed up. He was unusual enough, I suppose, in the Australian political context in that he was an intellectual politician and took an intellectual approach to what he did. But that intellectual approach was tempered by compassion-compassion for those who through no fault of their own or otherwise were less well off than the rest of us; compassion for those who were oppressed internationally or in this country; compassion for anyone he thought was treated unfairly. As a Minister for Social Security, I frequently heard from Alan Missen about people he thought were treated unfairly in that narrow sphere. But, as well as being compassionate, he pushed the ideas that he had and the issues that he felt strongly about with great passion. He could get extremely passionate in Amnesty International about those matters that he took seriously and he frequently spoke in the adjournment debates in this place on matters that were of importance not just to him and his State, not just to him and his own political career, but to the whole nation. I am pleased to have known Alan Missen and to have served with him on the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. I remember one memorable occasion when the majority decision of that Committee was put down by Senators Missen, Chaney, Button and Grimes and the minority opinion by Senators Wright and Everett. That was an extraordinarily difficult thing. I am sure that Senators Chaney, Button and Grimes would not have had the courage to put down that decision without the strength and intellectual capacity of Senator Missen to assist. As I have said, I am very pleased to have known him and to have been in this chamber and this Parliament with him. Victoria has lost a very fine senator. The Senate has lost a very fine parliamentarian. My deepest sympathy goes to Mollie, who, over all those years, has been of such great support to Alan. I know that words are not much help in times like this but I am sure she realises that all of us send her our greatest sympathy. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales) — When beggars die there are no comets seen. The heavens themselves blaze forth the death of princes. I thought of those words of Shakespeare the other evening while looking for the comet because it struck me that among classical liberals there was no one more entitled to call himself the prince than Alan Missen. Today there is more than simply an empty chair beside me; there is a void in the Australian body politic and a very empty space in my heart. Alan and I were soul mates going back to my teenage years. Indeed, even in my parliamentary career, the first day that I came into this Parliament I sat next to Alan Missen. The last day he was in the chamber we were sitting together. Indeed, he was a touch-stone for me in terms of philosophy and of principle. I was never embarrassed to play the role of Sancho Panza to his Don Quixote, for Alan was indeed a great tilter at windmills, both real and imagined and both actual and potential. It was occasionally difficult to stand here and make a speech and have Alan Missen sitting beside me muttering under his breath: `You have sold out again, haven't you?' But perhaps the balance of megalomania and idealism is different in me than it was in Alan. In his fight for justice and for human rights, Alan was totally indiscriminating. Whether it was in Kabul, Dili, Santiago, Addis Ababa, Aurukun, Moscow, Jaffna or Soweto, it made absolutely no difference to Alan. I remember one of my very senior Party colleagues at one stage telling me: `The problem with Alan Missen is that he thinks he is the only person in the chamber with a conscience'. Perhaps the real test was that he was the only one in the chamber who had never learned how to suppress it entirely under all circumstances. He said on many occasions that his ideal was Gladstone-not that he was taken to wandering streets at night, but that he genuinely believed that he became more liberal as he got older. Perhaps his greatest memorial will be what takes place around us in this Senate chamber. Of all the things that he achieved, it is his achievements as a parliamentarian which really need to be highlighted. All honourable senators who have so far spoken have talked about his work on the Freedom of Information legislation designed to redress the balance between citizen and government. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has been mentioned. Perhaps one should remind oneself that both the Freedom of Information legislation and the Scrutiny of Bills legislation were pieces of legislation that he was prepared to pursue to the point of crossing the floor. But his work on the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, his work on delegated legislation, his chairmanship of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs which brought down a report on delegated legislation, his appointment as the first ever chairman of the international conference on delegated legislation, and his work on the revision of privilege and the defence of privileges of citizens were all matters of enormous significance. His work on the National Crimes Monitoring Committee proposals was also designed to ensure the adequate protection of individuals. If I may return to Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, he was a bit like Brutus, not only the noblest Roman of them all but perhaps seeking to restore the older and perhaps indeed imaginary and purer days against the caesarism of the Executive of whatever political colour. The width of his interests was enormous, whether in law reform or the environment. His work in relation to the Great Barrier Reef and the Tasmanian dams issue persuaded him that he probably needed a visa for at least two States of Australia. I mention his work in the conservation movement as a member of Project Jonah and as the honorary solicitor for more than a quarter of a century for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and his absolutely outstanding record on human rights. Perhaps above all, even in the case of an individual, such as William Sinclair who could find nobody else to speak for him and everybody else ready to condemn, Alan believed in that individual and went to the most extraordinary lengths to seek justice for him and to seek redress. As a member of Amnesty International he was enormously concerned with the rights of people in this country and around the world. It is perhaps ironic that, even in the normal course of events, he would not have been in the chamber today. In fact, he would have been in Rome as the Deputy Chairman of the Amnesty International panel on Sri Lanka. It had invited him there once again to report to the international community his findings on the civil liberties question in that country. But, above all, I suppose that Alan would have wanted to have been remembered as a liberal, a small `l' liberal, or indeed as he once told a university audience, as a capital `T' trendy. He had a philosophical commitment to liberalism. He opposed socialism because he thought that it did not give the sort of recognition to the individual human spirit that he believed in and for exactly the same purposes and for exactly the same reasons he rejected conservatism because he thought that that was predicated on a belief that individuals could do nothing which, in turn, was predicated upon a loss of faith in oneself. Alan never lost faith either in other individuals, no matter what the empirical evidence to the contrary, or indeed in himself. I think the most definitive statement of his beliefs was delivered in a speech to the Politics Club of the University of New South Wales on 31 August 1981. The speech was entitled `The Liberal Struggle against the Politics of Fear'. Having surveyed the world an international political and philosophical trends, Alan gave a ringing conclusion endorsing the liberal spirit. He said that Liberals must develop long-range economic vision for Australia and that they must reject all those things which sought to bind or limit them. He said that people had to look at how it was that the human spirit could be liberated not just in a philosophical sense but also in an economic sense and he concluded with these words: Liberals must look at reform in this country, whether it be the removal of injustice or anomalies or the updating of our Constitution, as urgent tasks worthy of much effort. I do not believe there is ground for despair, but rather for optimism in the assets, ingenuity and growth of the Australian people. The politics of fear has been a temporary phenomenon in democratic societies-let us take all necessary steps to move it on its way. All that he did he did with great passion. Perhaps the only consoling thing about his early death is that the passion continued to the very end. I extend my personal tribute to Mollie-an expression of my sympathy which she knows I mean most sincerely. For those of us who are left to go on, the late Alan Missen will be a constant touchstone and inspiration. He knew, I suppose, the essential difference between the principle of compromise and the compromise of principle. We will not let his cause falter nor his banners lie in the dust. I bid farewell to this man of principle, this gentle, intense, kind and passionate soul, by turning to the words spoken by Mark Antony in the play Julius Caesar as he stood over the body of the fallen noble Brutus. He said: His life was gentle, and the elements so mix'd in him that nature might stand up and say to all the world-`This was a man'. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —I wish to be associated with the condolence motion moved so ably by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button), seconded by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) and supported by such a wide variety of speakers today. It is a sad day that the Senate is meeting and deliberating without Alan Missen. It is a sad day because we have lost a very human, a very compassionate and a very decent human being as well as one of the Parliament's best contributors to all the issues that have been referred to by many of those who have spoken. This is the fourth occasion that I can recall in the 15 years that I have been here that we have adjourned the Senate due to the death of a sitting senator. The other occasions were due to the deaths of Senator Milliner, Senator Greenwood and Senator Knight. I think it is a tribute to the late Senator Missen that he was respected by a large number of people who have written articles in the newspapers and have made contributions to the condolence motion today. As has been said, Alan was a person of strong liberal views which were distinctly different from the conservative views which existed within his own Party. In that sense he had a deep and unflinching commitment to a whole range of issues, such as civil liberties, human rights throughout the world, liberalism in the small `l' sense, constitutional proprieties, legal reform and an active government role in the social and economic affairs of our country. This commitment led him to champion a number of causes, often causes of a minority view. As I reflect on it I can endorse most of those causes. Even though we often differed on how we would achieve those objectives and, despite our opposite positions, we were nevertheless able to come to a common position on a wider range of issues. One of these issues or causes was his blanket opposition to capital punishment. Before his death one of his last acts was to lead a delegation in his capacity as Chairman of the Australian Parliamentary Group of Amnesty International to protest against the continuation of capital punishment in three countries. When we look at those three countries-the People's Republic of China, Iran and the United States of America-we see the common position that we can take in respect of that issue. There was his early and outspoken opposition to apartheid long before that issue enjoyed wide and commanding support in the Australian community. He publicly reinforced that commitment last year when he spoke against the changes in policy on that issue in the Victorian Liberal Party. Senator Puplick and others have referred to the fact that he took up a whole range of issues concerning matters such as the Great Barrier Reef and the Franklin River. He took a public position on such environmental issues. He expressed his continued support for public ownership of institutions such as the Commonwealth Bank, Telecom Australia and Australia Post. He is on the public record as supporting a means-based welfare system to ensure that benefits were concentrated on the needy and the deserving. Other speakers have referred to his staunch opposition to the Communist Party Dissolution Bill in the 1950s and the pain that that must have caused him when disciplinary action was taken against him by his Party. Most importantly he endorsed the right of the party which enjoyed the confidence of the House of Representatives to govern and he opposed the Senate's withholding of Supply from the Government-a view which he reiterated only four months ago on the tenth anniversary of the dismissal of the Whitlam Government, not because he supported the policies of the Whitlam Government but because of the important constitutional proprieties of the limitations that the Senate should impose upon itself on such important matters. Perhaps he will be remembered most of all as someone who was prepared to honour the principles for which he stood irrespective of the damage that this may have caused to his parliamentary and political prospects. In the world of politics these days when perhaps pragmatism has assumed a higher profile than the principles we often have, Alan Missen always stayed with his principles. That, of course, is a very important aspect of his characteristics which we should recognise. It is one of the reasons why he enjoyed the support, and the recognition of his integrity, of members of the Government party. I recall the difficulties he had in dealing with the Indonesian invasion of Portuguese East Timor and the difficulties he had, with his Government, and which many of us have in our Government, about the imprisonment for almost two decades of the Indonesian Foreign Minister, Dr Subandrio. Nevertheless he found, as we have found, that our philosophies have to be examined within the constraints placed upon us in terms of the way governments act in these matters. I respected him as a person, at the personal level, and as a member of the Senate. He was one of the few early members of the Liberal Party of Australia to remain in politics. I agree with the contributions made so far by those on his side of politics: Despite his long-standing health problem he remained an active, progressive and highly principled member of the Parliament who will long be remembered for his activities in the human rights area and for his contributions to debates on the trade practices legislation and the Human Rights Commission. One can echo without any question the generous remarks made by a former senator, John Wheeldon, who, in an obituary in the Australian recently, described him as one of the Parliament's truly independent spirits. I regret his passing because he stood for many issues that transcend party politics. He was unflinching in his support of those many principles upon which we enjoy common views. I regret his passing not only in relation to those principles but also because we have lost a fine senator, a fine human being, and the Parliament, as indeed is the community of Australia, is the loser by his untimely death. I pass on to his family my personal condolences. I know I speak on behalf of all of us in this chamber in expressing our great sympathy at his passing. Senator HAMER(Victoria) —I should like to add my condolences on the death of my colleague, Senator Alan Missen, and convey my deep sympathy to his wife, Mollie, who is being now as always a tower of strength. I was associated with Alan for all of his career in the Federal Parliament. I took part in a number of his campaigns, particularly ones concerning the establishment of proper freedom of information legislation and the setting up of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. These were long campaigns, the objects about which Alan felt passionately. They were not always popular with Executive governments of whatever political persuasion; nevertheless, the fights were won and they represent a lasting legacy of substantial advances in the efficient working of the Westminster system of Parliament. Alan was always a fighter for causes. The list is long and impressive: The Family Law Act, the Human Rights Commission, Amnesty International, the National Crime Authority and the International Commission of Jurists-the list goes on and on. I did not always agree with Alan but I could always see what he was fighting for. His purposes were often noble and were always concerned with protecting the rights of individuals against bureaucracies and oppressive government-the very essence of liberalism. In retrospect, many of his campaigns have been shown to have been both wise and appropriate. Every political party needs a conscience and Alan Missen during his political career undoubtedly provided one for the Liberal Party, of which he was a foundation member. He served on the Victorian State Executive for 13 years and was a Vice-President of the Party. He was always on the side of social justice and the underdog, and he fought all his fights fiercely. He never gave up. Even when he was obviously very sick, towards the end of his life, he still fought just as hard and went down fighting, as he would have liked to have done. His motto might well have been: `Fight the good fight, with all thy might'. The Liberal Party, the Senate and Australia are the poorer for his passing. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —I wish to associate myself with this condolence motion. As I look across the chamber to the empty bench next to Senator Puplick I am painfully aware of the large gap Senator Missen's passing has left. It is not simply a physical gap because, after all, certainly in his latter months he was becoming even more frail and spare as a physical figure. However, I believe that the very presence of Senator Missen in the chamber betokened something much more than his physical aspect, the figure of the man. There was a great moral strength there, so we will all be very conscious of his passing. I entered the Parliament in 1978 and I believe that immediately I became a firm friend of Senator Missen, across the political divisions. I say I believe I became a friend, because it was a friendship which was always rather disconcerting because it put demands upon one that one was never quite sure one could fulfil. Just when one thought one was getting along quite fine, he would get a bee in his bonnet which was absolutely impossible to dispel; an infuriating obstinacy would set in and the limits of friendship would be tested. Not least do I recall this in relation to the inquiry into the National Crime Authority Bill, which has also been mentioned by Senator Chipp. I chaired that committee. I well recall the endless arguments we had as Senator Missen refused to have his recommendations and conclusions labelled a dissenting report. As far as he was concerned his conclusions and recommendations were quite equal to any others; they were of quite equal status to the conclusions of the other seven members of that Senate committee and it was just unfortunate that his conclusions happened to have been put forward by a minority, in this case one member. So we departed from the usual custom concerning Senate reports and did not label his views of one as a dissenting report. It was the only way we could get the report published. Nevertheless the friendship survived, I believe because of the tremendous respect in which he was held. I mention, as have already been mentioned many times, two monuments to Alan Missen, in a parliamentary sense. His chairmanship of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs laid the groundwork for those monuments. For many of us he was a tutor and mentor on the mysteries of Senate committees, and I believe that his efforts will have an effect in years to come as present members of the Senate become models, heroes, mentors and tutors for new members of the Senate. I think that both the freedom of information legislation and the setting up of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee truly represent a parliamentarian's approach to government. Governments should be put under constant scrutiny and prodded along so that the Executive has to answer for both its administrative activity and its legislative proposals to the elected representatives and thence to the people. As I learned in Ottawa, Canada, at an international conference on delegated legislation some years ago, this fearless and persistent questioning of government had made Alan Missen something of a hero and model for other parliamentarians throughout the world, particularly from Commonwealth countries. I discovered at that conference that they regarded him with some awe and certainly attempted to learn some of the lessons of his experience and apply them within their own parliaments. Paradoxically, I believe that much of the success of the Senate committee system for which he was responsible, and work in relation to which he undertook so ably, led to what was in his view a decline in the importance of the chamber itself. I know he certainly held this view very strongly and felt that the standard of debate within the chamber had declined from the standard which he said prevailed when he entered. As I say, that may well be because of the tremendous rise in the status of the work of the Senate committees with which he was associated. We have lost a very able debater, a very great parliamentarian and I believe a very good friend in the passing of Alan Missen. I wish to extend my deepest sympathy to his wife, Mollie, and support this condolence motion. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria) —One wonders what else could be said about the remarkable service of Alan Missen in this place and throughout Australia, after listening to the very fine speeches that have already been made. However I wish to make a comment on behalf of members of the Liberal Party in Victoria and in the other States, and perhaps in particular on behalf of the members of the Young Liberal Movement, with whom he had such a close association throughout the years. It has been said often enough here by my colleagues that he did not seek power, and I think I could agree with that; but I would have to argue that he did seek influence. He wished to influence those others in the Party, in the Party organisation and in the wider community, sometimes to his own personal point of view and sometimes to an ideology to which he felt committed. His influence in our Party organisation has many signposts in our Party platform, our Party policies, policy speeches leading up to an election and things of that kind. I know that the members of the Young Liberal Movement who have moved from that stage to later stages in their Party history will remember well his influence on them as an active associate of the Young Liberal Movement. He sought that influence and I think exerted it, and he relished it as well. It has been said in the last week or two that he always stood alone. I do not see him as someone who wanted to stand alone; I see him as someone who wanted to influence other people. In discussing whether he sought power, can anyone envisage his being bound by the Cabinet solidarity that would have been expected of him on a large range of issues if he had been a serving member of a Ministry or a Cabinet? It would be quite alien to him. When he did not influence those with whom he had to associate, he went on his own course. That was the characteristic of Alan Missen that made him different from a lot of us who work within the structure and discipline of a party. I was very impressed with the service that was held last week to mark his death and to note throughout that congregation representation from the widest possible community organisations and individuals. There were those whom one would have expected to be at such a service and there were those whom we may not have expected to have found the time or made the effort to be part of that enormous congregation to pay respect to him. There were those from the international organisations to which reference has already been made, but a number of individuals who spoke to me I knew to be people who had just a personal association with him. On many occasions one found individuals who said that he had helped. It might have been a Commonwealth driver on an immigration problem or an individual on some other personal matter. They found infinite patience in Alan Missen's office and in the service he gave as a member of the Parliament. A lot has been said about his work in the Senate and it will speak for itself as we look at the many contributions that were made. We have always had the contribution that we valued in our own Party room and in the other committees of our Party, and it is fitting to hear tributes being so widely expressed at this time. I wonder whether anyone reading this in the future would see him as a paragon of a man who was so selfless that he had no enjoyment from life or did not seek relaxation in ways most of us would normally find attractive. We place into balance Alan Missen when we recall the sheer delight that he had from a pleasant dinner, or in the planning he undertook to make a visit overseas; the enjoyment he had when Mollie was about to come for a week to Canberra and he could arrange to see their friends and to meet them. It is nice to reflect that on the last week he sat here among us Mollie happened to be in Canberra and they were able to do some of the things that he enjoyed so much. They were planning a long trip in the winter recess which would have been the same sort of trip as the ones they had enjoyed together throughout most of his public life. On those visits he built the international reputation about which we have heard and of which we are so proud as serving members of the Australian Parliament. I was pleased, Mr President, that you were able to be at the service to give recognition to one of your serving senators. All who attended that service and who have heard the tributes today share in the honour he brought to this place and to the Party of which I am a member. I join in the expressions of sympathy and affection to Mollie and give our thanks to her for the support she gave in a personal way and also in a community way to the work Alan undertook on our behalf. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —I join the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button), the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney), and other Senate colleagues in paying tribute to Alan Missen. For Alan Missen the Machiavellian theory of politics was anathema. That politics and societal institutions be used as a power base for power's sake was unknown to the thinking of Alan Missen. Over a period of 10 years I was able to share considerably more than some people might imagine work and ideas with Alan Missen. As a member of Amnesty International, I supported and admired his work for those whose human rights were threatened or denied. As a member of this Senate I shared, I believe, in the work to preserve this chamber as a genuine house of review. The words `rubber stamp' were not in Alan Missen's vocabulary. Where we did part company, however, was that I could not share his obvious commitment to Mill's concepts of empiricism and utilitarianism. But I was fascinated to see that Alan also parted company with Mill and some of Mill's theories when at times these became obviously and inherently unintelligible. Freedom for the experimentation of individual ideas and actions within society carries with it, of course, the responsibility that these be consistent with the integrity of society itself. On Sunday we had an indication by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Premiers of all six States that the drug problem was attacking the very fabric of our society. Alan Missen knew this some time ago, as no doubt did the people who spoke on the issue. He was an active opponent of the drug trade. We need to ensure that his work in this area in his vigourous opposition to the drug trade is carried through. We need also to isolate those factors within modern society which contribute to disillusionment among our young people and their escape to drugs, including unemployment, loss of dignity and family breakdown. Alan's death enables us to examine our own consciences to ask whether we are creating a legislative atmosphere where the practice of what is good and beneficial is made easy but free, and where people are encouraged to choose what is good or what is better. Unfortunately, I did not know of Alan's death until Wednesday of last week. Perhaps that shows how independent one is of political parties, but I think it reveals that I was away bush for two or three days-contemplating the first and last things, I suppose. When I got back I was surprised to read in the Press that Alan had died. He died on the eve of Easter, a very fitting time, I believe, for anybody to die. Two weeks before then I saw Alan on a plane and when I got off the plane I went to the transport officer and said that Senator Missen was crook. He looked very ghostly that morning. I then went to Alan and said: `Listen, mate, are you all right?'. He said: `It is just this problem that I have got'. I know full well that it was only his commitment to his parliamentary duties that kept him here during that period. This would be the last place that I would be if I was feeling that unwell. I believe it is an indication that here was a man who was a committed parliamentarian and is obviously honoured as such. I would also like to take this opportunity to pass on my personal sympathies to Mollie, who as has been said, has been a great inspiration to Alan. Senator HAINES(South Australia) —Senator Alan Missen may not have been a paragon. Indeed, to many of us, as Senator Gareth Evans said earlier, he was something of an irritant-if not a constant one, at least a regular one-but he was a man from whom, as others have said today, we could learn a lot. When I was first here in 1978 I was the only member of my Party here and, of course, therefore had no colleagues from the same political persuasion to whom I could turn when I did not understand a particular piece of legislation or when I was puzzled about something or other that was happening. Alan taught me one of the first lessons in politics that year. I remember being puzzled about a clause that was in a particularly complex set of Bills-I think it was to do with the atomic energy package-and, as I often did, one day I wandered into the parliamentary dining room at breakfast time, lobbed myself down at a table which had a spare seat and on this particular occasion Alan happened to be at the table. I complained that I could not understand a particular clause and, what was more, from asking around among various other senators, I could not find anybody who could explain it to me. Alan looked up at me and, with what I suppose was mild cynicism, said `Ah, but who reads the legislation, hmmm?', with that purse-lipped hum which Alan would offer all of us and which meant: `I hope you have learned a lesson from that and I am probably the first one to have pointed it out to you anyway.' Indeed, it is part of the problem that Alan saw around here that too few people did worry about reading the legislation and making an attempt to understand things that were sometimes complex because it is easier after all, is it not, not to think about things that might bother us, that might cause us to challenge our colleagues or that might cause us to become irritants. As we all know, to our cost at times, Alan was not able to do that sort of thing. Thinking things through, needling people, becoming something of a senatorial terrier, if you like, about pursuing concerns, pushing amendments and getting one's own way even to the point, as Senator Tate said, of having one's sole opinion given equal weight to that of the other seven members of a committee in a Senate report was something of which Alan was a past master. He also taught me a lesson the last time I saw him. It was the last sitting day before this one, and I happened to be at the airport with him and subsequently on a plane to Melbourne. That plane was delayed leaving Canberra and we had some time to talk. It was also delayed actually getting to the concourse, because we had one of the few emergency landings that happen in Australia. It was nothing particularly dreadful, although none of us on the plane really knew what was happening. In the period that all of this took place Alan and I had been discussing my concern about being late for a meeting I was supposed to be attending that night. As it happened, I never arrived there and it was because of my conversation with Alan that I did not worry too much about the fact that I did not get there. The organisation I was to address was a particularly right wing one which wanted to berate me about the Australian Bill of Rights and the whole human rights package. Alan spent some time telling me that I was foolish to worry about being late. For a start, it was beyond my control and, secondly, I should not worry generally about trying to appeal to people who essentially were bigots or extremists. To him, one either ignored them or fought them. I think that was what Alan did most of all. He refused to be worried about how people would perceive him and whether what he did was approved by them or not. If he did not agree with them, he simply fought them. Senator Evans when he was speaking earlier said that not all of Alan Missen's causes got off the ground. I guess that that could be true of all of us. The important thing about Alan was that he never worried about that as an issue either. To him it was important not to be influenced by whether one's particular cause was going to get off the ground but to fight for that cause and to take up that issue if he thought it was worth taking up. Whether it was, as Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle said, a problem facing a Commonwealth car driver or whether it was the one Senator Puplick raised concerning William Sinclair or whether it was a question of basic human rights in South Africa, South America, Argentina or anywhere else, Alan fought for them with equal persistence and enthusiasm. Like a number of other people in this chamber and elsewhere, I was particularly impressed by the thanksgiving service that so many of us attended on 4 April. I was struck, as was Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, by the number and the wide range of people who attended that service, from ordinary individuals through to members of parliament to members of various repressed groups whose causes he had taken up. I was impressed too by the form the service took. I do not know whether Alan, as some people do, had any input into the form of thanksgiving service he wanted when he died. I suspect that he did not because Alan was not, it seemed to me, the sort of person to whom self-aggrandisement or self-congratulation was very high on the list of priorities. I imagine that what happened with this service was that people who knew him and loved him best chose the psalms, the hymns and the lessons most appropriate to Alan as a human being and to Alan's life. The little sheet that was given to us when we arrived had on the front: `A service of thanksgiving for the life and work of Alan Joseph Missen, senator for Victoria, champion of human rights'. I do not think that it is insignificant that the officiating clergy included people such as the Archbishop of Melbourne, the Most Reverend David Penman-himself, I suppose, a noted liberal thinker; the Right Reverend Peter Hollingworth, Director of the Brotherhood of St Laurence, whose commitment to social justice is well known; the Reverend Andrew St John, Vicar of Holy Trinity; and the Reverend Carlie Hannah, one of the first women to be ordained into the Anglican Church. I think that that set of officiating clergy would have satisfied Alan enormously. But along with that, as Senator Collard has already mentioned, a number of the sections of the service were particularly appropriate. The first of the hymns was a piece by John Bunyan from the seventeenth century. I should like to read a little part of that. The first verse reads: Who would true valour see Let him come hither; One here will constant be, Come wind, come weather; There's no discouragement Shall make him once relent His first avow'd intent To be a pilgrim. Pilgrims are not easy to get on with. In fact, I would say-having never been one but having looked at a few such as Alan-that it is not easy to be one. But nobody and no thing deterred him from that. For those honourable senators who, perhaps, are not familiar with what being a pilgrim is all about, I say that a pilgrim is someone who goes on a journey for a sacred purpose. I think that the question of human rights, for Alan, was a sacred purpose. The hymn finishes with these three lines: He'll not fear what men say; He'll labour night and day To be a pilgrim. Alan did that. He was not a paragon. He was an ordinary human being, with, perhaps, fewer faults than most of us; but that is essentially all that he was-a human being. The important thing about Alan was that he recognised that there were other human beings with similar rights, similar values and similar entitlements to life, and he fought for those, as many of us would like to do but, perhaps, do not have the same commitment or that same balance about which Senator Gareth Evans spoke earlier. It is, after all, easier for most of us to swim with the tide, to protect our backs, to excuse our lack of action by saying things such as `The time is not right yet', or, `Maybe if we leave it a little while we can pick up a few more to come with us'; to take a pragmatic stance on the things in which we believe. Alan's integrity and compassion and his deep belief in the value of individual human rights would not allow him to do that sort of thing. While all of us agree that he was not an easy man to live with and to work with, or even to know, it is important that we use him, as Senator Puplick said, as a touchstone, as someone whose actions we should aspire to emulate, as someone whose values are worthwhile copying, as a person who has probably done more for humankind in his 60 years than most of us could do if we lived to be twice that age. In saying that, I think there is all the more reason to extend to Mollie our deepest sympathy. She was, in fact, a helpmeet to Alan in the broadest sense of that term, sharing his commitment to the things that he believed in. Her life will be particularly empty without him. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria) —I would like to support the motion of condolence and the tributes paid by other senators. I was not able to attend the service last week for reasons of distance. When I heard of Alan's death I was thinking of that very song To Be A Pilgrim. It was uncanny and I was very moved to learn just now that it was in fact part of the service. I first met Alan Missen nearly 40 years ago when we were both students at Melbourne University. I am talking of the late 1940s, early 1950s. At a time when most of his political colleagues at university were preoccupied with the political paranoia of those times, Alan Missen stood out for his even-handed logic, his level-headedness and his preparedness to discuss issues with people such as me who had very different political views from his own. I remember that one of those issues was capital punishment. In recent years I have shared a number of platforms with Alan and it was always a positive experience. We did not always agree, although it seems that the organisations that asked us to speak very often were those which had views on which we were able to agree at least to some extent. But we could always differ reasonably and without rancour. In one of the most populous States, Victoria, most people do not know the names of their senators unless those senators have been around for a very long time or unless they are Ministers. Yet in the last few days a number of Victorians including, interestingly and particularly, women-that was one of the groups whose civil rights Alan was very interested in-have spoken to me about their great sense of loss at his death. Alan was committed to the protection of human rights, both in Australia and overseas. I think he will be remembered particularly for his espousal of civil rights in this country and for his work for Amnesty International. I believe we should honour his memory by extending that work. Alan Missen will be sorely missed in this Senate and in the wider community. I know personally that I have lost a friend and we have all lost a colleague of outstanding integrity. I extend my sympathy to his widow and to all of those who grieve for him. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) —Many of us enter these debates on motions of condolence often relying on the words of our leaders to speak for us all, but this will not do for Alan Missen. He was not a paragon, but he was a singular person; he was not a paragon, but he was a singular Liberal; he was not a paragon, but he was a singular senator. If we spoke for four hours on this motion, if every honourable senator present in the chamber got up to speak and if we shed a few tears, it would be no more than the memory of the man deserves. As a person he was singular because of his uncompromising and quite predictable adherence to his principles as he saw them. No one else in this place in my time here has approached his determination to act in this way. We could use for Alan Missen, not as an epithet of criticism or rebuke, but in the very best sense, the words written by Thomas Carlyle in 1837 about Robespierre, that he was `sea-green incorruptible'. He was not easy to deal with on issues if an honourable senator was on the other side-and many senators have made references to this fact-but it was seldom difficult to understand the basis on which he had formed his view or to see the principle which was guiding him, even if one disagreed completely with what he was saying. His adherence to principle was demonstrated very well as early as 1951, when he risked his political career and his future place in politics to campaign against the referendum proposal to outlaw the Communist Party. I was too young to vote at that stage, but that was when I first heard of Alan Missen. Appalled by the anti-liberal and anti-democratic sentiments of that referendum proposal, I was pleased that Liberals as prominent and as clear-thinking as Alan Missen broke ranks to oppose the referendum successfully. In that and in similar stands on other issues he was a powerful continuing voice of the tradition of liberal, democratic thought and practice that brought many of us to this side of politics. Alan Missen's personal courage was very great. His actions were taken always with complete disregard for any adverse effects they might have for him personally. Not surprisingly, but sadly, he was at times a lonely person in his public life. Other speakers have referred to this already. Some of us managed to become closer to Alan in the last year or two of his life. It was a privilege for us to give to and receive mutual support from Alan and Mollie on political and philosophical matters. Alan came to me for medical counsel. Indeed, we discussed some of his very considerable health problems by telephone at some length just three days before he died. It is sufficient to say here that his health was very bad for a long time, that he had borne a heart attack privately-secretly-and that the one thing that seemed to improve his physical state most was a good stoush on an issue, whether it occurred in the chamber, in the Party room-particularly, I suspect, in the Party room-or on a committee. He never looked better than when he had been in a good fight. Alan was a singular Liberal. He was one of the very few still active in the political life of Australia who had been involved in the formation of the Liberal Party of Australia. An examination of some of the things Menzies said and wrote in the days of the formation of the Party tells us something about Alan Missen and places him in context. Menzies said at that time: There is no room in Australia for a party of reaction . . . Alan Missen believed that. In The Forgotten People Menzies said: . . . [while] individual enterprise must drive us forward. That does not mean that we are to return to the old and selfish notions of laissez-faire. The functions of the state will be much more than merely keeping the ring within which the competitors will fight. Our social and industrial obligations will be increased. There will be more law, not less, more control, not less. Those were Menzies' words, but they describe Missen's view of liberalism and of the country. Menzies also said: We took the name Liberal because we were determined to be a progressive party, willing to make experiments and in no sense reactionary. Alan Missen was active then, in 1944. He was active in writing the early documents that defined the Liberal Party of Australia. He was imprinted for all his life with the early Menzian views. He was a traditional Liberal-people have used different words today such as `Gladstonian', `Mills', `a Deakinian Liberal'-as many of us today consider ourselves still to be. Australia was the beneficiary of this commitment and philosophy. Alan Missen, except when suspended for his stands on principle, was a continuous member of the Liberal Party from its formation to his death. He was always right in his total opposition to the Communist Party dissolution referendum in 1951. Let us say it: The Party was totally wrong, not only on the issue, but also in punishing Alan Missen for his opposition to its stand. After all, if we eschew the tyranny of the Caucus-our political opponents have the Caucus-if we will not have a bar of that system, we must accept the consequences of people acting to exercise the right of dissent that the freedom of our Party and our philosophy provide, and we must do so without punishing them. Alan Missen was prominent in the Party councils. He served the nation for 12 years in this place. He was a singular senator. He was one of a small class of dedicated parliamentarians, institutional senators, who served the Parliament and its institutions first and foremost. Perhaps it was inevitable that he gained no preferment. Perhaps, as Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle has said, it is just as well that he was not asked to submit to the Cabinet discipline or to the rule of Cabinet government. That was not very important, however, as he made a lasting contribution to this Senate and to the institution of parliamentary democracy in Australia with his work, especially his work on the committees of this place. I think particularly of his commitment to the two legislative scrutiny standing committees-the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, of which he had been Chairman, and the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, whose establishment he promoted enthusiastically. He was by nature, as someone else has said, an issues senator. Issues were what drove him on. As Senator Puplick said, he was quixotic. He was determined, passionate and powerful on a range of causes which have been mentioned, and which ranged from family law to freedom of information, human rights, Amnesty, the Human Rights Commission in particular, the National Crime Authority, South West Tasmania, law and social reform, and Aboriginal issues. My leader, Senator Chaney, will recall the struggles of 1976 as we put the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act in place, and other issues affecting the environment. Mr President, to the extent that any funeral can be good, Alan Missen had a splendid funeral. He would have been pleased that so many people attended. He would have been pleased that the Archbishop of Melbourne honoured him by attending. He would have been delighted that his friend Bishop Peter Hollingworth officiated. He would have glowed at the magnificent tributes, the words spoken about him, by parliamentary colleagues such as Ian Macphee, his former parliamentary colleague Peter Block and the very eloquent words spoken by his old friend Peter Frankel. He would have enjoyed, as Senator Haines and others have said, the choice of service. He would have enjoyed the tribute paid to him by Amnesty International. He would have been pleased that Mollie Missen was able to know of the real regard, respect and affection that so many people held for him. Alan Missen was a well qualified, well equipped, fearless and committed servant of Australia and of this place. We shall all miss him. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —Different dimensions of Alan Missen's life have been addressed here today and further dimensions will be addressed later. Obviously, as Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle has pointed out, his was a very rounded life, a full life and a life which made a great contribution to this nation. I speak as a fellow member of the Victorian Council of Civil Liberties, of which Alan was a member for many years. There was one gap in that membership during the time when one of the officers of the Council declared, and continued to declare, that the Holocaust never occurred. I should say that a similar gap appears in the membership of Senator Gareth Evans. Alan Missen was a great civil libertarian and a great member of the Council of Civil Liberties. The testimony that has been given here today is evidence of that, and I will not repeat it. It has been said about Alan that he was a difficult person, and that is so. He was like the prophets of old. He declared loudly what he saw as right. Many of us attempt to declare what we see as right but we do otherwise because of practical considerations. The questions Alan Missen asked were: What is humane? What is right? What is proper? What is decent? I say: What better questions are there to ask? I express my sym- pathy to his wife, Mollie. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —I wish to support the motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I join in the tribute to my former colleague, Senator Missen. At this stage of the proceedings many of the things that I would have liked to say have already been said. I do not intend to delay the Senate by repeating them. There are just one or two things that I would like to say. Firstly, I remember one occasion when Alan confirmed my suspicion that he was a revolutionary, not a gradualist. During one of my attempts to persuade him not to cross the floor he put to me that the only way to solve the problems, as he saw them, was to take the giant step first and then to correct backwards. For example, he did that regarding the Family Law Act, over which we had many disputes. Whereas some of us on this side see it as better to progress down a gradual path, his path quite clearly was that of the giant step forward. Underlying Alan Missen's philosophy was always his deep concern for people, particularly the underprivileged or politically or racially oppressed. I am staggered to keep reading in the media that he was a wet, because those of us who have heard him talk about tariffs would know that he was ultra dry on that subject. Of course, that explains one of the great problems that the media have with those who sit on this side of the chamber: While we may appear to be wet on one matter we may very well be dry on another. When I was selected for the Senate Alan Missen and his very fine and lovely wife, Mollie, invited my wife and me out to dinner. We had dinner in town in Melbourne while Alan talked to me about the Senate. Like probably everyone else in this chamber, he talked about the Senate and its future. The thing that I can never forget was the choice of the meal. Mollie, my wife and I chose our meal and continued a conversation while Alan kept poring over the menu. Ultimately, about 15 or 20 minutes after he had started to look at the menu the waiter standing by asked whether he could assist him. The waiter started with the very simple question whether Alan wanted red meat, white meat or fish. Alan had great difficulty making up his mind. All in all, it took him about 35 minutes to determine what food he would eat. That is an example of the sort of care that Alan would take over what many of us would see as a relatively simple issue. Alan followed it through to the last detail as he discussed with the waiter whether a dish had herbs or salt and pepper, whether it was cooked in butter. Alan applied that same concern for detail to his role as a senator and parliamentarian. Senator Haines said that he did not care what anyone thought about him. With one exception that was so. That one exception was Mollie. He did not care what I, anyone in this Parliament or anywhere in Australia or the rest of the world thought about what he was doing and thinking; he only cared what his dear wife Mollie thought. She was his one great friend. We went to Canada together. We met on various trips overseas. My wife and I extend our very deep sympathy to her. Alan will certainly be missed in this chamber where he has been the conscience of liberals on both sides of the Parliament. Senator McINTOSH(Western Australia) —I too would like to be associated with the tributes that have been paid to Alan Missen. I will miss Alan. Many fine things have been said about him. It boils down to the fact that he really cared. He cared for the institution of parliament and he cared for people. Senators on both sides of the chamber this afternoon have admired his stands on the institution and people. I am reminded of the words of Thomas Macaulay when he spoke of Horatio: . . . even the ranks of Tuscany could scarce forbear to cheer. I salute Alan and extend my sympathy to his wife Mollie. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales) —The tributes today and at the service last Friday, both in nature and in number, have indicated that Alan Missen was a very special person; indeed, a different and unusual kind of person. One can identify the main threads of the tributes that have been paid. If there is one thing that we can say about him it is that he was his own man. That is somewhat unusual in this company and wherever we walk, because we have a tendency in walking through life to become entangled in the cobwebs of compromise, in the contacts and prejudices we have, and to lose sight of our own goals and of being our own person. The first of the two main threads is that Alan Missen was a man of fiercely independent thought. I remember him from the early days of the formation of the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party of Australia, in the days when the Victorian Young Liberals were so active. Throughout those days he had a fierce and passionate desire for independent thought. That is the main characteristic that I remember. One could disagree with Alan Missen-many of us did quite frequently-but one could not ignore him. That was the message. Whether he was right or wrong he challenged us to think about matters. It would have been easy-indeed, I made the mistake a number of times when I sat on the opposite side of the chamber-to look at him as a burr under the saddlecloth of the Government or the Party; an irritant who could annoy one and could slow down the passage of good government or good decision-making. One would have been wrong, and I was wrong on many occasions, in thinking of him as such. One thing he was not was deliberately destructive. He thought that his contributions were part of a constructive pattern. The other thread which runs through the tributes and which again makes Alan Missen somewhat unique in this company is that he was certainly not a headline seeker. He did not seek publicity, did not want to see his name in the media and did not simply invent a story so that he might catch the Press. He did something on which we could all model ourselves; he sought to make a good product, rather than simply to make good and eye-catching public relations. My experience in life is that if one has a good product its success will follow and if one has the best of all public relations and a dud product it will fail. I puzzle when I think of the choices that are all around us in public life. That very wise but somewhat cynical Persian poet Omar Khayyam, set out some of the challenges in a little verse which said: `How sweet is mortal sovranty!'-think some: Others-`How blest the Paradise to come!' Ah, take the Cash in hand and waive the Rest; Oh, the brave Music of a distant Drum! When I look at Alan Missen's journey through life, I do not think that he was seeking mortal sovereignty. I think he had the paradise to come in true perspective and I am sure that it has him in that perspective, and I devoutly wish that it is so. He was not the kind of man to be roused by the `take the cash in hand and waive the rest' quick trick style of politics. I believe that he marched to the brave music of the distant drum, and that is a message for all of us. It would be absolutely wrong for me to say that I was not irritated by him or annoyed by some of the difficulties I thought he had, because sometimes I regarded him as a prickly man and sometimes, as the Leader of the Government in the Senate, I found him to be my hair-shirt, but it is interesting that these condolence motions tend to have a cathartic effect on us all. They tend to force us not only to look at the walk through life of the person we are describing and put it in better perspective but also, in doing so, to see how our prejudices were wrong about certain matters and the lessons we might have learned. I value his journey. As I have said, I have seen his contribution from the early days of the Victorian Liberal Party and I have seen the enormous quality of his philosophy. He was a strange paradox. He was a philosophical Liberal in total and yet within the John Stuart Mill spirit, if you like, he was his own man, his own person. I thank Alan for the contribution he made to us all. I am quite sure that we have all learnt from his journey. One could not talk of Alan or his journey without talking of his wife. They were not only a man and wife but a magnificent partnership in their walk together and they gained enormous benefit from that mutual walk. I am sure that Mollie heard and hears the brave music of a distant drum. If his journey has reminded us that one should listen a little more clearly to that drum then we are all the better for it. I extend to Mollie and to other relatives my personal sympathy. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —I also regret that Senator Missen is no longer with us. Although I knew Alan Missen for only a short time I understand the value of his contribution to Australian political life and to the particular causes for which he worked with a great deal of dedication. He struck me as being a gentle person who was highly principled in all his political actions. It is a constant danger in political life for pragmatism and the party line to get in the way of principles. It is a danger to which Senator Missen did not succumb, to his great credit. His fairness, his humanitarianism, his independence and his courage will be greatly missed from the Senate and from Australian public life. I join other senators in paying tribute to his life's work. Senator MASON(New South Wales) —I rise to express regret at the untimely death of Senator Alan Missen and to express sympathy to his family-his wife, Mollie, and relatives-on behalf of Amnesty International and particularly on behalf of the Parliamentary Group of Amnesty, which was one of Alan's closest loves and one of his greatest enthusiasms. I also extend that regret and condolence on my own behalf. Alan presided over the Amnesty Group in this Parliament for the past four years. I think he was its mainspring; he was its drive, and he will be missed greatly because of that. While I do not deny that it is to the credit of honourable senators that they are a part of that Group, I believe that it was because of that nagging impulse of Alan Missen's reminding us that a meeting will be held today, that certain things have to be done, that this has to go on the agenda, that this matter has to be decided, that that Group became the successful and influential body that it is. It has done some things that I think are worth recording in the Hansard of this Parliament. I was one of those who were with Alan during his recent visits to China, Iran and the United States of America that Senator Gietzelt mentioned to protest against the continuation in those places of capital punishment. I was deeply impressed with the skill, almost cunning, with which Alan was able to insinuate points of view of those ambassadors whom we found initially to be not particularly receptive and whom we left, largely due to his efforts, a good deal more receptive than I would have believed possible. This was the case even with the Iranian Ambassador. Alan had the degree of persuasion and the ability to hold on with a bulldog grip to the things he believed to be right which I see as one of the chief values of a human being-perhaps the chief value of a human being. Recently he again displayed these qualities on issues in Sri Lanka. He more than anybody else understood, sympathised and grieved for the appalling situation in Sri Lanka. I think it is tragic for that country that he has died now because I think his initiatives in the future would have been as valuable as they have been in the past. Again, he was interested in East Timor. He was one of that small group of us here who have been called the Group of Senators for Lost Causes who, I think, bear in mind that no cause is ever truly lost while there is a single person who speaks for it. I think that again Senator Missen's persistence was one of the lessons that his life has taught me. As some honourable senators have said, that persistence has extended internationally. He had contact only last year with the human rights group in the British Parliament through Lord Avebury. From that came discussions which I think even yet may make it possible for some multi-country approach to the Indonesian Government which may help to alleviate, if that is possible, some of the human rights problems which still exist in East Timor. That again is a cause in which Alan Missen believed strongly, and in which I do. I am probably getting a little forgetful about these things but I think it was Latimer who made the point about people lighting small candles to dispel the darkness in a naughty world. Alan Missen was one of those. I do not think one could give him any better epithet in that regard. I think that his view of the Senate is something which is worth while putting on record. I have had a number of conversations with Alan on that matter. Senator Gareth Evans perceived Alan rightly as an idealist because the ideal which he saw eventually-although he recognised the necessity or the inevitability of party politics-was what parliaments should be, if only we could make them that. I do not in any way decry the difficulty of that. He saw it as a place where men and women of good intent speak, discuss and consider and, as a result of that, take actions which are in the best good of the community. Because of that I think Alan saw that it was desirable to have that abrasiveness. That has been a strand in this debate as I have listened to it right through. Plainly, Alan's individualism was an irritant. It was a strain. It caused difficulties. I say great, that that was a good thing to have happened. There should be more of it. The fact that Alan Missen is here no longer unfortunately means that we will get less of that in future. However, we all die one way or another or leave the scene. I was very struck with Alan Missen. Firstly, he truly got my respect on that last rather tumultuous night of the Fraser Government when in this House, amid very emotional scenes, the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill passed the Senate. It passed because Senator Alan Missen and Senator Neville Bonner, both Liberals, crossed the floor. Alan Missen said to me: `I am going to get into great trouble over this'. He said: `I don't care. I have done what I thought was right'. I do not think one can ever go beyond that. If one can reach an honourable death, as I think Alan has at the age of 60 years, fighting a grave illness-I know well enough what a strain that illness was on him-and can say honestly that one has done those things which one believes to be right and said only those things which one believes to be right and true, I think there is not much greater tribute one's fellow human beings can pay than to acknowledge that. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —While I realise that very little remains to be said-there have been so many contributions this afternoon-I would like to be associated with the condolence motion in the Senate today on the death of Alan Missen. I was one of the many people who attended the funeral. I am quite sure that no one would have thought that there could have been a greater tribute than the tribute to Alan. It must have been a great comfort to Mollie his wife. Such a broad community representation must have made her realise how very well Alan was thought of in the community as a whole. The only committee I served on with Alan was that concerning the review of the Family Law Act. We both put in minority reports-not of the same opinion, I might add. He thought the Committee had not gone far enough. I thought the Committee had gone too far. As has been said here today by so many honourable senators, his views never overrode his friendships. Believe it or not, Alan and I were very friendly. He used to come to me when he had to go on television and say: `Come on, give me some of your make-up.' I do not know that I did a very good job but I was able to use some of my make-up to prepare Alan for the television cameras. We had many jokes about it. It has already been said here today that Alan had been sick for quite a long time. I agree with Senator Peter Baume who said that he believed that Alan felt far fitter here than he would have felt had he succumbed to his illness and gone to bed back home. I hope that, when Mollie reads the Hansards and realises how many senators, how many of his colleagues from both sides of the chamber, have spoken so many words of praise, it will be a comfort to her. I know that it is a comfort to the spouses of members of this place and members of the House of Representatives when they realise how many of their spouses' colleagues have spoken so well of them; we do so rarely speak well of each other when perhaps we should. But it is a comfort and I send Mollie all my sympathy and all my love. Senator SHORT(Victoria) —I would like to endorse the very many tributes that have been paid today to our colleague Alan Missen and to add just a few words to this condolence motion, in particular in conjunction with Senators Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, Hamer and Lewis on behalf of the people of Victoria. Alan Missen was quite obviously a very distinguished parliamentarian during his 12 years in this place. He defended in the strongest possible manner the role of the Parliament relative to the role of the Executive, regardless of which political party was in government. As a result, there is no doubt that democracy in Australia is the stronger today. He was a great advocate of the rights of the individual against the ever-present encroachment of governmental and other institutions. In that sense he was truly a very distinguished Liberal. He was a man who always fought and fought fiercely, on the basis of a principle rather than on the basis of personality. All of us in this chamber have much to learn from Alan in that respect. Alan Missen's passing leaves a very significant gap in this chamber. His loss will be mourned by many Australians from many walks of life and by many persons and groups around the world. As others have said today, the funeral service for Alan in Melbourne last Friday was a very moving example of that. On behalf of all Victorians, I just wish to express our sadness at Alan's passing and to thank him for the significant contribution he made towards the building of a better Victoria, a better Australia and a better, more caring and just world. I extend to his wife, Mollie, our deepest sympathy. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia) —I also wish to express my sympathy to the family of Alan Missen. I considered Alan Missen a great person. He was totally honest with himself, and there are very few people in this world who are totally honest with themselves. Alan would not have gone down the wrong path or a path in which he did not believe. Irrespective of what anyone else said, he believed that he was right. To be totally honest with oneself is a marvellous attribute to have. Alan Missen was also a man who raised issues. Everyone could be in agreement but Alan Missen was prepared to raise the possibility of an alternative. He made people think, and that was a great thing. Many good things have been said about him. I express my sympathy to his wife, Mollie. The Senate is a much better place for having known Alan Missen. Senator SHEIL(Queensland) —I rise as a Queensland National Party senator to add my tribute to Alan Missen. I came here with him in 1974 and I noted that Mrs Sullivan, the honourable member for Moncrieff, was in the gallery this afternoon. She came here as Senator Kathy Martin at the same time as Alan Missen, and she was here to pay her little tribute to him too. Another matter that I would like to mention for the sake of Alan's widow, Mollie, is that Senator Puplick, who used to sit beside him in the Senate, brought in a single white rose this afternoon and put it on the desk. That was a very touching gesture which I am sure Mollie will appreciate. When it comes to memories of Senator Missen, I recall that when we first arrived here almost our very first act was to vote ourselves out of a salary increase. I remember how staggered I was to find out that Senator Missen actually thought we should not get the increase. I learned very quickly to approach his views with caution. That was in the heady days of the Gough Whitlam Government and the coalition in opposition must have been a little looser then because I remember we had eight National Party senators and each of us had to oversee about five different portfolios. One of those that fell to me was that of Attorney-General and as such I was associated with Alan Missen. In fact there was a whole committee of lawyers and I was the only non-lawyer on it. Of course at the time we had a veritable deluge of reformist legislation on family law, superior courts, trade practices and anti-discrimination measures of all sorts. It was a very busy committee, with arguments wafting back and forth. I had to follow these and very often I was asked what I thought about certain issues. I remember once when we were discussing anti-discrimination, committee members were worrying about discrimination in clubs in Australia. There had been a most heated argument about who should be allowed into clubs. When some of the committee members asked me what I thought about discrimination in clubs I said: `I thought the whole idea of having a club was to discriminate'. I remember that Alan said to me: `Trust you to say something like that'. I remember also that some men's clubs were under discussion at the time and I was reading their aims and objectives and rules and regulations. Alan wanted to let women into men's clubs and his argument prevailed. However I pointed out that the second of one particular club's aims and objectives was to promote intercourse among members. In any case, Senator Alan Missen never seemed to give the amount of weight to my political views that I thought they deserved. However, he gave weight to my opinions as a doctor. I attended to a number of his minor illnesses in this place and whenever he introduced me to people he would say: `Oh, I must tell you the story about the time I swallowed my false teeth'. He did swallow them-it was at dinner here one night. He came up to me and he was shaking a bit-I think the incident must have upset him. He seemed surprised when I asked him what course he was eating. He told me it was dessert and I told him: `You do not need a lot of teeth for that'. I told him to put himself in my hands and I would treat him with `some masterly inactivity and a bit of watchful expectancy'. I added: `You keep your eye on things and they should come out all right'. He did and they did and he seemed very happy. I also remember that when I first came here I started playing tennis at lunch time. Alan had not played for years but he decided that this was a great idea. He loved the game and he turned into a useful player. He played in the inaugural game between the Senate and the House of Representatives and in subsequent matches. He enjoyed the sport and I was very pleased that he did. I remember the gusto and enthusiasm with which Alan Missen used to attack his committee work. It has already been mentioned here today. He seemed capable of enormous amounts of work; he just drank it up and poured out the results. I am pleased to hear that other people were helped by him by way of explanation in lots of areas. In family law particularly I always used him as my consultant and I found his advice was always spot on and very helpful. He always had that independence of mind and spirit that has been mentioned here this afternoon and I know he travelled the world for Amnesty International. He had many meetings here in Parliament House. I am an active non-member of Amnesty International. He had lots of meetings here and I always used to go to them. He always seemed so grateful and he always thanked me most kindly for doing that sort of thing. I think in his case 60 years was not a long time. We are just lucky to have been able to travel part of that journey with him. I extend my love, my sympathy and my condolences to Mollie. Senator HILL(South Australia) —I wish briefly to speak to the condolence motion. I knew Alan for less than five years but I worked a lot with him during that time on the Tasmanian dams case, which has been referred to earlier today, on the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, on the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, for a short term the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority, a monitoring committee, and Amnesty International. We developed a firm friendship and he greatly influenced my life. I was not going to be anecdotal but Senator Tate spurred my memory of one small story concerning Alan's dissenting report to the National Crime Authority committee report and our joint experience in relation to that matter. I was recently on an aircraft with Alan and he mentioned to me that he was suing a particular newspaper for calling him, in part, a maverick. I said: `But Alan, I would have thought that you would have appreciated that'. He responded in a fury because, of course, Alan did not see himself as a maverick. It was the others who were mavericks, to such an extent that he was prepared to take out a writ. I also admired Alan as a parliamentarian rather than a politician. The Parliament was always his forum, not the lobbies, the Party room, the media or whatever else. The public forum of parliament was precious to Alan Missen and, as has been said today, he had the intellectual capacity to use it well. Because it was so precious to him he constantly worked for its improvement and I admired him for that. His challenge was always how the Parliament could work more effectively and act as the greatest safeguard of individual liberty that we have. It has also been said here today that Alan was a reformer. There was little that Alan saw that could not be improved; the law, the institutions or the Constitution. Nothing was sacred. As has also been said, he was always the energetic reformer, regrettably, a rarity in Australian society, and I admired him for that. He was a great civil libertarian. His passion was to give the individual a fighting chance over the ever-engulfing bureaucracy and government, which we saw through his work in the areas of freedom of information, administrative law reform, consumer protection legislation and other activities which will always be part of his legacy. I also admired his productivity. He was a prodigious worker. I had trouble keeping my head above the mass of papers he constantly sent to me and I admired his capacity particularly at a time when I and all others here knew that he was not in good health. He was an activist, not just a talker. I just reflect upon Alan going to the Soviet Union and smuggling out documents to assist dissidents. Alan did not simply talk in the Parliament or in other forums. He actually got out into the community and participated and worked towards the achievement of his goals. He was a great fighter for human rights. We saw it in his work in so many areas of the world-as I think was said by Senator Puplick-in the Soviet Union, East Timor, Sri Lanka, South Africa and elsewhere. We saw it particularly in his work in Amnesty International, and I admired him for that. At the time of his death he was Chairman of the Amnesty International parliamentary group, the first AI parliamentary group in the world. That group has written a short tribute to him which I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard as part of my speech. Leave granted. The tribute read as follows- AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL AUSTRALIA 6th Floor, 262 Pitt Street, Sydney NSW 2000 PO Box A159, Sydney South NSW 2000 Tel 02/267 2075 4 April 1986 Senator The Hon. D. McClelland, President of the Senate, Parliament House, Canberra, ACT 2600 Dear Mr President, Amnesty International Australia wishes to record its great appreciation for the late Sen. Alan Missen's many years of active support, through his involvement with the Amnesty International Parliamentary group. At the time of his death, Alan Missen was Chairman of the Parliamentary Group, a position he had held for the past three years. He had been actively involved with the work of the group from its earliest days. Reflecting the universality of human rights, and the impartiality of the work of Amnesty International, Alan successfully drew together members from all parties in the Federal Parliament to join the group. His commitment to parliamentarians forming Amnesty International groups was further evidenced, as he assisted with the establishment of some of the State parliamentary groups. In July 1985, he addressed the 18th World Conference of the Society for International Development, in Rome, on the work of the Australian Federal Parliamentary group, urging the establishment of similar groups in other Parliaments around the world. Hansard will record that Alan Missen's last speech to the Senate referred to human rights. In that speech on 20 March 1986, he turned his attention to Afghanistan. Alan Missen had called for an end to human rights violations wherever they occurred. Recently he had urged against the refoulment of Tamils to Sri Lanka. He spoke strongly in support of Amnesty International's human rights concerns in East Timor, El Salvador, South Africa, USSR and the treatment of the Turkish minority in Bulgaria. He also actively sought Australia's unconditional ratification of international human rights agreements and their subsequent appropriate implementation in Australia. Alan Missen leaves more than the record of his words in Hansard. His legacy will be measured by the future actions of members of the Parliament on behalf of the victims of human rights violations throughout the world. Yours sincerely, Eric Moxham, President, Amnesty International Australia. Senator HILL —I thank the Senate. It is possible, of course, to go on and to mention so many good causes and so many achievements. What strikes me so much is his achievements in barely a decade in this Parliament. I reflect that it is so much more than the achievements of so many who have claimed higher office in this place. To him what he was trying to do went to the real essence of contemporary liberalism, and I believe he was right. I will miss him greatly. The last few words he spoke to me were said when he left this building on our last day of sitting. Of course, he believed that he was heading off to Rome during the two non-sitting weeks to pursue a human rights lecture. He asked me to look after his interests whilst he was away, as I suspect he asked a few others to do. Certainly, in my modest way I will attempt to do that in the years that lie ahead. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —Every Wednesday morning, in session, at 8.30 Senator Missen's health would improve, that is if the comment by my cousin, Senator Peter Baume, is accurate-that a good stoush would stimulate him. Senator Crowley and he always had a very interesting meeting in the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. Alan would go out of that meeting with his eyes sparkling, victory or not under his belt. He had, in that Committee which he was so instrumental in creating, a determination to ensure that the Executive, which at no stage he believed ever could be trusted, should be held in check. If there was a hint of retrospectivity or a sniff of a reverse onus of proof, or any suggestion of anything unduly oppressive, somehow it would jump out of the page at Alan Missen and he would then jump at the Executive. Without singling out the clerks in this place, he had a great dislike of the clerks who sought to oppress us, meaning clerks in the much more general sense. He regarded the bureaucracy as the clerks who sought to confuse the Parliament, to mislead us and certainly to lead us astray. It is interesting that so many people here today should have felt the need to speak, the desire to speak in this eulogy, this debate. It is, to my knowledge, the longest such debate that has been held. It is interesting that so many of us have sought to identify, one way or another, with the virtues that we saw in Alan Missen. I, for example, had always felt close to him on the score that we had both violently opposed the dissolution of the Communist Party and had spoken against the referendum on it. I, like Senator John Button, had the pleasure of debating against that formidable duo of Alan and his wife, Mollie. It does seem that many of us who have felt that we have made accommodations in order to achieve things here have made accommodations that Alan Missen would not have made. I think many of us appear to be thinking that it was wrong to have made those accommodations, that in fact the way of purity, the way of determination that was Alan's whereby in fact he would refuse to lose a battle even if it would enhance his opportunity of winning a war, was right. We are behaving as if that were of necessity the right way and ours the wrong way. May I say that, while I think it is essential that any chamber such as ours should have someone who is so clearly its conscience, none of us should denigrate the contribution of those of us who do make those concessions to, if one might call it, reality, who do acknowledge that there are times when one must, if one seeks to achieve one's objective, resile from one's principles because one's long term objective is uppermost in our minds. Let us not, surely, by acknowledging and respecting the determination of Alan Missen never to give way on a matter of principle, by default suggest that the objectives of those of us in both parties here which in many cases oblige us to swallow our pride, to hold down our principles and to stick together are not worth while and wholly proper objectives. I would like to join my colleagues in identifying, where I can, with Alan Missen in the things that I must say I wish I had been better at, the things that he was much better at than I am. Perhaps in many instances I should have stuck more to the principles which I thought were important but which I suppressed because I thought that there was another long term goal. I do feel that, as Ian Macphee said in his eulogy at the funeral, Alan Missen was an outstanding parliamentarian but he was less successful as a politician. I hope those of us who acknowledge the outstanding contribution that Alan Missen made do not in any way diminish our own achievements in this place. Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable senators standing in their places. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That, as a mark of respect to the memory of the late Senator Alan Joseph Missen, the Senate do now adjourn. Senate adjourned at 4.36 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 398) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What has been the increase in staff in each level in the Department of Finance in each of the last 10 years. (2) How does this compare with staff increases in the Public Service in general. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honour- able senator's questions, as published in Weekly Hansard No. 19, compared operative staff in the Department of Finance with permanent officers for the Service as a whole. An amended reply showing figures for permanent staff in each case is set out below: (1) The attached table provides details of staff variations at each classification level, for permanent staff only, in the Department of Finance as at 30 June for the years 1977 to 1985 and 31 December 1976. The Department of Finance came into existence in December 1976 when the Department of Treasury was split into two Departments (ie Treasury and Finance). The Office of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and the Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office are autonomous agencies within the Finance portfolio; figures for these and other separate agencies previously within the portfolio are not included. (2) The figures used for comparison purposes for the Service as a whole were taken from the Public Service Board Statistical Year Books. However, the only figures available for comparison were for permanent staff by level at 31 December of each year. Taken over the whole period, the figures show a decline of 1.9% (from 1,008 to 989) in the staff of the Department of Finance compared with an increase of 18.5% (from 117,795 to 139,644) in the staff of the Public Service in general. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE VARIATION IN PERMANENT STAFF BY CLASSIFICATION-1976 TO 1985 COMPARISON BETWEEN DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE IN GENERAL Classification Level 1976 DoF Service 1977 DoF Service 1978 DoF Service 1979 DoF Service 1980 DoF Service Senior Executive Service Level 6... 1 nil 12 nil 4 nil 3 nil 6 Level 5... 0 no nil 2 nil 1 nil 1 nil 12 Level 4... 4 figure 1 88 nil 13 nil 12 nil -1 Level 3... 0 avail- nil 234 nil 4 3 15 -1 -5 Level 2... 16 able 1 202 nil 20 -1 44 nil 12 Level 1... 2 nil 663 nil 4 nil -1 -1 -7 Clerical Administrative Class 11... 49 834 7 6 2 85 1 69 2 104 Class 10... 4 1001 nil 1 nil 6 nil 24 nil 69 Class 9... 78 2236 5 57 -2 187 2 165 6 199 Class 8... 58 3309 -1 22 -2 -8 -7 140 -3 190 Class 7... 44 2891 nil 496 -6 50 6 127 -6 220 Class 6... 65 6101 nil -377 -10 482 2 295 3 184 Class 5... 43 5493 -8 50 2 52 6 158 -4 196 Class 4... 71 6920 2 261 -5 33 -7 532 3 120 Class 2/3... 90 7655 -1 -158 -2 265 2 -146 -3 226 Class 1... 44 11168 nil -2302 -7 567 -6 -96 -3 337 Cadet ... 3 116 5 -24 -7 45 3 -35 -4 -58 Computer Systems Officer Grade 5... 1 1 -1 nil 44 nil 30 Grade 4... 3 No nil no 2 no -1 102 -1 33 Grade 3... 12 figure -1 figure 1 figure 3 271 1 100 Grade 2... 7 avail- 5 avail- 11 avail- 2 447 2 185 Grade 1... 11 able 7 able 8 able 1 542 3 55 Clerical Assistant Grade 8... 0 14 nil nil nil 9 nil -1 nil 7 Grade 7... 2 91 nil -3 nil 10 nil 12 nil 5 Grade 6... 2 502 -1 28 1 21 nil 46 nil 30 Grade 5... 2 840 nil 31 nil 75 nil 70 nil 40 Grade 4... 10 3173 -1 67 -1 199 2 214 1 141 Grade 3... 50 4819 -2 38 -1 305 6 85 nil 254 Grade 2... 27 4003 2 44 -9 -70 1 119 3 -8 Grade 1... 54 9344 nil -1370 -20 737 -3 -16 2 387 Keyboard Typist Controller Gr 2... 1 nil no figures nil no figures nil no figures nil no figures Personal Secretary Gr 2... 0 nil nil nil nil Personal Secretary Gr 1... 1 nil nil nil -1 Steno-Secretary Gr 2... 9 -3 455 nil 36 3 45 -1 30 Steno-Secretary Gr 1... 20 -1 1009 -1 18 nil 49 1 -4 WP Supervisor Gr 2... 0 nil nil nil nil Wp Supervisor Gr 1... 0 nil no figure avail- able nil no figure avail- able nil no figure avail- able nil no figure avail- able WP Typist Gr 2... 0 nil nil nil nil WP Typist Gr 1... 0 no nil nil nil nil Typist Supervisor Gr 2... 2 figure avail- able nil -1 nil nil Typist Supervisor Gr 1... 5 nil 1 -4 nil -3 Typist Gr 2... 42 -11 1471 -11 81 -2 117 nil -3 Typist Gr 1... 31 -1 4918 -1 166 -15 78 nil 93 Supervisor (DPO) Gr 2... 3 nil 36 1 nil -1 1 nil 4 Supervisor (DPO) Gr 1... 6 nil 77 -1 3 nil 11 nil 3 DPO GR 3... 15 -2 159 -1 4 3 -1 -1 7 DPO GR 2... 73 -6 1121 2 47 14 89 -9 79 DPO GR 1... 21 -8 296 nil -34 -10 9 1 40 DPO-In-Training... 2 5 43 -5 -7 -2 33 1 -38 Computer Operator Senior, Grade 1 ... 2 nil 75 nil -2 1 nil nil 1 Senior, Grade 2 ... 1 no nil 82 1 6 1 14 -1 -2 Senior, Grade 1 ... 1 figures nil 70 nil -2 1 8 nil 9 Grade 2... 1 avail- 1 177 nil 7 nil -3 -2 2 Grade 1... 1 able -1 125 nil -38 1 10 6 -34 In Training... 2 nil 96 nil -38 1 -29 -1 nil Other ... 16 17285 -6 -9174 -6 207 -3 -1827 nil -835 Total ... 1008 117795 -15 -896 -68 3550 0 1915 -7 2415 Classification Level 1981 DoF Service 1982 DoF Service 1983 DoF Service 1984 DoF Service 1985 DoF Service Senior Executive Service Level 6... nil -5 1 -2 nil 1 nil 2 nil 1 Level 5... nil 13 nil nil nil 4 nil 6 nil -4 Level 4... nil -8 nil -10 nil -8 1 14 1 9 Level 3... nil nil -1 1 1 2 1 7 nil 9 Level 2... nil 22 nil -20 -1 nil 4 17 3 45 Level 1... nil 8 nil -6 nil 16 4 5 -2 8 Clerical Administrative Class 11... 2 99 3 23 -1 84 5 162 5 256 Class 10... nil 71 nil 4 1 31 -2 66 3 43 Class 9... -2 176 7 16 8 172 8 322 14 543 Class 8... 3 175 7 -16 -4 153 1 357 8 401 Class 7... 8 252 nil -38 1 157 7 387 7 396 Class 6... -3 335 -2 9 -5 157 1 497 -1 800 Class 5... 13 45 2 -23 -1 31 -3 788 -2 697 Class 4... 3 436 nil -99 -7 -25 3 -293 -3 937 Class 2/3... -6 -7 -4 -165 3 198 -14 554 10 369 Class 1... -3 7 -4 -247 -2 796 -6 2285 5 -1199 Cadet ... nil 5 nil 40 nil -16 5 -22 -5 18 Computer Systems Officer Grade 5... nil -19 nil 4 2 14 1 2 1 10 Grade 4... nil 11 nil 8 4 28 1 12 -1 35 Grade 3... 1 -33 1 37 5 65 -3 63 6 60 Grade 2... nil -5 2 43 -1 48 -3 69 -3 73 Grade 1... -1 65 -5 65 -2 -22 -2 15 6 3 Clerical Assistant Grade 8... nil 5 nil -4 nil 8 nil 5 nil -5 Grade 7... -1 14 1 10 nil -4 nil 8 nil 79 Grade 6... -1 37 nil -13 nil 4 1 57 1 1 Grade 5... nil 80 nil 13 nil 76 nil 619 3 129 Grade 4... -2 159 2 -80 nil 77 -1 -177 1 230 Grade 3... -4 155 -3 -218 -1 118 2 33 nil 152 Grade 2... -5 72 -3 -342 2 nil -3 194 -1 108 Grade 1... -13 291 -3 59 -5 621 nil 1285 1 -358 Keyboard Typist Controller Gr 2... nil 12 nil 16 nil -4 nil 4 nil 5 Personal Secretary Gr 2... nil nil 23 nil 14 1 15 -1 7 Personal Secretary Gr 1... 1 1 161 nil 9 nil -8 2 -62 Steno-Secretary Gr 2... -1 14 -1 -80 1 -11 3 16 -1 38 Steno-Secretary Gr 1... -2 25 nil -49 1 22 3 45 nil 24 WP Supervisor Gr 2... 1 3 nil 31 nil 9 nil 9 2 3 Wp Supervisor Gr 1... 2 4 nil 27 nil 20 nil 18 1 15 WP Typist Gr 2... 2 3 nil 42 -1 27 1 19 -2 35 WP Typist Gr 1... 4 45 2 316 1 175 nil 172 4 190 Typist Supervisor Gr 2... -1 48 nil -13 nil -2 nil nil nil -4 Typist Supervisor Gr 1... -2 452 nil -74 nil -29 nil -13 nil -32 Typist Gr 2... -7 7 nil -232 -1 -3 -4 84 3 -122 Typist Gr 1... -2 16 -4 -395 nil -332 2 265 -1 288 Supervisor (DPO) Gr 2... nil nil nil nil nil nil nil -1 -1 -2 Supervisor (DPO) Gr 1... 6 15 3 1 nil -7 nil 6 -3 -4 DPO GR 3... -3 11 -3 -6 1 -4 -1 -16 -1 -2 DPO GR 2... 1 44 -6 -4 6 15 -6 115 -3 -37 DPO GR 1... -2 -28 3 48 nil 182 5 111 9 -73 DPO-In-Training... 4 -1 -3 13 1 -19 -1 17 2 47 Computer Operator Senior, Grade 1 ... -1 12 nil -12 1 -4 -1 1 2 -1 Senior, Grade 2 ... 1 10 -1 1 nil 2 nil -8 2 10 Senior, Grade 1 ... nil -2 nil 3 nil 5 nil -5 -2 -3 Grade 2... 3 nil 2 -9 nil -14 nil -13 -3 -22 Grade 1... -2 11 -3 16 -2 -6 4 -25 nil -50 In Training... -2 -15 4 -5 -1 -4 -3 -5 nil nil Other ... 3 -748 -2 -271 -1 624 1 1241 2 -2905 Total ... -8 2394 -7 -1395 3 3371 12 9383 68 1112 (Question No. 416) Senator Puplick asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August, 1985: (1) Have approaches been made to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs for funding of a feasibility study for an Aboriginal Heritage Programme/Australian Fauna Park on vacant New South Wales Crown land at Yarra Bay at La Perouse. (2) As the land referred to in (1) above contains significant areas connected with the first arrival of white Australian settlers and also in the vicinity of significant Aboriginal settlement, will the Minister have sympathetically examined any proposal for funding of a feasibility study to see whether the project for the rehabilitation of the land at Yarra Bay and its transport linking with Sydney Airport by rail and Circular Quay and Captain Cook's landing place at Kurnell by sea is a financially viable Aboriginal/municipal enterprise. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. (2) I understand that the Randwick Municipal Council has approached the NSW Premier's Department with a proposal for a $10m Bicentennial project to establish a `Theme Park' at Yarra Bay depicting aspects of Aboriginal history and European settlement. I understand that the Randwick Council may fund the feasibility study from its own resources, if it succeeds in acquiring the land and gaining support for the proposal. (Question No. 517) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 10 September 1985: (1) How many commercial Ansett flights from Australian airports were (a) delayed and (b) cancelled at the time of departure because of last minute maintenance checks that revealed faults during the years of (a) 1983, (b) 1984 and (c) to this stage in 1985. (2) How many commercial Ansett flights from Australian airports have been forceed to abort, and either return to their point of departure, or land at unscheduled airports because of unscheduled faults detected in flight by aircrew during the years (a) 1983, (b) 1984 and (c) to this stage in 1985. (3) What were the makes and models of the aircraft whose faults were detected prior to take off. (4) What were the makes and models of the aircraft whose faults were detected in-flight. (5) What were the ages of the individual aircraft involved. (6) What was the life expectancy of each individual aircraft involved at the time the faults were detected prior to take off or in the air. (7) What was the nature of the faults, and what were the engine makes involved. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The majority of the data has been obtained from the Ansett monthly statistical reporting provided to the Department of Aviation in accordance with the provisions of Air Navigation Orders: (1) (a) Delayed (b) Cancelled 1983:1641 77 1984:1768 84 *1985:1082 42 *January to July inclusive. The number of delays and cancellations for each aircraft type on a monthly basis are given in the Ansett-Delays and Cancellations Report. (2) (a) 1983: 20 (b) 1984: 19 (c) *1985: 17 *Last recording April 1985. (3) Boeing 727 series 200; Boeing 737 series 200; Boeing 767 series 200; Fokker F27 series 200, 400 and 500; Fokker F28 series 1000 and 4000; Lockheed 188; Bristol Aerospace 146 series 200 (4) Boeing 727 series 200; Boeing 737 series 200; Boeing 767 series 200; Fokker F27 series 200, 400 and 500; Fokker F28 series 1000; Lockheed L188; Sikorsky S61N (5) The ages of each individual aircraft in the Ansett fleet, in terms of the date placed on the Australian Register of Civil aircraft, are given in the Ansett Monthly Engineering Reliability Report-Summary of Fleet Utilisation. (6) Aircraft are inspected and maintained, including change of components and parts, in such a way that the life of an aircraft may be considered indefinite. (7) delays and cancellations: Data not readily available. In flight faults: Refer to the Commonwealth of Australia-Bureau of Air Safety Investigation-Ansett Hardware Failures, Aborted Take Offs and Unscheduled Landings Report for the three nominated years. The engine makes and designations, fitted to each of the subject aircraft types, are as follows: Boeing 727-Pratt & Whitney JT8D Boeing 737-Pratt & Whitney JT8D Boeing 767-General Electric CF6-80 British Aerospace 146-Lycoming ALF 502 Fokker F27-Rolls Royce Dart Fokker F28-Rolls Royce Spey Lockheed L188-Allison 501 Sikorsky S61N-General Electric CT58 (Question No. 518) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 10 September 1985: (1) How many commercial Trans Australian Airlines (TAA) flights from Australian airports were (a) delayed and (b) cancelled at the time of departure because of last minute maintenance checks that revealed faults during the years (a) 1983, (b) 1984 and (c) to this stage in 1985. (2) How many commercial flights from Australian airports by TAA have been forced to abort, and either return to their point of departure, or land at unscheduled airports because of unscheduled faults detected in flight by aircrew during the years (a) 1983, (b) 1984 and (c) to this stage in 1985. (3) What were the makes and models of the aircraft whose faults were detected prior to take-off. (4) What were the makes and models of the aircraft whose faults were detected in-flight. (5) What were the ages of the individual aircraft involved. (6) What was the life expectancy of each individual aircraft involved at the time the faults were detected prior to take off or in the air. (7) What was the nature of the faults, and what potential dangers were passed to the travelling public in each instance. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The majority of the data has been obtained from the Trans Australia Airlines monthly statistical reporting provided to the Department of Aviation in accordance with the provision of Air Navigation Orders: (1) (a) Delayed (b) Cancelled 1983: 884 38 1984: 869 37 *1985: 546 *January to July inclusive. The number of delays and cancellations for each aircraft type on a monthly basis are given in the TAA Delays and Cancellations Report. (2) 1983: 20; 1984: 27; *1985: 21 *Last recording July 1985 (3) Airbus A300B; Boeing 727 series 200; Douglas DC9 series 31; Fokker F27 series 600. (4) Airbus A300B; Boeing 727 series 200; Douglas DC9 series 31; Fokker F27 series 600. (5) The ages of each individual aircraft in the TAA fleet, in terms of the date placed on the Australian Register of Civil Aircraft, are given in the TAA Hours Flown and Total Landings Report. (6) Aircraft are inspected and maintained, including change of components and parts, in such a way that the life of an aircraft may be considered indefinite. (7) (a) delays and cancellations: Refer to the TAA Summary of Delays for Mechanical Reasons for the three nominated years. (b) in flight faults: Refer to the Commonwealth of Australia-Bureau of Air Safety Investigation-TAA Hardware Failures, Aborted Take Offs and Unscheduled Landings Report for the three nominated years. (c) there was no potential danger to the travelling public in any of these instances, as all faults were detected using procedures designed to reveal any abnormalities. The fact that these faults were found and the flights delayed or cancelled is proof of the effectiveness of the designed safety system. In relation to in flight failures, the aircraft design and operational procedures adopted in the event of failure are such as to minimise the risk to an acceptable level. (Question No. 538) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 13 September 1985: (1) Has the Queensland Government refused to permit Federal Department officials access to State birth, death and marriage records. (2) What constitutional steps can be taken to ensure that the Queensland Government co-operates with the Federal Government. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney- General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I am informed that the Queensland Cabinet has directed Queensland Officers to refuse a request by the Commonwealth Health Insurance Commission for access to such information. (2) While some Commonwealth powers (eg Constitution s.51 (XI), the statistics power) would support legislation requiring the furnishing of information to the Commonwealth it is the Government's hope that the co-operation of Queensland will be forthcoming. (Question No. 615) Senator Crowley asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 11 October 1985: (1) How many orders for supervised access has the Family Court made in each state throughout Australia in the last 12 months. (2) How have these orders been implemented. (3) What has been the outcome of these orders. (4) What is the cost to the Attorney-General's Department of supervised access orders. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney- General has provided the following answer, based on information provided by the Principal Registry of the Family Court of Australia to the honourable senator's question: (1) The number of orders for supervision pursuant to Section 64 (5) of the Family Law Act over the 12 month period to 30 November 1985 is 226 (including orders of the Family Court of Western Australia). This figure represents approximately 2% of all the judicial orders involving counselling made during this period. On a state by state basis, the figures are as follows:- South Australia 75 Victoria 58 Western Australia 40 New South Wales 24 Queensland 20 Tasmania 4 Northern Territory 3 A.C.T. 2 226 The variation in figures is explained by the fact that orders for supervised access are a matter for judicial discretion. The practice varies greatly from registry to registry. (2) The parties are notified by letter that the Family Court Counselling Service has been informed of the order. The Court Counsellors' function is to monitor the implementation of the order. The parties are brought in for counselling and an ongoing assessment is provided to the Court if necessary. Monitoring is normally undertaken by telephone contact and office interviews. Physical presence of a Court Counsellor during the access period is rare. The Counselling Section is available where requested to advise the parties and the children concerned. (3) The effect of an order under section 64 (5) of the Family Law Act for supervised access is, as explained by Nygh J. in Cotton and Cotton (1983) FLC 91-330, not that the Counselling Service acts in a probationary capacity but that the Counselling Service is available to advise the parties and the children in the future. The outcome of these orders is difficult to assess. In some cases supervision can provide real assistance to the parties. It can operate as a check on behaviour and help resolve new difficulties which arise during access periods. However, in complex cases supervision orders have minimal effect on extreme behaviour. (4) Records are not available from which the cost of supervised access can be assessed as it is absorbed into the normal performance of Court Counsellors' duties. (Question No. 617) Senator Reid asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 10 October 1985: (1) Has evidence of bias been found in the scaling system employed to calculate Tertiary Entrance Scores (TES) in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT); if so, (a) is this bias exhibited by the fact that the relationship between the TES and the Australian Scholastic Aptitude Test (ASAT) scores of groups of boys and girls depend upon the sex ratio of the groups in which they studied; and (b) has the Technical Advisory Committee of the ACT Accrediting Agency recommended to that Agency a method by which this bias can be considerably reduced, or eliminated; if so, (i) did Dr Barry McGaw, an independent expert on educational measurement support that recommendation, as did the representatives of the Australian National University and the Canberra College of Advanced Education, and (ii) has the Agency refused to accept that advice on two occasions recently. (2) What measures does the Agency intend to take to remove the bias, if present, in its Tertiary Entrance Scores in 1985 and subsequent years, or will the sex ratio of courses not of itself affect the TES of students taking these courses. (3) Will groups of girls (or boys) who have studied in a predominantly female (or male) group have TES strictly comparable with those gained by girls (or boys) who have studied in a group where neither sex predominates. Senator Gietzelt —The following response has been provided to the honourable senator's question: (1) There is evidence of bias in the calculation of Tertiary Entrance Scores (TES) in mixed sex colleges in the ACT. When the mixed sex colleges are divided on a gender basis females do better on TES than would be predicted by their ASAT scores and males achieve lower TES than predicted. (a) Students in single sex course groups do not have the opportunity to gain an advantage by performing at higher level than students of the opposite sex. In this sense the TES of males and females depends on the sex ratio of the college to which they belong. This difference is only apparent when mixed sex colleges are divided on the basis of sex. There is a direct mathematical relationship between the ASAT and TES means which holds true for all colleges. (b) The Technical Advisory Committee has recommended to the Accrediting Agency that ASAT scores should be adjusted so that they provide a better prediction of TES in mixed sex colleges. This would be achieved by increasing female ASAT scores and decreasing male ASAT scores, thus setting the measure of bias in mixed sex colleges to zero. The procedure would have little effect on the TES of males and females in mixed sex colleges, the greatest effect would be on single sex colleges. TES for girls going to single sex colleges (St Clares, Merici and CCEGGS) would increase and TES of boys attending single sex colleges (Marist and St Edmunds) would decrease. (i) The Technical Advisory Committee recommendation was considered at the June 1985 Accrediting Agency (ii) meeting and rejected. At that time the proposal was only supported by the ANU representative. Dr McGaw, who is a member of the Accrediting Agency, did not support the proposal. At a Special Agency meeting in September the ANU and CCAE representatives put forward a motion to rescind the June decision. Effectively, passing this motion would have re-opened the question of the scaling rules to be applied in 1985. The minutes of that meeting show Dr McGaw's position: ``Dr McGaw said that he would on balance, with considerable equivocation, support calibration. He expressed doubts about: -the validity of transferring a pattern of observed gender differences in mixed sex colleges to single sex colleges; -the correctness of the measure of gender difference obtained from the mixed sex colleges. The Technical Advisory Committee's answer to these questions is not convincing. The Agency is faced with the difficulty that there is a difference between ASAT and TES in the way they measure gender differences. Variability in gender differences is greater for ASAT than for TES''. (2) No changes were be made to the scaling process in 1985 as the Accrediting Agency and the principals of the colleges which (3) issue Year 12 Certificates were not convinced that the Technical Advisory Committee proposal provided the most appropriate solution to the differences observed in mixed sex colleges. However, in order that the Authority may decide how the differences in mixed sex colleges should be most appropriately addressed, the ACT Schools Authority, the Australian National University and the Canberra College of Advanced Education are jointly sponsoring two initiatives concerning policies for the calculation of Tertiary Entrance Scores of ACT Year 12 Certificates students. First, a Committee has been set up to determine if there is evidence of systematic biases in the calculation of TES scores; to examine the reasons for any such biases and to recommend on a method or methods to overcome significant effects including such factors as sex, subject choice, and choice of school. Dr Barry McGaw, Director of ACER, is chairing the committee which includes representatives of each of the institutions, a tertiary student, and a secondary student. The second and related initiative is to commission a series of research studies from the Centre for the Study of Higher Education of Melbourne University, under the leadership of Professor David Beswick. Both exercises are to be completed by May so that informed decisions may be taken in respect of scaling scores for the 1986 Year 12 Certificate. (Question No. 658) Senator Sanders asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 7 November 1985: (1) What is the dollar value of all Government assistance at both Federal and State level, direct and indirect, to the various woodchip export operations, year by year since their inception in Australia, including but not limited to: (a) port facilities provided free or at subsidised rates; (b) the cost of the various services provided by the Forestry Departments to this industry, including supervision, administration, fire control and publicity; (c) the cost of roads, their design, construction and maintenance, provided to the woodchip industry by Forestry Departments; (d) the estimated cost of the additional construction and maintenance costs of roads provided by other authorities than Forestry Departments due to use by the woodchip industry; (e) the increase in bushfire costs to the community attributable to the burning of bark dumps, the inflammability of regrowth scrubs, and other practices of the industry; (f) the cost of soil conservastion and stream protection works due to the industry; (g) relief granted to woodchip companies from royalty payments; (h) subsidies and incentives for woodchip workers housing; (i) anticipated cost of a public enquiry into each woodchip environmental impact study. (j) estimated cost of a public enquiry into each woodchip environmental impact study. (2) What royalties and other income have been derived from each woodchip operation. (3) Are prices and royalties obtained for Australian woodchips artificially low due to direct and indirect subsidies. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) Given the time and resources needed, I am unable to provide a detailed response to the questions asked. Many of the queries relate directly to State Government operations and it would be more appropriate for Senator Sanders to direct his questions specifically to each State concerned. With respect to one State, Tasmania, much of the information sought is included in the draft and final Environmental Impact Statement for woodchip exports from Tasmania beyond 1988. Copies of these documents are available from the Parliamentary Library. (3) Royalty levels are determined by the States on a number of bases; the Senator might direct his question to the States concerned. In respect of prices obtained for Australian woodchips, these are determined by direct commercial negotiation between buyers and sellers. The Government's guidelines are that the price obtained should be commensurate with those prevailing in the international market from time to time. (Question No. 665) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 7 November 1985: (1) Has evidence of bias been found in the scaling system employed to calculate Tertiary Entrance Scores (TES) in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT); if so, is this bias exhibited by the fact that the relationship between the TES and the Australian Scholastic Aptitude Test (ASAT) scores of groups of boys and girls depends upon the sex ratio of the groups in which they studied. (2) Has the Technical Advisory Committee of the ACT Accrediting Agency recommended to that Agency a method by which this bias can be reasonably reduced, or eliminated. (3) Did Dr Barry McGaw, an independent expert on educational measurement support that recommendation, as did the representatives of the Australian National University and the Canberra College of Advanced Education. (4) Has the Agency refused to accept that advice on 2 occasions recently. (5) Can the Minister for Education outline the steps that the Agency intends to take to remove the bias, if present, in its Tertiary Entrance Scores in 1985 and subsequent years, or can the Minister give an assurance that under the system to be employed in 1985 and subsequent years the sex ratio of courses will not of itself affect the TES of students taking those courses. (6) How does the use of an acknowledged sexually biased score as a basis for tertiary entrance accord with the Government's policy on Affirmative Action, and is not the Australian National University a participant in the pilot scheme on Affirmative Action in Universities. (7) If the Minister is not able to act for 1985 Year 12 students, will she describe what actions she will take to compensate those for whom the failure to remove bias from the scores has denied them the opportunity to enter tertiary institutions. Senator Gietzelt —The following response has been provided to the honourable senator's question: (1) There is evidence of bias in the calculation of Tertiary Entrance Scores (TES) in mixed sex colleges in the ACT. When the mixed sex colleges are divided on a gender basis females do better on TES than would be predicted by their ASAT scores and males achieve lower TES than predicted. Students in single sex course groups do not have the opportunity to gain an advantage by performing at a higher level than students of the opposite sex. In this sense the TES of males and females depends on the sex ratio of the college to which they belong. This difference is only apparent when mixed sex colleges are divided on the basis of sex. There is a direct mathematical relationship between the ASAT and TES means which holds true for all colleges. (2) The Technical Advisory Committee has recommended to the Accrediting Agency that ASAT scores should be adjusted so that they provide a better prediction of TES in mixed sex colleges. This would be achieved by increasing female ASAT scores and decreasing male ASAT scores, thus setting the measure of bias in mixed sex colleges to zero. The procedure would have little effect on the TES of males and females in mixed sex colleges, the greatest effect would be on single sex colleges. TES for girls going to single sex colleges (St Clares, Merici and CCEGGS) would increase and TES of boys attending single sex colleges (Marist and St Edmunds) would decrease. (3) and (4) The Technical Advisory Committee recommendation was considered at the June 1985 Accrediting Agency meeting and rejected. At that time the proposal was only supported by the ANU representative. Dr McGaw, who is a member of the Accrediting Agency, did not support the proposal. At a Special Agency meeting in September the ANU and CCAE representatives put forward a motion to rescind the June decision. Effectively, passing this motion would have reopened the question of the scaling rules to be applied in 1985. The minutes of that meeting show Dr McGaw's position: ``Dr McGaw said that he would on balance, with considerable equivocation, support calibration. He expressed doubts about: - the validity of transferring a pattern of observed gender differences in mixed sex colleges to single sex colleges; - the correctness of the measure of gender difference obtained from the mixed sex colleges. The Technical Advisory Committee's answer to these questions is not convincing. The Agency is faced with the difficulty that there is a difference between ASAT and TES in the way they measure gender differences. Variability in gender differences is greater for ASAT than for TES''. (5) No changes were to be made to the scaling process in 1985 as the Accrediting Agency and the principals of the colleges which issue Year 12 Certificates were not convinced that the Technical Advisory Committee proposal provided the most appropriate solution to the differences observed in mixed sex colleges. However, in order that the Authority may decide how the differences in mixed sex colleges should be most appropriately addressed, the ACT Schools Authority, the Australian National University and the Canberra College of Advanced Education are jointly sponsoring two initiatives concerning policies for the calculation of Tertiary Entrance Scores of ACT Year 12 Certificate students. First, a Committee has been set up to determine if there is evidence of systematic biases in the calculation of TES scores; to examine the reasons for any such biases and to recommend on a method or methods to overcome significant effects including such factors as sex, subject choice, and choice of school. Dr Barry McGaw, Director of ACER, is chairing the committee which includes representatives of each of the institutions, a tertiary student, and a secondary student. The second and related initiative is to commission a series of research studies from the Centre for the Study of Higher Education of Melbourne University, under the leadership of Prof. David Beswick. Both exercises are to be completed by May so that informed decisions may be taken in respect of scaling scores for the 1986 Year 12 Certificate. (6) The ANU is a participant in the pilot scheme on affirmative action in universities. However, the Government's policy on affirmative action relates to employment. Students are selected for tertiary places on the basis of merit determined by their performance. All parties concerned with the calculation and use of tertiary entrance scores are concerned that they be calculated on the most equitable basis possible. (7) The 1985 ACT Tertiary Entrance Scores were calculated according to the agreed and published procedures. They were part of the information provided to tertiary institutions to assist them in the selection of students. The institutions are responsible for the actual selection and each tertiary institution applies its own criteria. Accordingly, there is no question of providing compensation for any students not selected by tertiary institutions. (Question No. 724) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 28 November 1985: Which States do not have legislation or legislative power under the provisions of the Interstate Road Transport Bill 1985 to cover- (a) vehicle safety requirements; (b) speed limits; and (c) graduated licences. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: All States have legislation which covers vehicle safety requirements, speed limits and driver licensing. The Interstate Road Transport Act 1985 does not provide the States with powers in these areas. (Question No. 725) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 28 November 1985: (1) What is the assessed amount of damage for each of the financial years 1981/82, 1982/83 and 1983/84 to Australian roads, caused by interstate road transport vehicles. (2) How is the figure for damage to Australian roads determined, on what formula is it based, and what does this represent on a per tonne/km basis. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has porvided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The most recent estimate of the amount of road damage attributable to the road transport industry was made by the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry. It estimated that arterial road costs attributable to all articulated vehicles (the most common type of vehicle used for interstate work) amounted to some $200 million in 1981/82 or $4255 per vehicle. No comparable figures are available for 1982/83 or 1983/84. The Inter-State Commission is presently examining the level of road damage attributed to vehicles engaged in interstate trade and commerce as part of its reference on interstate road and rail cost recovery. The Commission is due to report by 30 April 1986 and its report will be tabled in Parliament in the usual manner. (2) In general terms the amount of damage caused by a vehicle to a road pavement depends upon the weight imposed on the roadway by an individual axle or axle grouping. The amount of damage is generally regarded as being proportional to the weight on the axle raised to the fourth power. In these circumstances it is not possible to give simple estimate of damage on a per tonne/km basis. Each class of vehicle has different levels of damage according to its gross vehicle mass, suspension systemn and distance travelled. The National Road Freight Industry Inquiry bases its estimates on road damage on the report `Assessment of Cost Recovery Levels' commissioned by the Inquiry from the consultants Nicholas Clark and Associates. That Report explains the methodology it used to assess road damage. (Question No. 726) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 28 November 1985: (1) What is expected revenue to be produced by the Interstate Road Transport Legislation in its first full year of operation on the basis of a $1,400 registration fee per vehicle. (2) Has the Minister for Transport given an undertaking that even if the `device' referred to in the Interstate Road Transport Act should show an amount of more than $1,400 (say $1,800) that there would be no extra charge above $1,400. (3) For what period has the Minister's undertaking, as to the $1,400 maximum been given, and when was that undertaking made. (4) Will the Minister seek to amend the legislation and his undertaking through the Buget or by other means, should the Interstate Commission recommend an amount substantially higher than the $1400 mentioned. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) $14 million (2) Yes. In addition the Interstate Road Transport Charge Act 1985 provides that the annual registration charge on a motor vehicle is limited to $1,000, adjesuted in line with the Consumer Price Index, and the annual registration charge on a trailer is limited to $400, also adjusted in line with the Consumer Price Indes. (3) The Minister undertook not to vary the charge until after 31 December 1986 in a speech at the Australian Road Transport Federation Annual Convention on 20 October 1985. (4) Such issues can in practice only be addressed after the Inter-state Commission has reported. The Minister has undertaken to continue his practice of fully consulting all road transport interest groups before any changes to the level of charges are made. He has also assured the industry that in the event the Inter-State Commission recommends increased charges there will not be any change until after 31 December 1986. (Question No. 767) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 6 December 1985: (1) Were any officers of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization present when the yacht ``Ouvea'' was being searched on Norfolk Island; if so, was a report furnished to the Attorney-General as a result of this work. (2) Were officers of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization present during the questioning in Sydney of Dr. Xavier Maniguet, who had been a crew member on the yacht ``Ouvea''; if so, was a report furnished to the Attorney-General or the Prime Minister, summarising the information obtained in the course of that interview process. (3) Has the Australian Security Intelligence Organization investigated the disappearance of 2 boats from Sydney marinas shortly before the bombings of the ``Rainbow Warrior'' in New Zealand; if so, has it been established whether these craft were used as part of that operation. (4) Has the Australian Security Intelligence Organization ascertained what became of the yacht ``Ouvea'' after it left Norfolk Island; if so, what is known to have happened, and when did it happen. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney- General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: In accordance with the practice of successive Governments in relation to question concerning the operations of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization, I make no comment on the matters raised in the honourable senator's questions. (Question No. 775) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 11 February 1986: (1) Was there a report produced outlining investi- gations still in progress at the time the Costigan Royal Commission was terminated. (2) Can the Special Minister of State advise- (a) the number of those investigations that have been referred to the Nationl Crime Authority for action; (b) the number still to be referred; (c) the number for which it has been decided that no action be taken; and (d) who gave authority for the termination of the cases for which termination has been decided. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) yes (2) (a) 42; (b) Nil; (c) 3; (d) the National Crime Authority. (Question No. 782) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 6 December 1985: (1) What journals, digests, files, periodicals and the like are produced by instrumentalities within the Minister of Science's portfolio. (2) For each publication: (a) when was it established; (b) which section within the Minister's portfolio produces it; (c) how many staff are involved in its production and for what percentage of time are they involved; (d) how often is it produced; (e) by whom is it printed and what is the print run; (f) what is the circulation and to whom and where is it circulated; (g) who has editorial control; (h) what are its stated objectives; and (i) what are the printing, staff and administrative costs associated with its production. Senator Button —The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I refer the honourable senator to the House of Representatives Hansard of 14 February 1986, Pages 613-631, for an answer to his question. (Question No. 792) Senator Colston asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 11 February 1986: (1) Has the Minister for Education 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 Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. No formal inter-departmental committee has been established. The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations is co-ordinating a response from the Government on the NCHO submission. Input to this response has been sought from a number of government departments and agencies including the Education portfolio. Before formally replying to NCHO, officers of DEIR will be discussing with NCHO the responses that have been received from the departments and agencies that have been consulted on this matter. (2) You may be assured that I will maintain a close interest in the issues raised in the NCHO submission which impinge upon my portfolio responsibilities. (Question No. 858) Senator Missen asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: (1) Are all the measures of assistance outlined in Recommendation 58 of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking now being provided to officers of Customs engaged on primary line duties; if not, why not. (2) What additional improvements has the Passports Commission suggested in this area. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Recommendation 58 of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking states: 58. Officers of Customs engaged on primary line duties should have provided and maintained the assistance recommended in the Commission's interim report No. 2 Passports. That assistance should comprise: (i) substantial instruction on the detection of forged passports, visas and other travel documentation, including the security features provided in Australian passports; (ii) when at international airports access to samples of foreign passports as a standard against which such passports tendered by passengers can be checked; (iii) regular briefings both oral and in writing on current developments in the forgery of, and fraudulent practices in relation to, Australian and foreign passports, visas and other travel documentation including information obtained from overseas agencies; and (iv) equipment such as retro-reflective viewers, ultra-violet scanners and the like for the detection of unauthorised alteration of, or interference with, passports, visas and other travel documentarion. Initiatives taken by the Australian Customs Service (ACS) since the tabling of the Stewart Report substantially implement Recommendation 58 in that: (i) All Primary Officers have been instructed in writing of the security features incorporated in Australian passports. A video film of the security features by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (DIEA) is screened for the benefit of Primary Officers. (ii) An international publication depicting samples of forgeries of foreign travel documents has been arranged from an overseas source. Copies of this publication have been distributed to Primary Officers. (iii) Officers of DIEA attend the arrival of most international flights. Close co-operation has developed between these officers and those of the ACS and a crossflow of relative information ensues. Primary Officers are briefed by Customs supervisors or officers of DIEA of any abnormalities detected. DIEA document fraud examiners regularly attend airports to provide briefing to ACS and DIEA officers. (iv) Retro-reflective viewers are available at all entry points into Australia. Ultra-violet scanners are being incorporated in new primary line modules which are being progressively introduced into passenger examination areas throughout Australia. In response to part (2) of Senator Missen's question No. 858: ``What improvements have been suggested by the Passport Commission'', I assume that he is referring to the Passport Committee. If this is the case I can report that the Minister for Foreign Affairs agreed that a subset of data be made available to the (then) Department of Industry and Commerce for inclusion in the PASS system for use at points of entry in Australia by Primary Line Officers. This allows officers to check passport holder details, thereby ensuring the authenticity of Australian passports of Australian citizens arriving in Australia. Primary Line Officers now have access to that data. (Question No. 911) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 19 February 1986: (1) What legislation or regulations cover alcohol consumption by officers and crew of sea-going vessels in Australian waters. (2) Which authority has the power to enforce, laws or rules if any are in place, and what are the penalties for alcohol abuse aboard ships in Australian waters. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) There is no Australian legislation which prescribes whether or under what conditions alcohol may be consumed by crews of ships in Australian waters. There are however a number of measures contained in the Navigation Act 1912 and subordinate legislation directed at the misuse of alcohol. Section 99 of that Act provides for courts to impose fines or terms of imprisonment or both, for acts tending to endanger life or ship through drunkenness. Section 115 empowers a ship's master to impose fines for specified breaches of shipboard discipline. Offences in this regard are specified in the Navigation (Master and Seamen) Regulations and include the offence of drunkenness. A further provision in most ship's articles of agreement allows the master the option of instantly dismissing a crew member for such an offence instead of imposing a fine. The Marine Council, a body established under section 424 of the Navigation Act, is charged with the duty of advising the Minister for Transport on the suitability of persons for engagement in Australian ships. Under sub-section 45A (9) of the Act, where the Council advises the Minister that a person is unsuitable, the person is prevented from engaging in ships to which the crewing provisions of the Act apply, in effect suspension from seagoing employment. The Council acts as the industry disciplinary body and has a policy of imposing periods of suspension, of greater or lesser degree according to the circumstances for cases of serious misconduct including misuse of alcohol. The foregoing provisions apply to ships on interstate or overseas voyages and which are either Australian registered or foreign registered having the majority of the crew Australian resident and operated by Australian based interests. Crews of foreign registered and manned ships in Australian waters are subject to the legislation of the flag State. Laws of major maritime nations are in general similar to those of Australia in this respect. For Australian ships on intrastate voyages the relevant State or Territory Maritime Legislation applies. In addition to the martime laws described above, the crew of a ship in the territorial sea is subject to the criminal laws of the adjacent State or Territory and any provisions relating to the use of alcohol which those laws may contain. (2) The Navigation Act is administered by the Department of Transport and a prosecution under the Act, if considered appropriate, would be brought by the Department. In practice, because of the nature of sea service with its separation in distance and time from shore based authority, it is only a ship's master who can exert any day to day influence on the use of alcohol on board. Penalties for offences under the Navigation Act relating to drunkenness are: on indictment under section 99, a fine not exceeding $5000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 2 years or both fines imposed by a ship's master under section 115, $2 for first offence and $4 for each subsequent offence under sub-section 45A (9), loss of seagoing employment for the period specified. Instant dismissal under the terms of articles of agreement may involve considerable financial penalty as in these circumstances the seafarer is liable for his repatriation costs to his home port. (Question No. 919) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 19 February 1986: (1) Is an extreme right wing group of settlers in New Caledonia planning a coup in the crucial few days after the March election in that country, should the results not be to their liking. (2) Are there any plans to send international observers, especially to the sensitive areas, during the election period and just afterwards. (3) Would the Government support such a move. (4) Will the Government consider sending an independent observer to New Caledonia for the election period. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I am aware of reports, from certain non-government sources, that a small group of extreme right-wing settlers in New Caledonia might be planning an armed coup after the 16 March, French National Assembly elections. I have not seen any evidence to substantiate these reports. The Australian Government nevertheless remains concerned about the prospects for violence in New Caledonia. As is well known, the Australian Government supports peaceful and democratic progress towards independence in New Caledonia. (2) I am not aware of any plans to send international observers to New Caledonia during the election period and just afterwards. (3) No. (4) No. Senator Button —On 6 November 1985 (Hansard, page 1654), Senator Archer asked me a two-part question, without notice, in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry in the Senate. His question was: Has the Government studied the revised rural income prediction of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics for 1985-86 that shows a decline of 26 per cent on the figure for 1984-85? Does the Government believe that farmers can once again cover such a disastrous decline simply with greater efficiency? The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The 26 per cent reduction in rural incomes referred to by Senator Archer is the forecast decline in the 1985-86 real net value of rural production that was published by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics in the November 1985 edition of the Quarterly Review of Rural Economy. Subsequent revision in the light of more recent data resulted in a marginal decline in the estimated reduction to 24 per cent, the figure presented at the National Agricultural Outlook Conference and published in the February issue of the Quarterly Review. The revised forecast was calculated from: an estimated gross value of total rural production in 1985-86 of around $15 500 million, unchanged from 1984-85. and an estimated 7 per cent increase in total farm costs in 1985-86 to around $12 000 million which results in a forecast 19 per cent reduction in the net nominal value of total rural production to around $3 500 million. After allowing for inflation, the real net value of rural production index is forecast to fall by 24 per cent. One of the major factors contributing to the expected deterioration in the economic performance of the rural sector is the unfavourable outlook for the main broadacre cropping industries. For example, during 1985-86 the gross value of wheat production is forecast to decline by 12 per cent to $2920 million. The lower gross income from wheat production mainly reflects an anticipated smaller crop. World wheat prices are estimated to decline significantly from their 1984-85 level, but this is expected to be offset by the lower value of the Australian dollar. During 1986 the world wheat market will come under increasing pressure as both the US and EC move to aggressively market their large exportable surpluses of wheat. In comparison to the cropping sector, the prospects for the wool and meat industries are more favourable. The gross value of rural production for wool and livestock slaughterings is forecast to rise by 5 and 7 per cent respectively during 1985-86. One of the most critical assumptions used in the preparation of these forecasts is the value of the Australian dollar exchange rate. In preparing these estimates it was assumed that the Australian dollar would average US 70 cents during 1985-86 compared with an exchange rate of US 77 cents in 1984-85. To indicate the importance of the exchange rate assumption, should the value of the Australian dollar average around US 67 cents for the duration of 1985-86, the decline in the real net value of rural production would be around 20 per cent. The larger depreciation in the value of the Australian dollar would improve the prices received for exported commodities while at the same time increasing the cost of imported farm inputs. The estimated decline in the net value of rural production for 1985-86 demonstrates, once again, the volatile nature of farm returns in Australia. Farmers can be expected to continue to take appropriate measures to deal with the large year-to-year fluctuations in incomes stemming from extreme variations in weather conditions and commodity prices. Such measures include the rapid adoption of productivity enhancing technological innovations, structural adjustments, the careful management of input usage and enterprise selection, and alterations to investment and consumption expenditure patterns to reflect changing revenue flows. In view of the unfavourable medium term economic outlook for major export commodities, and the depressed financial situation of many farmers at present-just over one third of BAE surveyed farmers will have negative farm incomes in 1985-86-farmers cannot be expected to bear the full burden for adjustment. As the Prime Minister has announced, I shall be presenting a Ministerial Statement to Parliament on 15 April on rural policies placing these policies in the context of the Government's overall economic approach and containing specific measures to assist the rural sector with its current economic downturn. Senator Gareth Evans —On 17 Feburary 1986 (Hansard, page 416), Senator Jessop asked me as Minister representing the Special Minister of State a question without notice concerning, inter alia, thefts from Commonwealth munitions depots. The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Further to information which I have already provided the honourable senator (incorporated Hansard 18 February 1986, page 502), the Special Minister of State has now passed on to me advice he has received from the Australian Federal Police (AFP) concerning the number of break-ins which have occurred over the last three years from Commonwealth munitions factories, other than Maribyrnong. As far as the AFP is aware, break-ins have only occurred in such establishments in Victoria. Details are as follows: between 22 December 1983 and 16 January 1984, 1 gun and painting equipment was stolen from the Government Ammunition Factory, Port Melbourne. between 29 December 1985 and 18 January 1986, the Footscray Ammunition Factory was broken into on 4 occasions. On two of those occasions, nothing was stolen. On the other two, articles stolen included oil and fuel and a quantity of ammunition. (Question No. 574) Senator Withers asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, on notice, on 9 October 1985: (1) What sum is allocated in the current financial year for hospitality/entertainment which may be expended: (a) by the Department; and (b) by each and every Statutory Authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (2) What were the guidelines in force as at 1 September 1985 for expenditure from the hospitality/entertainment account of: (a) the Department; and (b) each and every Statutory Authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (3) following upon the Statement by the Treasurer ``Reform of the Australian Taxation System'' on 19 September 1985 what action is proposed in relation to questions 1 and 2. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) (a) The sum allocated by the Department (including Australian Industrial Research and Incentives Development Board, Steel Industry Authority and the Management and Investment Companies Licensing Board) is $15,000 (b) Industries Assistance Commission $6,000 Australian Customs Service $13,000 Automotive Industry Authority $4,000 Industry Councils Secretariat $250 (2) (a) Finance Directions 13/1, 13/2 and Guidelines 13/1 to 13/4. (b) Australian Custom Service Automotive Industry Authority, Industry Councils Secretariat, Industries Assistance Commission all follow Finance Direction 13/1, 13/2 and Guidelines 13/1 to 13/4. (3) In accordance with Finance Circular 1985/18 ``Reform of the Australian Taxation System'' the Department, it's agencies and Statutory Authorities record all amounts for entertainment expenses. Once the rules governing the liability for tax are settled the appropriate amounts will be paid to the Australian Taxation office on a regular basis. (Question No. 766) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 6 December 1985: (1) Has the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, either on its own initiative or under ministerial directive, analysed the circumstances which allowed the crew of the yacht Ouvea to pursue its clandestine activities under cloak of false passports. (2) Is the Minister able to provide an assurance that immigration procedures will be tightened to lessen the risk of similar outrages being perpetrated in Australia and those responsible finding protection in false identity documents. (3) Has the Department contacted the authorities on Norfolk Island to see what practical assistance can be offered to them in the detection of people travelling on false identity papers; if so, has the Department been able to provide such additional help. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question. (1) No. Although Norfolk Island is within Australian territorial waters, entry to Norfolk Island is not subject to Australia's Migration Act but is controlled by Norfolk Island's own Immigration Act. (2) A number of actions aimed at the detection of fraudulent documentation have been taken by my Department in recent years and other actions are planned. These actions are set out on pages 85 and 86 in the Annual Report of my Department ``Review '85'' under the heading Document Fraud. In summary actions already taken include: specialised training for staff involved in immigration processing and clearance work; inclusion of sessions on document fraud within the immigration segment of training for Customs Officers; production of a classified training film about the detection of fraudulent travel documents; the issue of bulletins to staff in Australia and abroad who need to know about the latest types of travel document fraud; the provision of sophisticated equipment capable of undertaking a variety of tests on suspect documents and the provision of document examination equipment suitable for general use by staff at international airports in Australia and at departmental offices at home and abroad; recruitment of skilled document examiners; the upgrading of document fraud prevention and detection activity to a higher priority within the Department; and close links with other agencies in Australia and overseas dealing with document abuse and fraud related to immigration matters. (3) Immigration and Customs Officers on Norfolk Island (who are employed under the Norfolk Island Public Service Ordinance) from time to time undergo training with both New Zealand and Australian authorities to familiarise themselves with the practices of both countries and to keep abreast of changes in policy, administrative procedures and techniques. (Question No. 774) Senator MacGibbon asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women, upon notice, on 6 December 1985: (1) Why were only Labor Parliamentarians selected to represent Australia at the Nairobi World Conference when the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Australian Democrats all have female politicians in the Federal and/or State Parliaments, some of whom have attended previous international Conferences in relation to the Decade for Women, and all of whom have an interest in Womens' Affairs. (2) What guidelines did the Prime Minister give to the Departmental advisors who selected the delegates (see answer to Question on Notice No. 421, Hansard, 3 December 1985, p. 2865). Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The Parliamentarians chosen for the Australian Delegation to the Nairobi World Conference, including Senator Patricia Giles, the Head of the Delegation, were all women with a demonstrated interest in status of women issues. The Government was concerned to limit the size of the delegation yet at the same time ensure that it was as representative as possible. Accordingly it was necessary to restrict the number of Parliamentarian delegates. Indeed, there are precedents for governments choosing Parliamentarians from within their own ranks for such delegations. At the time of the Copenhagen Mid-Decade Conference in 1980 the Australian Delegation included two Parliamentarians, both from the Liberal Party. (2) None. (Question No. 823) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 11 February 1986: (1) How many statutory authorities currently exist under the auspices of the Minister's Department. (2) What are the names of these authorities. (3) What appeal mechanisms, if any, exist for the general public to lodge a complaint against these authorities. (4) If it is proved that any member of staff of any of these authorities is guilty of incompetence, what action, if any, could be taken by a member of the public to sue the authority for compensation, if it is not possible to sue the authority, why is that the case. (5) How many cases concerning these authorities are currently before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and what is the delay at present between the listing of a case and its hearing before the Tribunal. (6) If any statutory authority under the Minister's Department cannot be sued, will the Minister consider amending the relevant legislation to make this possible. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Two. (2) The Australian Sports Commission (ASC) and the Australian Tourist Commission (ATC). (3) Both the ATC and ASC are subject to the Courts (Federal and State) Commonwealth Ombudsman Freedom of Information Act Administrative Appeals Tribunal Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act (4) The Attorney-General's Department has advised that, unless an Authority is statutorily protected, it is liable for the torts of its servants committed in the course of their duty. Where employees, acting in the course of their duty are incompetent and, as a consequence, loss is suffered by a member of the public, it will commonly be found that the act or omission which was seen as incompetent was also tortious. For example, incompetent driving would probably be tortious. In the absence of a denial of liability the negligent giving of erroneous advice is tortious where the advice is given by a person having a duty of care to one who suffers foreseeable damage as a result of reasonably relying on that advice. Many other forms of incompetence would also be tortious, but each case would need to be considered on its own facts. Neither the ASC nor the ATC is statutorily protected against general liability in tort. (5) None. (6) Not applicable. (Question No. 825) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: (1) How many statutory authorities currently exist under the auspices of the Minister's Department. (2) What are the names of these authorities. (3) What appeal mechanisms, if any, exist for the general public to lodge a complaint against these authorities. (4) If it is proved that any member of staff of any of these authorities is guilty of incompetence, what action, if any, could be taken by a member of the public to sue the authority for compensation; if it is not possible to sue the authority, why is that the case. (5) How many cases concerning these authorities are currently before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and what is the delay at present between 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 Button —The Minister for Science has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's questions: (1) Four statutory authorities exist under the auspices of the Department of Science. (2) Anglo Australian Telescope Board (AATB); Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS); Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO); National Standards Commission (NSC). (3) The enabling Acts for these statutory authorities have no express appeal provisions. However, an appeal may be made through the general mechanisms provided by the: Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977; Freedom of Information Act 1982; and Ombudsman Act 1976. (It should be noted that the AATB is exempt from the Ombudsman Act 1976.) (4) The Attorney-General's Department has advised that, unless an authority is statutorily protected, it is liable for torts of its servants committed in the course of their duty. Where employees, acting in the course of their duty are incompetent and, as a consequence, loss is suffered by a member of the public, it will commonly be found that the act or omission which was seen as incompetent was also tortious. For example, incompetent driving would probably be tortious. In the absence of a denial of liability the negligent giving of erroneous advice is tortious where the advice is given by a person having a duty of care to one who suffers foreseeable damage as a result of reasonably relying on that advice. Many other forms of incompetence would also be tortious but each case would need to be considered on its own facts. None of the authorities listed in the answer to part (1) of this question is statutorily protected against general liability in tort. (5) There are no cases concerning these authorities before the Tribunal. (6) The question is not applicable as no statutory authority listed in part (1) has statutory protection against liability. (Question No. 886) Senator Lewis asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 13 February 1986: (1) How many serving and former Royal Australian Naval personnel have died from cancer or cancer related diseases since 1 July 1984. (2) How many of these personnel served at any time at Naval Shore Radio Stations with high-powered radio transmitters. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Five members of the Royal Australian Navy have died, while serving, from cancer or cancer related diseases since 1 July 1985. In relation to former members of the Royal Australian Navy, no official records are kept of the deaths of personnel who have ceased to be members. However, it is known that two former members have died from cancer or cancer related diseases since 1 July 1984. (2) None of these personnel served at any time at Naval Shore Radio Stations with high-powered radio transmitters. (Question No. 892) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 13 February 1986: (1) Will the Minister for Science advise details of all meteorological staffing comparisons by State. (2) What steps are being taken by the Bureau of Meterology to correct the present overemphasis on Melbourne-based research and clerical staff while regional forecasting stations are seriously understaffed. (3) When will Queensland staffing levels realistically reflect recognition of the decentralised needs of the Bureau of Meteorology in that State and especially the need for seasonal increases during the cyclone season. Senator BUTTON —The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The staffing of the Bureau of Meteorology for the Head Office, its 8 regions and the Antarctic Territory at 31 January 1986 was as follows: Head Office... 697 ACT... 32 NSW... 185 VIC... 109 QLD... 210 SA... 126 WA... 171 TAS... 66 NT... 107 Antarctic... 19 1722 Staffing varies significantly from month to month due to factors such as batch intakes of trainee Meteorologists and Observers and overlap of staff preparing for or returning from Antarctic postings. The following figures show the Bureau's staffing strategy for 1985/86 and 1986/87, given the Bureau's overall approved average operative staffing level (AOSL). The figures for the Antarctic are different from the figures at the set date (31 January 1986) because we are dealing with averages for the year. 1985/86 1986/87 Head Office... 695 723 ACT... 36 30 NSW... 182 177 VIC... 109 110 QLD... 210 203 SA... 119 119 WA... 176 175 TAS... 63 61 NT... 101 101 Antarctic... 29 29 t 1720 1728 (2) The Bureau considers that the staffing strategy for 1986/87 as given in (1) above is the optimum balance for that year between the Head Office and the Regions given the restraints placed on overall staff numbers. The Bureau has been concerned for some time that the improvement in the quality of services (accuracy of warnings, forecasts, etc) has not been commensurate with the improvement that would be possible with implementation of modern technology and techniques based on the latest advances in the science of meteorology. It is therefore considered that more effort has to be devoted to the development of new equipment, facilities, techniques and methods and to speeding up their operational implementation. In order to achieve this, it will be necessary to provide more staff for development activities and for program management. This necessitates a relatively modest increase in the Head Office staffing and, in the absense of an overall staff increase, this would need to be at the expense of the Regions. The Head Office staff involved cover several classifications including meteorologists, engineers and computer systems officers, as well as clerical and other support staff. The roots of this problem are found in the severe reductions in Bureau resources in the 1970s. A heavy burden of those reductions was taken in Head Office research, development and program management areas. This crippled the Bureau's ability to make improvements in the quality of its forecasting and warning services and eroded its expertise in applied meteorology and its capability to provide consultancy services. (3) Given the overall staffing levels the allocation to Queensland is considered to be equitable. The importance of tropical cyclone warnings is recognised and the Bureau is preparing a proposal, to be considered in the budget context, for upgrading the warning system. This will include additional specialist staff. Consideration has been given to increasing staff in Queensland for the cyclone season and to establishing flying squads of experts. There are practical problems involved, particularly as the cyclone season in Queensland is also the cyclone season in the Northern Territory and Western Australia and the dangerous fire season in the southern States. It is also necessary to maintain the staff levels in the non-cyclone season to allow for leave and for review and development work. (Question No. 570) Senator Sanders asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 8 October 1985: (1) Did a spokesperson for the Minister for Trade in an article in The Australian of 25 September 1985 which related to a shipment of Australian uranium destined for Montreal (via Hamburg) and New Orleans (via Rotterdam) state that `the uranium had probably gone to a public utility in southern Europe'. (2) What is the total amount of Australian uranium involved in this shipment. (3) What is the quantity of uranium which is destined for Montreal. (4) What is the quantity of uranium which is destined for New Orleans. (5) Is any of this uranium to be stored in France; if so, for what period. (6) Which country is to be the end user of this uranium. (7) What is the name of the public utility and the country to which the uranium belongs. (8) What are the names of public utilities in southern Europe, and to which countries do they belong, which have received shipments of Australian uranium. (9) What evidence can the Minister produce to show that this particular shipment of uranium is not going to France. Senator Button —The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) All the material in the September shipment is destined for end use in Japan and the Republic of Korea. No statement authorised by me was made suggesting otherwise. (2) to (4) The information requested was supplied to the Government on a commercial-in-confidence basis within the terms of approved contracts and therefore I am not free to disclose it. (5) See (9) below. (6) See (1) above. (7) In Japan: Shikoku Electric Company, Kansai Electric Company and the Kyushu Electric Company. In the Republic of Korea: Korea Electric Power Corporation. (8) The Australian Safeguards Office has advised that they are not aware of any public utilities in southern Europe which have to date received shipments of Australian uranium. There have been three shipments to date of Australian origin nuclear material as natural uranium hexafluoride from the UK to France for enrichment for the account of ENEL of Italy. (9) The uranium in question is to be processed in Canada and the United States for use by the above utilities (see (7)) and is currently stored in the United States and Canada. I also refer the honourable senator to the reply given by Senator Evans on 22 February 1985 and incorporated in the Senate Hansard of that date at page 75. Senator Button —On 2 December 1985 (Hansard, page 2648) Senator Siddons asked me as Minister representing the Minister for Trade, the following question without notice: Is the Government aware that a report published by Mr Paul Parker of the Australian National University estimates that government subsidies given to the Tasmanian export woodchip industry total $10m to $15m per annum? This represents $5 per tonne or 10 per cent of the value of the woodchips exported. How can this Government call on the European Economic Community to stop subsidising its farm exports while doing nothing about its woodchip subsidy, which is probably in contravention of our international trade obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and trade? The Minister for Trade has provided the following response to the honourable senator's question: Australia's GATT obligations with respect to subsidies are embodied in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade itself and the GATT Subsidies Code to which we acceded in 1981. The Subsidies Code, which elaborates on the provisions of the General Agreement, prohibits export subsidies on products other than ``certain primary products''. Export subsidies are permitted on these ``certain primary products'' provided they are not used in a manner which results in a member obtaining a more than equitable share of world trade. For the purposes of the Code, ``certain primary products'' are understood to be ``any product of farm, forest or fishery . . . in its natural form or which has undergone such processing as is customarily required to prepare it for marketing in substantial volume in international trade''. The Code also recognises that subsidies other than export subsidies are widely used as important instruments for the promotion of social and economic policy objectives and does not seek to restrict the right of signatories to use such subsidies. However, it requires signatories in drawing up subsidy policies to weigh up, as far as practicable, possible adverse effects on trade and to seek to avoid causing injury or serious prejudice to the interests of other signatories. Neither the Commonwealth nor, I am advised, the Tasmanian Government provide direct export subsidies to the Tasmanian woodchip export industry. Possible avenues of indirect assistance were pointed out in a paper by the Centre for environmental Studies. University of Tasmania and addressed by Mr Paul Parker of the Australian National University. The Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Tasmanian woodchip exports put forward a number of contrary arguments to those raised in the former documents. Indirect assistance through the provision of infrastructure is a common result of Government activities and it would appear to be governed, if at all, by the requirement not to injure the interests of other Subsidies Code signatories. Prices for Australian woodchip exports are determined through commercial negotiations between exporters and buyers, subject to the guideline that prices must be consistent with prevailing market conditions. The Government is not aware of any complaints that Australian woodchip prices have unfairly prejudiced the interests of other Code signatories. Senator Button —On 20 February 1986 (Hansard, page 708) Senator Watson asked me as Minister representing the Minister for Trade, the following question, without notice: Will the Minister release a genuine and attainable current account target for the financial year so that Australians no longer will have to rely on media leaks of recommendations from the Government's joint economic forecasting group for such vital information? Could he indicate how other exports will rise or imports will fall by the huge amounts necessary to achieve the Government's revised target for 1985-86 of $11.25 billion? The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: As the Treasurer has announced, the Government now expects the current account deficit for 1985-86 as a whole to be somewhat greater than anticipated at budget-time. The main factor giving rise to this has been the strength of imports. However, the growth in imports has been concentrated in investment goods, with imports of consumer goods being virtually unchanged. Investment imports will, of course, be beneficial to economic growth and the correction of the external accounts in the longer term. The Government expects that the improvement in competitiveness from the depreciation of the $A, together with the expected slowing in domestic demand, will lead to a significant improvement in the current account deficit in 1986 and beyond. The Government's economic policies, including the agreement between the Government and the ACTU, which involves a two year extension of the Prices and Incomes Accord and reduced wage indexation increases, will assist this process. Nevertheless, with five months of balance of payments data to come in for 1985-86, and the volatility that exists in the monthly numbers, the Government is not disposed to release a revised forecast for the current account deficit for 1985-86 at this stage.